A Letter to my friends in the Episcopal Church.

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. . . . In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. . . . Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.

Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.

These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.

But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.

But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore!

Amen.

This is taken, nearly verbatim, from the Epistle of Jude and the above is the NIV translation.

Updates. I finally got around to fixing my blogroll -- I got tired of clicking through to get to some of the folks I like to read. Also, I did put a couple of new blogs and things on, but still have a few more to go. Interestingly, I couldn't get any of the ECUSA stuff to work... If I need this, I'll figure it out someday.

Small World. Updating my profile for one of the four high schools I attended, I discovered that Mary Ailes of baby blue fame and I have something in common, other than the obvious Truro connection. We both went to Radford High School in Hawai'i in the 1970's. How strange is that?

Here's her picture and update. I wish mine was on-line -- although I don't remember what I looked like back then, 17 was my all-time favorite age....

Air Force Memorial. I find public art facinating -- particularly Memorials. Driving in to work, I've been watching the raising of the new Air Force Memorial. I confess they way it is looking in development had me apprehensive -- it it going to be a monstrosity? or merely tacky?

However, looking at the plans on the Air Force Memorial webpage, I think this is going to be okay. In fact, it may be beautiful.

"I have heard the future of rock and roll...." and it sounds a lot like it did the last time. The Killers have released the first track from their next disc, "Sam's Town" you can hear a streaming version of it here (or here, on their myspace page). Interestingly, it's got a great opening verse that could come directly from your pastor:

You sit there in your heartache
Waiting on some beautiful boy to
To save you from your old ways
You play forgiveness
Watch it now, here he comes
He doesn't look a thing like Jesus

That's right, salvation is not in a guy, "can I get an Amen?"

Anyway, the song is very catchy and the "burning down the highway skyline" is classic Springsteen.


BTW, the opening lines of this post are a play on Jon Landau's famous review of Bruce Springsteen.

While we're at it, here are the lyrics:

"When You Were Young" by The Killers

You sit there in your heartache
Waiting on some beautiful boy to
To save you from your old ways
You play forgiveness
Watch it now, here he comes
He doesn't look a thing like Jesus
But he talks like a gentleman
Like you imagine when you were young

Can we climb this mountain?
I don't know
Higher now than ever before
No, we can make it if we take it slow
Let's take it easy
Easy now, watch it go

We're burning down the highway skyline
On the back of a hurricane
That started turning when you were young
When you were young

And sometimes you close your eyes
And see the place where you used to live
When you were young

They say the devil's water
It ain't so sweet
You don't have to drink right now
But you can dip your feet
Every once and a little while

You sit there in your heartache
Waiting on some beautiful boy to
To save you from your old ways
You play forgiveness
Watch it now, here he comes
He doesn't look a thing like Jesus
But he talks like a gentleman
Like you imagine when you were young

(Talks like a gentleman like you imagine)
When you were young

I said he doesn't look a thing like Jesus
He doesn't look a thing like Jesus
But more than you'll ever know

The Williams Shift. Here's a nice story which includes a tip of the hat to the great sports writer, Shirley Povich for a sweet turn of the phrase:

Ted Williams stepped out of the batter's box and stared. Then he shook his head and laughed -- exuberantly, like he did everything else.

The Cleveland Indians, following the lead of shortstop and manager Lou Boudreau, had shifted into the strangest defense Williams had ever seen. Third baseman Ken Keltner was slightly to the right of second base, meaning there were no infielders on the left side of the diamond.

Where was everybody else? Boudreau had moved between second and first. Second baseman Dutch Meyer was in shallow right field. First baseman Jimmy Wasdell stationed himself behind the bag on the right-field foul line. Beyond them, the Indians had, in effect, one center fielder and two right fielders.

Thus, the "Williams Shift" was born in the third inning of the second game of a doubleheader on July 14, 1946, at Boston's Fenway Park.

The reason was obvious. At 27, the left-handed Williams was the best hitter in baseball, and an estimated 85 percent of his swats went to the right side. In the first game that day, he had slammed three homers and driven in eight runs. In his first-at bat in the nightcap, he ripped a bases-clearing double. Frustrated, Boudreau thought he might improve the Indians' chances of stopping Teddy Ballgame with an unorthodox defensive strategy.

Shirley Povich, the superb Washington sports columnist, described the moment most pungently: "At first the crowd was silent, not realizing what was happening. But then it was that the shift hit the fans."

WWIII? Newt Gingrich made news by saying the conflict in Israel could be the beginning of World War III.

I disagree on two counts.

First, I think we're done with WWIII -- that was the world wide conflict known at the Cold War.

Second, I think what's happening in Israel is just another chapter in the on-going conflict which Norman Podheretz accurately described as World War IV.

Now then, what to think about this? Right now, the most important essay I've seen is Stephen Bainbridge's Just War Analysis.

Also beneficial is Jeff Jacoby's column explaining the Iranian connection.

Additionally, I recommend these segments from the Hugh Hewitt show: Christopher Hitchens (transcript) (download .mp3), Michael Ledeen (transcript) (download .mp3), James Lileks (transcript) (download .mp3), Victor Davis Hansen (transcript) (download .mp3), Mark Steyn (transcript) (download .mp3), and Mark Helprin (transcript) (download .mp3). [I like to download these and then burn them as audio tracks to a re-writeable CDR -- I listen to them as I commute and then erase and record new tracks as they become available.] All of these are from last week and give a good overview. I've listed them in chronological order and it can be helpful to listen to them in this order -- for example, Hitchens has been on the side of the Palestinians but is also opposed to Islamofacism -- and while he has some good points, Steyn later comes on an points out his inconsistencies.

Attack in Mumbai today.

Terror hits India -- we are with you and stand against the terrorists.

World Cup. I'm not a soccer fan -- but, let's face it, most of the world follows fútbol, so, borrowing from my wife's example (deciding in 1985 to become a football fan), I started following World Cup action.

One of the best ways to follow something is to have a stake in it -- with sports, the "fantasy" leagues motivate one to track many teams and individuals at once. So when I saw the WaPo having a fantasy tourney, I signed up. I'm please to report that for someone who on June 1 had no idea who Zinedine Zidane was, I did pretty well. My team came in 24th out of 1,640 and I watched the final game today, rooting for Italy (well, really their defense). Even when the aforementioned Zidane scored his goal, that was okay, because he was on my fantasy team -- a late pick up. When he got tossed (or shown a red card, as they say), that set me back. But it was all fun.

I agree completely with Bill Simmons on this one: "10 Reasons I Love World Cup."

More. here's the head-butting video .

Political Test. My daughter asked me to take this -- I found it kind of frustrating, because it mixed a lot of substantive issue questions with process questions. Folks who know me know how fond I am of quoting Bolt's Thomas More -- "I'd give the devil the benefit of the law" -- but that doesn't make me a satanist.

Anyway, here are my results:

You are a Social Liberal (68% permissive) and an... Economic Moderate (55% permissive) You are best described as a: Centrist Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

The Double Standard. The National Law Journal has an interesting article (subscription req'd) which begins,

This tale of two conservative judicial nominees, one white and one black, shows that race can still be a sensitive area in federal court nominations.

A coalition of civil rights groups, from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Hispanic and women's groups has raised "grave concerns" about the first black nominee to the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Jerome Holmes, because he has been a "longstanding and outspoken critic of affirmative action."

Meanwhile, little controversy was generated by the nomination to the 10th Circuit of Neil Gorsuch, a conservative white attorney whose book opposing assisted suicide will be released this month. He is the son of the controversial Reagan administration head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Gorsuch Burford.

Holmes, 44, an attorney with Crowe & Dunlevy in Oklahoma City, drew a critical letter signed by 15 civil rights groups, pointing to his 2003 editorial comments in the Daily Oklahoman stating that the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Grutter v. Bollinger "didn't go far enough." Grutter upheld the University of Michigan Law School's ability to take race into consideration in admissions.

Holmes wrote that the court "missed an important opportunity to drive the final nail in the coffin of affirmative action."

Happy Birthday! 30 years ago today, on America's Bicentenial Birthday, we all -- the whole world -- got a thrilling gift. A triumph over evil in the Israeli rescue of the hostages in Entebbe, Uganda.

I Dissent. I know a lot of folks are upset and offended by the first sermon of Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori -- her "mother Jesus" sermon.* Today's front page story in the WaPo said she "irritated" some conservatives. I think this article in the National Review Online is an accurate summary of the "irritation" caused by the sermon (actually, a homily) -- and the NRO article also notes that it's not just the homily that's the problem...

But the WaPo does use that amorphous "some:" "To those who accuse her of heresy for referring to a female Jesus..." Well, yes, if she tried claiming that Jesus was a woman and a mother instead of an historical person, I'd be upset too. But who really claims that she is trying to pass Jesus off as a woman or a mother?

I don't think that's what she was doing. Let's look at the homily and see what she actually says. I think you've got to cut her a little slack -- her homily starts off rambling -- hello clouds, hello park, hello man in the reflective vest, hello man who slept rough, hello rabbit, hello moon, hello lady whispering hush... (okay, so she didn't say the last two...)

Then she turns, at last to the text of the day Colossians 1:11-20 and here's where she runs into her problem. She gets sloppy and mixes metaphors. She starts off with the metaphor Paul uses in verse 15 and 16: "[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created..." And when you read just that little bit, you can see that Paul mixes metaphors - Jesus is firstborn by Him all were created. From this passage she pulls out the following,

That bloody cross brings new life into this world. Colossians calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation, the firstborn from the dead. That sweaty, bloody, tear-stained labor of the cross bears new life. Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation -- and you and I are His children.

I believe her homily is simply tired sloppiness -- she had been elected Presiding Bishop and was dealing with interviews and demands and not a lot of time for reflection and the drafting of a well thought out sermon. As many have noted, she doesn't have a lot of experience -- she's never been a parish priest and the Diocese she's presided over is miniscule.

When you look at it this way, you can see she is saying Jesus is firstborn -- a child going through birth goes through the labor process. What gives birth to a new creation is a mother. A mother goes through labor. Therefore, Jesus, who gives us the new creation is not only first born, he is like a mother having delivered that creation through the most difficult labor.

I have no problem with criticizing the PB-elect -- her gender does not mean anyone should treat her differently than a man. But we have to do so honestly and fairly.

-----------------
* I had a very weird juxtsposition I'll have to tell you about some other time -- what I was listening to when I first heard the sermon.

I'm kind of surprised, genuinely surprised -- there's this guy who runs this blog called Father Jake. He's got a nice sign up "Peace to all who enter here..." Although I don't agree with him about most things, I've been reading it off and on since the time of the convention. In doing my catching up reading, I saw that he was circulating some well known lies about Truro Church. So I placed my comments to his blog explaining why these things just weren't true.

He deleted my comments.

I thought maybe it was because I referenced an earlier comment, the one that begins, "You know I've heard that CRAP for quite a while from these neo-conservative bible-thumping backward southerners...who just have no freakin' clue what the heck they are saying...." and ends "As it is now, I just tell people like that to their faces no less to, STFU!!" (Ah these loving Episcopalians...) So I scrolled up -- nope, those comments from his ally David Green at 10:10 a.m. are still there. Mr. Green still wants us to STFU. (What could that mean? Scrawny Two-Faced Underling?)

Instead, he deleted the truth about Truro Church under John Howe and the way things are today. I guess Fr. Jake would rather traffic in lies than permit the truth to be told.

And as always, he says Peace, peace... Jeremiah 8:11

And this guy is an ordained priest!

Deliver my soul, O Lord from lying lips
And from a deceitful tongue.

Psalm 120.

The Episcopal Soap Opera described by Terry Mattingly as "As Canterbury Turns..." (I might call it The Old [Establishment] and the Rest of Us) got quite an airing last week. The rector of the local church I attend was asked to serve as a bishop of the Nigerian mission in the US. This was followed by a mangled news article indicating that Truro Church in Fairfax and the Falls Church had advised Virginia Bishop Peter J. Lee "that they plan to leave the diocese..." (they had not and do not, as far as I know). Here is Peter Lee's response to all this.

There were more news stories indicating that several dioceses were seeking "alternative primatial oversight." From his position (which seems to me sort of like the idea that the prime meridian of the world runs through the Royal Observatory, in Greenwich), Bishop Peter ("le centre est moi") Lee argues that "the Center has held".

In opposition to Peter Lee's "far right" or "extreme right" there are "gay and lesbian people and their supporters" (hereinafter, "GALPATS"). In Newark, the diocese decided to "push back" against the Anglican Communion and Peter Lee's "center" by nominating an actively gay priest. In England, clergy pining to belong to the GALPATS coalition are thinking of seceding and joining the colonies, or something like that. And, of course, the self described "liberal bishops" (I appreciate this clarity) issued a statement saying they weren't going to abide by any resolution passed by the General Convention with respect to the Windsor Report.

Whew. Those are just some of the highlights (or lowlights).

On Sunday* we had a meeting with the rector, Martyn Minns, to discuss developments and get his thoughts on things. He has planned to do this at the beginning of every month, but with the aforementioned developments, this got a much better attendance than normal. Now, I'm not going to be giving you a blow-by-blow description of the meeting. And actually, Martyn didn't ask that it be off the record or anything. It's just that it is sort of internal. But I do want to give you a sense of what was communicated and my impressions because they do reflect on the developments described above.

First of all, Martyn reiterated his surprise at the errors in the Washington Times story, which is well laid out here, by Terry Mattingly. In particular, he stressed that there is no plan to leave ECUSA, nor to leave the Diocese of Virginia. Based on what I heard from Martyn, and in talking to members of the vestry, I really believe there has been no decision or plan to leave. Or even a plan to plan to leave.

Truro Church has just gone through Rick Warren’s 40 days of purpose, so "40 days of discernment" seems like a natural follow-up. Not just to determine where our local fellowship stands in relation to the DioVa or ECUSA or the Anglican Communion, but where we should be headed in Fairfax, Virginia and to the ends of the Earth. We are preparing for this as a local body, but it won't be started in the next week. To be honest, the 40 Days of Purpose was pretty demanding and we've got other things going on. We just finished Vacation Bible School last week; Truro was very involved in GenConv2006, which came on the heels of 40 Days, and there are the other demands of life.

On Sunday afternoon, Canon Minns had his extended family in town to baptize his newest grandchild. On Monday, he flew back to England with his wife and youngest daughter to care for his sister who is in hospice dying of cancer. We do not know when he will be back -- and everyone longs for him to spend the time with his family that he needs. Yes, he has left an able staff in place, but as I noted earlier, the two most senior members of the clergy are very involved in planning for the wedding of their kids -- Rev. Brown's son is marrying Rev. Crocker's daughter.

In addition, prior to all this -- prior to GenCon and all, Truro began the process of seeking a new rector, since Martyn had already announced his plans to retire.

I can not stress this enough — there does not seem to be any plan to leave or even to plan to plan to leave.

Moreover, while I am very cynical with respect to Peter Lee, Martyn is not -- he does acknowledge their differences, but he has never (that I have heard) spoken disparagingly of him. It is obvious the love and respect he has for the man and the deep pain Peter Lee's betrayal has caused.

Now then, my own sense is that Truro should not take any action at this time. I believe, since we have stayed this long, we should wait and see what the Anglican communion does with respect to ECUSA. I do not believe Katharine Jefferts Schori, the current Bishop of Nevada and Presiding Bishop Elect is any more of a heretic than Frank Griswold. I've said this before and I think it's still time to hold steady.

But, like I indicated, the 40 Days of Discernment will be a listening process -- I look forward to listening to the different perspectives and discussing this with my fellow parishioners.

-------------------------------------
*Note -- I began this on Sunday, but didn't finish until the time I published -- I changed the time on this post to reflect this reality.

Nashville. I spent last week in the Nashville area -- in Clarksville, Gallatin and Tullahoma, among other places. Very beautiful country and very charming folks. Yes, I do spend too much time on the road -- in the upcoming months I've got trips to Ohio (Columbus, New Philadelphia, possibly Chillicothe and Zanesville; hopefully Steubenville, where the great Franciscan University of Steubenville makes its home), New York City, Miami, and Michigan (Ann Arbor, Battle Creek, and Lansing).

The New PB. Tonight we had a Father's Day celebration over at my wife's brother's house -- most of her family was there and we had a lot of intergenerational chatter. We got around to discussing The Who and our favorite songs. The consensus favorite song: "Won't Get Fooled Again" ("...meet the new boss / same as the old boss..."). Then I got home and heard the news about the election of Rt Revd Katharine Jefferts Schori to be the next Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA and wondered if this was prophetic.

I have no problem with the fact that the presiding bishop elect is a woman. In fact, like Ruth Gledhill, I feel "a shiver of excitement at the election of a woman to the position of Presiding Bishop..." Will it cause problems within the Anglican Communion, the fact that KJS is a woman? No, I don't think so -- some consternation perhaps, but the Primates have long ago looked at this issue and determined they would

respect the decision and attitudes of other provinces in the ordination or consecration of women to the episcopate, without such respect necessarily indicating acceptance of the principles involved, maintaining the highest possible degree of communion with the provinces which differ.

Moreover, they agreed they would "exercise courtesy and maintain communications with bishops who may differ, and with any woman bishop, ensuring an open dialogue in the Church to whatever extent communion is impaired."

They decided this 18 years ago -- at the 1988 Lambeth Conference. Unlike the American Bishops who will pledge anything, knowing their words are meaningless, the African bishops and the other bishops and ministers of the Global South are men of their word.

So, although they might differ with the Americans on the ordination of a woman as priest or bishop, this will not be what causes a problem.

Experience? Yes, her resume is thin. She has never led a parish. It's only been eleven years since she was ordained. On one hand, that gives me pause -- but then the Lord of Israel sometimes calls a young shepherd, a young betrothed woman, a young sailor named Nicholas.

No, it's not her gender, nor her experience which troubles me. It's her actions.

She is a strong supporter of the ordination of VGR; a strong supporter of Integrity; an opponent of, among other things, the Articles of Religion, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilaterial of 1886, 1888, and the obedience to "the teaching and direction of Our Lord Jesus Christ as set forth in Holy Scripture." According to John Burwell, "she left the 2003 convention and instituted same-sex rites for her parishes and missions."

In other words, she appears to be just another in a long line of apostate clergy. And I weep.


Now, I don't mean to give up hope -- the most encouraging comment I've seen was something Kendall Harmon posted before the election:

Bishop Schori is a very interesting wild card–I think she is the person least beholden to the Episcopal Church “system.” We shall just have to wait and see.

If he is right about that and if she is faithful to the Lord -- perhaps has a Thomas à Becket conversion -- then the VGRs and the Spong's of the world could be begging someone to rid them of this troublesome priest.

In any event, I do not trust in men, I trust God. Psalm 20.

[Note: As can be seen, I started writing this when I couldn't get to sleep -- I didn't publish it initially -- it has since been revised and extended.]

Columbus (Flag Day, Part II). Scanning the blogs tonight, I saw that baby blue has a picture up of the hanging of the flags. It's here. As best I can tell, they've replaced the Duvalier flag with the one that preceded it, not the current one, as mentioned below. I know this is more in the category of jots and tittles, but you'd think being an Empire, The Episcopal Church™ could get it right.

The Episcopal Tergiversation. Prior to going to Columbus, Truro Rector Martyn Minns issues a short statement of goals for the denomination formerly known as ECUSA:

What do we hope and pray for at General Convention in Ohio this week and next?

REAFFIRMATION: The teaching of the church on matters such as the uniqueness of Christ and the trustworthiness of Holy Scripture especially on matters of human sexuality was called into question at GC2003. Now is the time to reaffirm the truths of classical Christianity.

REPENTANCE: At GC2003 the General Convention made decisions that have torn the Church apart. ECUSA has been challenged to repent (change direction, turn around), not merely express remorse for the consequences of their actions.

ROLL BACK: Actions were taken at GC2003 regarding the election of Gene Robinson and the blessing of same-sex unions that have had a devastating impact on our witness and the work of the wider church. They need to be rolled back so that the damage can be undone.

This brought a rebuke from the Diocese of Virginia:

There has been much talk of embracing the Windsor Report. We think that’s good. But do you really know Windsor’s ABCs? Or for that matter, how about the ‘R’s?

Of the four ‘R’s currently making the rounds you will find two in the report:

REGRET: As in, we should express regret “that the proper restraints of the bonds of affection were breached” in the election and consent to Gene Robinson.

RECONCILIATION: As in, Windsor is not a judgment but “part of a pilgrimage towards healing and reconciliation.”

But we’ve been hearing some other ‘R’s that you will not find in Windsor:

REPENTANCE: As in repent for the election of Bishop Robinson. There is no reference to repentance for the election and consent to Bishop Robinson.

ROLLBACK: As in, undo it. There is no call in Windsor for a rollback of the consent to Bishop Robinson.[*] Indeed, Windsor recommends that the Archbishop of Canterbury (Windsor’s real ABC) use “very considerable caution” in inviting and admitting Bishop Robinson to the councils of the Communion. The premise of that recommendation is that Gene Robinson will indeed remain a bishop.

What the Diocese is engaging in is nothing short of a lie, as I will show, below. The sad thing, for the Diocese is that the leadership apparently believes its own lies, as do many others who are ECUSA delegates and by believing these self-serving lies, they are dooming the denomination for destruction and separation from the larger Anglican Communion.

This type of lie is an equivocation, a prevarication, a distortion of the truth with the intent to mislead. It appears that the DioVA is hoping to set a very low bar so that it can pass a meaningless expression of regret ("we're sorry you chose to be hurt by our actions") as opposed to a real expression of regret at having rejected the rest of the Anglican Communion (and those members of the Diocese who have chosen to remain faithful to the teachings of Christ).

But don't take my word for it, let's see what Bishop Tom Wright has to say. In a paper republished on Titus1:9, Bp. Wright, a senior member of the Lambeth Commission (which produced the Windsor report, in .pdf here) seeks to set the record straight. Because, as he explains, "the only way forward which will command assent from the Communion and enable us to proceed together is to be careful and exact about what precisely Windsor said and meant."

As an aside, before I continue to digest Bp. Wright's paper, which should be read in whole, a point of clarification. There is a bit of confusion with the use of the term "Commission" throughout the paper. In some cases, it refers to the Lambeth Commission which produced the Windsor Report. In others, it refers to the "Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion" which produced a 61 page report -- here, in .pdf -- for ECUSA. I will refer to this Commission with a bracketed [ECUSA] for clarification when quoting Bp. Wright.

The context of Bp. Wright's paper, as noted in my aside, is the response being prepared by the ECUSA Commission for consideration by the delegates in Columbus. He notes the ECUSA commission omits key facts in its history: "It is surprising to see that in its account of the history of the current issue there is no mention of what the Primates said in October 2003 [notes and references omitted] and hence of the fact that the consecration of Gene Robinson had gone ahead in full knowledge of the consequences."

Bp. Wright continues in ¶5 of his paper:

The [ECUSA] Commission then rightly turns its attention to the key questions, ‘expressing regret and repentance.' This section is crucial as an introduction to the key recommendations. It focuses on Windsor para 134, quoting its introductory sentence (‘Mindful of the hurt and offence that have resulted from recent events, and yet also of the imperatives of communion – the repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ – we have debated long and hard how all sides may be brought together’). It does not, however, quote the next part of Windsor 134, but contents itself – vitally, as will emerge in a moment – with a summary in terms of ‘a statement of regret for breaching the bonds of affection’ and ‘moratoria on particular actions’ (34, end). It notes that ‘statements of regret have been made by the House of Bishops and the Executive Council,’ though without noting that these have not been the ‘statements of regret’ asked for by Windsor, but rather statements of regret that some people were hurt by ECUSA’s actions, and a statement (from the House of Bishops in March 2005, anticipating the phraseology now used in the Commission’s proposals) of regret for breaching the bonds of affection ‘by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking those actions’, which as we shall presently see is clearly and specifically not what Windsor asked for.

He continues in ¶ 6:

The section continues to speak in general terms of ‘statements of regret’ without quoting, or addressing, the specific statements asked for in Windsor 134. Instead, para 38 says (at the end), ‘We also believe that the General Convention’s consideration of such expressions of regret and repentance will provide clear evidence of our desire to reaffirm the bonds of affection that unite us in the fellowship of the Anglican Communion.’ This is a puzzling statement, whose implications become clear in the resolutions that follow. Certainly the fact that General Convention will consider expressions of regret and repentance will demonstrate that most in ECUSA want to remain within the Anglican Communion. But the important question is whether that desire will lead to the specific and particular expressions of regret and repentance asked for by Windsor 134, or whether ECUSA will try to attain the goal of staying within the Communion without travelling by the only route that will get there, namely that of the road mapped by Windsor and endorsed by the Primates and ACC.

Continuing in a very key section in ¶7, he explains:

... At no point in the Commission’s report is it even mentioned that the real problem is not that actions are ‘out of sequence’ or taken ‘without time for consultation’, but that the actions in question went exactly, explicitly and knowingly against the expressed mind of Lambeth, ACC, the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury. There had, in fact, been plenty of consultation at several levels, and ECUSA chose to ignore the results of that consultation.

Emphasis added. Bp. Wright continues on to succintly dismantle the prevarications of the ECUSA Commission, which, as I said, should be read in full.

In ¶10, he notes the duplicity** being proposed by the ECUSA Commission:

When it comes to public rites of blessing of same-sex unions, the Commission suggests that its previous resolution has been misunderstood. . . . From a Windsor perspective, this sounds like a straightforward attempt to have one’s cake and eat it, using a narrow definition of ‘authorized’ (= ‘printed in an official prayer book’) to deny that local liturgies come into that category, while explicitly encouraging their development and use. See (17) below for the outworking of this, where it becomes clear, as noted in Windsor 144, that General Convention is seen as ‘making provision’ for, and individual diocesan bishops can then ‘authorize’, such blessings.

In paragraphs 12-17 of his paper, he turns to the proposed resolutions, beginning with the twisting of Windsor:

The benchmark against which the key resolutions must be measured is of course Windsor 134 (for Resolutions A160 and A161) and Windsor 144 (for A162). The report quotes the preamble to Windsor 134 . . . but never quotes the recommendations themselves. The reason for this, sadly, becomes all too clear: the [ECUSA] Commission . . . decided to decline Windsor’s request and to do something else instead, using some words and phrases which echo those of Windsor while not affirming the substance that was asked for. This, with real sadness, is my basic conclusion: that unless the relevant Resolutions are amended so that they clearly state what Windsor clearly requested, the rest of the Communion is bound to conclude that ECUSA has specifically chosen not to comply with Windsor.

¶12. Again, my emphasis.

He continues in the next few sections to eviscerate the ECUSA [fake] apologies summing up in ¶15:

To put it bluntly: Resolution A160 is not, as it stands, Windsor-compliant, and the Commission must have known that only too well. Granted that, the statement in the ‘Explanation’ that this Resolution is ‘thus signalling our synodical intentions to remain within the Communion’ must, sadly, be seen as essentially cynical. Windsor said that ‘such an expression of regret’ – i.e. the one that Windsor requested, not the one that the Resolution offers – ‘would represent the desire of ECUSA to remain within the Communion.’ The fact that the ‘explanation’ quotes this latter phrase demonstrates a desire, not apparently to comply with Windsor, but to give the appearance of doing so to those who glance at the text but do not look carefully at what is actually said.

He weighs the next proposal, dealing with a moratorium on the ordination of sexually active gay persons and finds it wanting, concluding "...if Resolution A161 is passed without amendment, and still more if it is not even passed, it will be impossible to draw any other conclusion but that ECUSA has chosen not to comply with the Windsor recommendations." ¶16.

Finally he concludes most emphatically:

It is very important not to let the plethora of material, in the official document and in all the various commentaries on it, detract attention from from the central and quite simple question: Will ECUSA comply with the specific and detailed recommendations of Windsor, or will it not? As the Resolutions stand, only one answer is possible: if these are passed without amendment, ECUSA will have specifically, deliberately and knowingly decided not to comply with Windsor.

at ¶19, again, my emphasis added.

The duplicity of ECUSA and echoed by its DioVa Amen Corner must not stand. If it does, ECUSA will be "'turning [it's] back on', i.e. forsaking, something in which one was previously engaged, interested or concerned; desertion or abandonment of a cause, party, etc.; apostasy, renegation."

----------------
*Note, that Canon Minns, in his statement above, does not call for an express rollback of the consent of the ordination of Gene Robinson.

**In an aside in ¶ 14, Bp. Wright notes:

(and at this point, reading and re-reading what they wrote, I have to say with sadness that the word ‘duplicity’ comes unbidden to my mind)

Columbus Reflections (Day One, Flag Day). The best observation from the first day is that ECUSA has decided to rebrand itself. It is no longer just the US part of the Anglican Communion, but is now The Episcopal Church™, a 16 nation confederation standing on its own and coming to a neighborhood near you.

In someways, this is a natural progression -- ECUSA has always acted more like an Empire rather than a collection of Christian congregations.

Oh, and then there was the little problem with the flags. It seems that The Episcopal Church™ in its press conference designed to impress upon the world how truly global it is, used the Duvalier flag of Haiti, instead of the one which has been in effect for, oh, the last 20 years! See this picture taken from Rev. Burwell's report (I drew in the yellow arrow pointing to the Duvalier flag):

Here is the current flag of Haiti:

Source.

Opps! No one said it was easy to be an empire...

But the really important stuff was the paper by Bishop N.T. Wright which may be found here and will be the subject of another post.