Divorce and Remarriage

by Bryan Owen

I first posted this over at Creedal Christian back in August. I offer it again here, not only because the Gospel reading appointed in the Eucharistic lectionary for today (Mark 10:1-12) is about divorce and remarriage, and not only because I continue to believe that this is an important moral issue that the Church largely ignores, but also because I sometimes hear people refer to this matter as though either (a) biblical teaching on these issues is simple and univocal, or (b) because there is diversity in the New Testament, there is no clear, normative biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage.

_________________________________

It’s just my luck that in the daily Eucharistic lectionary for this Friday, the Gospel reading is Matthew 19:3-12 – one of the five passages in the New Testament that deals with divorce and remarriage. That’s not a topic that regularly pops up in sermons (I’ve never preached on it until today’s noonday service), and the relevant passages rarely surface in the Daily Office and Sunday Eucharistic lectionary cycles. It’s not the sort of thing I’m eager to preach about.

Fortunately for me, Biblical scholar Richard B. Hays’ discussion of the relevant biblical texts in his book The Moral Vision of the New Testament (HarperCollins, 1996), provides a nice summary of what the New Testament says about divorce and remarriage – and thus gave me a way to address this topic in a brief homily. Here’s the gist of Hays’ summary:

Relevant Texts

1. Mark 10:2-12

2. Matthew 19:3-12

3. Matthew 5:31-32

4. Luke 16:18

5. 1 Corinthians 7:10-16

New Testament Diversity

1. Mark and Luke categorically prohibit divorce.

2. Matthew and Paul allow for possible exceptions to the norm of life-long marriage in cases calling for pastoral discretion.

3. In Matthew and Luke, only the husband can initiate divorce.

4. Mark and Paul recognize the right of women to initiate divorce.

5. Matthew maintains that divorced women can only remarry as adulteresses, while men may possibly remarry without sin if their former wives were guilty of unchastity.

6. Luke excludes the possibility of remarriage after divorce.

7. Paul advises against remarriage, but acknowledges that options for remarriage may exist for Christians divorced by unbelievers.

8. Mark does not address the problem of remarriage in special circumstances.

New Testament Unity

1. Normative vision: marriage is a permanently binding commitment in which a man and a woman become “one flesh.”

2. Divorce is always an exceptional and tragic deviation from the norm.

3. Rules out no-fault divorce and serial monogamy.

Given this summary of New Testament diversity, it simply will not do to say, “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!” when it comes to divorce and remarriage. There is no single biblical rule here. Instead, there is a moral argument internal to the New Testament canon. So it is not appropriate to make categorical judgments about particular cases of divorce and remarriage on the basis of isolated biblical texts. The entirety of the New Testament’s diverse witness must be taken into account. This is particularly important given the fact that none of the New Testament writers address issues such as spousal abuse as a legitimate reason for divorce. In cases calling for moral and pastoral discernment, other factors may also require appeal to additional authoritative resources in tradition and reason to supplement the diverse biblical witness.

At the same time, the points that unite the New Testament’s diverse voices must also be taken seriously. In particular, the summary third point – that the New Testament rules out no-fault divorce and serial monogamy – strikes very close to home in virtually every Christian congregation. Serial monogamy has displaced lifelong unions as the norm in our culture, and in light of the high divorce rate among Christians, the Church has followed suit. Sober assessment of the Church’s accommodation to our culture ought to make all Christians who claim to take biblical authority seriously think long and hard before we throw stones at others we perceive as sinners.

I think that the New Testament texts on divorce and remarriage need to be read, not only in relation to each other, but also within the larger context of the entire biblical story of God’s grace in creation and covenant. We do well to remember that the Bible is a love story that begins with a divorce and ends with the union of heaven and earth in the New Jerusalem.

Yes, repentance is necessary. But redemption is always possible.

Abp. Anis Withdraws from GAFCON

My very dear brothers in Christ,

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

First I want to make it clear that this letter expresses my views as the Bishop of the Diocese of Egypt, not the views of the whole Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East. I count it a great honour to have been invited to GAFCON.

I appreciate the fact that GAFCON provides an important meeting place for leaders from the South and from the North. I very much understand the frustrations as well as the hopes that led to the organisation of this conference.

I do share your frustration in regard to what is going on in our Communion, as well as your hopes for strong and faithful Anglican church.

I am very disappointed with the direction taken by the Episcopal Church in the USA and the Anglican Church in Canada. This direction is not only about sexual ethics, which are contrary to Scripture, but also in regard to the fundamentals of the Apostolic Faith as we received it, like the Nature of Christ, the authority of scripture and God's Salvation through Jesus Christ.

In addition they use very ambiguous language and contradictory phrases in their responses to the clear Windsor recommendation as well as the Dar es Salaam ones. It was shocking for me to hear that some now ask for the definition of 'moratorium' after four years of issuing The Windsor Report!

I am deeply concerned that The Windsor Report and Dar es Salaam recommendations were not followed through and now the very people who caused the Communion's crisis are invited to the most important Anglican council which is the Lambeth Conference. It is wrong to sweep all these problems under the carpet!

I also share your hopes that we can go forward to advance the mission of the Gospel and be instruments in building the Church of Christ, founded on the Biblical truth.

Having said all this I am sorry that I will not be able to be with you at your Conference but I assure you that you will be in my prayers. Please accept my apologies. I also look forward to receiving your recommendations before going to Lambeth. My brothers I want to draw your attention to the following: 1) The unity of the Global South (GS) is our great concern.

As you know the Global South was established in 1997 and has been recognized by the whole Anglican Communion. It has been effective in strengthening the South to South links. The GS is composed of more than twenty provinces.

There is now increasing interest from Orthodox Bishops in the North to be affiliated with the Global South. This is because we use a moderate but form of language. In our last Steering Committee of the Global South in March we, in our statement, affirmed the importance of the Global South and its mission: We see an increasing conviction and confirmation of the prophetic and priestly vocation of the Global South in the Anglican Communion.

As Primates coming from different contexts, we were led into deep conversations and helpful clarifications on the challenges before us (Ps 133; Eph 4:1-6; Phil 2:1-5). We reaffirmed our total and collegial commitment to the solemn vocation of the Global South. We resolved, and urge all in the Global South and other orthodox constituencies of the wider Communion to strengthen our hearts and wills to work together for the fundamental renewal and transformation of the global Anglican Communion.

We also stated: Through our conversations together and clarifications made, we are led to understand and appreciate the principled reasons for participation in GAFCON (June 2008) and Lambeth Conference (Jul 2008). Even if there are different perspectives on these, they do not and should not be allowed to disrupt the common vision, unity and trust within the Global South.

For this reason I appeal to you to take the above statements fully into your consideration and to be careful not to make binding decisions which may result in dividing Anglicans in the Global South and elsewhere. At the same time I would like to share with you a little more of my own thinking.

I believe that the best strategy for safeguarding orthodox faith and unhindered mission is to have parallel processes for building unity among those loyal to the biblical historic faith and ethics in both the South and the North. Orthodox leaders in the South and in the North need to continue to work together and support each other.

I would respectfully add that the Global South must not be driven by an exclusively Northern agenda or Northern personalities. The meeting of the Global South in '09 will be critical for the future, and the agenda will need careful preparation ahead of time.

The constitution of the Global South needs to be reviewed in such a way as to clarify representation and appointment of office bearers. The Global South has contributed much to the initiation of the Covenant process, and will need to consider how it is progressing.

If there is no prospect of a Covenant that safeguards orthodoxy and unhindered mission within a reasonable timescale, then the possibility of adopting a "holding covenant" may need to be considered. I urge you all to consider participating in the Lambeth Conference.

The absence of any of your voices will be a great loss. God has spoken to me through the Book of Jonah. So I decided not to withdraw but to go and speak the truth, and leave the rest to God. Please remember that there will be bishops who are not fully aware of the seriousness of the situation. They need to be alerted. Your presence would be a help, as indeed it was in 1998.

I am reminded by the words of Jesus that we continue to live in the world: "I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world." John 17: 14-16 One last point: we need to combine steadfastness, a peaceable spirit and gracious language.

I believe that the language we use needs to be especially appealing to the "people in the pews" who may be confused or misled, having less understanding of the issues of the controversy, but who want to remain true Christians and Anglicans. "He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it." 1 Thess 5:24 May the Lord bless you.

Yours in Christ,

+Mouneer Egypt
The Most Rev Dr Mouneer H. Anis
Bishop of Egypt with North Africa and the Horn of Africa.

Trinity Sunday Revision of the Anglican Covenant

Tobias Haller writes on his excellent blog that he thinks the Anglican Covenant would be worthy in the form of the St. Andrew's Draft if the appendix and section 3.2.5 were simply removed altogether.

I agree.

In honor of the Holy Trinity which is all the communion that there will be one day when all things are taken into the very life of God in theosis - I have clipped out those silly bits and published the 'Trinity' version of the Anglican Covenant.

If you read it imagining that this were it -- the total and final 'covenant' -- with no secret or appendaged bits lurking behind it with 'teeth' -- it's very appealing.

See it here.

Craig Uffman - Toward A Greater Peace

A reader at Covenant, noting my strong opposition to the GAFCON movement, asked if I believe the GAFCON organizers are “a cause of the division we are seeing in the church, as opposed to a symptom of the division.” His question is, I think, the wrong question to ask. The right question is, ‘what is the path of faithfulness?’ In what follows, I suggest that the counsel of many of the GAFCON organizers echoes that of another group who called for battle in Jerusalem, the princes of Judah whom Jeremiah opposed.

I think of Judah, as we find her in Jeremiah 38, just before the fall of Jerusalem. The geopolitical situation is important in that part of the story. Josiah cleansed the land of idols and reclaimed the old lands of the northern tribe during the waning days of the Assyrian-Egyptian empire. In other words, good king Josiah was against Assyria-Egypt in the old Empire’s battles against the rising new Empire, Babylon. Josiah was “for” Babylon. But when he died, his sons switched sides, and allied with Egypt. As a result, in Jeremiah’s time, there was a constant political battle within Judah between those who favored alliance with Egypt and those who favored alliance with Babylon. Like us today, those who shared a common life as Jews were divided over what to do.

We ought to be clear here in saying that once again Judah had a choice to make, just like Moses gave them on the banks of the Jordan. But the choice before Judah was not to be “for” or “against” Empire. Just as it for us, Empire was simply the reality of their times. It was the water they swam in. They could not avoid living in Empire because Empire was the dominant geopolitical fact of their existence. What was Empire in those days? Empire was a predatory, exploitive ordering of the world by a particular nation who was able to project its military and economic power throughout a region in order to impose its will on others in the region.

And so the choice before Judah was not whether to be “for” or “against” Empire. It was not that Judah had a choice at all to choose between being affected by the power politics of Egypt and Babylon.

Rather, the choice before them was to be “for” or “against” a particular way of living within Empire - a particular way of being God’s people given the fact of Empire. The new princes urged that they go back to Egypt - that is, trust in an alliance with Egyptian power and ways of being. Warfare was their only hope for survival. An urgent necessity, they said. Of course, that meant that the proud princes adopted fully the main tenet of those who besieged them that the basic fact of existence is violence. The world consists of chaos that one only survives with power, by becoming more powerful than the ‘other.’ We need to pause here and think about this claim. The basic fact of human existence is violence.

Is that true? Personally, I think many in Western pews today would squirm at this suggestion that the priority of violence undergirds the structures of society. Especially all us Christians, because we know that Jesus says “blessed are the peacemakers” and other things about turning our cheeks and loving our neighbor. But I want to press us on this point. I think few would deny the truths they learned on the playgrounds and on the playing fields: that “the universe rewards action,” “life is a competitive struggle,” “survival means learning to swim with the sharks,” “only the strong survive,” and “winners never quit, quitters never win.” Yet, at the heart of these, perhaps concealed, is the claim that “life is a field of warfare.” There’s an assumption that humans are driven by a will to power - the will to affirm ourselves by differentiating ourselves in the encounter with others. But difference, according to Empire, is oppositional difference, a difference by which we compete, displace, or even expel another from power. Whether in the schoolhouse, on the playing fields, at home, or in the public square, the primary reality of existence, according to Empire, is violence.

In this worldview, virtue consists of the heroic exemplification of strength and conquest. Heroic virtue - and thus heroic honor - is all about the ability to project power. And to heroic virtue the would-be leaders of Judah rallied the people.

Yet, here comes the prophet. Jeremiah said, you’ve got it all wrong, princes. That’s not God’s way. That’s not what God intends for us. For the fundamental reality to which Israel is to witness is God’s peace.

Now this was not self-evident to the princes, and it apparently is not self-evident to many of us today, even though we celebrate in daily prayer that Christ has been given “to guide our feet into the way of peace” (Luke 1:79), and even though we practice sharing Christ’s gift of peace with one another before sharing the feast Christ sets for us at his table.

This fundamental ontology of peace was not unknown to Israel. The story of Israel begins with the Creator’s gift of order, manifest especially by light that vanquished darkness, for “when God began to create heaven and earth — the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water — God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light“ (Gen 1:1-3). This ordering light of God shone upon ”the garden in Eden,“ where ”God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food“ (Gen 2:8-9). From the beginning, God gave us everything necessary to know and acknowledge our utter dependence on him and to be blessed by the peace and joy of fellowship with him. Israel’s story also told of humankind’s rebellion against God at Babel, where prideful humanity sought to exchange their dependence on God for a manmade stairway to heaven (Gen 11). Yet Israel also knew Isaiah’s good news that God would restore them to the peace that fellowship with him brings, that hope in things unseen when:

“The wolf shall live with the lamb,
the leopard shall lie down with the kid,
the calf and the lion and the fatling together,
and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze,
their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp,
and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder’s den. They will not hurt or destroy
on all my holy mountain;
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea.” (Is 11: 6-9)

The fundamental reality of peace has its basis in the character of the God of Abraham, a character revealed in the story of Israel, a story in which, in spite of her rebellion, God had chosen never to be without humankind, and never to redeem creation without Israel. Because God is Lord, it is God, and not Egypt and Babylon, who establishes the meaning of history. It is because we know God’s character that we hope in things unseen. It is because we know God’s character that we are empowered to trust in God’s triumph over evil; and it is because of God’s promise of a redeemed Jerusalem - the very symbol of peace - that we are able to obey God’s Word to us and order our common life today as our witness to God’s ultimate triumph. God’s gift of peace makes possible a different way of being - the way of charity, a way we were called and sent to show the world.

And so Jeremiah spoke against any alliance with Egypt. He called Judah back to the alternative way of being found in God’s Word, to her vocation of telling the world what it did not know and does not know about itself: the basic fact of existence is God’s peace. Judah was not to adopt the ways of Empire, he insisted. Instead, Judah was to surrender. She was to live within Empire as a resident alien of Babylon, serving her Babylonian masters loyally, while refusing to adopt their gods or ways of being - she was to fulfill her destiny as the people of Abraham by loving God with all her heart and living truthfully. Only by living as a resident alien, Jeremiah said, would Judah survive.

In response to Jeremiah’s oracle, the king destroyed Jeremiah’s scroll. Judah did not listen to the Word of God. As a result, the Babylonians were literally at the gates. The walls of Jerusalem began to crumble, and there was no bread in the city. This was the king’s and princes’ worst nightmare. Jeremiah’s call for Judah to surrender to Babylon was hardly the way to win friends and influence people. His call for the people to submit to God’s judgment – to resist the temptation of horses and chariots – was aiding and abetting the enemy, the princes claimed. As a result, Jeremiah was humiliated, beaten, and imprisoned. In the midnight hours of the kingdom, Judah’s princes entrapped the prophet of God in a cistern where he would surely die.

But those who seek to live under Scriptural authority know well that God’s Word will not return empty. The stories of our heritage teach us that somewhere, somehow, the Spirit will give the gift of prophetic imagination, perhaps to the least likely among us, and those persons will find the courage to stand firm in God’s Word, to speak truth to power, to choose faithfulness to God’s Word rather than the princes’ path of worldly ways.

Such a person was Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, the true servant of the King, who resisted the princes’ call to the ways of Egypt and Babylon. It was Ebed-melech the Ethiopian who, taking “old rags and worn-out clothes, which he let down to Jeremiah in the cistern by ropes,” “drew Jeremiah up by the ropes and pulled him out of the cistern (Jer 38:12-13).And it was Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, a midnight voice, calm in the midst of nightmare, to whom the Lord said, “I will save you on that day, says the LORD, and you shall not be handed over to those whom you dread. For I will surely save you, and you shall not fall by the sword; but you shall have your life as a prize of war, because you have trusted in me, says the LORD” (Jer 39:17-18).

It is Ebed-melech the Ethiopian whom we seek in our midst today.

Are the GAFCON organizers the “cause of the division we are seeing in the church, as opposed to a symptom of the division?” I think the question is the same as asking if the princes of Judah were the cause of the aggression by Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. It’s the wrong question. The choice before us in this moment is not to be “for” or “against” the playful nihilism and autonomous materialism that so infects Western society that we feel the apostolic faith is under siege. Rather, the choice before us is to be “for” or “against” a particular way of living within a culture that is anti-Christian - a particular way of being God’s people given the fact of our profound differences.

The principal leaders of the GAFCON movement, it seems to me, are like Judah’s princes who would have us go back to Egypt - to adopt the main tenet of our nihilistic culture that the basic fact of existence is violence. For, impatient with the Covenant process, they sound the battle cry and rally us to the walls to fight for Judah against that which besieges us. We must do now what is necessary to compete, to displace, or even to expel the liberals from our fellowship, they claim. In so doing, they would have us adopt the ways of Babylon and Egypt - the ways of worldly power and autonomy - rather than remaining true to our identity in Christ.

Those of us who are committed to life under scriptural authority and to the fellowship that bears in its common life the apostolic faith must respond with an emphatic, “No!” That’s not God’s way. That’s not what God intends for us. For the primary reality of existence is peace. God’s gift of peace makes possible a different way of being - the way of charity, a way we were called to show the world. And so we can and must take the risk of subjecting ourselves to one another in Communion, trusting that Father, Son, and Spirit will continue to sustain our fellowship in and through Christ.

Amici Curiae in Virginia, Revised

The legal struggle between our Church and the Nigerian Anglican entity over property in Virginia has been joined by some friends on our 'side.' Several other denominations, not all episcopally ordered and not all 'liberal,' or even 'mainline,' have filed amici curiae briefs alongside The Episcopal Church in opposing the notion that local congregations could claim ownership of property in the event of divisions within a denomination. Notably, the United Methodist bishop with oversight of Virginia has joined in, and other United Methodist leaders, along with the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) and the AME-Zion churches and the Worldwide Church of God. As well, Presbyterians, Seventh-Day Adventists, Lutherans, and Brethren have joined in. The numbers are now approaching a million Christians joining hands to support the notion that churches are free to operate within their own polities, without secular laws impinging upon that right.

The Nigerian Anglicans have attempted to benefit from just such a secular impingement.

This case will ultimately determine whether or not hierarchical churches may exist functionally in Virginia without being undermined by the secular laws which would give power to any local congregation to 'opt out with property' whenever they wished.

Tobias Haller on Bishop Paul Moore

As always, I find Father Haller's perspective and proclamation to be very wise. I post his essay here without permission, having plucked it from his blog:

Feet of Clay

Bishop Sisk’s letter to the Diocese of New York, in the wake of Honor Moore’s book about her father, has generated a lot of comment in the diocese and the blogosphere. Some seem to think the primary concern was Bishop Moore’s sexuality, and I guess for the wider public interested in such things that will be the titillating revelation.

But Bishop Sisk’s primary concern was certainly not Paul’s sexuality, nor his infidelity, but much more importantly, his misconduct, described in the fifth paragraph of Bishop Sisk’s letter. The misconduct complaints were reported to the PB, and dealt with “quietly” but dealt with, over a decade before the present bishop took up his office. I know this because, although I did not know the nature of the charges, it was easy to see at the time that “something” had happened, for Bishop Moore was a member of my parish, and the scuttlebutt was that he was under some kind of discipline.

In retrospect (which is always 20/20) it would have been better for all if the matter had become public, and Bishop Moore openly sentenced, either to suspension or deposition. This would have been very painful, but it would have lanced the wound. We’ve learned a lot in the last twenty years. But people should realize how very much Paul Moore himself was responsible for imbuing a culture of evasion and concealment in the church. While he led the Diocese admirably, it could not help but reflect his own conflicted life over his long service. The mark such leaders leave upon the institutions they serve will not always be discernible but by succeeding generations.

As it is, though, Paul is dead and whatever sentence a higher tribunal will make, in the earthly arena only his memory suffers. Those who hated him in life will feel vindicated; those who admired him will feel to some extent embarrassed or pained, and some of them have directed their anger at Honor Moore or Bishop Sisk.

But Paul himself is not subject to pain inflicted post mortem. Honor Moore might be held up for criticism for telling tales she knows full well her father did not wish to have exposed. But the anger against Bishop Sisk — and the extent to which that anger distorts perceptions of what he actually wrote — seems to me to be entirely misplaced.

This is difficult for all of us. It is perhaps most difficult for those who have canonized Paul Moore in their memories. I knew and admired Paul Moore in several different contexts: as my Bishop, as Visitor to my community, and as a fellow parishioner. I also know how, in spite of his moving the issue forward, he nuanced his support of gay and lesbian people, and distanced himself with distinctions about “orientation” and “practice” when the House of Bishops came down on him. If you want to see a poignant exercise in Paul’s inability to face his own and others’ realities, and what he knew or didn’t know, read his address to the House of Bishops. He did not want to know of others that which he didn’t want known of himself. He helped us to move forward incrementally; but I wonder how much more he might have done so, had he chosen either the hard task of self-discipline, or the even harder task of self-knowledge and revelation.

For I am very weary of those who blame society for Paul’s double life in the closet, and even more those who blame the closet for his misconduct. He wasn’t “forced” — he made choices, choices which affected others than himself.

Hard as it may be for some to believe, there are celibate gay and lesbian people — some in the closet and some out. There are gay and lesbian people who marry persons of the opposite sex and who remain faithful to them — though this is a painful course I would not urge anyone to follow. There are gay and lesbian persons who remain faithful to their partners, again, some in the closet and some not.

Paul Moore was unable to follow through on his choice; he benefitted from the superficial protection it offered him. Had he been fully honest about himself, he would likely never have been a priest, certainly not a bishop — unless he chose the path of celibacy, or the virtual celibacy of the closet-with-benefits favored in his day in Anglo-Catholic circles, and still urged by some as a way to have avoided the present tensions in the Anglican Communion.

Paul Moore was a man admired by many, including myself. He is a reminder to us that not all great men are good and not all good men are great. Paul Moore did not just have feet of clay. He was, in fact, almost entirely clay -- as are we all. He was inbreathed by God, yet lived a fallible life. He is now dead. He will rise again. Christ died for Paul’s sins as he did for yours and mine, and at the judgment he will stand as we will, acquitted solely because the judge is also our only mediator and advocate.

Tobias Haller BSG

Rowan Williams' Letter to Bishops

The Feast of Pentecost is a time when we give thanks that God, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, makes us able to speak to each other and to the whole world of the wonderful things done in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a good moment to look forward prayerfully to the Lambeth Conference, asking God to pour out the Spirit on all of us as we make ready for this time together, so that we shall indeed be given grace to speak boldly in his Name.

I indicated in earlier letters that the shape of the Conference will be different from what many have been used to. We have listened carefully to those who have expressed their difficulties with Western and parliamentary styles of meeting, and the Design Group has tried to find a new style – a style more reflective of that Pentecost moment when all received the gift of speaking freely about Christ.

At the heart of this will be the indaba groups. Indaba is a Zulu word describing a meeting for purposeful discussion among equals. Its aim is not to negotiate a formula that will keep everyone happy but to go to the heart of an issue and find what the true challenges are before seeking God's way forward. It is a method with parallels in many cultures, and it is close to what Benedictine monks and Quaker Meetings seek to achieve as they listen quietly together to God, in a community where all are committed to a fellowship of love and attention to each other and to the word of God.

Each day's work in this context will go forward with careful facilitation and preparation, to ensure that all voices are heard (and many languages also!). The hope is that over the two weeks we spend together, these groups will build a level of trust that will help us break down the walls we have so often built against each other in the Communion. And in combination with the intensive prayer and fellowship of the smaller Bible study groups, all this will result, by God's grace, in clearer vision and discernment of what needs to be done.

As I noted when I wrote to you in Advent, this makes it all the more essential that those who come to Lambeth will arrive genuinely willing to engage fully in that growth towards closer unity that the Windsor Report and the Covenant Process envisage. We hope that people will not come so wedded to their own agenda and their local priorities that they cannot listen to those from other cultural backgrounds. As you may have gathered, in circumstances where there has been divisive or controversial action, I have been discussing privately with some bishops the need to be wholeheartedly part of a shared vision and process in our time together.

Of course, as baptised Christians and pastors of Christ's flock, we are not just seeking some low-level consensus, or a simple agreement to disagree politely. We are asking for the fire of the Spirit to come upon us and deepen our sense that we are answerable to and for each other and answerable to God for the faithful proclamation of his grace uniquely offered in Jesus. That deepening may be painful in all kinds of ways. The Spirit does not show us a way to by-pass the Cross. But only in this way shall we truly appear in the world as Christ's Body as a sign of God's Kingdom which challenges a world scarred by poverty, violence and injustice.

The potential of our Conference is great. The focus of all we do is meant to be strengthening our Communion and equipping all bishops to engage more effectively in mission; only God the Holy Spirit can bind us together in lasting and Christ-centred way, and only God the Holy Spirit can give us the words we need to make Christ truly known in our world. So we must go on praying hard with our people that the Spirit will bring these possibilities to fruition as only he can. Those who have planned the Conference have felt truly touched by that Spirit as they have worked together, and I know that their only wish is that what they have outlined for us will enable others to experience the same renewal and delight in our fellowship.

This is an ambitious event – ambitious for God and God's Kingdom, which is wholly appropriate for a Lambeth Conference. And our ambition is nothing less than renewal and revival for us all in the Name of Jesus and the power of his Spirit.

May that Spirit be with you daily in your preparation for our meeting. As Our Lord says, 'You know him, for he lives with and will be in you' (Jn 14.17).

+ Rowan Cantuar