A series of essays in the Episcopal Church
General Convention 2006:
Its Response to the
Requests of the Windsor Report,
and Subsequent Reaction
14 August 2006
(fd Jonathan Myrick Daniels)
The History and Theology
Of the Episcopal Church
The Rev. Dr. Donald S. Armentrout
The School of Theology
University of the South
The main body of the text is a chronology of significant actions and events leading up to, during and after General Convention. It is not a strict chronology; some things are grouped by topic for greater consistency.
To aid in my discussion and to help in understanding the various groups involved, I have given information on some major recent and relevant conservative groups in Appendix C, and some major recent moderate and liberal groups in Appendix D.
At the end, I will give my assessment and conclusions.
Pre-Convention sentiment about the adequacy of ECUSA’s response to the Windsor Report ran the gamut of the spectrum of possibilities pro and con. As representative of these possibilities, I have chosen two divergent opinions expressed significantly by two members of the Lambeth Commission, which produced the Windsor Report: Archbishop Robin Eames, Primate of All Ireland, Chairman, and Bishop N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham. I have also included the opinion of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord George Carey.
The Most Rev. Robin Eames, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, [hence having a primacy of honor prior even to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury], was the chair of the Lambeth Commission that produced the Windsor Report. Archbishop Eames delivered a series of two lectures on the Anglican Communion at the Virginia Theological Seminary 4-5 October 2005.
In the course of the second lecture, on 5 October,  Bishop Eames expressed his opinion that “the North American Churches have taken the Windsor Report, and the subsequent Statement of the Primates at Dromantine, extremely seriously, and have complied, in so far as it lies within the power of bodies less than their national synod [General Convention], to meet the requests made of them.” He stated, “I believe that the request for regret in the terms of the Windsor Report has been met.” Regarding paragraph 134 of Windsor, that “the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same[-]gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges,” Bishop Eames states, “My reading of the Covenant of the Episcopal House of Bishops is that it exceeds what was requested of them by Windsor.” Regarding paragraph 144: “we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites [of Blessing for same(-)sex unions],” Bishop Eames stated, “Once again, both the bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada have in my opinion met the precise wording of Windsor.”
A week later, on 12 October, at Berkeley Divinity School at Yale, Archbishop Eames delivered the Pitt Lecture 2005: “Where now for World Anglicanism?“ In it, Bishop Eames addressed the issue of Nigeria, which he had not mentioned in the Virginia Seminary addresses, but which I brought up at the questions and answers session after his lectures. This concerned the Anglican Church of Nigeria’s change to its Constitution, which omitted all reference to the See of Canterbury and speaks of communion with “all Anglican Churches, dioceses and Provinces that hold and maintain the historic Faith, Sacraments and discipline of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,” and Nigeria’s intention to establish “Convocations and Chaplaincies” to care for “like-minded faithful” outside Nigeria. I asked him if this did not violate the letter and spirit of the Windsor Report? He agreed that it did.
In the Pitt Lecture, Bishop Eames referred to Nigeria’s change to its Constitution, and asserted, “This wording not only removes what the Windsor Report described as ‘the pivotal’ role of the Archbishop of Canterbury as the instrument of unity but perhaps of greater significance challenges the concept of Communion as understood throughout Anglican history. Acceptance of an individual Province’s view of orthodoxy becomes the basis for relationship. Further the revision of its Constitution states that in all questions of interpretation of faith and doctrine the decision of the Church of Nigeria shall be final.”
Bishop Eames goes on to say, “As a Primate of the Anglican Communion, I find the implications of this revision most serious. Am I alone in interpreting such wording as the removal of established bonds of communion and their replacement by a Provincial-only wide authority, which will set its own criteria for whoever or whatever it considers worthy of a communion relationship? If this is so I find it is in direct conflict with much of the contents of the Windsor Report but more importantly in conflict with what I term ‘the Windsor spirit.’ Further I feel it is in direct contrast to the stand taken by the Primates of our Communion in their Dromantine communiqué.”
Finally, Bishop Eames says, “I have to add to these concerns the views of Windsor on the threat to communion of cross-provincial interventions, in cases where parishes are opposed to their diocesan bishop, without agreement and co-operation. This equal threat to ‘bonds of affection’ is illustrated by Nigeria’s intention to establish ‘Convocations and Chaplaincies’ outside Nigeria to cater for ‘like-minded faithful.’ Again this intention cuts across the agreed statement at Dromantine by the Primates which placed a moratorium on cross-provincial interventions.”
On 9 May 2006, Lord George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, gave his reflections on “A Communion in Crisis?” at the Virginia Theological Seminary. Bishop Carey spoke on the effects of the Consecration in the rest of the Communion, the theological issues at stake, and what other provinces hope for. Lord Carey’s hopes for General Convention were summed up as follows:
“I hope it will repent of [not just express regret for] decisions taken in 2003.
“I hope it will commit itself to a moratorium on the consecration of practicing homosexuals and lesbians to the episcopate, although I personally would extend this to all Orders of ministry.
“I hope it will refrain from same[-]sex blessing and liturgies.
“I hope it will commit itself to a Covenant along the lines of the Windsor Report.
“Finally, I hope that ECUSA will do all [in] its power to bring back into full communion all those bishops, clergy, and congregations who at present feel alienated from its life and in danger of separating from the Province.
“What do I most fear? That the General Convention will deal with the matter half-heartedly and will not see the seriousness of the hour, with the result that the issues are fudged and the response is so ambiguous that the situation is made far worse. Because, make no mistake about it, on that basis the communion will split and our mission, our integrity and our ministry to the poor of Africa will suffer.
“But let me add this post script. I have never made any secret throughout my time as Archbishop that ECUSA’s contribution to the Communion has been truly great. We need your strength, your wisdom, your talents and your resources. I believe you need us too.”
The Rt. Rev. N. Thomas (Tom) Wright, Bishop of Durham, Church of England, was also a member of the Lambeth Commission, which published The Windsor Report 2004. On 14 June 2006, Bishop Wright published “The Choice Before ECUSA,” a response to the proposed resolutions dealing with the Windsor Report that would be considered by the General Convention 2006 of the Episcopal Church. Basically, Bishop Wright concludes that ECUSA’s response simply does not do what the Windsor Report has asked the Episcopal Church to do.
Bishop Wright warns that our attention should not be detracted from “the central and quite simple question: Will ECUSA comply with the specific and detailed recommendations of Windsor, or will it not? As the Resolutions stand, only one answer is possible: if these are passed without amendment, ECUSA will have specifically, deliberately and knowingly decided not to comply with Windsor. Only if the crucial Resolutions, especially A160 and A161, are amended in line with Windsor paragraph 134, can there be any claim of compliance. Of course, even then, there are questions already raised about whether a decision of General Convention would be able to bind those parts of ECUSA that have already stated their determination to press ahead in the direction already taken….If these resolutions are amended in line with Windsor, and passed, then the rest of the Communion will be in a position to express its gratitude and relief that ECUSA has complied with what was asked of it. Should that happen, I will be the first to stand up and cheer at such a result, and to speak out against those who are hoping fervently for ECUSA to resist Windsor so that they can justify their anti-ECUSA stance. But if the resolutions are not amended, then, with great sadness and with complete uncertainty about what way ahead might then be found, the rest of the Communion will have to conclude that, despite every opportunity, ECUSA has declined to comply with Windsor; has decided, in other words, to ‘walk apart’ (Windsor 157). My hope and earnest prayer over the coming week will continue to be that that conclusion may be avoided.”
(Please see Appendix B for Text of most of these Resolutions)
A159 Commitment to Interdependence in the Anglican Communion – Concurred
A160 Expression of Regret – Concurred
A161 Election of Bishops – Rejected
A162 Public Rites of Blessing for Same-Sex Unions – Discharged
A163 Pastoral Care and Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight – Concurred
A165 Commitment to Windsor and Listening Processes - Concurred
A167 Commitment to Development of an Anglican Covenant - Concurred
B033 On Election of Bishops – Concurred
With the defeat of Resolution A161, the House of Bishops and House of Delegates on 21 June, the last day of convention, passed a last-minute compromise resolution designed to answer the Windsor Report and keep the Episcopal Church within the Anglican Communion. Resolution B033 calls for restraint in consecrating bishops “whose manner of life present a challenge to the wider church.” The Presiding Bishop appealed to the “diverse center,” the majority of the Episcopal Church, who “must now act with generosity and imagination so that our actions are a clearer reflection of the willingness of the majority of us to relinquish something in order to serve a larger purpose [emphasis mine].” The Living Church article claims that the Presiding Bishop “scored a legislative coup” for the Episcopal Church’s “diverse center.” The “victory, however, was short lived.” “Within hours of its passage key bishops on both the progressive and traditional wings of the church denounced the resolution, with liberals stating they were ready to defy its strictures and conservatives stating that it fell far short of the minimum requirements of the Windsor Report.”
Presiding Bishop-elect Katherine Jefferts Schori made an impassioned plea for passage of B033, saying, she “lamented and grieved” the necessity for the resolution, but endorsed it only with the understanding that it was “not the final word on the place of gays and lesbians within the Episcopal Church. [emphasis mine]” Her urging seemed to turn the tide, and the resolution was, with many reservations, passed.
On 21 June, Bishop Duncan, Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, and twenty-three other bishops (mostly but not all members of ACN), issued a statement declaring the resolution as “clearly and simply inadequate.” They also express their intention to “disassociate” themselves from those acts of this Convention that do not fully comply with the Windsor Report, and “repudiate” the actions that have breached the bonds of affection within the Communion. At the same time, these bishops “reaffirm our conviction that the Windsor Report provides the way forward for the entire Anglican Communion, the ecumenical relationships of the Communion, and the common life of a faithful Episcopal Church.” We “declare to our brothers and sisters in Christ throughout the Communion that we continue as The Episcopal Church in this country who uphold and propagate the historic faith and order we have come to know through the Anglican heritage of apostolic teaching and biblical faith; who desire to be fully a constituent member of the Anglican Communion; and who are ready to embrace and live under the Windsor Report without equivocation [emphases mine].”
At the Convention, Bishop Gene Robinson said, “I cannot promise to withhold consent from an entire category of people, sight unseen.” He later issued a restrained but plaintive statement in which he urged calm and patience. But, he said, “We’ll be watching. Now that the Anglican Communion and the majority of Convention have gotten what they asked for, let’s see if anything changes….Will the Network dioceses and parishes give up their blatant drive to split the church apart and join us in our efforts to be reconciled, or will they only cry ‘not enough’ and demand more? We’ll be watching—and we’ll want the ‘middle’ to give us an accounting of what this Convention vote got them. And we’ll be asking, ‘Was it worth declaring us less than children of God, marked as Christ’s own forever? [emphasis mine]’” Bishop Robinson spoke at St. Thomas Church, Washington, DC, on 15 July 2006. I asked him if, given the dissent of liberals and conservatives, Resolution B033 had any credibility at this point. He cautiously replied that the committee appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury would have to decide.
The Rt. Rev. John Chane, Bishop of the Diocese of Washington, and nineteen other bishops signed a “Statement of Conscience,” in which they “prayerfully dissent” from the action of Resolution B033. Their reasons included: the integrity of the decision-making process as a Church, that the resolution was railroaded through at the last minute with little time for debate or discussion, that the resolution was discriminatory, and “our conversation has been framed in a flawed paradigm, forcing us to chose between two goods—the full inclusion in the life of the Church of our brother and sister Christians who happen to be gay or lesbian and our full inclusion in the life of our beloved Communion [Emphasis mine].”
On 28 June 2006, the Rt. Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori, Bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, was elected the 26th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, on the fifth ballot cast by the House of Bishops. This came thirty years after women were allowed to become priests in the Episcopal Church. The current Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold, joyfully remarked, “The decision today is the fruit of the witness and ministry of women bishops, priests, and deacons in the life of our church.”
The Archbishop of Canterbury sent “greetings” but, with typical English reserve, refrained from congratulating the Presiding Bishop-elect “as she takes a deeply demanding position at a critical time.” He praised her for her commitment to mission and the Millennium Development Goals. “Her election will undoubtedly have an impact on the collegial life of the Anglican Primates, and it also brings into focus some continuing issues in several of our ecumenical dialogues.” He concluded by saying, “We are continuing to pray for the General Convention of the Episcopal Church as it confronts a series of exceptionally difficult choices.”
In June 2005, the Anglican Consultative Council requested the ACC Standing Committee “to identify ways in which [the Millennium Development Goal for equal representation of women in decision making at all levels] may appropriately be adapted for incorporation into the structures of the Instruments of Unity, and other bodies to which the Anglican Consultative Council nominates or appoints.” In July in York, England, the General Synod of the Church of England voted to proceed with steps to the ordaining of women to the episcopate. [See below]
Reaction among moderates and liberals was ecstatic. According to ENS, the Rt. Rev. Trevor Mwamba, Bishop of Botswana in Central Africa, said that God is a God of surprises. “This is a great year for women and we honor the role that women are playing in the world today.” The Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, said that this is a wonderful day in the life of the Anglican Communion. “This will change the dynamics among the boys’ club of primates in the Anglican Communion significantly.” The Primate of Mexico, the Most Rev. Carlos Touche-Porter, said he is thrilled and eager to welcome her as a fellow primate in the Anglican Communion. “We need to go back to the Anglican spirit of respectful diversity as a source of enrichment and not division.”
Reaction among conservatives was predictable. Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh assured Katharine Jefferts Schori of his prayers for her and her family as she “assumes the impossible task now assigned to her.” He immediately raised the concern for those dioceses, organizations (e.g., FiFNA), and persons, for whom this presents an untenable situation, and promised “to give ever more pastoral care and protection to those who have been shut out.” He asserts, “For the Anglican Communion worldwide, this election reveals the continuing insensitivity and disregard of the Episcopal Church for the present dynamics of our global fellowship. This election asserts once again that it is our autonomy and revolutionary character that is most dear to us.”
Conservatives in England were also quick to react. The Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, who attended the General Convention as a guest, declared that worldwide Anglicanism has become “virtually two religions,” with the “irreconcilable” divisions between liberals and conservatives so profound that a schism is inevitable. The Bishop of Rochester urged the Archbishop of Canterbury to “take firm action against the liberal leadership of the Episcopal Church.”
On 27 June, in the wake of General Convention and immediate calls for alternative primatial oversight, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, outlined the theological framework in which the current crisis should be addressed: “The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today: A Reflection for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion.” True to the Archbishop’s usual form, the document is a masterpiece of erudition, penetrating insight and compassionate pastoral concern. It is also dense and defies facile comprehension and quick response, but rather encourages and demands continued thoughtful and prayerful rereading and reflection.
The Archbishop prefaces his remarks by saying, “These reflections are in no way intended to pre-empt the necessary process of careful assessment of the Episcopal Church’s responses to the Windsor Report. Rather they are intended to focus the question of what kind of Anglican Communion we wish to be and to explore how this vision might become more of a reality.”
Accordingly, the Archbishop thinks it is now “urgent to work at what adequate structures for decision-making might look like.” Furthermore, “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,” and “we need ways of translating this underlying sacramental communion into a more effective institutional reality.”
And, it seems to him, the best way forward is the idea of a “covenant” between local Churches. He feels that 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 [he does not say we “will”] find ourselves 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.” “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.”
The Archbishop insists the crucial concern is not so much the issue of sexuality but about “how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.” He believes that the strength of historic Anglicanism has been in maintaining a balance—along the classical lines of scripture, tradition, and reason—between a reformed or Protestant concern for the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic emphasis on the sacraments and tradition, and a liberal “habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly.”
The Archbishop concludes, “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 [sic] but provides at least for ways of sharing responsibility and making decisions that will hold and that will be mutually intelligible….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.”
The Primates of the Anglican Communion will meet early next year to consider the matter, and it will also be dealt with at the next Lambeth Conference in 2008. Meanwhile, a group appointed by the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates will be assisting the Archbishop in considering the response of General Convention 2006 to the requests of the Windsor Report.
Many would profit from heeding the Archbishop’s words. For he admits that while “the election of a practicing gay person as a bishop in the US in 2003 was the trigger for much of the present conflict,” and “the recent resolutions of the General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report,” nevertheless, “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.”
Many ACN proponents, before and after the Convention, have been quick to conclude that the verdict is already in: General Convention has simply failed to respond to the specific requests of the Windsor Report. Moderates in Pittsburgh have rightly pointed out “statements made before the General Convention of The Episcopal Church by Network Moderator, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, and other traditionalists set such a rigid standard that they ensured that The Episcopal Church would fail to satisfy the traditionalists.” They have also rightly noted that, in using the Archbishop’s remarks to support their actions (calling for alternative primatial oversight and separation from their province), the Bishop and Standing Committee “have interpreted the Archbishop’s document to suit their own views.”
Reaction to the Archbishop’s remarks from around the world was fairly predictable. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Frank Griswold, was “greatly encouraged” by the Archbishop’s “timely call to the provinces of the Anglican Communion to join together in exploring our Anglican identity.” He further stated, “The conclusion of this lengthy process is now unknown. Therefore [it is] misleading that some, in responding to the Archbishop’s lengthy theological reflection, have focused their attention on speculations about a yet-to-be determined outcome. And, as we enter into that process of discernment, we must never forget that God can always surprise us, and that the church is not our possession but is an instrument of God’s reconciling love in the world.”
The American Anglican Council interpreted the Archbishop’s remarks as being entirely in sympathy with their own views: “The revisionist trajectory of the Episcopal Church is clear and uncompromising…ECUSA has made its decision to walk apart from Anglican faith and order.” And they hastened to add, “While a covenant process will be years in the making, nevertheless, we in America have an urgent need for temporary emergency pastoral protection through cross-provincial oversight.”
Sydney’s Archbishop, Peter Jensen, said the Archbishop had provided “a great service” to the Anglican Communion by recognizing that “a separation within the Communion is inevitable,” and that “this is a Bible matter.” The Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola said that Anglican churches should either be in or out of the family.” From my understanding of communion, it’s either we are together in communion fully or we’re not.”
On the contrary, Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane of Cape Town said, “The constant talk of schism from various quarters does not address the heart of the matter which is living with difference and otherness.” Archbishop David Moxon, one of the co-presiding bishops of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, welcomed the prospect of developing an Anglican covenant, saying that describing it as an “ultimatum” to the liberal wing of the church is a misrepresentation of the Archbishop’s reflections. “Anglicanism has only ever survived because of the genius of the wording we’ve been able to gather around, with integrity and hospitality, because the classic Anglican texts, including liturgical texts, are ‘roomy.’ We can say them, we can pray them, we can believe them—but there is also room for reasonable variety of Christian points of view.”
and for a Separate, Windsor-Compliant Province
Surprise, surprise, there was an almost immediate rush of requests for alternative primatial oversight (APO). Equally no surprise, it came from members of the Anglican Communion Network, who have been scheming and planning for just this eventuality. Here are the dioceses that have, to date, requested APO. None of these requests is the legislative action of a diocesan convention, and in each diocese there are congregations and individuals who affirm their continuing participation in the Episcopal Church.
On 19 June, the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Fort Worth announced that on 18 June it adopted a resolution appealing to the Archbishop of Canterbury for immediate alternative primatial oversight and Pastoral Care “following the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.” [Fort Worth, with Quincy and San Joaquin, is one of three dioceses, which do not ordain women.]
On 24 July, the Standing Committee passed a resolution withdrawing its consent “to be included in the Seventh Province of the Episcopal Church,” subject to ratification by the diocesan convention on 18 November 2006. They cited as their reason: the actions of General Convention, which “constitute a decision of the Episcopal Church to walk apart from the Anglican Communion.”
The Bishop and Standing Committee met 18 June, and announced 19 June that the Diocese of Pittsburgh “disassociates” itself from those actions of the General convention which constitute a decision of the Episcopal Church to walk apart from the Anglican Communion (“by its failure to accept unreservedly the Windsor Report”), requests “immediate alternative Primatial oversight and pastoral care” and, pending final ratification by its 141st Annual Convention, withdraws its consent “to be included in the Third Province of the Episcopal Church,” “envisioning the drawing together of a new Windsor-compliant Tenth Province in the Episcopal Church.” As justification for their actions, the Standing Committee cited the statement made by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
To the Pittsburgh announcement, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold said in a 28 June statement: “I find the action by the Standing Committee and Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh unsurprising and altogether consistent with their implicit intention of walking apart from the Episcopal Church [emphasis mine].”
The Bishop and Standing Committee met 24 June, and announced 28 June, that they “ask that oversight and pastoral care be provided by the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
On 28 June, the Standing Committee announced their request to the Archbishop and Primates of the Anglican Communion, for alternative primatial oversight. Their reasons were: “on the basis of Holy Scripture, the Church cannot bless same[-]sex unions, nor can we ordain those engaged in homosexual practice,” “the election of a new Presiding Bishop who supported his consecration, and who has advocated and permitted same-sex blessings in her diocese,” and the fact that General Convention has “not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report.”
On June 29, The Bishop, Standing Committee, and Diocesan Board met and drew up a letter requesting immediate primatial oversight. Their reasons were: the unwillingness of General Convention “fully to embrace the requests” of the Windsor Report, ”most notably its failure to agree to a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions,” the election of a presiding bishop “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’ [emphasis mine].” On 17 July, the Bishop and the Standing Committee sent a formal letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury requesting “alternative primatial oversight.”
In a resolution approved 26 June, and announced 30 June, the Standing Committee requested the Bishop to “intentionally and deliberately explore avenues for alternative primatial oversight.” Reasons given were: General Convention’s failure to “meaningfully or adequately [address] the clear expectations set forth in the Windsor Report,” its refusal “to repent or disavow the actions of the 74th General Convention,” its election of a presiding bishop “who not only supports the actions of the 74th General Convention,” but “has acted to approve the blessing of sexual relationships outside the bonds of Holy Matrimony,” a person who “by clear statements” has “shown herself to be outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy and the clear parameters of the Christian Faith, as understood from an Anglican perspective.” [In a subsequent interview, Bishop Beckwith elaborated that Bishop Jefferts Schori used the phrase “mother Jesus” [emphasis mine] in a sermon, which infuriated “orthodox” Episcopalians such as himself.]
Dioceses Watching and Waiting:
(in the order in which they acted)
The Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Quincy announced, while noting “with sorrow,” the actions of General Convention, which have “failed to respond to the various Windsor Resolutions as requested by the Primates,” and “elected a Presiding Bishop who is on record as not supporting the spirit and the words of those Resolutions,” but mindful that “unilateral actions taken by dioceses and Provinces are inappropriate in the eyes of the Primates of the Anglican Communion when not done in concert,” “we are taking the following actions:” “continue to communicate with other member of the American Province who share our concerns,” “to work together through the Anglican Communion Network to address the serious divisions which have been further aggravated by this General Convention,” and, “in anticipation of the responses of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Network, and others, the Standing Committee is reserving Saturday, September 16th as a date to convene a special diocesan synod.”
The Bishop of the Diocese of Texas, on 28 June, issued a letter in response to General Convention. In it, he affirmed his intention to remain in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, and he believes “there is a path forward.” However, perhaps heedful of the Archbishop’s statement, he thinks, “actions trying to foretell what the Archbishop and Communion will do seem premature.”
On 3 July, the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Dallas called upon the Bishop: to “disassociate the work of this diocese from [the] action and leadership [of General Convention 06],” “to appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury for a direct primatial relationship with him,” and to pursue “an appropriate realignment or, if it becomes necessary, an ‘ordered and mutually respectful separation.’” Two days later, the Bishop of Dallas replied: “I will discuss a direct relationship with the Archbishop.” Regarding realignment, he noted, “any discussion with respect to this matter must be made by the Diocesan Convention [20-21 October].” “What I propose to do, as a matter of first importance, is to meet with the clergy and leadership of every one of our congregations…to hear from them their concerns and desires. I will appoint a small panel…to assist me in hearing and understanding their concerns, and issue a report on this understanding.” [Would that that were being done in all the ACN dioceses.] Above all, “no decision is being made now. [his emphasis] I hope all of us will hold together and engage one another between now and the Diocesan Convention….We must be [prayerfully] open to the future God has in store for us, and work together by faith.”
The Bishop of Tennessee and the Standing Committee considered suggestions that the diocese seek alternative primatial oversight, but decided that such a move would not be prudent, in light of its failed attempt to elect the Bishop’s successor. The Bishop has disassociated himself from the actions of General Convention in response to the Windsor Report. He also has gone on record as objecting to the Presiding Bishop-elect’s consent to the election of Gene Robinson and to allow same-sex blessings in the Diocese of Nevada.
The Standing Committee issued a statement that time is needed to reflect on all that happened at General Convention. They did, however, conclude that General Convention “has willfully failed to meet both the spirit and letter of the Windsor Report” and to show proper regard for “the bonds of affection” within the Anglican Communion. The committee affirmed that it stands “in solidarity and deepest sympathy with our sister Dioceses” who have requested alternative primatial oversight.
Requesting Alternative Primatial Oversight
and Withdrawal from ECUSA Provinces
There was immediate protest to these resolutions from within the dioceses requesting alternative primatial oversight. In most cases, the local Via Media groups spearheaded these.
In the Diocese of Pittsburgh, on 2 July, the Via Media group, Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP), protested the actions of the Standing Committee as “divisive, yet without substance.” The request for alternative primatial oversight “represents a premature judgment of our Presiding Bishop-elect.” It has brought “distress” to those committed to the Episcopal Church, and “division and anxiety” to the many parishes that are divided over the issue. “The alleged withdrawal of the diocese from Province III is even more disingenuous.” PEP asserts, “The creation of provinces and the assignment of dioceses to provinces can only be done by canon of the General Convention.” The President of PEP claims “at least thirteen parishes in this diocese have declined to be part of the Network and declared a commitment to The Episcopal Church.”
On 11 July, a press conference was held at Calvary Episcopal Church, Pittsburgh. Nine parishes challenged and opposed the recent actions of the Bishop and Standing Committee and declared their loyalty to the Episcopal Church. “The parishes believe that these steps, if left unchallenged could effectively remove the Diocese from The Episcopal Church.” The parishes also believe that all of these actions constitute an effort to retain use of property, which is properly within the jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church, while withdrawing from it. They invited others who wish to remain loyal to the Episcopal Church to take a stand with them. On the same day, the Bishop of Pittsburgh denied the allegations and pledged his commitment to continue working “with the minority here in every way we can.”
On 11 July, PEP posted two detailed documents, presumably to inform their own and other dioceses what’s going on and how legally to oppose it: “An appraisal of the Diocese of Pittsburgh’s ‘Withdrawal’ of Consent to Inclusion in Province III,” by Lionel E. Deimel; and “Setting the Record Straight,” to counter misinformation circulating.
In the Diocese of Central Florida, Episcopal Voices, a Via Media group, announced a meeting on 29 July “to discuss the standing committee’s action and to plan a course for the future.” Although they are of “differing opinions about sexuality issues,” the group is ”dedicated to remaining in full support and union with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.” The group’s moderator said, “We are extremely unhappy about the diocese’s hasty decision which indicates an impending break with the Episcopal Church. A handful of people and the bishop have made a knee-jerk decision without thoughtfully consulting the membership of this diocese and seeking a wide consensus. Many people oppose breaking with the Episcopal Church, but our voices have not been considered in this action. Further, this action preempts the hope for reconciliation and healing as expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent statement as well as the Windsor Report.”
The Springfield Via Media, though still listed on the Via Media USA website, seems effectively to have been shut down. But the voices of those who oppose the Bishop’s actions and opinion that The Episcopal Church is in “meltdown” have not been entirely silenced. Rectors of two premier parishes in the diocese recently spoke out. The Rev. Christopher Coats, Rector of St. George’s Bellville, said that while he didn’t agree with Bishop Beckwith, “as long as he remains in the Episcopal Church, he’s my bishop and I have to abide by his decisions.” The Rev. Dr. Virginia Bennett, Rector of St. Andrew’s Edwardsville, said that if the diocese eventually left the American church in favor of more conservative Anglican leadership, “we would say that we are part of the Episcopal Church and our diocese left us, and we would hope we could go knocking on the door—for instance of the [nearby] Missouri diocese—and ask them to take us in.”
On 28 June, the Anglican Church of Nigeria announced that its Episcopal Synod had elected four priests as bishops, including the Rev. Canon Martyn Minns of Truro Church, Fairfax, VA. Minns was elected to serve the church’s Convocation of Anglican Churches in North America (CANA).
The Bishop of Virginia, Peter Lee, wrote to his diocese that this is “an affront to the traditional, orthodox understanding of Anglican Provincial Autonomy.” It is, furthermore, blatant disregard for the requests of the Windsor Report, which the ACN are so want to uphold.
Newark Announces Openly-Gay Candidate for Bishop
On 28 June, the Episcopal Diocese of Newark announced that it had nominated the Very Rev. Canon Michael Barlowe, as one of the candidates for bishop of the diocese. Canon Barlowe indicates in his personal profile that, “Paul Burrows has been my partner for 24 years.”
The American Anglican Council was quick to condemn Canon Barlowe’s manner of life as “contradictory to Scripture and the mind of the Anglican Communion (Lambeth  1.10) and illustrates a theology outside the confines of classic Anglicanism.” It is also contrary to Resolution B033 just passed at General Convention, and was surely designed to defy the resolution.
At Church of England’s Synod
On 8 July, women bishops were approved in principle at the Church of England’s Synod, meeting at York University, England 7-11 July 2006. The motion reads: “That this Synod welcome and affirm the view of the majority of the House of Bishops that admitting women to the episcopate in the Church of England is consonant with the faith of the Church as the Church of England has received it and would be a proper development in proclaiming afresh in this generation the grace and truth of Christ.” The Archbishop of Canterbury emphasized, “the theological discussion is not over. This vote moves us further towards the question of how and when this should be recognized.”
While this action may not have been influenced by General Convention’s recent election of a woman Presiding Bishop, it certainly was not hurt by it. It will present one more sticking point for those provinces and dioceses in the Anglican Communion who are not in favor of the ordination of women.
On 15 July, a conference on “The Future of the Anglican Communion following the 75th General Convention” was scheduled at All Saints’ Church, Chevy Chase, MD. More that 300 people had registered to come. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, curate at the parish, was to have been the keynote speaker, along with the Bishop of Pittsburgh, Robert Duncan. Those plans fell apart when Archbishop Carey withdrew his plans to attend, saying, “I understand from Lambeth Palace that talks between the Archbishop of Canterbury and [Episcopal Church] leaders are ongoing and delicate. It is for these reasons, and in order to support the office and ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury, that I have made my decision.”
On 19 July, the Bishop of Arkansas, Larry Maze, gave his diocesan clergy permission to honor the request of same-sex couples to have their relationships blessed, saying, “It is my belief that seeking ways of recognizing and blessing faithful, monogamous same-sex relationships falls within the parameters of providing pastoral concern and care for our gay and lesbian members.” The recently concluded General Convention, surprisingly, took no action on same-sex relationships.
On 26 July, four California Bishops, concerned that the Bishop of San Joaquin intends to “abandon the communion of this Church,” asked a disciplinary panel to approve an expedited deposition of Bishop John-David Schofield. These charges might lead to a presentment—an ecclesiastical trial. Reason: At its annual meeting last October, delegates to San Joaquin’s convention approved the second reading of a change to its constitution to state that it “accedes to” the Canons and Constitution of the General Convention “to the extent that such terms and provisions” are “not inconsistent with the terms and provisions of the constitution and Canons of the Diocese of San Joaquin.”
In a 28 July letter, the Bishop of Texas, the Rt. Rev. Don A. Wimberly invited all members of the House of Bishops “who are willing to stand firmly with the recommendations of the Windsor Report” to a “consultation” (not a “conference”) to be held 19-22 September at Camp Allen, Texas. Two bishops from the Church of England will be present: the bishops of Durham and Winchester.
As a starting point for the discussion, these bishops must accept: Lambeth 98 Resolution 1.10 as the teaching of the Anglican Communion on sexuality, the Windsor Report “as marking the way ahead for the Communion,” the Dromantine Communiqué, and “agreement that the response of ECUSA’s General Convention to the Windsor Report does not go far enough, and the intent to find a way to be related to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Communion in a way that is not impaired.”
The letter lists these five points for discussion: “Solidifying Communion links to Canterbury and the Meeting of Primates, Development of a leadership council for links with Canterbury and the Meeting of Primates, Commitment to common action, Thresholds for an Anglican Covenant, [and] Care of clergy and parishes not represented by ‘Windsor Bishops.’”
From 31 July to 2 August, the Anglican Communion Network held a Council in Pittsburgh. In his opening remarks, the ACN moderator, Bishop Duncan, declared, “The verdict from virtually every quarter, from global Christian observers to the secular press, [is] that the General Convention of the Episcopal Church has ‘walked apart,’” “innovating ECUSA has failed miserably.” He proclaimed the ACN as “enduring ECUSA,” the “biblical, missionary, and united Anglicanism in North America.” Bishop Duncan says that we have begun to see “what appears to be the unraveling of The Episcopal Church, with dioceses asking the Archbishop of Canterbury for oversight, and the Archbishop himself presenting a possible plan for realignment.” After the Bishops and Standing Committees lodged their requests for alternative primatial oversight, the bishops of the seven dioceses submitted together an appeal to Lambeth Palace, which unified and developed the original requests.
Bishop Duncan goes on to add, “Needless to say, we are hopeful about the Appeal, if not necessarily optimistic….If Canterbury can find a way to recognize the spiritual legitimacy of the claim of the Network Dioceses…to be that part of ECUSA that has ‘not walked apart’ from the Communion…then Canterbury sustains and renews his claim to be ‘gatherer’ and ‘moral voice’ of the Communion….If he fails, any hope for a Communion-unifying solution slips away, and so does the shape and leadership of the Anglican Communion as we have know them.”
On 2 August, the Very Rev. Jeffrey John, Dean of St. Albans, England, entered into a civil partnership with the Rev. Grant Holmes, his partner of several decades. This does not relate directly to General Convention 2006, but demonstrates that the United States is not the only country that disregards the sentiment of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury had earlier permitted clergy in the Church of England to enter civil partnerships, provided they remain celibate. The Archbishop of Nigeria claimed that this is hypocrisy and unacceptable.
If by “complying with the requests of the Windsor Report,” we mean literally, point-by-point, then, it must be conceded that General Convention 2006 did not fully comply with the Windsor Report. Comparing the requests with the final resolutions passed reveal this. There were bold attempts to word the resolutions exactly as specified by the Windsor Report, but they did not succeed. That would have been the simplest and most unequivocal way to handle the requests.
On the other hand, clearly General Convention took the Windsor Report requests seriously and attempted to address them. Resolution A159 reaffirmed the commitment of The Episcopal Church “to remain in the Communion.” Resolution A160 expressed its “regret for straining the bonds of affection” and offered “its sincerest apology.” That was not sufficient to satisfy those conservatives who demanded “repentance,” a demand they knew the Episcopal Church was not willing to meet. But the Windsor Report itself did not request that.
Resolution A161 failed, but was replaced by Resolution B033. The Windsor Report requested “a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same[-]gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.” Resolution B033 merely called upon standing committees and bishops with jurisdiction “to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church.” Clearly, calling for “restraint” falls far short of “a moratorium,” and in fact does not prohibit any such action. Furthermore, there is no compliance with the specification “until some new consensus emerges.” Obviously, General Convention failed to adequately address this request. But, as the Archbishop of Canterbury concedes, the Episcopal Church grappled seriously with this request, and that must be factored into any fair and reasonable assessment.
Resolution A162 failed, and therefore there was no resolution passed at General Convention on the blessing of same-sex unions. In fairness to conservatives, General Convention not only did not address the Windsor Report’s request that bishops who authorized such rites “withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion,” it elected as Presiding Bishop one who had authorized such rites and who would now serve as our highest representative—Primate—in the Anglican Communion. That is a breach of the Windsor Report requests that has offended many conservatives at home and abroad.
Finally, Resolution A163 dealt with effective and appropriate pastoral care for all members of this church. It sanctioned Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) (as recommended by the Windsor Report) and urged continued maintenance of historic diocesan boundaries. Resolution A165 committed the church to the ongoing Windsor and Listening Process. Resolution A166 supported the development of an Anglican Covenant. Curiously, there was no resolution that addressed intervention by bishops in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own, as called for by the Windsor Report. That was, to me, a major shortcoming.
Overall, with respect to the response of General Convention to the Windsor Report requests, we must admit there were some serious failures and, some things were what the former Archbishop of Canterbury (in his address at Virginia Seminary discussed at the beginning of this paper) called “fudged.”
Nevertheless, Presiding Bishop Griswold’s assessment is worth keeping in mind: “General convention’s response to the Windsor Report and the Windsor process was costly and generous. It was an unequivocal declaration of our desire and willingness to be faithful partners with other provinces in the lengthy process of developing a covenant articulating our mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Anglican Communion.
“For some we went too far and for others not far enough. For a strong majority of what I call the ‘diverse center’ our response expressed a strong desire to engage the work of reconciliation as part of a global communion in which strongly held opinions on variations in human sexuality have threatened to displace the creeds and the sacraments in articulating the faith we share. I believe our responses have been made in the spirit of the Windsor Report, which is an invitation to enter a process of healing relationships leading to a renewed sense of common commitment in service to Christ’s mission to our broken and divided world.”
Ultimately, the committee appointed by the Presiding Bishop will judge the adequacy of General Convention’s response. But that has not stopped conservatives from pronouncing the “meltdown” of the Episcopal Church, and beginning a rush for alternative primatial oversight and the formation of a separate, “orthodox” province, which sounds very much like “parallel jurisdiction” (opposed by the Windsor Report ¶ 154) and the separatist and purist heresy of Donatism dealt with long ago.
Personally, I think that if the Episcopal Church is expelled from the Anglican Communion for failure to comply with the Windsor Report, then those provinces that have intervened and continued to intervene in the United States (which also violates the requests of the Windsor Report) should likewise be expelled from the Communion. And with them, I think the Anglican Communion Network and its affiliates, which have worked so hard not to foster reconciliation and unity in the church but to bring about dissent and separation.
Finally, we hear a lot these days about demands for adequate pastoral oversight for the conservative congregations in liberal dioceses. I would like to be assured that adequate pastoral oversight will be given moderate and liberal congregations in conservative dioceses. If there is going to be a split, I think it should be a fair and equitable division.
To help determine if ECUSA has complied with the Windsor Report requests, here is the exact wording of the requests:
¶ 134. “Mindful of the hurt and offence that have resulted from recent events, and yet also of the imperatives of communion—the repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ—we have debated long and hard how all sides may be brought together. We recommend that:
The Episcopal Church addressed these requests in “A Covenant Statement” adopted nearly unanimously at a meeting of the House of Bishops at Camp Allen, Texas, 15 March 2005:
“2. We express our own deep regret for the pain that others have experienced with respect to our actions at the General convention of 2003, and we offer our sincerest apology and repentance for having breached our bonds of affection by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking those actions.
“3. The Windsor Report has invited the Episcopal Church ‘to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges’ (Windsor Report, para. 134)….Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to delay Episcopal elections accordingly….”
¶ 135. “Finally,…we particularly request a contribution from the Episcopal Church (USA) which explains, from within the sources of authority that we as Anglicans have received in scripture, the apostolic tradition and reasoned reflection, how a person living in a same[-]gender union may be considered eligible to lead the flock of Christ….”
Accordingly, To Set Our Hope on Christ: A Response to the Invitation of Windsor Report ¶ 135 (The Office of Communication, the Episcopal Church Center, New York, 2005) was submitted 21 June 2005. Of course, fundamentalists do not accept this as an adequate response.
“On public Rites of Blessing of same[-]sex unions” (page 54ff)
“¶ 144. Because of the serious repercussions in the Communion, we call for a moratorium on all [Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions], and recommend that bishops who have authorized such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorization. Pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion.”
“The March 2005 Covenant Statement from the House of Bishops states:
“4. In response to the invitation in the Windsor Report that we effect a moratorium on public rites of blessing for same[-]sex unions, it is important that we clarify that the Episcopal Church has not authorized any such liturgies, nor has General Convention requested the development of such rites. The Primates, in their communiqué ‘assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship’ (Primates’ Communiqué, para. 6). Some in our church hold such ‘pastoral care’ to include the blessing of same[-]sex relationships. Others hold that it does not. Nevertheless, we pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same[-]sex unions, and we will not bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006.”
“On care of dissenting groups” (page 58ff)
“¶ 154. …We do not therefore favour the establishment of parallel jurisdictions.
“¶ 155. We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, diocese and parishes other than their own:
In the March 2005 Covenant Statement from the House of Bishops, the bishops voted:
“5. We pledge ourselves not to cross diocesan boundaries to provide Episcopal ministry in violation of our own canons and we will hold ourselves accordingly accountable. We will also hold bishops and clergy canonically resident in other provinces likewise accountable. We request that our Anglican partners “effect a moratorium on any further interventions” (Windsor Report, para. 155; see also 1988 Lambeth conference Resolution 72 and 1998 Lambeth conference Resolution III.2) and work with us to find more creative solutions, such as the initiation of companion diocese relationships, to help us meet the legitimate needs of our own people and still maintain our integrity.”
The Resolutions Proposed to General Convention 2006
(original & final versions)
 One of the actions of General Convention was to change the name of the church from “ECUSA” (or was it The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society?) to “The Episcopal Church.” I haven’t found the resolution. In any event, I don’t think they intended that we should always capitalize the “t,” as some folks are now beginning to do. That would seem a bit arrogant to me.
 The Lambeth Commission on Communion: The Windsor Report 2004 (The Anglican Communion Office, 2004). The Windsor Report [it is not usually italicized] is an attempt by the Anglican Communion to respond to the 2003 General Convention of the Episcopal Church, which consented to the election of an openly gay bishop. It makes specific requests of the Episcopal Church (USA) in hopes of preserving the unity of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
 Most Rev. Dr. Robin Eames, “The Anglican Communion: What Communion?,” Virginia Theological Seminary, 5 October 2005, ENS.
 Most Rev. Dr. Robin Eames, “Where now for World Anglicanism?,” Pitt Lecture 2005, Berekley Divinity School at Yale, 12 October 2005, www.yale.edu/divinity/video/convo2005/Pitt_Lecture_10_12)05.pdf.
 Announced 19 September 2005. Some would argue that this is tantamount to withdrawal from the Anglican Communion, since the one thing that defines the Anglican Communion is being in communion with the See of Canterbury. “Nigerian Church New Constitution Redefines Relationship with Canterbury,” Christian Today, 3 August 2005, www.chritiantoday.com/news/africa/nigerian.chruch.new.constitution.redefines.relationship.with.Canterbury.
 George Carey, “A communion in Crisis? A Reflection offered by Lord Carey,” Virginia Theological Seminary, 9 May 2006. http://glcarey.co.uk/Speeches/2006/Communion%20in%20crisis.html.
 Dr. N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, “The Choice Before ECUSA,” 14 June 2006, www.acn-us.org/archive/2006/06/nt-wright-communion-is-bound-to-conclude-ecusa-has-specifically-chosen-not-to-comply-with-windsor.html.
 “From Columbus: Text of Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold’s June 21 message to a Join Session of the 75th General Convention’s House of Bishops and the House of Deputies,” ENS.
 George Conger, “Resolution B033: An Extraordinary Compromise,” The Living Church, 23 June 2006, www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/printarticle.asp?ID=2207.
 “General Convention Actions Inadequate (Bishops’ Statement),” ACN, 21 June 2006, www.acn-us.org/archive/2006/06/general-convention-actions-inadequate-bishops-statement.t=html.
 “Open Letter from Gene Robinson after General Convention 06,” 24 June 2006, http://voicesofcolumbus.wordpress.com/200606/24/open-letter-from-gene-robinson-after-general-convention.
 “A Statement of Conscience,” Episcopal Diocese of Washington, 21 June 2006, www.edow.org/news/window/special/generalconvention/2006/0621conscience.html.
 While the election of a new Presiding Bishop came on Sunday, 18 June, that is before passage of Resolution B033, I have chosen, for greater cohesiveness, to discuss all the resolutions together, and discuss the election of the Presiding Bishop here.
 Maria Mackay, “Archbishop Falls Short of Congratulating New Female Episcopal Church Head,” Christian Today, 22 June 2006.
 Matthew Davies, “From Columbus: Anglican leaders reflect favorably on Jefferts Schori election,” ENS.
 Ruth Gledhill, “Bishop breaks stained glass ceiling,” London Times, 19 June 2006.
 My experience is quite limited, but it seems to me that we seldom encounter deeply spiritual persons. Of the people I have encountered in the world today, I would put Rowan Williams, Frank Griswold and Desmond Tutu in that category. The biggest common factor I find in these people is that they exude calm, peace and love—compassion. They are the ones who make Anglicanism attractive to me. Unfortunately, I find many of the persons in the forefront of the crisis in the church today, instead, exude impatience, hatred and intolerance.
 “Pittsburgh Action Called Divisive,” Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, 2 July 2006.
 “Nine parishes challenge recent actions of the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pittsburgh; declare their loyalty to the Episcopal Church,” press conference 11 July 2006 at Calvary Episcopal Church, Pittsburgh.
 “Presiding Bishop responds to Archbishop of Canterbury’s reflections,” ENS, 28 June 2006.
 “The American Anglican Council’s Comments on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Statement on ‘Challenge and Hope’ for the Anglican Communion,” AAC Press Release, 27 June 2006, file://C:\DOCUME~1/Temp/UUS6DENE.htm.
 Matthew Davies, “Anglican leaders respond to Williams’ reflections on Communion,” ENS, 29 June 2006.
 “Fort Worth: Standing Committee wants to leave Province VII,” ENS, 27 July 2006.
 Never mind that in the medieval period many, including Julian of Norwich, spoke of Jesus, our Mother, and this idea was expressed in the widespread symbol of a pelican feeding it brood with blood from its breast. Or, that Jesus says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not” (Mt 23:37; Lk 13:34). How freely we pick and choose which traditions and which scriptures to heed and which to ignore, which children to gather and which to exclude.
 “Central Florida: Diocese makes official request for ‘alternative primatial oversight,’” ENS, 27 July 2006.
 The Rt. Rev. Don A. Wimberly, “Response to General Convention,” 28 June 2006, www.epicenter.org/edot/GC_BishopStatement.asp?SnID=2105293285.
 “Tennessee: Pastoral letter makes no mention of ‘alternative primatial oversight,’” ENS, 27 July 2006.
 “Albany: Standing Committee calls on diocese to ‘step back,’ ENS, 3 August 2006.
 “Pittsburgh Action Called Divisive,” News Release from Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, 2 July 2006.
 News release from 11 July 2006 press conference held at Calvary Episcopal Church: “Nine parishes challenge recent actions of the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pittsburgh; declare their loyalty to the Episcopal Church.”
 “Diocese Responds to Calvary Press Conference,” Pittsburgh Diocesan website, www.pgh.anglican.org/news/local/calvarypressconference071106
 Tim Townsend, “Episcopal Church faces crisis as 7 bishops rebel,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9 July 2006, www.stltoday.com/.; Chris Wetterich, “Episcopal bishop seeks new direction,” The State Journal-Register, Springfield, IL, www.sj-r.com/sections/news/printfile/90810.asp.
 Mary Frances Schjonberg, “Virginia priest elected by Church of Nigeria to serve in North America,” ENS, 28 June 2006.
 “Virginia bishop calls Nigerian election an ‘affront’,” ENS, 30 June 2006.
 “Women bishops approved in principle at Church of England’s Synod,” ENS, 8 July 2006.
 Matthew Davies, “Church of England begins long process toward ordaining women bishops,” ENS, 19 July 2006.
 Douglas LeBlanc, “Archbishop Carey Cancels Plans for Conference: He Cites ‘Delicate Talks,’” The Living Church, 8 August 2006.
 “Arkansas: Bishop allows same-gender blessings as pastoral response,” ENS, 27 July 2006.
 “News from San Joaquin,” FiF North America, 26 July 2006. www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/printer_328.shtml.
 “Bishop of Texas to Host Meeting of Windsor-Affirming Bishops,” The Living Church, 3 August 2006.
 “Network Council: Moderator’s Address,” www.can-us.org/archive/2006/07/network-council-moderators-address.html. The tone of Bishop Duncan’s remarks do not sound like a very respectful way to address the Archbishop of Canterbury. Is this a hint at a future claim for someone else, say Archbishop Akinola, to be the rightful leader of the “orthodox” Anglican Communion?
 Stephen Bates, “A very civil partnership,” Guardian, 2 August 2006. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/stephen_bates/2006/08/a_discreet_little_service.html.
 The Lambeth Commission on Communion: The Windsor Report 2004 (The Anglican Communion Office, 2004).
 The Windsor Report expresses very little mindfulness of the hurt and offense to homosexuals, and does not address the issue of homophobia at all.
 “Equipping the Saints: A Crisis Resource for Anglican Laity,” An Education Resource Produced by the American Anglican Council, 2nd Edition, 2004.
 “Episcopalians United,” “Anglicans United,” An Episcopal dictionary of the Church, ed. Don S. Armentrout & Robert B. Slocum (Church Publishing, 1999) 187, 20.
 The Reformed Episcopal Church began in 1873, so it is hardly recent, and reflects the tension between high church/low church in the Episcopal Church rather than sexuality. For more information, please see: “Reformed Episcopal Church,” An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, ed. Don S. Armentrout & Robert B. Slocum (Church Publishing, 1999) 435; and Donald S. Armentrout, “Episcopal Splinter Groups: A Study of Groups Which Have Left the Episcopal Church, 1873-1985” (Sewanee, Tennessee, 1985) 1.
 ACNS 4075 Nigeria 17 November 2005 “Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) announces a covenant with two North American church bodies.”
 “Prayer Book Society,” in An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, ed. by Don S. Armentrout & Robert B. Slocum (Church Publishing, 1999) 410.
 Elizabeth Adams, Going to Heaven: The Life and Election of Bishop Gene Robinson (Brooklyn, NY, 2006) 123.
 Kevin Eckstrom, “Institute for Religion and Democracy President Dianne Knippers Dies at 53: Stalwart against liberalism in mainline churches had colon cancer,” Christianity Today, 19 April 2005, www.christianitytoday.com;ct/2005/116/; Peter Laarman, “A Canterbury Tale,” 6 July 2006, www.progressivechristiansuniting.org/2006/07/06/a-canterbury-tale/#more-105.
 Stephen Bates, A Church at War: Anglicans and Homosexuality (I.B. Taurus, 2004) 185.
 “Integrity, Inc.” An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, ed. Don S. Armentrout & Robert B. Slocum (Church Publishing, 1999) 266.
Please sign my guestbook and view it.
Statistics courtesy of