Is it scapegoating if +Robinson himself offers to attend Lambeth in a "diminished capacity" as an "observer or nonvoting member"?

When I read the ABC’s letter and learned about his decision not to invite +Robinson, I asked myself, if I was a TEC Bishop, what would I do? The decision about whether to go or not was immediately clear. No, as extremely hard as it would be, my conscience would not permit me. I admire Bishop Robinson, sympathize with him, and if I was one of his fellow Bishops I could not but stand in solidarity with him.

This is not to say one way or the other if the ABC is wrong to not invite him. I just know what would be the correct response on my part.

Today, though, Fr. Tobias Haller makes a good point on his blogIn a Godward direction: Invitations Sent and Withheld. In the comments section he points us to an under-considered article from 2004:

Fr. Haller: “I would like to remind us all of this from the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, December 2004

Bishop Robinson Denies Report About Lambeth Conference
By Mike Barwell
Dec 16, 2004, 19:06

A report by the Associated Press in London, England, today (Dec. 16, 2004) claimed that Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire (USA) would attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference in defiance of other bishops.

Bishop Robinson denies the report and has asked the Associated Press for a retraction.

The AP report claims -- under the headline "GAY BISHOP PLANS TO ATTEND 2008 ANGLICAN CONFERENCE":

"'New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson, who lives openly with his male partner, has said he plans to attend the conference, even though bishops who believe the Bible bans gay sex have said they would boycott the event if he attended.'"

Bishop Robinson is aware that the only invitations to the Lambeth Conference come from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Those invitations have not yet been made and Bishop Robinson has issued no statements about the conference since he was quoted in October in the NY Times and Associated Press and other media in response to the Windsor Report. The NY Times article by Laurie Goodstein said:

"The [Windsor] report also says that given the widespread unacceptability" of Bishop Robinson's ministry in some provinces, the archbishop of Canterbury should "exercise very considerable caution in inviting or admitting him to the councils of the Communion." The most significant coming meeting is the Lambeth Conference, which will be held next in 2008.

"Bishop Robinson said he had expected such a recommendation, and had written to the archbishop offering to attend the Lambeth Conference in "a diminished capacity" not as a bishop, but perhaps as an observer or nonvoting member."

Bishop Robinson's position has not changed and his offer to the Archbishop of Canterbury to attend the conference by invitation in a "diminished capacity" remains on the table.”

This puts everything in new light, doesn’t it? Far from what has been suggested, this sounds like the ABC is doing what +Robinson has already said was fine with him. How can I or others such as Integrity and the mainstream bloggers be so upset when +Robinson made such a statement two years ago. This is not scapegoating.

Moreover, Fr. Haller has some interesting analysis on the whole situation. He argues that really the ABC is carefully orchestrating this to give Nigeria an opportunity to walk apart if they want to. While doing what a broad consensus throughout the Communion, including +Robinson himself, think he should do here in not inviting +Robinson, he is still (probably) inviting +Robinson as a guest. Outwardly this is meant to sound like diminished status, and of course, it must be. But Fr. Haller asks us to consider if it is as diminished as we might be led to believe. I mean, what is the status of ALL BISHOPS at Lambeth. The ABC himself in this letter again reiterates that they have no governing authority. They are just guests at his invitation.

I am inclined to think, now, that the whole stink is not really that big after all. And now I think that if I was a Bishop, I would have no reason not to go.

Is Schism not a Sin in TEC?

This is a question I have been meaning to ask on my blog for while but just haven’t had a chance to until after Easter. I feel it is necessary to ask it because, honestly, I hear nothing from our Bishops, or Executive Council, or other TEC leaders, or Episcopal Church pundits that make me think that the grave sin of schism is being taken seriously as we consider our response to the Primates’ Communique.

TEC sounds to me like one of the two parties in marriage therapy that are each blaming the other for wrongs and each claiming that their position is just. In this mindset, you don’t have to change because it’s really not your fault. But the reality is its never that simple. Both sides almost always share some of the blame. To save the relationship what is often required is the humility to step back and see where you have made mistakes.

In the Anglican Communion, is it really true that we have done nothing wrong? For starters, it has been recognized by everyone that we utterly failed to properly consult with the rest of the Communion. General Convention mandated from the early nineties that the Presiding Bishop begin talking with the rest of the Communion about where we were heading. But nothing ever happened. Is sorry enough? No, it is never enough. Justice requires restitution.

I am not calling for retreat on justice for gays and lesbians. I am calling for creative solutions that take our failures and the real possibility of the sin of schism into account. For instance, how about a moratorium on all new Bishops, marriages, and blessings of ssu’s for a while? The Church would not fall apart. I want us to care about the rest of our Anglican family members. Throwing up our hands and saying that there is nothing we can do is really just dishonest and cowardly. We need the courage to recognize that the Anglican Communion is not just a 'flawed Communion' that is sinking anyway but that it is savable and it is worth saving.

What Episcopal Liberals need to understand about Anglo-Catholics

As a matter OF FAITH for Catholics everywhere, including but not limited to those in the Anglican, Orthodox, and Roman Communions, our religion must be that which is practiced everywhere always and by all. I know that this is impossible because we live in an imperfect world. In the three branches of the Catholic Church I mentioned above, there are significant differences among us. But for all of us our practice of Christianity is that which approaches this all-important principle.

It is for this reason that, regrettably, many conservative, moderate, and even some liberal Anglo-Catholics, who don’t feel that homosexuality is worth splitting over, will probably nonetheless split from TEC if it comes down to a choice between TEC or the Anglican Communion.

I have no sympathy for those who feel that their particular view on homosexuality is worth splitting our Church over. There are perfectly good views on this on both sides of this issue, and both should be respected. It is ridiculous to argue that this has to lead to any split. Further, there is room for people of both views in TEC, and the Church has gone out of its way to accommodate people in the minority with DEPO.

But I am sympathetic to Catholics in TEC who will go with the Anglican Communion if it comes to a split, not because they think that views for or against homosexuality are worth splitting over but because they have no choice if they are going to be faithful Catholics. As I have said, I guess if you had to put a label on me, it would be liberal Catholic. That said, I have no intention of splitting with TEC over this. I have taken vows that I understand to be obedience to my Bishop and to this Church, and my Bishop is making no indication that he intends to leave TEC no matter how this all shakes out. But this is extremely painful to me as someone who wants there to continue to be room in TEC for Catholics like me and who wants TEC to continue to be part of the Catholic Church in the concrete way of being in communion with Canterbury.

A story to illustrate my point. When the current unpleasantness in the Anglican Communion first started heating up I was having lunch with a senior professor at General, where I was preparing to be a priest. I was expressing my shock and anger at the Network Bishops who would go with the Anglican Communion if it came to a choice between the Anglican Communion and TEC. To my surprise, my professor, who has no sympathy for the Network and has no problem with gay ordination or ssu’s, immediately said that he would go with the Anglican Communion in that case too.

In most of the prominent Episcopal blogs I am reading and the recent letters from our Bishops I do not hear Catholic religion really being taken seriously as we discern what we should do in response to the Communique. There are creative via media solutions to go forward with justice for gays and lesbians and to remain Catholic if we have the courage. But if we continue to ignore Anglo-Catholicism, I fear the fallout may be far greater than many Liberals expect if TEC is replaced as the American branch of the Anglican Communion.

Amen Bishops

I must applaud the stand the TEC Bishops are taking. This statement is especially inspiring:

“It is incumbent upon us as disciples to do our best to follow Jesus in the increasing experience of the leading of the Holy Spirit. We fully understand that others in the Communion believe the same, but we do not believe that Jesus leads us to break our relationships. We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion, and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué is distressingly silent on this subject. And, contrary to the way the Anglican Communion Network and the American Anglican Council have represented us, we proclaim a Gospel that welcomes diversity of thought and encourages free and open theological debate as a way of seeking God's truth. If that means that others reject us and communion with us, as some have already done, we must with great regret and sorrow accept their decision."

In all of the resolutions passed last night the Bishops spoke deliberately and forcefully to set the Primates straight. In the text above, for instance, they state that we follow Jesus through the experience of being led by the Holy Spirit. This is crucial. The Bishops insist that the Bible is not a manual that makes life’s decisions easy. No, we discern through the Holy Spirit just as we always have since the first Councils of the Church. Bravo!

Then they get into this passionate proclamation of the Gospel of welcome and justice. They affirm that diversity is a Gospel value. Indeed, it is a mark of the Church. And after making such a powerful statement they immediately throw it back on the Primates and the ABC, asking why the Communique is so “distressingly silent” on this and the matter of violence, “including violence against women and children and those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God.” They should have specifically referred to ++Akinola and the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), but other than that it is perfect.

About the rejection of the Primatial Vicar scheme and passing the final decision to the Executive Council, I am not as enthusiastic, but I admire and support their stand here too. At least they are again being clear. In the post below I argued that the Communique plan for us is a good one. As I see it Gene Robinson is already consecrated, and that will not change. That is the victory for openly gay Bishops and full inclusion of gays and lesbians in Anglicanism. So lets stay in the Communion so that one day women can be joined at the Primates Meeting by gays and lesbians.

Moreover, I am a liberal Catholic. It seems to me that the Communique has divided the liberal Catholics and the catholic Liberals. Those who are primarily Liberals are just fine with letting “a flawed Communion” go. I am primarily a Catholic and so I feel as the ABC seems to feel that as a matter of faith Anglicanism must be that which is everywhere, always, and by all. Once we are separated from the ABC who are we? We are no longer Anglican. Maybe we will be like the Scottish non-juring Church of the late 17th and 18th centuries who were eventually reconciled to the Church of England, but I fear that we become just a sect that will never be reconciled to Canterbury.

Yet, unlike some of my conservative Catholic sisters and brothers, I have no intention of splitting from TEC. The Holy Spirit, I believe, is guiding our Bishops. Given their rational for rejecting the Communiqué so far I think they are primarily catholic Liberals rather than liberal Catholics. What matters to me, through, is that they are valid Bishops in Apostolic Succession.

Also what matters to me is that some basic rules are being reestablished. In secular US society we are fighting about gay rights. We fight it out in the legislatures and the courts. But ultimately if someone doesn’t get their way, they don’t try to secede, or if they do something illegal, they are held to account.

We did everything properly in 2003. O.K., for a decade at least we should have consulted more with the rest of the Communion, but that monumental failure was certainly not illegal under our Communion rules. But since 2003 Primates and Bishops of our Church have been doing all kinds of evil against us with impunity. It is absurd for us to not be able to make a decision on a contentious issue without jokers in Philadelphia or Fort Worth working to split our Church because they didn’t get their way.

I hope that before the day is out the Bishops will restore some accountability in their House. At the very least, though, they are saying in their rejection of the Primatial Vicar that these are the rules: “Foreign Primates have no authority here. General Convention is our ultimate authority and we will enforce our Constitution and Canons.” It is not the route I would have preferred, but I can live with it.

What will they say about SSB’s and openly gay Bishops? Given what they said last night, I bet they will just flat out reject these demands too or call a special General Convention. I disagree with those who say that the Bishops don’t have the authority to decide this. Traditionally, Bishops have had special authority in these matters and while they can’t act alone on much else, I do think that our Constitution does give them this authority. They have a veto over who will be in their House and they authorize liturgies in their dioceses. So it would be appropriate –only in these matters- for them to act here especially in a time of emergency like this one. Given that they will probably reject this too, though, I hope and pray they will call a special General Convention. Let’s make this decision as a Church once and for all. We all, reasserters and reappraisers in TEC and Anglicans throughout the world, deserve that clarity.

The Primates' Communique/Schedule -Is it really so bad?

There is much weeping and gnashing of teeth that I am hearing from TEC bloggers in general -all except for the conservative schismatics, who are elated. But I think we all might be jumping the gun here. How quickly we forget the ultimatums from the Global South Primates at Kigali last fall and the recent letters between ++Akinola and +++Rowan. They have been forced to do some significant backpedaling. Going into this meeting, given +++Rowan's previous behavior, I fully expected the meeting to:

1) Recognize an alternative province for conservatives in the U.S. This seemed to be the strategy of the Global South and their North American power hungry friends going into the meeting. Imagine the chaos and constitutional crisis that would have provoked. My guess is +++Rowan's committee report on how well GC06 did caught ++Akinola and +Minns off guard and through them off balance for the rest of the meeting.

2) Prevent ++Katharine (and less importantly, ++York) from even attending the meeting. This would have been a disaster for us let alone the AC. What a humiliation for us and Cantuar, who no longer would have been primus inter pares. How did +++Rowan prevent it? What was said at the private breakfast between him and ++Akinola on Wednesday before the meeting started? Did he call ++Akinola's bluff and tell him to go if he wanted? I know, its probably not +++Rowan's style. He probably just convinced him that there would be plenty of room for his views in the communiqué. And obviously there was.

Okay, so at first glance the communiqué looks not that great for liberals. But a closer look shows it really doesn't change that much. We all know that B033 was passed in the context of considering our response to the Windsor Report. So if we are honest, which we keep saying we are trying to be, we will acknowledge that what we said at GC06 was that for the time being we won't consent to ANYONE to be Bishop who will be too much of a problem of the AC. This applies to the Mark Lawrences as well as partnered gay and lesbian people.

So they also want us to say that we won't issue any rites for same sex unions. I wish they could produce any examples of authorized rites because there aren’t any. Dioceses that are exploring it do not count. What the Primates are asking of us is not such a big change from current policy. I know my Bishop will continue to allow same sex blessings just like many other Anglican Bishops will all over the world.

Then there's the whole primatial vicar idea again. This is nothing new either. She offered it before, and the conservatives rejected it. Now they will have no choice but to take it. The fundamentals of the plan are still there. She gets to approve of the so-called 'Windsor Bishop' that will be the vicar so it will be someone she can work with (i.e. a non-network Bishop) who will be answerable to her. And the ABC has just proven that he will not allow anyone to force another primate to represent our province at the Primate's meeting. Okay, so the Primates are butting in with their 'pastoral council.' But this can't be that bad. The Primates will elect two of the members, and she gets to choose two. The ABC will also be on it.

Many are expressing shock that ++Katharine could sign on to this, and it appears that she must have agreed to the details in the schedule for it to be in there. Some are saying she sold out. I can understand their reaction, but I don't think so. I think she and the other Primates have done a lot to try to come together to find the middle way in which we can all live together with integrity. The Global South Primates will probably also be called sell-outs, remember. Tonight they return to their provinces still in the same Church with +Robinson.

What so impresses me about the communiqué is the care that the primates (I bet particularly +++Rowan) have taken to identify and address the core problem -the lack of trust. This plan builds trust. It recognizes that there isn’t a lot of trust for the Primates meeting in TEC because we see all the problems that many of them have been causing by trying to steal our parishes and saying all kinds of hateful things about us. The Primates won't be able to say that our response to the radical schismatics is unreasonable because they will now be involved in the primatial vicar plan and they will have a direct role in the maintenance of this system. All of this liberal oppression of the conservatives idea will come out in the open for the lie that it is. And once we get this going to the satisfaction of the pastoral care Primates committee, which won't be hard given what we already have set up with Delegated Episcopal Oversight and given that the PB has already offered a primatial vicar, the border crossing Bishops will be forced to withdraw. The consequences of this plan will be much harder for them than for us. Furthermore, the communiqué states quite plainly that all of this is only temporary -until we can get the covenant going.

Will the House of Bishops agree to what has been asked of them? If I had to guess, I would probably say yes, because they have enough faith, I think, in ++Katharine and even +++Rowan to trust this plan. But, then again, who knows? I am fairly sure it wouldn't get past GC as a whole.

What a fascinating week in Anglican Church political history. I think that deep down the liberals know that the outcome of the meeting is really not that bad, especially given what could have been. That combined with how happy the conservatives are all of a sudden, gives me hope that we might actually get through this in one piece. But whatever happens next, I'm just glad we have another 6 months in the Communion. That is nothing short of a miracle!

What should the PB say at the big meeting?

If I was ++Jefferts Schori I would be preparing to talk as much as possible about my commitment and that of my Church to glbt people. I would think in terms of ++Tutu turning a situation in which he is on trial by the South African government into the apartied system being on trial (If you haven’t read the new biography on him, do). As often as I got the opportunity, I would talk about how valuable glbt people are to us and how appreciative of their gifts we are and how beloved by God they are. That, very simply, is our policy toward sexual minorities, I would state. And because they are so beloved by God we will work for civil rights for glbt people throughout the world, be they in the USA or Nigeria.

I would argue that ++Akinola and the Network Bishops’ idea that you can’t be fully committed to the Anglican Communion and to queer folk is ridiculous and about as anti-Christian as you can get. I would state that God has no use for any Communion that is primarily making its mission about excluding gays.

Shame them, ++Jefferts Schori! Shame all of them. Shame the liberals, especially +++Williams, who are too spineless to reach out to you, let alone speak up. Shame the conservatives, especially ++Akinola, who is so full of insecurity and hatred toward gays that he would work for laws to imprison them and their supporters in Nigeria and arrogantly try to ‘discipline’ provinces that reach out to them in Christ’s love. Don’t be cowed in front of these pompous men who would try to intimidate and pressure you and don’t let them set the rules of the debate. Speak the truth in love –but speak it confidently and boldly!

Via Media Solutions: The Composition of the Covenant Design Group and The Decision of the Panel of Reference

Some interesting news lately: 1) The ABC has told us who is on the covenant design group. And 2) The Panel of Reference has made a non-binding ruling, with the force and authority of a strong recommendation, on the prerogative of the Diocese of Fort Worth (and I guess the two other American dioceses that don't) to not ordain women or license ordained women to serve there. You can read about both of these at the "Living Church" website: www.livingchurch.org/. ENS also has some articles.

On the first topic, I am pleasantly surprised. There are not only hard-line global south conservatives, there are also western liberals. There are some smart people, both conservative and liberal. They are going to have to work hard to hammer out something that they can all agree on, and that is a very good thing. The ABC is a shrewd pastor. Just like on the parish level, for the most part, the priest can't get rid of those who give him the most trouble. Sure, you can excommunicate, but you try not to use that power. So you have to manage. You get them busy. If the problem is with one another, you find a way to get them working with each other on something important. So here, we have those who refuse to sit at the table with others seeing that they have to be team players or they will be left out. Smart move, +++Rowan.

Now, will TEC accept any covenant, no matter how reasonable? Given the buzz I hear and my experience at General Convention last year, I am not so optimistic. Look at what happened to the proposed resolutions drawn up by the special commission on our Windsor response. These were painstakingly drawn up over many months, and for the most part were good solutions that called us to walk the extra mile. But by the time the committees and the House of Deputies got through with them, they were either rejected or watered down. Look at how hard it was to get B033 passed last summer and the reaction to it since.

Although we passed a resolution affirming our participation in the covenant process, I think this represents us just going through the motions. Sadly, I have a hard time imagining that we would accept any covenant. The House of Bishops would. They get to go to Lambeth. But the House of Deputies: ‘Why should we care?’ seems to be their attitude. ‘We’ll go it alone.’

The consensus of most liberals is that the Panel of Reference ruling is terrible. And I can see where they are coming from on a lot of it. In a post a few days ago, Fr. Mark (of the Preludium blog) makes a good point:

"The Panel’s report recommended that, “the Archbishop of Canterbury continue discussions with the Diocese of Fort Worth and with The Episcopal Church with the aim of securing the place of Fort Worth in the Communion.” This seems to read that the Panel believes that the Diocese of Fort Worth might have some other place in the Communion than being part of the Episcopal Church. Fort Worth already has a place in the Anglican Communion. It is a diocese of the Episcopal Church. What is going on here?"

Fr. Mark is absolutely right. What the hell is going on here? Where does the Panel get off implying that Fort Worth and of course by extension TEC might not be part of the Communion either now or in the future? This is ridiculous and they know it.

The truth is that Fort Worth is not being oppressed. No one is forcing them to accept women's orders or those of gays for that matter. And given 815's lack of response to +Iker's and the Network’s schismatic shenanigans lately, it is clear that either they can't or won't enforce the Church's canons. +Iker's appeal to the Panel of Reference is just a lie to, as he put it, get the moral high ground.

But beyond all of this, I am glad that there is some body that is mediating disputes. This seems congruent with our Catholic polity. We have Bishops who can come in when there is a dispute in a parish and mediate. This is good because to the extent possible you avoid messy political battles and ugly splits.

This is what is going on here on the next level: a revolt of dioceses against a national Church. The dioceses are analogous to parishioners and the national Church is analogous to the Rector. Now we need a mediator, the Panel of Reference.

This seems to be the precursor to the covenant. I imagine that provinces that buy into the covenant will have to accept the ruling of a body like the Panel of Reference in disputes. Just like our courts, maybe they don't always make just rulings, but at least it is a just structure. People get a chance to have their grievances heard and others offer their defense before an unbiased judge. We need this in the Communion!

The Panel says we need to honor the agreement we made to Fort Worth when we started ordaining women. We said that we are not of one mind, and that is okay –those who accept the ministry of women, can ordain them; those who don’t, don’t have to. It was a via media thing to do. But in 1997 we rescinded that promise. That was an ugly thing to do.

Look, I think that it is unjust for there to be any place in the Church that does not accept the ministry of women. But there is a right and a wrong way to work for that. There used to be many dioceses that refused to ordain women. Now there are only a few that don't. Anglo-Catholic Nashota House until recently was our lone holdout among the seminaries, but now even they train women for holy orders.

Fr. Mark states that he can respect the position of +Iker, but this is the wrong Church for +Iker. I might agree if there was any consensus on the issue of women in holy orders in the Anglican Communion. But it seems to be that +Iker is not isolated on this issue in Anglicanism despite being isolated in TEC. But then, Fr. Mark and I disagree on whether the Anglican Communion is a Church.

Fort Worth has a good plan cited by the Panel of Reference: Women there who are called to ordination can be sponsored by the Diocese of Dallas. It is not perfect, but it is reasonable. If we truly believe what we say –that we are not forcing anyone to accept our decision on the ordination of gays and lesbians- then these are the sorts of via-media solutions that we need to work for.