Hmmm… Have they mistaken the date for the Common Cause Council of Bishops meeting for the date of The Episcopal Church House of Bishops?

Nope.  Here’s a schedule:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/5167

And, since Communion matters ...
Questions forReflection:  COMMUNION MATTERS A Study Document for the Episcopal Church

(1)How can the Episcopal Church affirm and strengthen these precious bonds?

By acting as though they mattered.
The ECUSA/TEC can stop ignoring the Anglican Communion and stop moving ahead on its own errors as though it solely were the Church.  TEC might pay attention and listen to their living brothers and sisters who have been united in the Holy Spirit to correct the Corinthian-like errors in matters of sexuality (the presenting issue only).  TEC needs repent its errors.  These gently and consistently admonishing brothers and sisters are of the house of the new Israel and share the heritage of the Church in Acts.  However, like an alcoholic disrupting the family by behavior that is destructive of self and the family, ECUSA/TEC persists in its aberrancy and blames everyone else for the problem.  Reconciliation of a penitent ECUSA/TEC is needed.  ECUSA/TEC needs basic acknowledgment of its sins of pride and error, to do penance for those errors, and to be re-grafted into the Body from which it has torn itself.  It is purest sophistry to maintain that ECUSA/TEC’s persistent rejection of the Communion into which God has graciously called them is not without consequence.  The gifts at Pentecost did not fall on all Jews without regard to their faith.  The Holy Spirit came to the disciples and followers of Jesus and then to those Jews and proselytes who heard the message of God’s saving actions in Jesus, repented, believed, and entered the household of faith.  To suggest that the Holy Spirit did otherwise is to ignore the literal text of the events and rationality in the text’s interpretation.  Those who rejected the Gospel were not part of the diversity included in the Body.  They self-excluded.  ECUSA/TEC is bent on the same path as the rejectors of the actions of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and for the same reason: refusal of the Holy Spirit’s clear evidences.

(2)How is the gift of communion manifested through diversity today?

The gift of communion is exercised in mutuality, subsidiarity, interdependence, accountability to fellow members of the Communion.  The Windsor Report clearly manifests the way forward.  ECUSA/TEC clearly repudiates each of these components in its words of equivocation and persistence in deeds against the same.  The proponents of the analogy of the nature of the Trinity to the current situation might do well to reflect on the experential nature of the Trinity as it applies to the current debacle induced by ECUSA/TEC’s rejection of the Holy Spirit at work in the Body of the Anglican Communion.  The Unity in Being of the distinct hypostases in eternity is experienced in the submission of the Son to the Father and the recollection and re-creation of the fallen kosmos by the Holy Spirit.  The diversity of the Trinity does not involve self-contradiction.  To so maintain is to speak nonsense.  Opposing the revelation of God regarding humanity and the its fallen nature in the matters of sexuality is not diversity, it is error.  Persistence in error results in hardened hearts being given over by God to their own desires and the consequences of those choices being worked out in the individuals and institutions which persist in them.  Thusfar, the acknowledgment of the pain of separation by either the HOB or the General Convention does not go so far as to recognize the fault of the ECUSA/TEC nor its need for repentance.  The only solution available to the Anglican Communion on the basis of the words and deeds of ECUSA/TEC is “rigid uniformity” with the errors of ECUSA/TEC.  Perhaps ECUSA/TEC should listen to what it says and attempt to model the practice of what it alleges to preach?  That might lead to a believable participation in the Anglican Communion rather than the current arrogant imperialistic assertiveness which has thus far characterized ECUSA/TEC’s actions and responses to legitimate reactions to those innovations and the claims made for the innovations.

(3)Can we find in the midst of our current diversity of theological and cultural “language” a deeper unity in Christ—not “a compromise for the sake of peace, but a comprehension for the sake of truth”?

At no point in the history of the gracious adaptability of the Gospel of Jesus Christ has the moral demand of the Gospel upon the sinner been abandoned.  The dietary regulations of Judaism were modified by Jesus Himself as attested in the Gospels and the New Testament writings.  The application of those principles were decided subsequently in Council of the Apostles as attested in Acts.  The moral demands made by the Gospel were well understood throughout the Church as attested in the writings of Paul, John, Peter and Jude.  At no point has there been a Council of the Church to change the matters alleged to be changed by ECUSA/TEC.  In point of fact, the witness of the Anglican Communion is to the four millenia-old moral demands of the Covenant and the Gospel in stark contrast to the position and actions of the ECUSA/TEC.  The stance adopted by ECUSA/TEC has met with resounding denunciations by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Communions, as well as by Protestants, Evangelicals, and Pentecostal and Charismatic churches.  The unity in Christ that is alleged to be sought by ECUSA/TEC is farcical if it ignores the reality of the language the rest of the Church Universal employs: “No”!  Challenging cultural norms and mores does not mean adapting the Gospel to them; it means changing them to conform to the Gospel.  Paul’s authoritative pronouncement upon the aberrancies of the Corinthian church in matters sexual and marital has not been abolished or overturned for the Church Universal.  ECUSA/TEC needs to repent its errors in these matters and become obedient to the Gospel or suffer the shunning advocated by Jesus and Paul for persistence in error.  Restitution to unity requires the adaptation of ECUSA/TEC to the teaching of the Church and forswearing of Provincialism by ECUSA/TEC.  The Holy Spirit has spoken repeatedly to ECUSA/TEC through the Anglican Communion and the Instruments of Communion.  Let ECUSA/TEC heed what the Spirit is saying through the language of the Anglican Communion’s “No”.  That would indeed be a recognition of a common language.

(4)What makes it possible for us to live with differences and maintain the Anglican “middle way”?

Returning the via media to its proper function as a description of the theological position of Anglicanism between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, as a reformed and catholic church, would help immeasurably.  The errant use of the term to attempt to produce some result contradictory to moral teaching of the church catholic is arrant nonsense.  One does not move the moral teaching of the Church Universal by advocating an erring position on the matter and then invite discussion to qualify sin as acceptable. Though this does seem to have been ECUSA/TEC’s modus operandi as intended.  Abandonment of this false dialectic technique would considerably move the conversation towards a solid basis rather than an untenable one based on false premises.  ECUSA/TEC will have to abandon its unilateral definitions of adiaphora, nuance, morality and cultural accomodation, to mention several glaring offenders, to engage in meaningful conversation with the Anglican Communion and the rest of the Church.  It will not be possible even within ECUSA/TEC to maintain a conversation, much less a middle way, with the current unilateral declarations and actions maintained.

(5)Is it possible that our witness today might be to hold to the via media and remain in communion despite what at present seem diametrically opposed positions? Might our gift to the world be the ability to embody Paul’s word to the Corinthians: that one part of the body cannot say to the other, “I have no need of you,” nor can one part say “I am not needed”?
NO : a word used for denying, disagreeing, refusing.  Exampla gratia: `Do you like travelling?’ “No, (I don’t).”; ‘Do you agree?’ “No, I don’t agree”; `Will you help me?’ “No, I won’t.”   
The answer of Paul to the Corinthians who tolerated sexual sin was to repent of their error, stop tolerating it, evict the sinner, and, if and when he acknowledged his errors and repented, to forgive and receive him back into fellowship.  Lacking such repentance the sinner was to be handed over to Satan that the sensual body might be destroyed so that perhaps the spirit could be saved.  ECUSA/TEC is the sinner and needs to repent as it has been called to do by God through the Anglican Communion.  Failure to repent should result in being expelled from the Anglican Communion in the hope that such action will be restitutive.  If ECUSA/TEC persists in its errors and refuses to repent despite such expulsion, the consequences that follow are entirely self-chosen, self-inflicted, self-actuated and experienced.

continued….....

(6)Are we called to live in mutual forbearance in the midst of similar differences long enough for the faith community to discern God’s will?

The faith community has discerned God’s will.  The message of the The Primates’ Communique Lambeth 2003 was lucidly clear on the effects ECUSA/TEC’s actions with regard to the election of V G Robinson and his consecration “tearing the fabric of the communion”.  The Windsor Report 2004 was painfully clear and exact in its requirements of the ECUSA/TEC to restore the broken trust ECUSA/TEC’s erroneous actions instigated in the Anglican Communion.  The Anglican Consultative Council’s endorsement of the Windsor Report was overwhelmingly clear.  The Archbishop of Canterbury was pointedly clear in the “The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today”.  The Primates’ Dromantine Communique was forthright about what was required and what was missing in ECUSA/TEC’s responses.  The Primates’ Communique from Tanzania was brilliantly clear on the inadequacy of ECUSA/TEC’s response and what was therefore required.  The rejection of the Sub-group’s Report was unavoidably clear.  The Anglican Communion has clearly forborne the noncompliance of ECUSA/TEC for four years with the community’s discernment of God’s will.

ECUSA/TEC has repeatedly walked apart from the Anglican Communion.  It is time to repent or acknowledge the refusal of ECUSA/TEC to be part of the communion which has so valiantly held out and hoped for repentance and reconciliation.  The reality of choice and consequence are entirely upon ECUSA/TEC.  The House of Bishops needs to stop its special pleading and assume the role of leadership which is its duty and acknowledge its prior obstinancy and reverse the destructive actions thus far taken and adhere to Communion teachings and standards.

(7)Some suggest we have reached an impasse, with seemingly “irreconcilable differences.” If so, how then might we live together confident of Jesus’ promise that the Church will endure for eternity?

No man can serve two masters.

If you believe that ECUSA/TEC has been mutually responsible and interdependent in its actions and exhibited accountability and subsidiarity towards the Anglican Communion which is in error, then stick to your guns and walk apart. 

If you believe that ECUSA/TEC has not been mutually responsible, interdependent, accountable or exhibited subsidiarity in its actions, repent, reform the ECUSA/TEC, and embrace the revealed will of God in the Anglican Communion, the Windsor report, and the Instruments of Unity’s guidance.

If you believe the Anglican Communion is in hopeless error, walk apart into the light you think ECUSA/TEC has and which invalidates the Anglican Communion.  Go peaceably and non-litigiously and admit the not-Anglican-Communion-ness of your position.

If you believe the ECUSA/TEC is in error, walk with the Anglican Communion. Stay Anglican.

Do stop acting as though the differences are reconciliable without any modification of ECUSA/TEC.  It is patently not possible.

(8)How might we live this wisdom in the life of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion in this moment?

Repent of the errors ECUSA/TEC has fallen into and mired in.  Convince +Robinson to stand down or depose him.  Refuse the election of any noncelibate homosexual individual to diaconate, priesthood, or episcopacy.  Refuse same-sex blessings.
Then,after complying with the Communion’s teaching, adduce any arguments that might seem to be advocating a change in traditional moral teaching of the Church Universal and converse, dialogue and address it on a communion-wide basis before committing acts on the ground which negate an attempt at conversation, dialogue, and communion-wide discernment.  Resolve to live by the discernment of the Communion if your argument fails to convince.  Be mutual, subsidiary, interdependent and accountable.

Or, prefering your own wisdom to that of the communion, go your way.  Gamaliel’s principle will out.  The consequences of choice and actions are entirely yours either way.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Prayers for all.