Video: George Conger and Andrew Carey offer on-the-mark insights on last-hour maneuvers in Columbus

Stand Firm's excellent - and very timely - video interview with journalists George Conger and Andrew Carey on site in Columbus on the final day of General Convention. Click the headline above to see the video.

A statement from Anglican Essentials Canada following the publication of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s vision for the Anglican Communion

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, recently published his vision of how the Anglican Communion can go forward into the future. In doing so, he addressed the serious challenges to scriptural authority and communion interdependence that we are currently facing. The article, titled “The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today: A Reflection for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion” was released to the public on Tuesday morning.

In the document, Archbishop Williams laid out a plan for a two-tiered Communion. One tier would be fully included in the life of the Anglican Communion as “constituent” members and one that would have an “associate” membership and no legislative position within any of the Instruments of Unity.

This two-tiered Communion is very much a reflection of the reality we face here in the Anglican Church of Canada. Some of us clearly desire to remain in full fellowship in the Anglican Communion and are willing to practice mutual submission with our brother and sister Anglicans around the world. Others value the trajectory away from the Christian and Anglican mainstream; a trajectory that our church’s leadership has increasingly embraced. We are presently two minds existing together in one church. We are optimistic that this model will help stabilize the Communion in accordance with the historic Christian faith and Anglican order.

We are thankful that the Archbishop of Canterbury has also recognized that the distinction between the historic Christian faith and progressive Christianity runs through the middle of Provinces and not simply between them. “An ordered and respectful” delineation could possibly be a way forward for Canadian Anglicans who wish to remain true to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In the statement, Archbishop Williams also said there was no need to reconsider the Lambeth 1998 resolution (I.10). He noted that he, “[did] not hear much enthusiasm for revisiting in 2008 the last Lambeth Conference’s resolution on this matter. In my judgment, we cannot properly or usefully re-open the discussion as if Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998 did not continue to represent the general mind of the Communion.”

This is an encouraging reflection of the mind of the Anglican Communion, insofar as it is entirely consistent with the historic Christian faith while at the same time honouring the lives of gay and lesbian people as loved by God and his Church. Lambeth 1.10 further rejects “homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture [but] calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals”

We thank Archbishop Williams for this articulate and encouraging written reflection and assure him of our prayers as he seeks to lead our fractured Communion.

Andrew Carey: Two-Tier Communion Proposed

Two-tier Communion proposed
By Andrew Carey

A FORMAL split in the Anglican Communion may be necessary following the Episcopal Church’s ‘incomplete’ response to the Windsor Report, according to a statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Responding to last week’s General Convention, Dr Rowan Williams suggested that the only hope for the Communion was an Anglican Covenant by which constituent Churches limited their own autonomy for the sake of the greater whole.

Those Churches, he said, which refused to sign the covenant could become ‘Churches in association’ which were “bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion.” For some time Dr Williams has stressed the gravity of the situation, arguing that a move towards a federal Anglican Communion was no more workable than the current structures. His latest statement indicates how far his thinking has gone towards a formal separation within the Anglican Communion following the US General Convention.

After intense pressure last week on the final day of the Convention by Presiding Bishop Griswold and his successor-elect, Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, bishops and deputies finally accepted a watered-down resolution on a moratoria of the consecrations of practising homosexual bishops. The resolution urged bishops and standing committees to act with ‘restraint’, but was criticised for falling short of the language of the Windsor Report. The Council of African Provinces in Africa last weekend released a statement expressing severe reservations about whether the actions of General Convention had done enough to meet the demands of the Anglican Communion.

They expressed sadness that the Convention had been unable to embrace the recommendations of the Windsor Report. They said they would study ECUSA’s actions and statements and meet with Global South Primates in September to present a “concerted pastoral and structural response. “We assure all those Scripturally faithful dioceses and congregations alienated and marginalised within your Provincial structure that we have heard their cries,” they added. If anything, Archbishop Williams’ statement went further than the African response in suggesting that ECUSA had not responded adequately to the Windsor Report. But his view that the Anglican Communion could split into an inner core of ‘constituent churches’ and ‘churches by association’ will cause shock around the world.

“This leaves many unanswered questions, I know, given that lines of division run within local churches as well as between them… It could mean the need for local churches to work at ordered and mutually respectful separation between ‘constituent’ and ‘associated’ elements; but it could also mean a positive challenge for churches to work out what they believed to be involved in belonging in a global sacramental fellowship,” Dr Williams said. The Archbishop defended the rights and liberties of homosexuals, but said that the traditional view of human sexuality “should not be automatically seen as some kind of blind bigotry against gay people.” He argued that whatever the presenting issue, “member Churches can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship… It isn’t a question of throwing people into outer darkness but of recognising that actions have consequences – and that actions believed in good faith to be ‘prophetic’ in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences.”

A statement from the American Anglican Council welcomed the statement. “We applaud the Archbishop’s clear assessment and his call for necessary structural changes embodied by ‘constituent’ and ‘associate’ Churches centred upon a covenant with an ‘opt in’ mechanism.

“We view this as a positive direction for the biblically faithful minority currently within ECUSA, and we commit to assist in an ordered and mutually respectful separation between ‘constituent’ and ‘associated’ elements’ of ECUSA. We view this proposal as the way to ensure clear theological and doctrinal unity based on Anglicanism’s traditional view of the supremacy of Scripture.” The Rev Richard Jenkins, speaking for Affirming Catholicism, welcomed the Archbishop’s statement, but added: “We are all diminished by division and need each other’s insights to flourish. If a formal covenant is intended to help us to live in solidarity with each other then it must function in a dynamic way, not simply acting as a brake on every development. This will be a difficult task, but one which we will apply ourselves to.”

If you can't say something nice ...

I am just back from the official meeting of the Diocese of Virginia on General Convention at the Virginia Theological Seminary. There were over a hundred people there. The entire Virginia delegation was there as well.

I am sitting here trying to think of something positive to say about the evening.

....

....

....

....

Click on the headline instead. Once again, even this bit of Dylan says it better than I could.

Good night.

bb

An open letter from the leadership of the Diocese of Central Florida

An open letter from the Bishop, Standing Committee, and Diocesan Board of the Diocese of Central Florida.

June 29, 2006

Feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

The Bishop, Standing Committee, and Diocesan Board of the Diocese of Central Florida, meeting jointly in Orlando on June 29, 2006, wish to reflect upon the events of the week following General Convention.

We welcome the statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury, issued June 27, 2006, in which he concurs with our assessment that the Episcopal Church fell short of the Windsor Report’s requests and suggests the possibility that the Episcopal Church may risk losing its status as a constituent member of the Communion, which is an a priori requirement of the Preamble of the Constitution of the Episcopal Church.

We are deeply saddened at the election of a presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church who consented to the consecration of Gene Robinson in 2003, who supported the blessing of same sex unions in the Diocese of Nevada, and who, in her first sermon following the election, spoke of “Jesus, our mother.” We believe her actions as a diocesan bishop call into question her ability to lead The Episcopal Church in the process of healing and restoration clearly outlined in The Windsor Report.

We renounce the unwillingness of the 75th General Convention fully to embrace the requests made of The Episcopal Church in The Windsor Report, most notably its failure to agree to a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions.

We disassociate this diocese from Resolution A-095 which opposes “any state or federal constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex civil marriage or civil unions.” This resolution gives, in effect, the endorsement of the Church on same-sex civil marriage.

We solemnly remind the clergy of this diocese of our diocesan canons which prohibit the blessing of same-sex relationships and require the clergy of this diocese to model the received teachings of the church with respect to sexuality. We stand ready to enforce them.

The serious consequences of the actions, inactions and errors of the 74th and 75th General Convention have resulted in a constitutional crisis within The Episcopal Church with respect to its stated status as “Constituent Member of the Anglican Communion”. The Episcopal Church has signaled to the faithful within the Episcopal Church a desire to “walk apart” from not only the Anglican Communion but also the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ to which this Diocese has acknowledged its allegiance to be due. We declare that we are a diocese in protest over these errors and the leaders who support them.

It is our firm intent to remain a diocese with constituent member status in the Anglican Communion. Our membership in the Anglican Communion Network has offered us much solace, knowing that we are in communion with the entire Anglican Communion. Now, in the past week, at least four of these dioceses have done what we believe we must also do. We hereby appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the panel of reference, and the Primates of the Anglican Communion for immediate alternative primatial oversight. We understand that none of our actions violate the canons of the Episcopal Church.

The Constitution of our diocese makes it clear that our ultimate loyalty is to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ. In preparation for our Convention on January 27 2007, we will study the constitutional crisis in which we find ourselves and consider the various constitutional, canonical, financial, and spiritual options available.

We realize that this letter will not be met with joy by all of the members of this diocese. To those who dissent, we pledge to you the ongoing faithful and loving ministry of this diocese. Jesus Christ is Lord of His Church. He holds us each in his loving arms. He is the Alpha and the Omega, and therefore knows the end of the story. To Him be the glory.

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (with one abstention)

No, Not Yet - Both Truro and The Falls Church entering discernment process

NOTE FROM BB: Read the following notice from The Falls Church website. This is true for Truro as well. We are entering a discernment process which will begin in the fall. Stay tuned for more details. Here's what Truro's sister parish, The Falls Church, has posted to their website:

The Washington Times has reported that our church has informed our Bishop that we are leaving the Diocese of Virginia and leaving the Episcopal Church. This certainly is not true and misrepresents where we are as a congregation. It is true that we think an extended period of study, prayer, and deliberation about how we are to respond to the serious rift in our denomination is wise and we are hoping to engage in such a time this fall. The thoughtful booklet (“Can Two Walk Together, Except They Be Agreed?”) that our vestry recently prepared and sent to the congregation analyzing our current situation is the most up to date information we have produced. It gives a clear sense of the issues we are facing. There are extra copies available in the church.

WOW Cuz, you really did it this time - only in America

Charles (The Cousin) took a bold assignment in his capacity as a Navy JAG to defend one of the bad-guys at Gitmo. He is a very good defense attorney and made the decision to take the case to the Supreme Court. I can still remember the night the cousins stayed up into the wee hours of the morning listening to Charles make his case. He was amazingly persuasive. I still want to see these terrorists dealt with justly, swiftly (sorry about the pun, Charles), and decisively. But there's something rather wonderful about being in a country where someone from a country that wants to see yours destroyed is defended by a military officer all the way to the Supreme Court - and wins. Maybe the terrorists should think twice before they hate America first. I think this is a great country with amazing citizens, and The Cousin sure proved it. He answered the call of his country to provide real justice (like it or not) and he did it. Only in America.

Of course, we should have known something was up when we had the annual "Gingerbread House Making Christmas Party" last December and Charles decided to build a Gingerbread Supreme Court. He did it, though a few pieces of the front edifice kept falling off and crashing down on the gingerbread steps. Finally, he had to basically glue it together with mounds and mounds of icing to keep a piece from falling. After he completed the project - which really did look like the Supreme Court - he took it home as part of his Christmas season decorations. The next day a piece of marble suddenly fell off the real Supreme Court building in Washington, just missing the tourists on the front steps. Only in America.

I still think Gitmo is a good idea, but I am also really proud of Charles.

Only in America.

Supreme Court rejects Guantanamo military tribunals
By James Vicini

In a sharp rebuke of President George W. Bush's tactics in the war on terrorism, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down as unlawful the military tribunal system set up to try Guantanamo prisoners.

By a 5-3 vote, the nation's highest court declared that the tribunals, which Bush created right after the September 11 attacks, violated the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military rules.

"We conclude that the military commission convened to try (Salim Ahmed) Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate" the international agreement that covers treatment of prisoners of war, as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court majority.

The decision was a stinging blow for the administration in a case brought by Hamdan, who was Osama bin Laden's driver in Afghanistan. Hamdan, one of about 450 foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was captured in November 2001.

At the White House, Bush said he had not fully reviewed the ruling and would consult with the U.S. Congress to attain appropriate authority for military tribunals. "We take the findings seriously," he said.

A Pentagon spokesman declined immediate to comment but reiterated the need for a U.S. facility to hold dangerous captives.

The ruling, handed down on the last day of the court's 2005-06 term, followed the deaths of three Guantanamo prisoners this month and increased calls for Bush to close the prison camp. U.S. treatment of inmates at Guantanamo and in Iraq and Afghanistan has drawn international criticism.

One of Hamdan's lawyers, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, praised the high court action. "All we wanted was a fair trial," he said outside the Supreme Court. "Yes, it is a rebuke for the process. ... It means we can't be scared out of who we are."

Anthony Romero of the American Civil Liberties Union said, "The Supreme Court has made clear that the executive branch does not have a blank check in the war on terror and may not run roughshod over the nation's legal system."

Stevens, at 86 the high court's longest serving justice and a leading liberal, said the military commissions were not expressly authorized by any act of the U.S. Congress. But in reading part of the decision from the bench, he said Bush was free to go to lawmakers to ask for the necessary authority.

Stevens also wrote the Supreme Court decision two years ago that handed the Bush administration another major setback in ruling the Guantanamo prisoners can sue in U.S. courts.

RULES ARE ILLEGAL

Stevens said in his 73-page opinion, "The rules specified for Hamdan's trial are illegal." He said the system has to incorporate even "the barest of those trial protections that have been recognized by customary international law."

He said the tribunals failed to provide one of the most fundamental protection under U.S. military rules, the right for a defendant to be present at a proceeding.

The case produced a total of six opinions totaling 177 pages.

Stevens was joined by the other liberal justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and moderate-conservative Anthony Kennedy.

The conservatives -- Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who was appointed by Bush -- dissented.

The ninth member of the court, Chief Justice John Roberts, who also was appointed by Bush, removed himself because he previously was on the U.S. appeals court panel that ruled for the Bush administration in Hamdan's case.

The dissenters agreed with the administration's argument that the case must be dismissed because a recent law stripped the high court of its jurisdiction over Hamdan's appeal.

Thomas also said the court needed to respect Bush's power as commander in chief while Alito said he disagreed with the majority that Hamdan's tribunal was illegal.

Anglicans select Fairfax rector as bishop

Anglicans select Fairfax rector as bishop
By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 28, 2006


The Rev. Martyn Minns, rector of Truro Episcopal Church in Fairfax, was elected a bishop today by the Anglican province of Nigeria with the mandate to oversee a cluster of expatriate Nigerian parishes in the United States.
Mr. Minns, 63, pronounced himself "stunned" by the news, which he received midmorning on his cell phone.
The priest said he was notified by the archbishop of Nigeria, the Most. Rev. Peter J. Akinola, who immediately put him on a speakerphone to address hundreds of Nigerian Anglicans gathered in Abuja, the country's capital.
"I said I was honored by their willingness to place their trust in me," said Mr. Minns, who immediately called Virginia Bishop Peter J. Lee with the news.
"We haven't really had an opportunity to think about this yet," a diocesan spokesman said this afternoon.
The cluster, known as the Convocation for Anglicans in North America, is a group of 20 to 25 churches established by the Anglican Church of Nigeria as a conservative alternative to the liberal U.S. Episcopal Church.
"We have deliberately held back from this action," Archbishop Akinola said in a statement, in the hope the 2.2-million-member Episcopal Church would turn back from its 2003 consecration of Canon V. Gene Robinson as the world's first openly homosexual bishop.
But the actions of last week's Episcopal General Convention, he added, "make it clear that far from turning back they are even more committed to pursuing their unbiblical revisionist agenda."
Mr. Minns, who already had planned to retire from Truro, has been runner-up several times as bishop for U.S. Episcopal dioceses. No date has been set for his consecration to the episcopate.

Canon Minns Elected Missionary Bishop for Church of Nigeria

From The Living Church
6/28/2006

The Rev. Canon Martyn Minns, rector of Truro Church, Fairfax, Va., was elected a missionary bishop for the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, a missionary initiative of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, during a June 27-28 meeting of the House of Bishops in Abuja.

“We have deliberately held back from this action until now because of our hope that The Episcopal Church USA would heed the cry of the Anglican Communion as expressed in the essential elements of the Windsor Report and the Dromantine Communiqué,” said the Most Rev. Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria, in a press release. “The elections and actions of their 75th General Convention, however, make it clear that far from turning back they are even more committed to pursuing their unbiblical revisionist agenda.

“We believe we are continuing the tradition of missionary bishops that has always been an essential part of Anglicanism and which the Church of Nigeria has embraced in response to the 1988 Lambeth Conference Call for a Decade of Evangelism.”

Canon Minns was informed of his election by telephone at 10:15 a.m., today.

“I’m thrilled and honored that they have put this kind of trust in me,” Canon Minns told The Living Church.

Canon Minns said his episcopal election was one of several to occur during the meeting of the Nigerian House of Bishops. All of the other bishops-elect are for dioceses in Nigeria, he said. Canon Minns said several months before his election he had informed his parish of his intention to resign and that a search process is already underway to find his successor as rector.

“I made it clear to them that I felt it was time for them to get a new rector,” he said. “The vestry has asked me to stay on until the new person is in place.”

The Rt. Rev. Peter J. Lee, Bishop of Virginia, according to Canon Minns, is already aware of the plans for what Canon Minns described as a “coadjutor process for a rector.” He was not aware where or when his consecration and ordination as a missionary bishop in the Church of Nigeria was to take place, explaining that the Church of Nigeria typically goes through about a week of further discernment after an episcopal election.

Martyn Minns elected missionary bishop by Church of Nigeria; will lead 'Convocation for Anglicans in North America' (CANA)

Martyn Minns elected missionary bishop by Church of Nigeria; will lead 'Convocation for Anglicans in North America' (CANA)

FAIRFAX, VA, June 28, 2006, 1:00 p.m.—The Rev. Canon Martyn Minns, Rector of Truro Church in Fairfax City, Virginia, was elected today as a "missionary bishop" of the Convocation for Anglicans in North America (CANA) by the House of Bishops of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion). CANA was created by the Church of Nigeria as a mission to meet the needs of Anglican Nigerians in the wake of the revisionist actions of the Episcopal Church USA at its last triennial General Convention in 2003. In his role of missionary bishop Canon Minns will provide oversight to the pastors of CANA congregations.

Canon Minns, age 63, has been the rector of Truro Church in Fairfax, Virginia, since 1991. He was informed today of his election by the Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola, Primate of the Church of Nigeria.

In a telephone call this morning, Minns simply said, “The Church of Nigeria is a thriving church with millions of new members in recent years, and Archbishop Akinola, as Time magazine recently reported, is a strong leader for Christian orthodoxy. I’m truly humbled by the trust placed in me to serve as a bishop within this branch of the Anglican Communion at this critical time.”

Foreign-born bishops are not unusual. Virtually any parish priest may be elected a bishop by any province or diocese. “Missionary opportunities must not be lost and missionary bishops could be leaders in mission from everywhere to everywhere,” was the sentiment expressed by the African Anglican Bishops Conference in 2004.

Canon Minns and his senior warden Mr. Jim Oakes were in Richmond, VA, this morning for a meeting with the Right Rev. Peter Lee, Bishop of Virginia. At that meeting they debriefed with Bishop Lee about the denomination’s recently held General Convention 2006 which was held in Ohio. They also informed the bishop about Truro’s "40 Days of Discernment”© program, a congregation-wide reflection this fall to help decide Truro's future.

Canon Minns received news of the election this morning shortly after having met with Bishop Lee. Upon receiving the telephone call from Nigeria, Minns immediately phoned the bishop to tell him of his election. Bishop Lee expressed his appreciation for the call and his hope that Minns would continue to serve as rector until his successor was in place. They agreed that fulfilling both roles would be unusual and to talk further.

A special meeting of the Truro vestry has been called for this evening where this development will be discussed. With the approval of the Truro vestry, Minns plans to remain rector of Truro until a search process for a new rector is complete. He indicated he would serve as missionary bishop without remuneration while he remains at Truro.

Jim Oakes, senior warden of Truro’s lay-elected board, said, “Nigeria’s selection of Martyn, quite frankly, couldn’t be a better one. I don’t know of any other Episcopal priest who has such a long track record of hands-on ministry and mission partnerships with the Global South. I am really glad for him. And, I look forward to working with Bishop Lee as Truro completes its search for a new rector.”

Church of Nigeria elects Missionary Bishop for Convocation of Anglicans in North America

Church of Nigeria elects Missionary Bishop for Convocation of Anglicans in North America

In addition to a number of other Episcopal elections the House of Bishop of the Church of Nigeria, meeting in Abuja on June 27th and 28th, elected the Revd Canon Martyn Minns, Rector of Truro Church, Fairfax, Virginia to serve as our Missionary Bishop for CANA – the Convocation of Anglicans in North America – a missionary initiative of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion). The Primate has also appointed a team of three other bishops led by the Rt. Reverend Benjamin Kwashi to coordinate Episcopal Visitors, i.e. bishops from the Church of Nigeria, to work alongside him.


CANA was first announced in 2005 after full consultation with the Nigerian congregations in America, together with the enthusiastic endorsement of the Episcopal Synod and the Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria. It functions as a ministry of the Church of Nigeria in America but has its own legal and ecclesial structure and now has its own local episcopate.

The intention is not to challenge or intervene in the churches of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada but rather to provide safe harbour for those who can no longer find their spiritual home in those churches.

Archbishop Peter Akinola said that, “We have already witnessed God’s blessing on our decision to elect a missionary Bishop to the Congo. We have also recently decided to appoint a non-geographic Bishop for migrant Fulani herdsmen who number over 12 million across West Africa sub region.” He also said that he was “mindful of the precedent set by the Convocation of American Churches in Europe and also the recent action of the Archbishop of Canterbury in welcoming the Rt. Reverend Sandy Millar, Assistant Bishop in the Church of Uganda, as a Bishop in Mission in England.” In all this he said that, “we believe we are continuing the tradition of Missionary Bishops that has always been an essential part of Anglicanism and which the Church of Nigeria has embraced in response to the 1988 Lambeth Conference Call for a Decade of Evangelism.”

He also stated that, “We have deliberately held back from this action until now because of our hope that the Episcopal Church USA would heed the cry of the Anglican Communion as expressed in the essential elements of the Windsor Report and the Dromantine Communiqué. The elections and actions of their 75th General Convention, however, make it clear that far from turning back they are even more committed to pursuing their unbiblical revisionist agenda.”

“For the sake of the mission of Christ and out of faithful obedience to His Gospel we have no other choice than to offer Biblically faithful episcopal care to our beleaguered congregations and others who will not compromise the ‘faith once delivered to the saints.’”

BREAKING NEWS - New Bishop Elected

For Immediate Release

The Primate of All Nigeria (Anglican Communion), the Most Rev Peter Akinola has announced the election of new Bishops in the Church of Nigeria.

The election was conducted at the Episcopal Synod of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), which met on Wednesday, June 28 2006, at All Saints Church Wuse Abuja.

The Bishops-elect are:

Ø The Rev Canon Christian Ideh, of Igbudu Christian Centre, Emevor, for the Diocese of Warri.

Ø The Venerable Musa Tula, of St Stephen’s Anglican Church Wange-Tula, Gombe State, for the Diocese of Bauchi.

Ø The Very Rev Adebayo Akinde, of the Cathedral of St Peter Ake, Abeokuta, Ogun State, for the newly created Diocese of Lagos Mainland. The inauguration of the diocese will come up in August.

Ø The Rev Canon Martyn Minns of Truro Parish in Virginia, USA was also elected Bishop in the Church of Nigeria for the missionary initiative of the Church of Nigeria called Convocation of Anglican Churches in North America (CANA).

The Episcopal Synod also decided to elect the Rt. Rev Simon Mutum of the Diocese of Jalingo as Bishop for non-geographic nomadic mission.

The consecration of the Bishops-elect will be announced later.

On Stage Review - Dylan in Cardiff

First Night: Bob Dylan, The Arena, Cardiff
Dylan gives an awe-inspiring process to witness

By Andy Gill
Published: 28 June 2006
The Independent

There were probably a few among tonight's audience holding out the vain hope that Dylan might premiere a few numbers from his forthcoming album, Modern Times, but Bob's wariness about bootleggers has long since put paid to such fancies: these days, he doesn't play a song live until it's shipped and stocked on the shelves.

Still, tonight's show offered just about everything a Dylan fan of any standing might want, even if we had to wait for the customary encores of "Like A Rolling Stone" and "All Along The Watchtower".

Okay, there may not have been a "Blowing In The Wind", but there was compensation aplenty in a "Don't Think Twice, It's All Right" fitted out with a closing guitar duet in fluid Les Paul style, and a "Girl From The North Country" rendered in a stately descending chord structure that served to emphasise its poignancy. There was even a rare outing for "Stuck Inside Of Mobile With The Memphis Blues Again", featuring one of Bob's best vocal deliveries, sly and conspiratorial, as if recounting an absurd secret.

The set-up was familiar from recent years' shows: Dylan in stylish black at his electric organ, side on to the audience, whilst his grey-suited band spread across the stage, with the new pedal steel guitarist just behind Bob on a dais. All save the pedal steel guy are wearing hats - maybe he's on hat probation? They ease into the show with an easy-rolling version of "Maggie's Farm", Dylan shaking the hoarseness out of his pipes but still managing to infuse the line "They say sing while you save, but ... I get BORED!" with a certain fire.

Boredom is what drives him, of course: the fear that things may stay the same, that there may not be a new wrinkle to add to his old material, that there may come a time when it has no resonance with the present.

Dylan's organ technique is just as fitful and quixotic as his lead guitar stylings used to be, and never more so than on "Positively 4th Street", where it verges on the utterly random. As a result, the song morphs out of shape, tugged one way by his organ, and another way by his equally bizarre vocal. By contrast, his delivery of the excoriating "Ballad Of A Thin Man" is superb, recalling blues extemporiser Lightnin' Hopkins in the way he hangs the hapless "Mistah ... Jones" off the end of the chorus, running it into the next verse like a schoolmaster tugging a wayward pupil by the ear: "See! This is what it is, Jones minor!"

The newer material is, as a rule, less subject to Dylan's alterations than his old standards. Both "Love Sick" and "Summer Days" are crisp and slick, and "Cold Irons Bound" is quite stunning, with a hypnotic, stealthy tread that, in the show's most expertly wielded dynamic, becomes predatory and, finally, darkly majestic.

Something similar happens with the set-closing "All Along The Watchtower", which bulges with barely reined-in power as Dylan bites off the staccato syllables two by two - "ALLa-LONGthe-WATCHtow'r ... PRINces-KEPTthe-VIEW...", like a sculptor chipping away doggedly, trying to find exact form. It's an awe-inspiring process to witness, one of the few surviving wonders of the Great American Experiment, as enduring in its own way as Mount Rushmore, Citizen Kane or Charlie Chaplin. Catch him while you can.

London Times Editorial: Profound Repercussions expected in The Episcopal Church following release of the Canterbury Statement

The Lambeth Walk
The Times of London Editorial

No one could accuse Rowan Williams of not saying that extra prayer or going the extra mile along the rocky road. He has wrestled with the tensions, arguments and conflict over homosexual clergy for more than three years in an attempt to hold together a Church of England more rent with division than at any time for the past two centuries. The effort has cost the office of archbishop dear and has brought the Church to the brink of schism. Now he has decided that the time for emollience is over.

Exasperated by the repeated failure of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America to heed the pleas for restraint from other members of the Anglican Communion, he has drafted plans to expel the Americans from the worldwide Anglican Church, and offer it only “associate” membership. It is schism in all but name.

Under the proposals, widely canvassed and discussed in detail with theologians and fellow clergy, all 38 provinces of the Church will be invited to sign a “covenant”, setting out the traditional biblical standards on which Anglicans around the world can agree. Those who refuse to do so will forfeit the right to full communion and will either have to cut their links with Canterbury altogether or be offered a looser arrangement similar to the status agreed with the Methodists three years ago. The three provinces that are almost certain to break away are the American Church, the Anglican Churches in Canada and New Zealand that have also supported gay ordination, and possibly also the liberal Scottish Episcopal Church, from which the American Church was born.

Many in the Anglican Communion, especially the populous churches in Africa and the evangelical conservatives in Britain, will applaud Dr Williams for a move that they argue is overdue. They will have no difficulty at the next Lambeth Conference in 2008 in signing the covenant, which they will see as a victory for traditional views and a decisive rebuff to moves to liberalise that have so infuriated churches in the southern hemisphere.

The repercussions within the American Church will be profound. It is already deeply split between liberals who supported the ordination of Gene Robinson and conservatives who saw the nomination of an openly gay bishop as anathema. The liberals are eager to show that they are not iso- lated, however, and have changed their name to the Episcopal Church to cement links with some 16 other Anglican communities worldwide. They will, if they leave the orbit of Canterbury, be seen as a rival Anglican communion — and at bitter odds with conservatives in America, who will side with Canterbury.

A question that arises, but has rightly played little part in the theological debate, is money. The US Church is rich, and underwrites much of the budget of Anglicans in Africa and the developing world. That, and ownership of American church buildings, is a matter now for lawyers to settle.

Dr Williams has not ended the agonising over homosexuality, an issue that has become an emotive yardstick of all “liberal” attitudes that still divide Anglicans. But he has shown the leadership essential for any primate. This has come at some cost to his own liberal instincts. But he understands that his office must come first. There may yet still be time for reconciliation. If not, at least he has given the Church clarity and genuine leadership.

Hear Rowan Williams Speak to the Current Crisis in the Anglican Communion

Click on the headline above to hear the Archbishop of Canterbury speak to the current crisis in the Anglican Communion following the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Columbus.

ACI's "Short Summary" of the Canterbury Statement

At a glance:

Shorter Summary

Commitment to the Communion’s teaching, on the basis of Scriptural and historic teaching reached in common council.

Recognition of the unacceptability, in communion terms, of TEC’s decisions and actions over the past 3 years.

Recognition of the inevitability of fracture this has caused.

Commitment to strengthening the doctrinal and disciplinary unity of the Communion through a Covenant.

Recognition that this will involve some Anglican churches “opting” for or against membership in the Communion.

Recognition that this may involve separations among and within churches.

Commitment to a “collegial and collaborative” decision-making process that itself marks the nature of communion.

Read the whole thing by clicking the headline above.

Time Out for HP: Transcript of Interview with JK Rowling

NOTE: The Leaky Cauldron (TLC) reader Roonwit has produced this transcript for Part One of the interview with Jo on the Richard & Judy Show, which you can read below. The Richard & Judy Show is from England. Stay tuned for Part Two.

Richard: And Jo joins us now. And I love that clip because it epitomises for me what is really good about the later of your books. We just left this valley of pain and distress which is bringing up adolescents, you're about to enter it.

Jo: Oh Good. Something to look forward to then.

Richard: It is just as bad as you think its going to be, I can tell you. But that's what's lovely about the sequence of books. You can see Harry turning into a grumpy adolescent and all those around him going through those adolescent pains. You draw it very accurately, and you don't have adolescent kids yourself. Is that just based on friends and conversations with friends who have got them?

Jo: Well I taught teenagers for a while. They were my favourite age group to teach in fact. So I think I drew a bit on that, and I drew on memories of how grumpy we all were when we were teenagers. We weren't the ... My sister's here to watch this and she was very grumpy so I drew a lot on her.

Judy: Is she older than you?

Jo: She's two years younger than me.

Judy: I know what I want to happen at the end of the whole Harry Potter thing, I want Harry to marry Ginny Weasley and I want Ron to marry Hermione - no I don't - yes I do, I want Ron to marry Hermione and I will be so upset if it doesn't happen. But of course the last one at the moment is residing in your safe?

Jo: The final chapter is hidden away, although it has now changed very sightly. One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die ...

Judy: Two much loved ones?

Jo: Well, you know. A price has to be paid. We are dealing with pure evil. They don't target the extras do they? They go for the main characters, or I do.

Richard: We don't care about the extras. You told your husband, obviously you confide in him all things ...

Jo: Well, not everything. That would be reckless.

Richard: That would be stupid, lets be honest. You did tell him which ones were for the chop and apparently he shuddered and said "No, not that one"
Jo: He did on one of them, yeah.

Richard: All the papers that have been promoting this interview today clearlywant us to ask you do you kill off Harry Potter, which is a ridiculous question because are you likely to say yes or no? Obviously not. You couldn't possibly answer that, but have you ever been tempted to do him a little more harm than he has suffered

Judy: He's suffered enough, he's been though the mill.

Jo: How could I? Every year of his adolescence and childhood he saved the wizarding world and then no-one believes him - he spends his entire life saving the world, and next term he is back at school being bullied.

Judy: There is this great Harry Potter who has just saved your entire school and all your skins ...

Jo: And everyone just thinks he is a bit annoying.

Richard: I was dodging around the death bit, because I know you can't answer that queestion, But you know how Conan-Doyle got sick up to there of Sherlock Holmes ...

Jo: Yeah
Richard: so pushed him off the cliff at the Reichenbech falls, I'm not asking if you have done that obviously, but have you ever been tempted to bump him off because it is such a huge thing in your life.

Jo: I've never been tempted to kill him off before the end of book 7. I have always planned seven books and that is where I want to go, where I want to finish on seven books. But I can completely understand the mentality of an author who thinks well I am going to kill them off because that means there can be no non-author written sequels as they call them, so it will end with me and after I am dead and gone, they would be able to bring back the character and right a load of ...

Richard: That never stuck me before. I thought it would free you up.

Jo: Agatha Christe did that with Poirot, didn't she, she wanted to finish him off herself.

Judy: Well you say you can completely understand it, but you are not going to commit yourself to whether ...

Jo: No, I am not going to commit myself. I don't what the hate mail, apart from anything else.

Judy: When you started off, when you first thought about Harry, what came first, was it the idea of the magic or the character Harry, or the boarding school, were you a big keen reader of boarding school stories?

Jo: I read a few when I was younger.

Judy: Angela Brazil?

Jo: I never read Angela Brazil, I read some Mallory towers and they don't bear re-reading but when I was six I really liked them. But I think Harry and magic came together so the essential idea was a boy who was a wizard without knowing he was a wizard, that was it, that was the premise, and then I worked backwards from there - how could he not know, so that is where all the back story came and there is a lot of back story as you know, and in fact now I am in book seven, I realise just how much back story there is because there is still a lot to explain and a lot find out.

Richard: You must have had to invent the back story further, further down the line, you couldn't possibly have started with this massive ...

Jo: Oh no, of course I didn't. I've got I don't know how many characters in play, but I've got a lot of 200 or something ridiculous

Richard: But did you think as you were writing the subsequent books - Oh why did I write that ...

Jo: Yes.

Richard: ... in Book 2 that screwed me and I can't write such and such now ...

Jo: Yeah. Never - I don't think I have ever done that on a really major plot point, but certainly a couple of things I have hit a snag, and I have thought well I have boxed myself in - if only I had left something open earlier then there would be an easier way to wriggle through that hole, but I have always found a way

Richard: Like chess.

Jo: Well it is a complicated plot, and the resolution is ...

Judy: Yeah, keeping it all in your mind ...

Richard: But is the last book finished now? Judy says it was in your safe, I know the last chapter ...

Jo: No, the last book is not finished, though I am well into it now

Richard: But you have written the finale already ..

Jo: I wrote the final chapter in something like 1990? oh hang on, I wrote the final chapter in something like 1990

Judy: really, so you knew exactly how the series was going to end

Jo: Well pretty much yeah.

Judy: Gosh

Jo: I've been lambasted for that by a couple of people. I think they thought it was very arrogant of me to write the ending of my seven book series when I didn't have a publisher and no-one had ever heard of me, but when you have got absolutely nothing you can plan whatever you like can't you, who cares?

Judy: Absolutely, and before we ask how you started writing the other thing that stuck all of us including our son who is a megafan was when the books started to get darker, the whole evil-good thing started to get much stronger and I think that was - well it was a bit darker with the mudbloodsin the second book, but in the Prisoner of Azkaban that's when it got really heavy ...

Jo: The dementors

Judy: With the dementors, yeah, all of that, and was that something you intended all along, or did it just develop?

Jo: I did intend it all along, because as Harry grows up, these parallel things are happening aren't they, Harry's getting older and older and more and more skilled, and simultaneously Voldemort is getting more and more powerful and he is returning to a physical form, because of couse in the first book he isn't a physical entity really, but people have always said that to me, and I agree that the books have got a lot darker. The imagery in the first book where Voldemort appears in the back of Quirrell's head, I still think is one of the creepiest things I have ever written - I really do - and also the image of the cloaked figure drinking the unicorn blood this thing slithering across the ground which they did very well in the film of Philosopher's Stone, I think those are very macabre images so I don't think that you could say from the first book that I wasn't setting out my stall really, I was saying that this is a world were some pretty nasty things happen.

Judy: Yes I know that but what I am saying is that what I started to see was parallels with things like racism and

Jo: Yes, definitely

Judy: aparteid and genocide and all that sort of stuff.

Jo: That was very conscious, that Harry entered this world that a lot of us would fanticize would be wonderful, I've got a magic wand and everything will be fabulous, and the point being that human nature is human nature, whatever special powers and talents you have, so he walks though, well you could say the looking glass couldn't you, he walks into this amazing world, and it is amazing, and he immediately encounters all the problems you think he would have left behind and they are in an even more extravagent form because everything is exacerbated by magic.

Richard: You can run but you can't hide.

Jo: Definitely yes. Richard: You have talked about having a game plan of seven books from the word go, before you even had a publisher, and you must have been doing back-handsprings of delight when the Philosopher's Stone got published.

Jo: Yes, I was.

Richard: any author, to have their first book published,br> Jo: an unbelievable moment yeah

Richard: What pleasure, and optimisism

Jo: You could pretty much say that nothing since has come close, but that is testimony to what a moment of euphoria that was.

Richard: When did the euphoria change to something ...

Jo: to terror?

Richard: Well maybe it was terror, but at what point in the books did you think, well hold on, this isn't just a best seller, this isn't just quite a nice series where I am enjoying and the readers are, this is unprecedented. It has been said that if you put all the books that have been bought, that you have written about Harry Potter, end to end they go around the world, around the equator nearly one and a half times, and we ain't finished yet. When did you wake up and think this is historic? Because it is historic, you will go down in publishing history, over probably the next three centuries

Jo: I honestly don't think of it in those terms, although for the first books I was in real denial, about, I really lived in denial for a long time.

Judy: about the fame?

Jo: Yeah, totally. And I think that is where my reputation for being somewhat

Richard: recluse?

Jo: Po-faced came from, because I was like a rabbit caught in the headlights, and the only way I could cope was it's small not really that big a deal, you know, and things keep on happening, journalists start doorstepping you and you pick up a paper and there are causal references to Harry Potter, that's the freakiest thing, is that it permiates odd stories and it becomes - that's more of an indication to me how big it has become than anything else, I remember there was a phase where I didn't buy the papers, because it was becoming a bit strange to me, and normally I devour newspapers, and then, it was Wimbledon - this was a few years back - and I thought, it is safe to read Wimbledon, stop being so ... get over yourself, so I picked up this paper andI turn to this account of a match with Venus Williams and they said, I just saw Harry Potter staring up at me, and they were talking about bludgers, you know the balls in Quidditch, and they were saying that her serve was so powerful, it was being compared to a bludger, with not much explanation, but that was very cool - things like that are wonderful.

Richard: But that's the fame thing. That's entering the lexicon of ordinarydialogue, what they call water cooler conversation, and that's not just to do with reading the latest book, its a continuous thing with you now. What about the wealth? And I don't mean to be prurient about that because it is just want it is, but you are unbelievably wealthy, beyond the dreams of avarice, really. How has that changed life for you?

Jo: Well, it's great!

Richard: Thank you for saying that.

Jo: Frankly, not to crack out the violins or anything, but if you have been through a few years where things have been very tough and they were very tough, and it's not so much romanticised, but it is dismissed in half a sentence, oh starving in a garret, and occasionally I have thought well you try it pal, you go there and see, it wasn't a publicity stunt, it was my life, and at that time I didn't know there was going to be this amazing resolution, I thought this would be life for twenty years.

Richard: But did you ever fell guilty about the amount of money, because ...

Jo: Yeah, I did, I absolutely did. There came a point where, because initially I have to say that initially people were reporting, and they still do frequently report much more than I have got - I am not pretending I am not hugely wealthy because I am - but sometimes they print figures that certainly my accountant wouldn't recognize. But in the early days they were saying I was a millionaire and I was nowhere near a millionaire. So that's weird and mind-warping when you are used to counting every penny Richard: Seventy quid a week you were on?

Jo: Yeah

Judy: So, What was happening to you was that basically, there was you the same as you had ever been, writing this book that you were thinking about andwriting for ages.

Jo: for donkeys years

Judy: and suddenly it took off, just this one book, and the next book, and you suddenly realised that this person, you, actually had taken on a life of her own, which wasn't you at all, and you were completely

Jo: I think that is completely accurate and think that you sit there thinking but I am still the same idiot I was yesterday, but suddenly people are interested in what I have got to say and my response to that was to clam up a lot because I felt that suddenly this light had been shone on me, underneath my stone, and it was a time of real turmoil when I first became subjected to that kind of scuntiny, because I felt a loyalty to the person I had been yesterday, and I didn't want to say oh it was dreadful because it really hadn't been dreadful and we'd been doing okay and I'd been teaching and my daughter would still say, said to me yesterday in fact, that we were happy, so I didn't want to sit there and say oh it was all dreadful, and now it is fabulous darling because I have got a bit of money

Judy: And is your daughter - your two new ones are still too little but Jessicawho has been with you right from the beginning really and she adapted to it okay?

Jo: She's been phenomenal, and it hasn't always been easy for her because, well you can imagine, your mother being J.K. Rowling. At one point I can remember her being pretty, metaphorically speaking, up against the school railings, tell us what the title of the next book is, isn't not terribly easy

Judy: Up against the school railing by?

Jo: By other children, trying to get titles out of her and things, but she was amazing, she was very cool.

Richard: And what about - its not so much to do with the weatlh, though it might have been actually, but certainly the fame thing - before you met your lovely husband, your incredibly lovely husband

Jo: Yes he is a lovely husband

Richard: Rock star looks, before that the dating

Judy: [picture] There he is

Richard: between the relationship that led to your lovely daughter, and him, there was a period where you found this immense weatlh and success, and you have said that dating was really tricky, really hard, was that because you expected guys to be coming on to you because of who you were

Jo: It wasn't so much that. To be perfectly honest with you, dating is just tricky if you are a single mother. That's it. And the other business was a vaguely complicating factor, but by the time you have got a baby sitter, the reality of life was, and I didn't have a nanny for quite a long time, I didn't have properly organised child care because I think I was just - again I was in denial about it, that I needed it, and then there came a point where I clearly needed it, I couldn't cover all my professional obligations, even though I was trying to keep them minimal

Richard: You wanted to say I can cope, I can handle this.

Jo: Yeah, I did which is very much in my personality to pretend I can cope with things, and not ask for help, until I've cracked up a bit.

Richard: Well we are all like that

Judy: So coming back, looking to where you are now personally as well as career wise professionally and all that, you are in a very good place, touch wood

Jo: Yeah

Judy: Not that there is any wood around he to touch but - You are very happy, you have a lovely family ...

Jo: I am really lucky and I think that every day, I swear, every day I think how lucky I am,

Richard: Just looking at the constant theme - we will take a break in a couple minutesbut then you're back and we've got some children in with questions but before they arrive - as you've said yourself, the theme of the books is death isn't it,

Jo: Largely Richard: It is a hugely powerful theme, and you were writing the first one when your mother died, she was 45, and you were very close to her and had you invisaged that death would be such a powerful theme before her death, or did it inform that sense of loss

Jo: Definitely informed it. In the first draft - I had only been writing Harry for 6 months bfore she died - and in the first draft I finished off his parents in a rather flippant way - and then mum died, and I just couldn't finish off his parents in that flippant way, I couldn't, not now knowing what it felt like to lose a parent. That's very, very different.

Judy: So that is why Harry's parents maintain this presence

Jo: They do maintain, yeah.

Judy: In the photographs

Richard: And in the mirror, of course

Jo: And in the mirror, yeah

Richard: And when you wrote that, I would be surprised if you were say that perhaps you shed a few tears, when you wrote those sequences, when Harry sits there lost in reflections

Jo: That is my favourite chapter of the first book

Richard: It's a lovely chapter

Jo: It's one of my favourite chapters in the whole series.

Judy: That's what so reassuring about the books, they do deal with straight forward evil and death, you always seem to leave a thread somewhere, even though they're inside ... I love all the headmasters, the past headmasters and teachers in their little frames ... Just to end this particular section: I always loved that - what was his name - the one who was always putting his hair in curlers, the Professor

Jo: Gilderoy

Judy: I love that idea of him, in the evenings sitting in that thing, taking his curlers out, putting them in and everything. There is a great deal of humour in the book as well, and presumably that is just part of your character?

Jo: Yeah, I think so, though you wouldn't always imagine it from the way I am described, would you, the old curmudgeon, But yes, I think so.

Richard: Well, as you say, the last chapter is in the safe, you are tidying up the rest of the manuscript, but this is the last of the books, that's it?

Jo: Yeah, well I have always said I might do a kind of encyclopaedia of the world for charity, just to round it off.
Richard: But that's not the same as the creative ...

Jo: No, absolutely not. It is not the same as a story.

Richard: Can you live without Harry?

Jo: Well, I am going to have to learn, its going to be tough.

Richard: Why not extend it to nine then, seriously why stick to the seven? Is it too much to ask to do ...

Jo: Because I think you have got to go out, when you've

Richard: when you have done it?

Jo: Yeah, I think you have. I admire the people who go out when people still want more. And that's what I want to do.
Richard: But I am also told, well actually I read this in Tatler, maybe it is an ungaurded comment you made, that you have already completed another children's book for younger children.

Jo: Oh yeah. Its not completed, but its pretty far on, about half way

Richard: How long has that been in your mind for?

Jo: Not nearly as long as Harry. A few years.

Richard: And are you happy with it?

Jo: I really like it. It's for younger children, it's a kind of a fairy tale, it's a much smaller book, so that would probably be a nice thing to go to after Harry, not another huge tome.

Richard: Is that the future then, can you envisage yourself picking up another huge idea like Harry Potter and running it over ...

Jo: If I liked the idea enough I definitely would, but I don't think that I'm ever going to have anything like Harry again, I think you just get one, like Harry.

Judy: Well, I think most people are hoping that in some point in your life that you will come back to him in some way, shape or form there will be something, you will have generations ...

Jo: Harry Potter's mid-life crisis?

Richard: Should he survive to see one?

Jo: Should he survive to see one.

Network Moderator Welcomes Canterbury Statement

ARCHBISHOP WILLIAMS’ STATEMENT HELPFUL IN SHAPING THE FUTURE OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION, SAYS BISHOP DUNCAN

Bishop Robert Duncan, moderator of the Anglican Communion Network and bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, welcomed Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ recent statement on the future of the Anglican Communion.

“Archbishop Williams has clearly recognized the immediate need to stabilize the Communion according to agreed theological understandings and mutual submission. Further, for the first time, the Archbishop himself is acknowledging that some parts of the communion will not be able to continue in full membership if they insist on maintaining teaching and action outside of the received faith and order. Finally, the Archbishop clearly understands that the fault lines in the communion run not only between provinces, but through them and that there may well be a need within provinces for an ‘ordered and mutually respectful separation,’ between those who desire to submit to the Communion’s teaching and those who do not,” said Bishop Duncan.

In the United States, for instance, this will surely create a situation where affiliates of the Anglican Communion Network and others who so choose would be able to continue in full communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the worldwide church, while the majority of the Episcopal Church would have only “associated” status. ”No church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference on how it is regarded in the fellowship,” said Archbishop Williams.

Bishop Duncan also lauded Archbishop Williams’ call to the church to “give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage.” “I, of course, could not agree more with the Archbishop in calling for the protection of those whose affections are ordered toward the same sex. Discrimination or violence against them as persons should be abhorrent to Christians, regardless of our understanding of what the church can and cannot bless,” said Bishop Duncan.

While the international actions Archbishop Williams is proposing will not come into being overnight, Bishop Duncan told affiliates and partners of the Anglican Communion Network that is no reason to simply sit down and wait for the outcome. “We are building a biblical, missionary and unifying future for Anglicanism in North America right now. While there are likely difficult times ahead, we can rest assured that when all is said and done, there will be a place for us in the worldwide Anglican Communion,” said Bishop Duncan, “What can you do right now? Do the mission.”

Cautiously Hopeful: An Initial Response to Rowan Williams Statement

By Kendall Harmon

I am at Kanuga with four of five family members in full General Convention recovery mode, so bear that in mind as you read this. I am still heavily in ecclesiastical detox, whatever that fully means

Each time I have read Rowan Williams statement today I have liked it better. I wish late this afternoon to highlight one simple aspect of it that I think is crucial: above all this is a theological question which has to be settled by wrestling with Holy Scripture.

Nine times in the statement the word Bible is used; three times the word Scripture. I was especially struck by this paragraph:

Unless you think that social and legal considerations should be allowed to resolve religious disputes – which is a highly risky assumption if you also believe in real freedom of opinion in a diverse society – there has to be a recognition that religious bodies have to deal with the question in their own terms. Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching. And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about ‘inclusion’, this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against – and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.

Read it carefully again and note the boldfaced sections. The leader of the communion is calling us back to the Bible as the common basis of our faith and that to which we need to be loyal. There is a devastating critique of The Episcopal Church under the surface here. Yes, we have been unilateral, that isn’t good, yes, we put the cart before the horse and did not settle the same sex unions question first, that isn’t good, but above all we as a province have not discerned this question as above all a theological question.

Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching. I cannot say a loud enough amen to that–KSH.

Worldwide Anglican church facing split

By Ruth Gledhill, The London Times

The Archbishop of Canterbury has outlined proposals that are expected to lead to the exclusion of The Episcopal Church of the United States from the Anglican Church as a consequence of consecrating a gay bishop.

The US branch of Anglicanism faces losing its status of full membership of the Anglican Church in the wake of its consecration of the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, an act which has propelled the worldwide church to the brink of schism.

The final straw came when The Episcopal Church failed to "repent" of its action at its General Convention in Columbus, Ohio earlier this month, and failed to vote through a moratorium on any more gay consecrations.

Dr Williams is proposing a two-track Anglican Communion, with orthodox churches being accorded full, "constituent" membership and the rebel, pro-gay liberals being consigned to "associate" membership.

All provinces will be offered the chance to sign up to a "covenant" which will set out the traditional, biblical standards on which all full members of the Anglican church can agree.

But it is highly unlikely that churches such as The Episcopal Church in the US, the Anglican churches in Canada and New Zealand and even the Scottish Episcopal Church would be able to commit themselves fully to such a document.

These churches and any others that refused to sign up could opt to cut ties to Canterbury altogether, or could choose to remain in associate status.

In a letter to the 37 other Primates of the provinces of the Anglican Communion, Dr Rowan Williams says that such churches would be comparable to the Methodist Church in Britain.

Ironically, in 2003 the Methodist Church signed a covenant with the Church of England at a service at Westminster Central Hall witnessed by the Queen, Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

The fudged schism outlined in Dr Williams’ letter opens the door to the possibility of Methodists moving slowly towards full unity with the Anglicans, while Episcopalians fall by the wayside. Once Methodists start ordaining bishops and Anglicans in England start ordaining women bishops, there will be nothing to stop the two declaring full unity, unless the Methodists also start consecrating gay bishops.

The proposals will be discussed soon at the next meeting of the standing committee of the 38 Primates, and then at the Primates’ meeting in February. They will come to the table of the worldwide church, along with the wording of the proposed covenant, at the Lambeth Conference in 2008.

It is then that The Episcopal Church and others will face the choice of signing up to biblical orthodoxy, or walking away from the Anglican Communion table to the hinterland of "associate" status.

But as Anglicans find more common ground with Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists and others, the next Archbishop of Canterbury could well decide to resolve the problem of who to invite to the 2018 Lambeth Conference by simply inviting the leaders of all churches in the Protestant world who recognised each other’s sacraments. Or he (or she) might decide it is not worth the fuss, and cancel the 2018 Lambeth Conference altogether.

Weblogs in Britain and America carried strong reactions to the letter, which is certain to be seen in future as a defining document in Anglican church history.

The Rev Mark Harris, an episcopal priest of the Delaware diocese and a deputy to General Convention, quoted the US Declaration of Independence and said: "General Convention 2006 will go down in history, among other reasons, for the clarity with which the Church of England has attempted to exercise direct and indirect ecclesiastical colonial control."

He continued: "Unless these advisors are willing to take seriously the contextual situation, namely that the Episcopal Church is not an appendage of some ecclesial equivalent of the British Commonwealth, but rather a free and independent people willing and desirous of companions in faith, the road ahead will be bumpy indeed."

Conservative evangelicals have however welcomed the proposals. Canon Chris Sugden, Executive Secretary of Anglican Mainstream, said: "The Archbishop’s letter rightly recognises the priority of scripture and that the church must respond on the basis of the Bible and historic teaching rather than cultural or rights based views.

"In asking for local churches to ‘opt-in’ to the Anglican Communion and by recognising that division exists not only between provinces of the Communion but also in each locality, he is providing a basis which an orthodox Anglican presence in the United States could be maintained. The oppression of minorities by majorities, or vice versa, clearly, and rightly, has no place in the Archbishop's vision for the future of the Communion."

Liberals in the UK warned against creating a two-tier church. The Rev Richard Jenkins, director of Affirming Catholicism, said: "As a Belfast-born Christian I have to say that partition doesn’t work. We are all diminished by division and need each other’s insights to flourish.

"If a formal covenant is intended to help us to live in solidarity with each other then it must function in a dynamic way, not simply acting as a brake on every development. This will be a difficult task but one which we will apply ourselves to."

Affirming Catholicism is the organisation Dr Williams helped to set up with the celibate gay Jeffrey John, who became Dean of St Albans after Dr Williams blocked his elevation as Bishop of Reading.

Rowan Addresses Walking Apart - Constituent and Associated

Rowan Williams writes today:

"This leaves many unanswered questions, I know, given that lines of division run within local Churches as well as between them - and not only on one issue (we might note the continuing debates on the legitimacy of lay presidency at the Eucharist). It could mean the need for local Churches to work at ordered and mutually respectful separation between 'constituent' and 'associated' elements; but it could also mean a positive challenge for Churches to work out what they believed to be involved in belonging in a global sacramental fellowship, a chance to rediscover a positive common obedience to the mystery of God's gift that was not a matter of coercion from above but of that 'waiting for each other' that St Paul commends to the Corinthians."

Oh my goodness.

Canterbury - Two Province Solution in North America?

Matt Kennedy's Initial Response to the ABC's Reflection

Quick read: This does not look good for ECUSA. It looks like a two province solution, one in full communion one in association, may be where we are headed..

Okay, here are my first impressions:

Three money quotes:

First this:

The recent resolutions of the General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report, but on this specific question there is at the very least an acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation in the extremely hard work that went into shaping the wording of the final formula.

This is an explicit recognition that ECUSA has not responded adequately to Windsor.

Second money quote:

This leaves many unanswered questions, I know, given that lines of division run within local Churches as well as between them - and not only on one issue (we might note the continuing debates on the legitimacy of lay presidency at the Eucharist). It could mean the need for local Churches to work at ordered and mutually respectful separation between ‘constituent’ and ‘associated’ elements; but it could also mean a positive challenge for Churches to work out what they believed to be involved in belonging in a global sacramental fellowship, a chance to rediscover a positive common obedience to the mystery of God’s gift that was not a matter of coercion from above but of that ‘waiting for each other’ that St Paul commends to the Corinthians.

Which opens the door to two provinces one more Anglican than the other

And the third money quote is here:

That is why the process currently going forward of assessing our situation in the wake of the General Convention is a shared one. But it is nonetheless possible for the Churches of the Communion to decide that this is indeed the identity, the living tradition – and by God’s grace, the gift - we want to share with the rest of the Christian world in the coming generation; more importantly still, that this is a valid and vital way of presenting the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world. My hope is that the period ahead - of detailed response to the work of General Convention, exploration of new structures, and further refinement of the covenant model - will renew our positive appreciation of the possibilities of our heritage so that we can pursue our mission with deeper confidence and harmony.

This seems to indicate that we should expect the ABC to make whatever decision is made in concert with the primates.

Quick read: This does not look good for ECUSA. It looks like a two province solution, one in full communion one in association, may be where we are headed, similar to my first scenario. The ABC has not faltered.

UPDATE: There is a growing confusion reflected in some of the comments and in some of the reaction articles that have been posted here (Ould's and Gledhill's to be specific). There are two distinct processes. First, there is the process of responding to GC2006 that will begin with the next gathering of the primates. Second, there is the covenant creation process.

ECUSA’s participation in the second depends upon a positive outcome of the first.

Remember when the first news of the covenant came out about a month or two ago?

Everyone thought that this might be Lambeth's answer to ECUSAn intransigence.

This was quickly clarified and the two processes (response to Windsor and the Covenant) were distinguished.

You can also see some evidence of this distinction in the ABC's letter to the primates three months ago where he clearly delineates the "practical issues to be addressed first" from the more macro issues that he wants to address at Lambeth.
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=11779

So from the very beginning there has always been a distinction between the two. The only reason to blend them together now is to read this completely out of context with everything that has come before

The best way to understand the interplay between the two processes is that ECUSA, having already provided a response deemed incomplete by the ABC, will likely be judged to have walked away from the Commununion in some manner or form. Perhaps ECUSA will be considered an associate under discipline?

However, this does not mean that once the covenant process is underway and the structures in place, ECUSA won’t be invited to participate in some manner. ECUSA might be invited to send observers who are, at best, granted voice but no vote. Or, if she is willing to repent of her past actions (I mean in a real way) and submit to an Anglican Covenant she could be given full participation.

The point is, the Windsor response and the Covenant process are two distinct mechanisms. Gledhill and Ould flatten both into one and end up throwing this rather clear letter from the ABC into confusion.

Rowan Williams: The Anglican Communion - A Church in Crisis?

The Anglican Communion: a Church in Crisis?

By Rowan Williams
Archbishop of Canterbury

What is the current tension in the Anglican Communion actually about? Plenty of people are confident that they know the answer. It’s about gay bishops, or possibly women bishops. The American Church is in favour and others are against – and the Church of England is not sure (as usual).

It’s true that the election of a practising gay person as a bishop in the US in 2003 was the trigger for much of the present conflict. It is doubtless also true that a lot of extra heat is generated in the conflict by ingrained and ignorant prejudice in some quarters; and that for many others, in and out of the Church, the issue seems to be a clear one about human rights and dignity. But the debate in the Anglican Communion is not essentially a debate about the human rights of homosexual people. It is possible – indeed, it is imperative – to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage, to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation, and still to believe that this doesn’t settle the question of whether the Christian Church has the freedom, on the basis of the Bible, and its historic teachings, to bless homosexual partnerships as a clear expression of God’s will. That is disputed among Christians, and, as a bare matter of fact, only a small minority would answer yes to the question.

Unless you think that social and legal considerations should be allowed to resolve religious disputes – which is a highly risky assumption if you also believe in real freedom of opinion in a diverse society – there has to be a recognition that religious bodies have to deal with the question in their own terms. Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching. And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about ‘inclusion’, this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against – and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.

Anglican Decision-Making

And this is where the real issue for Anglicans arises. How do we as Anglicans deal with this issue ‘in our own terms’? And what most Anglicans worldwide have said is that it doesn’t help to behave as if the matter had been resolved when in fact it hasn’t. It is true that, in spite of resolutions and declarations of intent, the process of ‘listening to the experience’ of homosexual people hasn’t advanced very far in most of our churches, and that discussion remains at a very basic level for many. But the decision of the Episcopal Church to elect a practising gay man as a bishop was taken without even the American church itself (which has had quite a bit of discussion of the matter) having formally decided as a local Church what it thinks about blessing same-sex partnerships.

There are other fault lines of division, of course, including the legitimacy of ordaining women as priests and bishops. But (as has often been forgotten) the Lambeth Conference did resolve that for the time being those churches that did ordain women as priests and bishops and those that did not had an equal place within the Anglican spectrum. Women bishops attended the last Lambeth Conference. There is a fairly general (though not universal) recognition that differences about this can still be understood within the spectrum of manageable diversity about what the Bible and the tradition make possible. On the issue of practising gay bishops, there has been no such agreement, and it is not unreasonable to seek for a very much wider and deeper consensus before any change is in view, let alone foreclosing the debate by ordaining someone, whatever his personal merits, who was in a practising gay partnership. The recent resolutions of the General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report, but on this specific question there is at the very least an acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation in the extremely hard work that went into shaping the wording of the final formula.

Very many in the Anglican Communion would want the debate on the substantive ethical question to go on as part of a general process of theological discernment; but they believe that the pre-emptive action taken in 2003 in the US has made such a debate harder not easier, that it has reinforced the lines of division and led to enormous amounts of energy going into ‘political’ struggle with and between churches in different parts of the world. However, institutionally speaking, the Communion is an association of local churches, not a single organisation with a controlling bureaucracy and a universal system of law. So everything depends on what have generally been unspoken conventions of mutual respect. Where these are felt to have been ignored, it is not surprising that deep division results, with the politicisation of a theological dispute taking the place of reasoned reflection.

Thus if other churches have said, in the wake of the events of 2003 that they cannot remain fully in communion with the American Church, this should not be automatically seen as some kind of blind bigotry against gay people. Where such bigotry does show itself it needs to be made clear that it is unacceptable; and if this is not clear, it is not at all surprising if the whole question is reduced in the eyes of many to a struggle between justice and violent prejudice. It is saying that, whatever the presenting issue, no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions – and sacramental actions in particular - just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches. It isn’t a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences – and that actions believed in good faith to be ‘prophetic’ in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences.

Truth and Unity

It is true that witness to what is passionately believed to be the truth sometimes appears a higher value than unity, and there are moving and inspiring examples in the twentieth century. If someone genuinely thinks that a move like the ordination of a practising gay bishop is that sort of thing, it is understandable that they are prepared to risk the breakage of a unity they can only see as false or corrupt. But the risk is a real one; and it is never easy to recognise when the moment of inevitable separation has arrived - to recognise that this is the issue on which you stand or fall and that this is the great issue of faithfulness to the gospel. The nature of prophetic action is that you do not have a cast-iron guarantee that you’re right.

But let’s suppose that there isn’t that level of clarity about the significance of some divisive issue. If we do still believe that unity is generally a way of coming closer to revealed truth (‘only the whole Church knows the whole Truth’ as someone put it), we now face some choices about what kind of Church we as Anglicans are or want to be. Some speak as if it would be perfectly simple – and indeed desirable – to dissolve the international relationships, so that every local Church could do what it thought right. This may be tempting, but it ignores two things at least.

First, it fails to see that the same problems and the same principles apply within local Churches as between Churches. The divisions don’t run just between national bodies at a distance, they are at work in each locality, and pose the same question: are we prepared to work at a common life which doesn’t just reflect the interests and beliefs of one group but tries to find something that could be in everyone’s interest – recognising that this involves different sorts of costs for everyone involved? It may be tempting to say, ‘let each local church go its own way’; but once you’ve lost the idea that you need to try to remain together in order to find the fullest possible truth, what do you appeal to in the local situation when serious division threatens?

Second, it ignores the degree to which we are already bound in with each other’s life through a vast network of informal contacts and exchanges. These are not the same as the formal relations of ecclesiastical communion, but they are real and deep, and they would be a lot weaker and a lot more casual without those more formal structures. They mean that no local Church and no group within a local Church can just settle down complacently with what it or its surrounding society finds comfortable. The Church worldwide is not simply the sum total of local communities. It has a cross-cultural dimension that is vital to its health and it is naïve to think that this can survive without some structures to make it possible. An isolated local Church is less than a complete Church.

Both of these points are really grounded in the belief that our unity is something given to us prior to our choices - let alone our votes. ‘You have not chosen me but I have chosen you’, says Jesus to his disciples; and when we gather to celebrate the Eucharist, we are saying that we are all there as invited guests, not because of what we have done. The basic challenge that practically all the churches worldwide, of whatever denomination, so often have to struggle with is, ‘Are we joining together in one act of Holy Communion, one Eucharist, throughout the world, or are we just celebrating our local identities and our personal preferences?’

The Anglican Identity

The reason Anglicanism is worth bothering with is because it has tried to find a way of being a Church that is neither tightly centralised nor just a loose federation of essentially independent bodies – a Church that is seeking to be a coherent family of communities meeting to hear the Bible read, to break bread and share wine as guests of Jesus Christ, and to celebrate a unity in worldwide mission and ministry. That is what the word ‘Communion’ means for Anglicans, and it is a vision that has taken clearer shape in many of our ecumenical dialogues.

Of course it is possible to produce a self-deceiving, self-important account of our worldwide identity, to pretend that we were a completely international and universal institution like the Roman Catholic Church. We’re not. But we have tried to be a family of Churches willing to learn from each other across cultural divides, not assuming that European (or American or African) wisdom is what settles everything, opening up the lives of Christians here to the realities of Christian experience elsewhere. And we have seen these links not primarily in a bureaucratic way but in relation to the common patterns of ministry and worship – the community gathered around Scripture and sacraments; a ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, a biblically-centred form of common prayer, a focus on the Holy Communion. These are the signs that we are not just a human organisation but a community trying to respond to the action and the invitation of God that is made real for us in ministry and Bible and sacraments. We believe we have useful and necessary questions to explore with Roman Catholicism because of its centralised understanding of jurisdiction and some of its historic attitudes to the Bible. We believe we have some equally necessary questions to propose to classical European Protestantism, to fundamentalism, and to liberal Protestant pluralism. There is an identity here, however fragile and however provisional.

But what our Communion lacks is a set of adequately developed structures which is able to cope with the diversity of views that will inevitably arise in a world of rapid global communication and huge cultural variety. The tacit conventions between us need spelling out – not for the sake of some central mechanism of control but so that we have ways of being sure we’re still talking the same language, aware of belonging to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ. It is becoming urgent to work at what adequate structures for decision-making might look like. We need ways of translating this underlying sacramental communion into a more effective institutional reality, so that we don’t compromise or embarrass each other in ways that get in the way of our local and our universal mission, but learn how to share responsibility.

Future Directions

The idea of a ‘covenant’ between local Churches (developing alongside the existing work being done on harmonising the church law of different local Churches) is one method that has been suggested, and it seems to me the best way forward. It is necessarily an ‘opt-in’ matter. Those Churches that were prepared to take this on as an expression of their responsibility to each other would limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness; and some might not be willing to do this. We could arrive at a situation where there were ‘constituent’ Churches in covenant in the Anglican Communion and other ‘churches in association’, which were still bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources, but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion, and not sharing the same constitutional structures. The relation would not be unlike that between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, for example. The ‘associated’ Churches would have no direct part in the decision making of the ‘constituent’ Churches, though they might well be observers whose views were sought or whose expertise was shared from time to time, and with whom significant areas of co-operation might be possible.

This leaves many unanswered questions, I know, given that lines of division run within local Churches as well as between them - and not only on one issue (we might note the continuing debates on the legitimacy of lay presidency at the Eucharist). It could mean the need for local Churches to work at ordered and mutually respectful separation between ‘constituent’ and ‘associated’ elements; but it could also mean a positive challenge for Churches to work out what they believed to be involved in belonging in a global sacramental fellowship, a chance to rediscover a positive common obedience to the mystery of God’s gift that was not a matter of coercion from above but of that ‘waiting for each other’ that St Paul commends to the Corinthians.

There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment. Neither the liberal nor the conservative can simply appeal to a historic identity that doesn’t correspond with where we now are. We do have a distinctive historic tradition – a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly. But for this to survive with all its aspects intact, we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each other. And it is not going to look exactly like anything we have known so far. Some may find this unfamiliar future conscientiously unacceptable, and that view deserves respect. But if we are to continue to be any sort of ‘Catholic’ church, if we believe that we are answerable to something more than our immediate environment and its priorities and are held in unity by something more than just the consensus of the moment, we have some very hard work to do to embody this more clearly. The next Lambeth Conference ought to address this matter directly and fully as part of its agenda.

The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible. The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history. Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place – to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the church’s life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices – with a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies of a historic ministry not universally recognised in the Catholic world, with limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is thought possible or acceptable.

Conclusion

The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance seems to you to be healthy for the Church Catholic overall, and that it helps people grow in discernment and holiness. Being an Anglican in the way I have sketched involves certain concessions and unclarities but provides at least for ways of sharing responsibility and making decisions that will hold and that will be mutually intelligible. No-one can impose the canonical and structural changes that will be necessary. All that I have said above should make it clear that the idea of an Archbishop of Canterbury resolving any of this by decree is misplaced, however tempting for many. The Archbishop of Canterbury presides and convenes in the Communion, and may do what this document attempts to do, which is to outline the theological framework in which a problem should be addressed; but he must always act collegially, with the bishops of his own local Church and with the primates and the other instruments of communion.

That is why the process currently going forward of assessing our situation in the wake of the General Convention is a shared one. But it is nonetheless possible for the Churches of the Communion to decide that this is indeed the identity, the living tradition – and by God’s grace, the gift - we want to share with the rest of the Christian world in the coming generation; more importantly still, that this is a valid and vital way of presenting the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world. My hope is that the period ahead - of detailed response to the work of General Convention, exploration of new structures, and further refinement of the covenant model - will renew our positive appreciation of the possibilities of our heritage so that we can pursue our mission with deeper confidence and harmony.