Way to go. Not.

TEC is a pioneering Anglican church. That has always been its history. First Anglican church to make an episcopal beginning without the helping hands of mother England. First Anglican church to revise the Book of Common Prayer. First Anglican church to consecrate women bishops, openly partnered gay and (soon) lesbian bishops. It will vie with Canada's Anglican church for which authorised blessings of same sex partnerships first (and, even harder question for future historians, for which tacitly approved unauthorised blessings).

One reason for paying attention to what is happening in TEC is because of the strain this pioneering spirit is placing on the Anglican Communion; and, yes, it is how some Anglicans are reacting to that pioneering spirit which is also placing stress on the Communion. Another reason, especially for Anglican churches in Western liberal democracies, is that where TEC goes, we may follow, or should follow. Or, perhaps, should take care, study carefully, and not follow. It is a truism these days that many churches in the West are in decline. So hearing about decline in TEC is not reason in itself to disregard the possibility of following her lead. But I think - on the basis of many readings on the internet - that it is possible that TEC is (a) on a path of faster decline than the rest of us, and even of disintegration; and (b) heading in a direction in which, ultimately, its inclusiveness will prove to be highly exclusionary. If that estimation of where TEC's pioneering spirit is leading it is correct then I urge caution on my own church, a church which has many influential TEC admirers.

Of course, I may be wrong. I may be latching onto Walter Russell Mead's understanding of where TEC is heading because I am predetermined to do so.

Or he may be a prophet whose honour can and should be recognised far from his home country.

Two speed not two tier?

The Anglican Archbishop of Dublin is concerned about the emergence of a two tier Anglican Communion. This is one way of describing what could happen if some Anglican churches sign the Covenant and some do not. But here is an interesting comment to a post on Preludium about Archbishop Orombi's letter:

'On another matter, I agree with Orombi that expressions of regret from TEC have been insincere. They have been attempts to placate the Communion while ignoring what was being asked of TEC. We should have said something like the following: “We're sorry you feel that way. We believe we are right, however, and, since you have no power over us, we will do what we think we must do. We believe that other Christian churches, including Anglican churches, will eventually come to the same understanding that we have. We pray that happens quickly. Thank you for your concern.”'

This speaks to me of a two-speed Communion (with or without Covenant). There are the pioneers racing ahead of the rest on certain matters, and the drag-at-heels who lag behind (and, worse, question whether the pioneers are heading in the right direction).

Quite what these pioneers understand about catholicity is an interesting question. If catholicity means anything at all it means the pioneers in the church (a) stay in touch with the laggards (b) have some sense of accountability to members of the body (c) do not think in terms of who has power over whom but in terms of the health and strength of fellowship between members of the body.

We may applaud this kind of honesty and bluntness. But this is two speed Anglicanism which strains, if not breaks any sense of catholicity as a hallmark of being in Communion.

Is this thinking what is really going on in the mind of TEC's movers and shakers? (It would not be the only comment of its tone and texture which you could find on the internet these days). On the logic of this kind of thinking, should TEC 'consider its position' in relation to the remainder of the Communion? Not because it is wrong, bad, or heretical. But because - if this thinking be the widespread real thinking in the mind of TEC - it is a moot point whether TEC continues to share with the remainder of the Communion what it means to belong to the Communion.

As I reflect further, I think there is also a two-tieredness at work here (again, note, even without the Covenant): on one tier of the Communion, member churches do what they think is right and deny others have any power over them to negate their belief; on the other tier of the Communion, member churches of the Communion listen to what others have to say, and make decisions in the light of what is heard.

We will find, I suggest, that GSE4 is a gathering of member churches of the Communion on a different tier to TEC. Coincidentally they will share a great enthusiasm for the prospect of an Anglican Covenant.

Global South Encounter 4 programme

Below is the published programme for GSE4, Singapore, beginning 19th April. Note it is full of Bible studies and addresses (not plotting). There will be a communique issued. Observers from the following countries/areas/provinces will be present:

Australia
Province of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia
United States of America
Canada
England

It has the potential to be a significant event in the evolution of Anglican life on planet earth!

(Sourced from here)

"For your prayers and info - Participants & Daily Programme:

To date, official provincial reps from 20 Provinces are confirmed coming. We also have other participants from various Provinces and Anglican groupings. Ecumenical observers will also be present. As with the Third Encounter, focus will be given to strengthening our commitment to the work and ministry of the Church, her Gospel witness, mission partnerships and economic empowerment needs. There will also be discussions on ways to strengthen the work amongst Global South Provinces. One major focus will be discussions around the Anglican Covenant process.

A new Global South Primates Steering Committee will be appointed before the Conference ends.

Theme “The Gospel of Jesus Christ—Covenant for the People; Light for the Nations” (Isa 42.6, 49.6, 51.4, 52.13-53.12; Mt 26.26-29, 28.16-20; Jn 17.1-26)

Mission: To Recover, Reform, Revitalising, and Restore Ourselves as Anglican Covenantal Community for Mission and Ministry in Jesus Christ.

Objective:
1. To enable the covenanting Global South Provinces and Others to be an communion-accountable member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
2. To develop Communion nature network, structures and processes to further our recovered mission and ministry.
3. To develop and represent with other ecumenical bodies to strengthen the common mission and ministry for the global church of Christ.
4. To identify and nurture new generation to carry on the vocation of the Global South.

The Conference will be held at St Andrew’s Cathedral. It starts with an Opening Eucharist Service on 19th April (Mon) at 4.00 pm and ends on 23rd April (Fri) after lunch.


Conference Programme

Mon - 19 April
Arrivals
3.00 pm Tea
4.00 pm Opening Service & Holy Communion Celebrant & Preacher: Abp Peter Akinola
6.30 pm Dinner
7.30 pm Opening of 4th GS Encounter and Welcome - Abp Akinola, R Magnus | Global South updates & Design of GSE4 - Abp J Chew
8.30 pm Thematic Address 1: “The Gospel of Jesus Christ” - Abp Nicholas Okoh

Tue - 20 April
7.00 am Breakfast
8.30 am Holy Communion (with short homily) - Asia
9.30 am Bible Study (with Break Up Groups) - Bp Rennis Ponniah
10.30 am Tea Break
11.00 am Thematic Address 2: “Covenant for the Peoples” - Abp J Chew
12.00 pm Plenary 1: Global South Structures - Abp E Kolini &Abp Mouneer Anis
1.00 pm Lunch & Rest
3.00 pm Regional Discussion Groups on Address 2/ Plenary 1
4.00 pm Tea Break
4.30 pm Regional Discussion Groups on Address 2/ Plenary 1
6.00 pm Evensong - Latin America
6.30 pm Dinner
7.30 pm Fellowship, Networking, Side Meetings and Prayers

Wed - 21 April
7.00 am Breakfast
8.30 am Holy Communion (with short homily) - West Assoc
9.30 am Bible Study (with Break Up Groups) - Bp Rennis Ponniah
10.30 am Tea Break
11.00 am Thematic Address 3: “Light for the Nations” - Rev Dr Paul Swarup
12.00 pm Plenary 2: Challenges and Networking for Missions & Ministry - Abp Henry Orombi & Bp Ng Moon Hing
1.00 pm Lunch & Rest
3.00 pm Regional Discussion Groups on Address 3/ Plenary 2
4.00 pm Tea Break
4.30 pm Regional Discussion Groups on Address 3/ Plenary 2
6.00 pm Evensong - West Assoc
6.30 pm Dinner
7.30 pm Fellowship, Networking, Side Meetings and Prayers

Thurs - 22 April
7.00 am Breakfast
8.30 am Holy Communion (with short homily) - Africa
9.30 am Bible Study (with Break Up Groups) - Bp Rennis Ponniah
10.30 am Tea Break
11.00 am Plenary 3: Challenges and Networking for Capacity Building - Abp Chama & Keith Chua
12.00 pm Regional Study/Discussion Groups on Plenary 3
1.00 pm Lunch & Rest
3.00 pm Group Reading of Draft Communiqué
4.00 pm Tea Break
4.30 pm 1st Reading of Draft Communiqué
6.00 pm Evensong - Africa
6.30 pm Dinner
7.30 pm Social & Cultural Evening

Fri - 23 April
7.00 am Breakfast
8.30 am Reflections and Sharing - Invited Associates & Ecumenical Observers
10.00 am Final Reading of Communiqué
10.30 am Tea Break
11.00 am Closing Session & Holy Communion
1.00 pm Lunch
Parish hosted activities from here and over the weekend"

Evolving thoughts on the evolving state of world Anglicanism

So the GAFCON Primates have met and issued a communique, signed by Archbishop Bob Duncan of ACNA, a province of world Anglicanism not yet formally recognised through membership of the Anglican Communion; the 4th Global South Encounter takes place in a week or so in Singapore; and a couple of weeks after that, Mary Glasspool will be consecrated a bishop in TEC, a setting apart action which will confirm a walking apart by TEC relative to much of the Anglican Communion. Meantime, General Synods (such as our own in ACANZP in May 2010) are being asked to make some response, if not confirmation of acceptance of the Anglican Covenant. World Anglicanism is changing before our eyes. Some questions on my mind include these:

Will world Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion emerge from this process of change more or less the same thing?

Will the Anglican Communion - already an impaired communion because not all Anglicans will share communion with other Anglicans - fracture decisively or become yet more frayed; or be renewed, refreshed and reunited?

My hunch is that no one person, Instrument of Unity, or meeting of 'concerned Anglicans' is able to break up the Communion in a decisive manner. Rather we will see some changes taking place through evolution rather than revolution. The Anglican Communion will remain intact, but it may be a shadow of its former self, its meetings peopled by less than full representation of all member churches, and that representation being less diverse than it once was. The irony of certain moves towards greater Anglican inclusiveness being moves effectively to greater exclusion! Also in the mix will be greater significance around groupings such as Global South, GAFCON, TEC and its friends, and (I wonder) greater emphasis on regional Anglican networks ('If the global Communion is dysfunctional, could we in the South Pacific work together?').

In this evolution I suggest the following factors are going to steer the character of new Anglican groupings.

Common theology establishing communion together

The current situation we are in has arisen because Anglican diversity has been unchecked. We have lost sight of the importance of common theology (i.e. limiting diversity) for the sustaining of communion. The changing shape of world Anglicanism will be driven by communion based on common theology. Those, for example, who gather with and around TEC will do so because they share things in common with TEC's current direction. Incidentally, these common theologies around which various groupings will form will be 'positive' theologies. Unity in mere condemnations is fleeting. What is emerging is not fleeting because, notwithstanding certain grandstanding comments in Anglican blogs alleging the contrary, it is in fact being built on what is believed together: the creeds, the 39A, concern for global poverty, etc.

Accountability and autonomy in harmony

The charge is often made these days that TEC has forsaken accountability to the Anglican Communion for autonomy, its right as a self-governing church to determine its own future. Whether that charge is fair or not, I suggest we will see Global South and GAFCON grow from strength to strength to the extent that they involve not just folks meeting together, but church leaders and their churches engaging in decisions together for which they are accountable to one another. Being Anglican, and with no particular tendency emerging towards papalism (that I can detect), we can be sure that autonomy will not be suppressed in these groupings, but it will be balanced with accountability.

Its early days, and the thing about evolution is that it is hard to see the exact character and contours of the new species which will emerge!

GAFCON Primates not about to break from Communion

Hard to keep up with all the communiques, letters and what have you these days!

This just in (h/t Stand Firm) from the Bermuda meeting of the GAFCON Primates (see also post or two below).

"COMMUNIQUÉ FROM THE PRIMATES¹ COUNCIL OF GAFCON/FCA

Grateful for the gracious guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the leadership of the Most Reverend Peter J. Akinola, the Primates Council of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON/FCA) met in Bermuda from April 5 through 9, 2010.

The Primates Council(i) consists of Primates (Senior Archbishops) of Anglican Provinces who met together in Jerusalem in June 2008 as part of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON). Their determination to give witness to the life transforming gospel of Jesus Christ and the trustworthiness of the Bible led to the establishment of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA).

FCA is a movement defined by theology that delivers spiritual and practical outcomes to faithful Anglican Christians around the world. Together the Primates Council represents over thirty four million Anglicans more than half of the active membership of the Anglican Communion
In faithful obedience to the Great Commission the Primates Council devoted much of their meeting ensuring that those provinces presently members of the FCA would be strengthened in their witness to the whole Gospel through engagement in various development projects, the production of critical theological resources and participation in multi-national mission initiatives.

We gave thanks for the visionary and sacrificial leadership of our founding chairman, Archbishop Peter J. Akinola, retired Primate, Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion). We are also grateful for his courageous stand for the Œfaith once and for all delivered to the saints¹ and his leadership both of the Church of Nigeria and also within the wider Anglican Communion.

We elected the Most Rev¹d Gregory Venables, Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone, as the Chairman and the Most Rev¹d Emmanuel Kolini, Church of Rwanda, and the Most Rev¹d Eliud Wabukala, Anglican Church of Kenya as the Vice-Chairmen. The Most Rev¹d Peter Jensen, Diocese of Sydney, Anglican Church of Australia, continues as General Secretary.

We acknowledged that the issues that divide our beloved Communion are far from settled and that the election of the Reverend Mary Glasspool, a partnered lesbian, as a Bishop in Los Angeles in The Episcopal Church (TEC), makes clear to all that the American Episcopal Church leadership has formally committed itself to a pattern of life which is contrary to Scripture.

This action also makes clear that any pretence that there has been a season of gracious restraint in the Communion has come to an end. Now is the time for all orthodox biblical Anglicans, both in the USA and around the world, to demonstrate a clear and unambiguous stand for the historic faith and their refusal to participate in the direction and unbiblical practice and agenda of TEC.

We recognise that the current strategy in the Anglican Communion to strengthen structures by committee and commission has proved ineffective. Indeed we believe that the current structures have lost integrity and relevance. We believe that it is only by a theologically grounded, biblically shaped reformation such as the one called for by the Jerusalem Declaration that God¹s Kingdom will advance. The Anglican Communion will only be able to fulfill its gospel mandate if it understands itself to be a community gathered around a confession of faith rather than an organisation that has its primary focus on institutional loyalty.

We committed ourselves once more to the Mission of Christ working collaboratively both with our friends in the Global South and throughout the Communion and look forward with anticipation to the FOURTH GLOBAL SOUTH TO SOUTH ENCOUNTER to be held later this month at St Andrew¹s Cathedral, Singapore.

We are also aware of the challenges that many of our sisters and brothers face in different parts of the world. In particular we are mindful of those who live with the threat of violence because of their Christian faith, such as Nigeria, Iraq and Sudan and those who live in places of deprivation and disaster such as Haiti and Chile. We also observe that there are a growing number of nations, such as Kenya, Uganda and now the United Kingdom where Christian views are marginalized or ignored. We stand with all those in such circumstances and assure them of our continued prayers.

Finally:

The Primates¹ Council expressed its profound appreciation for the gracious hospitality shown it by the people of Bermuda and the faithful witness of Christians in this land for almost four hundred years. We are aware of some of their current concerns and tensions and are praying for God¹s guidance and wisdom for the leaders of both the churches and the government.

To God be the glory!

Present in Bermuda were:

The Most Rev¹d Peter J. Akinola, Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)
The Most Rev¹d Justice Akrofi, Archbishop, Anglican Province of West Africa
The Most Rev¹d Robert Duncan, Archbishop, Anglican Church in North America
The Most Rev’d Emmanuel Kolini, Archbishop, Anglican Church of Rwanda
The Most Rev¹d Valentino Mokiwa, Archbishop, Anglican Church of Tanzania
The Most Rev¹d Gregory Venables, Presiding Bishop, Province of the Southern Cone
The Most Rev¹d Eliud Wabukala, Archbishop, Anglican Church of Kenya
The Most Rev¹d Nicholas Okoh, Archbishop, Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)
The Most Rev¹d Henry L. Orombi, Archbishop, Anglican Church of Uganda, represented by Bishop Nathan Kyamanywa
The Most Rev¹d Peter Jensen, Archbishop, Diocese of Sydney"

Note carefully talk of "beloved Communion" and work on constructive projects. No schisms here. But observe that Archbishop Robert Duncan is one of the Primates. See I told you the Communion was evolving!!

Now if this bishop were Primate

BabyBlueOnline posts a copy of a letter from the Bishop of Virginia explaining to his diocese why he has not given consent to the election of Mary Glasspool. His reasoning has the virtues of clarity, honesty, consistency, and coherency. He 'gets' the Anglican Communion in a way that, frankly, is hard to discern in the prognostications of some other bishops. I think one may properly wonder if we would all be in a different place if this kind of bishop were Primate of TEC!

"Dear Diocesan Family,

The Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool, a priest of the Diocese of Maryland and a partnered gay woman, was elected to serve as a bishop suffragan in the Diocese of Los Angeles in December 2009. The consent process, a 120-day period, requires the receipt of consents from majorities of the Standing Committees throughout the Episcopal Church and from the Church's bishops with jurisdiction. On March 17, just before the opening of the House of Bishops meeting at Camp Allen, Texas, the presiding bishop's office announced that Canon Glasspool had received the number of consents required to proceed with her ordination and consecration as a bishop.

Along with several other bishops, I had been delaying my vote until the House of Bishops meeting so that we might confer with one another as to the implications of this episcopal election. As consent is a responsibility upon all diocesan bishops, I then sent in my ballot even though the process had already been decided. Understandably, the diocesan offices have received numerous inquiries as to how I voted. I write this to announce my decision for this particular process and to say something about what this means (and doesn't mean) for my leadership in the Diocese of Virginia.

Bishop-elect Glasspool's election has been both a source of celebration and of alarm for many in our diocese, just as in the Episcopal Church and our wider Anglican Communion. In my judgment, both "sides" make compelling arguments and have quite legitimate concerns. Personally, I am more torn by this decision than by any other decision I've yet faced, whether as priest or bishop. After deep prayer and thought, I voted to decline consent to the ordination of Bishop-elect Glasspool. This is not to reflect on Bishop-elect Glasspool herself (who, by all accounts, is indeed highly qualified and well suited for the ministry of bishop) but rather is about the circumstances of this case.

My decision was based on the unique context of this particular election. Under other circumstances, I would have voted differently. Frankly, I look forward to the time when I can. As it is, however, several points swayed my decision; taken together they presented what was to me an overwhelming weight.

First, as I have stated before, I believe that it is theologically inconsistent to ordain a partnered gay person as a bishop without provision for the Church's recognition and blessing of that partnership. (We would not do this with heterosexuals.) As things stand now, the cart is before the horse. To me, the controversy about partnered gay bishops would be moot if we dealt successfully with the blessings of monogamous gay relationships. I will continue to work for that result: first things first.

Second, immediately following last summer's General Convention, both the presiding bishop and the president of the House of Deputies wrote to the archbishop of Canterbury (in letters made available to the Convention) stating that the Convention's actions did not overturn, and should not be interpreted as overturning the moratorium on the consecration of partnered gay and lesbian bishops. That moratorium had been in place since 2006. With statements from both presiding officers of Convention affirming that it remained, for the present, the policy of this Church, it seemed to me that a denial of consent to this election was necessary.

Third, the 2006 General Convention committed the Episcopal Church to participation in the work developing an Anglican Covenant for consideration by the Communion. My understanding is that we pledged to cooperate in those deliberations until the Covenant was either adopted for this Church or not. We gave our word, and I believe that we should live up to that word. To proceed with such a controversial move at the very time that the Covenant is under consideration is, I believe, contrary to the good faith necessary in our commitment to that work and ensuing discernment.

As I made clear when I was elected bishop for the Diocese of Virginia, I am committed to the Anglican Communion. The Communion is not some patched together entity; still less is it something merely abstract. Communion across international bounds and embracing the globe is nothing less than a gift of grace. This is why it must be held dear. I do not know just where this controversy will lead us, but as your bishop I will work to support and strengthen the unique witness that is the worldwide Anglican fellowship of faith.

At the same time, as I have stated clearly in a variety of settings, I am no less committed to the full inclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in all areas of ministry in the Church's life. I understand that my vote to deny consent in this case could be interpreted as backing away from that commitment. Even so, I can only declare again my deep conviction that full inclusion is also a sign of grace-and we should be reaching to embrace it.

From this, it follows that I am both "pro-Communion" and "pro-inclusion." I reject completely any notion that these positions are mutually exclusive. I remain hopeful, even confident, that there is a way to be faithful to this "both/and" witness. Our history teaches us that we Anglicans-when we are at our best-have been able to hold perceived opposites in a creative and liberating tension that has room for everyone and gives birth to new answers. This is the time to reclaim our best yet again.

Faithfully,

The Rt. Rev. Shannon S. Johnston
Bishop"

As we know, Primates play a role in evolution

From Stand Firm, this just in from ++Henry to ++Rowan.

The Most Rev. Rowan Williams
Archbishop of Canterbury
Lambeth Palace
London

Your Grace,

Easter greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ!

In February I read with great interest Bishop Mouneer Anis’ letter of resignation from the Joint Standing Committee. I am grateful for his clarity and honesty. He has verbalized very well what many of us have thought and felt, and inspired me to write, as well.

As you know from our private conversations, I have absented myself for principled reasons from all meetings of the Joint Standing Committee since our Primates meeting in Dar es Salaam in 2007.

The first meeting of the Joint Standing Committee was later that year in New Orleans. At our Primates meeting in February 2007, we made certain requests of the Episcopal Church. In our Dar es Salaam communiqué we did not envision interference in the American House of Bishops while they were considering our requests. For me to participate in a meeting in New Orleans before the 30th September deadline would have violated our hard-won agreement in Dar es Salaam and would have been another case of undermining our instruments of communion. My desire to uphold our Dar es Salaam communiqué was intended to strengthen our instruments of communion so we would be able to mature into an even more effective global communion of the Church of Jesus Christ than in the past.

Subsequent meetings of the Joint Standing Committee have included the Primate of the Episcopal Church (TEC) and other members of TEC, who are the very ones who have pushed the Anglican Communion into this sustained crisis. How can we expect the gross violators of Biblical Truth to sanction their own discipline when they believe they have done nothing wrong and further insist that their revisionist theology is actually the substance of Anglicanism?

We have only to note the recent election and confirmation of an active Lesbian as a Suffragan Bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles to realize that TEC has no interest in “gracious restraint,” let alone a moratorium on the things that have brought us to this point of collapse. It is now impossible to regard their earlier words of “regret” as a serious gesture of reconciliation with the rest of the Communion.

Together with Bishop Mouneer, I am equally concerned, as you know, about the shift in the balance of powers among the Instruments of Communion. It was the Primates in 2003 who requested the Lambeth Commission on Communion that ultimately produced the Windsor Report. It was the Primates who received the Windsor Report at our meeting in Dromantine in 2005. It was the Primates, through our Dromantine Communique, who presented the appropriate “hermeneutic” through which to read the Windsor Report. That “hermeneutic,” however, has been obscured by the leadership at St. Andrew’s House who somehow created something we never envisioned called the “Windsor Process.”

The Windsor Report was not a “process.” It was a Report, commissioned by the Primates and received by the Primates. The Primates made specific and clear requests of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. When TEC, particularly, did not clearly answer our questions, we gave them more time in 2007 to clarify their position.

Suddenly, though, after the 2007 Primates Meeting in Dar es Salaam, the Primates no longer had a role to play in the very process they had begun. The process was mysteriously transferred to the Anglican Consultative Council and, more particularly, to the Joint Standing Committee. The Joint Standing Committee has now evolved into the “Standing Committee.” Some suggest that it is the Standing Committee “of the Anglican Communion.”

There is, however, no “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” The Standing Committee has never been approved in its present form by the Primates Meeting or the Lambeth Conference. Rather, it was adopted by itself, with your approval and the approval of the ACC. The fact that five Primates are included in no way represents our Anglican understanding of the role of Primates as metropolitan bishops of their provinces.

Anglicanism is a church of Bishops and, at its best, is conciliar in its governance. The grave crisis before us as a Communion is both a matter of faith as well as order. Matters of faith and order are the domain of Bishops. In a Communion the size of the Anglican Communion, it is unwieldy to think of gathering all the Bishops of the Communion together more frequently than the current pattern of every ten years. That is why the Lambeth Conference in 1998 resolved that the Primates Meeting should be able to “exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters.” (Resolution III.6).

What has emerged, however, is the Standing Committee being given “enhanced responsibility” and the Primates being given “diminished responsibility,” even in regard to a process begun by them. Indeed, this Standing Committee has granted itself supreme authority over Covenant discipline in the latest draft. Under these circumstances, it has not been possible for me to participate in meetings of the Joint Standing Committee that has taken upon itself authority it has not been given.

Accordingly, I stand with my brother Primate, Bishop Mouneer Anis, in his courageous decision to resign from the Standing Committee. Many of us are in a state of resignation as we see how the Communion is moving away further and further into darkness, especially since the Primates’ meeting in Dar es Salaam.

Your Grace, I have urged you in the past, and I will urge you again. There is an urgent need for a meeting of the Primates to continue sorting out the crisis that is before us, especially given the upcoming consecration of a Lesbian as Bishop in America. The Primates Meeting is the only Instrument that has been given authority to act, and it can act if you will call us together.

The agenda for that meeting should be set by the Primates themselves at the meeting, and not by any other staff in advance of the meeting. I reiterate this point because you will recall our cordial December 2008 meeting with you, Chris Smith, and the other GAFCON Primates in Canterbury where we discussed the agenda for the Primates meeting to take place in Alexandria the following month. None of our submissions were included in the agenda. Likewise, at the beginning of the January 2009 Primates meeting I was asked to present a position paper on the effect of the crisis in the Communion from our perspective, but I was not informed in advance, so I did not come prepared. Yet, other presenters, including TEC and Canada, were given prior information and came very prepared. I have never received a formal written apology about that incident, and it has caused me to wonder if there are two standards at work in how a Primate is treated.

Finally, the meeting should not include the Primates of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada who are proceeding with unbiblical practices that contradict the faith of Anglicanism. We cannot carry on with business as usual until order is brought out of this chaos.

Yours, in Christ,
The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi
ARCHBISHOP OF CHURCH OF UGANDA.
xc: Primates, Moderators, and Members of the Standing Committee of the ACC

Does this mean, in summary, (1) Shape up or we ship out; or (2) the Primates are going to determine the evolution of the Communion, with or without you; you choose?

I agree wholeheartedly with this sentence: "Anglicanism is a church of Bishops and, at its best, is conciliar in its governance." I think the weak point in the letter is this: "There is an urgent need for a meeting of the Primates to continue sorting out the crisis that is before us, especially given the upcoming consecration of a Lesbian as Bishop in America. The Primates Meeting is the only Instrument that has been given authority to act, and it can act if you will call us together." How can the Primates sort the crisis out, what authority do the Primates have to act, and what action could they take? It might be thought by some that they could suspend or expel TEC from the Communion, but I do not think that is so. The meeting of the Primates could reiterate certain statements/declarations; it could give guidance to the ABC re future invites to TEC bishops; and it could seek to persuade us all that they are the true 'standing committee' of the Communion. But, more importantly, in respect of the evolution of the Communion, the Primates (presumably in a majority rather than unanimously) could resolve to lead the Communion forward in a new direction to which TEC is not invited.