Our Reformed Anglican tradition in need of reform at the top?

The Vatican

Jorge Bergolio, the Argentine cardinal who was elected as the 266th pope in the Roman Catholic Church, will be inaugurated today as Francis I. By all reports, the ceremony will be amid less pomp than when the previous pope ascended the throne of St. Peter, and will have a few more nods to the branches of Christianity beyond the Vatican. All of this is good news.

I have posted here a number of commentaries in the last few days about the life story and style of the new pope. He has already brought much needed humility to the Vatican, and has shown a preference to the poor and a refreshing pastoral presence. Whether he will be a good pope, time will tell, and I leave that analysis to those better qualified than myself to comment on the Roman Catholic Church.

I would bid that all of us keep Francis in our prayers. Like it as not, Pope Francis is the most visible face not just of Catholicism but of all Christianity in the world. His success can only benefit the full Body of Christ in all places; his failure will hurt all of us.

That brings me to our particular branch of the Body of Christ, the Anglican Communion, which is the second largest communion of Christians in the world next to the Catholics. The Anglican Communion – that’s us – will be represented today at the pope’s inauguration by a delegation appointed by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, who as it happens will also be inaugurated this week on Thursday. Let's also keep him in our prayers this week, for he is the most visible face of Anglicanism in the world.

Our Anglican Communion is officially represented today at the inauguration of the new Pope. But makeup of our delegation says a great deal about what is wrong with the governance of our communion.

We are an enormously diverse Communion worldwide, but you wouldn’t know it by looking at the delegation Archbishop Justin has appointed to represent us at the Vatican today. The 12-person delegation is nearly all men and mostly British (there is a Canadian, a New Zealander, an Irish canon and at least one American). There are two women, one who is a layperson. The delegation is top-heavy with bishops, but there are no women bishops. It is even being called a “fraternal delegation” by Lambeth Palace (our vatican).

To read the list of those on the delegation representing us, click HERE (and this is from the Archbishop's official website).

Canterbury Cathedral

There is a great deal that is wrong with this picture. You could argue that the delegation represents the major offices of the Anglican Communion, but that begs the question of who is in those offices and how they get there. It is at least as obtuse and inside-baseball as the Roman Catholic curia.

All of this ought to raise our hackles about reforming our Reformed tradition.

The previous archbishop, Rowan Williams, pushed very hard for an “Anglican Covenant” which contained a disciplinary proposal for keeping the 30-plus Anglican national provinces in line. His efforts failed largely because few wanted a top down worldwide system for discipline. We don’t want a pope.

Yet we should not let ourselves off the hook about the governance in our Communion. We ought to be embarrassed that primarily English men are representing our Communion, which has its center-of-gravity far outside Europe. The average Anglican is a poor African, not a vicar from Downton Abbey. There are probably more practicing Anglicans in Central and South America than there are in England.

While many critics point out that men dominate the Roman Catholic College of Cardinals, at least they come from many countries. Not so with the electors of the Archbishop of Canterbury. All come from one country: Great Britain. And the only eligible bishops for the head of our communion are British. And since women are still (inexcusably and inexplicably) ineligible to become bishops in Great Britain, only men are eligible to become Archbishop of Canterbury

We should be very wary about casting stones at the all-male College of Cardinals. Physicians, heal thy selves.

By James Richardson, Fiat Lux

The next chapter in the life of the Diocese of Virginia is now

VIRGINIA: ‘Continuing congregations’ turn focus to future

By Emily Cherry | May 30, 2012 2 Comments |

More Sharing ServicesShare

Church of the Epiphany Episcopal welcomes the community to worship. Photo/Frances Caldwell

[Episcopal News Service] The past weeks have been a time of transition for the Diocese of Virginia. Congregations that have worshiped away from their home churches for more than five years have made joyful homecomings to their church buildings. The entire diocese has joined in celebrating these returns, all while entering into a discernment process to help these congregations make plans for the future.

The recent returns and celebrations have been a longtime coming for the four “continuing congregations” that have worshipped in temporary spaces while the diocese and breakaway congregations that had joined the Convocation of Anglican Churches in North America fought over rights to diocese-owned properties in the courts. The breakaway congregations occupied the church buildings throughout the court proceedings.

In all, seven church properties (and a number of additional buildings and land parcels) have been returned to the Diocese of Virginia following the near conclusion of a five-year legal dispute. Each has a different story to tell, and telling these stories is a key part of a diocesan initiative known as “Dayspring,” an effort to discern the work of the Holy Spirit with graciousness and patience as the diocese explores how best to use resources and properties for the ministry of the church.

As the continuing congregations have begun discerning their way forward, each has realized that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to a new beginning.

Members of Church of the Epiphany in Fairfax returned home on May 6, after worshiping in a local school. While making that transition, they’re also welcoming a new interim vicar and are turning to social media and marketing to increase their visibility in the community.

It’s been a time of challenge, but since returning home the congregation has tripled Sunday attendance and doubled its membership from 25 to 50 members.

The congregation also has benefitted from what the Rev. Jennifer McKenzie, interim vicar, calls the “Blessing-a-Day Club.” A slew of blessings that “seem to fall out of the sky,” she said, have landed on Epiphany’s doorstep, including volunteer musical groups for Sunday worship, pro-bono graphic design services, and more.

“The biggest challenge right now for us is building the staff infrastructure that we need to support this growth, so that as this growth continues, we don’t let people slip through the cracks and lose people,” said McKenzie.

The congregation’s hopes for the future are high. It’s launching a new branding- and direct-mail effort to raise the church’s image and presence in the community; hosting community groups, from the Boy Scouts to an Irish dance group; and participating in a local festival. And it’s rolling out the welcome mat. “Our big thing here is, ‘All are welcome,’ said McKenzie. “And we really mean that. When people walk in the door, we want them to know that there is a place for them.”

The Rt. Rev. Ted Gulick, assistant bishop in Virginia, and the Rev. Kate Chipps, priest-in-charge of St. Margaret's, Woodbridge, celebrate a baptism with the continuing congregation. Photo/Courtesy St. Margaret's, Woodbridge

The continuing congregation of St. Margaret’s in Woodbridge, meanwhile, hasn’t made an official “move.” Although the original St. Margaret’s church property was returned to the diocese earlier this spring, the congregation continues to worship in its “temporary” worship space, which it shares with three other denominations. Members of the congregation are joining together to discuss what shape their physical church will take in the years to come. Meanwhile, they’re saying goodbye to the Rev. Kate Chipps, priest-in-charge, who has led them through this difficult process. Chipps will retire in July.

St. Margaret’s vestry is leading the congregation through this time of transition, gathering input from members on the best possible worship space to meet their needs, and meeting with the Dayspring teams to discern a way to move the congregation out of “reaction mode” into “planning mode,” explained Eleana Boyer, senior warden.

“The spirit of the church is moving more toward a positive direction,” added Boyer. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t facing challenges, including how to grow their congregation and how to financially support their ministries. But they’re meeting those challenges head-on. “Once we get through this transition and change, you’ll see us really shine,” said Boyer. “We are a faithful people. We have come this far by faith, and we are moving forward in faith.”

Members of St. Stephen’s in Heathsville returned to their church building on Palm Sunday and the congregation is as active as ever. Members are busy planning their community strawberry festival and the annual spring barbecue and bluegrass event. Read more about their story here.

And then there’s the Falls Church, a congregation that continued to grow while worshipping in a temporary space, and where a large number of members have just “returned” to a church building where they’ve never worshipped before.

“It’s just really exciting to see how things are falling into place,” said the Rev. Cathy Tibbetts, priest-in-charge.

On the congregation’s first evening back in its worship space, members opened the doors to the building, inviting families to come and explore the church grounds. “We wanted them to have the opportunity to explore the blessings that God has bestowed on us,” said Tibbetts.

The congregation is looking at growing its clergy staff, including calling a “planter-builder” to oversee the church’s growth process.

A community focus is a large part of the Falls Church Episcopal DNA, according to Mike Lockaby, the senior warden.

“I think that being involved in the community is going to draw in people who previously did not feel welcome, or previously were un-churched,” he said. So the congregation focuses on “being more open to our community and more positive toward our community and more involved in what’s local.”

In addition, they’re looking inward by establishing small group ministries, in which 10-to-16 parishioners will gather for fellowship and/or Christian formation. The congregation also has instituted a “partnership ministry,” which gives newcomers a contact person who is familiar with the church’s culture and spirit and who can determine the best way to welcome that person. “The message that we have been stressing and that we wish to continue to stress is, ‘We welcome you,’ and there’s no asterisk to that,” said Lockaby.

The Falls Church Anglican is the only one out of the seven properties returned to the Diocese that continues to pursue its appeal. The diocese has made settlement negotiations with the other six congregations involved in the litigation. In these cases, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America congregations agreed to return church property and Episcopal funds, and to withdraw their appeals.

In addition to the church buildings belonging to the four continuing congregations, three additional church properties have been returned to the diocese as a result of the litigation. These churches previously did not have continuing Episcopal congregations associated with them. The diocese already has reinstated Episcopal worship services at St. Paul’s in Haymarket; and the property of Church of the Apostles, Fairfax, also has been returned to diocesan ownership. The diocese has arranged a yearlong lease with the Anglican congregation of Truro Church, Fairfax, and both parties have agreed to enter into a “covenant of mutual charity and respect,” a piece of the agreement which the Rt. Rev. Shannon S. Johnston, bishop of Virginia, describes as “an opening for a transformative witness to many across the worldwide Anglican Communion.”

Coordinating these efforts amidst unique circumstances is no small task. And that’s where Dayspring comes in. The Dayspring initiative – so named for the poetic, biblical term that translates to “new dawn,” brings together leaders from across the Diocese of Virginia to plan, vision and strategize about the properties returning to the diocese, and how best to put them to use for the mission of the Episcopal Church in Virginia. Johnston is at the head of the effort, which also is guided by the Rev. Canon Susan Goff, bishop suffragan-elect, and Henry D.W. Burt, secretary of the diocese.

“It is heartening to consider how the Diocese of Virginia is responding to the staggering richness of the possibilities before us,” said Burt in a recent letter to the diocese. “Each of the continuing congregations remains profoundly committed to its mission and ministry. They are experiencing significant growth, and Dayspring teams are considering a number of transformational mission efforts at churches where no continuing congregation exists. There is tremendous energy and a gracious spirit ever present in this work.”

– Emily Cherry is the communications officer for the Diocese of Virginia.

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printfriendly

Filed Under: Churchwide

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to step down

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who has arguably had the most tumultuous tenure of any archbishop since the English Civil War of the 1640s, announced today his retirement. The Queen of England will appoint his successor later this year. In a statement issued from the Archbishop's Lambeth Palace, he had this to say:

It has been an immense privilege to serve as Archbishop of Canterbury over the past decade, and moving on has not been an easy decision. During the time remaining there is much to do, and I ask your prayers and support in this period and beyond. I am abidingly grateful to all those friends and colleagues who have so generously supported Jane and myself in these years, and all the many diverse parishes and communities in the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion that have brought vision, hope and excitement to my own ministry. I look forward, with that same support and inspiration, to continuing to serve the Church’s mission and witness as best I can in the years ahead.

I've been critical at times of Archbishop Rowan on this blog, particularly over his promotion of an "Anglican Covenant" that many, including me, feel will do more harm than good. But I've also expressed my gratitude for how he has attempted to hold the center, and for his brilliance in guiding the Lambeth gathering of Anglican bishops in 2008. Nor should we forget that he was in lower Manhattan on 9/11 and witnessed first-hand the attacks on the World Trade Center; his words and presence showed great courage and comfort in the days and weeks that followed.

In the days ahead there will be many plaudits and barbs directed his way, but for now let us keep him and his family and the whole Church in our prayers.

For the full statement from Lambeth, click HERE.

The New York Times today published a solid article on Williams' impending departure. The story includes speculation on who comes next. You can it by clicking HERE.

Anglican bishops talking

You haven't heard much lately about world-wide Anglican politics, and maybe that is because the bishops are making a concerted effort (in some quarters) to talk with each other. Here is a story that ran Friday in Anglican Journal.

Healing relations through Bishops’ dialogue

By: Marites N.

Sison
staff writer

---

Two primates and 18 bishops from Africa and North America will meet in Dar es Salaam this month to continue a process of dialogue that they hope will contribute toward “healing relations” in the Anglican Communion.

Since 2007, there have been initiatives to bring together Anglican bishops from Canada, the United States and some provinces of Africa, to help bridge a divide resulting from deep disagreements over the issue of human sexuality.

Discussions have not been focused on sexuality, however, but on a whole range of issues that churches face today.

This year’s meeting, from Feb. 24 to 28, will consist of four “interweaving” components: Testimony, Theology, Liturgy and Mission.

Testimony will include stories from some participants about their experiences around dialogue.

Theology will include reflections “linking the stories and testimonies to a wider theoretical and theological framework”; the reflections are aimed at helping participants gain a “deeper understanding of [their] conversations in the wider context of the Anglican Communion,” according to an overview document prepared for the meeting.

Liturgy will include worship intended to engage the group in “celebrating the stories shared and giving thanks for [its] capacity to do good.”

Mission will include discussion in response to the question, “What may God be calling you to do or to say as you conclude the consultation?”

The Anglican provinces involved in the discussion are Canada, Tanzania, Kenya, Central Africa, South Africa, West Africa, England and the United States.

The consultation is sponsored by the Anglican Church of Canada, Fellowship of the Maple Leaf, The Episcopal Church in the U.S., Diocese of Dar es Salaam, the Anglican Diocese of Toronto Foundation, and Trinity Wall Street.

The participants are: Bishop John Chapman (diocese of Ottawa), Bishop Michael Bird (diocese of Niagara), Bishop Michael Ingham (diocese of New Westminster), Bishop George Bruce (diocese of Ontario), Archbishop Colin Johnson (diocese of Toronto), Bishop Terry Dance (diocese of Huron), Bishop Mdimi Mhogolo (diocese of Central Tanganyika), Bishop Garth Counsell (diocese of Cape Town), Bishop Trevor Musonda-Mwamba (diocese of Botswana), Bishop James Tengatenga (diocese of Southern Malawi), Bishop Daniel Sarfo (diocese of Kumasi), Bishop Shannon S. Johnston (diocese of Virginia), Bishop Julius K. Kalu (diocese of Mombasa), Bishop Anthony Poggo (diocese of Kajo Keji), Bishop Sadock Makaya (diocese of Western Tanganyika), Bishop Gerard Mpango (ret.; diocese of Western Tanganyika), Bishop Mary Gray-Reeves (diocese of El Camino Real), Bishop Michael F. Perham (diocese of Gloucester), Archbishop Bernard Ntahoturi (primate, Anglican Church of Burundi) and Archbishop Valentino Mokiwa (primate, Anglican Church of Tanzania

The photo is captioned: Anglican bishops enter Canterbury Cathedral for Opening Eucharist at the 2008 Lambeth Conference. Photo: Beatrice Paez.

Who is behind the effort to split the Episcopal Church?

I haven't waded into church politics for many weeks, mostly because there isn't much new to wade into. But politics is always lurking beneath the surface, and as Episcopal dioceses hold their annual fall conventions the politics is back on the front burners in many places. In Virginia, our annual "council" is held in January, so the intensity of politics here is fairly low for the moment.

Here is an item that could ripple throughout beyond our Episcopal world: The Diocese of New York, at its convention, passed a resolution calling for a joint task force with the Presbyterians and the Methodists to develop a joint strategy to repel the efforts of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

This shadowy organization, that you probably haven't heard of, apparently has had an outsized impact on our church in recent years. In the interest of fairness, the IRD has a reply to the Diocese of New York which you can read by clicking HERE.

According to its critics, the IRD has been behind much of the effort to split the Episcopal, Presbyterian and United Methodist churches over homosexuality (we are not alone on this issue). We've seen the impact of this split here in the Diocese of Virginia with 11 churches that are attempting to break away from the Episcopal Church and take property with them. The lawsuits continue.

One of the blogs I follow, Father Jake Stops the World, keeps up with this topic far better than I, and he posted this summary the other day:

From Father Jake Stops the World

You don't remember the IRD? Check out this report, or review Jim Naughton's Following the Money.

If you want a shorter version, here's a summation, from the specific perspective of an Episcopalian.

Keep in mind that most religious fanatics are Theocrats, or Dominionists, with their goal being to make their brand of religion the law of the land. Most Anglican Dominionists will never publically admit to their ultimate goal of making the United States into a theocracy. Such matters are discussed only when they are alone with their own kind. This makes it rather difficult to track such troubling ideas. However, it does not make it impossible.

The most extreme form of Dominionism is "Christian Reconstructionism," which strives to incorporate all 613 laws from the biblical code into secular law. That would include capital punishment for adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior, idolatry, prostitution, and sorcery. R.J. Rushdoony, author of The Institutes of Biblical Law, is credited as the founder of this particular sect.

One of Rushdoony's most devout followers was Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., a reclusive millionaire from California. Ahmanson served on the Board of Rushdoony's Chalcedon Institute for 23 years, and was at his bedside when he died.

Howard Ahmanson, and his wife Roberta, became members of St. James Episcopal Church in Newport Beach, California. The rector of that parish was Canon David Anderson.

In 1995, the American Anglican Council was formed, in response to certain developments within The Episcopal Church. It was funded primarily through a group of large donors, of which Ahmanson was one. Ahmanson's support was considered so important to the AAC that there was some discussion about including his name in the letterhead of their stationary. Internal memos revealed that the leadership of the AAC were willing to do almost anything to keep Ahmanson on board. Soon after that, Ahmanson's rector, David Anderson, became President and CEO of the AAC, a postion he still holds today.

The AAC moved into an office in Washingtom DC with another organization, the Institute on Religion and Democracy. Dianne Knippers, President of the IRD, was the original treasurer for the AAC. Roberta Ahmanson served on the board of the IRD.

The IRD has a long history of anti-communist activity, especially during the Reagan era. At one point, the rhetoric from Knippers resulted in the erroneous identification of a group of missionaries in Nicaragua as being a communist front. Their clinics became targets for terrorists.

The primary goal of the IRD is to replace the leadership of the mainline churches with their own conservative leaders. A reading of some of their material makes it clear that they continue to be active players in the Religious Right, and are very clearly of the Dominionist mindset.

Now that the IRD and the AAC were, for all intents and purposes, one organization (sharing board members, wealthy donors and the same mailing address) they began to focus on tearing down The Episcopal Church. After this alliance was formed, one of their early moves was to launch a smear campaign against Gene Robinson, who had just been elected as bishop of New Hampshire. In 2003, Ahmanson gave the IRD funds for this campaign, which was launched by Fred Barnes, a member of the IRD's board, Fox News commentator, and a member of Falls Church. Robinson received the necessary consents in spite of the IRD's efforts.

Such techniques were used against the leadership of the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches as well. Eventually, the outrage expressed towards the IRD by a number of people within the mainline denominations was cause for the AAC to distance themselves from the organization. They set up their own office in Atlanta. It is also worth noting that Ephraim Radner, affiliated with the Anglican Communion Institute, also resigned from his seat on the IRD board, which he had occupied for many years.

The American Anglican Council, which the IRD helped create, was made up of the same core group that became the Network, which then morphed into the shadow province now known as ACNA. Same names, same goal; to destroy The Episcopal Church by any means necessary.

David Anderson became a Bishop of the Church of Nigeria in 2007.

The IRD continues to attempt to have an impact within TEC, with limited success.


Here endeth the summary.

Well done, New York!

J.

The Anglican Covenant and other voices not my own

I have not commented a great deal, at least directly, on the proposed "Anglican Covenant" that would, if enacted, bring about a more formal structure to our very shaggy Anglican Communion. Part of my reluctance to comment is I've read the drafts and find them overly complicated, a lawyer's dream if you will.

Moreover, I am among those who are suspicious of creating a de-facto magisterium of archbishops and bishops. I have enough of an American independent streak to be wary of tying my local parish's fate too closely to the whims of committees and prelates far from our shores (see my posting from last week on this topic HERE).

Moreover, the direction the church should be going generally should be to flatten hierarchy and create more local autonomy. The creeds and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 are good enough for me.

And yet. . .

I also profess to be a priest whose orders are embedded in the historic Anglican Communion and the wider apostolic succession within the catholic (universal) faith. I am not just a local priest. My parish is not just a local non-profit organization. I am wary of selfish individualism and narcissistic autonomy. I am definitely not a congregationalist; I am suspicious of professions of redemption that are entirely focused on individual salvation. I believe our salvation depends entirely on the grace of God in Christ, and we are therefore all connected through God in Christ. We are people of the covenant, beginning with Abraham and Sarah, Jacob and Rebecca, Moses and Zipporah, and extending through to the "New Covenant" proclaimed by prophets and incarnated by Jesus Christ. We live free by covenanting to live within community by putting boundaries on our freedom. We come to the Promised Land together, not autonomously.

And yet. . .

I am much turned off by those voices for the "Anglican Covenant" who really seem to be looking for a way to gild their own bigotry against gays and lesbians and women in the priesthood, and justify a grab bag of other prejudices. They speak of covenant but their covenant seems only to exclude. They speak of sin but see not their own hateful ways and words. They weaponize the Bible much as an earlier generation used the Bible to justify slavery and segregation. They are part of an old shameful story; they are the Tea Party at prayer. My skin crawls when reading commentaries by David Anderson, a self-appointed bishop of the whacky right-wing American Anglican Council. My skin crawls when reading some of the snarky comments left on my own blog. I am mystified at the continuing appeasement by Archbishop Rowan Williams toward this crowd.

And yet. . .

I promised to bring you voices from around the Communion this summer from people I do not necessarily agree with. There are conservative voices who are not bigots, and people who are struggling to remain in communion with the rest of us. They are looking for how to include while staying included themselves. Some are worth hearing if only to test our own biases and to think more deeply about the issues we confront. The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner of Colorado is someone whose writing is worth careful study. He is one of the architects of the proposed Anglican Covenant and perhaps its chief proponent within the Episcopal Church. He sometimes sounds like a voice crying in the wilderness, but give him credit for trying. Radner has considerable influence within the larger Anglican Communion and is worth hearing on that level.

I have heard Radner speak at conferences, and read much of his writing. While I disagree with his Calvinistic anthropology of human nature, he is an articulate voice for why a covenant is needed. His views are challenging, his writing nuanced. Ironically, while Radner speaks of a covenanted relationship, he sounds estranged from all camps within the Anglican Communion, including his own Episcopal Church. That said, Radner is not willing to break relations with any camp, and that is probably why I find his voice honest:

Thinking through matters in this light and making such proposals is hardly a matter of either attempting to stage a coup or playing footsy with corrupt powers. Rather, I believe it to be a responsible path to follow in what we all know to be a longer, more challenging, and difficult journey in our Communion’s vocation. I do not reject the ACC or its members and leaders; I will question vigorously those of their actions I think are ill-advised; I will resist strongly actions that appear to be improper. But the ACC are not my enemies; they are a part of the church of which I am a part. I do not reject the Archbishop of Canterbury. He is in fact someone whose heart and mind I deeply respect in Christ. I will question vigorously, however, judgments he makes or actions he takes that I think are ill-advised; I will even resist those that appear to be improper, as I would any within the church. But he is someone, quite apart from my personal views, whose role I honor in my very office as an Anglican priest. I do not reject the leaders and members of FCA – among them are individuals I do indeed respect and, out of a similar bond of ecclesial affection and shared ministry, I honor. But I will resist vigorously judgments and actions that seem ill-advised; and I will resist ones that seem improper. I do not reject TEC itself, of which I am formally a member and in whose ordering my ministry is placed. But I do maintain the calling of honesty, necessary dissent, and active resistance where called for.

I am not endorsing Radner's views, but I do think those of us on the so-called "progressive" side need to hear him if only because our own views will atrophy and become in-grown if we are only listening to ourselves.

Radner wrote a somewhat dense commentary on what we should do next on the proposed Anglican Covenant, and you can read his full commentary by clicking HERE.

It began by crossing out the King from the Prayer Book; Our Anglican divisions and where we go from here

In his day, Jacob Duche´ was the rector of the most important church in America – Christ Church, Philadelphia, located across the square from what became known as Independence Hall. On the afternoon of Thursday July 4, 1776, Duche´ watched as the Continental Congress declared independence from Great Britain. Then Duche´ walked across the square to his church, and convened a special meeting of his Vestry.

With the Vestry’s concurrence, Duche´ opened his parish’s large Book of Common Prayer, and he began crossing out all references to the King of England. He replaced those references with the “United States of America.”

The American Episcopal Church was, in effect, born that day with his act of independence from the mother country and the mother church.

As author Bruce Feiler explains in his superb book, America’s Prophet: Moses and the American Society, Duche´ understood well that his editing of the Book of Common Prayer was an insurrectionary act. When the British seized Philadelphia, Duche´ was arrested and imprisoned. As the war dragged on, and the Americans lost battle after battle, Duche´ became despondent. He wrote a letter to George Washington urging him to give up the war. Washington termed the letter “ridiculous” and released it to Congress.

Duche´ was forced into exile in Britain, a man with no country; he returned to Philadelphia after the war, and he was a broken man. Jacob Duche´ who had been the most important cleric in America died forgotten, and was buried in an unmarked grave.

The experience of Duche´ is perhaps a metaphor for The Episcopal Church’s tense relationship with the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion. In his book, Feiler quotes The Rev. Tim Safford, rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, about the dilemma faced by his predecessor of two centuries ago: “[T]he life of a pastor is trying to hold very distant poles in some sort of tension with each other.” (p. 59)

Sometimes the center holds. Sometimes it doesn’t. We are living in one of those times when the center is not holding.

The root of our tension stems from the events of the American Revolution and our ambiguous relationship with the mother church. We claimed our independence from England long ago, and yet, for better or worse, we view our catholicity as somehow channeled through the historic see of Canterbury.

Our American relationship with the Church of England is usually just part of the wallpaper, and on any given Sunday, most of the time it doesn’t enter into our collective church conscience. So it is particularly jarring when the tensions of that relationship do burst into the open, as it did last week when the American Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was asked to remove her mitre so as not to offend a contingent of the Church of England who will not accept women bishops (or, we suspect, women priests).

The slight has enraged many American Episcopalians who note that Archbishop of

Canterbury Rowan Williams and other British bishops are not asked to remove their emblems of ecclesiastical office when visiting the United States. Lambeth Palace, the headquarters of Rowan Williams, last week exhibited nothing but the airs of old-school British colonialism and the odor did not set well on this side of the Atlantic.

It has also been noted in recent days that Bishop Katharine was required to give proof of her ordinations before being allowed to preach and celebrate at Southwark Cathedral, London. Considering that she hosted Rowan Williams at last summer’s Episcopal General Convention in Anaheim, and did not ask him to produce seminary certificates or an ID card, the request to her came off as petty harassment.

More ominously, she was also asked to resign from an elected Anglican body, and she refused to resign. Other American Episcopalians were removed from various ecumenical commissions by the archbishop; all this in response to the Diocese of Los Angeles having the temerity to elect an openly lesbian assisting bishop, Mary Glasspool. As The Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, the general secretary of the Anglican Communion explained at a meeting of the Episcopal Executive Council last Friday, Archbishop Williams felt he had to do something.

On one level, all of this is rather silly – it is about a hat and a few petty insults. But the incidents last week go to the deeper rift between the two branches of Anglicanism – branches, after all, that at times have been rivals over the last two centuries. A number of excellent commentaries have been published on-line in recent days, among the best by Diana Butler Bass in the Huffington Post. You can read her commentary by clicking HERE.

Another frequent blogger, Father Jake Stops the World, suggests that Williams’ latest moves are designed to force The Episcopal Church to tie itself more closely to the English Church as part of an intricate legal strategy to regain church property in Virginia. You need to read Jake’s legal theory to understand what he is getting at by clicking HERE. I tend to think the Brits aren’t quite that strategic and are making this up as they go along.

Our tensions and knee-jerk responses on both sides, let me suggest, stem from a deeper cultural and historical divide. We are, after all, two peoples divided by a common language.

The Episcopal Church was, indeed, born in the crucible of the war for independence from Britain in 1776. Yet the Episcopal Church has never quite found a way to live completely independent from the mother church or the mother country. Other churches – Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans – went their separate ways from churches that birthed them, but not The Episcopal Church in the United States.

In the colonial era, no bishop lived in America. The Bishop of London was the bishop of colonial America. After the Revolution, the newly organized Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America sent Samuel Seabury across the Atlantic to be consecrated a bishop. The English bishops refused, and so he went to Scotland where the bishops there ordained him a bishop. The Americans never forgot the snub, and the American Episcopal Church remains close to this day to the Episcopal Church of Scotland. Bishop Katharine was welcomed enthusiastically there -- no ordination certificates required -- when she appeared there late last week.

Relations with English church counterparts remained sour for nearly 100 years after the American Revolution. The Episcopal Church developed within a vibrant American religious marketplace and a culture that respected the separation of church and state. The English church remained the established church of Britain, impervious to change, and its bishops appointed by the monarch and sitting in the House of Lords.

The modern Anglican Communion was born in the late 19th century after a series of meetings in Chicago and Lambeth that resulted in a succinct statement of what binds us, not what divides us. You can find it on pages 876-878 of the Book of Common Prayer. In a nutshell, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 sets four common points of communion:

1. Holy Scriptures are the ultimate standard of faith.
2. The Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed, though brief, are sufficient statements of Christianity.
3. Baptism and Eucharist are the two primary sacraments (the others being optional).
4. We are knit together by bishops through the long history of Christianity.

That is it. No lengthy covenant, no long “confession,” no tricky language with loopholes, no declaration of a “magesterium” like the Pope (or Archbishop of Canterbury), no dictation on

how church governance will be structured. Latitude is wide for how we live into those four points in our own local context.

The Anglican Communion began as an alliance (or peace treaty) between the American and English churches; it expanded to include other national Anglican churches as the British Empire contracted, much as the British Commonwealth of Nations filled the English psychic space left when the sun finally set on the Empire. Yet colonial attitudes die hard amongst the Brits.

In our own time, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and his Lambeth advisers consistently misunderstand and badly underestimate our differences in polity – and how those very different ideas of church governance and secular democracy influence our respective approaches to decision-making in the life of our respective branches of Anglicanism.

Williams and his entourage display little understanding or respect for American polity; their tone-deafness smacks of British colonialism, pure and simple. And Americans, for the most part, are unaware that Williams was chosen by a monarch upon the recommendation of a prime minister. It would be like having our Episcopal Presiding Bishop chosen by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and confirmed by President Obama and then seating her in the U.S. Senate.

Over the last century, the Anglican Communion has grown in size and complexity with ecumenical commissions, missionary boards, consultative bodies, observers at the United Nations and national primate meetings. Most of that structure involves primarily bishops, and while not exactly Roman Catholic, it is not surprising that this structure is viewed as parallel to the Roman Catholic world. The current Archbishop of Canterbury seems to edge in that direction, and he has attempted to use such structures as a weapon to punish the Episcopal Church for ordaining openly gay bishops.

“Everywhere I go,” Kearon said on Friday, “everyone wants him to act as a sort of an Anglican pope as long as he does what [they] want him to do."

Really?

Some Americans welcome the archbishop’s action. But do they really want an Anglican pope? Or to put it another way, do they really want to give up their American independence? And does Williams really want to be a pope?

It also seems a contradiction-in-terms to withdraw membership on an ecumenical commission as a means for enforcing a particular formulation of orthodoxy. Ecumenism by definition requires dialogue and soft boundaries around doctrine. Why bother talking about someone else’s faith if you don’t want to listen to what they have to say?

What then should our response be to all of this? Where do we go from here as Episcopalians living in a post-colonial world but with structures born out of British colonialism? Williams has proposed a complicated “Anglican Covenant” that places power with the national presiding bishops from the various national Anglican churches. His actions this week give us a glimpse of what life would be like under such a covenant with the Archbishop acting as a “magisterium.” The American Episcopal Church, along with the Canadians, Brazilians, South Africans and New Zealanders, are not likely to go along. In the name of unity, Williams is essentially threatening to split up the Anglican Communion. That well could be his legacy.

Or maybe after the pettiness and snubs of this past week, another course will be chosen by the clerics of Lambeth Palace. Perhaps Williams and his advisers will draw back from acting like the Vatican; perhaps this will be the low point of relations, and it will be uphill from here. Perhaps they will look again at the “indaba” listening process that Williams so brilliantly promoted at the Lambeth conference of bishops two summers ago. Perhaps. Lambeth Palace, with its British flair for obfuscation, is anything but transparent. We are left only to guess.

And what should we do in The Episcopal Church? I am inclined to agree with Diana Butler Bass: let us do as Jesus would do, walk the extra mile with those who would persecute us, carry their cloak – carry our hat in our hand – and listen for how the Holy Spirit is guiding us. Let the slights go. Walk the walk as disciples. As Bishop Katharine said in her sermon at St. Paul’s in January: “Be bold.”

Today's Collect for Sunday provides a perfect prayerful direction for all of us:

O Lord, make us have perpetual love and reverence for your
holy Name, for you never fail to help and govern those whom
you have set upon the sure foundation of your loving-kindness;
through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you
and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

We are called to serve as Christ’s hands and feet in the world, and we have much work to do. The Kingdom of God, which Jesus proclaims, is about inclusion and radical welcome of the outcast and the lowly, the sick and the lonely, prisoners and sinners, and those considered unworthy by the religious purists. Today’s epistle goes to the heart of the matter, and it is there where we should dwell:

“As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise.”

Paul’s Letter to the Galatians 3:23-29

Anglican divisions: A view from Australia

A few days ago I suggested we hear voices seldom heard in our North American cloisters, and I posted here a commentary from Brazil about our Anglican predicament. Here is another voice from the Communion worth hearing, from Andrew McGowen, the warden of Trinity College, Melbourne, Australia.

He is critical of both Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and our American Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, but also suggests that much of the Anglican world is now turning to her for leadership. This is an interesting commentary, a bit dense with nuance, but well worth reading. McGowen's commentary is reprinted in full below:

The Anglican Babel: A view from AustraliaBy Andrew McGowen

Although historians will point to Gene Robinson’s consecration as a bishop in 2003 as the catalyst for the reconfiguration of global Anglicanism, Pentecost 2010 may turn out to have been a watershed of sorts too. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Letter, Renewal in the Spirit, and the responses to it, particular that of Presiding Bishop ++Katharine Jefferts Schori of The Episcopal Church, have ushered in a new era not only of frank disagreement but of practical disengagement.

The Australian Church has not been central in these discussions. We have our own microcosm of Anglican diversity, which often makes us hesitant to wade into Anglican Communion wars, lest we further destabilize our own delicate or illusory balance. Where we are contributing to the broader conversation at all, it is in correspondingly contradictory ways.

Primate ++Phillip Aspinall plays a leading role in the Anglican Consultative Council, working to defend or create a centre for the global Communion; others have had significant roles in inter-Anglican bodies. Yet ++Peter Jensen and his colleagues in Sydney, our most numerous and powerful diocese, are deeply involved in the GAFCON/FCA movement, and in the self-described ‘Global South’ (one of many signs that a particular conservatism and material resources are as good a ticket in to that company as any real issue of human and political geography - ask the Brazilians, Filipinos and South Africans).

Our divisions locally are arguably as deep as those in TEC a few years ago, but we Australian Anglicans generally believe in the Church. And in case or where we do not, the Australian Anglican Church is a fairly loose confederation of autonomous dioceses (which allows our spectacular diversity) and unlike our TEC sisters and brothers we do not have a strong sense of ‘national’ Church as an important ecclesiological category.

++Rowan is also held in real affection here, even in some (not all) of the more evangelical corners of the Church. Australian Anglicans have not wanted to weaken his position, and we—even those who disagree with him more and more about the Anglican Communion and its politics—still look to him for theological leadership. After these events however, I suspect there will be an increasing number here who look to ++Katharine and others for that leadership, as well or instead. I do hope it will be ‘as well’, myself; I think ++Rowan is sometimes better at being wrong than ++Katharine is at being right. This may be another sign that they need each other, and that the rest of us need them both.

++Katharine is right, I believe, in her more expansive articulation of the Spirit’s work as ongoing and dynamic. She is also right to reject centralization as alien to our Anglican heritage and to the roots of our more modern attempts to create a Communion.

However ++Katharine’s language of colonialism and control (or the romanticized take on Celtic Christianity, pursued further in Diana Butler Bass’ comment piece) in her pastoral letter responding to ++Rowan's will be unconvincing to many outside the TEC Choir being preached to, however sympathetic some of us are to the issues involved. Excluding some from obscure inter-Anglican bodies can be depicted as more-in-sorrow-than-anger discipline by the perpetrators, or as grasp-for-power oppression by the objects, but the reality all amounts to far less.

Appeal to the specifics of the (impressive) ‘Baptismal Covenant’ of TEC as a basis for distinctive action does not cut much ice here either (granted that we were not the audience); we Australian Anglicans want to talk about the demands of our common baptism, rooted in Christ for 2000 years, and resort to what characterizes TEC in the last 30 is not reassuring. This is where our admiration for TEC’s courage and leadership pauses, recognizing an apparent self-sufficiency which we refuse to attribute to ourselves. This is both what we admire most and what we find frustrating in TEC. This is where we are not sure whether ++Katharine’s being right, or similar forms of being right, will be enough.

++Katharine is still right here, however, and ++Rowan wrong. He is wrong in a tragic way—seeking, doubtless at great personal cost, a unity in the terms that existing Anglican Communion structures assume or require, but which in fact has now escaped us.

++Rowan is wrong in identifying the TEC ‘Communion Partners’ or others ‘who disagree strongly with recent decisions’ as those who want to be aligned with the Communion’s general commitments. I believe the vast majority of the members of TEC, including its leaders, do want to be aligned with the Communion’s general commitments and are, with specific and well-known exceptions. I have no more desire than the Archbishop of Canterbury to brush past the difficulties those exceptions present; but when did attitudes to homosexuality, rather than to the Creeds or the Sacraments, come to define the ‘Communion’s general commitments’?

This is an ecclesiological as well as a theological mistake, in that it characterizes the Communion not by its vast common depth of faith and hope, framed in specific and diverse history, but by the conversations of the thin layer that constitutes the ‘instruments of unity’, whose success has of late been desultory, and future significance increasingly uncertain.

++Rowan is also wrong in equating the positions in Inter-Anglican bodies such as IASCUFO with representation of the Communion as a whole. This is precisely the sort of context where Anglicans need to have the breadth of visions and voices that might take us forward in faith and charity, even if it is to a place of mutual disagreement and realignment. The removal of a TEC member of IASCUFO makes it a weaker body in all respects.

The position is slightly different regarding exclusion of TEC from the ecumenical dialogue groups, but the result no more inspiring; our dialogue partners may indeed now have a better chance of knowing ‘who it is they are talking to’—they will know precisely that they are talking only to some of us.

And while numerous commentators have suggested there are power grabs or constitutional problems with the dis-invitations, few have noted that membership of such bodies has never before been seen as a question of delegation, or of representing national Churches; rather their members have been chosen for expertise, and with a necessary diversity that reflects our own (than you Bruce Kaye for this point).

Not all blame, even for these specific missteps, should be laid at the feet of the Archbishop of Canterbury or of the Anglican Communion Office. It is patronising to conservatives in the 'Global South' and elsewhere to absolve them of responsibility. But here is where the singling out of TEC, at least as it appears in Canon Kenneth Kearon’s subsequentletter, becomes inexplicable (nb., after a week or two of no clarification, maybe change ‘inexplicable’ to ‘outrageous’). Most groups who have disregarded the other moratorium, of cross-border interventions, have not been mentioned in the prescriptions for dis-inviting participation in international bodies.

This apparent inconsistency turns the events of recent weeks from depressing but inconsequential to depressing but deeply troubling. Not that it would have been much better, I hasten to add, for conservatives to be similarly sanctioned; we need these brothers and sisters no less than others, whether they know it or not. At present however many of them are seeking communion only among the superficially like-minded, and would hardly notice their or our exclusion from these structures.

From this southern vantage point, I cannot hear the events of Pentecost 2010 either as a new centralizing will-to-power or as a rallying-call to liberal or progressive indignation. Rather, in a perverse reversal of the original Pentecost, we see ourselves further reduced to Babel, scattered abroad and unable or unwilling to understand one another’s speech. If the Anglican Communion’s central instruments are bound by circumstance to provide us with less than they were intended to, Australian Anglicans will not abandon them; but we will not abandon sisters and brothers in TEC or elsewhere either, as we all begin the long slow work of finding common language by other means, in the Spirit’s power.

Presiding Bishop Katharine at Southwark Cathedral: "Love has saved you - be at peace."

In the next few days, I will post a number of views from around the Anglican Communion about the current condition of the Communion. Please see the earlier post with a commentary from Brazil.

Meanwhile, our own Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori preached Sunday at Southwark Cathedral in central London, and while she made no mention of the current unpleasantness with the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, you are free to do your own exegesis.

Also note that she celebrated the Eucharist, and the Church of England still has not approved the ordination of women bishops. The photos are from the mass earlier today.

The gospel lesson that goes with it is Luke 7:36-8:3. Here is her sermon:

Sermon by The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori

Southwark Cathedral, London, June 13, 2010

I come from a notorious place. Gambling and prostitution are legal in Nevada. Ministry there means that many congregations host 12-step programs not just for alcoholics and drug addicts, but for those addicted to gambling. There are a few groups for sex addicts, too. A story quietly circulated when I was there, about a priest who encouraged the local madams and their employees to visit the churches he served. One congregation made a warm enough welcome that the women of the night returned frequently. Other congregations acted more like Jesus’ fellow dinner guests – “who let her in here?” The women didn’t return to those dinner tables.

I don’t know what it’s like in the Church of England, but in some circles the Episcopal Church has the reputation for being a place where you have to dress correctly, and know how to act – i.e., you really should know all the responses by heart, and how to find your way around the several books we use in worship – or you shouldn’t even bother walking in the front door. Yes, I’ll admit that there are a few places like that, where the local pew-sitters are more afraid than their potential guests, but there are lots more communities where all comers are not just invited, but welcomed with open arms.

I have an old friend, a quirky priest who’s been a college chaplain for decades, who tells about the summer he traveled across the United States visiting different churches. He was camping, and didn’t get a bath every day, but he talked about what a different reception he’d get when he wore his collar, even when he was grubby. The Bishop of Rhode Island spent part of her last sabbatical learning what it’s like to live on the street. She tells about sleeping in homeless shelters in some of her own churches, and then going upstairs to church on Sunday morning. She was never recognized, but she learned a great deal about the welcome and unwelcome of different congregations.

It’s hard work to get to the point where you’re able and willing to see the Lord of love in the odorous street person next to you in the pew. It can be just as hard to find him in the unwelcoming host.

What makes us so afraid of the other? There’s something in our ancient genetic memory that ratchets up our state of arousal when we meet a stranger – it’s a survival mechanism that has kept our species alive for millennia by being wary about strangers. But there’s also a piece of our makeup that we talk about in more theological terms – the part that leaps to judgment about that person’s sins. It’s connected to knowing our own sinfulness, and our tendency toward competition – well, she must be a worse sinner than I am – thank God!

That woman who wanders into Simon’s house comes with her hair uncovered – “oh, scandal! She’s clearly a woman of the street!” And she starts to act in profoundly embarrassing ways, crying all over Jesus’ feet and cleaning up the tears with her hair. And, “oh Lord, now she’s covering him with perfume! We can’t have this in a proper house – what will people think? And I guess now we know just what sort of person this fellow is!”

The scorn that some are willing to heap on others because we think they’ve loved excessively or inappropriately is still pretty well known. Yet it is this woman’s loving response to Jesus that brings her pardon, and Jesus’ celebration of her right relationship with God. She doesn’t even have to ask. Jesus seems to say that evidence of her pardon has already been given – full measure, pressed down, and overflowing – just like her tears and hair and cask of nard.

It’s the same message Jesus offers over and over: “perfect love casts out fear” (1Jn 4:18). It’s actually our fear of the wretchedness within our own souls that pushes us away from our sisters and brothers. Fear is the only thing that keeps us from knowing God’s love – and we most often discover it in the people around us. Jesus wasn’t afraid to eat with sinners, either Simon or the other dinner guests, and he wasn’t afraid of what the woman of the city was going to do to his reputation.

The forgiven woman of the city is sister to the prodigal son. They are both our siblings. We can join that family if we’re willing to let go of that fearful veneer of righteousness. It covers our yearning to be fully known, because we don’t quite think we’re lovable. That veneer is the only thing between us and a whole-hearted “welcome home.” It’s risky to let that veneer be peeled away, but all we risk is love.

That’s what Paul is talking about in his letter to the Galatians. He knows that all his work at observing the fine points of the law is like piling up the layers in a piece of plywood. Those layers of veneer may make plywood strong, but in human beings they have to be peeled away, or maybe traded for transparent ones. The layers won’t right our relationship with God. Love will. Paul says, “if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a sinner.” The veneered self simply can’t be vulnerable enough to receive the love that’s being offered. Can we see the human heart yearning for love in that person over there? Can we recall our own yearning, and find the connection? That’s what compassion is – opening ourselves to love.

Practicing compassion rather than judgment is one way the layers start to fly off. Think about all those dinner guests. The party’s going to be far more interesting if we can find something to love about the curmudgeonly host and his buddies. Rejecting them is going to shut down any real possibility of compassion. It’s risky, yes, but the only thing we risk is our own hearts, and the possibility they’ll overflow as readily as that woman’s tears. It’s a big risk to let the layers go, but the only thing we risk is discovering a brother or sister under the skin.

Jesus invites us all to his moveable feast. He leaves that dinner party with Simon and goes off to visit other places in need of prodigal love and prodigious forgiveness. His companions, literally his fellow tablemates, are the 12 and “some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities.” Hmmm. Strong, healthy women, and three of them are actually named here: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna. Together with many others they supported and fed the community – they became hosts of the banquet.

Those who know the deep acceptance and love that come with healing and forgiveness can lose the defensive veneer that wants to shut out other sinners. They discover that covering their hair or hiding their tears or hoarding their rich perfume isn’t the way that the beloved act, even if it makes others nervous. Eventually it may even cure the anxious of their own fear by drawing them toward a seat at that heavenly banquet. There’s room for us all at this table, there are tears of welcome and a kiss for the wanderer, and the sweet smell of home.

Want to join the feast? You are welcome here. Love has saved you – go in peace. Lean over and say the same to three strangers: you are welcome here. Love has saved you – be at peace.

The Anglican divide and other voices seldom heard

I am still on my "time away," for which I much appreciate as a gift from the parish and from those of you, dear readers, who read this blog. I am not posting as frequently, but I am posting now-and-then. Thank you so much for your gift of time and patience with me!

I've been keeping up, from a distance, developments in the Anglican Communion, particularly the Pentecost letter from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams removing The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada from several ecumenical committees because of our errant ways in welcoming gays and lesbians into the full sacramental life of the Church.

Aside from the contradiction-in-terms (if it is ecumenical committee, how is it the membership of an ecumenical committee should be limited?), my gut feeling is Williams is more concerned with appeasing his own restless right-wing in England than he is with creating dialogue in the rest of the Communion. That said, we cannot claim he didn't warn us; he said last summer at our General Convention there would be consequences for our actions.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that in recent days our own Episcopal Church has made overtures to be more tightly connected to the Canadian church, and the Anglican Church of Brazil has made overtures to be more tightly connected to both of our North American churches. Sadly, what Williams has done is made the fracture officially deeper and probably made himself less relevant to any talks that may eventually lead to reconciliation, or a realignment of the Anglican Communion.

There are many opinions out there, and we do well to listen not just to the familiar liberal-conservative voices, but to voices from other corners of the world we seldom hear. I came across this earlier today from Kantinho do Rev, a blog out of Brazil, and I share it with you in full:

Quarta-feira, Junho 09, 2010

Fear and exclusion: new challenges for the Communion

The decision of removing representatives of The Episcopal Church and of the Church of Canada from ecumenical networks represents the most drastic change amidst the theological conflict within the Anglican Communion.

In my point of view the Archbishop of Canterbury moved a piece of high risk and the consequences of such recommendations are what it is not possible to predict. The Pentecost Letter addressed to the Communion was one of the most contradictory documents in our history as Communion.

At the heart of a feast of the unity, we heard a message of discipline and exclusion. Absolutely strange for a moment in which other Christian traditions were celebrating the gift of the Holy Spirit giving to the Church power to be in one faith and witness. For us, the Archbishop`s letter showed our fracture and incompetence to stay on the table of dialog, wishing to hear the God`s will.

In our Provincial Synod, we heard from the mouth of our Archbishop Mauricio that in the heart of God hasn`t place for boundaries. Our delegates approved unanimously a motion of solidarity with brothers and sisters from TEC and Canada and a letter to the Communion will be issued about punitive actions gone to Provinces who has been looking to welcome all the persons without barriers and prejudices.

Pentecost - as I wrote in an previous post - means to jump for the newness of life. To surpass the ignorance and to know the language of the love. The disciples were afraid and they were freed to speak, to welcome and to build a new community with persons who were strange for them in everything: language, customs and values.

In the installation of the National Cathedral of the Province of Brazil in Porto Alegre, at the Trinity Sunday, we had a true Pentecost. They were there Buddhist, religions afro, Roman Catholics, Muslims and people of several religious background. An unforgettable demonstration of fraternity. It is for that that purpose the Church exists: to be a sign of reconciliation and welcome.

Regrettably our Communion has not been able to surpass the challenges of the diversity. Now, besides this difficulty, we have the mark of the fear and of the exclusion

.

The Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil stands in solidarity with our sisters churches in USA and Canada and our hope is that we can reaffirm our commitment in welcome people to live their faith fully and with confidence in the gracious love of God!