The final straw came when The Episcopal Church failed to "repent" of its action at its General Convention in Columbus, Ohio earlier this month, and failed to vote through a moratorium on any more gay consecrations.

Dr Williams is proposing a two-track Anglican Communion, with orthodox churches being accorded full, "constituent" membership and the rebel, pro-gay liberals being consigned to "associate" membership.

All provinces will be offered the chance to sign up to a "covenant" which will set out the traditional, biblical standards on which all full members of the Anglican church can agree.

But it is highly unlikely that churches such as The Episcopal Church in the US, the Anglican churches in Canada and New Zealand and even the Scottish Episcopal Church would be able to commit themselves fully to such a document.

These churches and any others that refused to sign up could opt to cut ties to Canterbury altogether, or could choose to remain in associate status.

In a letter to the 37 other Primates of the provinces of the Anglican Communion, Dr Rowan Williams says that such churches would be comparable to the Methodist Church in Britain.

Ironically, in 2003 the Methodist Church signed a covenant with the Church of England at a service at Westminster Central Hall witnessed by the Queen, Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

The fudged schism outlined in Dr Williams' letter opens the door to the possibility of Methodists moving slowly towards full unity with the Anglicans, while Episcopalians fall by the wayside. Once Methodists start ordaining bishops and Anglicans in England start ordaining women bishops, there will be nothing to stop the two declaring full unity, unless the Methodists also start consecrating gay bishops.

The proposals will be discussed soon at the next meeting of the standing committee of the 38 Primates, and then at the Primates' meeting in February. They will come to the table of the worldwide church, along with the wording of the proposed covenant, at the Lambeth Conference in 2008.

It is then that The Episcopal Church and others will face the choice of signing up to biblical orthodoxy, or walking away from the Anglican Communion table to the hinterland of "associate" status.

But as Anglicans find more common ground with Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists and others, the next Archbishop of Canterbury could well decide to resolve the problem of who to invite to the 2018 Lambeth Conference by simply inviting the leaders of all churches in the Protestant world who recognised each other's sacraments. Or he (or she) might decide it is not worth the fuss, and cancel the 2018 Lambeth Conference altogether.

END Dear Readers,

VirtueOnline believes that this might not be the most accurate take on the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent statement to the Anglican Communion posted here: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4363 'Challenge and Hope' for the Anglican Communion.

VOL has invited Dr. Edith Humphrey the William F. Orr associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and an Anglican layperson, to offer an alternative perspective on Dr. Williams' statement.

"I don't think the Times gets it, really. The ABC has not said anything so direct, and his words will be spun in different ways. Though there are some helpful moves in the statement (especially his statement that some actions really may remove a church to a place outside the bounds of the communion; and maybe his call for a covenant, but how would any province's vow be verified?) But, in the end, his basic terms and foundational ideas about Anglican identity are not helpful. I am thinking not only about his continued reference to "gay" and "lesbian" people as though these labels correspond to the essence of such people who use these terms of themselves. I am also referring to his overall approach that we simply need to CLARIFY our structure and lines of conversation. What if we need to repent of our deliberate equivocation for the sake of institutional unity? What if we need to rethink the terms of our communion together? The following paragraph, where he outlines three ways of being Anglican that need to reach a detente, was extremely troubling to me:

"The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible. The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de- emphasizing revelation and history. Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place - to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the church's life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices - with a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies of a historic ministry not universally recognized in the Catholic world, with limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is thought possible or acceptable...The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance seems to you to be healthy for the Church Catholic overall, and that it helps people grow in discernment and holiness."

I continue to hope that there is a convergence and a point of contact between the first two groups that he describes. As the Church is to be catholic and to be formed by the evangel, while she proclaims it, means that she is both catholic and evangelical. However, it is precisely the WAY in which the third group is described that has led us to our current stand-off. What does it mean to "give spiritual depth [i.e. transform, deepen?] to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasize revelation and history"? How can one give spiritual depth of a CHRISTIAN nature to the culture while de-emphasizing what God has said and done in history? Or does the ABC mean "ascribe spiritual depth to the shape of the culture around," that is, to accept cultural norms and experience as authoritative? That would be to say that the so-called Wesleyan quad can indeed find an accepted place in our communion. Notice also how this description of the liberal group within the Anglican Communion "is merged with attention to the third leg of the so-called stool ("being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture") as the ABC further describes the "balancing act." It seems to me that the ABC can give a positive shape to the first two groups, but with in describing the third group (which may well lack integrity) he is much more allusive and emotive.

Our own Bishop Duncan, in describing what he sees now happening to a group of gathered members of the diocese last Saturday, described the situation as now one of clarity: there are those who are catholic and evangelical components of the church who may continue together; then there are those who see the church as "revolutionary" in character, who are beginning to realize that their aims are incompatible with the direction of the first two. Surely the words of the ABC really bear this out, though he is trying to carve a three-fold space--how can those who appeal to the authority of Scripture, and those who appeal to the authority of tradition and Scripture really go in the same direction of those who deemphasize revelation? Is the ABC describing a "healthy balance" or a recipe for mutual destruction? (Somewhere someone spoke (-: about the difficulty of being unequally yoked-- I don't think this is simply a statement regarding marriage). So I hope that recognizing these three ways of being Anglican, and making space for them, is not the "only reason" to be Anglican, because I don't buy it.

In the end, the big question remains that of ecclesiology: not just its lines or structures, but also its self-definition and creedal unity.

The ABC is speaking the language of method and governance. Surely we need more clarity on this. But I think that we need also to consider our clay feet (the whole idea that we can hold opposites together) and see if they need replacing. Dr. Humphrey can be reached at: ehumphrey@PTS.EDU

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2245849,00.html
Read Ruth Gledhill's weblog

END