Half Empty? Half Full? Too Little? Too Late?

by Andrew Goddard

part 2 (click here for part 1)

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.

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.

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.

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 !

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.

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’.