BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: Another deadline looms for the U.S. Episcopal Church. Episcopal bishops are meeting in New Orleans until Tuesday (September 25), and a key item on their agenda is an ultimatum on gay issues from leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the 70-million-member Communion. The spiritual leader of the Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, joined the bishops for part of their meeting. Kim Lawton is in New Orleans and has our report.

KIM LAWTON: The Episcopal bishops and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams emerged from their closed door meetings Thursday (September 20) for a public ecumenical prayer service. Despite the deep divisions facing their church, there was a moment of unity as the bishops presented contributions of nearly $1 million to help rebuild the Gulf Coast.

Archbishop Williams saw the work of the Episcopal Church firsthand in New Orleans’ devastated Lower Ninth Ward.

(to Archbishop Rowan Williams): I’m just wondering what you thought about what you saw and heard here today?

Archbishop ROWAN WILLIAMS: It’s fantastic. It’s a real sign of commitment and hope, I think. It’s a wonderful thing to see.

LAWTON: But the main reason for the Archbishop’s visit was to discuss the issues that could tear the Anglican Communion apart. He spent a day and a half in frank conversations with the American bishops.

Archbishop WILLIAMS (during press conference): I think it would rather be an admission of defeat if we said that we were not capable of working together on the issues that divide us. Whether we’ll get to that point I don’t know.

LAWTON: This is a regularly scheduled business meeting for the bishops, but it comes on the eve of a crucial deadline, and what happens here could affect the Episcopal Church’s future status in the Anglican Communion. In February, the top leaders of the Communion’s regional churches gave U.S. Episcopalians until September 30th to clearly state that they will not consecrate any more gay bishops or authorize any more same-sex blessings. Failure to do so, the leaders said, would have unspecified consequences for the Episcopal Church’s place in the global church body. Some are speculating that the U.S. church could be asked to leave this historic branch of Christianity.

Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori isn’t expecting such radical responses.

Bishop KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI (Presiding Bishop, U.S. Episcopal Church): We are eager to continue and grow our relationships around the Communion, and I think most people believe those relationships will not change significantly.

LAWTON: But relationships have been severely strained since 2003, when the Episcopal Church consecrated an openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, and paved the way for the blessing of same-sex unions. That set off a firestorm of controversy in the U.S. and within more conservative Anglican churches in Africa, Asia and South America — the so-called Global South.

Bishop JOHN GUERNSEY (Anglican Church of Uganda): When the church really, in our view, departed from biblical authority and the historic teaching of the church it was no longer a matter of simply staying together as if nothing had happened.

LAWTON: John Guernsey is rector of All Saints Church in Woodbridge, Virginia, and he’s also a new bishop for the Anglican Church of Uganda. Guernsey’s parishioners decided to leave the Episcopal Church last year, but they still wanted to be part of the Anglican Communion. So they put themselves under the authority of the Church of Uganda, which shares their traditional views.

Earlier this month in Uganda, Guernsey was consecrated as an Anglican bishop. But he’ll be working in the U.S., overseeing 33 congregations that have affiliated with the Church of Uganda. None of the congregations is ethnically Ugandan.

In August, two American priests were also made bishops for the Anglican Church of Kenya. Still others are now bishops for the Church of Nigeria, all overseeing congregations in the U.S. It’s a point of deep contention across the Communion. At the Tanzania meeting, the Anglican leaders urged overseas bishops to stop intervening in U.S. dioceses.

But Guernsey says the Global South wanted to find a way to support disaffected American conservatives.

Bishop GUERNSEY: The Global South has felt that they were not going to abandon those who have taken a faithful stand here in the U.S.

LAWTON: Episcopal leaders accuse the Global South churches of wrongful meddling.

Bishop JOHN CHANE (Diocese of Washington, D.C.): They need to understand how painful that is in the life of my province, my church, the Episcopal Church, and how much it undermines the very concept of what it means to be an Anglican or to be a part of the Anglican Communion.

Bishop JEFFERTS SCHORI: We elect our own bishops, we do not appoint them, and that they are elected and consecrated for work in a particular diocese by the members of that diocese.

LAWTON: One overarching concern is church authority. Each of the 38 regional Anglican bodies is self-governing. Neither the Archbishop of Canterbury nor any other Anglican leader is supposed to tell another province what to do.

Bishop CHANE: For me, as one bishop, the issue is who’s going to control the Communion, who’s in charge, who has the power, which is an unusual place to be in, given the loose confederation of churches and provinces that make up the Anglican Communion.

LAWTON: Decisions for the Episcopal Church are made by a convention of clergy and lay delegates that meets every three years. Episcopal bishops say they don’t have the authority to respond to the demands made in the Tanzania ultimatum. The last General Convention in 2006 passed a nonbinding resolution calling on Episcopalians to “exercise restraint by not consecrating” future gay bishops for a time. But that wasn’t strong enough for many conservatives in the U.S. and around the world. And, indeed, Tracey Lind, an openly lesbian priest, is one of five candidates on the ballot to become the next bishop of Chicago.

Bishop JEFFERTS SCHORI: The Diocese of Chicago has every right to nominate anyone who is qualified in the church, and we do understand that gay and lesbian priests in relationships are qualified at this point.

LAWTON: Individuals, and some entire congregations, have been leaving the Episcopal Church, but exact numbers are hard to pin down. Conservatives represent a minority in the U.S. but a majority around the world. Some of the departing congregations are in the middle of contentious lawsuits over whether they can keep their church buildings. The Episcopal Church says the property belongs to the diocese, not the parishioners. Many churches find themselves caught in the middle — unwilling to leave the Episcopal Church, but frustrated by the lack of a satisfactory resolution.

Bishop CHARLES JENKINS (Diocese of Louisiana): I’m tired of the disagreements. I would like to have the disagreements settled. What I’m not willing to do is to settle the disagreements at the price of the mission of the church. I hope that we will find the space, the time, and the freedom to search for more long-lasting and I think creative solutions than we’re able to do in the anxious system in which we live in now.

LAWTON: The Presiding Bishop says she’s optimistic that progress will come out of this New Orleans meeting.

Bishop JEFFERTS SCHORI: Greater understanding, both within this church and across the Communion. A greater sense that we are one in our diversity and that we can continue to be one.

LAWTON: Others aren’t so sure.

Bishop GUERNSEY: If what’s being sought is some kind of artificial fabricated institutional unity to paper over foundational differences over who Jesus is and what he has done and what his work on the cross means for us, then I don’t think there’s any future in that.

LAWTON: After the meeting here in New Orleans, conservative bishops will hold their own meeting to craft their response. I’m Kim Lawton in New Orleans.

Q: How did you end up a bishop with the Anglican Church in Uganda?

A: God has his ways, and his thoughts are not our thoughts, and his ways are not our ways, but I’ve had a long association with the church of Uganda. I first went to Uganda in 1989 on a SOMA [Sharing of Ministries Abroad] mission trip, and I’ve been back many times. We had a long-term partnership with both the provinces and also with what became our jurisdictional diocese, the diocese of North Kigezi, and when we separated from the Episcopal Church in 2006 we went under that diocese, and so when the church of Uganda felt it was time to have an American bishop to help look after the churches here, they were led to call upon me to do that.

Q: Why did the church of Uganda feel it was necessary to have a bishop here?

A: Well, there are 33 congregations here, and new churches are being planted, and that number will doubtless increase. While the relationships have been extraordinarily fruitful between U.S. parishes and Ugandan dioceses and bishops, they are thousands of miles away, and they really felt the need for those bishops to be supported by a bishop on the ground here who can be more immediately available to their congregations.

Q: Are these congregations primarily Ugandan in makeup?

A: No. Actually they are almost exclusively ethnic American, though American congregations are a wonderful ethnic hodgepodge in and of themselves. They’re not ethnic Ugandan congregations, but congregations that have been formed here.

Q: Why in 2006 did you make the decision to separate from the U.S. Episcopal Church?

A: Well, we [All Saints Church, Woodbridge, Virginia] had been trying to hang in there with the Communion processes of responding to the Episcopal Church’s unprecedented actions in 2003 to depart from the teaching of the Anglican Communion, and it became clear to us that the Episcopal Church was clear in its path, and it was as a result of an extended period of prayer and negotiations with our diocese to come up with an amicable plan and process of separation, and that came to be concluded in 2006, and we made the move at that time.

Q: Some in the Episcopal Church saying they want to find a way to keep everybody at the table, that there’s something they can still do. Why did you feel there wasn’t anything they could do?

A: When the Church, really, in our view, departed from biblical authority and historic teaching of the Church, it was no longer a matter of simply staying together as if nothing had happened, and if the Church was willing to turn back and come back into historic teaching and conform to the requirements of the Anglican Communion, then that would have been a different matter. But the Episcopal Church has clearly made its decision and is moving forward full speed ahead.

Q: International church leaders had asked that there be a pause or a ceasing of some of these African churches from coming here and building relationships and trying to have oversight. Why hasn’t that stopped?

A: I think that the feeling is there needs to be a provision of pastoral care and oversight for churches, many of which are very hard pressed. There are certainly, as you know, lawsuits and canonical actions taken against churches, and in turn the Episcopal Church has not paused from its course, and until there was a return to the status quo, really pre-2003, the Global South has felt that they were not going to abandon those who have taken a faithful stand here in the U.S.

Q: Update us on what’s happening now since you separated from the Episcopal Church. Currently you’re still in the building that you had been in, but you have alternative plans.

A: We agreed with our diocese to relinquish the building that we’re in and that we’re using. We’ve turned it over to the diocese, we gave the title to the diocese, but we have a lease to use it for up to 5 years to allow us time to build a new church on land which we own, which we got in the settlement, though it has a large debt on it. We were able to retain title to that property, and we’re very excited about moving in as soon as finances permit us to build that new building.

Q: Was it a hard decision for people? Was there a feeling that “we’ve been here and we should be able to stay here”?

A: No. I think there’s a real sense of excitement about moving ahead. We know we’ve outgrown this building and have plans to move ahead, and so I sense that we really — that God answered our plans and made it possible for us to stay here as long as we need to be but really allowed us to move ahead with our vision and our future ministry.

Q: Other congregations in this area that found themselves in the situation you did chose to align themselves with other churches in Africa, such as the church of Nigeria. Why did you choose Uganda rather than Nigeria?

A: It was because of our long-term mission partnership and relationship with the church of Uganda. I had been there 6 times, it was very natural, we’ve had many people from our parish go on mission trips to Uganda, and friends including the bishop who was a mission partner, who became our diocesan bishop and visited us here — and so it was really out of that relationship. There was nothing negative about any other province, or any other church, or any other option available to us, but only the most positive sense of draw and spiritual connection with the church of Uganda.

Q: The church in Uganda ordains women, which not all provinces do. Is that a factor?

A: Yes. Our associate rector here is a woman, and for that reason Uganda was also a very appropriate place for us.

Q: When you look at the overall scene, how key is the current moment for the future of the worldwide Anglican Communion?

A: It’s a very crucial time. The decision upcoming of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church will put the Episcopal Church really on record in its response to the Communion and the Windsor Report, though it’s already made its will very clear from the meeting of the House of Bishops last March and the meeting of the Executive Council in June. But nevertheless it will say very clearly to the world where the church stands in not turning back and continuing on the course that the Episcopal Church has in fact been on for many years. But just as importantly and in many ways much more significantly in terms of the positive movement of the church and the realignment is the Common Cause Council bishops’ meeting at the very end of September, an unprecedented bringing together of biblically faithful and orthodox Anglicans of a number of different jurisdictions going back to those who separated from the Episcopal Church with the Reformed Episcopal Church in the 1870s. There’s been a tendency in some groups to break free from the Episcopal Church and then in turn separate and splinter. This is a historic and unprecedented uniting, a reversal of that pattern of smaller and smaller groups, but rather bringing groups of a number of Global South jurisdictions as well as others to form a biblical, united, missionary Anglicanism here in the U.S.

Q: Is that what is happening? I’ve heard people call this the Anglican Union.

A: I think the participation of the Global South and others in the consecrations in Nairobi and in Uganda demonstrate that very clearly. My understanding is that primates representing probably 75 or 80 percent of the worshipping Anglicans in the world were represented by their archbishop at the consecrations in Nairobi. And, clearly, while there weren’t as many representatives present in Uganda, that same level of support was there.

Q: What message is that sending to the U.S. Episcopal Church and also to others watching the Anglican Communion?

A: I think there’s vibrancy in biblical Anglicanism that we see in so much of the Global South that is tremendously attractive. Our experience here in America is that this kind of passionate faith and unapologetic proclamation of Jesus Christ is magnetic for people. There are many who are drawn to it, and I think it’s sending a very positive message far and above any political message within the church. It sends a missionary message that we want to be about the positive proclamation of Jesus Christ.

Q: Others are still saying “we still can find some kind of common ground, we can still find a solution; people need to try to find paths toward unity.” Is that still possible, and is it still something to work toward?

A: I said at my consecration in Uganda that the only real unity is unity around the person of Jesus Christ. If what’s being sought is some kind of artificial, fabricated institutional unity to paper over foundational differences over who Jesus is and what he has done and what his work on the cross means for us, then I don’t think there’s any future in that. If we can come together around the person of Jesus and his unique and saving work on the cross, then all things are possible, but it has to be a true unity based on biblical faith and the uncompromising gospel of Jesus Christ.

Q: Are parishes like yours, dioceses like yours, really willing to say that if what they create is not the old Anglican Communion per se but something else that’s okay?

A: That’s a fair question, and I don’t hear people really setting up those kinds of defining terms. I think people are concerned about moving ahead in mission, and my conversation with churches that are under the Global South, not just Uganda but Kenya, Nigeria, Bolivia, Rwanda, is there’s just a tremendous sense of spiritual freedom, excitement, and blessing in being under the leadership of faithful bishops and archbishops. I think there’s a real trust of those spiritual leaders to deal with those global Communion geopolitical questions. I think the churches want to be about the mission that God has given to them and trust faithful leaders to hammer out those issues, realizing they may take a generation to ultimately sort out.

Q: Many people are under the impressions that this is all about the issue of homosexuality. Is that what this is about, or is it something bigger?

A: It’s about the authority of scripture, the historic Christian message, the person of Jesus as unique and sole lord and savior of the world. Those are the foundational issues. Clearly the working out of biblical authority is played out in any number of arenas, and human sexuality is an important one. But we spent a great deal of time in our congregation talking about the struggles of Internet pornography among heterosexuals than we do taking on the issues of homosexuality. It’s not distinctively issues of this or that group; it’s about foundational issues of salvation and the authority of scripture and the person of Jesus Christ.

Q: What do you hope the Archbishop of Canterbury talks about with the U.S. Episcopal bishops in their meeting behind closed doors?

A: I hope there’s a clear call to repentance and to return to the historic teaching of the Christian faith and the Anglican Communion.

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: For more than a year now, we’ve been reporting on the deep divisions over homosexuality in the worldwide Anglican Communion and its American branch, the Episcopal Church USA. At the center of the crisis is Frank Griswold, presiding bishop of the U.S. Episcopal Church. The presiding bishop can’t make or repeal Church positions. But he holds great moral authority in implementing policies approved at the Church’s General Convention – even policies that threaten to tear the church apart. Kim Lawton talked with Bishop Griswold.

KIM LAWTON: As presiding bishop, Frank Griswold is lead pastor and chief administrator of the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church USA. It’s a prestigious job, and these days, he admits, a challenging one.

Bishop FRANK GRISWOLD (Presiding Bishop, Episcopal Church USA): It has not been easy to be the presiding bishop in this season.

LAWTON: Griswold is at the center of what many believe is the biggest crisis the Episcopal Church has faced in its more than 200-year history – a crisis that threatens the future not only of the U.S. Church, but also of the entire worldwide Anglican Communion. It was under Griswold’s watch that the U.S. Church approved the consecration of its first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, and permitted the blessing of same-sex unions.

Those actions ignited spiraling controversy, not just over homosexuality, but also about the interpretation of Scripture, the nature of church authority, and the organization of the Anglican Communion. In the midst of it all, Griswold says his responsibility is to push for unity and reconciliation.

Bishop GRISWOLD: My basic task is to keep as many people at the table as possible, and to remind everyone that though they have their own particular point of view, there are others who have another point of view, and they are equally members of the church, loved by God, members of Christ’s risen body, and therefore must be taken with full seriousness. And it’s in the tension, often, that the truth, whatever it may be, gets more fully revealed.

LAWTON: But statements like that have earned Griswold sharp criticism from conservatives who believe the U.S. Church has violated the Bible’s condemnations of homosexuality and violated traditional church teachings.

Canon DAVID ANDERSON (American Anglican Council): The Church starts with truth and finds its unity grounded on that truth, and in the Episcopal Church, according to the presiding bishop, there are pluriform truths: your truth, my truth, his truth. And that is no basis for trying to find unity.

LAWTON: Griswold presided over the consecration of Bishop Robinson and has been open about his own view that there can be differing interpretations of the Scripture. But he says he tries to minister to all, even those who disagree with him.

Bishop GRISWOLD: Certainly as the presiding bishop I see myself as belonging to everyone even though I have my own points of view. I care as much for people who are distressed as people who think the actions are inspired by the Spirit.

LAWTON: But Canon David Anderson, president of the conservative American Anglican Council, says Bishop Griswold has lost the trust of many in his flock.

Canon ANDERSON: We do acknowledge his leadership, but we acknowledge it to have been a fairly disastrous leadership so far, and we are hoping that there might be some changes in the course of direction of the Episcopal Church. We’d love for him to step down and recognize the damage he’s done.

LAWTON: Not all conservatives agree. One of Griswold’s closest friends is Bishop Charles Jenkins of Louisiana. Jenkins voted against the confirmation of Robinson but says he still trusts Griswold’s leadership.

Bishop CHARLES JENKINS (Diocese of Louisiana): I’m willing to say that Frank Griswold is orthodox, and I am orthodox. We are both seeking God’s truth. Now he believes God’s truth is pointing in a different direction than I. But we are both willing to wait upon God to show us that.

LAWTON: Griswold says he tries not to take the criticisms personally.

Bishop GRISWOLD: I must say I am well served by a wonderful spiritual director who once said to me, “What other people say about you is none of your business.” And that was very helpful. And I realize that a lot of the anger and upset, and indeed, some of the elation as well that gets focused on me isn’t so much about me as myself as me as symbol.

LAWTON: Griswold says he finds spiritual strength and resolve through regular prayer and Scripture reading. He begins and ends each day with cyclical readings from Old and New Testament passages and the Psalms.

Bishop GRISWOLD: As I read the Psalms each day in morning and evening prayer, many of the Psalms are about people in a situation of suffering and feeling isolated and alone, and nevertheless, “I know you’re with me, God.” I mean, those Psalms take on an immediacy that they didn’t have before.

Bishop JENKINS: He has taken some very hard punches. He has been betrayed by friends. And he keeps showing up, and he keeps saying his prayers, and he keeps, I think, exhibiting the graciousness that is characteristic of someone who knows Jesus.

LAWTON: The near future is likely to be just as contentious. Over the next several months, church leaders in the U.S. and around the world will be discussing the recommendations of the special commission appointed to help the Anglican Communion avoid schism. Conservatives say much is at stake.

Bishop ROBERT DUNCAN (Diocese of Pittsburgh, at Windsor Press Conference): The Episcopal Church is now faced with serious and difficult choices. They can follow the lead of Bishop Griswold, which will ultimately lead to the demise of the Episcopal Church, or they can choose to embrace the core covenant recommended by the commission: reject false doctrine and preserve faithful unity.

LAWTON: Griswold is proud of what the Episcopal Church has accomplished on many fronts since he was installed as presiding bishop in 1998. At this point in his nine-year term, he says he’s frustrated by how much attention is taken up by gay issues.

Bishop GRISWOLD: I find the endless fixation on sexuality, and more specifically homosexuality, a distraction from other areas that, quite frankly, are matters of life and death. When I retire as presiding bishop, I hope that I’m known for something other than this issue.

LAWTON: But the issue will be dominating Griswold’s agenda in the beginning of the coming year. The U.S. House of Bishops will be meeting about it in January. And the leaders of all the world’s Anglican churches gather in February.

I’m Kim Lawton in New York.

Q: Let’s start by talking about the new Lambeth Commission Report. What did you say in the House of Bishops meeting about how the U.S. church will be receiving this report?

A: It’s very important for us in the United States to receive the Lambeth Commission Report on communion in a generous spirit and in a humble spirit. One of the realities is the Episcopal Church, by association with United States policies – which are perceived in other parts of the world as very self-serving if not unhelpful to other societies – I think often the Episcopal Church is so associated with American policy abroad that we are thought of as arrogant and insensitive to other cultural realities and other concerns, and therefore it’s very important that we receive this report seriously, with openness of mind and a genuine desire to find ways in which we can be better partners with other parts of the Anglican world.

Q: In the years since the General Convention, how much hurt, how much anger, how much confusion have you heard about from some of these partners?

A: I’ve had the advantage of being able to travel to other parts of the world. I’ve been to Nigeria, where I gave a retreat to the bishops of Nigeria and visited a number of dioceses and saw the work and understood some of the complexities of life there. And the same is true also in Uganda. And therefore, I’m very aware of how different the contexts are in which, let’s say, the Anglican Church in Nigeria or Uganda is seeking to interpret and live the Gospel. And then in contrast, I’m very aware of different realities that are present here in the United States. And in fact, one of the primates, not from a Western country, said to me, “I think the Holy Spirit can do different things in different places.”

One thing about Anglicanism – and this is in some of the documents that have been generated by such things as the Lambeth Conference – the Anglican tradition realizes that the Gospel is locally embodied, and therefore it’s going to be affected by cultural and political realities in different parts of the world, and therefore what may seem to many people in the United States as a genuine unfolding of a Gospel direction may in another part of the world be seen as extremely unsettling and threatening.

So, I have a very deep sense of the complexity of all this, and it’s further complicated by the immediacy of communication. I mean, years ago, no one would have known about the ordination of the bishop of New Hampshire until letters had arrived some months later. But now, television, for example, beamed the ordination service around the world, so suddenly it was as if it were happening in Nigeria and other places. And so, naturally, the reaction was more intense because here it was, right in my own living room.

Q: When you as a church are making those determinations of how the Gospel is embodied in a particular context, where is the line at which point it’s not the same church, or the beliefs are so different that it no longer is still the same body?

A: I think what is very disturbing to me at the present moment is that sexuality seems to have trumped the creeds in determining fundamentals of the Christian faith. And the truth is that a great deal more unites us than divides us. There’s a common appreciation of the creeds as the ground of our articulated faith, and we all believe that the Old and New Testaments contain everything necessary to salvation. And then the interpretation of Scripture becomes something that varies. Even the primates themselves, when they met last October, in their official communications said there are differences in how we interpret Scripture, and we need to acknowledge those things.

Q: I want to ask you to simply explain this notion of a communion. I think it’s difficult for people outside the Episcopal context to understand what that means – how the U.S. church is autonomous, but yet in relationship with all of these other churches. How does that work?

A: There are two important things about communion. First of all, communion is a gift from God and not something we simply create. Communion is the intimate life of a relationship that exists between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit that is then expanded to human beings through baptism, and we are all then connected in what Paul calls “the body of Christ.” He says we’re all limbs, members of this body – arms and legs and constituent elements of a body. So, communion is about deep relationship created by God.

Now, the Anglican Communion exists not juridicaly – I mean – there is not a pope. The Archbishop of Canterbury does not occupy that kind of position. But communion is a matter of relationship on many levels. And so, though there may be strains formally between the heads of the various churches of the Anglican Communion, relationships also continue on the ground, and they are much more intimate. They are sometimes bishop to bishop, or a group of women from one part of the Anglican Communion, for instance, came here to New York to be part of a U.N. conference, as Anglican women, about women in the world. Well, this is a manifestation of communion.

So, it’s not a formal relationship so much as it is a kind of lived pattern of many relationships. And I think, too, it’s important to point out that the Episcopal Church, which was the first, as it were, breakaway from the mother church in England, saw itself as quite independent, and the notion of Anglican communion really is a more recent development, as largely British missionaries went to various parts of the world and established churches in what were British colonies. So the notion of communion has evolved, and it is still evolving. And I think part of the present strain is, what is the proper relationship between the local reality and an international body of churches in fellowship with one another, and where does the action of one church drastically affect the life of the other churches?

So, this is part of what we’re struggling with. And I think the Lambeth Commission report will help us in that struggle.

Q: To what extent do you think that you are in some ways redefining or evolving the notion of how all of these Anglican bodies relate to one another and live together or don’t?

A: Well, my hope and my prayer is that we will find a way to continue to be partners. For instance, there is such poverty and disease and internal turmoil in various parts of the world where we have resources that can be helpful and useful, and we want to be in a living relationship with brother and sister Anglicans who are dealing with HIV/AIDS, for example.

So, my hope and prayer is that the Lambeth Commission report, which really, as its title suggests, is about communion, will really be an invitation to live what I will call a more sacrificial life, not just on our part but on the part of everyone, to make a little more space for one another, because in this shattered and broken world where division is the order of the day, I think it’s so important that the church manifest a capacity to contain difference with grace and focus its attention on human need. After all, the church doesn’t exist for itself, it exists for the sake of the world and the world’s well-being.

Q: What is the U.S. church’s responsibility as a church here to deal with the people here, and then to what extent should outside voices have an impact here, as the church here deals with the people here?

A: I think when you look at the Episcopal Church you have to ask the question, “What kind of church has it been historically?” And you have to go back to the 16th century, when the Church of England, our parent, came into being, and at that time you had on the one hand reforming zeal, and on the other hand you had a sense of Catholic continuity. And these two really were at loggerheads with one another. But the Anglican solution, Anglican comprehensiveness as it’s sometimes called, saw containing those two realities within one reality, namely the Church of England, rooted and grounded not in perfect agreement, but rooted and grounded in a capacity to pray together. And so in the Anglican tradition, the liturgy has always been this sort of meeting point for difference, where difference is reconciled, not at the level of the head but at the level of the heart. Historically, we’ve always been a church that can contain and live difference.

So, that brings us now to the present moment and I think the overwhelming reality of the Episcopal Church is what I would call “the diverse center,” people who hold a variety of opinions, not just with respect to something as emotional as homosexuality, but all kinds of other things – war and peace, should we be involved in military operations or not? You have a church that has multiple points of view and by-and-large can live with that multiplicity of points of view because of the sort of common focus beyond ourselves, mediated by the liturgy, namely the person of Christ.

So, we have people on the edges, and people on the edges always are more loudly heard, I think, than the diverse center. And I don’t want to overly complicate the situation by describing something too diverse and strained, but still, I think it’s important to say that even within this diverse center you have people who are deeply pained by actions of the Episcopal Church in recent days, and others who are overjoyed, and yet they’re able to live together. Our recent meeting of bishops is a perfect example of people with diverse opinions being able to come together and say, “All right, for the sake of the world, what should the church be doing?” and sort of looking beyond ourselves.

There is this concern about ministering to all points of view, and certainly as the presiding bishop I see myself as belonging to everyone even though I have my own points of view. I care as much for people who are distressed as people who think the actions are inspired by the spirit.

Now, internationally, I am very aware, as are the bishops – and they said this in their recent letter – we’re very aware of the complications and difficulties the decisions we’ve made have caused in other parts of the world. And this is part of, I would say, the tension between trying to be faithful to what you perceive locally – yes, being sensitive to other parts of the world, but also acknowledging the fact that ultimately you have to live within your own context. And we, as a result of that, are certainly going to seek every way and are seeking every way we can bridge the gap and be authentic partners with other parts of the Communion.

Q: Is this truly a time of crisis? Is that how you look at it?

A: If you look at the Episcopal Church through the eyes of its parishioners, which I think is probably a realistic way to look at the church, see what actually is going on – on the ground, the overwhelming majority of congregations are focused on things like Sunday School, adult education, how can we meet the needs of the community in which we find ourselves, how might we be related to a parish in a diocese in some other part of the world. Things like the Lambeth Commission Report seem awfully remote, and some of the struggle seems awfully remote.

I’m not saying that’s universal. There are congregations that are deeply upset, and some that are deeply divided, but the vast majority are focused on what does it mean to be a Christian community, what does it mean to exist not for ourselves but for the sake of the world? That is the larger reality of the Episcopal Church, and I think probably that’s the larger reality of most of the Anglican Communion, if you look at it on the ground in terms of its congregations.

Q: Is it frustrating to be so focused on this and asked about it all the time as opposed to so many of the other places where the Episcopal Church is involved and issues that the church is wrestling with?

A: I find the endless fixation on sexuality, and more specifically homosexuality, a distraction from other areas that quite frankly are matters of life and death. I remember vividly, when the primates met last autumn in England, at the end of our meeting, which was focused mostly on the blessing of same-sex unions in a diocese in Canada and the actions of the Episcopal Church in confirming the election of the then bishop-elect of New Hampshire, one primate said, “You know, it’s been sex, sex, sex, and I am facing poverty and disease and life and death in my diocese, in my church.” And several of the other primates just sort of sighed. And I apologized. I said, “I am very sorry that this issue has been made center stage in the life of the Anglican Communion,” and I went on to say, “and that has happened in large measure because of people within my own church who are unhappy, who have insisted that this be the issue in the life of the Anglican Communion.” So that does sadden me deeply. And when I retire as presiding bishop, I hope that I’m known for something other than this issue.

Q: Has it been challenging for you spiritually, physically, and emotionally to be presiding at this time?

A: It has not been easy to be the presiding bishop in this season. I must say I am well served by a wonderful spiritual director who once said to me, “What other people say about you is none of your business,” and that was very helpful. I realize that a lot of the anger and upset, and indeed, some of the elation as well that gets focused on me isn’t so much about me as myself as [it is about] me as symbol. I make a distinction, insofar as one can, between myself as myself, and myself as a “role,” and therefore, sort of a focal point for any number of perspectives within the life of the church. I think my role, too, and my basic task is to keep as many people at the table as possible, and to remind everyone that though they have their own particular point of view, there are others who have another point of view, and they are equally members of the church, loved by God, members of Christ’s risen body, and therefore must be taken with full seriousness. And it’s in the tension, often, that the truth, whatever it may be, gets more fully revealed.

Q: How has all of this affected you spiritually?

A: Spiritually, this has all deepened my companionship with Christ. It has also made very real to me the whole notion of sharing Christ’s sufferings in order to share Christ’s resurrection. I mean, dying and rising, which is the basic paradigm of Christian life, seemed in some ways a bit abstract before I became the presiding bishop, and now it seems very, very real indeed. As I read the psalms each day in morning and evening prayer, many of the psalms are about people in a situation of suffering and feeling isolated and alone, and nevertheless, “I know you’re with me, God.” I mean, those psalms take on an immediacy that they didn’t have before.

Basically, I think I’m a happy person – not with my own sort of manic joy but with something the Holy Spirit has sort of worked in me. And I think this is what gives me a sense of graced confidence, you might say, and an ability not to be sort of thrown off course by these curious things that sort of erupt in the life of the church.

Q: What are you hearing from the Anglican churches in Sudan, and what do they want to see the U.S. do – not just the church, but the U.S. government, the U.S. as a nation?

A: The Sudan is very close to our hearts because there is an Episcopal Church of the Sudan, and at our recent meeting of bishops in Spokane, one of our guests was a bishop from the Darfur area. We have been, as a church, very focused on legislation. We’ve brought Sudanese bishops to testify before Congressional committees. Congregations across this country are in solidarity with the church in Sudan. Our Episcopal relief and development organization has received, I think, about $1.5 million for relief in the Darfur area. We’re trying to be partners in terms of political leverage and in terms of direct service, and trying to make the situation, as our brother and sister Anglicans can describe it in vivid detail, that much more real and immediate in the lives of our people, and certainly in the lives of our legislators.

Q: And what do they say that situation is? What are they suffering?

A: You could listen to a bishop tell you about his family being killed in the compound, and just chaos – I mean, a chaos to an extent that you can’t imagine how people can function. What has been so amazing to me is the power of a kind of deep faith, and indeed, a hopefulness in the midst of situations that from our point of view seem absolutely hopeless. Our faith is rendered so shallow, in a way, in comparison to the heroism with which the bishops and clergy and lay people in the Sudan are able to witness to the Gospel under the most appalling circumstances.

Q: You are a good friend with the Episcopal bishop of Louisiana.

A: Bishop Charles Jenkins and I go back to when he was ordained a bishop. In fact, I was scheduled to give a retreat to the clergy of his diocese before he was elected. He attended the retreat and we became, out of that experience of praying together and reflecting on the life of ministry together, very, very close friends. I think the fact that Bishop Jenkins and I have somewhat different views on matters of sexuality, but are absolutely of one mind on everything else, has been a very good example to people on both sides of the question, of people who can care deeply about a mission they share for the sake of the world, and disagree on some things, and yet make common cause in the name of Christ.

Q: Does he challenge you? Does he push you a bit on some of these things?

A: If anything, Bishop Jenkins teases me. He has an outrageous sense of humor. I would say we were both aware of our different perspectives, but we simply accept the fact that there are different realities within one church, and those realities are going to continue, and they need to be respected. And sooner or later the Holy Spirit will figure out how they might be reordered, but for now we live our two integrities together as brothers in Christ.

Read more of Kim Lawton’s interview with Episcopal Bishop Presiding Frank Griswold in New York City on October 6, 2004 /wnet/religionandethics/files/2010/10/thumb02-frankgriswoldextra.jpg ]]> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/november-26-2004/bishop-frank-griswold-extended-interview/7263/feed/ 0