Podcast: Archbishop Rowan Williams and funny-man Frank Skinner sit down for a conversation at Canterbury Cathedral

The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and broadcaster, writer and comedian Frank Skinner sit down for an engaging conversation on a variety of topics before a live audience at Canterbury Cathedral.  The podcast is in three-parts, including a time of questions and answers.  Indeed, it's a must-hear - take the time if you can, get yourself a cup of tea and sit back and enjoy listening in on the open conversation between Skinner, a very funny guy who in his late 20s returned to the Roman Catholic Church and a Rowan Williams at ease:

The Archbishop of Canterbury met  broadcaster Frank Skinner 
"In Conversation" at Canterbury Cathedral last Friday evening.

PART ONE


PART TWO


QUESTIONS and ANSWERS

Rowan Williams remembers 9/11 and the power of prayer

The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams was only a block away from the World Trade Center when it was struck on September 11, 2001:




Another short interview is here.

Questions raised regarding authority of new "Anglican Communion Standing Committee" following resignations from bishops representing majority of the Communion

Members of the AC Standing Committee

There is no doubt that "something" happened in the western bureaucracy of the Anglican Communion following the Dar es Salaam Primates meeting in 2007. The Rev'd Dr. Steve Noll points to the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury engaged in what he describes as a "betrayal of trust" after switching strategies following the release of the official communique from that landmark meeting imploring that the Episcopal Church USA (TEC) must be held accountable for its determination to continue to engage in communion-breaking actions.

Since then it has been in some ways brilliant bureaucratic maneuvers by the western minority leadership to redirect authority away from the collegial "instruments of communions" and to a small centralized committee called rather innocuously a "standing committee" suddenly given grandiose powers (or at least authority to send out press releases) by the Archbishop of Canterbury.  The agenda was set by the western minority and when protests were made to its creation and domination by the west (including appointing the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church as well as the Episcopal Bishop of Connecticut) to the group, it was clear the the communion was coming apart at the seams.

Dr. Noll here offers an insightful commentary on the controversial creation of this "standing committee" and it's claim to hold powers it does not have and cannot have.  It's very difficult not to make the claim that the last meeting of the "standing committee" was completely pointless and a total waste of time and money. 

Make no mistake about it, The Episcopal Church fully intends to authorize rites for same gender marriages in the Episcopal Church at its General Convention next year.  It will not pass the Anglican Covenant, for even in its extremely weakened condition, Section IV remains in the Covenant and that, at least in writing, poses a problem for TEC.  However, the covenant is as Ronald Reagan once described a "paper castle" - easily blown away by the winds of change since there is no mechanism in place for enforcement, unless this Standing Committee actually has the audacity to remove its own leading members from their seats.  And since those very members play a central role in setting the agenda for the standing committee meetings, that is like asking the wolf to clean up Little Red Riding Hood's house after the mess.

It would be an astonishing thing to see TEC remove itself from the standing committee - perhaps in a gesture of hope, it may not be a bad time to get the committee a Hoover.

From "Sea Change in the Anglican Communion," by Dr. Steve Noll:

Dr. Steve Nol

The Archbishops of Canterbury during the decade following Lambeth 1998 tried to blunt the gale force winds from the Global South at a series of Primates’ Meetings which climaxed in Rowan Williams reneging on the Primates’ resolutions at Dar es Salaam in 2007. The Archbishop’s betrayal of trust led seven Provinces, including two from the largest Provinces in the Communion, to convene the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in Jerusalem in June 2008 and to boycott the Lambeth Conference later that summer. These Provinces went on to set up a parallel Primates’ Council and recognize the Anglican Church in North America as the legitimate Anglican Province in North America.

Dr. Rowan Williams

Ignoring these storm signals, Archbishop Williams sought to calm matters by advocating an Anglican Covenant as a means to deal with controversies within the Communion. The most striking weakness of the final Covenant draft (December 2009) was the enhanced role assigned to the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” as adjudicator of Covenant disputes. Strong theological objections were raised by scholars of the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI), who argued this Committee, as a creature of only one “Instrument’ of the Communion, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), did not have the standing to act for the whole Communion and that in a Church constituted by the historic episcopate, bishops – whether in council (Primates) or plenary session (Lambeth Conference) – were the proper guardians of doctrine and discipline. The ACI scholars concluded: “It is now beyond doubt that the newly transformed and empowered ACC Standing Committee cannot function as the committee required by Section 4 [the enforcement section] of the Covenant.”

Beyond the theological questions, there were practical objections to the Standing Committee as an instrument of governance. Global South leaders refused to sit at table with representatives of TEC on the Standing Committee. Archbishop Henry Orombi, the African Primate on the Committee, had communicated his refusal to Rowan Williams after the Dar es Salaam meeting; Williams never replied to this objection. Business continued as usual, and the Standing Committee merely noted Orombi’s repeated absence “with regret” and even suggested that he be removed according to its rules of attendance.

Dr. Mouneer Anis

Bishop Mouneer Anis, a second Global South Committee member, took another tack, urging his fellow Global South leaders to attend the meetings and hold the Communion accountable to its commitments. In January 2010, however, he gave up the effort, penning an impassioned resignation letter which stated:

I have attended every meeting of the Standing Committee as well as the ACC-14. However, I have come to the sad realization that there is no desire within the ACC or the SCAC to follow through on the recommendations that have been taken by the Communion and which are tearing its fabric apart. Moreover, the SCAC, formerly known as the Joint Standing Committee (JSC), has continually questioned the authority of the other Instruments of Communion, especially the Primates Meeting and the Lambeth Conference….

Unfortunately the current structure of the Anglican Communion is not a true reflection of the world-wide Anglican Communion which grows mainly in the Global South. The Anglican Communion Office (ACO) is mainly staffed by Westerner [sic] who do not necessarily express the voices of the rest of the Communion. The result is a lack of the sense of ownership.

Three months later Archbishop Ian Earnest followed Archbishop Orombi and Bishop Mouneer in resigning from the Standing Committee, stating:

Consequently, I feel constrained by my conscience to uphold my duty as shepherd of the flock and to forthwith suspend all communication both verbal and sacramental with both the TEC and ACC – their Primates bishops and clergy until such time as they reverse their theological innovations, and show a commitment to abide by the decisions of the Lambeth Conference.

What is noteworthy is that the only way these Primates found they could be faithful to their calling as bishops in the Communion was to depart from its central committee. For all the talk of inclusiveness and dialogue, it is the innovators who are left at the table, dialoguing among themselves. This ploy of excluding traditionalists while mouthing faux inclusivism is old hat to those of us from TEC, but it has now been carried out on the international stage. The Minutes of the two succeeding Standing Committee meetings show how little impact the theological and political protests of conservatives made on the Lambeth bureaucracy and its Western facilitators.

The Standing Committee

The Standing Committee was reorganized by a revised Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council, which went into effect in early 2010. Since then, the Committee has met twice, once in July 2010 and once in March 2011. Whereas the Minutes of the Standing Committee had previously been kept secret, they are now available on the Anglican Communion website (here and here).

Reading committee minutes is a sleep-inducing exercise, and these minutes are no exception. My purpose here is merely to point to those moments in the 3-day meetings that reveal the current fracture within the Communion.

Let’s begin with the composition of the Standing Committee. It is chaired by Bishop Tengatenga of Malawi. A common “inclusive” tactic of the bureaucracy is to appoint an African to serve as chair of a committee, the agenda of which is pre-determined in London. Other members, may come from the Global South, even a GAFCON province, like Mrs. Philippa Aimable of Ghana, but it is clear from the Minutes that they have little voice or authority within the Committee itself. The real power players are all Anglo-Saxon, working hand in hand with the bureaucrats like Canon Kenneth Kearon and Canon John Rees. Together they keep the Committee sailing smartly to safe harbor.
As noted, there were no episcopal representatives of the GAFCON provinces that had protested the actions of the North American churches present at these meetings. The Episcopal Church was well-represented by two members, Primate Katherine Schori and Bishop Ian Douglas of Connecticut, the consummate ecclesiastical politician. The Committee “noted and expressed regret at the resignations of Bishop Mouneer Anis, Archbishop Henry Orombi, Archbishop Justice Akrofi (an alternate to Archbishop Orombi) and Bishop Azad Marshall,” and bade them a wistful farewell, claiming that “their voices were missed.” Not surprisingly, they were replaced by others who were less likely to upset the smooth running of the operation. (1)

Dato’ Stanley Isaacs

The one hold-out at the first Committee meeting was Dato’ Stanley Isaacs, a lawyer and layman from the Province of Southeast Asia. Mr. Isaacs has been a strong voice opposed to the agenda of the West but also in favor of working for reform within the Communion structures. It is instructive to follow his attempt at the first meeting to address the concerns that had been raised repeatedly over the years over the violations of The Episcopal Church.

Mr. Isaacs’ opportunity came when the Standing Committee discussed the Archbishop of Canterbury’s 2010 Pentecost Letter, which proposed that Provinces that had violated the “three moratoria” against consecrating of homosexual bishops, authorizing same-sex rites, and crossing Provincial boundaries reduce their members to observer status on ecumenical commissions. Some Standing Committee members objected to this proposal, even while Rowan Williams assured them that it was not intended to be “punitive.” Isaacs, on the other hand, argued that this disciplinary slap was not enough and “queried whether members of TEC should also be withdrawn from other bodies such as the Standing Committee”:

Referring to the communiqué of the fourth Anglican Global South to South Encounter [in April 2010], Dato’ Isaacs said that those who had met in Singapore had reflected that the time had come to take decisive action towards arresting the present situation and restoring the integrity and unity of the Communion. He said that the Primates’ communiqués over the years had been consistent in affirming Lambeth I.10, that the Lambeth Commission had spoken of walking apart; that the churches of the Global South did not wish to walk apart from the Communion but wishes to walk apart from TEC; that if TEC were not prepared to separate voluntarily, then a forced separation on a temporary basis would be a way forward.”

Clearly Isaacs had disrupted the agenda and the bonhomie, but the distress was momentary, as his confrontative statement was quickly enfolded in a cloud of “indaba”:

Members of the Standing Committee continued to discuss developments in the Communion, and a range of perspectives was heard and explored. Issues included: the hope that a “third space” could be maintained where people could share their concerns and engage in a sustained and deeper way; the thought that the Anglican Communion was in a period of transition, and experiencing growth pains, to be navigated with charity, honesty and imagination; the danger of supposing we knew all the truth; the fact that there are Anglicans who believe there is no biblical authority to justify the consecration of gay or lesbian persons; an uneasiness about absolute tests of orthodoxy, but also an uneasiness about initiatives and actions that widened the gulf between communities in such a way that they could not speak for one another or be responsible for one another.

Noting that such matters would be addressed later in the Continuing Indaba report, the matter was punted to the end of the meeting. At that point and not to be deterred, Mr. Isaacs repeated his request that members of TEC should be excluded from the Standing Committee and Instruments of Communion.

Dato’ Isaacs said that he wished to speak on behalf of conservative orthodox Anglicans and appealed to TEC members of the Standing Committee to respect the feelings of the majority of Anglicans. Bishop Jefferts Schori responded that people in TEC had made decisions in what they believed were faithful and biblically sound ways. She said it was difficult to explain to members of TEC why it was the only Province currently in focus, since extra-provincial interventions had predated any consecration of openly gay bishops. She said that in the Communion we saw through a glass darkly, but more effectively together. Our task was to call people to the table to find creative, constructive and life-giving way [sic] forward.

Next the Archbishop of Canterbury opened his mind on the subject:

Archbishop Williams reflected that while it was important that ecumenical partners knew with whom they were talking, when the Standing Committee, the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC discussed matters of faith and order, they did so recognizing unfinished business among themselves. Within these bodies, there was still a case for the widest possible representation with sufficient trust and confidence to pursue conversations.

TEC Bishops, Dr. Schori and Dr. Douglas.

Bishop Douglas addressed Isaacs with the smooth tongue of pluralism and representative democracy. He

...appreciated Dato’ Isaacs request, which reflected the view of some others [!] in the ACC; he similarly tried to represent those who had elected him and would continue to do everything he could for the wellbeing of the Communion. He wished to contribute to the plurality of voices and considered that the way in which people read the Bible from their own context was a great gift of the Communion today.

Isaacs made one final appeal to reason, arguing that since the TEC representatives were being removed from bodies involved in ecumenical dialogue, TEC members should also recuse themselves from any matters of faith and order proceeding from those bodies to the Standing Committee and ACC. “However,” the Minutes go on to note, “there was no consensus for this.” The Committee then resolved to “regret” the breaches of the three moratoria and the “consequential resignations” of former members,” and passed the matter on further consideration to the (new) Primates Meeting and ACC.

Dato’ Stanley Isaacs, much to his credit, made waves at the first Standing Committee Meeting in July 2010. He was not present at the next one in March 2011, and the issue of TEC and Lambeth I.10 and moratoria was not mentioned. The Primates’ Meeting and the ACC, with GAFCON members absent, will almost certainly not consider the divisive issues further. The sea, once roiled by Gene Robinson and the Global South Primates, is calm again. All is well.

The other item of interest from the first Standing Committee minutes concerned the dubious legitimacy of the Committee itself amongst the Instruments of Communion and the proposed Covenant as had been challenged by the ACI and others. In discussion of the General Secretary’s Report, it was noted that the term “The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” sounded a trifle imperialistic since the Standing Committee did not in fact represent all four Instruments of Communion.

It was recognized that the words “of the Anglican Communion, responsible to the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting” were merely descriptive of the fact that the Standing Committee derived its authority from its responsibility to the two Instruments of Communion which elect its membership, and on whose behalf it acted.

The solution was simple: just call it “The Standing Committee.” This resolution of the problem is facile by half. The Standing Committee in fact derives its authority neither from the Primates’ Meeting nor the Anglican Consultative Council but rather from the ACC constitution. The Primates and ACC elect five and nine members to the Standing Committee, respectively, and they receive its reports, but it is legally and financially the accountable party. It might be more accurate to describe it as the Board of Directors of the Anglican Communion Office, and like that office, its missives will go out on stationery headed “The Anglican Communion,” full stop.

As noted above, the Standing Committee also has been assigned a critical role to play in the Covenant.

Archbishop Williams referred to the role of the Standing Committee in the outworking of the Covenant and reflected that some questions needed addressing: how the Standing Committee, designated in the Covenant as the broker of decisions, might work actively with IASCUFO [Inter-Anglican Standing Committee for Unity, Faith and Order]; and uncertainties around Standing Committee members whose Provinces hadn’t signed the Covenant being adjudicators.

Move along, move along.

Having acknowledged a problem, Williams skipped past the questions and uncertainties and stated that “when enough Provinces had adopted the Covenant, then the Standing Committee could think about behaving as if the Covenant were in force.” His skip in logic and process was similar to the tactic employed at the 2010 ACC meeting in Jamaica, where serious procedural irregularities had been revealed but were met with mild embarrassment and brushed aside with vague promises of further investigation. “Move right along, folks, nothing to see here,” seems to be his response to such objections.

Read it all here at the AAC.  Dr. Steve Noll is the retired Vice Chancellor of Uganda Christian University and Emeritus Professor at Trinity School for Ministry.

Archbishop of Canterbury challenges the "self indulgence" of the Church of England

Rowan Williams returns from his transformational visit to central Africa "wanting to be a Christian." From here:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has attacked "self indulgence" within the Church of England as he spoke of how his visit to the eastern Congo left him "wanting to be a Christian".

Dr Rowan Williams said hearing about the "transforming" work of the Anglican Church in the central African country had helped put into perspective "fashionable sneers" faced by the Church of England in this country.

He added that the dedication of Anglican workers in the eastern Congo has put into a "harsh light" the "self indulgence of so much of our church life" which gives people the excuse not to take God seriously.

Dr Williams said church members had risked their lives to rescue young men and women trapped in militias in the forests of eastern Congo.

The experience had highlighted how the church "mattered so intensely", he said, and how if it wasn't for the Church no-one would have cared for these young people.

"It left me wanting to be a Christian," he said, adding jokingly: "Never too late."

"It left me thinking that there is nothing on earth so transforming as a Church in love," he said.

The Archbishop was speaking after returning last month from a nine-day trip to Kenya and the Congo where he visited church projects helping traumatised people rebuild their lives after years of conflict.

In Kenya, he visited Kibera, one of Africa's largest slums, and home to 700,000 people.

Read it all here. 

UPDATE:

It was almost a fierce sense, almost an angry feeling, this knowledge that the Church mattered so intensely. It put into perspective the fashionable sneers that the Church here lives with, the various excuses people make for not taking seriously the idea that God's incalculable love for every person is the only solid foundation for a human dignity that is beyond question. And it put into a harsh light the self-indulgence of so much of our church life which provides people with just the excuses they need for not taking God seriously. It left me wanting to be a Christian. Never too late.

-Rowan Williams, Presidential Address to the Church of England Synod

Here is more from the Archbishop's Presidential Address delivered this morning to the Church of England Synod now underway:

Two weeks ago in Eastern Congo, listening to the experiences of young men and women who had been forced into service with the militias in the civil wars, forced therefore into atrocities done and suffered that don’t bear thinking about, I discovered all over again why the Church mattered.  One after another, they kept saying, ‘The Church didn’t abandon us.’  Members of the Church went into the forests to look for them, risked their lives in making contacts, risked their reputations by bringing them back and working to reintegrate them into local communities.

And I thought, listening to them, ‘If it wasn’t for the Church, no-one, absolutely no-one, would have cared, and they would be lost still.’  It was almost a fierce sense, almost an angry feeling, this knowledge that the Church mattered so intensely.  It put into perspective the fashionable sneers that the Church here lives with, the various excuses people make for not taking seriously the idea that God’s incalculable love for every person is the only solid foundation for a human dignity that is beyond question.  And it put into a harsh light the self-indulgence of so much of our church life which provides people with just the excuses they need for not taking God seriously.  It left me wanting to be a Christian.  It left me thinking that there is nothing on earth so transforming as a Church in love.

Congo isn’t unique.  I’d just had a week in Kenya, where I saw ample evidence of how the Church stays at the forefront both of national reconciliation and of practical regeneration, and how its teaching programmes blend seamlessly together the new and grateful confidence that the gospel brings with the prosaic business of releasing skills and assets in a community so that food security is improved, soil replenished by better, simpler and more responsible farming techniques, co-operative schemes established and so on – always with the Scripture-reading congregation at the centre, learning what the new humanity means in practice, always with an unquestioning hospitality to the entire community.  No, Congo isn’t unique.  And today especially we will have particularly in our hearts another of our sister churches that has once again been the carrier of hope and endurance for a whole people in times of terrible suffering, as the new republic of Southern Sudan begins its independent life.  But what is special in places like Congo and Sudan is a Church with negligible administrative structures and no historic resources working with such prolific energy.  ‘Silver and gold have I none…’ But what they have is, somehow, the strength not to abandon, not to stigmatize, not to reject, but always to seek to rebuild even the most devastated lives.  What they have is the strength not to abandon.  I wish I had the words to express more clearly to you what that strength looks and feels like, but I can only give thanks for seeing it.

Read it all here.

Rowan Williams ignites a firestorm

Trevor Grundy comments on the political row sparked by the Archbishop of Canterbury's turn as a "guest editor" of The New Statesman: From here:

Nearly a millennium ago, four unruly knights crossed the English Channel from France and confronted the archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, over his feud with King Henry II.

Before the knights smashed the future saint’s skull in front of monks at an altar inside Canterbury Cathedral, Henry is said to have wondered aloud, “Who shall rid me of this turbulent priest?”

These days, Prime Minister David Cameron might be wondering the same about the current archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.

Williams sparked a political row by criticizing the government’s austerity measures and budget cuts as the cause of “bafflement and indignation,” saying they are nothing more than “radical, long-term policies for which no one voted.”

To be sure, Williams’ two most recent predecessors angered the governments of their day when Robert Runcie confronted Margaret Thatcher over budget cuts in the 1980s and George Carey blasted Britain’s support for the war in Iraq.

But never have the words of a sitting archbishop of Canterbury caused quite so much anger as Williams’ during his stint as guest editor of the left-leaning New Statesman magazine earlier this month.

The very public flap threw a spotlight on Williams’ twin roles as head of the Church of England and also the 77 million-member worldwide Anglican Communion, and the difficulty of doing both.

If he wades into national politics, critics say he should instead return to ensuring his global flock doesn’t break up over human sexuality. Yet if he ignores the politics of the day, he’s criticized for not using his bully pulpit.

Less than two months after the media hailed him as a “national treasure” when he officiated at the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, Williams has become, in the words of the Sunday Times’ Minette Marrin, a “wordy, holy, hairy man” who is “hustling his tiny flock towards the cliffs of disestablishment with the foolish, self-destructive recklessness of Don Quixote.”

Former Times editor William Rees-Mogg was a tad more succinct in blasting Williams’ critique of government spending cuts. Williams, he said, had shown a distinct lack of “Christian charity.”

Writing in the New Statesman’s June 9 issue, Williams questioned the value of the coalition government’s reforms, and charged that Cameron’s “Big Society” platform had been conceived for “opportunistic and money-saving reasons” and that its ideas were “painfully stale.”

Taken aback by Williams’ public critique, Cameron rejected Williams’ views but nonetheless said he had every right to express them. For good measure, Britain’s top Roman Catholic prelate, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, sided with Cameron.

Williams has received support from some quarters of the church, including a handful of bishops and one retired priest, the Rev. John Papworth, who said, “Not only does the Archbishop of Canterbury have a right to engage in public debate, but it is also his duty.”

Others in the Church of England have noted this is not the first time Williams stepped into the political arena.

He has condemned racism and advised voters not to support the far right-wing British National Party (BNP). In 1985, Williams was arrested during a protest organized by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament at a U.S. air base in Suffolk.

Williams comes from a tradition of activism in a poor part of Wales, and was born into a family of Presbyterians-turned-Anglicans who were steeped in a strain of Anglo-Catholicism.

By criticizing the current coalition government, Williams opened himself up to questions about his own leadership skills, both in the Church of England and the larger communion, where he has the power of persuasion, but little else.

Within the Anglican Communion, conservative Third World archbishops have blasted him — and subsequently gone on to mostly ignore him — for not disciplining the independent-minded U.S. Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans for their embrace of homosexuality.

Western liberals, meanwhile, likewise ignored his pleas not to ordain openly gay bishops or bless same-sex unions, and rebuffed his plans for an Anglican “covenant” that would bind the communion’s 44 member churches.

Williams, 61, has said that he would love to spend less time talking about homosexuality in order to concentrate on what he calls “the real issues” — hunger, poverty and disease, especially in the developing world.

Yet when he does, as in the New Statesman article, conservative critics say he should spend more time healing the bruised Church of England and leave politics to the politicians.

Marrin, from the Sunday Times, said the incident reflected the church’s unique role in governance of the state, and vice-versa — and not in a good way.

“It has long been clearly absurd that a priest without any mandate from anyone, other than a few quarrelsome men in frocks, should have any ex officio position of power,” she wrote. “Yet the Archbishop of Canterbury sits in the House of Lords and so do 25 other Anglican lords spiritual by right of unelected office.”

Read it all here.

Justice not "seen to be done" - The Archbishop of Canterbury on the death of Osama bin Laden; Theologian N.T. Wright calls American actions "vigilantism"

From The Telegraph:

Dr Rowan Williams, spiritual head of the 80-million strong worldwide Anglican Communion, criticised the White House for repeatedly changing its account of the raid on the al-Qaeda leader’s compound in Pakistan.

Killing bin Laden when he was not carrying a weapon meant that justice could not be “seen to be done,”  the Archbishop suggested.

Rowan Williams raises questions on bin Laden's death.

But lawyers and senior figures from politics and the military said Dr Williams was not living in “the real world” while relatives of 9/11 victims expressed outrage at his remarks.

A senior Government source described the Archbishop's comments as “very unwise”, adding: “One has to give some thought for all the unarmed people that bin Laden killed. This was a very silly thing to say.”

Dr Williams’s intervention represents the most outspoken statement so far by a mainstream religious leader since the US Navy Seals team stormed bin Laden’s hideout and killed the world’s most wanted man on Monday.

The row came during another day of developments in which the US was seen to change its account of the controversial special forces raid yet again.

US officials disclosed that just one of the five men killed in the operation was armed, contradicting the White House’s earlier picture of a continuous 40-minute shoot-out between special forces and terrorists.

Relations between the US and Pakistan worsened as Pakistani military chiefs demanded that America reduce its troop presence in the country to a “minimum”. After days of questions in Washington over how bin Laden could find shelter in the town of Abbottabad, army chief of staff General Ashfaq Kayani threatened to “review” cooperation with the US in the event of “any similar action “violating the sovereignty” of Pakistan.

President Barack Obama visited Ground Zero in New York, to meet relatives of those who died in the World Trade Centre attacks and lay a wreath. The President said bin Laden's death proved that America would never fail to bring terrorists to “justice”.

“When we say we will never forget, we mean what we say,” Mr Obama said. "We were going to make sure that the perpetrators of that horrible act - that they received justice.”

However, during a press conference at Lambeth Palace, Dr Williams questioned whether “justice” had been demonstrated by the US action.

“The killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done,” he said.

The White House’s “different versions of events” during the past week “have not done a great deal to help”, he said.

“I don’t know full details any more than anyone else does. But I do believe that in such circumstances when we are faced with someone who was manifestly a war criminal, in terms of the atrocities inflicted, it is important that justice is seen to be observed.”

Read it all here.

Has N.T. Wright "jumped the shark" from lofty position in academia?  Or has he forgotten there's a war going on?

UPDATE: Noted Anglican theologian and former bishop of Durham NT Wright has also written a piece critical of the United States actions against Osama bin Laden as well:

Consider the following scenario. A group of IRA terrorists carry out a bombing raid in London. People are killed and wounded. The group escapes, first to Ireland, then to the United States, where they disappear into the sympathetic hinterland of a country where IRA leaders have in the past been welcomed at the White House. Britain cannot extradite them, because of the gross imbalance of the relevant treaty. So far, this is not far from the truth.

But now imagine that the British government, seeing the murderers escape justice, sends an aircraft carrier (always supposing we’ve still got any) to the Nova Scotia coast. From there, unannounced, two helicopters fly in under the radar to the Boston suburb where the terrorists are holed up. They carry out a daring raid, killing the (unarmed) leaders and making their escape. Westminster celebrates; Washington is furious.

What’s the difference between this and the recent events in Pakistan? Answer: American exceptionalism. America is allowed to do it, but the rest of us are not. By what right? Who says?

Consider another fictive scenario. Gangsters are preying on a small mid-western town. The sheriff and his deputies are spineless; law and order have failed. So the hero puts on a mask, acts ‘extra-legally’, performs the necessary redemptive violence (i.e. kills the bad guys), and returns to ordinary life, earning the undying gratitude of the local townsfolk, sheriff included. This is the plot of a thousand movies, comic-book strips, and TV shows: Captain America, the Lone Ranger, and (upgraded to hi-tech) Superman. The masked hero saves the world.

Films and comics with this plot-line have been named as favourites by most Presidents, as Robert Jewett and John Shelton Lawrence pointed out in The Myth of the American Superhero (2002) and Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil (2004). The main reason President Obama has been cheered to the echo across the US, even by his bitter opponents, is not simply the fully comprehensible sense of closure a decade after the horrible, wicked actions of September 11 2001. Underneath that, he has just enacted one of America’s most powerful myths.

Perhaps the myth was necessary in the days of the Wild West, of isolated frontier towns and roaming gangs. But it legitimizes a form of vigilantism, of taking the law into one’s own hands, which provides ‘justice’ only of the crudest sort. In the present case, the 'hero' fired a lot of stray bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan before he got it right. What’s more, such actions invite retaliation. They only ‘work’ because the hero can shoot better than the villain; but the villain’s friends may decide on vengeance. Proper justice is designed precisely to outflank such escalation.

Of course, ‘proper justice’ is hard to come by internationally. America regularly casts the UN (and the International Criminal Court) as the hapless sheriff, and so continues to play the world’s undercover policeman. The UK has gone along for the ride. What will we do when new superpowers arise and try the same trick on us? And what has any of this to do with something most Americans also believe, that the God of ultimate justice and truth was fully and finally revealed in the crucified Jesus of Nazareth, who taught people to love their enemies, and warned that those who take the sword will perish by the sword?

Ruth Gledhill's got it all here. The Rt. Rev'd Dr. N T Wright, formerly Bishop of Durham, is now the Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St Andrews, Scotland.

Rowan Williams: Why Pray?

Yes, you too can "Knit your own Rowan"

Yes, now you too can knit your own Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, along with all the the other fine cast and characters of the upcoming Royal Wedding - including a corgi or two (or three).  Pour a cup of tea and put on your best Laura Ashley frock or your tophat and tails and watch:



Get your book from Amazon here.  Just don't tell Madame Defarge.

Property dispute allegations lead Israel to deny Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem's residency visa

A dispute that has remained out of the public eye until recently has now led to a lawsuit being filed against the government of Israel by the current Anglican bishop of Jerusalem.

According to the Anglican Communion News Service (ACNS), "The Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem and Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem, the Rt. Rev'd Suheil Dawani has been denied the renewal of his 'Temporary Residency Status' in Jerusalem. This action was taken when the A-5 permits held by himself, his wife and youngest daughter were revoked by the government of Israel, effective 24 September 2010."

The Guardian reports that Bishop Sawani denies the accusations raised to him in a letter from the Israeli interior ministry that he was "acting with the Palestinian authority in transferring lands owned by the Jewish people to the Palestinians and also [helping] to register lands of the Jewish people in the name of the church." 

The ACNS also reports that "there were further allegations that documents were forged by the Bishop. The letter stated that Bishop Dawani and his family should leave the country immediately."

Bishop Dawani has now initiated legal action against the Israeli government objecting to their denial of the residency visa for the city for him, for his wife and their daughter.

This action also follows an ongoing dispute between Bishop Dawani and his predecessor, The Rt. Rev'd Riah Abu el-Assal, over the diocese's ownership of a church school in the former bishop's hometown of Nazareth, the Guardian reports,

The ACNS offers some background on the standing issue:

Bishop Dawani was elected in 2007 as Bishop of the Diocese and was recognized by the State of Israel as the head of the Episcopal Diocese in accordance with the decision by the State of Israel in 1970 which acknowledged the Diocese as one of the thirteen recognized churches in Israel. All Anglican Bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem who have not held Israeli citizenship have been granted residency permits (A5) to allow them to live in Jerusalem where the Bishop's residence, diocesan offices and cathedral are located.

Bishop Dawani, his wife and daughters had successfully renewed this permit, as required, in 2008 and 2009. On 24 August 2010, Bishop Dawani went to renew the permit with the Ministry of the Interior and was informed in writing that permits for himself, his wife and daughter would not be renewed because of allegations pending against the Bishop. 

"Israel is not interested in any unnecessary delays but the allegations are still under official review," an Israeli embassy spokesman in London told the Guardian. "We understand it is causing damage as long as it remains unresolved."

The Archbishop of Canterbury received assurances that the situation would be resolved promptly, according to the ACNS.  "Other Anglican leaders, including the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington DC and the Primates of the Anglican Communion representing Anglicans throughout the world, have all used their influence individually and collectively with Israeli authorities without success to date."

"I have been concerned about this matter since learning of it last August," TEC Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori Jefferts Schori said today. "Overtures through our own State Department, with the Israeli ambassador, and directly to Mr. Netanyahu, have thus far proved fruitless. The situation Bishop Dawani and his family are in remains untenable. We seek an immediate regularization of the bishop’s residency status, and continue to express our concern about his treatment and the repeated failure to address this matter directly."

While Bishop Dawani and his family have lived next to Jerusalem's Victorian St George's cathedral, his jurisdiction also includes the rest of Israel, Lebanon and Jordan.

Late last month, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Bishop Dawani were received by His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan, the Episcopal News Service reports from an Earth Times report on the February 2011 meeting.

King Abdullah, a Muslim, told Dr. Williams and Bishop Dawani at the meeting that "Christians need to "intensify efforts to force Israel to stop its unilateral measures that threaten the Christian and Islamic holy places and seek emptying the holy city of its Arab inhabitants, both Muslims and Christians," the ENS reported.

Pressure on Israel by supporters of Bishop Dawani has continued since Bishop Dawani was requested to leave the country last September. "The Archbishop of Canterbury, as the spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion and church representative of the Queen of England, has been in contact with the office of the Prime Minister of Israel and Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amer to resolve this issue. In addition, Bishop Dawani met personally with the Chief Rabbi, who is a good friend of both Bishop Dawani and the Anglican Church, who took immediate action to try to restore the Bishop's residency rights," the ACNS reports.

In addition to these efforts, a letter regarding Bishop Dawani's status was sent from the Anglican Primates Meeting in Ireland went to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in January.

Other Anglican leaders, says the ACNS, including the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington DC and the Primates of the Anglican Communion representing Anglicans throughout the world, have all used their influence individually and collectively with Israeli authorities without success to date.

Bishop Dawani's office told the Guardian that the bishop has now chosen to take legal action against the government of Israel.  "The lack of resolution, despite all the efforts, required [him] to seek legal counsel," reports the Guardian,  "upon the recommendation ... he has chosen to take the case to court, seeking redress through the Israeli legal system," said the spokesman.

The Israeli Ministry of the Interior responded to a request for a statement from ENI News.  "We are talking about a sensitive issue that was presented in front of the Interior Minister and our detailed answer will be delivered in the court, in the frame of the petition that was served," Israeli Ministry of the Interior to ENI News. 

An unidentified Israeli official told ENI News and reported by ENS that the legal issues involved in the case were 'very serious' and would need to go to court as well.

"No one is trying to kick [Dawani] out of Jerusalem," said the Israeli official, according to ENI. "He has been offered to be allowed to stay in Jerusalem under a different status, as someone with a work permit, but he rejected that."

Read more about it here and here and here and here. 

GAFCON watchers may remember that Bishop Dawani had issued statements that opposed the GAFCON pilgrimage in Jerusalem in 2008 saying that such a gathering emphasizing the major divisions in the Anglican Communion would have a negative impact on the work of the Christian churches in Jerusalem.  After meeting with GAFCON organizers, Bishop Dawani did attend a GAFCON gathering at St. George's Cathedral, though he was accompanied by The Episcopal Church's emissary, the Rt. Rev'd Robert O'Neil, Bishop of the Diocese of Colorado (TEC).

Canon Theologian to Presiding Bishop/Consecrator of the Bishop of New Hampshire appointed to represent Anglican Communion in Roman Catholic Dialogue

The Canon Theologian to the former Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church who consecrated the Bishop of New Hampshire has been appointed to represent the Anglican Communion in official ecumenical dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church.

The Former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswald advocated and presided over the election and consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire.

Anglican Communion Office announced that the Rev'd Dr. Mark McIntosh, an Episcopal priest from the progressive Diocese of Chicago (and now on temporary leave from his teaching position at a Chicago college) has been selected to officially represent the Anglican Communion in the the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commisson (ARCIC).  He also served as the Canon Theologian to Bishop Frank Griswald and has served chaplain to the Episcopal House of Bishops, including under the leadership of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.

Is this not a go-around of the intent in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Pentecost Letter issued last May where he specified that:

provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged.  

Following the publication of the Archbishop of Canterbury's May 28, 2010 letter, five American Episcopalians were removed from the Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist and Old Catholic dialogue commissions, while Dr. Katherine Grieb of the Virginia Theological Seminary was demoted from membership in the Anglican UFO commission to consultant status, George Conger reports.

The Church of England Newspaper is reporting that Mark McIntosh was personally selected by Kenneth Kearon, the General Secretary of the Anglican Communion, despite his credentials as the Canon Theologian to the consecrator of Gene Robinson. Dr. McIntosh is currently on leave from his position at Loyola University in Chicago, Illinois, to teach at Durham University.

In addition, Dr. McIntosh is one of the co-authors of “To Set Our Hope on Christ,” a paper presented to the ACC meeting in Nottingham after the Episcopal Church was asked to step back from voting membership following the actions of the General Convention in 2003.  The paper sought to defend the Episcopal Church’s innovations of doctrine and discipline over human sexuality, ordination, and marriage following the election and consecration of Gene Robinson as the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire.

To Set Our Hope on Christ continues to be sited in efforts to establish same gender unions and marriages in the Episcopal Church, as in the Diocese of San Diego's 2009 report Holiness in Relationships and Blessings in Churches of this Diocese.

While the American Dr. McIntosh is currently licensed in the Church of England's Diocese of Durham (where the bishop's seat is vacant following the departure of Bishop N.T. Wright), he is currently on leave from his teaching position in the United States.  The appearance of this appointment of the Bishop Frank Griswald's Canon Theologian seems to conflict with the very spirit of Rowan Williams Pentecost Letter - that the Episcopal Church's actions have brought the Communion into crisis, a crisis that was set off by the actions of the former Presiding Bishop.  It is clear that Dr. McIntosh has had a front row seat in advocating these actions.

Such a move to appoint a clergyman still in good standing in the Episcopal Church appears to keep the Episcopal Church influentially engaged in the hierarchy of the Anglican Communion despite its recent communion-breaking actions.  The Church of England has lost bishops in recent weeks to Rome and does this action not undermine attempts to engage in genuine and meaningful ecumenical dialogue between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church?

Podcast from the Anglican Primates Meeting

Here is a podcast of the press conference closing the Anglican Primates Meeting.  Those speaking at the Press Conference are: The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, The Most Revd Bernard Ntahoturi, Archbishop of the Province of Burundi & Bishop of Matana, The Most Revd Dr John Walder Dunlop Holder, Archbishop, Church in the Province of the West Indies & Bishop of Barbados and The Most Revd David Robert Chillingworth, Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church & Bishop of St Andrews, Dunkeld & Dunblane. They are introduced by the The Most Revd Alan Edwin Thomas Harper, Primate of All Ireland & Archbishop of Armag.




It seems that Rowan is disappointed, perhaps even angry that the 1/3 of the primates didn't come when from his mind the meeting was rearranged to accommodate them (there is obviously disagreement on that point). But it's not surprising that the first question from the Church Times is focused on the elephant in the room - the major issue facing the primates is whether the Anglican Communion will continue to exist or break up for all intensive purposes. Breaking up the primates into small working groups is not a bad idea and it's helpful to know that they were all aware of those leaders who make up the majority of the Anglican Communion membership were not in the room - but that the illusion that this meeting carried on as business as usual just fosters in the end more drama.

And so while they are meeting in Ireland and writing letters, the Episcopal Church continues to block efforts for peaceful resolution between local ACNA parishes and Episcopal dioceses for an amicable separation as we see in today's statement from the ACNA where Archbishop Duncan tells us that “It is heartbreaking that even if they (St. Philip's Anglican) agree to pay a substantial settlement fee to keep their buildings, members of St. Philip’s are also being forced to separate from their Anglican family as a condition of the property settlement. Freedom of religion is at the heart of this matter and no congregation should have to stipulate that it will separate from its current body as part of a monetary property settlement." This didn't even show up as blip on these primates radar, which comes across as a global slap at the primates that stayed home from the meeting, fostering even more drama, more division.

"They utter mere words;
   with empty oaths they make covenants;
   so litigation springs up like poisonous weeds
   in the furrows of the field. "

Hosea 10:4 (from today's Morning Prayer reading, CoE)

Rowan Williams: The Bible as the "Action of God"

The focus on the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible continues with reflections from the Archbishop of Canterbury on the Bible itself:



"The church has listened to the Bible." Rowan Williams says in this video from Lambeth Palace, "and the Bible has echoed in the life of the church." He says it's not the Bible that hold us together, but the Holy Spirit for conversion and transformation by Jesus Christ.  This is a very good talk and it's not just what he says that resonates, but also how he says it.  His audience is broad.  It is worth seriously pondering by all sides of the division in the Episcopal and Anglican churches in the United States, especially as we remember this year the magnificent gift to the world of the King James Bible.

The BBC Interviews Bishop Minns and Bishop Kings

Transcript of Interview with Bishop Minns and excerpt from interview with Bishop Kings, from here:

MARTYN MINNS

Q: Bishop Martyn Minns is from the Anglican Church in North America and sits on the Secretariat of the GAFCON Primate’s Council. I asked him what did GAFCON leaders regard as the fatal flaw in the Anglican Covenant.

+Minns: The fundamental thing I think is that trust is gone. Decisions and documents that have been worked on in the past have not been honored. I think there’s simply a lack of trust in the process. I think also the introduction of this whole roll of the standing committee in terms of how the covenant is actually exercised has also caused great consternation. But I think, in fact I have a direct quote from one of the Primates who said, “ look, why do we keep going?. All the decisions have been made. The documents we signed have never been honored. There’s no point.”

Q: Is it your sense that this is not punitive enough?

+Minns: I don’t think it’s an issue of punitive. It’s simply that it’s been watered down. The content and the process has shifted from the Primates themselves to this Standing Committee which it’s still not clear cut what it is. So it’s not a matter of punitive. It’s simply I think that there’s a breakdown in the trust from the earlier conversations.

Q: Why did the Primates of GAFCON decide to release their statement rejecting this covenant just as the General Synod was debating it?

+Minns: The decision was frankly simply providential. There was no attempt to time it. What we’ve tried to work hard is to make sure that the documents of this sort that everyone whose name is listed has had time to reflect, take advice, and to agree to the wording. And every time that’s happened its complicated and long. It just so happened that it was done on the day. There was no planning or coordinating that at all.

Q: There are critics who will say that this was a tactical possibly even manipulative approach by GAFCON, what’s your response to that allegation?

+Minns: Well that’s simply not true. The attempt to get everyone on board at a precise moment is simply not possible. Finally, after everyone had read through it, thought through it, prayed through we were ready to release it. I think most of them had no clue the Synod was even meeting.

Q: Archbishop Williams has clearly worked very hard to get this covenant through the Synod, isn’t this a slap in the face for him?

+Minns: I don’t think there’s anything personal in this at all. I think there’s a lot of affection for Archbishop Rowan. Frankly the process had been going for many many years. And it’s the lack of trust and a lack of willingness to listen to those in the Global South is really what’s behind this.

Q: Well what would it take to persuade you to tarry longer with this process and to engage further with it?

+Minns: I think it would be to honor the decisions and documents that have taken place in the past. I think that trust has to be rebuilt.

Q: The Anglican Communion is now faced with what looks like a two tiered communion, would you accept that?

+Minns: I wouldn’t say its two tier. I think the structure is shifting and I think moving frankly from a fairly colonial structure in to a much more of a global structure. And I think it will be far more of a network than a hierarchical structure.

Q: Some liberals of course have their own reasons for not welcoming this covenant. Liberals, conservatives, traditionalists struggling with the covenant does this now signal the end-game for the Anglican Communion?

+Minns: By no means. I think the Anglican Communion has got a huge contribution to give to the world. I think in many parts of the world it’s thriving and growing and doing some remarkable things. I think it’s simply the way in which we operate together that has to change. I think it’s a testament to its effectiveness. Its grown so much globally that the sheer weight of it and the vision and …(unintelligible)… of the Communion is no longer in England. I believe that the Anglican Communion is incredibly healthy and doing some remarkable things. Structurally, it’s the institutional structure that’s simply not kept up with its life. And I think that that’s what needs to change. And as you know institutional change has always been very hard. Those in power are always reluctant to give it up.

Q: Was it GAFCON’S intention all along to reject this covenant?

+Minns: Not at all. GAFCON folk actually were instrumental in the very beginning and actually the first draft. Archbishop Drexel Gomez and a number of the Global South folk were actually involved in producing the very first draft.

Q: At what point did GAFCON leaders and primates know this covenant was unacceptable?

+Minns: I don’t believe there was a single point. I think it’s been an unfolding realization.

Q: What are those Primates who are part of GAFCON, is it now the case that they will en masse refuse to attend the next Primates meeting of the Anglican Communion?

+Minns: I believe that that’s what the statement says. And I believe that it’s not just those primates but also a number of other primates in the Global South that have communicated that.

GRAHAM KINGS

Q: Are you at all sympathetic to the GAFCON Primates who plainly believe that other member churches of the communion cannot be trusted to honor any covenant?

+Kings: No I’m not. I’m sympathetic to the leadership of the Global South Anglican movement which is different from GAFCON. GAFCON is a subset of that. And the chair of the Global South Anglican movement is John Chew, the Bishop of Singapore, Archbishop of Southeast Asia. John emailed me and said the Singapore diocese had passed the covenant. He was involved in the commission that brought it together. And similarly Mouneer Anis, Bishop in Egypt and Presiding Bishop in the Middle East is still in favor of the Covenant there’s still some questions. And Ian Earnest who is the chair of CAPA…these three moderate Global South Anglican leaders are still in favor of the covenant and so its just not the case that the whole of the Global South – GAFCON is not the whole of the Global South Anglican movement.

Q: What did you make of Martyn Minns’ comment “this is not the end game” for the communion but a revolution in how the communion organizes itself and its conversations?

+Kings: First of all, Martyn’s not…although he’s part of the Anglican Church in North America that is not The Episcopal Church in America. There is a long standing church there, The Episcopal Church…The Anglican Church in North America is a split off. Martyn and Robert Duncan they’ve formed their own church. They just invented their own church. Now I’m sympathetic to their views. I’m conservative on sexuality myself but not the way they see the church. And I don’t want the church and the communion to be split. They’ve split off in the states and I don’t want that to become a model. I was worried when Martyn spoke about reducing the Communion to a network…Networks are very different from an organic communion.

Read it all here.  The point is that the GAFCON document itself was written in a voice and tone that is not at all helpful to sensitively and compassionately address the very serious issues facing us, nor is it a teaching document for the larger Anglican community (it fails the "Pub Test"), and sadly it did not even appear to attempt to build social network bridges, but burn them down.  The release of this document the day that the CoE General Synod voted to affirm the Anglican Covenant may have been providential, but perhaps in the divine hope that we may be confronted with our own lack of humility (who would have thought that the one person to strike the most appropriate tone and Christian message would be the Queen of England?).  The GAFCON statement in fact contributes to the broken trust and that is a major disappointment.  At the same time, Graham Kings may want to reconsider waking up and smelling the proverbial winter roses - we have left the Industrial Age on which the original Anglican Communion's structures were built.  Bishop Minns is absolutely correct in his support of creating and sustaining networks that transcend old industrial borders - the Information Age, in which the Communion now must learn to adapt to or perish, flourishes in the building of vibrant and dynamic social networks.  

In fact, the greatest Social Network of them all is the Trinity.

Anglican Primates Meeting may be suspended

The Church of England Newspaper is reporting that Rowan Williams has written to the Anglican Primates proposing that the Primates Meeting be suspended.

This ifollowing signals from Anglican primates alarmed that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church will be invited to attend the now-scheduled January meeting in Ireland, even though she presided over the consecration of Mary Glasspool in the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.

Rowan Williams called the consecration "regrettable" and that it could "further threaten the unity of the Anglican Communion."

During his visit to India last month, Rowan Williams spoke about the deepening divisions in the Anglican Communion:

"I feel that we may yet have to face the possibility of deeper divisions," Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams told The Hindu newspaper in an interview, released Wednesday.

The comment was made after he pointed out the complications posed by the recent ordination of a partnered lesbian in Los Angeles.

Though Anglican leaders were making progress in dialogue over the past couple of years, he said, "The decision of the American Church to go forward, as it has, with the ordination of a lesbian bishop has, I think, set us back."

Today The Church of England Newspaper now reports via email that the Archbishop of Canterbury is seriously considering suspending the Primates Meeting now scheduled for January:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has proposed suspending the Primates’ Meeting – the fourth ‘instrument of unity’ in the Anglican Communion – in favour of holding multiple small group gatherings of like- minded archbishops.

In a letter to the primates dated October 7, Dr Rowan Williams suggested that given the “number of difficult conversations” and the threat of a boycott of its meetings, a regime of separate but equal facilitated small groups sessions might better serve the primates’ “diverse” perspectives and forestall the substantial “dam- age” to the Communion a full- fledged boycott would entail.

Dr Williams also called for a reform of the structure of the meetings, suggesting that an elected standing committee be created and the powers and responsibility of the meeting of the Communion’s 38 archbishops, presiding bishops and moderators be delineated.

Lambeth Palace did not respond to a request for clarification about the October 7 letter, while a spokesman for the Anglican Consultative Council said it could not address the question of a potential boycott as “the content of correspondence between the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury is private.”

Meanwhile, CAPA Chairman Archbiship Ian Ernest, said in his opening remarks at a gathering of the African Primates this week that the decision to attend the January Primates meeting  "rests solely on the individual Archbishop."  However he went on to tell the gathered primates that "The Archbishop of Canterbury has invited me in my capacity of CAPA Chairman to be part of a preparatory committee. He is also anxious that a small group of primates meet with him. I would like to have your opinion and thoughts about it."

The method of forming these "preparatory committees" can be seen as an American-style lobbying tool (as we saw so clearly in the Anglican Covenant Design Committee).  By making public the invitation to join such a "preparatory committee" and solicit advice, Archbishop Ernest places himself in more of a representative role for the African primates than as one particular primate being singled out from the rest of the group. 

The invitation to participate in such a new "preparatory committee" follows the resignation or withdrawal of CAPA Primates from the newly-renamed "Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion" (formerly the Joint Standing Committee) when it became clear that the Episcopal Church would not be held accountable for communion-breaking activities.

As we think on this, a song comes to mind:




UPDATE: George Conger has posted his article here.

Bishop Gene Robinson announces plans to retire

 BB NOTE: The timing is fascinating.  Nothing is done without some planning.  If he retires in January 2013, well guess what happens in 2012?  The Episcopal Church has a General Convention. Last time the New Hampshire election was timed so that the voting to affirm Gene Robinson's election would be done at General Convention 2003.  It will be interesting to see if New Hampshire follows the same strategy again.  The 2012 General Convention is slated to take up the Anglican Covenant as well.

From here:

Bishop V. Gene Robinson, whose consecration as the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church set off a historic rift in the global Anglican Communion, announced to his New Hampshire diocese on Saturday that he intended to step down.

He plans to retire in January 2013 after nine years as bishop, to give the diocese enough time to elect a new bishop and get the approval of the national church, a process that can take two years.

The news took some by surprise because Bishop Robinson is an energetic 63-year-old, and mandatory retirement age for Episcopal bishops is 72. He has led a relatively stable and healthy diocese, despite predictions by some that his election would undermine the Episcopal Church in New Hampshire.

The reason to depart, he said in a speech delivered at the close of the annual convention of his diocese, is that being at the center of an international uproar has taken a toll on him and on the diocese.

“Death threats, and the now worldwide controversy surrounding your election of me as bishop, have been a constant strain, not just on me, but on my beloved husband, Mark” and on Episcopalians in the state, he said.

But those who know Bishop Robinson say he has no intention of retiring from public life. His status as a symbol in the international gay rights movement means that after he steps down, he will have no shortage of platforms from which to preach his message that God blesses gay relationships too. (Through a spokesman, he declined interview requests.)

Bishop Robinson has become a national figure. In 2009, he gave the invocation for the opening event of the inauguration of President Obama. He also sees himself as an evangelist to people alienated from Christianity.

The election of Bishop Robinson in a church in Concord, N. H., in 2003 was the shot heard round the Christian world. It cracked open a longstanding divide between theological liberals and conservatives in both the Episcopal Church and its parent body, the Anglican Communion — those churches affiliated with the Church of England in more than 160 countries.

Since 2003, the Communion’s leaders have labored to save it from outright schism, not just over homosexuality, but also over female bishops and priests.

The current strategy, pushed by the archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, is for each regional province to sign a “covenant” of common beliefs.

The covenant has been slowly making its way through laborious writing and approval processes, which could take years.

Late last month, an international coalition of liberal Anglicans started a campaign to reject the covenant, saying, “The covenant seeks to narrow the range of acceptable belief within Anglicanism.”

The group, Anglicans for Comprehensive Unity, said, “Rather than bringing peace to the Communion, we predict that the covenant text itself could become the cause of future bickering and that its centralized dispute-resolution mechanisms could beget interminable quarrels and resentments.”

The church in New Hampshire suffered less fallout under Bishop Robinson than the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion. Only one New Hampshire congregation departed during his tenure, a congregation long unhappy with the direction of the Episcopal Church, according to diocesan leaders.

The number of active members in New Hampshire fell 3 percent, from 15,259 in 2003 to 14,787 in 2009. In that period, the Episcopal Church, like most mainline Protestant denominations, lost about 10 percent of its members. (It had about two million in 2008, the last year for which statistics are available.)

Bishop Robinson won critics over with a leadership style that was decisive but collaborative, said Margaret Porter, moderator of the diocesan council.

“The people who were skeptics, that did not last,” she said. “He was willing to meet them where they were. There were churches that were reluctant to have him visit as bishop for a time, and I think he now visits every congregation and is welcomed.”

But the pressure on Bishop Robinson became apparent in 2006. He took a monthlong leave to be treated for alcoholism. He said Saturday that he was in his fifth year of sobriety.

He and his partner of more than 20 years had a civil union ceremony in New Hampshire in 2008.

Bishop Robinson is no longer the only openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church. Bishop Mary D. Glasspool was consecrated in Los Angeles earlier this year.

In his resignation speech in New Hampshire, Bishop Robinson said: “This is the one place on earth where I am not ‘the gay bishop.’ I believe that you elected me because you believed me to be the right person to lead you at this time. The world has sometimes questioned that, but I hope you never did.” 

Read it all here.