Perhaps you have been following news reports concerning recent activities among Episcopalians in the US. The diocese of San Joaquin (parts of Southern California) has voted to leave the Episcopal Church and join up with the Province of the Southern Cone (parts of South America). More bishops have been consecrated by the Nigerian Church for work in the US. Yesterday (December 14), the Archbishop of Canterbury released an Advent letter to the Primates concerning events since the US House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans.

Like all of the Archbishop’s writing, it is densely written and at times difficult to interpret. But it does seem clear that he continues to criticize both sides. He is especially harsh on those who have intervened in the US and elsewhere by consecrating bishops and incorporating American parishes and now dioceses, “The challenge is not best addressed by a series of ad-hoc arrangements with individual provinces elsewhere…this is not doing anything to advance or assist local solutions that will have some theological and canonical solidity.”

Concretely, he says that he will not disinvite anyone from Lambeth; he will not invite either Bishop Robinson of New Hampshire, or any of those bishops who have been consecrated by African primates for work in the US. He proposes continued conversation, bringing leaders of the American church and their opponents together with professional facilitators to seek common ground, and another group of primates to craft proposals for Lambeth 2008.

There is much more here to think about. Part of the problem of this whole controversy is that the internet seduces us to respond quickly, before thinking carefully about what has been said, and what it means. Theological reflection is hard and painstaking work and it is best done in conversation with others. For example, I am uncomfortable about some of what the Archbishop says concerning bishops in the letter. There are significant ecclesiological issues raised in the letter and they require careful analysis. If you are interested in following the discussions about this letter, I refer you to several sites:

Thinking Anglicans This is a site from the UK.

Episcopal Cafe A wonderful blog that includes items on spirituality and commentary as well as discussion of news

Episcope From the national church office, provides links to all things Anglican in the news, all over the world.

One of the things that most surprised me as I was going through the ordination process was my developing relationship with Bishop Henderson. You may already have guessed that I am not someone who responds well to authority figures; indeed throughout my life I have taken a decidedly skeptical stance towards those in power, whether they be my parents, my bosses, my academic advisors, department chairs, or yes, my rectors.

But I’ve discovered there are limits to that skepticism. Bishop Henderson has laid his hands on me three times–once to confirm me, and at my ordinations to the diaconate and to the priesthood. That creates a deep and lasting bond. Over the last few years, as I’ve watched Bishop Henderson negotiate his way through the current conflicts in the church, I have come to admire and respect him more and more. He is a man of deep conviction, deep faith, and deep attachment to the Anglican vision; and he has worked indefatigably to preserve the Episcopal Church’s place in the Anglican Communion. In the midst of all the noise that we have heard coming from the media and blogging circus surrounding the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans, we would do well to play close attention to the words he has written for us. You can read his pastoral letter here: houseof-bishopsnew-orleans07.pdf

The wait is over, but the waiting has only begun. Late this afternoon, the House of Bishops, meeting in New Orleans, released their response to the Primates’ Communique from last February. The gist of it consists of eight bullet points which I quote:

• We reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (The Election of Bishops) calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees “to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”
• We pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.
• We commend our Presiding Bishop’s plan for episcopal visitors. * We deplore incursions into our jurisdictions by uninvited bishops and call for them to end.
• We support the Presiding Bishop in seeking communion-wide consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.
• We call for increasing implementation of the listening process across the Communion and for a report on its progress to Lambeth 2008.
• We support the Archbishop of Canterbury in his expressed desire to explore ways for the Bishop of New Hampshire to participate in the Lambeth Conference.
• We call for unequivocal and active commitment to the civil rights, safety, and dignity of gay and lesbian persons.

The entire text may be found at Episcope

A quick reading of the entire text suggests that the bishops have delivered to the Primates what they wanted. Whether the conservatives will see it that way is another story. Indeed,  several bishops left the meeting after the departure of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This week they are meeting with a wide variety of people from all sorts of Anglican “churches” in the US. Called “Common Cause,” it seems to be an attempt on the part of Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh to create a united alternative to the Episcopal Church. Whether that goal is accomplished is highly doubtful. Stay tuned.

I’ve hinted at this to some of you, but I think now is the time to come clean. My first exposure to the Episcopal Church had to do with a pipe organ. I’m not sure anymore when this took place.  I think it was 1973 or 1974. My dad bought a pipe organ. Trinity Episcopal Church in Bryan, Ohio, was relocating because of an expansion project at Bryan High School. Before they demolished the building, they held an auction at which they tried to sell everything. My dad came home that Saturday afternoon and told us he bought the pipe organ for $100.

My dad, in addition to being a building contractor and carpenter, was a scavenger and a pack rat. Whenever he was remodeling an old house, and in the 60s and 70s that meant “updating,” he pulled all of the old woodwork, doors, hardware, whatever he thought he might one day use. Well, the same thing was true with this pipe organ. It had a beautiful case made of quarter-sawn oak (same material Hal used on ours) and knew he could use it to make furniture, paneling, and who knows what else.

So, one Friday, one of his employees and I began dismantling the organ. We had to get it out by Saturday evening. It was the dirtiest job I ever had (100 years of dust and soot) but we dutifully pulled out all of the pipes, the electronics, the case, of course, and all of the wood in the frame. We got done before the deadline, and began stripping all of the woodwork in the church as well.

Over the years, my dad turned the case, the console, and much of the frame into furniture. If memory serves me correctly, the top of the kitchen table dad made for me is of elm, taken from the framework. I have no idea where the rest of the wood ended up. I do know he made a desk out of the console for one of my sisters.

The pipes and all of the rest of the innards were put in the barn on my aunts’ farm. Eventually, the metal was sold for scrap. Looking back, I don’t know if the church was unaware of organ reclamation projects like the Organ Clearinghouse. I know that my dad, as an avid and gifted church musician himself, always felt a little bit sad that  the organ he purchased never made music again.

It’s been over thirty years, of course, but as I watched the organ being unloaded, and as I have watched Hal and his crew carefully put the pieces together, my memory of those two August days come back to me. I couldn’t have imagined back then that I would be watching the installation of a pipe organ in the Episcopal Church where I serve as priest, and I’m sure my dad couldn’t have imagined it either. But there is a wonderful symmetry in that. My dad  used his gifts to ensure that the organ he purchased would continue to have life and to bring beauty and joy to those who received the items he made from it.

I’ve still got a pipe from that organ. It’s a small one; a memento of days long past. One day, when I retrieve it, I will take possession of the organ bench from that organ. My mother still has it, but it has my name on it. I’ve never attended the Episcopal Church in Bryan, Ohio that was built in the mid-70s. I didn’t grow up there; my home town is around 20 miles away, but my dad built lots of houses there in the 60s and 70s. But one day, I hope to worship there and tell them the story of how their church, and their pipe organ, contributed to the formation of an Episcopal priest.

I rarely turn on the TV these days (except for reruns of The Daily Show), so I missed Bill Moyers conversation with Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefforts Schori. The interview is available in streaming video here. She is articulate, gracious, and honest. They talk about science and religion as well as recent developments in the Anglican Communion. The European edition of Time interviewed the Archbishop of Canterbury. The story and links to the podcast are here

Last night, the bishops, meeting at Camp Allen, Texas, released three resolutions in response to the Primates’ Communique. It will take some time to digest the document, but after a quick read, it seems clear that a majority of the bishops have rejected the recommendations put to them. The first resolution affirms their desire to remain in the Anglican communion, states that only General Convention can speak for the Episcopal Church, and urges Executive Council to reject the Primates’ proposal for pastoral oversight. The second resolution very wisely, requests “face time” with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates’ Standing Committee. It is indeed odd that the Archbishop of Canterbury has not met with the Bishops or Executive Council since 2003.

The third resolution states something of the Bishops’ reasoning. I will quote from it:

“First, it violates our church law in that it would call for a delegation of primatial authority not permissible under our Canons and a compromise of our autonomy as a Church not permissible under our Constitution.Second, it fundamentally changes the character of the Windsor process and the covenant design process in which we thought all the Anglican Churches were participating together.

Third, it violates our founding principles as The Episcopal Church following our own liberation from colonialism and the beginning of a life independent of the Church of England.

Fourth, it is a very serious departure from our English Reformation heritage. It abandons the generous orthodoxy of our Prayer Book tradition. It sacrifices the emancipation of the laity for the exclusive leadership of high-ranking Bishops. And, for the first time since our separation from the papacy in the 16th century, it replaces the local governance of the Church by its own people with the decisions of a distant and unaccountable group of prelates.

Most important of all it is spiritually unsound. The pastoral scheme encourages one of the worst tendencies of our Western culture, which is to break relationships when we find them difficult instead of doing the hard work necessary to repair them and be instruments of reconciliation. The real cultural phenomenon that threatens the spiritual life of our people, including marriage and family life, is the ease with which we choose to break our relationships and the vows that established them rather than seek the transformative power of the Gospel in them. We cannot accept what would be injurious to this Church and could well lead to its permanent division.”

In the coming days, we will hear more about the resolutions, about the internal discussions that led to the resolutions, and a great deal about the response by all of the parties who make it their business to respond to such things. I will be very interested to hear what Bishop Henderson has to say about all of this. In general, though, I am greatly heartened by the bishops’ stance. They have reaffirmed their desire to remain in the Anglican Communion but they have also expressed themselves unwilling to compromise certain basic principles of our church, including this one: “it sacrifices the emancipation of the laity for the exclusive leadership of high-ranking bishops.” You may read the entire press release here