Exploring the Connections

Presiding bishop issues pastoral letter to the church

Jefferts Schori cites Canterbury's Pentecost letter, hopes for continued dialogue

EpiscopalLife Online, June 2, 2010

Pentecost continues!

Pentecost is most fundamentally a continuing gift of the Spirit, rather than a limitation or quenching of that Spirit.

The recent statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury about the struggles within the Anglican Communion seems to equate Pentecost with a single understanding of gospel realities. Those who received the gift of the Spirit on that day all heard good news. The crowd reported, "in our own languages we hear them speaking about God's deeds of power" (Acts 2:11).

The Spirit does seem to be saying to many within The Episcopal Church that gay and lesbian persons are God's good creation, that an aspect of good creation is the possibility of lifelong, faithful partnership, and that such persons may indeed be good and healthy exemplars of gifted leadership within the Church, as baptized leaders and ordained ones. The Spirit also seems to be saying the same thing in other parts of the Anglican Communion, and among some of our Christian partners, including Lutheran churches in North America and Europe, the Old Catholic churches of Europe, and a number of others.

That growing awareness does not deny the reality that many Anglicans and not a few Episcopalians still fervently hold traditional views about human sexuality. This Episcopal Church is a broad and inclusive enough tent to hold that variety. The willingness to live in tension is a hallmark of Anglicanism, beginning from its roots in Celtic Christianity pushing up against Roman Christianity in the centuries of the first millennium. That diversity in community was solidified in the Elizabethan Settlement, which really marks the beginning of Anglican Christianity as a distinct movement. Above all, it recognizes that the Spirit may be speaking to all of us, in ways that do not at present seem to cohere or agree. It also recognizes what Jesus says about the Spirit to his followers, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:12-13).

The Episcopal Church has spent nearly 50 years listening to and for the Spirit in these matters. While it is clear that not all within this Church have heard the same message, the current developments do represent a widening understanding. Our canons reflected this shift as long ago as 1985, when sexual orientation was first protected from discrimination in access to the ordination process. At the request of other bodies in the Anglican Communion, this Church held an effective moratorium on the election and consecration of a partnered gay or lesbian priest as bishop from 2003 to 2010. When a diocese elected such a person in late 2009, the ensuing consent process indicated that a majority of the laity, clergy, and bishops responsible for validating that election agreed that there was no substantive bar to the consecration.

The Episcopal Church recognizes that these decisions are problematic to a number of other Anglicans. We have not made these decisions lightly. We recognize that the Spirit has not been widely heard in the same way in other parts of the Communion. In all humility, we recognize that we may be wrong, yet we have proceeded in the belief that the Spirit permeates our decisions.

We also recognize that the attempts to impose a singular understanding in such matters represent the same kind of cultural excesses practiced by many of our colonial forebears in their missionizing activity. Native Hawaiians were forced to abandon their traditional dress in favor of missionaries' standards of modesty. Native Americans were forced to abandon many of their cultural practices, even though they were fully congruent with orthodox Christianity, because the missionaries did not understand or consider those practices exemplary of the Spirit. The uniformity imposed at the Synod of Whitby did similar violence to a developing, contextual Christianity in the British Isles. In their search for uniformity, our forebears in the faith have repeatedly done much spiritual violence in the name of Christianity.

We do not seek to impose our understanding on others. We do earnestly hope for continued dialogue with those who disagree, for we believe that the Spirit is always calling us to greater understanding.

We live in great concern that colonial attitudes continue, particularly in attempts to impose a single understanding across widely varying contexts and cultures. We note that the cultural contexts in which The Episcopal Church's decisions have generated the greatest objection and reaction are also often the same contexts where women are barred from full ordained leadership, including the Church of England.

As Episcopalians, we note the troubling push toward centralized authority exemplified in many of the statements of the recent Pentecost letter. Anglicanism as a body began in the repudiation of the control of the Bishop of Rome within an otherwise sovereign nation. Similar concerns over self-determination in the face of colonial control led the Church of Scotland to consecrate Samuel Seabury for The Episcopal Church in the nascent United States – and so began the Anglican Communion.

We have been repeatedly assured that the Anglican Covenant is not an instrument of control, yet we note that the fourth section seems to be just that to Anglicans in many parts of the Communion. So much so, that there are voices calling for stronger sanctions in that fourth section, as well as voices repudiating it as un-Anglican in nature. Unitary control does not characterize Anglicanism; rather, diversity in fellowship and communion does.

We are distressed at the apparent imposition of sanctions on some parts of the Communion. We note that these seem to be limited to those which "have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion." We are further distressed that such sanctions do not, apparently, apply to those parts of the Communion that continue to hold one view in public and exhibit other behaviors in private. Why is there no sanction on those who continue with a double standard? In our context bowing to anxiety by ignoring that sort of double-mindedness is usually termed a "failure of nerve." Through many decades of wrestling with our own discomfort about recognizing the full humanity of persons who seem to differ from us, we continue to work at open and transparent communication as well as congruence between word and behavior. We openly admit our failure to achieve perfection!

The baptismal covenant prayed in this Church for more than 30 years calls us to respect the dignity of all other persons and charges us with ongoing labor toward a holy society of justice and peace. That fundamental understanding of Christian vocation underlies our hearing of the Spirit in this context and around these issues of human sexuality. That same understanding of Christian vocation encourages us to hold our convictions with sufficient humility that we can affirm the image of God in the person who disagrees with us. We believe that the Body of Christ is only found when such diversity is welcomed with abundant and radical hospitality.

As a Church of many nations, languages, and peoples, we will continue to seek every opportunity to increase our partnership in God's mission for a healed creation and holy community. We look forward to the ongoing growth in partnership possible in the Listening Process, Continuing Indaba, Bible in the Life of the Church, Theological Education in the Anglican Communion, and the myriad of less formal and more local partnerships across the Communion – efforts in mission and ministry that inform and transform individuals and communities toward the vision of the Gospel – a healed world, loving God and neighbor, in the love and friendship shown us in God Incarnate.

May God's peace dwell in your hearts,

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church

FORT WORTH: First woman priest to be ordained Nov. 15

by Pat McCaughan, episcopallife online, Oct 28, 2009

Thirty-three years after the Episcopal Church approved the ordination of women to the priesthood and to the episcopate, the Episcopal Diocese of Fortworth, Texas, is following suit.

The Rt. Rev. Edwin F. (Ted) Gulick Jr., bishop of Kentucky and provisional bishop of Fort Worth, is set to ordain the Rev. Susan Slaughter to the priesthood on Nov. 15 at St. Luke's in the Meadow Episcopal Church, where she currently serves as deacon.

"It is with a deep sense of awe in the mysterious ways of our Lord that I arrive at this moment," Slaughter said recently. "I am filled with gratitude toward those persons, lay and clergy, who have encouraged and supported me over the years. St. Luke's in the Meadow has been especially supportive and has helped me discern more clearly my true vocation."

It's been a long time coming for Slaughter, who was introduced to the Episcopal Church when she was eight years old, by two friends. She soon convinced her parents and brothers to join her.

"I loved the liturgy, joined the junior choir and was confirmed at age 12," she recalled recently. "I was the first in my family to attend and be confirmed in the Episcopal Church."

A graduate of Bellaire High School, she earned a bachelor's degree from Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas, and taught speech pathology and audiology. She earned a master of education degree in guidance and counseling from North Texas State University in Denton.

Although she sensed a call to ordained ministry in the 1980s, diocesan bishops declined to ordain women to the priesthood, forcing her to "push aside the sense of call," she said.

She became an active lay minister at her home parish, St. Alban's Episcopal Church in Arlington. There, she developed a Stephen Ministry, training lay people to provide one-on-one compassionate listening and care to hurting people within the congregational setting. She was also a lay reader and server, led women's Bible studies and taught adult Christian education.

Eventually, she completed seminary training at the Anglican School of Theology in Dallas but still found the priesthood elusive.

Former Bishop Jack Iker told her she'd have to leave the diocese to be ordained to the priesthood. Unable to relocate, eventually she returned to Iker believing that her call must be to the diaconate. He ordained her a deacon on October 12, 2002.

For the past several years, she has served as deacon at St. Luke's and is credited with helping to stabilize the parish after the November 2008 departure of Iker and other diocesan leaders. Citing theological differences over the ordination of women and gays, they disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church and realigned with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

The continuing diocese reorganized in February 2009 with Gulick as provisional bishop. Under his leadership two women priests have been licensed to serve in the diocese, the Rev. Maurine Lewis, who serves displaced congregations, and the Rev. Melanie R. Barbarito, a pastoral associate at All Saints Church in Fort Worth.
 
Finally, Slaughter, who is currently enrolled in a master of theological studies program at Brite Divinity School at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, will realize her call to ordained priesthood.

The Fort Worth diocese was formed from the western part of the Diocese of Dallas. The founding bishop, A. Donald Davies, and his successors, Clarence C. Pope and Iker, all left the Episcopal Church over women's ordination.

At least 15 women seeking ordination to the priesthood left the diocese during their collective tenure, according to Katie Sherrod, diocesan communications director. They have been invited "home" for Slaughter's ordination.
 
Slaughter has seven grandchildren. She was widowed in 2007 after 28 years of marriage to Jerry Slaughter.

She may be the first -- but is not the last -- woman ordained to the priesthood in the Fort Worth diocese.

The Rev. ClayOla Gitane, also serving as a deacon, will be ordained to the priesthood Dec. 5 at Trinity Church, Fort Worth, by the Rt. Rev. Bavi Edna "Nedi" Rivera, bishop suffragan of the Diocese of Olympia and provisional bishop of the Diocese of Eastern Oregon. It will be the first time a female bishop has performed an episcopal act in the diocese.

The Episcopal Church approved women's ordination to the priesthood and episcopate in 1976 and the first women were ordained priests in January 1977.

-- The Rev. Pat McCaughan is Episcopal News Service correspondent for provinces VII and VIII and the House of Bishops. She is based in Los Angeles.

INTEGRITY: "House of Bishops Stands Firm"

Integrity Press Release
by Susan Russell

NEW ORLEANS—The members of Integrity have prayed unceasingly for their bishops as they met this week to consider a response to the primates' communiqué. The bishops were pressured by the Archbishop of Canterbury and other international guests to comply with the primate's demands. The bishops struggled mightily amongst themselves to achieve a clear consensus on how to respond. Integrity is gratified that the final response from the House of Bishop declined to succumb to the pressure to go backwards, but rather took some significant steps forward.

We are encouraged by their strong language against the incursions of uninvited bishops into this province, their commendation of the Anglican Listening Process, their unequivocal support that the Bishop of New Hampshire should receive an invitation to the Lambeth Conference, and their affirmation of safety and civil rights for LGBT persons.

Integrity President Susan Russell said, "In response to requests for 'clarity' the House of Bishops made it clear today that the Episcopal Church is moving forward in faith. I believe today’s response will be received as a sign of great hope that we are committed to working through the hard ground of our differences. I look forward to taking the support of the House of Bishops for the Listening Process with me when I and other Integrity representatives meet with Anglican colleagues in London next month to prepare for our witness at the Lambeth Conference."

"Integrity is confident that The Episcopal Church will continue to move forward," concluded Russell. "Integrity expects General Convention 2009 to be a tipping point for equality. We will be working hard in the months ahead to repeal B033 and to authorize development of a rite for blessing same-sex relationships as steps toward the goal of the full inclusion of all the baptized into the Body of Christ."

House of Bishops response 'to questions and concerns raised by our Anglican Communion partners'

[Episcopal News Service]
House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
New Orleans, Louisiana
September 25, 2007

A Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by our Anglican Communion Partners:
In accordance with Our Lord's high priestly prayer that we be one, and in the spirit of Resolution A159 of the 75th General Convention, and in obedience to his Great Commission to go into the world and make disciples, and in gratitude for the gift of the Anglican Communion as a sign of the Holy Spirit's ongoing work of reconciliation throughout the world, we offer the following to The Episcopal Church, the Primates, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and the larger Communion, with the hope of "mending the tear in the fabric" of our common life in Christ.

"I do it all for the sake of the Gospel so that I might share in its blessings."
1 Corinthians 9:23.

Introduction
The House of Bishops expresses sincere and heartfelt thanks to the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates for accepting our invitation to join us in New Orleans. By their presence they have both honored us and assisted us in our discernment. Their presence was a living reminder of the unity that is Christ's promised gift in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Much of our meeting time was spent in continuing discernment of our relationships within the Anglican Communion. We engaged in careful listening and straightforward dialogue with our guests. We expressed our passionate desire to remain in communion. It is our conviction that The Episcopal Church needs the Anglican Communion, and we heard from our guests that the Anglican Communion needs The Episcopal Church.

The House of Bishops offers the following responses to our Anglican Communion partners.  We believe they provide clarity and point toward next steps in an ongoing process of dialogue.  Within The Episcopal Church the common discernment of God's call is a lively partnership among laypersons, bishops, priests, and deacons, and therefore necessarily includes the Presiding Bishop, the Executive Council, and the General Convention.

Summary

• 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.

Discussion
Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention
The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling 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."  The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.

Blessing of Same-Sex Unions
We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action. In the near future we hope to be able to draw upon the benefits of the Communion-wide listening process. In the meantime, it is important to note that no rite of blessing for persons living in same-sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. In addition to not having authorized liturgies the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions. We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty "to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations." They further stated, "…[I]t is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care."

Episcopal Visitors
We affirm the Presiding Bishop's plan to appoint episcopal visitors for dioceses that request alternative oversight. Such oversight would be provided by bishops who are a part of and subject to the communal life of this province. We believe this plan is consistent with and analogous to Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) as affirmed by the Windsor Report (paragraph 152). We thank those bishops who have generously offered themselves for this ministry. We hope that dioceses will make use of this plan and that the Presiding Bishop will continue conversation with those dioceses that may feel the need for such ministries. We appreciate and need to hear all voices in The Episcopal Church.

Incursions by Uninvited Bishops
We call for an immediate end to diocesan incursions by uninvited bishops in accordance with the Windsor Report and consistent with the statements of past Lambeth Conferences and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Such incursions imperil common prayer and long-established ecclesial principles of our Communion. These principles include respect for local jurisdiction and recognition of the geographical boundaries of dioceses and provinces. As we continue to commit ourselves to honor both the spirit and the content of the Windsor Report, we call upon those provinces and bishops engaging in such incursions likewise to honor the Windsor Report by ending them. We offer assurance that delegated episcopal pastoral care is being provided for those who seek it.

Communion-wide Consultation
In their communique of February 2007, the Primates proposed a "pastoral scheme." At our meeting in March 2007, we expressed our deep concern that this scheme would compromise the authority of our own primate and place the autonomy of The Episcopal Church at risk. The Executive Council reiterated our concerns and declined to participate. Nevertheless we recognize a useful role for communion-wide consultation with respect to the pastoral needs of those seeking alternative oversight, as well as the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons in this and other provinces. We encourage our Presiding Bishop to continue to explore such consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.

The Listening Process
The 1998 Lambeth Conference called all the provinces of the Anglican Communion to engage in a "listening process" designed to bring gay and lesbian Anglicans fully into the church's conversation about sexuality. We look forward to receiving initial reports about this process at the 2008 Lambeth Conference, and to participating with others in this crucial enterprise. We are aware that in some cultural contexts, conversation concerning homosexuality is difficult. We see an important role for the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in this listening process, since it represents both the lay and ordained members of our constituent churches and so is well placed to engage every part of the body in this conversation. We encourage the ACC to identify the variety of resources needed to accomplish these conversations.

The Lambeth Conference
Invitations to the Lambeth Conference are extended by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Those among us who have received an invitation to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference look forward to that gathering with hope and expectation. Many of us are engaged in mission partnerships with bishops and dioceses around the world and cherish these relationships. Lambeth offers a wonderful opportunity to build on such partnerships.

We are mindful that the Bishop of New Hampshire has not yet received an invitation to the conference. We also note that the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to explore a way for him to participate. We share the Archbishop's desire and encourage our Presiding Bishop to offer our assistance as bishops in this endeavor. It is our fervent hope that a way can be found for his full participation.

Justice and Dignity for Gay and Lesbian Persons
It is of fundamental importance that, as we continue to seek consensus in matters of human sexuality, we also be clear and outspoken in our shared commitment to establish and protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons, and to name and oppose at every turn any action or policy that does violence to them, encourages violence towards them, or violates their dignity as children of God. We call all our partners in the Anglican Communion to recommit to this effort. As we stated at the conclusion of our meeting in March 2007: "We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God."
________________________________
(1) The Communion Sub-Group noted that "the resolution uses the language of 'restraint', and the group noted that there has been considerable discussion since General Convention about the exact force of that word. By requiring that the restraint must be expressed in a particular way--'by not consenting...', however, the resolution is calling for a precise response, which complies with the force of the recommendation of the Windsor Report." The group also noted "that while the Windsor Report restricted its recommendation  to candidates for the episcopate who were living in a same gender union, the resolution at General Convention widened this stricture to apply to a range of lifestyles which present a wider challenge. The group welcomed this widening of the principle, which was also recommended by the Windsor Report, and commend it to the Communion."

Mary Gray-Reeves elected as third bishop of Episcopal Diocese of El Camino Real

Episcopal News Service] The Ven. Rev. Mary Gray-Reeves was elected June 16 to be the next bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of El Camino Real.

Gray-Reeves, 44, archdeacon for deployment, Diocese of Southeast Florida, was elected on the second ballot from a slate of four candidates (a fifth candidate, the Rev. Paige Blair, withdrew after the first ballot). An election on the second ballot required 103 votes of the 205 cast in the lay order and 58 of 114 votes cast in the clergy order. Gray-Reeves was elected with 163 lay votes and 91 clergy votes.

She becomes the 15th woman elected as a bishop of the Episcopal Church and she will be among the five youngest members of the House of Bishops.

The election took place at York School in Monterey, California.

Under the canons the Episcopal Church (III.11.4), a majority of bishops exercising jurisdiction and diocesan Standing Committees must consent to Gray-Reeves’ election and ordination as bishop.

Gray-Reeves is meant to succeed Bishop Richard Shimpfky who resigned at the end of March 2004, after leading the diocese for 14 years. Bishop Sylvestre Romero-Palma, formerly Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Belize, has been serving as assisting bishop for the diocese.

The consecration is planned for November 10 at St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church in Saratoga, California.

The complete ballot results are available here.

Gray-Reeves has been the archdeacon for deployment in the Diocese of Southeast Florida since January 2005. Prior to that, she was rector of St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church in Miami Lakes, Florida from 1998 to 2004. She had previously served as an assistant to the rectors of St. James EpiscopalChurch in Pasadena, California and Christ Church, Redondo Beach, California. She holds the bachelor of theology degree (the equivalent of a master of divinity degree) from St. John's Theological College in Auckland, New Zealand. Gray-Reeves was a deputy to General Convention in 2003 and 2006, and has been involved in various diocesan-wide activities in Southeast Florida. She and husband Michael Reeves are the parents of two teen-aged children.

More biographical information about Gray-Reeves is available here.

Response to the Study Guide of an Anglican Covenant

by The Board of INTEGRITY-Houston, June 1, 2007
Major author is James Cowan, a member of INTEGRITY-Houston, and a communicant of Trinity Episcopal Church in Houston.

[The Covenant Design Group (CDG), appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, has prepared a “Draft Anglican Covenant”. Every Province (Church) of the Anglican Communion has been asked to respond to this Draft by January 1, 2008. The response on behalf of the Episcopal Church as a whole will be made by the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church—the report to be prepared at the Executive Council's October 2007 meeting. A Short Study Guide was prepared to assist all Episcopalians to participate in the development of our Church’s response to the Draft Covenant. That guide included a series of questions on various aspects of the Draft Covenant, answers to which had to be sent to the Episcopal Church Center in New York by June 4th just past. The document that follows was sent by the Board of INTEGRITY-Houston as its reponse to that process. Having a copy of the Short Study Guide to hand will help set the context in which the various questions are asked]

1. Do you think an Anglican Covenant is necessary and/or will help to strengthen the interdependent life of the Anglican Communion?  Why or why not?

No. The parts of the Covenant that are not new (e.g., the Creeds, the Quadrilateral, the Instruments of Communion) already exist and need no additional reaffirmation. The new elements of the Covenant (e.g., expanded de facto executive and juridical functions for the Primates’ Meeting, mechanisms to enforce the “mind of the Communion” on member Churches, the threat of ejecting member Churches who “choose not to fulfill the substance of the covenant as understood by the Councils of the Instruments of Communion”) would serve only to formalize a process for exclusion and control which we do not find to be Christ-like or useful to forging stronger bonds of communion.

2. How closely does this view of communion accord with your understanding of the development and vocation of the Anglican Communion?

This view of communion seems more legalistic and coercive than the Anglicanism we deeply love. We understand and experience Anglican Christianity to contain broad streams of belief and practice, which enrich and correct each other through the power of love, the spirit of tolerance, and the desire for the greatest possible inclusivity.

3. Is this a sufficient rationale for entering into a Covenant? Why or why not?

No. We believe that the elements lined out in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (Holy Scriptures containing all that is necessary for salvation, the historic creeds, and the ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons) provide sufficient simple and clear guidance that defines our common mission and belief. Additional qualifying or narrowing language is neither helpful nor truly catholic. We also question what is meant by the hope that we might “grow up together as a worldwide Communion to the full stature of Christ.” If this is intended to point toward a world-wide church with confessional standards, hierarchical international structures, and discipline imposed on member Churches based on those standards by those structures, then we find the concept of a Covenant to be unhelpful and un-Anglican.

4. Do these six affirmations adequately describe The Episcopal Church’s understanding of “common catholicity, apostolicity, and confession of faith”? Why or why not?

Although there is much to agree with in this section of the draft, we would object that paragraph 5’s reference to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Order of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons seems to give historical documents a preeminent role and uniquely authoritative status in the Churches that inhibits the ongoing activity of the Holy Spirit amongst both ordained and lay orders.

5. The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (of the Church of England) are not currently authoritative documents for The Episcopal Church. Do you think that they should be? Why or why not?

No. First, these documents have long been held to have historic significance to our Church, as they are products of our Reformation heritage. However, our doctrine and practice continue to develop over time. The intervening years have greatly enriched our worship and our faith through, among other things, additional scholarship about the primitive church, the Anglo-Catholic revival, the liturgical reform movement, our own experience as American Christians, and the ongoing movement of the Holy Spirit. We fear that this provision in the covenant is intended to “freeze” the Church at a specific point in time (or perhaps more accurately turn back the clock) and discard the intervening action of the Spirit in the life of the Church.

6. Is each of these commitments clear and understandable with respect to what is being asked of the member churches and are they consistent with statements and actions made by the Episcopal Church in the General Convention? Why or why not?

No. Although we affirm the “catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition, [and] biblically derived moral values” we are troubled that we seem to be asked to agree to be bound to some unspecified common “vision of humanity” and some unstated, but implicitly common, understanding of what specific meanings those terms have as “received by and developed in the communion of the member Churches.” The question of who will decide what these phrases causes us concern.

We welcome the recognition that ours is a “common pilgrimage with other members of the Communion to discern truth,” and we encourage the expansion and intensification of the process of listening to the experiences of gay, lesbian, and transgender Anglicans.

7. Is the mission vision offered here helpful in advancing a common life of the Anglican Communion and does this need to be a part of the Draft Covenant? Why or why not?

While we do not believe the Draft Covenant necessary to their expression, the emphasis of this section that the challenges and opportunities we face are local, regional, and international is helpful. We especially appreciate the recognition that our common history provides unique opportunities to work together for God’s Kingdom. We also appreciate the ecumenical impulse embodied in the last clause.

8. Does this section adequately describe your understanding of the history and respective roles of the “Four Instruments of Communion?” Why or why not?

In and of themselves, these descriptions do not seem to be problematic as a general statement of the current functions of our ever-developing Instruments of Unity. However, we question the wisdom of enshrining the newly named Instruments of Unity as currently understood in a Covenant designed to bind the member Churches from this time forward. One of the greatest strengths of our Communion is its flexibility and its ability to bend rather than break. We would prefer that the Communion maintain its ability to respond to changing needs with the generosity and willingness to listen to God that has been its hallmark, rather than rely on a rigid framework of international governance.

9. Do you think that there needs to be an executive or juridical body for resolving disagreements or disputes within the Anglican Communion? If so, do you think it should be the Primates’ Meeting as recommended by the Draft Covenant? Explain.

No. We believe that international executive or juridical authority at the Communion level would be unhelpful and likely harmful to our Church and our understanding of our role in our community and in the Communion. As a preliminary matter, our roots in the Reformation and the American experience teach us to be wary of subjecting ourselves to the authority of overseas church leaders who are not accountable to the will of the Holy Spirit as discerned by our church in General Convention. Moreover, we do not presume to dictate faith, discipline, or morals for Anglicans outside the United States in their respective contexts, nor are we are willing to invite them impose the same upon Anglicans whose cultural contexts differ from their own. We believe that God has called The Episcopal Church, in all its imperfections, to stand for the wholeness and inclusion won for us by the ministry, teachings, cross, and empty grave of Jesus Christ. We fear that expanded executive or juridical power will be used to prevent or limit our full proclamation of the victory of Jesus over the forces of injustice, sin, and death.

The Primates are particularly unsuited to provide executive or juridical leadership for the Communion, as is borne out by their attempt to assume powers not delegated to them in Dar es Salaam, and their unprecedented demands to intervene in this Church’s polity. Their willingness to resort to the tactics of coercion and exclusion do not bode well for a Communion governed by the Primates. In addition, given our distinctive polity, we have grave doubts whether a body composed solely of bishops is sufficiently representative of the breadth and variety of views within the Church to exert such unchecked power.

10. What does the phrase “a common mind about matters of essential concern …” mean to you?

Ideally, the term would refer to matters of the inclusive love of Christ. We are troubled that the drafters seem to intend to include questions of sexual morality as matters of essential concern to the exclusion of issues of structural communal morality. We disagree on that specific point, but also worry that if sexual morality is declared essential and therefore a proper subject for intervention in member Churches, what other matters will become “of essential concern?” If the definition of “essential” is not exceedingly narrowly drawn, the list of included topics might ultimately include questions of war and peace, the theology and science of creation, abortion, end of life issues, divorce, development, and any number of social or political issues. We believe that Anglicanism should hold essential those things that it has long held essential as laid out in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.

11. Can you affirm the “fundamental shape” of the Draft Covenant? Why or why not?

No. The acceptable and helpful parts of the Draft Covenant are already part of our common heritage and practice. They need no reinforcement or reiteration. The parts that are new material appear to be designed to be punitive and exclusionary (with an eye to setting up schismatic elements in our Church to acquire property as they leave the Church).

12. What do you think are the consequences of signing such a Covenant as proposed in the Draft?

If the document is revised to take out all innovations and accurately sums what Anglicanism is and has been for some time, then it might have the salutary effect of reminding us of what does and does not bind us together. However, if not revised to remove those parts designed to punish and exclude the North American churches, then it will only serve to further rend the Body.

13. Having read the Draft Covenant as a whole, do you agree with the CDG’s assertion that “nothing which is commended in the draft text of the Covenant can be said to be ‘new’”? Why or Why not?

No. See Nos. 1, 2, and 12 above.

14. In general, what is your response to the Draft Covenant taken as a whole? What is helpful in the draft? What is not helpful? What is missing? Additional comments?

We certainly appreciate the hard work that went into the draft, but we fear that its best and most helpful portions are already part of our common life and that the worst features will serve to divide us further. We encourage The Episcopal Church to reject this draft and raise serious questions whether any Covenant is needed or helpful at this time.

Disturbing News

Thanks to a "heads-up" from Cathedral member, Betty Stead, and especially her link to a Jim McNaughton post on his Daily Episcopalian 'blog, we are becoming aware of remarks made by Bishop Bruce MacPherson (Western Louisiana) about Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori at the Primates' gathering in Tanzania. As Jim McNaughton put it in his entry on May 1, 2007:

"News of what transpires inside the Primates Meeting filters slowly through the Anglican system, so descriptions of Bishop Bruce MacPherson’s pointed personal attack on Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori at the meeting in Tanzania is just beginning to achieve wide circulation. Observers say that MacPherson, who had been invited to the meeting to speak on behalf of the bishops who had endorsed the Camp Allen principles, characterized Bishop Jefferts Schori as the embodiment of everything that was wrong with the Episcopal Church. The comments, observers said, went well beyond the issues under consideration at the meeting and included a general condemnation of her beliefs and her ministry. MacPherson’s remarks made those of Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, who spoke on behalf of the Anglican Communion Network, seem mild by comparison, observers said."

While I am distressed about what Bishop MacPherson apparently had to say about our Presiding Bishop, the fact that he said it while speaking "… on behalf of the bishops who had endorsed the Camp Allen principles …" disturbs me even more. Must I, in the absence of dissenting voices, conclude that Bishop MacPherson's remarks about the Presiding Bishop in fact represent the views of all the so-called "Windsor Bishops", including our own Bishop Wimberly? If this is NOT the case, is a public dissent forthcoming?

Williams on Listening to Scripture: A Brief Response

By Bill Carroll*
Anglican Resistance, April 17, 2007

[*The Rev'd Bill Carroll is an Episcopal Priest in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina]

The full text of Rowan Williams April 16, 2007 Larkin Stuart Lecture in Toronto is found here.

I find much to agree with, especially when it comes to the need to listen to the full canon of Scripture, publicly read and heard in its proper context, the Eucharist. We may read the Scriptures at other times, but it is in the context of the Church (as Eucharistic assembly) and its liturgy that the Word of God is paradigmatically spoken and heard.

I am interested, however, by this portion of what Williams has to say:

It is not that we are given only a method of interpretation by the form of Scripture -- a method that, by pointing us to the conflict and tension between texts simply leaves us with theologically unresolvable debate as a universal norm for Christian discourse (I make the point partly in order to correct what some have -- pardonably -- understood as the implication of what I have written elsewhere on this matter). There is a substantive and discernible form. The canon is presented to us as a whole, whose unity is real and coherent, even if not superficially smooth. To quote from Kevin Vanhoozer's recent and magisterial work on The Drama of Doctrine. A Canonical Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology, p.137, 'The canon both recounts the history of God's covenantal dealings with humanity and regulates God's ongoing covenantal relationship with his people...[I]t is the text that "documents" our covenantal privileges and responsibilities.' We must acknowledge the tensions and internal debates in Scripture; we must also acknowledge the clear sense that the text is presented as a narrative of 'fulfilment' -- as one that contains a vision claiming comprehensiveness of meaning. We are to locate ourselves within this set of connections and engagements, the history of Israel, called, exiled, restored, and of Jesus crucified and risen and alive in the Spirit within the community, not to regard Scripture as one element in a merely modern landscape of conflicts.

I myself have cited some of Williams' earlier remarks on the tensions and contradictions of Scripture in "Restoring the Bonds of Affection," Anglican Theological Review 87 (2005), 621-622 and used these remarks in support of a position with which subsequent developments have made his disagreement quite clear. I don't flatter myself that Williams is responding to my article, and in any event, I think it is quite evident that my position does not reduce Scripture to "one element in a merely modern landscape of conflicts." Nevertheless, I find Williams own position to be woefully inadequate in addressing some of the very real concerns that I raised about Windsor's biblical hermeneutics. Here is what I wrote in ATR:

Nevertheless, the Report pays little heed to tensions within the Bible. As Rowan Williams observes, "€œThe meaning of one portion of scriptural text is constructed in opposition to another.€"4 Scripture contains falsehoods and ideological distortions, and decent theories of interpretation allow for more historical and ideological criticism of the text.5 For example, much that Scripture asserts or implies about the relationships between women and men must be challenged.6 The Report, by contrast, insists that "questions of interpretation are rightly raised, not as an attempt to avoid or relativise scripture and its authority, but as a way of ensuring that it is really scripture that is being heard"€ (para. 59). It also asserts: "The message of scripture, as a whole and in its several parts, must be preached and taught in all possible and appropriate ways" (para. 58). Does this include the subordination of women and other forms of oppression? Denying that this is part of the essential "€œmessage"€ does not help.7 Portions of Scripture were written and canonized to marginalize women,8 and they are still so used, with deadly results. Another problem concerns the notion that God'€™s authority is "€œvested in scripture" (para. 58). This runs counter to the more cautious formulations in paragraphs 54-55, and it does not seem to permit the kind of "€œtalking back"€ that good interpretation requires.9 It is idolatrous, moreover, to assert that God'€™s authority can be "€œvested"€ in any text or creature, except in highly provisional ways. A more accurate theory of interpretation would stress the critical "conversation"€ between readers and the text.10

Footnotes

4 Rowan Williams, On Christian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 53.
5 On "€œideology criticism," see Sandra M. Schneiders, The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 120-121.
6 Patriarchy is intertwined with other forms of oppression. See Elizabeth A. Johnson, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 27.
7 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. 10th Anniversary ed. (New York: Crossroad, 1994), 14-21.
8 Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 53.
9 Letty M. Russell, Church in the Round: Feminist Interpretation of the Church (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 35-45.

It is not sufficient in my view to acknowledge the tensions present in the text, which only a strict fundamentalist ignores (and does so at the price of any academic or intellectual integrity). One must also recognize that there are ideologies present in the text which actually corrupt and destroy the liberatory thrust of the Good News (as well as of Torah, prophets, and other writings) and that these ideologies are used by Christians today, including Christians in the churches of the Anglican communion, to deadly effect. The point made by the citation from Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, which I have summarized as follows "portions of Scripture were written and canonized to marginalize women," is too important to ignore.

What I see operative in Williams' thoughts here is an emphasis on the "hermeneutics of retrieval" over the "hermeneutics of suspicion" (see the writings of David Tracy and Paul Ricoeur). He seems to fear that giving the well founded suspicions of feminists, Marxists, Freudians, queer theorists, etc. their due place within a Christian theological hermeneutics will mean giving away the store, i.e. making Scripture "one element in a merely modern landscape of conflicts." Rather, can we not insist that these suspicions arise from the heart of the Eucharistic assembly itself, as this diverse community, growing under the Spirit's influence into the fullness of Christ, seeks a faithful response to the Word of God? Until we admit that portions of our sacred text serve an anti-Kingdom, anti-Gospel agenda and were written to do so, we cannot take adequate account of the contradictory collection of writings, which I too hope to listen to, as a whole, as the record of God's mighty acts in salvation history and as the contemporary means by which God addresses human beings and calls into being a People out of nothing. The need for ideological criticism of Scripture is aptly demonstrated by feminist theologian and biblical critic Sandra Schneiders, whom no one can accuse of ignoring the theological sense of the text.

I am deeply troubled by Williams remark that "The canon is presented to us as a whole, whose unity is real and coherent, even if not superficially smooth." The book of Joshua alone, with its conquest narrative, should give us pause. So should the texts of terror discussed so well by Phyllis Trible. The Bible countenances holy war, putting captives to death by the sword, rape, and other atrocities. Williams appeals to the Shoah, the Holocaust, which we just commemorated. (At Ohio University Hillel's service for Yom HaShoah, we also remembered the victims of the Holocaust who were of African descent, physically and mentally handicapped, Roma (Gypsies), Jehovah's Witnesses, and--YES--LGBT persons). Doesn't this memory, to say nothing of the anamnesis of the crucifixion, point us in a direction where more interruptive, disruptive voices must be heard? As Thomas Aquinas once wrote, "Every truth, no matter by whom it may be spoken, comes from the Holy Spirit." The unity of the canon is the person of God whose story is told there, as well as the People whom God calls into being. But the story is filled with inconsistencies and contradictions. A superficial attempt to find coherence is at least as dangerous and unfaithful to the canon as those positions which, overwhelmed by the superficial contradictions, find no meaning or truth there. The ecclesiological corollary, which Williams seems also to ignore, is that some forms of unity are sinful. Williams apparent hostility to Enlightenment liberalism needs to be countered by voices like David Tracy's, who acknowledges the ambiguities of the Enlightenment project, without rejecting its unfulfilled emancipatory possibilities. We do not have to choose between an adequate theological hermeneutics and the critical thrust of the Enlightenment. In fact, those hermeneutics which ignore the voices of suspicion may be shown to be inadequate on strictly theological grounds.

The Bible: Reading and Hearing

Thinking Anglicans 'blog, April 17, 2007

As part of his current brief trip to Canada the Archbishop of Canterbury has given a lecture The Bible: Reading and Hearing to students at Wycliffe and Trinity theological colleges in Toronto. The full press release from Lambeth Palace is below the fold but here is the first paragraph.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan WIlliams, has told an audience of theological students that both intensely liberal and ultra conservative readings of the Bible are ‘rootless’ and are limited in what they can contribute to the life of the church. In the Larkin Stuart lecture, delivered today at an event hosted jointly by Wycliffe and Trinity theological colleges in Toronto, Dr Williams said that Christians need to reconnect with scripture as something to be listened to and heard in the context of Jesus’s invitation to the Eucharist and to work for the Kingdom.

The full text of the lecture is online here and here.

Archbishop - church needs to listen properly to the Bible

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan WIlliams, has told an audience of theological students that both intensely liberal and ultra conservative readings of the Bible are ‘rootless’ and are limited in what they can contribute to the life of the church. In the Larkin Stuart lecture, delivered today at an event hosted jointly by Wycliffe and Trinity theological colleges in Toronto, Dr Williams said that Christians need to reconnect with scripture as something to be listened to and heard in the context of Jesus’s invitation to the Eucharist and to work for the Kingdom.

“… The Church’s public use of the Bible represents the Church as defined in some important way by listening: the community when it comes together doesn’t only break bread and reflect together and intercede, it silences itself to hear something. It represents itself in that moment as a community existing in response to a word of summons or invitation, to an act of communication that requires to be heard and answered.”

This, he argues, is crucial in the way in which the communities of Christians are informed by what the Scriptures say:

“Take Scripture out of this context of the invitation to sit at table with Jesus and to be incorporated into his labour and suffering for the Kingdom, and you will be treating Scripture as either simply an inspired supernatural guide for individual conduct or a piece of detached historical record - the typical exaggerations of Biblicist and liberal approaches respectively.

“For the former, the work of the Spirit is more or less restricted to the transformation of the particular believer; for the latter, the life of the community is where the Spirit is primarily to be heard and discerned, with Scripture an illuninating adjunct at certain points."

Dr Williams says that neither isolating texts from their contexts nor dismissing them as limited by prevalent cultural understanding were helpful approaches. Quoting from St John’s Gospel, Dr Williams said that Jesus’s teaching that ‘no-one can come to the Father except by me’ (John 14 v 6 ) could not be used simply as a trump card in discussions with other faiths: the verse needed to be heard in its full biblical context as the development of the question posed by his earlier saying, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.’ (John 13 v 33).

” … This certainly does not suggest in an direct way a more inclusive approach to other faiths. But the point is that the actual question being asked is not about the fate of non-Christians; it is about how the disciples are to understand the death of Jesus as the necessary clearing of the way which they are to walk.”

Similarly, St Paul’s denunciation of homosexuality in Romans 1 v 27 also needed to be properly heard as an ancilliary point in an argument about another matter entirely. That did not diminish its force but made it harder either to discard it or to use it as a definite proof text.

“It is not helpful for a ‘liberal’ or revisionist case, since the whole point of Paul’s rhetorical gambit is that everyone in his imagined readership agrees in thinking the same sex relations of the culture around them to be as obviously immoral as idol-worship or disobedience to parents. It is not very helpful to the conervative either, though, because Paul insists on shifting the focus away from the objects of moral disapprobation in chapter 1 to the reading / hearing subject who has at this point been happily identifying with Paul’s castigation of someone else … Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding.“

Christians cannot pick and choose amongst the texts of scripture, he concluded; the whole of the Bible needed ot be understood both as inspired and inspiring - the work of the Holy Spirit:

“It is the spirit that connects the periods of God’s communicative action towards humanity and thus connects the diverse texts that make up the one manifold text that we call Holy Scripture. The Spirit’s work as ‘breathing’ God’s wisdom into the text of Scripture is not a magical process that removes bilblical writing from the realm of actual human writing; it is the work of creating one ‘movement’ out of the diverse historical narratives and textual deposits that represent Israel’s and the Church’s efforts to find words to communicate God’s communication of summons and invitation.

“The Spirit through the events of God’s initiative stirs up the words and makes sense of them for the reader/hearer in the Spirit-sustained community. As Karl Barth insisted, this leaves no ground for breaking up Scripture into the parts we can ‘approve’ as God-inspired and the parts that are merely human; the whole is human and the whole is offered by God in and through the life of the body; always shaping and determining the form of that life.“

An Uneasy Fit

Covenants and Anglicans have never gone together
by Frederick Quinn
Episcopal Life, April 10, 2007

"Covenant" is a word that recently has entered the vocabulary of Anglicans. Covenants enjoyed a brief heyday during the Continental Reformation, but never appealed to Anglicans. There is little reason why they should now.

The problem is the difficulty of reducing unresolved issues like the role of Scripture, the relationship of autonomous provinces and the place of gender and sexuality to brief statements of black-letter law. To cut off the healthy evolution of discussion with restrictive covenants now is to risk producing a document the Ghanaian philosopher Kwame Anthony Apiah described as having "the quality of those horoscopes that seem wonderfully precise while being vague enough to suit all comers."

Anglicans already have an impressive collection of carefully crafted historical statements enumerating our fundamental beliefs, including the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886, 1888; and the Baptismal Covenant in The Book of Common Prayer of 1979.

The modern idea of a church covenant originated with Heinrich Bullinger, a Swiss theologian during the Reformation. Covenants provided needed credentials for newly emerging Northern European monarchs and state churches, but Anglicans developed a distinctive way of resolving differences, as expounded in anti-covenant, anti-Puritan works like Richard Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (1593) and in the writings of Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667).

Taylor placed a high premium on Christian reasoning. He wrote, "Scripture, tradition, councils, and the fathers, are the evidence in a question, but reason is the judge." For Taylor, "The heart of reason, that vital and most sensible part ... is an ambulatory essence, and not fixed."

Additionally, proponents of religious covenants then and now never solved the central problem of God's unbounded love, given to humanity through Christ. "God loves you. Full stop," is how Desmond Tutu often puts it.

Reformation covenant writers got stuck in deciding who was saved and who was damned, assuming for themselves the self-appointed role of gatekeepers. Articles 5.5 and 5.6 of the proposed Anglican covenant set up the same exclusionary role for today's Primates.

Like its predecessors, the Tanzanian covenant of February 19, 2007, is a fatally flawed document, long, dull and tediously obvious, except for its invidious final provisions, which change the character of the historic Anglican deliberative process and turn the Primates into a judicial body. The Covenant Design Group, in Trollopian language, says the document emerged from a specific, "stressful" setting, meaning the place of gays and lesbians in the wider communion. But that matter is addressed nowhere in the document.

Four general comments highlight the document's problems:

1. Despite the "everybody wants a covenant" language introducing the document in the Anglican Communion website, nobody really wants a covenant except proponents of centralized authority.
2. Article 5 misrepresents newly named "Instruments of Communion" by changing three loosely organized, collegial consultative bodies -- the Lambeth Conference, Primates' Meeting, and Anglican Consultative Council -- into quasi-judicial agencies.
3. Article 5.5 then makes the primates judges, and Article 5.6 adds the door-slamming clause, giving primates policy and legal control over what they decide are controversial decisions of autonomous provinces, sharply changing the robust regional diversity that has been our distinctive hallmark for centuries.
4. What is amazing is, although the triggering issue for the larger dispute is sex, the proposed remedy is a power coup. How unAnglican can you get? The document should be rejected outright.

What then? At several key historical junctures, Anglicans with sharply differing viewpoints sought to make common cause through sets of issue-oriented essays. Some of the most remembered volumes include Lux Mundi (1889), Foundations (1912) and Soundings (1962).

If a set of essays was commissioned on the current issues facing the Anglican Communion -- what would the subject matter be? Obvious topics are: the religious impact of postcolonial globalization, the authority and use of Scripture, religious education, the role of bishops (including the spread of Episcopal poaching) and the place of women, homosexuals and other marginalized peoples in the church.

Such essays should be accompanied by a media educational plan using the Internet, electronic communications facilities such as Trinity Church, Wall Street, employs, and printed educational materials for global use. The articles would represent a set of markings, a roadmap rather than a final destination. They are not for a moment intended to substitute for other forms of robust non-covenantal dialogue at all levels within our broader polity.

Covenants historically were rejected by Anglicanism, as they should be today. It is time to heed the restless prodding of the Holy Spirit and move the wider church to a fuller sense of witness and mission.

-- Frederick Quinn, priest and retired senior Foreign Service Officer, worked closely with Chief Justice Warren Burger on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, as constitutional adviser to several Eastern European governments and in embassies in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. He is the author of numerous books on law, religion and history. To respond to this column, e-mail commentary@episcopal-life.org.