I am on the plane, flying home from Salt Lake City, and I want to give you a brief report on the special meeting of the House of Bishops, held over these past two days.

The meeting was called specifically to discuss the Windsor Report (the report of the international Lambeth Commission, appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury following the 2003 General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Minneapolis). As reported previously to UPCHAT, this report made several recommendations to the world-wide Anglican Communion in an effort to hold together those who hold very divergent views about homosexuality. That report was released for initial distribution in October of 2004. In November, bishops of each Province of the US Episcopal Church met in various locations around the country to share initial reactions. In December, the Council of Advice (one bishop from each Province) met with our Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold, to report on those Provincial discussions. This meeting (in January) was a quick overnight gathering, designed to bring the full House of Bishops together for a more in depth discussion. In February, the Report will be formally received by the 38 Primates of the Anglican Communion (each branch, or "Province" of the Anglican Communion has a Primate - ours being Frank Griswold, our Presiding Bishops). Then, in March, our House of Bishops will meet again for our annual week-long spring retreat. Over the course of the summer, the world-wide Anglican Consultative Council will meet to discuss the report. The next General Convention of the Episcopal Church is in June of 2006. In advance of, and during that Convention, the Episcopal Church will have numerous opportunities to discuss and respond to the work of the Lambeth Commission.

Within that overall context, let me try to describe this meeting, just completed.

As I have said, we met in Salt Lake City (mostly because it's a hub for the airlines, and easy to get in and out of). There was a very high turn-out from the bishops, including a number of more conservative members of the House who had not been present at recent meetings. I think it's fair to say that there was a fairly high level of anxiety amongst the group, given the very strong feelings most have had about the Report, the events which sparked it, and the recommendations which it contains.

Everyone arrived on Tuesday afternoon or evening. The meeting began first thing Wednesday morning, with Morning Prayer, followed by opening remarks offered by Frank Griswold. We were all seated at tables with 6-7 other bishops. These were the same small groups we have been meeting with since the last General Convention, and the same groups we'll be with for every other meeting of the House of Bishops between now and the next General Convention in 2006. Each "Core Group", as it is called, is carefully selected to include diversity in every way possible (geography, gender, theological bent, and so on). In my group is Peter Lee (Virginia), Callie Irish (Utah), Porter Taylor (Western North Carolina), Bert Herlong (Tennessee), Joe Burnett (Nebraska), Jim Folts (West Texas), and Jim Ottley (retired of Panama, now assisting in South East Florida). I was the "reflector" for our group, which meant I got to take notes to report out to our "Expanded Group" (of 4-5 table groups) which met that afternoon.

After Frank's opening remarks, the table groups had a brief discussion. Then we heard reports from each of the Provinces and from the Council of Advice, summarizing the conversations which had happened in November. We then heard a presentation by Mark Dyer, the former Bishop of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, who is the one and only member of the US Episcopal Church who was on the Lambeth Commission. Then, over lunch, we had a lengthy discussion in our table groups, reflecting on the first two sections of the Report. (Those sections gave an interpretation of "Biblical Foundations" and an analysis of the basic principles which undergird the world-wide Anglican Communion.) In the afternoon, we had two sessions in our Expanded Group, discussing the full Report, section by section, finally focusing upon the actual recommendations made by the Lambeth Commission. In the evening, we sat in plenary, and had a remarkable session during which one bishop after another took the microphone and shared stories, concerns, and hopes for our response to the Report.

On Thursday morning, we met again in plenary and worked together, line by line, on a statement which reflected the conversations we had all day on Wednesday. That statement, passed overwhelmingly (I heard only one "no" vote), was thereby agreed upon by bishops with a wide variety of perspectives. No doubt, each of us would have chosen to phrase certain sentences differently, but overall, there did seem to be a wide-spread consensus. That, itself, is a remarkable achievement, given the very strong and very diverse opinions expressed throughout our time together.

By now, that statement has probably been posted on the Internet. As soon as it becomes available, I will see to it that it is posted here on UPCHAT, so you can read it for yourself. In the meantime, let me try to characterize both our conversations and the statement itself, so you can get some feel for the discussions we had:

We are increasingly aware that the polity of the Episcopal Church in the US is simply quite different from most other Provinces of the Anglican Communion. As Frank Griswold put it, "We were not established by bishops; bishops were an afterthought." Indeed, the Episcopal Church in this country did exist for many years without any bishops, and in fact with very few priests or deacons. Everywhere else in the Communion, the missionary churches were gathered around the Bishops. They are accustomed to having bishops appointed by other bishops (or sometimes by civil authorities). They are not elected by a Council (such as our Diocesan Conventions or General Conventions). And the lines of power and authority are clearly a top-down hierarchical structure.

This is why so many in other parts of the Anglican Communion don't understand the manner by which our bishops (including Gene Robinson) are selected. They also don't understand that our House of Bishops simply doesn't (and can't) make unilateral decisions for the rest of the Church. Without the House of Deputies - without significant input from the entire community of the baptized (including priests, deacons, and the unordained) - we cannot come to an agreement, or chart a course of action. The rest of the Anglican Communion just don't "get" that - and it is the source of much of the misunderstandings now taking place.

We were also reminded how frustrated some throughout the Anglican Communion, particularly those in Africa and other Third World regions of our global family, feel that we (the US Episcopal Church) don't take them seriously as theological peers. Thus, when we take action without consulting more deliberately with them, it feels to them as if we are acting like arrogant, "ugly" Americans. In many places in the world, Anglicans look upon the American government (including the military, as well as our huge economic corporations) as acting unilaterally and in a way which exploits and undermines other nations and cultures. Some, when they see the US Episcopal acting in a way they see to be unilaterally and in a way which offends their cultural sensibilities (as in the case when dealing with issues related to human sexuality), they equate our church actions with those of our government, and related hostilities and resentments are stirred up.

Mark Dyer's report about the Windsor Report was particularly interesting. He disclosed that he personally was not in favor of some of the recommendations (particularly those proposing a Council of Advice for the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the recommendation to form a Covenant which would be required for all Provinces of the Anglican Communion to sign). Mark did state strongly his feeling that the maintenance of unity within the Communion is of paramount importance, since, he believes, it is only by holding together and drawing from many differing perspectives that some degree of truth might be discovered. (Not everyone agreed that unity was the number one priority - and that was the source of considerable debate throughout the days we were together). Most of all, Mark pointed out that the Windsor Report has within it a "polity of the episcopate" (a theory of how bishops function in the church) which is terribly English, and simply misses the mark when it comes to describing the US Episcopal Church. He pointed out that we (the US Episcopal Church) have a gift to bring the rest of the Communion: our model of Conciliar decisions making (meaning that we make decisions using Councils, such as our Conventions, Standing Committees, Diocesan Councils, Vestries, and so on) and that if we could regain a measure of respect and acceptance by the rest of the Anglican Communion, it would be helpful to many other Provinces to receive this gift from us. But for now, that possibility is challenged by the strong disagreements throughout the Communion.

Throughout our time together, we discussed in various ways, all of the recommendations of the Windsor Report. We agreed that for the most part, we needed to keep this as a preliminary discussion, and not rush to resolutions or positions, but we should agree to confer each in our own dioceses, and to prepare for further conversations at our March retreat, and beyond. Our final statement reflects this decision, and I invite you to read it carefully when it is posted. I'll be happy to answer more specific questions, as they may rise for you.

The one recommendation made by the Windsor Report to which we did respond was the requested "statement of regret". It's important to reiterate that we are not being asked to say that we regret that we made the decisions we did in Minneapolis, but simply that as we approached and made those decisions, we did so in a way which felt to the rest of the Communion to be unilateral and without adequate consultation. The statement we passed includes the following statement:

"...we affirm that all need to repent, as the Archbishop of Canterbury reminded us in his Advent Letter 2004. we repent of the ways we as bishops have sometimes treated each other, failing to honor Christ's presence in one another. Furthermore, too often we have also failed to recognize Christ's presence fully manifest in our sister and brother Anglicans around the global communion. We honor their full voice and wisdom. We desire mutuality. We recognize our interdependence in the Body of Christ.

Moreover, we as the House of Bishops express our sincere regret for the pain, the hurt, and the damage caused to our Anglican bonds of affection by certain actions of our church. Knowing that our actions have contributed to the current strains in our Communion, we express this regret as a sign of our deep desire for and commitment to continuation of our partnership in the Anglican Communion."

Elsewhere is the statement it says, "...We pray our brothers and sisters throughout the Anglican Communion will forgive us and that together we may remain in steadfast relationship so we might open our lives and our hearts to one another and learn how the Holy Spirit is acting in our different contexts."

The statement also calls for the world-wide Communion to engage in "a study and discernment process on matters of human sexuality as recommended by Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998" (those studies have not been done, to speak of, outside of our own country). It goes on to say: "This would be a sign of respect for gay and lesbian persons in our common life and of our ongoing pastoral care for them." and it goes on to talk about "...the ministries of homosexual persons in the church that have enriched our experience for many years."

The statement explains that we need to take more time before responding to the other recommendations (such as a possible moratorium on giving consent to partnered gay and lesbian persons elected as bishops by our dioceses, the proposed withdrawal of Gene Robinson & those who participated as co-consecrators in his ordination from the representative bodies of the Anglican Communion, and a moratorium on the development of liturgies to bless same gender relationships). There was much discussion about these proposals, and it is clear that care needs to be taken in articulating our collective response, as we move ahead. Also, as we have said, there is need to confer with the rest of the Church before any such commitments (one way or the other) can be made.

As you can tell, it was a very full two days! There is much that was said, and much that remains to be said. I will look for your reflection and discernment with me as we prepare for these important conversations to continue.