Yesterday afternoon was a valley between two peaks. The first peak, yesterday morning, was an excellent indaba group on Interfaith Dialogue. Honest concerns were expressed about the difficulty for Christians of being a minority in various contexts such as Palestine and parts of Africa. But the general commitment to Interfaith Dialogue was almost universally affirmed. It happens in different ways in different places. But it was altogether encouraging.

        The afternoon session was less pleasant. It was the next hearing on the Windsor Process. The discussion paper chastized national churches for breaches of the Windsor/Dromatine/Daar es Salaam 3-fold moratoria: on same sex blessings; on consecrating gay bishops; and on jurisdictional incursions. There have been no gay bishops consecrated since Windsor but some may not understand we have done all we consitutionally can do to restrain any breach of the moratorium and it has been enough. Almost all dioceses are observing the moratorium on blessings. But the incursions of foreign bishops into the U.S. continue unabated even in Dioceses that have, in the words of the Bishop of Mississippi, been "observing the moratoria before there were any moratoria."

      The Windsor Continuation Group proposals were deeply problematic. They included a "Pastoral Forum" to swiftly adjudicate infractions of the rules and limit participation in the Communion as a response. Also they proposed when a diocese is unhappy in its province, it might be placed under the jurisicition of another province for a time and the assets kept in escrow. I have submitted comments expressing openness to stenghtening our bonds but cautioning slow deliberation lest we "act in haste, then repent at leisure." A covenant in general gives us all pause. But the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral already constitues something of a covenant. So the question is: just how far will it go? The present draft (known as the St. Andrews Draft or more affectionately "SAD") goes a bridge too far. The Windsor Group goes well behond that.

       Yesterday's speeches, mostly from Australia,  England, and the American minority were pretty harsh. It all left me feeling a bit downhearted. But there were 3 excellent speeches from the American side. Henry Parsley of Alabama was sane and exemplary in his common sense. Duncan Gray III of Mississippi described how he disagrees with his more liberal American colleagues, but he sees Jesus in us anyway. Eugene Sutton of Maryland reminded us how Scripture had been used to enslave and oppress his ancestors, and noted that the Black American bishops are unanimously in support of gay inclusion.

      Since then, things have been getting better. There was a good presentation in last night's plenary session by a Johnathan Sacks, a famous rabbi, on a "covenant of faith." We also had good fellowship. This morning was devoted to the issue of gender violence. We spent the entire morning in a plenary session Bible Study from II Samuel's account of the rape of Tamar. There was also a play emphasizing the feminist aspect of Jesus' miracles and message. All in all, an excellent morning. One bishop (not North American) said we were focusing on homosexuality to avoid dealing with the misconduct of heterosexual men. Another, this one from India, decried our obsession with preventing homosexuality instead of preventing the trafficing of young women in India.

         This afternoon the American bishops met again and had a good discussion. It was encouraging to hear that opposition to the Covenant is being expressed in strong terms by many parts of the Communion including South India, Japan, New Zealand, Melanesia, South America, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Africa is divided. England is generally for it, especially Lambeth Palace. But there is serious doubt as to whether Parliament would ratify it. (They wouldn't let the C of E revise the Prayer Book in 1928. Parliament has been rather pro-gay rights in its legislation. My guess is last week's victory of the Scottish Independent Party would not bode well for ratification in the UK.) Our problem may be more localized than I realized yesterday. The Covenant Committee includes 4 retired bishops representing no diocese and a priimate who is himself committing illegal incursions. I am grateful to the Archbishop for sticking to the agenda of this conference, but I am concerned that he summarized our position tonight in his presidential address -- and it was clear he does not understand what we are saying.

        Time alone will tell, but if the committee process produces something draconian, it may not be adopted by many national churches. Remember the Anglican Communion has no inherent legistlative or juridical authority. We will only be bound by the Covenant if we agree to be bound. The fear is not that we will be "thrown out" of the exisiting Communion. The exitisting Communion is not something one can be thrown out of. The fear is that something will be established that we cannot in good conscience join or that it will be structured in order to set up our being thrown out of it.

       So a summary: This is not Lambeth '98. Our interactions with Anglicans from virtually all nations are warm and supportive. The Bible Studies are faithful and the indaba groups are friendly and collegial. Other dioceses are seeking partnerships with our dioceses. We are committed to common goals of evangelism and social justices including the MDG's and halting climate change. Our task is to remain faithful to one another and not let anyone undermine our Communion in Christ.