After the debates at the American General Convention last summer, I wrote directly to all the primates of the Communion to ask about their reaction and the likely reaction of their provinces as to whether the resolutions of Convention had met the proposals of the Windsor Report for restoring something like normal relations between the Episcopal Church and others in the Communion. The answers were instructive. About eleven provinces were fairly satisfied; about eleven were totally
dissatisfied. The rest displayed varying levels of optimism or pessimism, but were not eager to see this as a life and death issue for the Communion. Of those who took one or the other of the more pronounced view, several on both sides nonetheless expressed real exasperation that this question and the affairs of one province should be taking up energy to the near-exclusion of other matters.

The public perception, as we’ve been reminded by several commentators in the last week or so, is that we are a Church obsessed with sex. The responses I received to my letter to Primates suggests that this is what many within the Church feel as well – and I’d be surprised if many in this chamber did not echo that. It feels as though we are caught in a battle very few really want to be fighting; like soldiers in the
trenches somewhere around 1916, trying to remember just what were the decisions that got everyone to a point where hardly anyone was owning the conflict, just enduring it (we don’t of course have to go as far back as 1916).

So it is natural to want to say, ‘This is a war no-one chose; there must be a simple way of halting the conflict and getting the troops home.’ That simple protest has been forcefully expressed, in the media and within the Church, in terms of giving up on the Communion and concentrating on the independent health and integrity of each local church. Unhappily, though, the truth is that when conflicts have passed
a certain point, simple solutions are unlikely to work, to the extent that they deliberately ignore the things that bred the conflict in the first place – and that have never been properly addressed. This is a recipe for the whole thing to start up again as soon as possible.

But I’d remind you too of something I said in this Synod last year. It is folly to think that a decision to ‘go our separate ways’ in the Communion would leave us with a neat and morally satisfying break between two groups of provinces, orthodox and heretics or humane liberals and bigots (depending on where you stand). Every province could break in several different directions. And if you look at parts of this
week’s agenda, can you honestly say that our debates and their outcomes would be simpler if we didn’t have the Communion’s challenges as part of the background?

In my remarks today, I want to try and identify some of the factors which, if not addressed, will lead us into more of the same unedifying divisions – if not on this, then on other questions. And I want to outline why the final communiqué from Dar es Salaam might possibly leave open some constructive possibilities. But may I take the opportunity of thanking publicly the countless people who wrote to assure us of their prayers in the last fortnight? We were very deeply supported during our
meeting, and that was a palpable blessing.

Two significant factors to start with. The debate triggered by certain decisions in the Episcopal Church is not just about a single matter of sexual ethics. It is about decision making in the Church and it is about the interpretation and authority of Scripture. It has raised, first of all, the painfully difficult question of how far Anglican provinces should feel bound to make decisions in a wholly consultative and
corporate way. In other words, it has forced us to ask what we mean by speaking and thinking about ourselves as a global communion. When ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ fail, what should we do about it? Now there is a case for drawing back from doing anything much, for accepting that we are no more than a cluster of historically linked local or national bodies. But to accept this case – and especially to accept it because the alternatives look too difficult – would be to unravel quite a lot of
what both internal theological reflection and ecumenical agreement have assumed and worked with for most of the last century. For those of us who still believe that the Communion is a Catholic body, not just an agglomeration of national ones, a body attempting to live in more than one cultural and intellectual setting and committed to addressing major problems in a global way, the case for ‘drawing back’ is not attractive.

But my real point is that we have never really had this discussion properly. It surfaced a bit in our debates over women’s ordination, but for a variety of reasons tended to slip out of focus. But we were bound to have to think it through sooner or later.

And it has arisen now in connection with same-sex relationships largely because this has been seen as a test-case for fidelity to Scripture, and so for our Reformed integrity. Rather more than with some other contentious matters (usury, pacifism, divorce), there was and is a prima facie challenge in a scriptural witness that appears to be universally negative about physical same-sex relations.

Now in the last ten years particularly, there have been numerous very substantial studies of the scriptural and traditional material which make it difficult to say that there is simply no debate to be had. Even a solidly conservative New Testament scholar like Richard Hays, to take one example out of many, would admit that work is needed to fill out and defend the traditional position, and to understand more deeply where the challenges to this position come from.

But it is easier to go for one or the other of the less labour-intensive options. There is a virtual fundamentalism which simply declines to reflect at all about principles of interpretation and implicitly denies that every reader of Scripture unconsciously or consciously uses principles of some kind. And there is a chronological or cultural
snobbery content to say that we have outgrown biblical categories. These
positions do not admit real theological debate. Neither is compatible
with the position of a Church that both seeks to be biblically obedient
and to read its Scriptures in the light of the best spiritual and
intellectual perspectives available in the fellowship of believers. And
the possibility of real theological exchange is made still more remote
by one group forging ahead with change in discipline and practice and
other insistently treating the question as the sole definitive marker of
orthodoxy.

Whatever happened, we might ask, to persuasion? To the frustrating
business of conducting recognisable arguments in a shared language? It
is frustrating because people are so aware of the cost of a long
argumentative process. It is intolerable that injustice and bigotry are
tolerated by the Church; it is intolerable that souls are put in peril
by doubtful teaching and dishonest practice. Yet one of the distinctive
things about the Christian Church as biblically defined is surely the
presumption (Acts 15) that the default position when faced with conflict
is reasoning in council and the search for a shared discernment – so
that the truth does not appear as just the imposed settlement of the
winners in a battle.

So we should have done more on what it means to be a Catholic church; we
should have done more on the use of Scripture. And, mindful of the full
text of Lambeth 1.10, we should have done more about offering safe space
to homosexual people – including those who have in costly ways lived in
entire faithfulness to the traditional biblical ethic – to talk about
what it is like to be endlessly discussed and dissected in their
absence, patronised or demonised. Again and again we have used the
language of respect for their human dignity; again and again we have
failed to show it effectively, convertingly and convertedly. This is not
just about our fear or prejudice. It is also because we live in an
environment that knows nothing of proper reticence in the public
exposure and discussion of certain vulnerable places in our humanity.
And what then happens is that every attempt to ‘listen to the experience
of homosexual people’ is easily seen as political, an exercise in
winning battles rather than winning understanding. Remember that in
different ways this is an issue for our engagement with any and every
minority group – how to secure patience and privacy and the space to be
honest without foreclosing the outcomes of discussion.

It’s in this light that I ask you to think about what emerged from the
Primates’ Meeting. Essentially, what was proposed had four elements.
First: what has been called the ‘Listening Process’, which has gone
forward in a very large number of provinces, including some of the most
conservative African ones, continues to seek at least to provide the
safety and honesty I’ve just been talking about. It has not been
straightforward, but has won a high level of ownership in the Communion,
and does so because it has retained its integrity as precisely what it
set out to be – a process of resourcing discussion, not of gathering
ammunition.

Second, the proposal has been made – partly stimulated by the very
successful international consultations held at Coventry Cathedral in the
last twelve months – of a serious and sustained piece of work for the
Communion on hermeneutics, the theory and practice of biblical
interpretation. Combined with the ongoing and very creative programme of
the working group on Theological Education in the Communion, it has the
potential to take us beyond what I called the non-labour-intensive
theologies we see too much of at the moment.

Third, the group that has been working on a draft Covenant for the
Communion has made far more progress than anyone expected, and was able
to submit a draft for discussion to the Primates which will now be
circulated for further comment from Provinces. This tries to outline
what a ‘wholly consultative’ approach to deciding contentious matters
might look like – with some of the inevitable consequences spelled out
if this is not followed. This is not, I must stress, threatening
penalties, but stating what will unavoidably flow from more assertions
of unqualified autonomy. To repeat a point I’ve made many times – you
may feel imperatively called to prophetic action, but must not then be
surprised if the response is incomprehension, non-acceptance or at least
a conviction that time is needed for discernment.

And so to the fourth element, addressed to the Episcopal Church. We have
asked for more clarity as to whether a moratorium has indeed been agreed
on the election of bishops in active sexual partnerships outside
marriage; and we have suggested a similar voluntary moratorium by the
bishops on licensing any kind of liturgical order for same-sex blessings
(the understanding of the Meeting was certainly that this should be a
comprehensive abstention from any public rites), at least for the period
during which the wider discussion of the Covenant goes forward. And to
try and encourage an internal North American solution to the bitter
disputes now raging, we suggested a structure for some kind of
supplementary oversight, and an agreement on both sides to back away
from litigation – the explicit hope being that this would remove what
some see as the need for interventions from other provinces, and would
begin to do away with what all agree is the anomaly of diversity of
foreign jurisdictions in the USA.

Much here depends upon goodwill and patience. The Presiding Bishop
rightly won praise for her careful and sympathetic engagement with these
proposals and other matters, in the course of what was undoubtedly a
very testing meeting. Likewise the readiness of many of the
‘intervening’ primates to consider negotiating a new position was
welcome and impressive.

So in short, I am commending the Primates’ communiqué, for all its
inevitable imperfections, as representing a serious attempt to go beyond
the surface problems and to give us some space to look at the underlying
and neglected theological factors. I’m well aware of the way in which
the imminence of the Lambeth Conference focuses some of the risks and
choices. But I’m also aware of the continuing obstinate will to make the
Communion work, and to work as some sort of properly Catholic and
Reformed unity. I’d be sad if that will were so much eroded in this
country that we felt no investment in the sort of processes envisaged in
Dar es Salaam.

But let me finish with two brief reflections which may be pertinent,
given some of the comment on the Tanzanian meeting. Much has been made
of the relative nobility of a ‘Here I stand’ position as compared with
the painful brokering and compromising needed for unity’s sake. It’s
impossible not to feel the force of this. Yet – to speak personally for
a moment – the persistence of the Communion as an organically
international and intercultural unity whose aim is to glorify Jesus
Christ and to work for his Kingdom is for me and others just as much a
matter of deep personal and theological conviction as any other
principle. About this, I am entirely prepared to say ‘Here I stand and I
cannot do otherwise’. And I believe the Primates have said the same.

But lastly – I shall be returning next week to Africa; first for a
consultation in Johannesburg involving the great majority of Anglican
provinces across the world and dealing with our contribution to the
Millennium Development Goals. It will be surveying our strategy,
exploring what’s needed for better co-ordination in the development
resources of the Communion, discussing with our new representative at
the UN – an outstandingly competent and charismatic Ugandan woman – how
we become more accountable for what we’re doing. After this, I go for a
few days to one of the youngest and most vulnerable of our Anglican
churches, the new diocese of Angola, engaged both in active development
work and in a fast expanding programme of primary evangelisation.

I don’t imagine that the agenda of this visit to Southern Africa will
feel much like that of the Tanzanian meeting; and it’s an obvious point
that this is the work that the overwhelming majority of Anglicans are
actually doing for the overwhelming bulk of the time, especially in
Africa. But I need to say something more. Like it or not, this work will
be harder and more poorly resourced if the structures of the Communion
are loosened, destroyed or so localised that they cannot work flexibly
on the global scene. The agenda of Tanzania has something to do with the
more obviously attractive, perhaps for some more obviously
gospel-related work of Johannesburg and Angola. The entire complicated
business of building the trust necessary for co-operation – ultimately
the trust that Christ is at work in the other person, the other group,
the other province – needs work, including the kind of work done in
Tanzania. In the diverse economy of Christ’s Body, Primates’ Meetings
too have their charism and their place, however much we may yearn for
deck-clearing, ground-breaking clarities. But then, you have after all
been elected to a Synod, and I suspect you already know that even
obscure and time-consuming labours may yet be part of the Kingdom’s
demands.

Bonnie Anderson issues statement on Primates’ communiqué
Episcopal News Service February 23, 2007
[ENS] Bonnie Anderson, president of the House of Deputies, has issued a statement on the recently concluded Primates’ Meeting and the resulting communiqué. The full text of Anderson’s statement follows.
As I read the Communiqué from the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, I am deeply troubled by its implications for the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
I continue to offer the Primates my affection, prayer and companionship along the way of the Cross and I respect their leadership of our Communion. Their Communiqué, however, raises profound and serious issues regarding their authority to require any member Church to take the types of specific actions the Communiqué contemplates and whether they have authority to enforce consequences or penalties against any member Church that does not act in a way they desire. The type of authority for the Primates implicit in the Communiqué would change not only the Episcopal Church but the essence of the Anglican Communion.
The polity of the Episcopal Church is one of shared decision making among the laity, priest and deacons and bishops. The House of Bishops does not make binding, final decisions about the governance of the Church. Decisions like those requested by the Primates must be carefully considered and ultimately decided by the whole Church, all orders of ministry, together.
Some are asking whether the Primates can ask our House of Bishops to take certain actions and put a deadline on their request. Yes, they can ask. There are larger questions that need to be addressed, including: Is it a good idea for our House of Bishops to do what they have asked? Is the House of Bishops the right body within the Episcopal Church to respond to the Primates’ requests?
Our baptismal promise to seek and serve Christ in all people must be very carefully considered when we are being asked as Episcopalians to exclude some of our members from answering the Holy Spirit’s call to use their God-given gifts to lead faithful lives of ministry. Our promise to strive for justice and peace and respect the dignity of all people binds us together. The Episcopal Church has declared repeatedly that our understanding of the Baptismal Covenant requires that we treat all persons equally regardless of their race, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities, age, color, ethnic origin, or national origin.
To honor all of the Primates’ requests would change the way the Episcopal Church understands its role in the Communion and the way Episcopalians make decisions about our common life. Our church makes policy and interprets its resolutions and Canons through the General Convention and, to a lesser extent, the Executive Council.
As president of the 800-plus member House of Deputies, it is my duty to ensure that the voice of the clergy and the laity of our Church will be heard as the Church discusses and debates the Primates’ requests and that that process will not be pre-empted by the House of Bishops or any other group. I have already begun to work toward that end.
All Anglicans must remember that the second Lambeth Conference in 1878 recommended that “the duly certified action of every national or particular Church, and of each ecclesiastical province (or diocese not included in a province), in the exercise of its own discipline, should be respected by all the other Churches, and by their individual members.”
This has been the tradition of the Anglican Communion. To demand strict uniformity of practice diminishes our Anglican traditions.
Our tradition of autonomous churches in the Anglican Communion, that come together because of our love of Christ and our common heritage, has allowed us to focus on mission and evangelism to our broken world which is in desperate need of the Good News of God in Christ. In recent times, however, we have spent too much of our time, talent and treasure debating if we ought to deny some people a place at the table to which Jesus calls us all. Instead, we must listen to each other – really listen and not just read reports – so that we can hear the voice of the Holy Spirit moving through all of us and calling us to be more faithful.

The Most Reverend Justice O. Akrofi
Archbishop of West Africa and Bishop of Accra
Bishopscourt, P.O. Box GP 8
Accra, Ghana
February 17, 2007

Dear +Justice,

It is with sadness that I need to rescind my invitation to you to be with us in late March into early April, 2007. Yesterday I learned you were one of seven primates who have boycotted the Eucharist at the Primates Meeting in Dar es Salaam, and +Peter Akinola’s statement on behalf of the seven of you is in all the newspapers. I have received a number of emails from clergy in this Diocese expressing their disapproval of your action.

The Diocesan Council met today and agrees that you cannot be welcomed in Maryland under the circumstances. For my own part, I am disappointed you would use the Holy Sacrament of our Lord’s Body and Blood as a political tool; I had assumed your sacramental theology was more thoroughly Anglican. Mostly I am sorry after so many years to end our personal relationship on this note.

It is obvious to everyone here that it would now be completely inappropriate for you to celebrate the Eucharist at our Cathedral on Palm Sunday. Surely, many parishioners would protest your visit by not receiving Communion from you. Since I do not allow such behavior in this Diocese, I cannot encourage it by your presence. Clearly it would be inappropriate for you to preach Tuesday in Holy Week to a combined group of Lutheran and Episcopal clergy, since you do not even share Communion with other Anglicans. Finally, it is sadly clear to Nancy and me that your presence at my retirement celebration is out of order as well. I give thanks for the eight years we have been in relationship; we have many friends in Accra and in Ghana, and I am aware that there are a number of them who will be shocked and grieved by your behavior. I have always shared honestly with you (even though I have not felt in the past two years you have been so honest in your sharing) and want to say we have great affection for the +Justice we knew in those earlier years. Since becoming Archbishop, you have changed and I do not feel I know you anymore.

I am not at this time calling for an end of the Companion Diocese relationship, although this development puts that relationship at risk. I am content to let the Holy Spirit guide our Dioceses into appropriate discernment (a discernment which will take place after my retirement and without my input). As a Diocese, Maryland is committed, as am I, to the continuation of projects already begun in Accra and relationships in Accra which I and many others here cherish. Our special Lenten offerings will go to assist children in your Diocese, I continue to be very supportive of Ghanaian Mothers’ Hope spearheaded by Debbi Frock, and we celebrate our ongoing Cursillo commitments. Let me assure you I am not angry as I write this but deeply disappointed. The Diocese of Accra and its parishes remain on our Diocesan Prayer list from week-to-week, and you will remain in my prayers and those of our Diocesan family. Please continue to pray for us. There was much I had hoped to show you and tell you in your uupcoming visit, much we had hoped to plan together, especially as it relates to youth ministry, a high priority for both of our Dioceses. Perhaps some of that can continue in some different form; personally, I am sad that I will not be a part of it.

Your faithful brother in Christ,
The Right Reverend Robert W. Ihloff
Bishop of Maryland

Letter from Norman Espinoza

Dearest “amigo y hermano” Jorge:

This message was a correct response in light of the “misrepresentation” of these so-called “pastors”of the Church. Nevertheless it saddens me as this will only serve to create a greater rift amongst us as Episcopalians. I support this letter by the Bishop of Maryland (…coming from one[me] who stood up and turned my back on Bishop Spong…) as it was needed in light of their actions. Perhaps we can urge us all as Episcopalians(…and Christians) to turn the tables around and have us be the invited to these many parishes in Africa that will not get the beautiful message of God’s inclusivity? I certainly place myself as the first volunteer in this “army” for God. We can do it in the form of song or speakers or even to place leaflets in people’s home spreading the Word of God. Thanks be to God !!

Praise be to God- Norman

[ENS] The Primates of the Anglican Communion have called for the formation of a “Pastoral
Council” that would work in cooperation with the Episcopal Church to negotiate the necessary
structures to facilitate and encourage healing and reconciliation for those who feel unable
to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or of the presiding bishop.

The request came in a communiqué issued at the close of their February 15-19 meeting near Dar
es Salaam, Tanzania, during which the Primates devoted extended discussions of the response
of the Episcopal Church’s 75th General Convention to the Windsor Report, a document that
recommends ways in which the Anglican Communion can maintain unity amid differing viewpoints.

The full text of the communiqué is available at http://www.anglicancommunion.org.

“It is clear that despite the subcommittee report, a number of the Primates were unhappy with
General Convention’s response, and clarification of that response is among the Primates’
requests of the Episcopal Church,” Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, one of the
Anglican Communion’s 38 Primates, said after their meeting’s final business session adjourned
at 11 p.m. local time.

“There is awareness that these issues are of concern in many Provinces of the Communion, and
that the Episcopal Church’s charism is to continue to encourage the discussion,” said
Jefferts Schori, who will offer additional comment after further reflection and her nearly
20-hour journey back to New York.

Jefferts Schori said the Primates “have also acknowledged and supported” her November 2006
proposal to name a primatial vicar who would assume some pastoral duties at the Presiding
Bishop’s direction.

“The hope is that the proposed primatial vicar will provide enough relief on both sides that
the property disputes can be resolved in a way that does not alienate property and allows
congregations access,” Jefferts Schori said.

She said the Pastoral Council has been requested “to provide accountability for the primatial
vicar proposal, as well as for other Provinces that have intervened.”

Overall, Jefferts Schori said the Primates’ Meeting demonstrated “a positive sense of
collegiality, especially in the Bible studies and among Provinces where these issues have
been robustly discussed. In addition, a number of Provinces are engaged in the Listening
Process, and that is positive.”

The 11-page communiqué noted that, although the Episcopal Church has “taken seriously” its
Windsor response, “at the heart of our tensions is the belief that the Episcopal Church has
departed from the standard of teaching on human sexuality accepted by the Communion in the
1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 by consenting to the episcopal election of a candidate living in
a committed relationship, and by permitting Rites of blessing same-sex unions.”

During a news conference at the close of the Primates’ Meeting, Archbishop of Canterbury
Rowan Williams said that the response represented “a willingness to engage with the Communion
… Our first question is how do we best engage with that willingness, a stream of a desire
to remain with the Communion?”

Meanwhile, the Primates have requested that the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops “make an
unequivocal common covenant” that they will not authorize same-gender blessings within their
dioceses and confirm that Resolution B033, passed at the 75th General Convention, means that
a candidate for bishop who is living in a same-gender relationship “shall not receive the
necessary consent unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion.”

An answer from the House of Bishops is to be conveyed to the Primates by September 30, 2007.

“If the reassurances … cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between the
Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at the best, and this
has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion,” the
communiqué says.

Williams recognized that a substantial group of bishops in the Episcopal Church — almost one
quarter — have committed fully to the Windsor Report and to providing a carefully worked out
procedure for pastoral oversight.

“So we needed to see if there is an interim situation while the covenant is being worked
out,” he said. “That will provide a way of moving forward with integrity, a system of
pastoral care … a way of beginning to negotiate through the very difficult situation of
interventions of provinces in the life of the Episcopal Church. We had some very moving
testimonies of those, but it can only remain a very temporary solution.”

The Primates said that there remains a “lack of clarity” about the Episcopal Church’s stance,
particularly on the issue of same-gender blessings, and called for some clarification.

They also acknowledged that interventions by bishops and archbishops of some Provinces “have
exacerbated … estrangement between some of the faithful and the Episcopal Church that this
has led to recrimination, hostility and even to disputes in civil courts.”

According to the communiqué, Jefferts Schori reminded the Primates that some in the Episcopal
Church “have lost trust in the Primates and bishops of certain … Provinces because they
fear that they are all too ready to undermine or subvert the polity of the Episcopal Church.”

The Primates are urging “the representatives of the Episcopal Church and of those
congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this
situation,” and have requested the assurance that “no steps will be taken to alienate
property from the Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to
those congregations.”

“None of us agreed that litigation or counter litigation can be a proper way forward for a
Christian body,” Williams said.

The communiqué said that once the “scheme of pastoral care is recognized to be fully
operational, the Primates undertake to end all interventions” and that congregations or
parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral
oversight.”

“I’d like to put all this within the context of a Covenant process,” Williams said. “It’s a
scheme … of nurturing those in the Episcopal Church and clarifying its position.”

Upholding the bonds of affection that unite the Communion, the Primates supported the
establishment of an Anglican Covenant, noting that it “may lead to the trust required to
re-establish our interdependent life.” They recognized that an “interim response” is required
“until the Covenant is secured.”

The text of a proposed Anglican Covenant (http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/index.cfm),
intended to affirm the cooperative principles that bind the Anglican Communion, was also
released at the end of the Primates’ five-day meeting.

In other business, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected to represent the
Americas on the Primates’ Standing Committee. Other members elected to serve on the Committee
are Archbishops Phillip Aspinall of Australia; Mouneer Anis of Jerusalem and the Middle East;
Barry Morgan of Wales; Justice Akrofi of West Africa.

The Primates Meeting — of which Jefferts Schori is among 13 new members — is one of global
Anglicans’ four “Instruments of Communion” together with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
Anglican Consultative Council, and the Lambeth Conference.

Other international concerns addressed in the communiqué included the Millennium Development
Goals (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_77743_ENG_HTM.htm); reports on the Panel of
Reference (http://www.aco.org/commission/reference/index.cfm), which considers situations
where congregations are in serious dispute with their bishop, and the Listening Process
(http://www.aco.org/listening/index.cfm), which strives to honor the process of mutual
listening, particular to the experience of homosexual persons; a proposal for an in-depth
worldwide study of the way Anglicans interpret the Bible; and theological education.

On Sunday, February 18, the Primates traveled by boat to Zanzibar for a Solemn Eucharist in
the Anglican Cathedral — where the altar is built over an old slave trading post — as the
people of Zanzibar commemorated the 100th anniversary of the last slave sold on the island
and the 200th anniversary of the end of slavery in the British Empire.

Jefferts Schori called the Zanzibar visit one of the meeting’s “most significant” aspects.

Throughout the week, alternate meetings have been taking place between some of the “Global
South” Primates and conservative Americans, including Bishop Martin Minns of the conservative
Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), who have been strategizing together.

Nigeria’s Archbishop Peter Akinola, one of the Communion’s leading critics of the Episcopal
Church and its inclusive theology, absented himself from the visit to Zanzibar and met
frequently with the CANA group.

Earlier in the week, seven “Global South” archbishops, including Akinola, refused to receive
Holy Communion with their fellow Primates February 16, alleging that they were “unable to
come to the Holy Table with the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church because to do so
would be a violation of Scriptural teaching and the traditional Anglican understanding.”

“Looking at the levels of human grief, terror and suffering around the world, it is difficult
for people to have transforming views about the Anglican Communion when we have our own
internal divisions,” Williams said. “I do hope that people will bear the MDGs as the primary
vision.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury was joined at meeting’s February 19 closing news conference by
Archbishop Phillip Aspinall of Australia; Archbishop Drexel Gomez of the West Indies;
Archbishop Bernard Nharoturi; and Archbishop Donald Mtetemela of Tanzania.

“The Primates have needed to be patient with one another,” Aspinall said. “They have listened
to each other very carefully and expressed themselves with care. They have tried to
accommodate one others’ views as fully as possible. That slow, respectful process of
communication does take time.”

“The Communion we share is a Communion that covers the whole world,” Nharoturi said. “It has
the wealth richness and diversity … That diversity is a gift from God — although we do not
have the same views and background, we have the same vision.”

Mtetemela, Primate of the 2.5-million-member Anglican Church of Tanzania, said it honor to be
hosting the Primates. “It was an opportunity for our people to have this international
leadership ministering to them,” he said. “and an opportunity for me to expose the leadership
of the Anglican Communion to my country.”

– Matthew Davies is international correspondent for the Episcopal News Service.

1. We, the Primates and Moderators of the Anglican Communion, gathered for
mutual consultation and prayer at Dar es Salaam between 15th and 19th
February 2007 at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury and as
guests of the Primate of Tanzania, Archbishop Donald Leo Mtetemela. The
meeting convened in an atmosphere of mutual graciousness as the Primates
sought together to seek the will of God for the future life of the
Communion. We are grateful for the warm hospitality and generosity of
Archbishop Donald and his Church members, many of whom have worked hard to
ensure that our visit has been pleasant and comfortable, including our
travel to Zanzibar on the Sunday.

2. The Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed to our number fourteen new
primates, and on the Wednesday before our meeting started, he led the new
primates in an afternoon of discussion about their role. We give thanks for
the ministry of those primates who have completed their term of office.

3. Over these days, we have also spent time in prayer and Bible Study, and
reflected upon the wide range of mission and service undertaken across the
Communion. While the tensions that we face as a Communion commanded our
attention, the extensive discipleship of Anglicans across the world reminds
us of our first task to respond to God’s call in Christ. We are grateful for
the sustaining prayer which has been offered across the Communion as we
meet.

4. On Sunday 18th February, we travelled to the island of Zanzibar, where we
joined a celebration of the Holy Eucharist at Christ Church Cathedral, built
on the site of the old slave market. The Archbishop of Canterbury preached,
and commemorated the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade
in the United Kingdom, which had begun a process that led to the abolition
of the slave market in Zanzibar ninety years later. At that service, the
Archbishop of Canterbury admitted Mrs Hellen Wangusa as the new Anglican
Observer at the United Nations. We warmly welcome Hellen to her post.

5. We welcomed the presence of the President of Zanzibar at lunch on Sunday,
and the opportunity for the Archbishop of Canterbury to meet with the
President of Tanzania in the course of the meeting.

The Millennium Development Goals

6. We were delighted to hear from Mrs Wangusa about her vision for her post
of Anglican Observer at the United Nations. She also spoke to us about the
World Millennium Development Goals, while Archbishop Ndungane also spoke to
us as Chair of the Task Team on Poverty and Trade, and the forthcoming
conference on Towards Effective Anglican Mission in South Africa next month.
We were inspired and challenged by these presentations.
Theological Education in the Anglican Communion

7. We also heard a report from Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables and Mrs
Clare Amos on the work of the Primates’ Working Party on Theological
Education in the Anglican Communion. The group has focussed on developing
“grids” which set out the appropriate educational and developmental targets
which can be applied in the education of those in ministry in the life of
the Church. We warmly commend the work which the group is doing, especially
on the work which reminds us that the role of the bishop is to enable the
theological education of the clergy and laity of the diocese. We also
welcome the scheme that the group has developed for the distribution of
basic theological texts to our theological colleges across the world, the
preparations for the Anglican Way Consultation in Singapore in May this
year, and the appointment of three Regional Associates to work with the
group. The primates affirmed the work of the Group, and urged study and
reception of its work in the life of the Communion.

The Hermeneutics Project

8. We agreed to proceed with a worldwide study of hermeneutics (the methods
of interpreting scripture). The primates have joined the Joint Standing
Committee in asking the Anglican Communion Office to develop options for
carrying the study forward following the Lambeth Conference in 2008. A
report will be presented to the Joint Standing Committee next year.

Following through the Windsor Report

9. Since the controversial events of 2003, we have faced the reality of
increased tension in the life of the Anglican Communion – tension so deep
that the fabric of our common life together has been torn. The Windsor
Report of 2004 described the Communion as suffering from an “illness”. This
“illness” arises from a breakdown in the trust and mutual recognition of one
another as faithful disciples of Christ, which should be among the first
fruits of our Communion in Christ with one another.

10. The Windsor Report identified two threats to our common life: first,
certain developments in the life and ministry of the Episcopal Church and
the Anglican Church of Canada which challenged the standard of teaching on
human sexuality articulated in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10; and second,
interventions in the life of those Provinces which arose as reactions to the
urgent pastoral needs that certain primates perceived. The Windsor Report
did not see a “moral equivalence” between these events, since the
cross-boundary interventions arose from a deep concern for the welfare of
Anglicans in the face of innovation. Nevertheless both innovation and
intervention are central factors placing strains on our common life. The
Windsor Report recognised this (TWR Section D) and invited the Instruments
of Communion [1] to call for a moratorium of such actions [2] .

11. What has been quite clear throughout this period is that the 1998
Lambeth Resolution 1.10 is the standard of teaching which is presupposed in
the Windsor Report and from which the primates have worked. This restates
the traditional teaching of the Christian Church that “in view of the
teaching of Scripture, [the Conference] upholds faithfulness in marriage
between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is
right for those who are not called to marriage”, and applies this to several
areas which are discussed further below. The Primates have reaffirmed this
teaching in all their recent meetings [3], and indicated how a change in the
formal teaching of any one Province would indicate a departure from the
standard upheld by the Communion as a whole.

12. At our last meeting in Dromantine, the primates called for certain
actions to address the situation in our common life, and to address those
challenges to the teaching of the Lambeth Resolution which had been raised
by recent developments. Now in Dar es Salaam, we have had to give attention
to the progress that has been made.

The Listening Process

13. The 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10, committed the Provinces “to listen to
the experience of homosexual persons” and called “all our people to minister
pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to
condemn irrational fear of homosexuals”. The initiation of this process of
listening was requested formally by the Primates at Dromantine and
commissioned by ACC-13. We received a report from Canon Philip Groves, the
Facilitator of the Listening Process, on the progress of his work. We wish
to affirm this work in collating various research studies, statements and
other material from the Provinces. We look forward to this material being
made more fully available across the Communion for study and reflection, and
to the preparation of material to assist the bishops at 2008 Lambeth
Conference.

The Panel of Reference

14. We are grateful to the retired Primate of Australia, Archbishop Peter
Carnley for being with us to update us on the work of the Archbishop of
Canterbury’s Panel of Reference. This was established by the Archbishop in
response to the request of the Primates at Dromantine “to supervise the
adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches” for “groups in serious
theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with
their Provinces” [4] . Archbishop Peter informed us of the careful work
which this Panel undertakes on our behalf, although he pointed to the
difficulty of the work with which it has been charged arising from the
conflicted and polarised situations which the Panel must address on the
basis of the slender resources which can be given to the work. We were
grateful for his report, and for the work so far undertaken by the Panel.

The Anglican Covenant

15. Archbishop Drexel Gomez reported to us on the work of the Covenant
Design Group. The Group met in Nassau last month, and has made substantial
progress. We commend the Report of the Covenant Design Group for study and
urge the Provinces to submit an initial response to the draft through the
Anglican Communion Office by the end of 2007. In the meantime, we hope that
the Anglican Communion Office will move in the near future to the
publication of the minutes of the discussion that we have had, together with
the minutes of the Joint Standing Committee’s discussion, so that some of
the ideas and reflection that have already begun to emerge might assist and
stimulate reflection throughout the Communion.

16. The proposal is that a revised draft will be discussed at the Lambeth
Conference, so that the bishops may offer further reflections and
contributions. Following a further round of consultation, a final text will
be presented to ACC-14, and then, if adopted as definitive, offered to the
Provinces for ratification. The covenant process will conclude when any
definitive text is adopted or rejected finally through the synodical
processes of the Provinces.

The Episcopal Church

17. At the heart of our tensions is the belief that The Episcopal Church [5]
has departed from the standard of teaching on human sexuality accepted by
the Communion in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 by consenting to the
episcopal election of a candidate living in a committed same-sex
relationship, and by permitting Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions. The
episcopal ministry of a person living in a same-sex relationship is not
acceptable to the majority of the Communion.

18. In 2005 the Primates asked The Episcopal Church to consider specific
requests made by the Windsor Report [6]. On the first day of our meeting, we
were joined by the members of the Standing Committee of the Anglican
Consultative Council as we considered the responses of the 75th General
Convention. This is the first time that we have been joined by the Standing
Committee at a Primates’ Meeting, and we welcome and commend the spirit of
closer co-operation between the Instruments of Communion.

19. We are grateful for the comprehensive and clear report commissioned by
the Joint Standing Committee. We heard from the Presiding Bishop and three
other bishops [7] representing different perspectives within The Episcopal
Church. Each spoke passionately about their understanding of the problems
which The Episcopal Church faces, and possible ways forward. Each of the
four, in their own way, looked to the Primates to assist The Episcopal
Church. We are grateful to the Archbishop of Canterbury for enabling us on
this occasion to hear directly this range of views.

20. We believe several factors must be faced together. First, the Episcopal
Church has taken seriously the recommendations of the Windsor Report, and we
express our gratitude for the consideration by the 75th General Convention.

21. However, secondly, we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about
the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the
authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions.
There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General
Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General
Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined
to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development
and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral
provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous
stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.

22. The standard of teaching stated in Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth
Conference 1998 asserted that the Conference “cannot advise the legitimising
or blessing of same sex unions”. The primates stated in their pastoral
letter of May 2003,

“The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for us all when he said that it is
through liturgy that we express what we believe, and that there is no
theological consensus about same sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot
support the authorisation of such rites.”.

23. Further, some of us believe that Resolution B033 of the 75th General
Convention [8] does not in fact give the assurances requested in the Windsor
Report.

24. The response of The Episcopal Church to the requests made at Dromantine
has not persuaded this meeting that we are yet in a position to recognise
that The Episcopal Church has mended its broken relationships.

25. It is also clear that a significant number of bishops, clergy and lay
people in The Episcopal Church are committed to the proposals of the Windsor
Report and the standard of teaching presupposed in it (cf paragraph 11).
These faithful people feel great pain at what they perceive to be the
failure of The Episcopal Church to adopt the Windsor proposals in full. They
desire to find a way to remain in faithful fellowship with the Anglican
Communion. They believe that they should have the liberty to practice and
live by that expression of Anglican faith which they believe to be true. We
are deeply concerned that so great has been the estrangement between some of
the faithful and The Episcopal Church that this has led to recrimination,
hostility and even to disputes in the civil courts.

26. The interventions by some of our number and by bishops of some
Provinces, against the explicit recommendations of the Windsor Report,
however well-intentioned, have exacerbated this situation. Furthermore,
those Primates who have undertaken interventions do not feel that it is
right to end those interventions until it becomes clear that sufficient
provision has been made for the life of those persons.

27. A further complication is that a number of dioceses or their bishops
have indicated, for a variety of reasons, that they are unable in conscience
to accept the primacy of the Presiding Bishop in The Episcopal Church, and
have requested the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates to consider
making provision for some sort of alternative primatial ministry. At the
same time we recognise that the Presiding Bishop has been duly elected in
accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, which
must be respected.

28. These pastoral needs, together with the requests from those making
presentations to this meeting, have moved us to consider how the primates
might contribute to healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church
and more broadly. We believe that it would be a tragedy if The Episcopal
Church was to fracture, and we are committed to doing what we can to
preserve and uphold its life. While we may support such processes, such
change and development which is required must be generated within its own
life.

The Future

29. We believe that the establishment of a Covenant for the Churches of the
Anglican Communion in the longer term may lead to the trust required to
re-establish our interdependent life. By making explicit what Anglicans mean
by the “bonds of affection” and securing the commitment of each Province to
those bonds, the structures of our common life can be articulated and
enhanced.

30. However, an interim response is required in the period until the
Covenant is secured. For there to be healing in the life of the Communion in
the interim, it seems that the recommendations of the Windsor Report, as
interpreted by the Primates’ Statement at Dromantine, are the most clear and
comprehensive principles on which our common life may be re-established.

31. Three urgent needs exist. First, those of us who have lost trust in The
Episcopal Church need to be re-assured that there is a genuine readiness in
The Episcopal Church to embrace fully the recommendations of the Windsor
Report.

32. Second, those of us who have intervened in other jurisdictions believe
that we cannot abandon those who have appealed to us for pastoral care in
situations in which they find themselves at odds with the normal
jurisdiction. For interventions to cease, what is required in their view is
a robust scheme of pastoral oversight to provide individuals and
congregations alienated from The Episcopal Church with adequate space to
flourish within the life of that church in the period leading up to the
conclusion of the Covenant Process.

33. Third, the Presiding Bishop has reminded us that in The Episcopal Church
there are those who have lost trust in the Primates and bishops of certain
of our Provinces because they fear that they are all too ready to undermine
or subvert the polity of The Episcopal Church. In their view, there is an
urgent need to embrace the recommendations of the Windsor Report and to
bring an end to all interventions.

34. Those who have intervened believe it would be inappropriate to bring an
end to interventions until there is change in The Episcopal Church. Many in
the House of Bishops are unlikely to commit themselves to further requests
for clarity from the Primates unless they believe that actions that they
perceive to undermine the polity of The Episcopal Church will be brought to
an end. Through our discussions, the primates have become convinced that
pastoral strategies are required to address these three urgent needs
simultaneously.

35. Our discussions have drawn us into a much more detailed response than we
would have thought necessary at the beginning of our meeting. But such is
the imperative laid on us to seek reconciliation in the Church of Christ,
that we have been emboldened to offer a number of recommendations. We have
set these out in a Schedule to this statement. We offer them to the wider
Communion, and in particular to the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
in the hope that they will enable us to find a way forward together for the
period leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process. We also hope
that the provisions of this pastoral scheme will mean that no further
interventions will be necessary since bishops within The Episcopal Church
will themselves provide the extended episcopal ministry required.

Wider Application

36. The primates recognise that such pastoral needs as those considered here
are not limited to The Episcopal Church alone. Nor do such pastoral needs
arise only in relation to issues of human sexuality. The primates believe
that until a covenant for the Anglican Communion is secured, it may be
appropriate for the Instruments of Communion to request the use of this or a
similar scheme in other contexts should urgent pastoral needs arise.

Conclusion

37. Throughout this meeting, the primates have worked and prayed for the
healing and unity of the Anglican Communion. We also pray that the Anglican
Communion may be renewed in its discipleship and mission in proclaiming the
Gospel. We recognise that we have been wrestling with demanding and
difficult issues and we commend the results of our deliberations to the
prayers of the people. We do not underestimate the difficulties and
heart-searching that our proposals will cause, but we believe that
commitment to the ways forward which we propose can bring healing and
reconciliation across the Communion.

Notes

1. Namely, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the
Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting.
2. Cf The Windsor Report and the Statement of the Primates at Dromantine.

3. Gramado, May 2003; Lambeth, October 2003; Dromantine, February 2005.
4. Dromantine Statement, paragraph 15.

5. The Episcopal Church is the name adopted by the Church formerly known as
The Episcopal Church (USA). The Province operates across a number of
nations, and decided that it was more true to its international nature not
to use thedesignation USA. It should not be confused with those other
Provinces and Churches of the Anglican Communion which share the name
“Episcopal Church”.
6. (1) the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the
proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events
surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New
Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an
expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church
(USA) to remain within the Communion (2) the Episcopal Church (USA) be
invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the
consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same
gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.
(TWR §134)
(3) we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that
bishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be
invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of
affection were breached by such authorisation. (TWR §144)
A fourth request (TWR §135) was discharged by the presentation of The
Episcopal Church made at ACC-13 in Nottingham, UK, in 2005.

6. Bishop Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and Moderator of the Network
of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes; Bishop Christopher Epting,
Deputy for Ecumenical Affairs in The Episcopal Church; Bishop Bruce
McPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana, President of the Presiding Bishop’s
Council of Advice, and a member of the “Camp Allen” bishops.

7. Set out and discussed in the Report of the Communion Sub-Group presented
at the Meeting.

The Key Recommendations of the Primates

Foundations

The Primates recognise the urgency of the current situation and therefore
emphasise the need to:

a.. affirm the Windsor Report (TWR) and the standard of teaching
commanding respect across the Communion (most recently expressed in
Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference);
b.. set in place a Covenant for the Anglican Communion;
c.. encourage healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church,
between The Episcopal Church and congregations alienated from it, and
between The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion;
d.. respect the proper constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of
the Anglican Communion, while upholding the interdependent life and mutual
responsibility of the Churches, and the responsibility of each to the
Communion as a whole;
e.. respond pastorally and provide for those groups alienated by recent
developments in the Episcopal Church.
In order to address these foundations and apply them in the difficult
situation which arises at present in The Episcopal Church, we recommend the
following actions. The scheme proposed and the undertakings requested are
intended to have force until the conclusion of the Covenant Process and a
definitive statement of the position of The Episcopal Church with respect to
the Covenant and its place within the life of the Communion, when some new
provision may be required.

A Pastoral Council

a.. The Primates will establish a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the
Primates in consultation with The Episcopal Church. This Council shall
consist of up to five members: two nominated by the Primates, two by the
Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion
nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council.
b.. The Council will work in co-operation with The Episcopal Church, the
Presiding Bishop and the leadership of the bishops participating in the
scheme proposed below to
a.. negotiate the necessary structures for pastoral care which would
meet the requests of the Windsor Report (TWR, §147-155) and the Primates’
requests in the Lambeth Statement of October 2003 [1];
b.. authorise protocols for the functioning of such a scheme, including
the criteria for participation of bishops, dioceses and congregations in the
scheme;
c.. assure the effectiveness of the structures for pastoral care;
o liaise with those other primates of the Anglican Communion who
currently have care of parishes to seek a secure way forward for those
parishes within the scheme;
d.. facilitate and encourage healing and reconciliation within The
Episcopal Church, between The Episcopal Church and congregations alienated
from it, and between The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican
Communion (TWR, §156);
e.. advise the Presiding Bishop and the Instruments of Communion;
f.. monitor the response of The Episcopal Church to the Windsor Report;
g.. consider whether any of the courses of action contemplated by the
Windsor Report §157 should be applied to the life of The Episcopal Church or
its bishops, and, if appropriate, to recommend such action to The Episcopal
Church and its institutions and to the Instruments of Communion;
h.. take whatever reasonable action is needed to give effect to this
scheme and report to the Primates.

A Pastoral Scheme

a.. We recognise that there are individuals, congregations and clergy, who
in the current situation, feel unable to accept the direct ministry of their
bishop or of the Presiding Bishop, and some of whom have sought the
oversight of other jurisdictions.
b.. We have received representations from a number of bishops of The
Episcopal Church who have expressed a commitment to a number of principles
set out in two recent letters[2] . We recognise that these bishops are
taking those actions which they believe necessary to sustain full communion
with the Anglican Communion.
c.. We acknowledge and welcome the initiative of the Presiding Bishop to
consent to appoint a Primatial Vicar.
On this basis, the Primates recommend that structures for pastoral care be
established in conjunction with the Pastoral Council, to enable such
individuals, congregations and clergy to exercise their ministries and
congregational life within The Episcopal Church, and that

a.. the Pastoral Council and the Presiding Bishop invite the bishops
expressing a commitment to “the Camp Allen principles” [3], or as otherwise
determined by the Pastoral Council, to participate in the pastoral scheme ;
b.. in consultation with the Council and with the consent of the Presiding
Bishop, those bishops who are part of the scheme will nominate a Primatial
Vicar, who shall be responsible to the Council;
c.. the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the Pastoral Council will
delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar.
Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the
Primates undertake to end all interventions. Congregations or parishes in
current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of
pastoral oversight set out above.

We believe that such a scheme is robust enough to function and provide
sufficient space for those who are unable to accept the direct ministry of
their bishop or the Presiding Bishop to have a secure place within The
Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion until such time as the Covenant
Process is complete. At that time, other provisions may become necessary.

Although there are particular difficulties associated with AMiA and CANA,
the Pastoral Council should negotiate with them and the Primates currently
ministering to them to find a place for them within these provisions. We
believe that with goodwill this may be possible.

On Clarifying the Response to Windsor

The Primates recognise the seriousness with which The Episcopal Church
addressed the requests of the Windsor Report put to it by the Primates at
their Dromantine Meeting. They value and accept the apology and the request
for forgiveness made [4]. While they appreciate the actions of the 75th
General Convention which offer some affirmation of the Windsor Report and
its recommendations, they deeply regret a lack of clarity about certain of
those responses.

In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the
House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise
any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through
General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and
2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General
Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex
union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134);
unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf
TWR, §134).

The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to
the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.
If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good
conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the
Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has
consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the
Communion.

On property disputes

The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those
congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law
arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that
no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church
without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those
congregations.

Appendix One

“The Camp Allen Principles”

The commitments expressed in the letter of 22nd September 2006 were:

a.. an acceptance of Lambeth 1998 Res. I.10 as expressing, on its given
topic, the mind of the Communion to which we subject our own teaching and
discipline;
b.. an acceptance of the Windsor Report, as interpreted by the Primates at
Dromantine, as outlining the Communion’s “way forward” for our own church’s
reconciliation and witness within the Communion;
c.. a personal acceptance by each of us of the particular recommendations
made by the Windsor Report to ECUSA, and a pledge to comply with them;
d.. a clear sense that General Convention 2006 did not adequately respond
to the requests made of ECUSA by the Communion through the Windsor Report;
e.. a clear belief that we faithfully represent ECUSA in accordance with
this church’s Constitution and Canons, as properly interpreted by the
Scripture and our historic faith and discipline;
f.. a desire to provide a common witness through which faithful Anglican
Episcopalians committed to our Communion life might join together for the
renewal of our church and the furtherance of the mission of Christ Jesus.
The principles expressed in the letter of 11th January 2007 were:

1. It is our hope that you will explicitly recognize that we are in full
communion with you in order to maintain the integrity of our ministries
within our dioceses and the larger Church.
2. We are prepared, among other things, to work with the Primates and with
others in our American context to make provision for the varying needs of
individuals, congregations, dioceses and clergy to continue to exercise
their ministries as the Covenant process unfolds. This includes the needs of
those seeking primatial ministry from outside the United States, those
dioceses and parishes unable to accept the ordination of women, and
congregations which sense they can no longer be inside the Episcopal Church.
3. We are prepared to offer oversight, with the agreement of the local
bishop, of congregations in dioceses whose bishops are not fully supportive
of Communion teaching and discipline.
4. We are prepared to offer oversight to congregations who are currently
under foreign jurisdictions in consultation with the bishops and Primates
involved.
5. Finally, we respectfully request that the Primates address the issue of
congregations within our dioceses seeking oversight in foreign
jurisdictions. We are Communion-committed bishops and find the option of
turning to foreign oversight presents anomalies which weaken our own
diocesan familieis and places strains on the Communion as a whole.

Notes:

1. Whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that
bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and
provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to make
adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within
their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of
Canterbury on behalf of the Primates (Lambeth, October 2003)

2. Namely, a letter of 22nd September 2006 to the Archbishop of Canterbury
and a further letter of 11th 2007 to the Primates setting out a number of
commitments and proposals. These commitments and principles are colloquially
known as “the Camp Allen principles”. (see Appendix One)
3. As set out in Appendix One.

4. Resolved, That the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church,
mindful of “the repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us
by Christ” (Windsor Report, paragraph 134), express its regret for straining
the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of
2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to
those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to
accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and
other parts of the Communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into
deeper levels of communion one with another. The Communion Sub-Group added
the comment: “These words were not lightly offered, and should not be
lighted received.”

[ENS] The text of a proposed Anglican Covenant, intended to affirm the cooperative principles
that bind the Anglican Communion, was released February 19 toward the end of the Primates’
five-day meeting.

The full text of the seven-section draft Covenant is available at
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/50/acns4252.cfm

The sections address topics including common catholicity and confession of faith; Anglican
vocation; unity and common life; and common commitments. Among other suggestions, the
proposed Covenant would ask the Anglican Communion’s 38 Provinces to commit themselves to
“essential matters of common concern, to have regard to the common good of the Communion in
the exercise of autonomy, and to support the work of the Instruments of Communion…”

It also notes that “in the most extreme circumstances, where churches choose not to fulfill
the substance of the covenant,” such churches may be seen as having “relinquished … the
force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, and a process of restoration and renewal will be
required to re-establish their covenant relationship with other member churches.”

The Primates, who have been meeting near Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, since February 15, have
extended their agenda to include an evening session during which they will continue to
discuss the text of a communiqué.

In other business, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected February 19 to
represent the Americas on the Primates’ Standing Committee.

Each region — Americas, Africa, Asia and Oceania, Europe, and the Middle East — elects its
own representative to the Standing Committee, which operates as the governing board of the
Primates.

Other members elected to serve on the Committee are Archbishops Phillip Aspinall of
Australia; Mouneer Anis of Jerusalem and the Middle East; Henry Orombi of Uganda; and Barry
Morgan of Wales. Five alternates were also elected and would serve on the Committee in the
absence of their region’s counterpart.

Process yields ‘classical Anglicanism’

The Covenant Design Group, appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the
Primates of the Anglican Communion, held its first meeting in Nassau, the Bahamas, in
mid-January. Archbishop Drexel Gomez of the West Indies, who chaired the group, has described
the draft Covenant as a document of “classical Anglicanism.”

At its January meeting, the design group discussed four major areas of work related to the
development of an Anglican Covenant: its content; the process by which it would be received
into the life of the Communion; the foundations on which a covenant might be built; and its
own methods of working.

The design group noted in its introduction that there had been “a wide range of support for
the concept of covenant in the life of the Communion, and although in the papers submitted
there was a great deal of concern about the nature of any covenant that might be put forward
for adoption, very few of the respondents objected to the concept of covenant per se, but
rather saw the covenant as a moment of opportunity within the life of the Communion.”

According to the group, all the members spoke of “the value and importance of the continued
life of the Anglican Communion as an instrument through which the Gospel could be proclaimed
and God’s mission carried forward. There was a real desire to see the interdependent life of
the Communion strengthened by a covenant which would articulate our common foundations, and
set out principles by which our life of Communion in Christ could be strengthened and
nurtured.”

It also recognized that the proposal for a covenant “was born out of a specific context in
which the Communion’s life was under severe strain.” The Windsor Report,
(http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004) released in October 2004, was first to mention
the proposal of an Anglican Covenant as a way in which the Anglican Communion can maintain
unity amid differing viewpoints.

“While the group felt that it was important that the strength of a covenant would be greater
if it addressed broad principles, and did not focus on particular issues, the need for its
introduction into the life of the Communion in order to restore trust was urgent,” the group
noted.

– Matthew Davies is international correspondent for the Episcopal News Service.