Stand Firm Interviews: Dr. Kendall S. Harmon

Part 1 of 4

The Rev. Canon Dr. Kendall S. Harmon is a graduate of Bowdoin College, received his D.Phil. from Oxford University, and is Canon Theologian for the Diocese of South Carolina. He is editor of The Anglican Digest, which has the highest circulation of any periodical in the Anglican Communion, and he runs the web site TitusOneNine. He is one of America's leading voices of orthodox Anglicanism. I spoke with him via instant messenger during the week of July 12, 2004. All four installments of this series are available as a print-friendly PDF document. All 4 entries in blog format can be found here.

---

Greg Griffith: Can you give us your "executive summary" of the state of the worldwide communion?

Dr. Kendall Harmon: The worldwide communion I would consider very frail right now. It is clear that the whole Anglican family has never before been confronted with a rift this strong and deep. On the one hand you have a minority of people, mainly in Western Churches such as those in the United States and Canada, who believe it is a matter of gospel justice to insist that people who experience same sex attraction should be able to be involved in committed non-celibate relationships and still be ordained (I call this group the "reappraisers"). On the other hand you have the majority of world Christendom, as well as the majority of the Anglican Communion, who believe that ordaining as leaders people in these relationships is a matter of rejecting Gospel truth (I call this group the "reasserters"). Underneath the presenting issue of the clash over whether the church should repudiate or bless non-celibate same-sex relationships, you have the deeper issues of the nature of humanness; the nature of a sacrament (and in particular the consecration of a Bishop); the nature of marriage; the way authority is dispersed in the church and how the church uses that authority when it makes decisions; the issue of the authority and interpretation of Scripture (those two for me are inextricably intertwined); and even the nature of the Gospel itself.

As if all that is not enough, one needs to consider the context in which the decision is made. In the West, you have mainly white, mainly affluent, mainly shrinking Anglican Churches who, according to the perception of a significant majority of other Anglicans, are seeking to impose a non-Christian teaching on them which they believe will lead their church members away from God. This pressure is being placed upon a mainly black, mainly poor, mainly growing segment of the Anglican Communion. So one piece of this struggle is a battle between the Global North and the Global South over the shape of Christianity at the beginning of the 21st century. When you have genuine feelings by a solid group of Anglicans that this action is in part imperialism and may be tinged with racism, those are explosive dynamics beneath the surface.

GG: Plus, you have the Africans saying, in essence, ‘We have embraced the faith you brought to us, why do you now want to discard this quite important part of it?'

Dr. Kendall Harmon: Another facet of this which no one wishes to mention is money. You may know the cynical version of the golden rule: he who has the gold, rules. The reality is that the Anglican Communion as a worldwide phenomenon is a relatively recent product of history in terms of it coming to a fuller shape. It begins in earnest with the Lambeth Conferences in the late 19th century but its more modern growth really starts in the period somewhat after the Second World War. A lot of people do not realize, for example, just how much the Anglican Communion has grown relatively recently.

Let us consider some examples. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia in 1970 the Anglican Church in Nigeria had 2.914 million people, whereas in 2000 it had 18 million; the Anglican Church in Uganda had 1.281 million people in 1970, whereas in 2000 it had 8.580 million. As a second example, I was interested to see in some research I did last year that a Roman Catholic commentator on Lambeth 1958 said: "The Lambeth Conference was composed of 310 Anglican bishops from 46 countries. It is today far wider in its reach than it used to be. It may be said to represent the second most important religious communion in English-speaking and English-ruling or ex-English-ruling parts of the world."

Now that was in 1958; and the author estimated the numerical strength of the Communion at that time at around 40 million. As of today, the Anglican Communion has significantly over 70 million members in over 160 countries worldwide - it has nearly doubled in a roughly a generation. The increase in size brought a greater need for family conversation and so you have the evolution, for the first time in Anglican history, of things such as the Primates' meetings, which are now a once a year gathering of all the leaders of each of the 38 member churches within Anglicanism. The Primates' meetings only began in the late 1970's, and initially these leaders met every two or three years! You also have the creation of the Anglican Consultative Council, again a relatively recent phenomenon formed following a resolution of Lambeth 1968; they came into being in 1969 and had their first meeting in Kenya in 1971. People need to know that, for good or for ill, some of the key building blocks in the modern Anglican Communion are at least in part tied to Western money, and in particular to American money. This also creates tricky dynamics.

As if all this is not enough, there are two other aspects of our context of which your readers need to be aware. One is North America. The decision of the Episcopal Church last summer in Minneapolis to embrace a new teaching on human sexuality made it the third mainline Christian denomination to do so: The first two were the United Church of Christ, and then the United Church of Canada. But those two churches, since those decisions, have been in significant numerical decline. The Episcopal Church leadership which is in favor of this radically revised new doctrine is seeking to "sell" this to the rest of the world as being an example of the Episcopal Church providing much needed leadership. But significantly since the Minneapolis decision both the Methodists and the Presbyterians did not follow the Episcopal Church's lead. Is this a genuine gospel breakthrough based on Scriptural and Catholic teaching? If it is, then why is the question proving to be so divisive and why are so few churches - even in the West - actually moving in this direction? Is it possible that this is a case where, instead of being an embrace of the gospel, it is a case where the world is setting the agenda for the church? These questions also point to the challenging dynamics brought into play.

The other context people need to consider is England. I do not think the average Episcopalian realizes how spiritually weak the Church of England really is. It is claimed that there are over 20 million Anglicans in England, the World Christian Encyclopedia puts the 2000 figure at 23.983 million, but the reality is that on a given Sunday it would be a blessing to have 1 million worshippers there nationwide. The process of secularization, at the level of the average person in England, is far, far more advanced than it is over here. With the church's weakness have come various new societal pressures, one of which is a small breeze which is blowing toward disestablishment. The new Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who was at Oxford when I was pursuing my doctorate there, has had some favorable disposition toward disestablishment.

Were Rowan Williams, in this struggle, to stand with the majority of the Communion he would be standing not only against American money but against the direction of the current Blair government, which seemed to have had a role - we could debate how much of one - in the latest Jeffrey John appointment to be Dean of Saint Albans. Were the Communion to respond to the American action in a strong way it could lead that small breeze of disestablishment to turn in to a wind in England - and though few people are willing to mention it, it is a backdrop to the current struggle.

If you put all these dynamics together, you can see that the cauldron boiling under the lid is very, very potent. And now we need to add one more specific element of context - that of what has transpired since General Convention 2003.

I believe that the Anglican Primates in October 2003 gave as strong a verbal warning as the Primates as a group could muster. Coming in to that meeting there was the desire on the part of some to find a good and godly way to discipline the Episcopal Church. Had the Primates issued not only a warning, a strong verbal discipline, but then also began any structural discipline, it would have been a problem. They could have taken an already grievous situation and made it worse, finding out later that they had chosen the wrong structural response, in which case they would have set a bad precedent.

This was the reason for the set up of the Commission, headed by Archbishop Robin Eames, and now called the Lambeth Commission. Given the unprecedented level of disunity in the Anglican Communion caused directly by the actions of General Convention 2003, could they find a creative solution whereby the highest level of communion could still be maintained and the problem would be honestly and directly faced? To attempt such a task the climate of mutual interdependence, which the Primates' statement of October 2003 sought to create, had to be maintained.

GG: What about the state of ECUSA?

Dr. Kendall Harmon: The Commission, we might say, needed room to work. But what we have seen since the Primates' meeting is that that room has been steadily decreasing. It began the night of the Primates meeting in which Frank Griswold shocked not only a number of press present, but also a number of Primates, by clearly implying that, having signed a unanimous statement saying that to proceed would be to "tear the fabric" of the Anglican Communion "at its deepest level," he intended to go ahead anyway.

Then the next morning in England, less than a day after the Primates' statement was released, the Diocese of New Hampshire made clear they intended to go ahead.

I happened to be in the lobby of a London hotel that morning and saw an African Primate who stood there simply shaking his head after he heard what the Diocese of New Hampshire had said. He exclaimed: "We worked so hard to say the truth in love to them and they could not even wait a day before trampling on what we said." Fast forward now and look carefully at what transpired since that time. The consecration on November 2 last year was seen, as Robin Eames recently explained, as a betrayal of the Anglican Communion, and of trust, by so many of our brothers and sisters throughout the world. But, having done so, did the American Church express publicly any sorrow about the significant damage which they caused? There was almost none.

In addition, what we have seen is an embrace of the new theology even more fully developed by the American Church. Right before the Primates' meeting in October of 2003 you had the diocese of Nevada vote to authorize ceremonies to celebrate "relationships of mutuality and fidelity." In March 2004 the bishop of Utah authorized same-sex blessings. Then you have the retired bishop of Utah, Otis Charles, getting "married." You have the bishop of Los Angeles blessing a same sex relationship, the bishop of Washington, D.C. doing the same, the Diocese of Vermont moving ahead with a same-sex liturgy, and even the diocese of North Carolina following suit. All this communicates a clear attitude of "we do not care what you think," and "tough luck for the communion," etc. It is clear that Lambeth Palace feels these developments are taking away what little room the Commission has in which to work.

We also have to consider what took place in Canada in early June. It was a quite unusual thing for Gregory Cameron, secretary of the Lambeth Commission, to go over and address the Anglican Church of Canada's General Synod. It seemed as if an international perspective was going to be heard. The vote to give local synods the authority to proceed with same sex blessings was postponed. Yet the next morning the whole Synod approved "the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships."

Just recently, Gene Robinson said to Religion and Ethics Weekly, "The Eames Commission does not have any authority over any of the 38 constituent provinces of the Anglican Communion." How do you think that comes off to the rest of the Communion where so many already feel betrayed? These kinds of comments, and the actions of these bishops and dioceses, and of the Canadian General Synod, have made an already frail situation much frailer.

Who said this:

"I think we are heading for a split...The Anglicans have a tremendous talent for fudge, and they must be hoping and praying it will come to the rescue again. But there is an inherent instability now and a fatalism on both sides that this split is now going to happen."

An alarmist? A reasserting Episcopalian (as I like to call them)? No, one of the most respected English observers of religion, Clifford Longley, at one time religion editor of the London Times. Whether Mr. Longley is right or not, and I hope he isn't, he grasps the seriousness of the present moment. Do we?

Anyone who does not realize that the Communion is heading into some of the most turbulent waters in its history in the next 6-8 months is just not in touch with reality.

To me, the situation in the Episcopal Church feels eerie at the present time. The image I had last week was of being outside a house, and looking inside and seeing everyone going on about their business as usual; then I was taken up in the air far above the house and could see a hurricane just off shore. As I was taken around houses in different neighborhoods, every once in a while I would see people gathering water and seeking to prepare, but they were relatively few in number. It would be alarming enough if there were a hurricane just off shore and people were boarding up their windows, but the idea that one is off shore and most people are acting like it's not even there, is bizarre.

At the first Plano conference [a gathering of orthodox Episcopalians who formed the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes] I insisted that the most important book of the Bible in the present time is Jeremiah. I believe that now even more strongly than I believed it then. One of the many important aspects of Jeremiah is that in a time in which people are particularly under God's judgment, falsehoods multiply and truth becomes ever scarcer.

Right now there is a series of lies being told by prominent Episcopal leaders.

The first is: It will all blow over, it is no big deal.

The second is: It is just like women's ordination, it will be messy but we will make it through.

The third, which I regard as the most insidious, is: Sexuality is not a church-dividing issue.

If you look at the average issue of Episcopal Life, or the average diocesan newspaper, or the majority of stories issuing forth from headquarters (e.g., Episcopal News Service), this is the message which they are intending to send.

All of these statements are false. The first two are already demonstrably untrue based on what is occurring in the Communion and on the ground in the Episcopal Church. The last is untrue because, as I have sought to argue, the same-sex relationship controversy is merely the tip of the iceberg above the water; the issues below the water are unbelievably serious.

The reality under that very thin veneer is far different. All over the country, individual parishes and parishioners are redirecting their giving. The important part of the money issue is not the money in and of itself, but what it says about the degree to which so many ordinary people are completely alienated by what has taken place. They feel they have no ownership or involvement in the decision and are deeply worried about the future of a church that has acted as it has.

Also, all over the country individual parishioners have left the Episcopal Church. They do not make headlines, they are not noticed, but they have reached the place where they do not believe they can raise their children in this church, and be spiritually confident about where their children will end up.

To add to the picture, you have the formation of brand new parishes where people are coming together who want to be part of the Anglican Communion, but who do not wish to be affiliated with an Episcopal Church which they believe has turned its back on God.

I was recently at a gathering in Michigan. I met a priest, and, in the course of the conversation, he told me a little about himself. When I asked where he served, he told me Wisconsin - and it is in a parish seeking to be Anglican, unaffiliated entirely with the diocese in which it is geographically located. Nearly all of this has been unnoted and unremarked upon by the so-called official Episcopal church leadership.

Another piece of the puzzle is a series of groups all over the country which are forming in order to be prepared for action in response to the decisions of the Lambeth Commission and the Primates. Your group here in Mississippi, Stand Firm, is an example of that. Many people are unaware that there is a similar group in Alabama. There is also a group in Iowa, there is a group in Rhode Island, a group in Upper South Carolina, and in many other places where people for the most part have not noticed. I talked to a friend last night in a yet another diocese where there is major organizational work going on at the parish level in preparation for the fall, but the work needs to go on still further before they make a formal announcement.

While this kind of grassroots disaffection, alienation, and organization is going on, there is a clear behind-the-scenes effort to try to undermine the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes.

In part, this involves the emergence of the Via Media groups only in those dioceses which are affiliated with, or have shown strong interest in, the Network. And you have, on the record, that the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor, David Both Beers, had a substantial question and answer telephone conference call with the leaders of these Via Media groups.

You have bishops placing enormous pressure on people, especially clergy, not to join the Network or to allow their parish to join the network. The letter from the Bishop of Alabama, Henry Parsley, to his parish clergy, would be a case in point.

I do not think the situation in the Episcopal Church is sustainable in its present state. Something will have to give. As I said recently in an official ACN release:

"Even more shocking than this change, which is contrary to Scripture and outside the bounds of Anglicanism, is the speed with which it is now being enforced by the church's most powerful officials... Still more alarming is the denial by so many Church leaders that a huge theological shift, and its subsequent swift enforcement, is taking place. Unless some way is found to stem the tide, all orthodox voices in ECUSA will be in danger of being drowned out."

What I find alarming is the degree of untruth with which our leaders are seeking to live, not just by changing the church's teaching, but the way in which they changed it.

They are claiming we are still in conversation about this question, when in reality they are strongly opposing people who hold to traditional Anglican teaching. I recently had a telephone conversation with a leading clergyman who related how someone in his diocesan ordination process was specifically asked about the highly publicized 2003 General Convention decisions. The person was opposed, and was told they had better get over it because the church is changing. It appears likely he or she will now be unable to be ordained in that diocese. These kinds of incidents are part of a wider pattern, and the message seems clear: In order for us to grow, you have got to go. The fact that this comes from people who talk so incessantly about "inclusiveness" is very frustrating. I quote back to them the line from George Orwell's Animal Farm: All of the animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I mentioned earlier that the actions of a few bishops and dioceses were causing the Lambeth Commission nearly to run out of room. Domestically, it creates a different situation, namely the clear indication that the train driven by those leading the Episcopal Church is not stopping at this station. When Resolution C051 [recognizing that liturgies "celebrating and blessing same-sex unions" are "within the bounds of our common life"] passed the House of Bishops at General Convention, it was presented as a compromise, but I argued at the time it was not a compromise because it would encourage dioceses not allowing same sex blessings to begin doing so - it would add momentum to the current leadership direction. This is exactly what has happened, and with increasing speed.

So already you have a church spokesperson quoted in a recent story talking about General Convention 2006 and saying that same sex "marriage" will be on the agenda. Do you see how far we have moved? We have gone from a descriptive resolution in the Denver convention in 2000, to a resolution in 2003 which is being interpreted as permissive by more and more dioceses, to the discussion of same-sex "marriage" in 2006. Anyone who believes that this is not the current trajectory of the present Episcopal Church needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

And a new revised prayer book is not far behind, in which the present Rite One is gone; what is now Rite Two becomes Rite One; and there will be a series of new "inclusive language" liturgies which will be the new Rite Two whose language, at least in part, will probably be modalistic.

Again, if you watch under the surface, this is creating interesting cross-currents, especially among the so-called "moderates." In the past two weeks a bishop whom I thought was not favorably disposed toward the possibility of Network affiliation is now indicating he is more so. Another bishop who voted to approve Gene Robinson's election is now deeply conflicted about his vote.

The Lambeth Commission is going to need a near miracle to deal with a situation this fractious, frayed, and volatile. They need our continued prayers.

GG: What about the state of the orthodox movement within the Episcopal Church?

Dr. Kendall Harmon: The "reasserting" Anglicans in the Episcopal Church have had a traumatic and tumultuous year. On the one hand, there is good news. Plano One (in Dallas) was a big success, and served as a rallying cry for people around the church in a way scarcely conceivable given the tight time frame in which it had to be organized. My hat is off to Dave Roseberry for his superb leadership there.

It is amazing to me that the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes has come as far as it has, as soon as it has, given the degree of opposition it has run into in the official Episcopal Church. When we had the January meeting which some are calling Plano Two, if you had asked me when I arrived if I thought the organizational charter would have had a unanimous positive vote on each section, I would not have believed it possible.

Since that time, the working of the Network steering committee on which I sit, and the geographical regional deans, has been inspiring. I believe people are catching a vision of a united Anglican missionary protest movement as I have tried to portray it.

Also, the vision Bob Duncan laid out at Plano One of the "re-gathering of the Anglican Diaspora" is beginning to move in a positive direction. The letter of common cause was very encouraging to many people, especially those at the grassroots level, that some type of more unified future might emerge. I live in one of the communities in the United States - Summerville, South Carolina - where there is a Reformed Episcopal Seminary. The dean is a personal friend. There are some remarkable Christians there, and to see them excited about this is encouraging.

The last thing I would mention is the invitation given to Bob Duncan to appear before the Lambeth Commission . It was a significant symbol that the Commission invited the leader of the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, and the leader of the Network, Bishop Robert Duncan, each to come and make presentations with teams they designated.

Having said these things, though, I would emphasize that we have a long way to go. Because of the degree to which the Network is opposed, and the context of the last three decades of debate between reasserters and reappraisers, there has been a tendency of some reasserting leaders to believe that this is a political battle which is being lost, as opposed to a gospel struggle which can be won. The fact that we get painted constantly by secular and other media as being "against" things is part of this, sure, but we need to set out a more attractive positive vision for the future which attracts people. My talk on "Anglican Essentials and Our Future Call" was meant to try to do that.

There is no question that we have communications and structural issues on which we can improve - many people are trying to serve at least two jobs in this crisis period, and it is very difficult. There are a lot of unsung heroes and heroines in staff positions who should be receiving more thank you notes than they have up until now.

Another growing edge for us has to do with the issue of how we will deal effectively with genuine diversity within real gospel unity in the Network itself. This came to the fore at the Plano Two meeting on the women's ordination question, and it did get very challenging for a time, but the breakthrough came when someone pointed out that this was not about theology - it was really about trust. We really do intend to take the position of the Anglican Communion as a whole here, and be in a period of reception on that issue. But the reality is, a number of Anglo-Catholics who had been so trampled by the Episcopal Church for years and years were fearful that in the Network they were going to be treated in a similar manner.

We need to learn a hermeneutics of trust instead of a hermeneutics of suspicion, if I may put it like that. The trouble is, so many reasserting Anglicans in the Episcopal Church have been so criticized for so long that they have become almost instinctively reactive. Take the recent letter of common cause as an example. As soon as it came out, I got a number of emails from people worrying about women's ordination because the various groups involved have different stances on that issue. You see? There is an announcement, and what follows is criticism and worry. The reality is, it is intended as a letter of common cause, to signal that these groups will not criticize one another publicly, and will seek, as much as possible, to encourage one another. It was not looked at as anything like an ecumenical concordat or full intercommunion. It was not perceived as doing anything which was going to compromise anyone's integrity.

So we have many struggles and much need to grow and improve, but God has brought us a long way.

GG: You say, "... since the Minneapolis decision both the Methodists and the Presbyterians did not follow in the Episcopal Church's lead." But in a close and controversial decision, the Methodists allowed a lesbian minister to retain her position, and the Presbyterians came within a handful of votes of allowing a major concession to the gay agenda. The Presbyterians have essentially split over the issue, and the Methodists are floating the idea of an amicable separation. So if you're saying that the Methodists and Presbyterians didn't go as far as ECUSA, technically that's true, but wouldn't you agree that it seems like only a matter of time before they do?

Dr. Kendall Harmon: I don't agree about the Methodists; the Presbyterian situation is more complex. The Methodist decision was quite strong and continues a trend in that denomination. A number of observers thought the Presbyterian vote would pass, and it did not. Keep in mind that in the Presbyterian Church, their polity means that certain national decisions need to be ratified by a certain percentage of the presbyteries in order to pass.

In recent years it has been the individual presbyteries which have voted against a national push away from historic Christian faith. Now you had a national vote which went narrowly in favor of historic Christian faith. Having said that, I am concerned that the reason some seemed to vote this way was because the task force appointed needs to study it more. It seems possible, given the membership of the task force, that they may recommend local option to a future General Assembly, and unfortunately "local option" is a code word for "incremental coercion" in so many instances. I also want to grant that there are those who disagree with the decisions which have been made in both the Methodist and Presbyterian churches. In the Presbyterian case, among those involved in the national assembly, this does mean a significant group.

The other point I would make is that in both of these votes the reality of the existing Episcopal Church schism played a role in the disincentive to move in the direction we have. Some people clearly felt: "If we do this, we will go down the road of the Episcopalians, where there has been a substantial uproar and the formation of an alternative Anglican network of dioceses and parishes, which has never happened before. We do not want to go there."

GG: So ECUSA has become a cautionary tale for western Christianity?

Dr. Kendall Harmon: ECUSA is a major cautionary tale, along with the United Church of Christ and the United Church of Canada. These are not Christian families known for powerful growth or life changing ministries, alas, so can we blame our sisters and brothers in the Global South for being skeptical?

Remember that more than 40% of bishops with jurisdiction voted in Minneapolis against approving the New Hampshire consecration. The fact that the change is being so strongly pushed is reason for even greater skepticism. If the change was such a good thing, people need to ask why the global communion is so against it, and why so many bishops were against it at the time.

GG: They will say, "God's will is not discerned by a popularity contest."

Dr. Kendall Harmon: Well, people keep talking about the vote in New Hampshire but not about the vote at Lambeth 1998! Seriously, this gets us right back to the key question, doesn't it? How do we determine what is God's will?

A number of Episcopal leaders have what I call a "self-reinforcing prophetic theology." If it is difficult, as it has been, they say: "Well, it was difficult for Jesus and the prophets also." If it is embraced, they will appeal to history and say: "See, God is clearly speaking here." I do not think this is helpful. We need a greater sense of Christian history and a greater capacity for self-criticism.

Real Christian discernment is a lot more difficult than many people realize. In the fourth century clearly a majority – some historians say a significant majority – of bishops were Arians. And there is a LOT more of a scriptural basis to fall into Arianism than there is to embrace this new sexual teaching.

The thinness of the theological discourse which was involved in embracing this change is simply mind-boggling given the stakes involved. At the end of May 2003 the Anglican Primates commended the document "True Union in the Body?" [246kb PDF] to the whole communion. I am not aware of any substantial Episcopal response to it. It is as if it doesn't exist. Yet here is a substantial, theological, pastoral and compassionate response to this struggle which was commended by the Primates. How can the Episcopal Church possibly defend that kind of lack of listening and lack of theological reflection?

GG: So Holy Matrimony for homosexuals - not blessing of same-sex unions, but full-bore Holy Matrimony - will be on the agenda for General Convention 2006. What specific confirmation can you give us about this?

Dr. Kendall Harmon: Let us cite chapter and verse on this claim. It is from an Associated Press story on the decision of the Diocese of Vermont to develop liturgies for same-sex blessings. Here is the quote from the article:

"The next General Convention in 2006 is expected to debate whether the church should bless gay and lesbian marriages, she [Episcopal Church spokesperson Jan Nunley] added.

GG: If by some miracle the Anglican Communion as we know it is still together by then, what are the chances that General Convention 2006 will approve Holy Matrimony for homosexuals, and what are the chances that the Anglican Communion will remain intact if that comes to pass?

Dr. Kendall Harmon: The Anglican Communion can hold together only if God wants it to, and only if it stays anchored in Gospel truth and who God is as Trinity, first of all. We need to pray for that. But second, we have to face reality. Either the Lambeth Commission comes up with some kind of substantial structural response to what the Episcopal Church and Canada have done, or the results will be disastrous, and Anglicanism will no longer be able - in the eyes of many - to claim to be a catholic church in any meaningful sense. We will know this long before 2006.

Posted by Greg Griffith at July 18, 2004 08:14 PM (GMT -6:00)