GAFCON, visas and other factors

GAFCON (The Global Anglican Future Conference) has posted a note on their website claiming that over 1000 people have signed on for the conference. The first paragraph of that notice reads,"Over 1000 senior leaders from seventeen provinces in the Anglican Communion, representing 35 million church-going Anglicans, have registered for the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in Jerusalem at the close of the online registration process. They include 280 bishops, almost all accompanied by their wives. Final attendance figures will depend on smooth processing of requested visas, and other factors."

Note the final sentence: "Final attendance figures will depend on smooth processing of requested visas, and other factors."

Interestingly there is no mention in this latest rendition of the GAFCON song of the meeting in Jordan of an "important Consultation in Jordan from 17-22 June (which) will include the conference leadership, theological resource group, those bishops serving in majority Islamic settings and other key leaders." (This from an earlier press release from the GAFCON leadership meeting in London.)

The processing of requested visas might be more difficult than imagined. Jordan might not be too interested in having a consultation of religious leaders highly critical of Islam. Israel might find 1000 Anglicans and fellow-travelers who come in part with an agenda that is difficult for the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem at best a bother, at worse a politically charged problem.

And then, what about "other factors?" Is this a signal that registration has been made by individuals who may not have yet secured funds to attend, or shortfall of outside funding?

Who knows? But it is interesting that the number 1000 consists of registrations some of which are not yet secure.

We are now one month from the date of the Conference.

My bet is that Jordan will become a rump meeting held, if at all, in Jerusalem just prior to the larger Conference, billed as a pilgrimage (but we know better), and that there is some possibility that the Conference will be considerably smaller than predicted.

We shall see.

Two Bloggers do great work.

Fr. Jake has done it again: a great analysis of the bishops going to Lambeth and those going to GAFCON. Read it HERE.

Then, because too much minutia in Anglican Land will give you indigestion, take one POEM by Tobias as medicine for the soul. Read Blind Man's Testimony.

Wonderful stuff.

Revisiting the Dar es Salaam Communique.

I had the occasion to revisit the Dar es Salaam Communique yesterday while writing another blog entry.  It was instructive after all these months to read the communique again, particularly the Key Recommendations appended to the Communique. The text can be found HERE.

There have been questions raised as to how much of this document, particularly the Key Recommendations section, is really the product of the Primates and how much is the product of a particular group of Primates guided by the advice of others "outside the camp."

Whatever its origins, it is a document that will be viewed as a shameful example of arrogance on the part of a body of clerics ostensibly gathered for prayer, consultation and reflection. The press to issue something, almost anything, before the meeting simply collapsed led to complete capitulation to those who believed the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada must be disciplined. It was not the best they could do, it was the worse.

 

Archbishop Orimbi's Letter to the Presiding Bishop is drivel.

The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of Uganda, has written the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori a letter in response to her letter to him asking him not to come to Georgia, or at least to meet with her. Archbishop Orombi's letter back to her has been touted as an "extraordinary" letter and people commenting on it over at Stand Firm are delighted to say the least.

The letter is self serving drivel.

He writes,

"I received word of your letter through a colleague who had seen it on the internet. Without the internet, I may never have known that you had written such a personal, yet sadly ironic, letter to me."

Actually he would have known had he checked his email from her. ENS reports that the letter was sent by land and by email to him at the time that it was also released to the public. Perhaps the Archbishop has all her email sent directly to "junk." Perhaps the email address is wrong. But probably the Archbishop is exercising license.
 
He writes, "I am not visiting a church in the Diocese of Georgia. I am visiting a congregation that is part of the Church of Uganda. Were I to visit a congregation within TEC, I would certainly observe the courtesy of contacting the local bishop. Since, however, I am visiting a congregation that is part of the Church of Uganda, I feel very free to visit them and encourage them through the Word of God."

The Presiding Bishop said that she understood that the Archbishop was visiting a congregation in the Diocese of Georgia. She did not say "a church." The issue is that it is in the Diocese of Georgia, as a territory, not that it is a church of the Diocese. To say that The Episcopal Church, or the Church of Uganda, only consists of the parishes of those churches and not the territorial jurisdiction opens an interesting problem. Given this read of the matter nothing precludes TEC from working in Uganda quite independently of the Anglican "partner" church there. It reduces the ancient canons regarding action outside one's own diocese to a rule having no standing at all, since the image is no longer territorial jurisdiction but affinity. That will blow the Anglican Communion out of the water eventually, for it will make the whole world a battleground for bishops contending to gather 'covert' congregations to align with this or that episcopal perspective and oversight. In his justification, that the Church of Uganda has parishes in the United States of America that are "his" the Archbishop of Uganda has denied the validity of the norms of Anglican Communion churches and even the most forgiving read of the Windsor Report's request that there not be incursions.

He writes, "The reason this congregation separated from TEC and is now part of the Church of Uganda is that the actions of TEC's General Convention and statements of duly elected TEC leaders and representatives indicate that TEC has abandoned the historic Christian faith. Furthermore, as predicted by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in October 2003, TEC's actions have, in fact, torn the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level."

Here is the crux of the matter: The Church of Uganda believes TEC has "abandoned the historic Christian faith." The CofU is NOT in communion with TEC. Therefore it can do as it likes in relation to its former partner church. The CofU is not engaged in incursion or invasion, it is evangelizing heathen America – which of course can easily include Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else the CofU determines has gone astray.

He writes, "Nowhere in the Windsor Report or in subsequent statements of the Instruments of Communion is there a moral equivalence between the unbiblical actions and decisions of TEC that have torn the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level and the pastoral response on our part to provide ecclesiastical oversight to American congregations who wish to continue to uphold the faith once delivered to the saints and remain a part of the Anglican Communion."

OK. Maybe there is not a moral equivalence… but there is none the less the request that Provinces engaged in activities outside their own province back off and stop. The Archbishop is arguing that the Windsor Report, or subsequent adjustments, make such incursions a moral good. If this reading of the "Windsor Process" is allowed to stand without objection it simply means that the requests made of the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church are enforceable and the request made of those Provinces involved in border crossing is not. To go there is to make the Windsor Report, the Windsor Process, etc, completely irrelevant. 

He writes with gusto,"Your selective quoting of the Windsor Report is stunning in its arrogance and condescension." Let's see, the Presiding Bishop said, "I must protest this unwarranted incursion into The Episcopal Church. I am concerned that you seem to feel it appropriate to visit, preach, and exercise episcopal ministry within the territory of this Church, and I wonder how you would receive similar behavior in Uganda. These actions violate the spirit and letter of the work of the Windsor Report, and only lead to heightened tensions." To say "these actions violate the spirit and letter of the work of the Windsor Report" is neither arrogant nor condescending. It is simply a fact. By the way, the Presiding Bishop did not quote the Windsor Report AT ALL. 

He writes, "An important element of the Dar es Salaam agreement was the plea by the Primates that 'the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation.' This was something to which you gave verbal assent and yet you have initiated more legal actions against congregations and clergy in your short tenure as Presiding Bishop than all of your predecessors combined. I urge you to rethink, suspend litigation and follow a more Christ-like approach to settling your differences."

Actually, what the Dar es Salaam communiqué (not agreement) said in its "Key Recommendations" was this, "The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations."

I presume that fulfilling the spirit of that urging or plea would include continuing Episcopal Church congregations (no matter how much a minority) to continue to use the property of a parish even when a majority had voted to leave the Episcopal Church. And alienating property from the Episcopal Church sounds very much like what the Virginia secessionist churches have done. 

He writes, quoting (more or less) the bible,"Finally, I appeal to you to heed the advice of Gamaliel in Acts 5.38ff, "Leave these [churches] alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop [them]; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." Of course the Archbishop, lover of Scripture, has to insert "churches" here because that is not what Gamaliel said. Gamaliel said, "leave these men alone!" (NIV) He is drawing a parallel to the advice of Gamaliel, of course. 

Letting these people go is perfectly in order. That has never been the issue. The issue is alienating the property from the Episcopal Church without its consent.

The Archbishop has written a self justifying letter that is unworthy of him. If it goes unchallenged or unchecked it reduces Anglican jurisdictions to the churches related to a bishop he has opened the Anglican world to a complete breakdown of polity, missionary strategy based on the office of the bishop and cooperation among Anglican Provinces. 

It is a mess. 

The Archbishop's cautionary letter is now a phone call

So: (i) There were no letters sent to "bishops unsympathetic." Bishop Tom Wright was wrong five weeks ago. (ii) The Pentecost general letter to all bishops was not that letter. Ruth Gledhill was wrong last week. If you wonder what I am talking about, see HERE. It appears that I was right - the letter is not the letter, etc.

At least that is how it now seems. It is now reported that there is to be no letter, rather the Archbishop of Canterbury will be phoning those who are unsympathetic to the Windsor Report / Covenant focus of Lambeth. 

The Living Church reports that "A spokesman said Archbishop Williams had modified his plan to write to bishops whose stated positions ran contrary to the colleagial gathering of equals he envisions for Lambeth. Instead, Archbishop Williams has been in telephone contact with a number of bishops, asking that they honor the integrity of the meeting, the spokesman told the Church of England Newspaper."

Perhaps he will be calling a bishop near (or dear) to you. Who indeed is on the list to be called?

I cannot imagine just how the Archbishop intends to launch into his concern that said bishops be convinced of "the need to be wholeheartedly part of a shared vision and process in our time together."

Heretofore the "shared vision and process" of Lambeth was mostly the desire to attend, some delight in being part of the Anglican family,  and reasonable manners. Now it requires something more.

Not everything is about US. How about this: 350, the number to beat.

Not everything is about us, the "us" being Anglicans. Some thought needs to be given to the miserable state of the planet, and in particular the moral imperatives that humankind have to attend to its health. This is where the number 350 comes in.

The folks over at Titus One Nine (T19) glean lots of stuff from around the web that they think might interest readers in Anglican Blog Land. This week they aimed our browsers over to the Los Angles Times and an article by Bill McKibben titled, "Civilization's last chance."

It is absolutely worth the read. Thanks to T19 for pointing us there.

Here is the upshot of the matter: McKibben believes that unless we can bring the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere down from 38o parts per million to 350 parts per million in the immediate future, civilization will be a past tense affair.

He bases his belief on work done by NASA's James Hanson who wrote, "if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."

McKibben comments at the close of this article, "People will doubtless survive on a non-350 planet, but those who do will be so preoccupied, coping with the endless unintended consequences of an overheated planet, that civilization may not.
Civilization is what grows up in the margins of leisure and security provided by a workable relationship with the natural world. That margin won't exist, at least not for long, as long as we remain on the wrong side of 350. That's the limit we face." McKibben wants the world to wake up and get with the program - the program being to reduce the carbon dioxide levels to below 35o parts per million. He has a website devoted to the matter, www.350.org, go visit. Sign up. Push to lower the number. Remember, too, that civilization, with all its discontents, is still the context in which most of our mutterings as Anglicans take place.

What do you think?

Archbishop's Pentecost Letter not THE Letter to Bishops Unsympathetic.

The Archbishop has written a Pentecost Letter to all the Bishops of the Communion. This is not the letter we have been wondering about.

Bishop Tom Wright assured us on April 12th that the Archbishop "would be writing to those bishops who might be thought particularly unsympathetic to Windsor and the Covenant to ask them whether they were really prepared to build on this dual foundation. Those letters, I understand, are in the post as we speak, written with apostolic pain and heart-searching but also with apostolic necessity."

The Pentecost Letter, posted on the Archbishop's web page is NOT the letter to bishops unsympathetic. Read his letter HERE. Rather this letter is a more general letter to all bishops.

In it the Archbishop remarks, "As you may have gathered, in circumstances where there has been divisive or controversial action, I have been discussing privately with some bishops the need to be wholeheartedly part of a shared vision and process in our time together." So it remains to be seen what the Archbishop might have said in those private conversations or letters to bishops unsympathetic.

This Pentecost Letter is not the letter to which Bishop Tom Wright referred. Perhaps one of those bishops (whoever you are) would be willing to share the contents of the Archbishop's correspondence with them.

Meanwhile about this Pentecost Letter, it gets one Toot.

The only matter of interest is this comment from the Archbishop: "it all the more essential that those who come to Lambeth will arrive genuinely willing to engage fully in that growth towards closer unity that the Windsor Report and the Covenant Process envisage." This does not require or imply Windsor compliance or Covenant allegiance, but rather a willingness to work for closer unity - a unity that the Windsor Report could not command and the draft Covenants to date do not well serve.

The Skunk under the Hood: The Appendix to the St. Andrew's Covenant

I have spent considerable time looking at the Appendix to the St. Andrew Draft of the Draft Covenant. It is and will be a source of misery. Whatever happens to the idea of a Draft Covenant I profoundly hope that it will not include the material in the Appendix.

The Windsor Report Proposed Covenant died a horrible death, remaining a still born appendage to the Windsor Report. It referred most disputes to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The WR itself has suffered massive hemorrhaging and barely has in it any life at all.

The second iteration, the first product of the Covenant Drafting Group, has come to be known as the Nassau Draft. It included as part of its last section, "Unity in Communion," the seed of a canon law for dealing with issues of contention. Such issues were to go primarily to the Primates. It was terrible and was widely criticized.

The third iteration, called the St. Andrew's Draft puts the process of dealing with disputes in a separate Appendix. Again, the draft has much to offer, but the Appendix is the beginning of a canonical process and is being widely criticized as the beginning of Anglican Communion canon law.

There have been two efforts to provide flow charts for the St. Andrew's Draft Appendix: You can see them HERE and HERE. (Thanks to Thinking Anglicans) The most important thing to say about the St. Andrew's Draft Appendix is that it is so complex that even the flow charts gasp for air.

The skunk under the hood is this: If you look at the current iterations of the Anglican Covenant idea, they all point to an unmanageable and complex process by which churches now part of the Anglican Communion could be kicked out.

So in an effort to provide a more generous and enlightened flow chart for the drafting of a means of settling disputes in the Anglican Communion I offer the following:

1. Assuming that the Anglican Communion (AC) is a "one world" sort of entity, that is an entity that is a world wide church, what it can't deal with is fracture.

2. When Church X in the AC does something that ticks off Church Y or the Instruments of Communion (IC), Church Y or the IC declares that Church X is full of TRASH and the TRASH has to be taken out.

3. Church X can either empty the trash or declare that the trash is what they wish to embrace, following Our Lord's position that lots of TRASH will get into heaven, or California, whichever comes first, before the seemingly good people.

4. If Church X empties the trash, then Church Y or the IC no longer have a case.

5. If Church X does not empty the TRASH, then Church Y or the IC can try to force them to do so. They do so by calling Church X to repentance. The message can be delivered by any of the IC.

6. If Church X does not repent, then Church Y and the IC can state that the AC is broken and Church X is the problem. While they can not make Church X remove the TRASH, they can symbolically burn that TRASH, and they do so by excommunicating Church X.

7. Church X does not have to give a damn, of course, because item 1 that presupposes that there is a world wide Anglican Church, is mistaken.

8. Church X and Y and the IC begin to deal with one another as ecumenical partners. None of the other ecumenical partners can tell the difference between the state of affairs at the start of this process and the state at the end.

9. God will work God's purpose out. Bridge building will happen, and there will be peace in the valley again. The patch up will happen, without there having to be a World Wide Anglican Church.

I hope this helps.

Sour Wine: No Money, No Prayer.

The New Wineskins Missionary Network, was in an earlier incarnation called The Episcopal Church Missionary Community (ECMC). You can read its history HERE. ECMC began as an independent voice for mission that both challenged and worked with the Episcopal Church and its missionary efforts. It's first leaders, Walter and Louise Hannum, provided a vision of education for missionaries, engagement in mission, and support of missionaries worldwide that gave rise to several important efforts in the church: (i) ECMC began a church wide global mission conference that has evolved into the New Wineskins for Global Mission Conference; (ii) it provide the context for a conference on reaching unreached peoples that in turn gave energy to the development of Anglican Frontier Missions and supported other evangelical mission agencies; (iii) it developed a prayer list for missionaries and mission societies and agencies.

They have thrown their lot with the American Anglican Council and the Anglican Communion Network and have adopted the tag line of the Common Cause Partnership. They say, "New Wineskins has open doors to work for a united, Biblical, and missionary Anglicanism in North America and even worldwide!" (tag line in red).

Over the years they have ceased praying for those at the Episcopal Church Center whose charge it is to send missionaries or for Episcopal Church appointed missionaries. They are no longer part of the Episcopal Partnership for Global Mission, an umbrella organization of missionary agencies of the Episcopal Church.

Racked as I am with revisionist leanings and a member of the unclean Episcopal Church, I still get letters from New Wineskins asking for donations. I received their Easter letter today (May 9^th).

The letter informed me that "Sharon (the Director) was recently honored with invitations to attend the Global Anglican Future Conference in Jerusalem in June and the South East Asia Mission Roundtable Conference in Bangkok in October." We may remember that GAFCON is by invitation only from a bishop related to its organization. New Wineskins has maintained a level of purity sufficient to be "honored" by an invitation.

While they are hurting for money, they believe that "God will continue to provide, and we are building relationships with churches across the country and forming new partnerships for our future." Good.

They are forming new partnerships. I presume this means among other things that they will migrate from the Anglican Communion Network to the Common Cause Partnership as the venue for their work as the ACN itself fragments and its purist residue forms this new "united, biblical and missionary Anglicanism in North America."

But here is the declaration that stood out: "New Wineskins will not incur debt. Without increased financial support we will be unable to continue to offer prayer support to missionaries around the world, Mission Awareness Seminars in parishes, and the triennial New Wineskins for Global Mission conferences." The Seminars and Conferences require funding, no question. But I wonder who offering prayer support to missionaries requires much in the way of funding? Perhaps it is to keep the list up to date and send it out.

Well, I could help with that. No, wait…The list is kept up to date by, among other things, keeping it pure and undefiled by people like me, you know, members of the Episcopal Church.

I have always had a love/hate relationship with ECMC. The Hannums are wonderful people and they challenged me often to be better at mission work, but I always felt held in prayer by their list and looked eagerly for the names of new appointed missionaries and the names of colleagues at the Church Center involved in mission sending and support. Those names are not there now.

That Wineskin is getting old; the supple material that could contain us all is more rigid. I am afraid their Easter Letter was not for me.

O well.

 

All Quiet on the Anglican Front

In the run up to Pentecost there is a sort of quiet pause in Anglican blog land.

Watchdogs are out, data is being gathered by Fr. Jake on the whereabouts of such usurpers as Presiding Bishop Venables and the deposed Bishop of Recife, now just fine in the Southern Cone. Baby Blue is on Kenneth Kearon's case, wondering just why he is in the Philippines. (Is this a copy-cat caper?) She is going on about the Philippine Independent Church and the Episcopal Church of the Philippines at some length looking for sneaky doings. There are all sorts of legal activities regarding property taking place, most of them without great splash interest or moxie. Mostly muttering is all there is. To be fair there is much more interesting stuff going on elsewhere.

Mostly people in Anglican Land seem to be waiting for a shoe to drop. (Is it the other shoe or just a shoe?) Questions are left dangling.

Whatever happened to the letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the bishops, now predicted some weeks ago by Anglican blog notables?

Is GAFCON the gaffe it seems to be, resulting finally in a meeting of the already convinced and convicted set on the pilgrims way to chart a new Anglicanism – one without the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Lambeth filled with objectionable people, and pure as the driven snow?

Who is paying for GAFCON anyway?

How is registration going at Lambeth? I have hear that over 700 bishops now have signed on.

Bishop Robinson can't sign on, because not invited. He will be there however, the shadow of the shame of his dis-invitation hanging like a pall over the gathering.

Bishop Cavalcanti was not invited to Lambeth either, being deposed. Want to bet he will be there as well, hanging around the hospitality suite of the Common Cause Partnership?

The deposed bishop of Harare was not invited, being deposed, but he will not be there, the stink from his activities in Zimbabwe being so great that a visa will not be granted. Going to church in Harare can be rather exciting, since the deposed Bishop has used force to block out regular paid up Zimbabwe Anglicans from worship. Fighting has ensued. Who said going to church wasn't exciting? But there will be no hospitality for the deposed bishop of Harare.

It turns out that the bishops of Pittsburgh will attend Lambeth, trying to make the case for the Common Cause Partners and their takeover scheme. They of course were invited, but Bishop Duncan had not previously indicated that he would suffer actually going. He will bear the burden it now appears, and will go,"Both bishops believe it is important that the diocese be represented throughout the Lambeth Conference, if for no other reason than to provide an alternative perspective on the situation in The Episcopal Church. 'Those who accuse us of abandoning the Anglican Communion will certainly be present and vocal. It is important for us to be able to respond directly to their claims about the situation in The Episcopal Church and our place in the Communion.'"

Sitting on the edge of deposition for abandonment of the communion of this Church (meaning the Episcopal Church) the Moderator of the Common Cause Partnership – whose clear purpose is to work for a "biblical and missionary and united Anglicanism" in North America – really has to make an appearance, if only to show he hasn't left yet.

Then there is the dither about the imminent demise of the Church of England. Hand wringing and great laments, but no good numbers.

The Anglican Covenant idea is mired in deep misery, being now processed to the point where it is hard to know just what is going on, even with flowcharts and more flowcharts. Somewhere, over the rainbow, there may be an Anglican Covenant, but this side of the rainbow, there is just rain. Something like the St. Andrew's Draft, MINUS the appendix "Framework, Procedures for the Resolution of Covenant Disagreements" just might get through, but the flowcharts are enough to put one off the canonical feed bag for a while.

Lambeth has given just a bit of its time to discussion of the Covenant and Lambeth is touted as not being legislative in character, with few plenary meetings. So we are waiting for someone to tell us just how the information from discussions at Lambeth will be expressed in further revision of the Covenant. My wager is that the "thoughts" of the bishops at Lambeth will transmogrify into the stones for the new structure. After all, if the thoughts of the bishops at Lambeth were enough to turn its resolutions into binding "mind of the communion" statements, what is to prevent it happening in a looser, more gentle, Lambeth?

And, as an aside, I wonder just why Anglican Bishops in one of their Plenary meetings need to hear a Roman Catholic Cardinal, who doesn't believe we are a real church with real priests and bishops anyway, tell Anglicans that we have to choose between Catholic and Protestant tendencies and simply get over the compromise at the core of our Anglican experience. The Via Media may seem a bridge with a barrier and border guards, but Anglicans have gotten to know the guards and have invited them to tea and generally lowered the level of belligerency by claiming that both are our heritage. I would submit that the unsightly vision of a church holding in tension very different views of the church may bother Rome, but Rome might do well to look to itself a bit.

Meanwhile, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop and other Episcopal officers have seen fit to be concerned for the world in ways that point to something else beside the Anglican snits. It is quite refreshing to remember that most of the time we are not thinking of ourselves but of others.

And of course Episcopalians and Anglicans the world over will be focused on Pentecost this Sunday, a feast celebrating the noisy chamber rattling banging about of the Spirit in the Churches. The Spirit is not, thank God, confined to our miserable doctrines, pronouncements and other efforts to box and control. Stand by to be surprised.

There may be no surprise in the waiting, but in the living there are more wonders than we can comprehend.

And the shoes will fall where they may. Then perhaps we can run barefoot in the grass and laugh until the new day.

Time to Up the Prayer, Giving, Demanding.

The devastation of the cyclone in Burma / Myanmar is made worse each day that outside relief is hampered by a government  that is itself devastated by its isolation from a world of people willing to come to the aid of the suffering. Pray for the people and leadership of Myanmar and the Church in Burma, and give for relief of the suffering. We can give in a wide variety of ways, of course. Episcopalians and anyone else can give through Episcopal Relief and Development. See the ENS article HERE.  There are those who want to give through the Anglican Relief and Development Fund, believing somehow that ERD is part of something in which they or their partners will not participate.  See the ARDF article HERE. I find the need for ARDF sad, but in the context of the great need that is out there look at the proposals and prospects for service and get the funds to the Church in Burma and to relief agencies working there by any means possible.

Meanwhile, we ought to join the Presiding Bishop, the Archbishops of Canterbury, York and Cape Town, in calling for a resolution of the political and humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. Read the ENS article HERE.  Readers may recall the passion of the Archbishop of York concerning the rogue presidency of Mugabe and his protest on English TV. See it HERE.

We need to take the Presiding Bishop's call for action and prayer seriously.

It is time to hold the Government of Zimbabwe accountable and the Military Government in Myanmar to the test of service to the people.  But we must also do more: we must pray and give and work for the restoration of civil society and peace and for healing and relief.

Now. Here are some links for relief, from the Anglican Communion News Service:

Myanmar Cyclone – Emergency Appeals

Myanmar was struck by Cyclone Nargis over the weekend and it has been reported that approximately 22,500 people are dead, with 40-50,000 missing without food, water and shelter. The extent of damage is still being assessed and communications in the area is still difficult.  (Note: This number has been raised significantly in the past day...the number is not at as many as 100,000 dead.)

Below are some of the Christian Relief Agencies responding to help the people of Myanmar.

USA: Episcopal Relief and Development (ERD): 
http://www.er-d.org/newsroom_96874_ENG_HTM.htm

Canada: The Primate’s World Relief and Development Fund
http://www.pwrdf.org/stories/all-stories/stories/?tx_ttnews[year]=2008&tx_ttnews[month]=05&tx_ttnews[day]=06&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=416&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1&cHash=9e1216ce40

Church World Services (CWS) and Anglican Missions (Anglican Missions Board of the Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia) Emergency Appeal:
http://www.churchworldservice.org/Emergencies/international/2008/myanmarcyclone.html

UK: Christian Aid: 
http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/emergencies/current/burma_cyclone/index.aspx

Is Attendance at Lambeth a matter of Representative Function?

The Windsor Report paragraphs 134 and 144 included this phrase: "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 Windsor Report "process" includes the request that there be an expression of regret by Anglican Church of Canada and Episcopal Church Bishops for allowing for, supporting, or otherwise permitting the blessing of same sex unions, and the Episcopal Church for ordaining a bishop who is gay and in relationship. The assumption is that that regret would be accompanied by pledges to cease and desist. It also asked Bishops and Provinces intervening in the US and Canada to cease and desist and express regret. It did not say that those who continued to intervene consider withdrawing. 

There has been response from both churches to these request, and great debate as to whether or not these two provinces have complied. There has been no response from the churches intervening, except to say that they felt compelled to do so. There has been no regret, rather there has been massive, invasive, and recruiting usurpation. Fr. Jake is on the case here concerning Presiding Bishop Venables. Other gang members of the Southern Cone episcopate, notably Bishop Lyons and Bishop Cavalcanti, are out there wondering around and we will one day have to deal with them as well. The Windsor Report was deficient in not including a recommendation of disengagement for interventionists and its already glaring deficiencies are compounded by its clear bias.

In the case of blessings and ordinations there was a recommendation –that bishops "be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion."

Just what are those "representative functions"? Clearly membership on committees, commissions, etc of Anglican Communion bodies, including the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and Anglican Consultative Council (ACC). Certainly the ACC itself. But what about the Primates Meeting? And What about the Lambeth Conference?

The Primates Meeting is not a "representative function" in that the Primates are invited in their person as primates, not as representatives of their churches. They are of course on some level embodiments of their provinces, but they are hardly representatives. Moreover, the Primates meetings have been touted as an opportunity for prayer, reflection and sharing, all highly personal rather than representative activities.

The Lambeth Conference, similarly, is such a gathering. All active Bishops are invited not because they represent Dioceses, but because they are bishops. Of course most do speak for dioceses and they are encouraged to "bring your diocese to Lambeth." But they are there for fellowship, refreshment, prayer and study. They are not there to make decisions on behalf of their dioceses.

So here is the question: If the Windsor invitation to consider withdrawing from representative functions is meant to apply to Lambeth, does this fly in the face of the Archbishop of Canterbury's (and perhaps our) understanding of the character of the Lambeth Conference? And, if that invitation does not apply to Lambeth, why does the Archbishop believe bishops must come willing to abide by the "Windsor Process" and must come willing to enter the process of developing an Anglican Covenant? The first – the process – includes expression of regret and cease and desist orders, the second – the covenant process – involves agreement with the end of the Covenant process, namely an actual document.

In addition, having already invited most, but not all, bishops to come it is the height of rudeness to send out a second missive suggesting that the invitees apply some sort of litmus test to themselves to see if they are really, really, really worthy of inclusion in the gathering. Either the invitation is real or it is not. If it is real, then the ABC has to take the lumps as host and put up with the boorish, the contentious, and the heterodox.

That's the way it is if you try to throw a party for the bishops of an 70 million member fellowship.

And, just so the ABC understands: My sense is the Bishop of Delaware (or any other Diocese) does not represent the Diocese when he goes to Lambeth. The Diocese sets aside monies for his attendance because he is a bishop, our bishop. We are proud of him and glad to encourage his being there. But if you want representatives from the Diocese of Delaware, ask. We might send the bishop as our representative. He's pretty good at it, by the way. But we could send someone else. Delaware is small, but we are not so hierarchical as to believe that our representative needs to be our bishop.

Save the representative stuff for the Anglican Consultative Council and the Commissions, etc. Let Lambeth be a meeting of bishops, period. In which case, Windsor does not apply.

About the Mail…

Baby Blue, who must have a reminder function on her calendar, reminds us that we have not heard another thing about the supposed letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury to all or some of the bishops that would set out the basis on which they ought to decide to come or not to Lambeth. BB is still waiting.

Interestingly, Ruth Gledhill seems to think that maybe the Archbishop's recent video to the bishops about Lambeth IS the letter…in new form. She writes, "The Archbishop of Canterbury has put that Lambeth letter' that Bishop Wright talked about up as a video on YouTube!"

So Ruth seems to believe the video is the letter. If it is, it is not as drastic a missive as previously supposed. And Bishop Wright and George Conger are wrong.

If it is not, we are with Baby Blue still waiting, and Ruth Gledhill is wrong.

But mostly, as time goes by it seems less and less interesting. Waiting becomes less electric.

Filled with Anticipation at 90 Years

Anne Harris, mother of three, including me, is ninety years old today. Each day is a blessing.

She has always been an active participant in the sometimes wonderful, sometimes trying, always surprising stages of life. In recent years she has been an acute observer of old age. Several of her computer generated pictures and books on aging have been widely shared through her books which have been sold through the internet. You can view some of these at her site HERE, and in particular you might look at her most often asked for book, titled Experiencing Old Age, HERE.

Anne recently has gotten a better picture of what she faces as death becomes a nearer friend. She writes frankly about the possible lines of development as her body breaks down. She is not filled with dread of death but with anticipation an hope.

Being an artist and, how shall we say, Anne, she expressed her anticipation in a recent picture she drew of herself on the computer. Being partially bald, Anne in this drawing is nude except for a silk cap on her head. She, like Venus in Botticelli's Birth of Venus, is modest even in her nakedness, although in old age there is less to be modest about. But the hand that Venus has partially covering her breasts is, in Anne's self pose, lifted high to catch a star in the heavens. Lacking Venus' hair, a star already caught provides modesty below. Venus is on a shell and is being born into the world. Anne is rising from the earth, and being borne to the heavens. Behind and below is North America (with some liberties). Above is the blackness of space and stars.

I am so proud of my mother that I can hardly stand it!

In the midst of all the frump in Anglican blog land there have been people on opposite shores who this week end have found life to celebrate in large and small happenings, life greater than the foibled life of Anglican Land .

Fr. Jake takes joy in the life of a parish on a "regular" Sunday. Susan Russell got honored but spent more time delighting in others. Over at Stand Firm, Sarah Hay found the story of the death of a young man and its effect on parents worth the pondering. We all need reminders that in the midst of the seemingly momentous issues there are is the living of our lives, and grace comes mostly from the living, not from the issues.

Of course after the reflections it is back to work. After all, if I don't write something on the current situation in Anglican Land, my mother won't read my blog. But wait...if that happens maybe she will have more time for greater revelations from a life filled with a