The House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (USA) has now agreed what they call “A Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by our Anglican Communion Partners” which comprises an introduction and eight bullet points each of which is followed by a more detailed discussion. This is the definitive response to the request of the Anglican Primates in February at Dar Es Salaam which itself must be understood in the light of the Windsor Report.

The immediate context that has given rise to this unprecedented response is the Dar communiqué in which the Primates ended (para 35) with an unprecedented and unexpected proposal in the light of the crisis in the American church and in its relationships with the wider Communion:

Our discussions have drawn us into a much more detailed response than we would have thought necessary at the beginning of our meeting. But such is the imperative laid on us to seek reconciliation in the Church of Christ, that we have been emboldened to offer a number of recommendations. We have set these out in a Schedule to this statement. We offer them to the wider Communion, and in particular to the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church in the hope that they will enable us to find a way forward together for the period leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process. We also hope that the provisions of this pastoral scheme will mean that no further interventions will be necessary since bishops within The Episcopal Church will themselves provide the extended episcopal ministry required (emphasis added).

In order to interpret and evaluate TEC’s response it is necessary to identify the key recommendations set out in the Schedule. The Schedule covers 5 areas (foundations, a pastoral council, a pastoral scheme, on clarifying the response to Windsor and on property disputes) and an appendix stating the “Camp Allen Principles”. The main areas where response is sought relate to (a) TEC’s commitment to Windsor and (b) TEC’s provision for and response to those in TEC committed to the Camp Allen Principles. The latter relates to the Pastoral Council, Pastoral Scheme and issue of property disputes while, in relation to the former the key section (“On Clarifying the Response to Windsor”) reads:

The Primates recognise the seriousness with which The Episcopal Church addressed the requests of the Windsor Report put to it by the Primates at their Dromantine Meeting. They value and accept the apology and the request for forgiveness made. While they appreciate the actions of the 75th General Convention which offer some affirmation of the Windsor Report and its recommendations, they deeply regret a lack of clarity about certain of those responses.

In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church

1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and
2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134) unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).

The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.

If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.

Outline

In attempting to evaluate the HoB response it is necessary to sketch the key stages in the four years of the Windsor Process since the Lambeth Commission was created in October 2003 (Section I). It is then necessary to examine very carefully the wording of the HoB response in the light of that history (Section II). Here a major question arises concerning the stance of the interpreter.  Some people, as becomes especially obvious in times of crisis, are optimistic and generous (‘surely it’s half full’) while others tend to be pessimistic and suspicious (‘actually, it’s half empty (at best)’). Among the factors determining one’s stance are not only issues of personality and psychology but past history in a relationship and political position (those working to hold the Communion together are probably tempted to be ‘half full’ people, those who believe it has already fallen apart and some major realignment is necessary will tend to be ‘half empty’ interpreters). My own tendency is, I think, to be ‘half full’ but the crucial test is careful examination of the wording to determine exactly what is (and what is not) being said and how it relates to what has been asked and what has been said in the past. In the light of detailed analysis a summary assessment is offered of the HoB’s response (Section III) before the implications for five areas – TEC, Communion evaluation, Windsor bishops, Common Cause and Lambeth 2008 – are sketched (Section IV) and, finally, a conclusion is offered (Section V).

1. The Background to New Orleans
2. The House of Bishops’ Response
   • Clarifying the Response to Windsor
   • Alternative Provision and External Interventions
   • Other Matters
   • Areas of Silence
3. Summary Assessment of New Orleans House of Bishops’ Response
4. Prospects?
5. Conclusion

I - The Background to New Orleans

The Windsor Report

The Windsor Report, in response to the actions of General Convention 2003, made three specific requests of the American church:

• the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion (para 134)
  
• the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges (para 134).
• While we recognise that the Episcopal Church (USA) has by action of Convention made provision for the development of public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions, the decision to authorise rests with diocesan bishops. Because of the serious repercussions in the Communion, we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation. Pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We recommend that provinces take responsibility for endeavouring to ensure commitment on the part of their bishops to the common life of the Communion on this matter (para 144)

This was clearly less than some Anglicans would have wished eg it makes no reference to the ordination of those in same-sex unions (despite this being the focus of Lambeth I.10) and it makes no attempt either to constrain the actions and teaching of those conscientiously convinced Communion teaching is wrong (other than in relation to these two proposed moratoria) or to call for them to repent of their beliefs. This is important as some in the Communion still seem to be demanding of the Americans more than Windsor required.

Dromantine Primates’ Meeting 2005

The Primates received TWR at their February 2005 meeting and agreed to provide time for the American church to respond ‘through their relevant constitutional bodies’ (para 14) while also stressing that

In the meantime, we ask our fellow primates to use their best influence to persuade their brothers and sisters to exercise a moratorium on public Rites of Blessing for Same-sex unions and on the consecration of any bishop living in a sexual relationship outside Christian marriage (para 18).

General Convention 2006

In a rather confused and pressured context, GC 2006 passed resolutions which offered an apology to the Communion (A160) and which made certain commitments in relation to confirmation of candidates for bishop (B033):

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further

Resolved, that this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.

General Convention failed, however, to address the issue of same-sex blessings.

Joint Standing Committee’s Response

The actions of GC 2006 were considered by the Communion Sub-Group of the JSC. This concluded (paras 9-10) that B033 above, though not using the language of moratorium or referring to those in a same gender union, amounted to compliance with the request of the Primates:

By requiring that the restraint must be expressed in a particular way - “by not consenting …”, however, the resolution is calling for a precise response, which complies with the force of the recommendation of the Windsor Report.  The resolution, which was passed by large majorities in both houses, therefore calls upon those charged with the giving of consent to the result of any election to the episcopate to refuse consent to candidates whose “manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion”.

In voting for this resolution, the majority of bishops with jurisdiction have indicated that they will refuse consent in future to the consecration of a bishop whose manner of life challenges the wider church and leads to further strains on Communion.  This represents a significant shift from the position which applied in 2003.  It was noted that a small number of bishops indicated that they would not abide by the resolution of General Convention, but in supporting the resolution the majority of bishops have committed themselves to the recommendations of the Windsor Report.

In relation to public rites the JSC report noted that GC did not consider this question and commented that whatever the official national position “decisions affecting the use of public rites have more usually been made at diocesan level. The Windsor Report, in recognising that fact, calls upon all bishops of the Anglican Communion to abide by the unanimous recommendation of the Primates in March 2003 and institute a moratorium on such rites” (para 14). It continued to note (para 15)

In a resolution of the 74th General Convention in 2003, the Episcopal Church recognised that local faith communities within its common life were exploring and experiencing such liturgies, and while, at provincial level, it has done nothing to authorise such Rites, it has done nothing to check their development. This creates a level of dissonance between the life of the Church at national level and at local level, which makes it hard to discern exactly where the Episcopal Church stands on this issue.

After sketching (in para 16) its perception of the reality on the ground in TEC it concluded (para 17):

It is therefore not at all clear whether, in fact, the Episcopal Church is living with the recommendations of the Windsor Report on this matter. The Primates in their statement of March 2003 did admit that there could be “a breadth of private response to individual pastoral care”, but it is clear that the authorisation by any one bishop, diocese or Province, of any public Rite of Blessing, or permission to develop or use such a rite, would go against the standard of teaching to which the Communion as a whole has indicated that it is bound. We do not see how bishops who continue to act in a way which diverges from the common life of the Communion can be fully incorporated into its ongoing life. This is therefore a question which needs to be addressed urgently by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church.

In relation to the requested apology the JSC declared itself unsure how to take the words of A159 but concluded (para 21) that “taken with the apparent promise not to repeat the offence (Resolution B033 discussed above) we believe that the expression of regret is sufficient to meet the request of the primates”.

Dar Es Salaam Primates’ Meeting 2007

The Primates themselves accepted GC’s apology but took a more sceptical line than the JSC in their final communiqué as is evident from their two-fold request for clarification noted above. On same-sex blessings they reiterated the JSC concerns by stating (para 21, emphasis added):

However, secondly, we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions. There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.

They explained this in the following terms (para 22):

The standard of teaching stated in Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 asserted that the Conference “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions”. The primates stated in their pastoral letter of May 2003, “The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for us all when he said that it is through liturgy that we express what we believe, and that there is no theological consensus about same sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorisation of such rites.”

On B033 and future consecrations they noted that “some of us believe that Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention does not in fact give the assurances requested in the Windsor Report”.

As a result the Primates concluded (para 24):

The response of The Episcopal Church to the requests made at Dromantine has not persuaded this meeting that we are yet in a position to recognise that The Episcopal Church has mended its broken relationships.

The Primates also commended the draft covenant and the Listening Process and addressed the other Windsor issue of interventions by bishops in jurisdictions other than their own and the need to provide for parishes and dioceses alienated from TEC. They stated (para 28):

These pastoral needs, together with the requests from those making presentations to this meeting, have moved us to consider how the primates might contribute to healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church and more broadly. We believe that it would be a tragedy if The Episcopal Church was to fracture, and we are committed to doing what we can to preserve and uphold its life. While we may support such processes, such change and development which is required must be generated within its own life.

In response they stated their belief “that the establishment of a Covenant for the Churches of the Anglican Communion in the longer term may lead to the trust required to re-establish our interdependent life” (para 29) but then noted (para 30, emphasis added) that

An interim response is required in the period until the Covenant is secured. For there to be healing in the life of the Communion in the interim, it seems that the recommendations of the Windsor Report, as interpreted by the Primates’ Statement at Dromantine, are the most clear and comprehensive principles on which our common life may be re-established.

In explaining how they sought to re-establish our common life on these principles and outlining the logic behind their proposals, the Primates claimed three urgent needs had to be addressed (paras 31-33):

First, those of us who have lost trust in The Episcopal Church need to be re-assured that there is a genuine readiness in The Episcopal Church to embrace fully the recommendations of the Windsor Report.

Second, those of us who have intervened in other jurisdictions believe that we cannot abandon those who have appealed to us for pastoral care in situations in which they find themselves at odds with the normal jurisdiction. For interventions to cease, what is required in their view is a robust scheme of pastoral oversight to provide individuals and congregations alienated from The Episcopal Church with adequate space to flourish within the life of that church in the period leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process.

Third, the Presiding Bishop has reminded us that in The Episcopal Church there are those who have lost trust in the Primates and bishops of certain of our Provinces because they fear that they are all too ready to undermine or subvert the polity of The Episcopal Church. In their view, there is an urgent need to embrace the recommendations of the Windsor Report and to bring an end to all interventions.

They then note that (para 34):

Those who have intervened believe it would be inappropriate to bring an end to interventions until there is change in The Episcopal Church. Many in the House of Bishops are unlikely to commit themselves to further requests for clarity from the Primates unless they believe that actions that they perceive to undermine the polity of The Episcopal Church will be brought to an end. Through our discussions, the primates have become convinced that pastoral strategies are required to address these three urgent needs simultaneously.

It is because of the breadth and depth of these problems that the Primates discerned that they needed to act more decisively than in the past (para 35):

Our discussions have drawn us into a much more detailed response than we would have thought necessary at the beginning of our meeting. But such is the imperative laid on us to seek reconciliation in the Church of Christ, that we have been emboldened to offer a number of recommendations. We have set these out in a Schedule to this statement. We offer them to the wider Communion, and in particular to the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church in the hope that they will enable us to find a way forward together for the period leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process. We also hope that the provisions of this pastoral scheme will mean that no further interventions will be necessary since bishops within The Episcopal Church will themselves provide the extended episcopal ministry required.

The schedule (as noted earlier) comprises five parts all of which are important in considering the current situation and whether the HoB of TEC have accepted the proposed ‘way forward together for the period leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process’. In particular, it is important to consider the foundations of their work as these will presumably be used by the Primates in evaluating TEC’s response:

The Primates recognise the urgency of the current situation and therefore emphasise the need to:

• affirm the Windsor Report (TWR) and the standard of teaching commanding respect across the Communion (most recently expressed in Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference);
• set in place a Covenant for the Anglican Communion;
• encourage healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church, between The Episcopal Church and congregations alienated from it, and between The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion;
• respect the proper constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, while upholding the interdependent life and mutual responsibility of the Churches, and the responsibility of each to the Communion as a whole;
• respond pastorally and provide for those groups alienated by recent developments in the Episcopal Church.

In order to address these foundations and apply them in the difficult situation which arises at present in The Episcopal Church, we recommend the following actions. The scheme proposed and the undertakings requested are intended to have force until the conclusion of the Covenant Process and a definitive statement of the position of The Episcopal Church with respect to the Covenant and its place within the life of the Communion, when some new provision may be required.

The recommended actions comprised

1. a request for clarifications in relation to TEC’s response to Windsor
2. a proposed Pastoral Council to be established by the Primates to work with TEC
3. a proposed Pastoral Scheme to be established within TEC to build on the Camp Allen principles and bring an end to foreign interventions
4. an appeal in relation to property disputes.

TEC House of Bishops’ Initial Response & Its Aftermath

At their initial meeting after the Primates’ Meeting, TEC’s bishops soundly rejected the proposed Pastoral Council and Pastoral Scheme, a decision which was supported by TEC’s Executive Council. One of the consequences of this rejection was the subsequent consecration by two further provinces (Kenya and Uganda) of bishops to serve former TEC parishes now under their care. There have also been announcements by the two existing missions (CANA from Nigeria and AMiA from Rwanda which the Primates had already noted “there are particular difficulties associated with” even in relation to the Pastoral Scheme) of further future consecrations for their churches. Alongside this the bishops connected through Common Cause are building their relationships with each other and a small number of TEC dioceses are reported to be seeking disassociation from TEC and affiliation with another Anglican Communion province.

II - The House of Bishops’ Response

The preamble sets the bishops’ eight-fold response in a wider theological and historical context. It is noteworthy that it begins with a strong statement of the global and missionary nature of the church and the importance of unity and a clear recognition of the need for action on the part of TEC if there is to be a “ ‘mending of the tear in the fabric’ of our common life in Christ”. They claim they intend to “provide clarity” within what they describe as “an ongoing process of dialogue” and they highlight that their polity means TEC’s response must also include the Presiding Bishop, the Executive Council and the General Convention.

The eight areas addressed can be divided into three groups, the first two relating to the areas raised in the schedule from the Primates’ Meeting at Dar:

1. Two points clarifying TEC’s response to TWR
2. Three points relating to alternative episcopal provision and external interventions
3. Three points relating to other matters – the Listening Process, Lambeth 2008 and gay and lesbian persons.

Having examined each of these a final fourth section will briefly note four significant areas related to the Primates’ communiqué which are not mentioned in the HoB’s response.

II.A - Clarifying the Response to Windsor

Resolution B033

The bishops initially appear here to have removed (though not as directly as sought in Windsor) any ambiguity about how they intend to interpret B033 in relation to Windsor’s request. Although the summary bullet point is a rather ridiculous reconfirmation that the wording of B033 is as everyone knows it is, the discussion goes a significant way to explaining the import of this wording. It relates the HoB to the Executive Council’s resolution EC011. This ‘commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group’ (quoted above) as giving ‘an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033’ and the HoB then clarifies in its important final sentence that ‘non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains’.

The advance here is that the phrase ‘whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion’ is now explicitly stated to include ‘non-celibate gay and lesbian persons’.  This, though arguably not strictly the same as ‘living in a same-sex union’ (Windsor) - cf the debates over Jeffrey John when chosen as Bishop of Reading – speaks to the key issue of sexual conduct albeit in a way that unhelpfully implies there is a group of people for whom celibacy is now a requirement for episcopal ordination in the way that it is not for other people. (Why not use the language of Windsor or of Dromantine – ‘living in a sexual relationship outside Christian marriage’?). Here is clearly a statement many in TEC would rather not have to make and it represents for them a costly and important clarification.

However, it must be noted that all the HoB has strictly done is to acknowledge that those of their number with jurisdiction (and Standing Committees) have been called upon by GC to withhold consent to such candidates. They have not explicitly committed themselves to heed that call and to withhold that consent. It is very likely that some of them (and there is no guarantee this will be only a minority of them) will give consent. Although there is the danger here of an excessive hermeneutic of suspicion, an interesting contrast can be drawn between this response and the wording of the covenant they made in March 2005 which stated (para 3, emphasis added)

The Windsor Report has invited the Episcopal Church "to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges" (Windsor Report, para. 134). Our polity, as affirmed both in the Windsor Report and the Primates' Communiqué, does not give us the authority to impose on the dioceses of our church moratoria based on matters of suitability beyond the well-articulated criteria of our canons and ordinal. Nevertheless, this extraordinary moment in our common life offers the opportunity for extraordinary action. In order to make the fullest possible response to the larger communion and to re-claim and strengthen our common bonds of affection, this House of Bishops takes the following provisional measure to contribute to a time for healing and for the educational process called for in the Windsor Report.Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to delay episcopal elections accordingly. We believe that Christian community requires us to share the burdens of such forbearance; thus it must pertain to all elections of bishops in the Episcopal Church. We recognize that this will cause hardship in some dioceses, and we commit to making ourselves available to those dioceses needing episcopal ministry.

While this may seem a minor point, those whose history of relationships with TEC’s HoB make them cautious about trusting their words will inevitably ask why such a similar statement could not be given this time when such a clear request had been made. Why, for example, was it not simply said that ‘those of us having jurisdiction pledge to heed the call of B033 by withholding consent to the consecration of any non-celibate gay and lesbian persons elected to the episcopate unless some new consensus emerges on these matters across the Communion’. This would have much more clearly met the request of the Primates to “confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent… unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion” (italics added).  It must also be recalled that that request was itself strictly (in the face of B033’s more limited focus) a watering-down of TWR which spoke of “a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges” (para 134, italics added).

This interpretation is unfortunately now strongly supported by Bishop Stanton’s careful account of the development of the response. The Writing Committee of the House of Bishops initially proposed the following clearly inadequate response:

We have attempted to respond to the Primates’ questions regarding Resolution B033. In honesty we must report that within the House of Bishops there is disagreement as to how this resolution is to be interpreted and applied. As we live with this painful reality, conversation, study and prayer will continue. We recognize the challenge our disagreement presents for some in the Communion, and we respectfully ask for their patience and forbearance.

The Windsor Bishops, in contrast, had proposed referring to EC011 and the JSC document and aligning the HoB with them in the words (emphasis added):

concur with the conclusion of that report, that the passing of B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for Episcopal orders living in a sexual relationship outside of Christian marriage shall not receive the necessary consents, unless some new consensus emerges on these matters across the Communion.

When further worked on by Bishops Jenkins (a Windsor Bishop), Bruno and Chane this was altered so as to refer to the report in these terms (emphasis added):

an accurate evaluation that Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention meets the requests of the Windsor Report on the matter of the election of bishops, and further that the bishops of the Episcopal Church understand themselves to be bound by Resolution of General Convention ‘to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on our communion..’

Bishop Stanton reports that there was then ‘considerable discussion over whether resolutions of Convention were binding or not’.  The history of resolution A053 (at the GC 1979) relating to the ordination of those whose consecration is now the focus of dispute makes clear that many, despite often trumpeting the supreme authority of GC, have not taken this view. That resolution clearly stated that “we believe it is not appropriate for this Church to ordain a practicing homosexual, or any person who is engaged in heterosexual relations outside of marriage” but a significant number of bishops (including Bishops Browning and Griswold, both later to be elected Presiding Bishop) refused to be bound by this and issued a statement which stated

Taking note, therefore, that this action of the House is recommendatory not prescriptive, we give notice as we are answerable before Almighty God that we cannot accept these recommendations or implement them in our dioceses insofar as they relate or give unqualified expression to recommendation 3.  To do so would be to abrogate our responsibilities of apostolic leadership and prophetic witness to the flock of Christ, committed to our charge: and it would involve a repudiation of our ordination vows as bishops:  in the words of the new Prayer Book, “boldly [to] proclaim and interpret the Gospel of Christ, enlightening the minds and stirring up the conscience of [our] people,” and to “encourage and support all baptized people in their gifts and ministries ... and to celebrate with them the sacraments of our redemption;” or in the words of the old, “to be to the flock of Christ a shepherd, not a wolf.”  Our appeal is to conscience, and to God.  Amen.

The seeds of the Communion’s current crisis are undoubtedly to be found in this event where we see the attitude of some bishops to the mind of their house and of General Convention which is not being replicated in relation to the mind of the Communion.

The reworked draft sought to do justice both to Windsor/Bishop/Chane and to the Writing Committee. It first proposed to clarify who was included in B033 by stating (emphasis added)

A majority of us concur that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those for whom consent might be withheld.

Even that limited assurance was then watered down further to the final form which makes no explicit reference to even the likelihood of withholding consent and instead simply states

The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.

Initially then there could appear to be a very significant advance in the HoB confirming that ‘non-celibate gay and lesbian persons’ are included within B033. However, the bishops have strictly only confirmed that the passing of that resolution means they have been called upon ‘to exercise restraint by not consenting’ to such candidates. They have not strictly confirmed that they will ensure such candidates ‘shall not receive the necessary consent’. Furthermore, they have not stated this is the case ‘until some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion’ though that may be understood to follow from the limit that a bishop should not be confirmed if they ‘present a challenge to the wider church’ or ‘lead to further strains on communion’. The development of the wording as the House moved towards the final resolution can leave little doubt that the problem for the Communion here is neither a ‘half empty’ hermeneutic of suspicion nor a fear that the bishops do not mean what they say. Rather the problem for the Communion is that they do in fact mean precisely what they say in their final statement and what they say is, when carefully scrutinised, very far from what the Primates asked.

Blessing of Same-Sex Unions

The weakness of the response to B033 is evident (even without Stanton’s helpful charting of its evolution) when one contrasts the form of the opening phrase of the next discussion. This reads (with echoes of the earlier March 2005 covenant) ‘We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to….’. This is clearly in order to comply with the Primates’ request that they “make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention”.

Again the wording gives hope for optimism on initial reading as they pledge not to “authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion’. However, there are already signs of reconfiguring the Communion’s request – the Instruments tend to use such language as ‘unless some new consensus on these matters emerges’ in relation to the future whereas the bishops make a commitment ‘until a broader consensus emerges’, (implying ‘we will wait until a few more provinces clearly support our viewpoint’). It must also be noted that they have consciously inserted the word ‘public’, thus qualifying the request not to authorise ‘any Rite of Blessing’.

The evolution of the resolution highlights another issue – its limitation to authorisation. The Windsor Bishops had proposed the House commit ‘not to authorize or permit any public Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions’. This, after discussions with bishops Chane and Bruno, became ‘neither to develop nor authorize’.

Even more seriously, there is the problem that the final resolution of the bishops then adds ‘or until General Convention takes further action’. While this is doubtless in order to uphold (as noted in the introduction) the authority of General Convention, it turns on its head what the Primates asked. The Primates, fully aware that the House of Bishops is a separate House whose consent must be given for any act of General Convention, explicitly asked them to covenant as a House of Bishops not to authorise any rites through General Convention. Instead, the House of Bishops have held out the possibility that General Convention may take further action and that if they do (which they can only do with the approval of the HoB) then their pledge expires.

The further difficulty with the HoB statement is that it simply describes and does not seek to alter the current reality that both the JSC report (which they have just commended) and the Primates identified as part of the problem.

The JSC report stated (para 17, emphasis added)

it is clear that the authorisation by any one bishop, diocese or Province, of any public Rite of Blessing, or permission to develop or use such a rite, would go against the standard of teaching to which the Communion as a whole has indicated that it is bound. We do not see how bishops who continue to act in a way which diverges from the common life of the Communion can be fully incorporated into its ongoing life. This is therefore a question which needs to be addressed urgently by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church.

The Primates stated (para 21, emphasis added)

We believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions. There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.

This ambiguous stance, far from being made unambiguous by the HoB, is almost celebrated and justified by them. After telling the Primates what the Primates explicitly state they already know (‘It is important to note that no rite of blessing for persons living in same-sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention’) the bishops go on to state that ‘the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions’. This obviously acknowledges that a minority – and in reality it is not an insignificant minority – do ‘make allowance’. Unless it is to be claimed that this ‘make allowance’ is not the same as ‘permission to develop or use’ this amounts to a reassertion of the reality which not just the Primates but the JSC sought to reform.

It is hard to see how the commitments here are any different from those offered (but clearly considered inadequate by the Primates) by TEC’s HoB in March 2005. Then their covenant included the following (para 4):

In response to the invitation in the Windsor Report that we effect a moratorium on public rites of blessing for same sex unions, it is important that we clarify that the Episcopal Church has not authorized any such liturgies, nor has General Convention requested the development of such rites. The Primates, in their communiqué "assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship" (Primates' Communiqué, para. 6). Some in our church hold such "pastoral care" to include the blessing of same sex relationships. Others hold that it does not. Nevertheless, we pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and we will not bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006.

Exactly the same triad is now being repeated in 2007: TEC has not authorised, some in TEC do, as bishops we won’t authorize until GC changes its stance (the penultimate version actually read ‘at lest until General Convention 2009). The Primates, however, clearly asked to hear something new and different.

The final sentences of this section refer to statements of the Primates in May 2003. They imply that these provide justification for ‘allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions’ even while denying authorisation to rites for blessing:

We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty “to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations.” They further stated, “…[I]t is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.”

The full wording of the relevant section of the 2003 communique is

This is distinct from the duty of pastoral care that is laid upon all Christians to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations. As recognised in the booklet "True Union", it is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.

The key reference in True Union in the Body? (commissioned by Archbishop Drexel Gomez and discussed at and commended by the 2003 Primates’ Meeting) is an early footnote (n3) which reads

Although different theological accounts may be given of ‘blessing’ the fundamental objection raised here is to the formal authorization and public commendation of same-sex unions by the Church that is represented by revisionist proposals. As noted later (e.g. 6.18) this is different from pragmatic pastoral discretion in private and informal prayer as Christians minister to people and move them by God’s grace towards a form of life and witness in conformity with the Church’s public teaching.

The relevant passage in 6.18 was an early call (in 2002/3) for the sort of moratorium later sought by Windsor and now being asked again of TEC (building on an earlier 1996/97 proposal of Radner and Sumner). It reads

In these circumstances, given both the lack of agreed procedures at the Communion level and the need for a period of stability under a new Archbishop of Canterbury, it would be preferable if within the Communion as a whole a moratorium could be placed on actions in this area which seek to alter the traditional public teaching and practice of the Christian Church. That traditional teaching must be upheld, even if at the same time some room is allowed for the protection of private conscience and the use of pastoral discretion which does not create public scandal.

The vision of pastoral care proposed in True Union?  is found in Section 5, “Embodying True Grace: The Pastoral Response of the Church”.  It is clearly incompatible with ‘making allowance’ for blessing of same-sex unions as part of ‘a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care’. It states, for example, that ‘pastoral care that is shaped by this costly grace will resist actions to legitimate same-sex unions and seek to show that, because they are in theological error, such actions by the Church do not contain within them the promised seed of freedom’ (5.15) and ‘the decision to bless same-sex unions, rather than assisting a life of faithful witness and being good pastoral practice, sends out contradictory messages concerning the Christian life. It undermines faithful witness by leading Christian believers into areas of real temptation and indeed sin’ (5.16).

In short, the attempt to use the Primates’ words in 2003 to defend the current situation and ‘ambiguous stance’ of TEC represents a serious distortion of the intent certainly of the authors the Primates refer to and most likely of the Primates themselves.

II.B - Alternative Provision and External Interventions

Episcopal Visitors

The HoB here affirms a plan from the Presiding Bishop (still not published in full and so difficult to evaluate) ‘to appoint Episcopal visitors for dioceses that request alternative oversight’. This is clearly an attempt to respond within TEC to the appeals of a number of dioceses after GC 2006 which the Primates referred to at Dar (para 27) -

A further complication is that a number of dioceses or their bishops have indicated, for a variety of reasons, that they are unable in conscience to accept the primacy of the Presiding Bishop in The Episcopal Church, and have requested the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates to consider making provision for some sort of alternative primatial ministry. At the same time we recognise that the Presiding Bishop has been duly elected in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, which must be respected.

The bishops wish to prevent such oversight being offered from abroad and clearly see their plan as a sort of ‘son of DEPO’, extending the same principles from a parish to a diocesan level: ‘We believe this plan is consistent with and analogous to Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) as affirmed by the Windsor Report (paragraph 152)’.

The bishops are quite correct to note Windsor’s commendation of DEPO and the willingness of some of the Windsor/Camp Allen bishops to provide such an alternative oversight with the approval of the Presiding Bishop and the HoB could be a major development. It may meet the Primates’ foundational concern that it was necessary to “respond pastorally and provide for those groups alienated by recent developments in the Episcopal Church”. However, a number of major cautionary points must be noted:

• Windsor noted “We believe that these proposals are entirely reasonable, if they are approached and implemented reasonably by everyone concerned”(italics added) and the experience of recent years and the current climate must make fulfilment of that condition highly questionable.
• The Primates at Dromantine did not express such strong support and both by their less critical response to interventions and their institution of the Panel of Reference they weakened this aspect of Windsor:

In order to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates’ Statement of October 2003. Equally, during this period we commit ourselves neither to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary interventions (para 15).

•  The Windsor Report also stated that ‘in principle, we see no difficulty in bishops from other provinces of the Communion becoming involved with the life of particular parishes under the terms of these arrangements in appropriate cases’ (para 152). In contrast, the whole intention of TEC appears to be to eliminate involvement from such bishops.
• This emphasis on absolute independence is made even more stark given that this proposal is being made in response (and as an alternative) to the Primates’ commendation of a Pastoral Council and Pastoral Scheme (see below).
• Practically, just as it was said that DEPO was only acceptable and workable where it wasn’t really needed and that where it was really needed it proved insufficient, the same could sadly prove true of this proposal.

Finally, although this offers a new proposal in relation to dioceses that are alienated from the institutions and direction of TEC, nothing new is offered for the many parishes alienated from their dioceses. This was also a major concern of the Primates and a matter central to the proposed Pastoral Scheme. It is these situations that have caused the major problem to which the HoB turns next –

Incursions by Uninvited Bishops

The House calls for ‘an immediate end to diocesan incursions by uninvited bishops in accordance with the Windsor Report and consistent with the statements of past Lambeth Conferences and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church’. They are right to highlight these actions for, as the Primates themselves stated in Dar (para 26, italics added) – ‘The interventions by some of our number and by bishops of some Provinces, against the explicit recommendations of the Windsor Report, however well-intentioned, have exacerbated this situation’. However, their appeal to past Lambeth Conferences and Ecumenical Councils will carry little weight to those who believe these incursions are necessary as a response to TEC’s disregard for these ecclesial authorities in relation to moral teaching.

It is also the case that all bishops are not acting on their own initiative. They have been invited. They only accept invitations from those they recognise as faithful Anglicans with whom they are in communion. They are ‘uninvited’ only in the sense that they act without reference to those in leadership whom they consider to have walked apart from the Communion. It is true that ‘such incursions imperil common prayer and long-established ecclesial principles of our Communion’ which ‘include respect for local jurisdiction and recognition of the geographical boundaries of dioceses and provinces’.  However, the Primates’ Meeting made clear that the interventions arose because of the ‘tear’ (which the HoB accepts needs mending) and that ‘those Primates who have undertaken interventions do not feel that it is right to end those interventions until it becomes clear that sufficient provision has been made for the life of those persons’ (para 26).

It is presumably to convince the Primates that sufficient provision is being made and that such interventions can therefore be brought to an end that the HoB makes the strong statement that ‘we continue to commit ourselves to honor both the spirit and the content of the Windsor Report’.  On that basis, they ‘call upon those provinces and bishops engaging in such incursions likewise to honor the Windsor Report by ending them’ and ‘offer assurance that delegated Episcopal pastoral care is being provided for those who seek it’.

The major problem here is that the Primates made clear at Dar that they did not think adequate provision was currently being made and nothing new is being offered here for parishes. Furthermore, they clearly stated that ‘Those who have intervened believe it would be inappropriate to bring an end to interventions until there is change in The Episcopal Church’ (para 34). It was because of ‘the provisions of this pastoral scheme’ that the Primates were able to express the hope ‘that no further interventions will be necessary since bishops within The Episcopal Church will themselves provide the extended episcopal ministry required’ (para 35).

It is only realistic, and would only be proper, for interventions to end once those intervening are convinced there has been such change (and the earlier sections of this analysis raised serious doubts whether there has been change even if there has been some clarification) and that adequate provision has been made. The response of the HoB in the next section is not promising on the latter count –

Communion-wide consultation

The HoB note the proposed pastoral scheme, their rapidly stated ‘deep concern that this scheme would compromise the authority of our own primate and place the autonomy of the Episcopal Church at risk’ and the fact that ‘the Executive Council reiterated our concerns and declined to participate’. None of this is apparently open to review. No attempt has been made to understand the principles underlying the Pastoral Scheme nor to show how the scheme failed to fit with the Primates’ own stated foundational belief that they must ‘respect the proper constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, while upholding the interdependent life and mutual responsibility of the Churches, and the responsibility of each to the Communion as a whole’. Instead, the HoB response seems to here to represent a reversion to a false view of ‘autonomy’ which results in a clear rejection of this central feature of the Dar communiqué.

Despite this strong negative response, the HoB continues – ‘nevertheless we recognise a useful role for communion-wide consultation with respect to the pastoral needs of those seeking alternative oversight’, adding ‘as well as the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons in this and other provinces’. As a result they ‘encourage our Presiding Bishop to continue to explore such consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons’.

It is unclear what this might mean in practice, not least because it is far from clear that the proposed Pastoral Council and Scheme were not in accord with TEC’s constitution and canons. While this section therefore shows a welcome willingness to recognise the implications of interdependence in a time of disagreement and distrust, the blatant attempt to push the Primates’ proposal off the table and set the agenda on TEC’s terms is unlikely to receive a warm welcome in many provinces.

II.C - Other Matters

The Listening Process

The sixth section relates to another important issue which is integral to Lambeth I.10 and was discussed by the Primates (although it is not one specifically addressed to TEC whose commitment here, unlike that of some other provinces, is not in dispute). The HoB recalls the origins of the ‘listening process’ in the 1988 Lambeth conference and points to its ongoing importance and its place in the 2008 Lambeth conference.

The bishops ‘are aware that in some cultural contexts, conversation concerning homosexuality is difficult’ and argue for the ACC to have an important role given its composition. They specifically ‘encourage the ACC to identify the variety of resources needed to accomplish these conversations’.

Much of this is already underway. It needs the active support and participation of those who are committed to the current teaching of the Communion. Only positive engagement on their part will keep it as the fruitful process of mutual listening and learning it is intended and promises to be and prevent it being perceived as or becoming transformed into simply a tool for undermining that teaching.

The Lambeth Conference

The bishops in their penultimate section declare their intention to participate in the Lambeth Conference next summer  – ‘those among us who have received an invitation to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference look forward to that gathering with hope and expectation’ – and note how Lambeth enables bishops to build on ‘mission partnerships with bishops and dioceses around the world’.

Turning to the question of Gene Robinson’s non-invitation, they note that ‘the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to explore a way for him to participate’. They then state they ‘share the Archbishop’s desire’ and ‘encourage our Presiding Bishop to offer our assistance as bishops in this endeavour’ with a ‘fervent hope that a way can be found for his full participation’.

This section, particularly its final call for ‘full participation’ (which has never been proposed by the Instruments) is not only remarkably naïve but sits uneasily with the bishops’ own earlier apparent recognition that ‘non-celibate gay and lesbian persons’ must be included within B033 because their ‘manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church’ and leads to ‘further strains on communion’. If that is indeed the case, it is difficult to defend the full participation of any such bishops at Lambeth.

Justice and Dignity for Gay and Lesbian Persons

Finally, the bishops return to a central and important ethical theme of TEC since the 1970s – the need to be ‘clear and outspoken in our shared commitment to establish and protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons, and to name and oppose at every turn any action or policy that does violence to them, encourages violence towards them, or violates their dignity as children of God’. Undoubtedly with an eye to particular provinces and leaders they ‘call all our partners in the Anglican Communion to recommit to this effort’ and recall words from their March 2007 HoB meeting that proclaim the Gospel in the following terms:

• ‘…what God has done and is doing in Christ… the dignity of every human being, and… justice, compassion and peace’
• ‘that in Christ Jesus there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free’
• ‘that in Christ all God’s children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church’
• ‘that in Christ all God’s children including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church’
• ‘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’.

Though this may be heard by some as a code for not depriving same-sex partnered Christians of their ‘right’ to blessing or ordination,  this is fully consonant with the important (though surprisingly not cited) statement of the Primates at Dromantine (para 6) that

We also wish to make it quite clear that in our discussion and assessment of the moral appropriateness of specific human behaviours, we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people. The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship

Perhaps also of interest here is the opening sentence phrase ‘as we continue to seek consensus in matters of human sexuality’. There is the implication here that we currently lack consensus. This is in contrast to the Communion’s own self-understanding where the Instruments have consistently spoken of there being an existing clear teaching (the Primates stated as a foundation for their decisions “the standard of teaching commanding respect across the Communion (most recently expressed in Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference”) but also recognising the possibility in the future of ‘a new consensus’ emerging and the need for an ongoing listening process.

II.D - Areas of silence

Four areas stand out as not receiving any mention in the HoB response.

First, and perhaps most surprising given there was an explicit call from the Primates, there is the issue of legal disputes – “The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation”.

Second, at no point do the Primates refer to the covenant. While understandable in one sense, it is clear that the Primates’ intention was to try to create structures and secure commitments that would enable there to be some level of equilibrium while the covenant process was underway. It is also clear that the Primates see the response to the covenant as determining future relationships within the Communion. On this point the bishops of TEC say nothing, despite the fact that responses to the draft covenant are to be submitted by the end of the year.

Third, as noted above, the Primates in Dar once again reiterated the ‘standard of teaching commanding respect across the Communion’ in relation to sexual conduct. TEC’s bishops do not relate any of their statement to this standard of teaching.

Fourth, the Primates gave a particular role to the Windsor/Camp Allen bishops and in particular highlighted the ‘Camp Allen Principles’. The HoB response makes no reference to these.

III - Summary Assessment of New Orleans House of Bishops’ Response

In order to evaluate the HoB’s response it may help to expand the two areas noted as central from Dar and discussed above (i.e. response to Windsor (II-A) and provision for minorities in TEC (II-B)) into the three areas highlighted as of importance by the Anglican Communion Secretary General: two in relation to Windsor (clarification on B033 and a commitment to a moratorium on same-sex blessings) and the response to Pastoral Scheme and Pastoral Council.

In relation to B033 there appears to be the greatest clarification and a strong case that they have heeded the Primates and complied with Windsor in that it is now explicitly stated that it includes ‘non-celibate gay and lesbian persons’. Such a positive assessment must, however, be qualified by noting that the bishops ‘as a body’ have not made an explicit and clear commitment not to consent to such candidates. Strictly, therefore, they have not confirmed that “a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion”. They have simply confirmed that in supporting B033 they believe they have called on each other ‘to exercise restraint by not consenting’ to such candidates. In normal circumstances this clarification should suffice – surely they will heed their own call and refuse consent? - but sadly there is now such distrust in some circles that the failure to be more explicit and the clear rejection by the HoB of a number of less ambiguous proposals warns against a naïve and simplistic surface reading.

In relation to same-sex blessings, the bishops have apparently met the first part of the Primates’ request and made “an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses”. However, that is something they had already done in 2005. They have though quite explicitly not pledged that they “will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions through General Convention”. Instead it is suggested that General Convention may authorise such rites irrespective of any consensus in the Communion. Furthermore, rather than acting to bring an end to what the JSC and Primates both saw as an unsatisfactory and confused situation locally, the bishops have seemingly affirmed the propriety of bishops ‘making allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions’ as compatible with ‘not authorising a rite’ and as within the breadth of acceptable pastoral response. This is the exact opposite of Dar’s requests.

Finally, the bishops have once again totally rejected and disregarded the Primates proposed Pastoral Council and Pastoral Scheme. Instead they have insisted on an end to interventions on the basis of the existence of a system for congregations (DEPO) which the Primates clearly found inadequate and now proposed their own similar alternative scheme for dioceses who were seeking alternative primatial oversight.

Ephraim Radner has already commented that ‘this is at best a 40 out of 100, with respect to the Primates’ questions’ and it is hard to disagree in the light of the analysis offered above. Even on the most generous and optimistic reading it is very hard to see the glass as even “half-full” and that, of course, means that it is “at least half-empty”. Furthermore, given the history of the last nine years since Lambeth 1998 and especially the last four and a half years since General Convention 2003 and now nearly three years since the publication of The Windsor Report, the problem is that a significant number of Primates and traditional Anglicans within TEC are not minded to seek the most generous reading. They are likely to look with suspicion on whatever TEC says or appears to be saying and to fear the worst. That at this final hour - after such definite requests for clarity - this is all that can be agreed is a sign that TEC’s bishops are at best hopelessly incoherent and divided (and so unable to find a plausible and adequate common mind among themselves) and at worst playing word games with the rest of the Communion (seeking to paint very minor movements as major clarifications and concessions while having little or no intention to do what has been asked of them) and seeking to replace the Communion’s requests with their own agenda.

In short, despite some movement, what has been produced is really too little and too late.  The initials of the place where the bishops met – New Orleans – neatly capture what they have said in response to the requests of Dar – NO !

IV - Prospects?

In the light of all this, what can and should happen now? Five areas merit brief comment.

The Episcopal Church (USA)

Despite the serious flaws and failings noted above, many present at the HoB meeting have spoken of the quality of its deliberations:

Discussions were ‘frank, open, serious and cooperative…even encouraging…I was surprised by the readiness of many colleagues, especially those with whom I have differed in the current crisis, to approach this meeting with a real concern for the unity of the Communion and a desire to take steps to assure our place in it’ (Bishop Stanton)

probably the best meeting I have attended and at the same time the most painful (Bishop Salmon)

It would appear that there was, through the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the JSC, a much more realistic assessment of the seriousness of the situation and the need, as the bishops acknowledge, to act to mend the tear in the fabric of the Communion.

Undoubtedly most of those present believed they had gone as far as they could ‘in good conscience’ to meet the Communion and hope that they have done sufficient. However, as the evolution of the key resolutions (as reported by Bishop Stanton) make clear, although they sought to find wording that both maximised support across the House and maximised the chance of a positive response from the Communion, they remain a house severely divided against itself whose centre of gravity remains firmly distanced and detached from that of the wider Communion. Furthermore, the failure to take a roll call vote on the final document means that any bishop can deny they supported it and no individual bishop can be held accountable by the wider church for their decision. There is, therefore, a real risk that it will rapidly become a compromise (and compromised) document that satisfies few and from which many will dissociate themselves by word or deed in coming months in the face of political pressures from competing perspectives within TEC and beyond.

Communion evaluation

Now that TEC’s HoB has given its response the ball is in the Communion’s court. The response took so long to agree that the members of the JSC had left New Orleans before it was finally approved but they will give a report to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the end of the week. He, according to the Anglican Communion Secretary General, “intends to consult widely with all the Primates and with all members of the Anglican Consultative Council as the Communion discerns the way ahead”. It is, however, unclear how he intends to do this.

Given that the response is strictly being given to the Primates and it is their actions and decisions (both in relation to interventions and recognition of Anglicans in the US and attendance at Lambeth 2008) that could now prove decisive for the future of the Communion, there is an almost unanswerable moral case for them to be gathered again in an emergency meeting (as four years ago after GC 2003), perhaps with members of the ACC Standing Committee (as at Dar). They must take common counsel face-to-face and provide the oversight and guidance the Communion urgently needs at this time. It is to be hoped (perhaps against hope) that this process will be speedy, comprehensive, confidence-building and clarifying and that no further precipitate actions will be taken while the Communion seeks to find a common mind - the mind of Christ – on how best to proceed.

Windsor/Camp Allen bishops

Despite initial reports of near unanimity it is already becoming clear that the outcome was unsatisfactory for many, probably most, of these bishops. One leading Windsor bishop (Ed Salmon) has strongly opposed the response

In my address to the House, I said that I appreciated the hard work that had resulted in the document that was before us. I also stated that I could not support it for the following reasons:

1. It did not respond as requested to the three points raised by the Anglican Primates in Dar es Salaam.
2. It did not provide alternative oversight that met the needs of those who asked for it.
3. It placed the condition that our responses must be in keeping with our Constitution and Canons. The chaos we are in requires tremendous grace, not law.
4. There is oppression of those not in agreement, often unaware to those responsible.
5. Statements by our leadership saying that 95% of the Church was doing well or that only a small percentage were affected makes discussion impossible. The Episcopal Church Foundation says we are in a systemic decline which is significant.

I believe that the impact of these days has produced the potential for us to move because this is the first time in my memory this has been revealed to the House face to face by members of the Communion. I am committed to continue to work for that day faithfully, but I cannot support the document for the reasons stated.

Another, Bishop James Stanton, has also now offered a very careful but largely negative analysis and assessment of the final statement (though he was unable to express this at the meeting as he left before it concluded).  He makes clear that the CA bishops went in with well-prepared resolutions that would have offered an unambiguous and wholehearted response to the Primates but that the House as a whole began a long way away from this position and was unable to support it. By the end, although there had been dialogue and rewording, the final position remained significantly different from that proposed by the CA bishops and sought by the Primates.

It may be that more Camp Allen bishops, given their significance at Dar, the important role of their work  in recent months, and the support given them by the Primates, will distance themselves from the HoB response or at least clearly reaffirm their commitment to the Camp Allen principles and the Dar proposals and put themselves at the service of the wider Communion.

Common Cause and Overseas Interventions

A small group from within the Windsor Bishops and the Anglican Communion Network has clearly aligned itself with a strategy that involves the creation of new episcopally led structures which are integrated into a number of African provinces and seek to work together under Common Cause. A number of these bishops either did not attend the HoB or left before discussion took place on the response. It is reported that between three and five TEC dioceses may also now break away and affiliate with a different Communion province and with the recent statement from the meeting of Common Cause bishops and CAPA meeting next week further developments may soon take place.

Sadly, the inadequacies in the HoB response make what was already probably impossible – a drawing back from this path in order to seek to work with the Presiding Bishop and HoB on the basis of Dar -  now certainly impossible. The Primates stated at Dar (para 28)

We believe that it would be a tragedy if The Episcopal Church was to fracture, and we are committed to doing what we can to preserve and uphold its life. While we may support such processes, such change and development which is required must be generated within its own life.

Such tragic fracturing is now seemingly irreversible and irreparable and is likely to increase rather than diminish in coming months and years. One major question is how neat it can be or whether it will simply result in many splinters as, in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury to General Synod in 2005, ‘to put it as bluntly as I can, there are no clean breaks in the Body of Christ’.

Ultimately it can only be by means of the covenant process that the implications of this for the wider Communion become clear. In the meantime, individual provinces and the Instruments of Communion will need to determine the nature of their ‘bonds of affection’ and relationships of communion with whatever new structures begin to emerge through the realignment of American Anglicanism.

Lambeth invitations

A number of statements have been made about the implications of an inadequate response from TEC. The JSC commented in its report on GC 2006 (concerning local permission for rites of same-sex blessing, para  17)

We do not see how bishops who continue to act in a way which diverges from the common life of the Communion can be fully incorporated into its ongoing life.

The Primates stated

If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.

This builds on the conclusion of the Windsor Report (para 110) that

Furthermore, it has been noted that the Archbishop of Canterbury convenes the Lambeth Conference and the Primates' Meeting, and they are both dependent for their existence on his behest. We recommend that this dependence on the See of Canterbury remain, and indeed, that it be enhanced. At present, there is some lack of clarity about the level of discretion that the Archbishop has with respect to invitations to the Lambeth Conference and to the Primates' Meeting. This Commission is of the opinion that the Archbishop has the right to call or not to call to these gatherings whomsoever he believes is appropriate, in order to safeguard, and take counsel for, the well-being of the Anglican Communion. The Commission believes that in the exercise of this right the Archbishop of Canterbury should invite participants to the Lambeth Conference on restricted terms at his sole discretion if circumstances exist where full voting membership of the Conference is perceived to be an undesirable status, or would militate against the greater unity of the Communion.

One consequence of such an understanding of the implications of TEC’s actions for its participation in the life of the Communion was the decision by the Primates in Dromantine (confirmed by the ACC at its Nottingham meeting) to request the withdrawal of TEC’s and Canada’s representatives from ACC until Lambeth 2008.

It is noteworthy that in his letter of invitation to the Lambeth Conference – which is a personal invitation to a fellow bishop not a general invitation to a province’s House of Bishops - Archbishop Rowan Williams wrote (emphasis added)

I have said, and repeat here, that coming to the Conference does not commit you to accepting every position held by other bishops as equally legitimate or true. But I hope it does commit us all to striving together for a more effective and coherent worldwide body, working for God's glory and Christ's Kingdom. The Instruments of Communion have offered for this purpose a set of resources and processes, focused on the Windsor Report and the Covenant proposals. My hope is that as we gather we can trust that your acceptance of the invitation carries a willingness to work with these tools to shape our future. I urge you all most strongly to strive during the intervening period to strengthen confidence and understanding between our provinces and not to undermine it

At this point, and with the recommendations of the Windsor Report particularly in mind, I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion

If the HoB response is judged to be inadequate by the Communion then there will inevitably (and, I believe, rightly) be pressure for a review of the Lambeth invitations. Leaving aside the added complication of whether to invite recently consecrated bishops of other provinces ministering within America, what might be said to TEC bishops if the response from New Orleans proves to leave TEC’s relationship with the Communion ‘damaged at best’?

Clearly a range of options and criteria could be mapped for distinguishing among TEC’s bishops. At one extreme, all could now be disinvited (or invited on restricted terms) but with the provision of some clear means of being reissued with a full invitation. This could, for example, be personal commitment to the Camp Allen principles as confirmation of a willingness to work with the tools of the Windsor Report and the Covenant proposals. At the other end of the spectrum, it may be concluded that the HoB response represents sufficient movement on the part of TEC to give every bishop the benefit of the doubt until they demonstrate - by word or deed - their personal intention to disregard Windsor (as interpreted and applied by Dar) in their episcopal ministries. This would mean that all currently invited bishops would retain their invitations but that any bishops who supported a candidate for bishop in a same-sex union or who could be shown to have ‘authorized’, ‘permitted’ or ‘made allowance’ for the blessing of same-sex unions in their dioceses would have their invitation withdrawn until they gave the reassurances sought by the Primates.

The ultimate decision here lies, of course, with the Archbishop of Canterbury who will need great wisdom as he seeks both (a) to remain faithful to the Windsor process and its implications for the American church and its participation in the wider Communion and (b) to gather as many Anglican bishops as possible from across the geographical and theological diversity of the Communion for Lambeth 2008 so that it can remain a genuine and representative Instrument of Communion and strengthen Anglican mission while advancing both the ongoing Listening Process and the Covenant Process.

V - Conclusion

After failing to respond to appeals for restraint from all the Instruments of Communion prior to GC 2003 and refusing to drawn back after the emergency Primates’ Meeting at Lambeth in October 2003, the Communion invested much time and energy in the Lambeth Commission which became the Windsor Report and then the Windsor Process.  The clear requests made there were not satisfactorily responded to before the Primates met in Dromantine in February 2005 but it was agreed to wait until General Convention 2006 for a full response. The Primates at Dar in February 2007 recognised “the seriousness with which The Episcopal Church addressed the requests of the Windsor Report put to it by the Primates at their Dromantine Meeting” but concluded that though they could “appreciate the actions of the 75th General Convention which offer some affirmation of the Windsor Report and its recommendations, they deeply regret a lack of clarity about certain of those responses”. They therefore concluded (para 24) that

The response of The Episcopal Church to the requests made at Dromantine has not persuaded this meeting that we are yet in a position to recognise that The Episcopal Church has mended its broken relationships.

In the course of the last four years the situation within TEC and both between TEC and many individual provinces  and between TEC and the Instruments has become increasingly strained. This constantly threatens to produce provincial and Communion-wide realignment and division, severely damaging both the unity and mission of Anglicanism in North America and across the globe. The Primates sought to limit and repair this damage by making clear requests, offering proposals to TEC and seeking a response by the end of this month. TEC’s HoB has now offered that response and the Communion must now, as speedily but as carefully as possible, evaluate it. The analysis offered here shows that in relation to both aspects of TWR where clarifications have been sought they have not been given in the terms asked and the alternative wording offered instead is far from equivalent. Furthermore, instead of seeking to work constructively with the Primates’ proposed Pastoral Scheme and Council, the HoB has instead pushed that to the side and sought to establish its own alternative which fails to address the concerns of the Primates.

After so many years and so many meetings and so many communiqués and so many responses, there is a tendency in some circles to become cynical and always look on the dark side of life, to always see the glass as ‘half empty’ rather than ‘half full’. While such a response is not consonant with Christian faith, hope and love, neither is a naïve optimism that simply always looks on the bright side of life, consistently ignoring painful realities and avoiding or delaying the demand to make the hard decisions that those realities can place upon us.

The sad fact is that, on any careful objective reading of the HoB statement, the glass is nowhere near either ‘half full’ or ‘half empty’. It may appear to be so on first examination but in fact once one has removed the froth there is little nourishing left in the glass. To change the metaphor, what is being offered here are essentially the same TEC sweets the Communion has been offered over recent years only now in a more attractive wrapping and with a stronger sugar coating.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the American church has already walked too far apart from the Communion and too much of it sincerely believes that it has walked that way led by the Spirit. As a result, despite much prayer and great effort by many, what has been offered by its bishops to the Communion is ‘too little, too late’.

The challenge now, with the Lambeth Conference less than a year away, is to discern what this means for the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole.  That is a task that cannot be left to the Archbishop on his own or relying solely on advisors at Lambeth and the Anglican Communion Office. It requires the Primates who offered their guidance at Dar to be gathered in some manner so as to provide a common and coherent response to the statement from TEC’s HoB on the basis of their own understanding of the needs and demands we are facing together. There can be little doubt that TEC’s relationship with the Communion still remains as it was declared to be at Dar – “damaged at best” - and that “this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion”.

Nevertheless, it is vital to recognise that, despite this tragedy, we remain,  even in our divisions, distrust and disunity, brothers and sisters in Christ. And that in turn means that all our responses – both within the American church and across the wider Communion – must not only acknowledge the reality of our brokenness and its sad consequences but also seek to continue to be guided by the Spirit of Christ and to make all decisions in ‘the hope of “mending the tear in the fabric” of our common life in Christ’.