View this document as a PDF.

The fourth consultation among Canadian, American and African bishops took place in Cape Town South Africa from Thursday May 2^nd to Sunday May 5^th 2013. We met in the context of worship, prayer, Scripture reading and the breaking of bread.  Through the presentation of papers, continuing conversation, and growing relationships we engaged in dialogue both in sessions and over meals. We came from South Sudan, Malawi, Burundi, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Canada, Zambia and the United States. We continued the same process as in the past of inviting people from different dioceses to reflect on God’s mission in their contexts, this time using the lens of reconciliation, in accordance with Paul’s exhortation:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come:^[a] The old has gone, the new is here! ¹⁸ All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: ¹⁹ that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. ²⁰ We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. (2 Corinthians 5:17-20)

We engaged in theological  reflection on reconciliation, and we heard presentations about the reconciliation process in Burundi, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada, reconciliation in The Episcopal Church, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. We heard examples of people throughout Africa and North America intentionally seeking to meet with those from whom they differed.

We heard stories of such pain and of new life that was made possible by God’s grace mediated through compassionate ministry, that many times we were left in silence and tears. We witnessed profound hope in God’s transforming presence in even the most conflicted of situations which the world might call hopeless.

Our time in Cape Town was greatly enriched by the opportunity to visit local ministry initiatives: Fikelela Children’s Centre – part of the diocese’s HIV/AIDS ministry; the Fusion project in Manenberg – a ministry that seeks to inspire, partner with, and equip the church to see high-risk youth restored to Christ and community;  Sweet Home Farm – a broad based intervention of the church in an informal settlement of some 17,000 people where ministry includes  HIV/AIDS support, forming a church community, a Seniors club, health and welfare initiatives and a restaurant;  and The Warehouse – a ministry initiative that provides a place for support, both spiritual and physical, for poorer communities and which equips people from many churches to serve in new ways. We had heard in our theological reflection that the Christological foundation of the Church’s ministry pushes us to pragmatic actions and commitments in the real situations of conflict and division where we live. On our local visits in Cape Town we were humbled by what we saw and our hearts were full as we heard story upon story of sacrificial ministry and steadfast commitment to the work of reconciliation. Our daily eucharists were held in St. George’s Cathedral. We had the opportunity to share in Sunday worship in churches around the city and to meet local congregations. The grounding in the local situation enlivened and inspired our conversations.

We recognized that we have inherited the ministry of reconciliation from our Lord Jesus Christ; that God’s mission is not a human achievement. It is something we are called to live into and to share. We observed that the engagement in the ministry of reconciliation is a costly process because it involves facing positive and negative truths about others and about ourselves with courage, honesty and humility.

We observed that a key part of the ministry of reconciliation is about reclaiming the humanity and dignity of those who have been dehumanized in various ways. It involves the preservation of the identities of those being reconciled to one another  in Christ. It gives the powerless a voice to take up the challenge of speaking truth to power.

We observed that one of the dynamics of our group involved the history of colonization; that our present reflects the stories of both the colonized and colonizers. We talked about the dehumanizing parts of our history that fly in the face of our commitment to respect the dignity of every human being. We named many challenges in our contexts as evidence of systemic and spiritual evil in addition to identifying situations where the presence of God’s transforming grace was evident.

We recognized that the church is called to be a place of safety and refuge with an authentic ministry of reconciliation but, regrettably, the church can also be a source of victimization of others. We agreed that we need to acknowledge our part in conflicts that cause pain to people in order to become credible leaders and partners. We reflected on the statement that “To repent is to know that there is a lie in our hearts” of St. John of Kronstadt. We noted the importance of the church’s public apologies and of its participation in healing processes. We shared examples from the South African and Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRC), the reconciliation processes in Burundi, South Sudan and the situation in Kenya following the post-election violence in 2007.

We realized that it is only in speaking the truth in love to each other that we can understand each other’s contexts. We believe that this helps to reduce prejudice and misunderstandings. There can be no reconciliation without truth.

We heard of situations of such conflict that people were afraid to ‘pray with their eyes closed’. We were challenged to transform that phrase so that we could ‘pray with our eyes open’ – not out of fear, but because of a courageous willingness to face the truth. We discussed the role of the Church (as an ecumenical body) in reconciliation and the unique role of the Anglican Communion as a linking factor in many places. We acknowledged that this work of embracing reconciliation continues to be a work in progress within our communion.

We see our dialogue as having grown out of the recommendations of Lambeth 2008 and we believe that our work is important in building towards Lambeth 2018. We committed ourselves to share our learnings from these dialogues with the bishops and dioceses in our provinces and with others we meet. We would encourage similar dialogues across the Communion, dialogues that grow organically with emerging agendas as a way to develop understanding, build trust and foster reconciliation. These may be small regional gatherings. We suggest that such dialogues include opportunities to visit and learn from the ministries of the local church.

We observed that sin infects systems as well as individuals. We reflected on the church’s responsibility to help people to see when the truth has become distorted and to speak out against systemic evil that leads to disrespecting the dignity of human beings which inhibits the proclamation of the gospel in every culture. We noted that the witness of the church is to stand beside people as they tell their stories as well as to listen to their stories with compassionate hearts.

We discovered in each of our contexts that the Church has a unique role in proclaiming and embodying a positive vision of the future.  We have found that God has planted the seeds of our positive future in our past.

We started a discussion on how we can be part of the reconciliation of the refugees and outcasts in our midst. We were challenged to consider the role of the Church to engage with the Diaspora of one another’s community, so that the ministry of reconciliation can continue and that these people  may be resources to their own homelands for peace rather than the perpetuation of conflict.

We acknowledged that none of us has exclusive ownership of the truth. We understand that when all our stories are told we come to a fuller understanding of the truth. This meeting has confirmed the relational nature of the church and the understanding that all of us bring only a piece of the truth. We affirm once again that dialogue is essential to exploring the nature of theological truth that looks at what God is constantly revealing.

Our meeting in Cape Town had an added depth to it because we were all aware of the enormous work of reconciliation in South Africa following the time of Apartheid. We were blessed by the presence of Mary Burton, former Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) commissioner in South Africa. Hearing the stories of that time and watching footage of the TRC hearing, reminded us as a group that it is in the sharing of the stories of reconciliation by our global brothers and sisters that we are encouraged to pursue all that works for good (Romans 8:28).

We resonated with Mary Burton’s advice to us to ‘be mindful of the degree of hurt that so many people have, and to make provision for those hurts to be heard’. When stories remain untold disintegration follows. This is both an ongoing challenge and opportunity for the Church.  In all our relationships we should try to be peace seekers.

We were also blessed and encouraged by the presence of Canon David Porter, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Director of Reconciliation. Canon Porter observed that Anglicans sometimes have “bad” fights, but need to learn how to have “good” ones, because there will always be points of conflict in our relationships. This gathering has had all the hallmarks of what good conversation should look like. Because we are all in Christ, we belong together.

We agreed that reconciliation is a gift of the Holy Spirit and only by the Grace of God are we reconciled.

We leave Cape Town with great hope. We have heard testimony of new life arising out of the most difficult circumstances and of Christ’s power of reconciliation healing the most tragic situations. We feel encouraged and empowered in our ministry and in our mission.

We extend our thanks to Bishop Garth Counsell and his local organising committee for their hard work and Marion Counsell for hosting us on Sunday evening. We thank Archbishop Thabo Makgoba for his hospitality in welcoming us to Bishopscourt and we extend our thanks to the members of the diocese of Cape Town for the warmth of their welcome. We thank the Rev’d Eileen Scully, although unable to join us, for preparing the handbook we used for worship. To the Rev’d Canon Isaac Kawuki-Mukasa who coordinated our meeting and provided wonderful support, we offer our sincere gratitude.

Cape Town, South Africa, May 5, 2013

1. The Rt. Rev’d Jane Alexander – Diocese of Edmonton, Canada
2. The Rt. Rev’d Johannes Angela  – Diocese of Bondo, Kenya
3. The Rt. Rev’d Michael Bird – Diocese of Niagara, Canada
4.  The Rt. Rev’d John Chapman – Diocese of Ottawa Canada
5. The Rt. Rev’d Garth Counsell – Diocese of Cape Town, South Africa
6. The Rt. Rev’d Michael Ingham – Diocese of New Westminster, Canada
7. The Most Rev’d Colin Johnson – Diocese of Toronto & Metropolitan of Ontario
8. The Rt. Rev’d Julius Kalu – Diocese of Mombasa, Kenya
9. The Rt. Rev’d Mark MacDonald – National Indigenous Anglican Bishop, Canada
10. The Rt. Rev’d Sixbert Macumi – Diocese of Buye, Burundi
11. The Rt. Rev’d David Njovu – Diocese of Lusaka, Zambia
12. The Rt. Rev’d Robert O’Neill – Diocese of Colorado, USA
13. The Rt. Rev’d Michael Oulton – Diocese of Ontario, Canada
14. The Rt. Rev’d Anthony Poggo – Diocese of Kajo Keji, South Sudan
15. The Most Rev’d Daniel Sarfo – Diocese of Kumasi, Ghana
16. The Rt. Rev’d Stacy Sauls – Chief Operating Officer, The Episcopal Church
17. The Rt. Rev’d James Tengatenga – Diocese of Southern Malawi, Malawi
18. The Rt. Rev’d. Joseph Wasonga – Diocese of Maseno West, Kenya

Observer:

Canon David Porter – The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Director on Reconciliation

Staff:

The Rev’d Canon Isaac Kawuki-Mukasa – Anglican Church of Canada

Disputes across the Anglican Communion concerning human sexuality have proved profoundly intractable and have threatened the very fabric of the communion. A number of initiatives have been taken to address both the ethical issues that divide us, and the experience of division. These initiatives include, amongst others, the Indaba processes adopted by Lambeth 2008, the continuing Indaba, the work of the Lambeth Commission on the Communion and the follow up work to its report, The Windsor Report, the work on the Anglican Covenant. A less widely publicized initiative was the Consultation of Bishops in Dialogue, which first met at the Anglican Communion Office in 2010, and has since met in Dar es Salaam (2011), Toronto (2012), and is planning to meet again in Cape Town (2013).

The Faith Worship and Ministry Committee is tasked with providing resources to support moral discernment and difficult ethical debates. In reflecting on how we might do this we came the conclusion that the work of Bishops’ Dialogue might offer one such resource. It seems to us that it offers valuable insights into the sorts of conversations that are helpful in the face of grave and potentially church dividing differences of theological conviction, moral insight, and pastoral practice. The following document is therefore designed to be a companion piece to the interviews posted on the Anglican Church of Canada’s website to encourage deeper reflection on the learnings of the Bishops’ Dialogue and stimulate further reflection on the types of discussion most likely to contribute to healthy and theologically robust ways of addressing difference in the life of the church.

TRUST

The first and most obvious learning from the Dialogue is the importance of trust. No truly helpful ethical conversation in the life of the church can take place without it. In the case of the Dialogue the issue of trust appears both in the prior relationships within which the Dialogue was conceived and in the experience of nervous anxiety in those who were meeting their dialogue partners for the first time. It is also present in the experience reported in several of the interviews of the ways in which the dialogue was enriched as the trust grew. The enhanced trust grew out of the realization that all participants in the group were serious about their mission and ministry, that they all shared a sense of calling to mission in their particular context and were trying to be faithful to that call. It also grew as the participants realized that each of them was committed to finding ways to continue to move forward in communion with each other. This growing trust made possible ever increasing frankness as the discussions unfolded.

Communication

This leads to the second important factor in the success of the conversations and that is the importance of communication. Several of the participants reported their surprise as they gained new understanding of the missional contexts and motives of their dialogue partners. One of the participants noted that his perspective shifted as he realized that North American bishops had not been acting out of “defiance”, but rather out of a sense of the context for mission in which he served. Further, one North American bishop indicated that he had not foreseen the profundity of the impact of the actions of his diocese and would have been prepared to wait had he understood the impact of his actions in other contexts.

Attention to Context

Attention to context has been a critical element of the conversations in the dialogue and from the interviews seems to have had two results. In the first place attention to context has enabled the bishops to understand the differences that have emerged across the communion in a new way. One African bishop noted that difference was important even within the African context. What is acceptable in one culture is not acceptable in another. There is no one size fits all solution. This fits well with the profoundly incarnational character of Anglican self-understanding. The Church in Anglican thought is to reflect its character as part of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church by the way it adapts itself appropriately to its missional context. This commitment reaches back to the establishment and defense of the English Church in the Elizabethan era and is reflected in the Thirty Nine Articles.

It is not necessary that the Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. (Article XXXIV)

At the same time we need to recognize that in our globalized context this experience of diversity can be increasingly challenging.

However, the focus on context in the Dialogue drew attention not just to difference, but also to commonality. While different churches have different liturgies, different pastoral practices, and even different moral commitments, the bishops began to recognize the degree to which all of these things are a reflection of a common commitment to mission refracted through the different contexts within which that mission is carried out. Part of what is at stake here is the recognition that the task of proclaiming the “faith once delivered to the saints” is an interpretive one. What does grace look like in this context. How does the church express the unchanging love of God in the changing realities of our social, cultural, and historical contexts? This recognition in the past has led to the realization that the church needs to be always reforming and always being reformed (reformata, semper reformanda). In the context of a global, interconnected communion we are being drawn to the recognition that this is going to involve diversity of practice across the communion and that this diversity is going to be uncomfortable. Yet the bishops suggest that this diversity is not something to be solved, but as far as possible something to be understood in the light of our commonalities in terms of mission and tradition, and in the light of the bonds of affection that join us and make us accountable to each other.

Understanding Motives

The conversation concerning commonalities and diversities in context led the bishops to recognize that the motives for action were not always those that get imputed in the heat of profound disagreement. Disagreement gives rise to mistrust and anxiety. The bishops reported that the dialogue offered a chance to re-evaluate such imputed motives. This observation links back to the earlier insights on the importance of trust as well as the comments on the question of context. In fact the motives for action are rarely simple or linear. We act because of the ways in which we respond to multiple pressures and resolve competing values. If moral debate is reduced to assertion and counter assertion this is all too easily lost. The complexity of our moral commitments as individuals and as communities is only really disclosed in relationship.

Commitment to Relationship

Statements about the importance of relationship for transforming moral conflict can be found in all of the interviews. References are made to the transformational character of encounter. When we are brought face to face with the other our understanding of them and of their actions is bound to change. Encounter undermines mistrust, and stereotyping. However such transformational relationships also involve as several bishops noted a commitment to the long haul. Only by being committed to being in relationship with each other over the long haul can we overcome the barriers to relationship and create the space for mutual understanding in ways that will inform our theological moral and pastoral debates and make them productive.

There were interesting observations about both formal and informal structures and how they support relationships involving genuine encounter. There was criticism of the debate formats particularly of the 1998 Lambeth Conference. There were observations about the inadequacy, even dysfunction, of the (relatively young) instruments of communion. Others were more hopeful about the capacities and effectiveness of formal structures. All agreed that they needed to be supplemented with informal structures. In the words of one bishop we need to be at table together, not just the Eucharist. Several bishops referred to the importance of sidebar conversations even at formal gatherings and indeed it was suggested that the dialogue grew out of such informal networks at Lambeth in 2008. Encounter and sustainable relationship in the midst of conflict require both formal and informal opportunities to build understanding and trust and reduce tension and conflict.

At the same time we need to remember that our relationships are shaped by our past histories with all their light and shade. One bishop came away from the Dar es Salaam gathering deeply aware of the stain of colonialism and slavery on the relationship between the churches of North America and the churches of Africa. In speaking of the relationships across the communion to the present another bishop noted what he saw as the unhelpfulness of the myth of a once unified Communion. Certainly we are now a Communion more conscious of our differences than we have ever been, but has the Communion ever been unified to the extent that some imply. As one bishop noted Christianity itself has been messy since its beginnings as can be seen in the differences between the Pauline and Petrine streams of Christianity. This raises the question of what needs to be resolved and what simply needs to be understood and accepted as part of the diversity embraced in God’s work of creation and redemption.

Focus on Understanding not Action

Another insight, which brought varied reaction from the bishops, was the need to focus on understanding rather than on decision or action. For some this was a source of frustration, but all recognized that it reflected an important moment in the history of the Communion and in the possibility of relationships across a Communion that ministers across such diverse cultural contexts. As one bishop put it, this is a Mary moment. Perhaps all of us need to remember that Jesus called this the better part. Another bishop noted that the attempt to impose action at the 1998 Lambeth conference had not resolved anything but merely added to the tensions. This observation would raise questions about what sorts of actions are helpful. As a historical observation the most constructive Lambeth motions are those that reflected an already emerged consensus rather than those that reflected an anxiety about the lack of consensus across the Communion. This would suggest that approaches less oppositional than resolution and debate might be the most constructive way of dealing with difficult conversations.

Debate v. Dialogue

An underlying theme of the interviews is a distinction between debate and dialogue as two different ways of proceeding in conflicted situations. The bishops constantly refer to the Dialogue as just that, and several contrast it with debate with its winners and losers. There is little attempt to reflect systematically on the difference between debate and dialogue in the interviews but we might observe several ways in which we might understand the difference. These distinctions should not be understood as simple oppositions but rather as differences of emphasis between two sets of discursive practices both of which are related to truth and both of which seek to disclose truth.

• Debate emphasizes content. It is about distinguishing correct assertion from incorrect and excluding the latter. Dialogue emphasizes relationship. It is open to the possibility that apparent differences of content are really differences of language and perspective. It is open to the possibility that different approaches can co-exist if justified by the different missional contexts within which the gospel is proclaimed and lived. This is not to deny the importance of content. Content without context is abstract, but context without content lacks integrity.
• Debate focuses on correctness. It is linked to an understanding of truth that sees truth as the correspondence between assertion and some external standard to which it must conform. Dialogue focuses on Insight and recognizes that there is an interpretive element to truth claims. It recognizes that the way we see the truth is shaped by our context. This is not some form of relativism. It is a recognition that there is no view from nowhere and that perspectives are an ineradicable element in the way we understand and interpret the cultural and social expression of the gospel.
• Debate focuses attention on points of difference. This is why the history of ethics is a history of what Alasdair Macintyre calls an interminable debate between positions that are essentially irresolvable in their own terms. Dialogue focuses on points of connection. It recognizes that any real disagreement requires some underlying agreements and also that some apparent disagreements are only that and can be resolved once we understand the commonalities that lie behind our apparently different positions.
• The purpose of dialogue is to understand and appreciate the positions of others not to change or correct them, which is the implied end of debate.
• Debate focuses on facts. Dialogue focuses on meanings. In the area of theological and moral conversation both are important but the bishops discoveries in dialogue suggest that the latter are more often the source of difference and that dialogue is therefore more likely to be more fruitful.
• The purpose of debate is to reach closure, to bring an end to difference and to choose resolution that will be agreed by all rational parties. Dialogue does not presume that this outcome is always possible but seeks to hold the space of conversation open as long as is necessary and possible.

All of this raises the question as to the types of discourse that are appropriate to different types of disagreement in different contexts. Given the observations above, I would suggest that debate is rarely helpful as a mode of discourse in difficult conversations in cross-cultural contexts. This means that dialogue is generally a more helpful form of discourse for communion level conversations. This reflects the experience of bishops in the Dialogue and of those who have participated in Indaba and continuing Indaba processes.

Debate does provide the sorts of clarity that are important in policy formation within particular jurisdictions, for example within provinces and dioceses. Even where debate might be helpful for decision, complex and divisive issues might be well served by use of more dialogical methods to deepen mutual understanding and uncover unexpected common ground prior to moving to parliamentary process and debate. Such a two-pronged approach can help to prepare the way for decision-making processes that are much less divisive and destructive of community. A recent example of such a process would be the process that led to the Discernment on Sexuality at the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada in 2010. After years of often rancorous and divisive debate a dialogical process allowed the synod to adopt a significant statement with overwhelming support in the synod.

The Consultation of Bishops in Dialogue is an attempt to rethink the way we engage in discussion with each other in the midst of difficult and potentially divisive conversations. This brief reflection clearly intends to commend the process. At the same time we need to recognize that the models of conversation it offers are extremely demanding process and that there are certain preconditions before such a conversation can even get underway. Rigorous and disciplined dialogue is not for the faint of heart.  It demands that we not only understand the other better but also that we are willing to learn to understand ourselves better. It also demands a capacity to live in the midst of complexity and diversity that not all find comfortable. Yet as one bishop said, in truth, this has been the character of Christianity since its origins. The coexistence of unity within diversity has been a characteristic of Anglicanism since its origins within the ambiguities of the Elizabethan Settlement, and as a practice of the wider church catholic goes back much further. It is surely once consequence of Cyprian’s insistence on “liberty within the bonds of affection.”

This document is also available as a PDF.

“During my 14 years as Liturgical Officer of The United Church of Canada, and in the 11 years of my being a seminary professor, one of the principal joys of my ministry has been to sit, walk and talk with ecumenical partners, and work towards meaningful unity within the Christian faith.

A highlight of the whole experience has been to serve as a delegate to the Consultation on Common Texts, an ecumenical organization of over 20 communions in the USA and Canada, meeting regularly to discern ways in which texts could strengthen faith and promote unity. The ecumenical Lord’s Prayer is one of the outcomes. The Revised Common Lectionary, now in its 21^st year, was another labour of love of the Consultation, a living testament to our common story. Its first model was the Ordo Lectionum Missae, 1969, imitated and enhanced (we think!) in the RCL.These undertakings involved many words, but ultimately the goal was to bring the Living Word to all God’s people.

We are met today under the Word. Latin, Verbum. It is interesting to note that, of several French words for “word”, one” is “la verbe.” In the French language that also can mean verb.…we might speculate that core meaning is to be found in verbs.

We all know from personal experience that the choice of verb can nuance good tidings and bad. Nouns are important, but the verb shapes the result, and alters meaning. In Micah 6:8 we find strong and multi-layered words and verbs. *

The Hebrew verb darash in translation is very loosely “require.” As many of you know, it contains undertones of affection and mutual dependency, as in “a flower requires rain and sun.” There is also a sense of seeking, as when a woman seeks a coin, or the shepherd a sheep. The object is required ~ mutually.

When God requires justice, then, it is not a requirement in a demanding sense, rather God is putting forth the fundamental need for justice-making, and the essential quality of fostering justice. God calls for our participation, because we need and require it; God needs and requires it.

Then we come to the word mishpat. We might leap to translate it as fairness, or punishing evil. But the Hebrew goes further. It includes the sort of justice in society where the needy ones are lifted up, an extension of God’s plan to build a rich, deep, and kind community.

Though we know little about Micah, we discern that he was writing at a time when Judah was quite prosperous, even though, unhappily, wealth was less than evenly distributed. He is tackling the social injustices that became so obvious to him. His sensitivity to the regrettable situation in small towns and villages is palpable.He admonishes the people to re-turn to God and God’s plans for rich, deep, and kindly community. A mutually caring society.

In this week of prayer for Christian Unity, we are reminded (in the words of the“Testament of Cardinal Mercier”) that in order to unite with one another, we “are required” to love one another; in order to love one another, we “are required” to know one another;
in order to know one another,
we “are required” to take the risk of going to meet the other.
God’s plan depends on these actions, these verbs.
The action (verb) produces the goal: God’s kingdom.

In 1 Corinthians 1 we read:
“In union with Christ you have become rich in all things…you have not failed to receive a single blessing,”
Paul was also irritated, this time at the Corinthians about their neglect of poorer members of the community. Like an advertising agency, Paul is using positive rhetoric. Certainly, the positive approach has merit. We may be weak and broken, and often at fault, but the gospel affirms our potential rather than our flawed past.

Putting an ecumenical lens upon our ministries, what can we say positively about the way we “verb” justice, mercy, and humility?

In 2013, we face many divisions in the world-wide church, denominational and personal, yet we all care deeply about all the children of light and the will of God. We keep on talking and hoping, believing in the power of the Spirit. In Paul’s own words: we press on towards the goal.

It is in this spirit that the work of the ecumenical community which has been at the core of my being for 25 years has attempted to shape the liturgy, the work of all the people. Inspired by the documents of the Second Vatican Council fifty years ago this year, 20 denominations in North America have been meeting faithfully to forge common ways of “saying” justice, building common Christian values in liturgical language, and in all humility, respecting the nuances of the language of the other, so that the value of unity is visible and audible.

Not only in today’s special observance in this holy space, but in every repetition of the Prayer of Jesus, “your kingdom come” is our prayer, so that we might DO justice, we might LOVE kindness, and we might strive to cultivate openness and humility in pursuing the good of all creation, ~ God’s creation ~ for the glory of God and the benefit of all creatures.

May it be so.

*Acknowledgement

Source notes from The Rev. James C. Howell: “Unpacking the message of Micah 6:8”

The devotions follow the shared gospels for the Sundays and are appropriate for both groups or individuals.

Read an introductory letter from leaders of the four churches: Anglican Church of Canada, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Episcopal Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

• Download all devotions in black and white
• Download all devotions in colour

Download individual devotions:

• Epiphany 1, Feast of Epiphany, Jan. 6, 2013: black and white / colour
  
• The Baptism of Our Lord, Jan. 13, 2013: black and white / colour
  
• Epiphany 2, Jan. 20, 2013: black and white / colour
  
• Epiphany 3, Jan. 27, 2013: black and white / colour
  
• Epiphany 4, Feb. 3, 2013: black and white / colour
  
• Feast of the Transfiguration, Feb. 10, 2013: black and white / colour

My little but revolutionary resolution about increasing the numbers of lay people in all the committees, task forces etc. of the ACC got a lot of support too and was passed. Felt good to put before the meeting what I thought lay people could truly contribute, especially in areas where they had no obvious or credentialled expertise.

The other resolutions went well, and the rough patch of yesterday that occurred during the discussion about furthering Continuing Indaba got patched up superbly by a small group, through the addition of a resolution outlining the purposes of Indaba which included its capacity to till the soil for conflict solutions. That made all very contented. Someone said that the realization that a mistake was made in not completing the debate, and then addressing the gap with a new expression of what people had been saying, was an extremely positive response. It was ranked one of the high points for the whole meeting by our reflection group.

Other high points that people mentioned in my group:

Creative Bible studies

Immersion in the cultures of this nation

The Reflection Groups

The potential seen in the Continuing  Indaba

There were low points too…we saw that there still needs to be work on how we address resolutions. Some felt that the worship, while superbly done, often omitted references to Christ who should have been at the centre. And there were still those who felt that the main issues at the core of the Communion had not been addressed at all. My sense about the latter is that they were…the central issues I see as having work done on them were on how we read the Bible differently, and how we share or don’t share power. We travelled with both these topics a considerable distance, and to me they are the undergirdings of further developing our relationships as communion.

What was good was that varying views were at the table, people did not leave in a huff, relationships were built and the “oneness” we are hoping for and called to came closer. I leave very hopeful about the Communion, although there will still be some tough discussions left to have. My hope is that we will somehow see that one defining answer is not always or even frequently the way to Communion. To autocracy, yes. But not the way we are called by God to live.

We finished up last night with a concluding service that was a top-notch liturgy, incense galore (just great for those with the Protestant allergy!), an excellent sermon from James Tengatenga on the family of the saints we are all part of, Mozart mass setting, thunderous organ…and a formal thank you to us for coming and to the Archbishop of Canterbury for his extraordinary leadership. Some weepy moments as we realized that it was not only the end of the meeting, but the last time we would be blessed with Rowan’s presence in this role. A touch of fun at the end, though. As we were leaving, the fire alarm of the cathedral started to ring loudly. And, after a few of us joking about the obvious source of the smoke being the plethora of incense, it became rather obvious that there was indeed a fire, so we evacuated quickly. It turned out not to be anything but a garbage bin on fire, but it looked very threatening, and made the ending of our work look quite edgy. It would have been a terrible shame to have this marvelous cathedral damaged in any way. We hear that the Bishop is a volunteer fire fighter, so they are in good hands.

Then off to a joyous farewell dinner, honouring those who made this meeting possible. I would guess over 150 volunteers were behind the very successful arrangements. We have had hordes of extremely helpful stewards to guide us directionally and to help us with virtually any challenge, from copying a document to finding a dentist. Each day, volunteers from individual parishes provided the tea breaks…it was like having an extravagant tea at a church bazaar multiplied by 50 every day…hard to resist. Drivers met us at the airport, and offered drives between the hotel and the cathedral daily. We had security guards for stuff at the cathedral. As a volunteer administrator, I’ve been blown away by the not-at-all obvious but hugely skilled organization. We have been well served. Having as a chair of local arrangements the previous Chair of ACC, Bishop John Paterson, has obviously helped.

This morning I indulged in a two- hour breakfast, sitting with group after group of people, none of us wanting to say goodbye.

I leave with deep sadness at those I will not see again for several years, although we have various ways established now to keep in touch. But then there are others whom we may not meet again. The world is very large, and travelling is not easy or inexpensive. The people here are treasures, and we have developed a love for each other that will sustain even that distance.

I’ve enjoyed writing these blogs, and keeping you in touch with many of the things that have captured my attention. I am aware, though, that the real impact of ACC-15 will come when I’m home, a bit more rested, and the memories can be sifted into some sense of order. Stories, peoples’ stories, compiled, make the Anglican Communion a true communion, way bigger than any divisive issues. Watch for the way the Holy Spirit moves in the ACC and through the ACC in the years to come!

Au revoir!

It has been an honour to serve as the Episcopal member of the ACC from Canada. I have had amazing opportunities to visit distant parts of the Communion and meet brothers and sister in Christ. I have been challenged to respond to what people think is happening in Canada.  I have had opportunities to see the Anglican Church on 4 continents.   I pray that the next bishop from Canada to the ACC may experience not only the challenge but also the joy of this opportunity!

We finished the resolutions this morning. We do not have a sixth Mark of Mission, but we have a revised number 4. “To seek to transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind, and to pursue peace and reconciliation.” So the work on peace and reconciliation goes forward.

Reflection groups spent time identifying what they would take home from this meeting. Everyone in our group identified the hospitality of Province of Aotearoa New Zealand, the relationships built, the Bible Studies, the work of the Networks, the work on the instruments of communion. When asked for a headline it was “The Anglican Communion is alive and moving God`s mission forward!”

Resolutions of thanks and the doxology finished up the morning. Now we have to try to recycle some of the paper so our luggage will not be overweight! I am going off to visit the Mission to Seafarers tomorrow morning before we head for the airport and the journey home.

A newly articulated fourth mark of mission was adopted today by the Anglican Consultative Council affirming a resolution proposed by Bishop Sue Moxley after years of consultation within the Canadian church and the communion. Rather than add a sixth mark, as originally proposed, members of the Council discerned that it would be wiser to add the values of challenging violence and pursuing peace and reconciliation to the already existing 4th mark. Personally I welcomed this move—I feared a ‘slippery slope’ of adding more marks of mission, and given that our church in Canada has already embraced the 5 marks of mission, it will be better to expand #4 rather than adding a new one. Most importantly language challenging violence and pursuing peace and reconciliation now clearly express the deepest values of how this Anglican Communion seeks to express our work together in God’s mission.

Another resolution affirmed the work and report of the Theological Education Commission chaired by Archbishop Colin Johnson. It’s been so very affirming to see how deeply involved the members of the Canadian Church are in the life and work of the Communion worldwide.

So the meeting is now formally concluded: all that remains is a closing Eucharist and banquet this evening. Before adjourning the Council gave an extended standing ovation to support a resolution thanking Archbishop Rowan Williams for his leadership of the communion over this past decade. With characteristic humour and humility he asked that his ‘abstention’ be noted.

For me, there are 5 primary themes growing out of this meeting of the ACC:

1. The Instruments of Communion (Archbishop of Canterbury, Anglican Consultative Council, Lambeth Conference and Primates’ Meeting) and the proposed Anglican Covenant are very much ‘works in progress’—and all are ably assisted by the continuing process of indaba—the intentional listening to one another.
2. The Bible in the Life of the Church resources provide a valuable tool for the churches of the communion as we seek to engage with scripture seriously but not literally.
3. Gender based violence is very much a subject within the communion: as a Council we passed clear resolutions that call for action and witness against gender based violence. In addition, a Code of Conduct is now part of the life of the Communion in our meetings, as is a Charter for the Safety of People within the Churches of the Anglican Communion to ensure that the church is a safe space and advocates for safety in the world for vulnerable people.
4. Environmental concerns are of paramount concern: in many parts of the Communion people are already deeply affected by climate change. The Council spent considerable time exploring the interrelationships between issues of food, water and energy.
5. The multi-faith reality of this postmodern world was acknowledged and resources calling for respectful dialogue were studied and adopted.

There were many other important matters discussed and debated, but in my view, the legacy of this meeting will be the irenic tone of the gathering. Inspired by all creative way that our hosts in this Province of Aotearoa embrace and celebrate cultural and linguistic distinctiveness through the encounters with each other I sensed a deep desire to stay in communion, despite differences and celebrate the unity that is a gift of God the Holy Spirit.

It’s been a deep privilege to represent the Anglican Church of Canada here in Auckland at ACC 15. I look forward to further reflections and opportunities to share this experience and find ways for our church to embrace its spirit and many of its resolutions.

We were back to work on Tuesday morning with a 7am meeting of the 6 of us who have served as the Reflection Group facilitators. Over the past days these groups have been asked to provide input and feedback to the group called IASCUFO (Inter Anglican Standing Committee on Unity, Faith and Order). That committee brought to this meeting a large report including parts on ecumenical relationships, the progress of discussions on the proposed Anglican Covenant, and a discussion paper on the “Instruments of Communion” (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ meeting). Our feedback to the Council has been well reported by ACNS.

We then moved to the work called “Continuing Indaba” in which Canada has been a participant. These have been groups of 3 dioceses from a variety of places in the Communion who have continued to meet following the Lambeth Conference for the purpose of learning more about each other, building relationships of trust and honesty and finding common ground in the face of differences. The reports of these have been very encouraging. In our small group I also had opportunity to talk about how we used our variety of Indaba, the listening circle, at our General Synod in 2010.

We worked away at resolutions through the day. The variety of different “Rules of Order” around the Communion and in this meeting certainly adds to the confusion when it comes to moving and discussing resolutions. We also elected the new Standing Committee for the ACC to move into the next three years. We are part of the North America region and we will be represented by Bishop Ian Douglas of TEC.  Since 6 of the 7 members were elected, it will be a new Standing Committee for a new Archbishop!

This evening was the final public event and it focused on “Christian Witness in a Multi Religious World”. A series of speakers from very different contexts talked about how they are being faithful to the responsibility “To proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ” in a world where Christianity is no longer the primary or dominant religion. The last 15 minutes , Archbishop Rowan gave his own views on what we can faithfully proclaim while respecting the rights of others to differ/ I hope it was recorded for podcast!