A positive hallmark of the convention was the reaffirmation of our commitment to the poor and the marginalized by heartily embracing the Millennium Development Goals. The 2006-2009 budgets reflect this commitment to Jesus' vision of a faithful church in Matthew 25. Expanded ministry by the youth of this Church was also a high priority. These positive commitments, however, were overshadowed by the inefficient and incomplete attention to major substantive issues having global consequences.

This convention marked a crossroad for the Anglican Communion. The inefficient legislative process blocked sufficient time for an adequate response to the concerns of the global Communion. The General Convention chose the path it would take. It fell short of accepting the full invitation of the Windsor Report.

These proceedings had an immediate impact on the life of the local church. We can only assess the work of this convention against the backdrop of the state of the Church these past three years. It is time to acknowledge the depth of our disagreements and to seek solutions to issues posed by changing relationships within the Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear the status quo is no longer possible. He has also been clear that he will not solve the internal problems of the Episcopal Church.

As of this writing, six dioceses have asked for alternate primatial oversight. Others are debating similar action. These dioceses are not leaving the Episcopal Church. They are asking corporately for the same consideration given congregations under the plan for Delegated Episcopal Oversight (DEPO) drafted by the House of Bishops in 2004.

DEPO developed as a response to a need in some dioceses for the provision of alternative pastoral oversight and care of congregations who believed they had irreconcilable theological differences with their bishop and would no longer accept their sacramental ministry. DEPO requires bishops to exercise restraint in asserting their authority, and to act with charity toward a theological minority in their diocese.

It is time to face facts and count the cost. Since 2003, the decline in average Sunday attendance in the Episcopal Church has accelerated. Over the past three years, congregations have taken leave of the denomination. This past week, the largest congregation with the highest average Sunday attendance in the United States stated their intention to sever ties with the Episcopal Church. Smaller congregations, which are the vast majority in the Episcopal Church, face a precarious future should resources for mission continue to drain away.

During this same period, there were missed opportunities for reconciliation. Several dioceses have spent millions of dollars to pursue legal action over property disputes with theological minorities. It is difficult to believe the rhetoric of "radical inclusiveness" when we see the Church behaving as it has. Is this how our Lord would have us spend mission resources?

The investment of time in convention legislative session, however, confirms what the average Sunday attendance figures indicate. We are a church imploding over internal issues, rather than exploding with a commitment to evangelism and church planting. We devoted an inordinate amount of our legislative calendar to revisions of the Canons and additions to the Book of Occasional Services. New commemorations for the Lesser Feasts and Fasts and prayers for transitions in life such as, riding a bicycle, or the loss of an animal companion, engendered more debate than healing divisions in the global community, or our Communion. Substantive issues of national and international justice, and the Windsor Report, received little or no time on the agenda for dialog and proper consideration.

The two-hour public hearing by the Special Committee formed to receive and process resolutions in response to the Windsor Report quickly dissolved into continuing debate regarding the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgendered people. It added nothing of substance to the critical conversation regarding human rights or the Communion. There was little substance regarding the issues the Special Committee had to address.

An adequate response to the invitations of the Windsor Report deserved a prominent place on the convention's agenda and adequate time for serious consideration. It should have been one of the first, not one of the last issues to be brought to the Deputies and Bishops for action. However, no legislative work regarding the Windsor Report came before the House of Bishops until the last day of the Convention. The Presiding Bishop provided the House of Bishops only one-half hour for debate on a resolution hastily written that morning. This followed the rejection of a major Windsor resolution by the Deputies the previous day.

Our decisions fell short of the invitations of the Windsor Report. The convention rejected a moratorium on the blessing of same-gendered unions and the consecration of another partnered gay bishop. The resolutions passed regarding Windsor did not affect any change in the direction of the Episcopal Church. Even so, The Bishop of Washington read a statement on behalf of many unnamed bishops to declare their intent to continue actions in defiance of the requests made in the Windsor Report.

After prayerful reflection on the statement made by Bishop Chane, I joined other bishops in declaring our intention to remain within the Episcopal Church and to accept our responsibilities as bishops in the Anglican Communion within the guidelines of the Windsor invitations. We disassociated ourselves from the inadequate actions of this General Convention, like our "progressive" colleagues on the other side of the issue for other reasons.

Let me now turn to what is ahead. In his communiqué this past week, The Archbishop of Canterbury wrote:

"Unless you think that social and legal considerations should be allowed to resolve religious disputes - which is a highly risky assumption if you also believe in real freedom of opinion in a diverse society - there has to be a recognition that religious bodies have to deal with the question in their own terms. Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teachings. And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about 'inclusion', this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behavior it must warn against - and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures."

The words of the communiqué command the attention and action of the whole Church regarding any person marginalized by their sexual orientation or their theological convictions.

"It is possible - indeed, it is imperative - to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage, to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation, and still to believe that this doesn't settle the question of whether the Christian Church has the freedom, on the basis of the Bible, and its historic teachings, to bless homosexual partnerships as a clear expression of God's will."

Our church proclaims its conviction in the dignity and worth of every human being. Yet, something is amiss when ad hominem attacks become the currency of theological and ethical discourse. "Radical inclusion" is not a scriptural category, nor is "affirmation" a theological virtue, unless we are standing in the shadow of the Cross. There we find only one class of humanity -- those who need the forgiveness, redemption, and reconciling grace of God in Christ Jesus.

The Nicene Creed asserts our faith in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. The majority of the global Christian community, including a majority of Anglicans, has rejected the "prophetic action" of the 2003 General Convention. The 2006 Convention might have shown the humility to pause and reconsider those decisions. Instead, it defiantly moved forward.

In the words of the Archbishop, there is a call to self-examination.

"And this is where the real issue for Anglicans arises. How do we as Anglicans deal with this issue 'in our own terms'? And what most Anglicans worldwide have said is that it doesn't help to behave as if the matter had been resolved when in fact it hasn't. It is true that, in spite of resolutions and declarations of intent, the process of 'listening to the experience' of homosexual people hasn't advanced very far in most of our churches, and that discussion remains at the very basic level for many. But the decision of the Episcopal Church to elect a practising gay man as a bishop was taken without even the American church itself (which has had quite a bit of discussion on the matter) having formally decided as a local Church what it thinks about blessing same-sex partnerships."

The Episcopal Church's response to the Windsor Report missed the mark. We will always fall short if we pursue a policy based on our freedom and autonomy in a world that is shrinking. The General Convention has yet to make a case that its vision is more compelling than the vision of the Church catholic.

To pretend that a state of broken or impaired communion does not exist within the Episcopal Church, or the Anglican Communion, is the height of naiveté or a deliberate ignoring of the facts. There are shifts already taking place in relationships within the Communion. To force change by claiming the high ground of "prophetic action guided by the Holy Spirit" and then to place the burden for division on others is hypocritical and disingenuous.

Archbishop Williams takes up the question of prophetic action in his response to the General Convention.

"It is true that witness to what is passionately believed to be the truth sometimes appears a higher value than unity, and there are moving and inspiring examples in the twentieth century. If someone genuinely thinks that a move like the ordination of a practicing gay bishop is that sort of thing, it is understandable that they are prepared to risk the breakage of a unity they can only see as false or corrupt. But the risk is a real on; and it is never easy to recognise when the moment of inevitable separation has arrived - to recognise this is the issue on which you stand or fall and that this is the great issue of faithfulness to the gospel. The nature of prophetic action is that you do not have a cast-iron guarantee that you're right."

No province has the moral authority to take independent action on questions of catholic faith and order. The Church at its best remains open as it relies on the Word and Sacrament interpreted and celebrated in the Communion of Churches to form and reform our common life. The mantel of autonomy does not have the same resonance as the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking though the life of the whole Church.

The Archbishop notes the General Convention made the very conversation many demanded on a critical moral and ethical question more difficult by unilateral action. His words serve a warning.

"Thus if other churches have said, in the wake of the events of 2003 that they cannot remain fully in communion with the American Church, this should not be automatically seen as some kind of blind bigotry against gay people. Where such bigotry does show itself it needs to be made clear that it is unacceptable; and if this is not clear, it is not at all surprising if the whole question is reduced in the eyes of many to a struggle between justice and violent prejudice. It is saying that, whatever the presenting issue, no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions - and sacramental actions in particular -- just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches. It isn't a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences -- and that actions believed in good faith to be 'prophetic' in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences."

Married couples who ignore the warnings signs of a marriage in crisis will often end in divorce. Restoring a broken relationship requires space and time for listening, healing, and repairing the bonds of affection and trust. The same is true for community. As a church, we have ignored the warning signs of a relationship in peril. If there is to be hope for reconciliation, we need an immediate reformation of life that portrays a kindness, gentleness of spirit, and grace rarely expressed in the contemporary struggles in the Episcopal Church.

I am proud of the grace with which the majority of our clergy and diocesan community conducted the work of mission and ministry these past ten years. We have accomplished much despite the differences among us. We now face our greatest challenge. We do have choices to make. We can use our resources to battle one another believing that we must "win," or we can seek to release one another gracefully to provide space and time for healing.

I believe we need a creative plan to provide pastoral oversight to all our congregations. Resorting to canonical presentments, or secular courts in response to the issues we face, is an admission that we are no longer a faithful church. This would only bring shame to our Lord. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, we must find the "still more excellent way."

I have repeatedly affirmed my intention to remain in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. My commitment remains unchanged. I will continue to provide oversight and pastoral care to those clergy and congregations who share this commitment. The invitations of the Windsor Report accepted by our diocesan convention in December 2005 will continue to be policy for the Diocese of Southwest Florida.

I have offered Designated or Delegated Episcopal Oversight (DEPO) since 2004 to those in this diocese who desire to follow policies that diverge from the Constitution and Canons, as well as, the Book of Common Prayer. The offer remains.

Historical precedent and past identity are important; however, our identity is never static. It changes with the seasons of life and as we grow in our knowledge and love of the Lord. I end with these words from the communiqué.

"There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment. Neither the liberal nor the conservative can simply appeal to a historic identity that doesn't correspond with where we now are. We do have a distinctive historic tradition - a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly. But for this to survive with all it's aspects intact, we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each other."

I look forward to the development of a deeper sense of unity in faith, order, and mission among the provinces of the Anglican Communion for the sake of the mission of Christ to the world.

May the Lord bless and keep you.

Yours in Christ,
+John, SWFL IV