There are four Anglican jurisdictions in continental Europe. Two are national churches, Spain and Portugal; two are non-geographical jurisdictions serving persons not geographical regions. These four have overlaps among themselves; they also overlap with full-communion partners. The Episcopal Church’s Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe is not officially a diocese, though it acts like one. Like the Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe, its mission is not limited geographically. The competition unwittingly engendered creates conflict that detracts from the part of God’s mission accorded to each Church. This essay argues that creating an official Episcopal diocese in Europe is not the way forward, if common care for that mission is and should be the primary concern of all.

The noted Episcopal theologian William Porcher DuBose was a seminarian when the American Civil War began. He was torn between continuing his studies for ordination and joining the Confederate Army. He felt duty bound to defend his homeland, and he served heroically, wounded in combat, and taken as a prisoner of war. Troubled by the senselessness and inhumanity of war, he was eventually ordained and served as a military chaplain. He devoted himself to faith and ministry when he realized his country and culture were lost. DuBose vividly presents his views on war and faith in his wartime correspondence with his fiancée and later wife Anne Barnwell Perroneau, and other writings. His experiences of loss and poverty were the basis for his theology of the cross and his understanding of the role of suffering in the Christian life, and he subsequently dedicated himself to faith, peace, and reconciliation.

Recent events in the USA and the UK reveal how theological education is changing, reflecting wider issues in global higher education as well as local and ecclesial concerns. Those responsible for seminary leadership and governance might pay closer to attention to those wider developments, and not neglect wider benefits to the Church of theological discourse generated in these institutions beyond vocational training.

Lawyers and priests are both vested in their office by a licensing authority and take oaths to obey the law, whether civil or ecclesiastical, that governs. Within these similar settings, the appropriate authority may need to judge disobedience by the lawyer or priest. If obedience is not enforced, respect for the law will decline and lawlessness ensues. In the Episcopal Church, it is black-letter law that only the baptised may receive communion. Notwithstanding the law, priests in ever-increasing numbers are inviting all to the table. Against what standard is such conduct to be judged? The Constitution and Canons are silent. Is the standard therefore to be merely the fact that the priest thinks he or she is following the dictates of the Holy Spirit? Or is there a real standard for judgment? Perhaps the gloss around civil disobedience and the rules of professional responsibility of lawyers may provide a more objective guide. This article discusses the debate over open table and the current black-letter law, and considers ecclesiastical disobedience under the guidance of the standards for legitimate civil disobedience. In addition, it considers the apparent desire of the bishops for the best of all possible worlds – having a law that the greater Church will appreciate, but then not enforcing it. The result may be more table fellowship but also anarchy.

Baptism is the sacrament that incorporates Christians into the Body of Christ; 99 percent of the church are laity. The proposed Anglican Covenant's emphasis on formal authority exercised by bishops and primates changes the relationships among all Anglicans, not just bishops. This change may run against a fundamental Anglican tradition of ongoing communal reflection that acknowledges that elements of church life change because they are no longer convenient or useful in particular locales. In adopting the Anglican Covenant, are we stating that traditional Anglican polity is no longer convenient or useful for the Provinces of the Anglican Communion, including the Episcopal Church?

An exploration of the development and meaning of the text of the Baptismal Covenant in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church provides the basis for a discussion of the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant. The article concludes by suggesting how biblical, theological and liturgical understandings of covenant offer a perspective by which to assess the proposed Covenant for the Anglican Communion.

As ecumenical understanding of the formation and development of episkopé has emphasized, there are different ways of structuring episkopé collegially, synodically and personally, each with its own theological basis, strength and weakness. This article argues that the proposed Anglican Covenant assumes a normative understanding of the nature and role of the bishop which carries the danger of a kind of ‘puritanism’ in which the focus and energy of the churches in the Anglican Communion are narrowly focused, creating a bureaucratic form of governance that vitiates the mission of the church.

This article aims to identify the significance of George Augustus Selwyn, the first Bishop of New Zealand, for the development of the Anglican Communion. It is based on evidence derived from secondary sources, most obviously the two-volume life of Selwyn written shortly after his death by his former chaplain, and on recent studies of the development of the Anglican Communion, especially the development of provincial synodical government in Australasia, and on the constitution of the Episcopal Church in the United States.

The article concludes that Selwyn had ideal qualities and experiences to enable him to achieve a constitution for a new Anglican province independent of the state, and with self-government, including elected representatives of laity and clergy, as well as bishops meeting together. His commitment to creating a constitutional framework for the dioceses and provinces of the Anglican Communion, including the Episcopal Church, enabled a second Lambeth Conference to happen.

This paper discusses the development of the Anglican Communion’s ‘crisis’ regarding the place of gay and lesbian persons within the tradition. It presents a social and theological contextualization of this crisis within the Episcopal Church, USA, in the second half of the twentieth century. It argues that the origins of the Anglican Communion’s crisis regarding gay and lesbian persons within the Communion are best understood in continuity with the broader North American evangelical movement of the second half of the twentieth century. The implications of this contextualized study serve to critique an understanding of the current crisis, which juxtaposes a decrepit, liberal ‘North’ with a vibrant, ‘orthodox’ ‘Global South’.

Today’s changing context invites a rethinking of mission in the Episcopal Church. Based on a large-scale, grassroots intervention process in an American Episcopal diocese, this article identifies several operative missiological and ecclesiological categories in the Episcopal Church that warrant critical examination. The themes of democracy, inclusion, and benevolence are explored in light of their historical and theological background and against the sociological realities of the contemporary church. The article proposes a reframing of Episcopal mission in a more theological and Trinitarian direction using the themes of communion, companionship, creativity, and cultivation.

The bishops of the Anglican Communion gathered at the Lambeth Conference, 2008, at a time when some constituent provinces and dioceses had already crossed the threshold of discontent, deciding not to attend the gathering, and when further division loomed ahead. This article examines the challenges of living into a generous diversity while holding fast to the historic Christian faith. The author reveals a cautious hope rooted in Jesus’ prayer for unity and the mystery of the Pascha, Christ’s death and resurrection. As the Communion drifts into greater autonomy, she calls for a disposition of reconciliation, paving the way for reunification in the future.