IASCUFO communiqué

First of all, there has got to be a shorter name for this commission so it does not have such a long and bizarre acronym.

In the name of the Holy Trinity and grateful for the gracious guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order met in Seoul, Republic of Korea 2 to 9 December 2011.

In preparation for the forthcoming meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC-15) in 2012, the Commission devoted its third meeting to consolidating its work in the five areas initially identified as falling within its remit in 2009.

These areas of work involve:

1. reflecting critically on the Instruments of Communion and the relationships among them. Our discussions continue to develop the potential of these in the wider contexts of Anglican and ecumenical ecclesiological reflection;

2. studying the definition and recognition of churches;

3. providing a variety of materials to assist in the reception of the Anglican Communion Covenant. The guide which we produced during the past year is being augmented by a short video presentation which will be made available from the Anglican Communion website;

4. assisting the Communion in its engagement with the complex processes involved in reception. This includes receiving from one another and embracing the fruits of ecumenical dialogue and of Anglican theological reflection at all levels in the Communion. In our work as a Commission, we have become increasingly and acutely aware of the importance of this task in the life of our churches;

5. considering the question of transitivity, that is, the way in which regional ecumenical agreements between churches which are members of different global communions in one geographical area affect or extend to other parts of the Communions;

Aware of our mandate to promote the deepening of communion between the churches of the Anglican Communion, we emphasised the importance of being a fully representative group, and we greatly regret that some of our members were not present. We re-affirmed the significance of the Anglican Communion Covenant for strengthening our common life.

[...]

They just keep hammering away at why the Anglican Communion needs this so-called covenant... this thing at which the Virginia Report hinted, then the Windsor Report, both of which dreamed of finding a way to rein in the wayward ones. Horrifyingly enough, even though these reports never were accepted by the General Convention, their ideas have gained far too much credibility and traction.

I feel as though this covenant is a hydra: every time we stamp it down, it grows another head.

What sort of an Advent message is this?

From the Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent message (snipped from ENS):

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has used his Advent letter to the Primates of the Anglican Communion and moderators of the United Churches to reiterate that the "Communion matters" to its members across the world and to the mission of God.

"The communion is a gift, not a problem to all such people and many more. Only in such a mutually supportive family, glorifying and praising God in Christ together, can we truly make known the one Christ."

So far, so good.

The Archbishop's letter acknowledged the "numerous tensions" in the communion, but cautioned communion members never to say "I have no need of you" to anyone seeking to serve Jesus Christ. He also used the letter to appeal for "more careful and dispassionate discussion" on such issues as the powers of Primates' meetings as well as calling for "a sustained willingness on the part of all provinces to understand the different ways in which each local part of the Anglican family organizes its life."

Williams also commended the Anglican Communion Covenant "as strongly as I can," stressing that it would neither change the structure of the Communion nor give "some sort of absolute power of 'excommunication' to some undemocratic or unrepresentative body."

"It outlines a procedure, such as we urgently need, for attempting reconciliation and for indicating the sorts of consequences that might result from a failure to be fully reconciled," he said. "It alters no Province's constitution, as it has no canonical force independent of the life of the Provinces. It does not create some unaccountable and remote new authority but seeks to identify a representative group that might exercise a crucial advisory function." (1, see below)

He said the fact that the moratoria were being "increasingly ignored" was deepening mistrust "which is bad for our mission together as Anglicans, and alongside other Christians as well. The question remains: if the moratoria are ignored and the Covenant suspected, what are the means by which we maintain some theological coherence as a communion and some personal respect and understanding as a fellowship of people seeking to serve Christ?"

Out of 13 paragraphs, only paragraph 9 comes close to speaking to the mystery of Advent, the child in the crib whose gaze looks to the heavens.

I can't say that this letter is one I would hold up as particularly inspiring in regards to Advent.

+

The letter states (direct quote):

(1) 7. This of course relates also to the continuing discussion of the Anglican Covenant. How it is discussed, the timescale of discussion and the means by which decisions are reached will vary a lot from Province to Province. We hope to see a full report of progress at next year's Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) meeting. In spite of many assurances, some Anglicans evidently still think that the Covenant changes the structure of our Communion or that it gives some sort of absolute power of 'excommunication' to some undemocratic or unrepresentative body. With all respect to those who have raised these concerns, I must repeat that I do not see the Covenant in this light at all. It sets out an understanding of our common life and common faith and in the light of that proposes making a mutual promise to consult and attend to each other, freely undertaken. It recognizes that not doing this damages our relations profoundly. It outlines a procedure, such as we urgently need, for attempting reconciliation and for indicating the sorts of consequences that might result from a failure to be fully reconciled. It alters no Province's constitution, as it has no canonical force independent of the life of the Provinces. It does not create some unaccountable and remote new authority but seeks to identify a representative group that might exercise a crucial advisory function. I continue to ask what alternatives there are if we want to agree on ways of limiting damage, managing conflict and facing with honesty the actual effects of greater disunity. In the absence of such alternatives, I must continue to commend the Covenant as strongly as I can to all who are considering its future.

[end quote]

Obviously our Constitution and Canons does not seem to apply here. I don't know where he gets the idea that a province's constitution will not be altered. And I don't know why one should be speaking of 'damage.' All depends in the eyes of the beholder, methinks.

Another rhetorical question

Why is it that, after so much banging the drum and getting on the case of the Executive Council Task Force D020 that is tracking the progress of the Anglican Covenant to release the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canon's report on said document and impugning the motives of members of the task force for not having done so immediately, there has been almost virtual silence about the contents of the SCCC report?

For the amount of sturm und drang and angst about this report not being made public, I would have expected some chatter about the implications contained in said report — which are considerable. Instead... the blogosphere has moved onto the next investigation.

Just musing.

Herein lies a problem

From the NYT report on the Church of England's vote on the 'Anglican Covenant':

'Bishop Michael Perham of Gloucester also had reservations, but said he was voting in favor partly out of loyalty to Williams.'

So in being loyal to Archbishop Williams, these bishops (I figure white and, of course, male because the CoE won't allow women to be bishops yet) are going to chuck aside all notion of Anglican compromise, the Via Media, which has worked well for five centuries. As we know, the GAFCON (just typed GAGCON which is not too far off the mark) crowd has already rejected the 'covenant.'

Frankly, if The Episcopal Church is shunted off to a second-tier status, we may be more free — free to proclaim the gospel of radical hospitality that Jesus proclaimed, not a narrow, literalistic and legalistic reading of the biblical narrative. The relationships around the globe that many of us have established with other provinces of the Anglican Communion will continue. And, at this point, if the ACNA-ites become the Anglican presence in the United States, TEC might still be able to thrive as it continues to be honest about who it is.

Not too clear but this whole covenant process has been a frustration because the cards were stacked against us from the get-go. Why should we be at all surprised that the CoE has voted as it did?

Not terribly popular methinks

At midnight, here is how responses were running to the question, 'Should the Church of England reject the Anglican Covenant?'

Ha.

An example of obfuscation

The Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon, canon theologian for the South Carolina diocese, told ENS that the convention's action is "significant … in that it enables us to pursue the bishop's vision of making biblical Anglicans for a global age while resisting the national leadership's attempts to change our polity in violation of own constitution and the basic principles of justice and due process."

There's another term for this: nonsense (and worse, falsehood).

Our standing committee spent hours on the consent process for this diocese and ultimately voted not to consent because these actions are precisely what we felt would happen. We were not assured by their bishop-elect's statements that he would make efforts to remain fully in The Episcopal Church. It is said and wrong to say, 'We told you so,' but unfortunately, we were not off the mark.

May those Episcopalians who want to be part of the broad church and not some dressed-up Calvinist break-away sect find safe places to worship and be assured that they are not crazy nor consorting with the evil.

As the Anglican Digest of which Mr Harmon is its editor would say: Makes the heart sad.

Follow-through

From the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion Council:

Recent developments in the Communion

There was an opportunity for members of the Committee to express their views and ask questions about the decision to remove or alter the status of members from one province serving on the Anglican Communion’s ecumenical dialogues and IASCUFO. The Archbishop of Canterbury and Secretary General Kenneth Kearon explained the rationale behind this decision. In particular the Committee was assured that the Archbishop had not acted unilaterally but with the support of the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion; that they had acted within their powers; and that the action had not been punitive in intention. Rather it had been taken—following the breaking of the agreed moratoria—in response to the needs of the Communion in respect to ecumenical dialogues and faith and order bodies. Committee members were told that other Provinces were under consideration.

Don't hold your breath to see the Southern Cone, Rwanda or Nigeria sanctioned in the way that TEC was... revisit the answers Executive Council received particularly to our being kicked off the ecumenical dialogue teams with some of the AC's partner churches who are already blessing same-sex partnerships and have a lesbian bishop. The inconsistencies of applying these 'moratoria' is appalling.

A different take on this morning

from the Living Church...

Of course the first item is the sexuality one whereas that does not really show up in the ENS article.

Questions asked of Kenneth Kearon

Here are the questions that the World Mission Standing Committee of Executive Council prepared and asked this morning of Kenneth Kearon.

There is a covenant being considered that has in it certain processes, some of which have caused great concern for some of the provinces on how fairly they would be applied. For example, the Province of New Zealand gave only partial approval to the covenant, with members of its General Synod noting that Section 4 could “get into a situation where we sanctify a process of exclusion or marginalization” and that it might be implemented in ways that are “punitive, controlling and completely unAnglican.” Do the recent actions of the Archbishop of Canterburygive credence to theseconcerns? [Canon Rosalie Balletine, Esq., Chair of the World Mission Legislative Committee, Diocese of the Virgin Islands]

There are always consequences to living authentically as Christians. Within relationships among Christians, however, we ought to have opportunity to question those consequences, lest all end up walking on eggshells. Is there such a process now? And, do you foresee a season of such sanctions or is the removal of ecumenical committee appointees from The Episcopal Church an isolated event?[President of the House of Deputies Bonnie Anderson, Diocese of Michigan]

You have stated that The Episcopal Church does not “share the faith and order of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion.” Given the place of the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral in our common life as The Episcopal Church, how was it determined that The Episcopal Church does not share this faith and order? [Blanca Echeverry, Esq., Diocese of Colombia]

I am Jim Simons, a priest resident in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh which, as I’m sure you are aware, went through a recent and painful schism. Currently, there are over 100 priests, deacons and one bishop canonically resident in the Province of The Southern Cone as well as another Bishop canonically resident in the Province of Rwanda functioning in our diocese without licenses and laying claim to some of our parishes. This is in clear violation of the canons and it is also not unique to our diocese. What if any disciplinary action do you anticipate toward provinces who engage in such jurisdictional incursions? [the Rev’d James Simons, Diocese of Pittsburgh]

As a lesbian priest, in a 20-year relationship, legally recognized civil union in my state for ten years , and serving in a congregation, I ask this question because inclusion is very important to me. In his Pentecost letter, the Archbishop of Canterbury said, “We are praying for a new Pentecost for our Communion. That means above all a vast deepening of our capacity to receive the gift of being adopted sons and daughters of the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It means a deepened capacity to speak of Jesus Christ in the language of our context so that we are heard and the Gospel is made compelling and credible.” Removing people by executive action seems counter-intuitive to furthering inclusion. How is the exclusion of Episcopal Church members reconciled with the language of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Pentecost letter? [the Rev’d Canon Lee Alison Crawford, Diocese of Vermont]

The Church of England remains in full communion and ecumenical dialogue with the Old Catholic Church, which blesses same-sex unions, and the Church of Sweden, which has a partnered lesbian bishop and blesses same-sex marriages. Given this fact, how are we to reconcile the removal of Episcopal Church members from ecumenical bodies? [the Rt Rev’d Wendell Gibbs, Bishop of Michigan]

+

He visibly blinked and drew back as I identified myself. I thought that body language was telling... when faced with the 'issue' at hand, it is a bit harder to deny its existence, though the answer was clear that blessings of same-sex relationships has risen to the level of faith and order and seems to be the deal-breaker in ecumenical discussions, that because TEC has engaged in same-sex blessings and consecrating a partnered lesbian to the episcopacy, we no longer can participate in these conversations because we do not ascribe to the faith and order. My follow-up question should have been: Since when and how has blessings become so important?

I will say that EC was gracious and restrained in its comportment. I am also very glad that EC voted against going into private conversation as requested. (The press gasped when he asked this of us.)

More later.

Go to it

all you Cafe Press folks...

In response to my question about inclusion, and why were TEC people now excluded from conversations on the ecumenical level, the answer was totally directed toward 'faith and order,' that is, for most practical purposes, same-sex blessings is now a communion-breaking 'issue' of faith and order.

Had I had my wits about me, I would have asked, Since when has blessings become so important that it is the deal-breaking question of faith and order?

So, my proposed t-shirt is:

My relationship is a Communion-breaking issue of 'faith and order.'

Go to it.

Ça commence

Go to the Lead for the full story.

Let's count how many days have passed since the great feast of Pentecost... two weeks.

It took the powers-that-be 14 days instead of 24 hours to kick those members of The Episcopal Church off the relevant Anglican Communion committees — the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order and the Inter Anglican ecumenical dialogue committee. I guess things have slowed down some? After all, the election of a certain fabulous candidate for bishop suffragan made comment within 24 hours. (As a reminder, it took a week for the ABC's office to acknowledge the near-assassination of one of the Anglican Communion's primates, the Archbishop of IARCA.)

The Church of Canada and Southern Cone are respectively being asked to 'clarify' their positions on not 'obeying the moratoria.' Guess border-crossing is less a threat to the uniformity of the communion than teh gays.

So once again, TEC is the ABC's favourite kicking post. The gut says let's pack up and go but that just means that in the vacuum, the more shrill and exclusionary voices will be heard.

Operating from the head, I say show up anyway and hold our heads high for there is nothing of which we are to be ashamed.

I can't really write too much because I am peeved enough with this basura to be coherent. All I can say is: More and more my plumbline is proving true:

Is a decision/teaching/attitude of Christ or of the Church? If those of the Church contradict those of Christ, then I eschew them.

Right now those decisions of this particular branch of the Church, in this particular office of a certain archbishop, are not anything remotely connected to those of Christ.

Leave it to the Dead Sect

to come up with a headline like this:

PB Alleges Colonialism, Spiritual Violence

The Living Church (aka the Dead Sect) can be counted on for focusing on the most negative thing the editors can find and writing from that stance.

Meanwhile, the soul here is refreshed to see such a firm but gracious letter stating where TEC stands and who TEC is... and makes clear (I trust) that we are not going back.

More later but the workload on my desk is stacked up like planes at LaGuardia at 5.00 PM on a weekday evening.

More pressure

from ENS:

The Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, general secretary of the Anglican Communion, will address General Synod about the Anglican Covenant, which has been recommended as a way of healing divisions triggered by debates over the issue of sexuality. Hiltz said that he thinks the mood of the Canadian church is "we're ready to consider [it], we're not ready to adopt it. I think most [delegates] are going to come and say, 'Sure, let's take a look at it and see what the merits are.' And, in typical Canadian fashion, we'll do it well. We'll take it seriously."

May the Anglican Church of Canada see through this covenant and do as Bishop Hilz suggests: consider the covenant but not adopt it. Just hoping.

From Thinking Anglicans

Resolution Number A137
Be it resolved that this General Synod:
1. receive the final text of The Covenant for the Anglican Communion;
2. request that materials be prepared under the auspices of the Anglican Communion
Working Group, for parishes and dioceses in order that study and consultation be
undertaken on The Covenant for the Anglican Communion;
3. direct the Council of General Synod, after this period of consultation and study, to bring
a recommendation regarding adoption of the Covenant for the Anglican Communion to
the General Synod of 2013.

This is accompanied by an explanatory note/background information, copied below the fold.

EXPLANATORY NOTE/BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Since the decision of General Synod 2007 to commit to participate in the process of drafting of “A Covenant for the Anglican Communion”, the Anglican Communion Working Group, established by the Primate and the Anglican ecclesiology Working Group of the Faith Worship and Ministry Committee, has offered considered comment and critique of the various drafts. These comments have been reviewed by the Council and after amendment/revision have been forwarded to the Anglican Communion Office. On each occasion, the comments of the Anglican Church of Canada have been clearly heard and have for the most part found their way into subsequent revisions of the text. By April 2009, consensus had been achieved with respect to sections 1‐3 of the Covenant.

Following ACC 14 in Jamaica, a decision was taken to reexamine section 4 of the Ridley‐Cambridge Draft, comments were prepared and forwarded to the Communion Office. A revised text of Section 4 was approved by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion at its meeting in December 2009 and a final Covenant text has now been circulated to national provinces under cover of a letter from the General Secretary, Canon Kenneth Kearon.

Three key areas were clarified:

First, was clarification about the meaning of the word, church. This clarification was necessary because of expressed concerns that anyone could claim to be an Anglican church and then sign up to the Covenant, in effect opting themselves into the Communion.

The second key area addressed was the completion of the change in tone from the juridical to pastoral and relational.

The third key clarification dealt with who was to manage and administer the Covenant. In successive drafts this has changed from the Primates meeting (Nassau) to the ACC (St Andrews), the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the ACC (Ridley Cambridge) to The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion (Ridley Cambridge revised). This is significant in that the Primatial members(4) are nominated by the Primates Meeting and the remainder are elected by the ACC. The overall operation of the Standing Committee functions under the Constitution of the ACC. This change resolves one of the key concerns raised by Canada and a number of other provinces at ACC 14.

Additionally, the final Covenant text makes it clear that “Nothing in this Covenant of itself shall be deemed to alter any provision of the Constitution and Canons of any Church of the Communion, or to limit its autonomy of governance.”

Twenty-four hours later

I wrote the kernel of this in a response over at Mark's blog, but figure it is worth (?) expanding... so here goes.

The blogosphere has erupted in analysis of the latest missive of the Archbishop of Canterbury with comments ranging from, 'It is a slap on the wrist,' to the predictable, 'It does not go far enough.' Most of the comments land in the realm of, 'Here we go again, it is another attempt to kick out The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.' Mark, over at Preludium, has posted those names of people who would, by the criteria of the letter, no longer be able to function on the 'Anglican curia' or in ecumenical dialogue but most of the blogosphere seems to think who are we kidding when we suggest that the southern churches would be blocked from participating.

Having attempted earlier this week to mediate an unhappy situation that risked becoming an unholy fire, and realising that we were never going to get the two parties to agree, I worked instead on finding a way of apologising, letting go and moving on. And so I ask in this situation what I did earlier this week:

How come the ABC can't do as a mediator would by saying: 'I realise that all parties hold their perspective on the point in dispute, they have their own truths. Rather than try to find a common narrative because I realise we are never going to agree on this particular point, let us instead let go and move on forward.'

Of course it is naive to think that those who are so anti-gay would let go — we have seen too many times that it is a fight to the death cause — and therein lies the wrench in the works. And because of that intractability, the other side (me) says, 'Fine, we're going on ahead regardless because we do not want to be dragged back.' Still, some leadership that would acknowledge the variables, recognise the cultural readings on this, and respect the traditional Anglican approach toward scripture which is not a literalistic reading, instead of creating some sort of punitive document (aka the Anglican Covenant), could help immensely.

For the ABC's saying that the Anglican Covenant is not punitive I dare to disagree given his explanation to the press that follows his Pentecost letter. Kicking people off committees is just the start.

I do think that formulating a response to the Anglican Covenant on the part of TEC is spitting in the wind. A quoi bon? The ABC has already decided what he wants to do with us. I do not want to see TEC backtrack in the name of appeasement.

And what has been done — ordaining people of whom the ABC does not approve — cannot be undone. For the Bishop of Durham to reference the Long Beach ordinations as everything wrong with the church simply shows everything wrong with the straw arguments emanating from the other side of the aisle. Why are people complaining about the smudging? How does that differ from censing a priest before s/he begins the eucharistic canon? And why is it offensive to have dancers from the different peoples within the Diocese of Los Angeles? To those who disagree, I suggest not so gently to get a grip. As for the consecration liturgy, it is beyond me what was wrong or missing except the fact that for some it involved two women and for others, it involved a woman whose life-partner is a woman.

When I think of the time and money that has been spent on this covenant business, I get quite cross. When I think of the energy that has been misdirected into this realm of discussion in lieu of God's mission in the world, I get even crankier.

Yet this is the deck of cards we have been dealt so we might as well play this hand out to the end, regardless where we end up, in or out. Regardless, not all of the individual relationships that people from TEC have established with communion partners will dissolve even if the communion does.

Just some morning cup of coffee musings as it sprinkles out (thereby making it impossible to mow the lawn).

[image: Los Angeles hands on a cross one arm of which is shorter than the rest, symbolising our incompleteness and brokenness, that we are not all yet one... if I remember correctly what Bishop Bruno said of the cross at the consecrations]

The deal-breakers

... nothing new really but just more reason why this Anglican Covenant should die a graceful death.

From the Global South crowd:

We believe that all those who adopt the Covenant must be in compliance with Lambeth 1.10. Meanwhile we recognize that the Primates Meeting, being responsible for Faith and Order, should be the body to oversee the Covenant in its implementation, not the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.

Lambeth 1998 I.10 ad nauseum. If that resolution which has no legal authority is a deal-breaker, then those provinces that hitherto have categorically refused to engage in a thoughtful, reasoned conversation about human sexuality and who continue to treat the LGBT community as disordered also need to respect the portion of said resolution that calls upon them to do these things: talk about sexuality and treat all people as worthy of God's love AS THEY ARE. Until then, they are hypocritical and cannot command a higher moral authority.

God forbid that we end up with the primates acting as our magisterium. We are Anglicans, for pity's sake. There is a wideness in God's mercy as there is a wideness in Anglican theology. We do not need litmus tests that these bishops would want to impose on the rest of us. Thank you very much but no thanks.

These folks need to form their Baptist/Calvinist/Evangelical Church and stop calling themselves Anglican.

Grump.

The ABC has caved

And I quote Archbishop Rowan Williams: ' In all your minds there will be questions around the election and consecration of Mary Glasspool in Los Angeles. All of us share the concern that in this decision and action the Episcopal Church has deepened the divide between itself and the rest of the Anglican family. And as I speak to you now, I am in discussion with a number of people around the world about what consequences might follow from that decision, and how we express the sense that most Anglicans will want to express, that this decision cannot speak for our common mind.'

Well.. some of my questions are: Why did it take so long to elect another highly qualified priest, someone who could run circles around many of us other clergy?

Why should one adjective ('lesbian') disqualify her from becoming a bishop?

As for TEC deepening the divide between itself and the rest of the Anglican family (a word I have always steered clear of, let's call it the koinonia)... we are not isolated. There ARE other provinces who rejoice in this election. We are not by ourselves. He may want to think we are isolated but we are NOT!

Consequences? Kick us out. Our relationships with parts of the Anglican Communion will continue.

I am appalled. Utterly appalled by this caving to bigotry, fear mongering and pandering to a loud, well-funded group. He has caved, he is in a cave of fear.

He needs our prayers even more than ever.

Scenes from the consecration

Just a few photos for teasers....


Two Rev'd Dr Canon Executive Council members=trouble or plotting resurrection



With the rector of the congregation where I grew up (i.e., I was there long before he was...) and where my mother still attends


Meeting Dr Jenny Te Paa of New Zealand, an amazing person


The 15th Bishop Diocesan of Connecticut flanked by two Executive Council members, present and former

More later.

Just a small note from the Most Rev'd Martin Barahona

Solo una pequeña nota

Reciban mi amor y agradecimiento por sus oraciones y expresión de solidaridad con motivo del terrible atentado criminal, el cual sufrí el 17 de marzo del corriente año, y en el cual mi motorista Francis Martínez resultó gravemente herido, pero gracias a Dios ya está fuera de peligro y en recuperación y del que yo salí ileso. Gracias por su solidaridad y a su constante oraciones que han sido nuestro mejor escudo protector.

Doy gracias a Dios por la expresión de amistad que he recibido de iglesias amigas y de toda la Comunión Anglicana, lo cual me da confianza para continuar en el servicio a Dios en este mi amado país El Salvador

Aprovecho la oportunidad para desearles felices pascuas de resurrección.

Rvdmo. Martin Barahona
Obispo de la Iglesia Episcopal de El Salvador
Y Primado de la Iglesia Anglicana de la Región Central de America (IARCA)


Just a small note

Receive my love and thanks for your prayers and expressions of solidarity after the terrible criminal assassination attempt which I suffered on 17 March of this year and in which my driver, Francis Martinez, was gravely injured. However, thanks be to God, he already is out of danger and is recovering and I was not injured. Thank you for your solidarity and your constant prayers which have been our best protective shield.

I give thanks to God for the expressions of friendship I have received from our friends in the church and in all of the Anglican Communion. These give me the confidence to continue in the service of God in my beloved country of El Salvador.

I also take this opportunity to wish you a happy and blessed Easter.

The Most Rev'd Martin Barahona
Bishop of the Episcopal Church of El Salvador
and Primate of the Anglican Church of the Region of Central America

[photo taken during his recent trip to San Francisco; he is wearing a stole the children from the parish I serve made him in October 2009]

+++

Francis will have the stitches removed from his stomach tomorrow; last week the doctors put a plate and six screws in his elbow; these will be permanent. The pain in his elbow is still quite noticeable at night; during the day it is not overwhelming.

The IAES still greatly appreciates all of your prayers.

Caminar es pensar

To walk is to think.

That is what I told the office staff of the Iglesia Anglicana Episcopal de El Salvador on my last day in El Salvador three weeks ago. I had not been able to go on any walks during my time there. I accepted having my wings clipped, given what had just transpired with the assassination attempt. But I so needed to walk to sort things out in my head that I finagled a walk on my last morning from where I was staying to the diocesan office, a 15 minute-walk, if that.

Caminar es pensar. Walking is where I can pound out thoughts, such as my frustration with the increasing power grab attempts on the part of the GAFCON (I keep typing GAGCON) primatial contingent and fatigue with repeated referrals to Lambeth 1998 I.10 as though it is holy writ.

And walking is where I pray... for Francis. Nearly four weeks later, he is healing somewhat. His stomach is fairly well healed. In his operation, the doctors put in six screws and plates in his elbow. He suffers a lot of pain from that injury. His soul, too, suffers. He understandably is afraid to venture out into public.

The folks of the IAES greatly appreciate everyone's prayers. Keep them coming. It makes a world of difference.

[photo: heading toward Acebo, Spain, Camino walk 2004]

Primatial follies

From the Lead

The Most Revd Ian Ernest, G.O.S.K, Bishop of Mauritius and Archbishop of the Province of the Indian Ocean has written to the Archbishop of Canterbury asking for a Primates meeting which excludes the Primates of The Episcopal Church and The Anglican Church of Canada, suspending communion with all except bishops who have publicly disavowed TEC and ACoC actions, and calling for a restructure of the Anglican Communion with the Primates in charge.

I have a sinking feeling because one of our allies, the Primate of IARCA, is about to step down from his position, and I am worried about the election.

Right now, the primates can go meet by themselves, concoct whatever they want and regardless, the work of the church, done by the people of God, will go on. This attempt at a power grab is sickening. What concerns me, too, is that the ABC is going to fall for it.