As we near the end of Lambeth 08, I have personal, ecclesiastical, and vocational reports. First, the personal:  A certain sadness has weighed on me throughout this time in England. When I was last at Canterbury, 20 years ago, my religion was nostalgic for the Middle Ages and tinged with Anglophilia. Worshiping in Canterbury Cathedral in those days was such a rush. No more. It feels stuffy, old, and out of touch. That isn’t my opinion of it. I don’t judge it. It just doesn’t move me anymore.  I’ve been mourning that lost piety the way Wordsworth, in his later years, mourned his loss of the joy he had found in nature when he was young.

   Last night, while standing in the garden of the Old Palace, the Archbishop’s residence adjacent to the Cathedral, I shared this sadness with a bishop who had been one of my mentors back in New York when I still felt the old way. She said, “Now you live in the desert.” Immediately I began telling her about how I love Nevada and about my favorite book on desert spirituality, The Solace of Fierce Landscapes by Belden Lane. She laughed, shook her head, and said “You are called.” And I said, “God help me. You’re right.” I feel so much better today, knowing that my old nostalgic spirituality has not just disappeared. It has been displaced, superseded, by something vastly better.

       Now the church news: We have spent the past few days seriously going over the proposed Anglican Covenant (clause by clause), the Appendix to the Proposed Covenant (which is incorporated by reference into the Covenant and contains the procedures for excommunication), and the Windsor Continuation Group Proposals (which have a parallel juridical and disciplinary processes for resolving conflicts). KAPA, the organization of African Provinces, endorsed the idea of a covenant last night. I am not sure whether that means this covenant. But there is widespread opposition elsewhere. I am sure a very different draft will have to be presented to the Anglican Consultative Council in May. Whatever is presented, the ACC can “just say no,” send it back to the Covenant Design Group for further work, or send it out to the Provinces to be adopted or not. It is unlikely it could be sent to the USA in time for us to take it up at General Convention ’09.

        “Liberal churches” are not the only ones likely to oppose the Covenant. The Diocese of Sydney for example is arch-conservative on sexuality, but has authorized lay presidency at the Eucharist. That would be anathema to most of the Communion. They would surely be strung up under the Covenant. Then there are the churches that commit the incursions into the U.S. Their need to make incursions would not end even if we banned same sex blessings and ordination of gay and lesbian people. They were invading our dioceses long before Gene Robinson in response to women’s ordination. So they would be seriously at risk under the Covenant. Even if a Covenant gets through ACC in may (which is still a real “if”), the outcome is not assured.

The question is: what happens to the Communion if there is no covenant? It will then be a matter of whether we can live with each other patiently. It will not be easy for anyone. But communion is a crucible. We can only pledge to do our best and rely on grace.

Finally, the vocational report: The news media still has not got it that the point of this Lambeth Conference is not to decide issues. It is to equip bishops for mission. That was the original intent of the first Lambeth Conference.  It was the primary purpose of all such conferences until 1998. I believe I have been seasoned as a bishop, not just by learning, but by my sharing with other bishops, new bishops and veterans, from around the world. I have seen what we have in common and how our experiences of mission differ. It has given me a better sense of how Nevada is like other dioceses and how it is different. In a word, I have a larger perspective. I hope that will enable me to serve you better.