"Some even go as far as to suggest it is a power tussle affair."

"Any person or Church disregarding or flouting these are the ones to do a rethink about their status within our worldwide Anglican family."

Well that's cleared all that up then!

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

Yeah quite. "You've all misread me!" and totally fails to answer whether the folks can attend or not, depending on which paragraph you read. Bah.

I think the key language is that it is a "gathering of like-minded Anglicans". In other words, "if you don't agree with me, you're not invited".

As Anglican delegates from the Dioceses and Provinces of the South-South in the countries of Africa, Asia and South America

Grr. Well, as SOME of them. Have we already forgotten that these people aren't the "south", they are the reactionaries, including some from the north, and excluding many from the south?

ARe these all, simply put, lies, or are these people just stupid? Or do they think the rest of us are stupid?

Where are the "Instruments of Unity" in all this mess?

"South/South" is a *regional description* of Anglicanism, that the IofU's have justified (quite reasonably, IMO).

"Like-mindedness" is an irreducibly *subjective definition* (fraught with power-abuse potential, +PJA's protests notwithstanding), having *no place in Anglicanism*, that the IofU's ought strike/disavow/*de-fund* ASAP!

Jimmy, I doubt that these are "lies, simply put," but they may be the result of some soft-pedaling on the part of ++Akinola, under pressure from the "Network" group in the US.

The earlier news stories have, I think, largely succeeded in convincing the broad membership of the Episcopal Church in the US that ++Akinola is about to break with the Church of England, and take a substantial number of the African Churches, a few others, and the US "Network" with him into his new Alexandrian Communion. Of course the broad membership of the Episcopal Church will not follow ++Akinola in this.

But this would destroy the strategy the "Network" has been using for the past two years: namely, to use the "Global South" as a tool with which to discipline ECUSA within the Anglican Communion. Put ECUSA under a credible threat of expulsion from the Anglican Communion, they think, and its leadership will be discredited. They, the Network, will then be able to take over what's left of ECUSA.

However, if ++Akinola and his followers break with the Church of England before the Episcopal Church's General Convention in 2006, the Network's strategy will be destroyed. Several of its members have admitted as much. This is a game of chicken in vestments, in other words.

The "Network" is the latest institutional version of a tiny minority of radical rightists within ECUSA, who have been waging a fruitless battle for control of the Church since the early 1970s, and this will be the last battle for many of its warriors. So they are unwilling to let ++Akinola spoil their chances of a "victory." (The military language is not mine; it's theirs.)

I suppose the real question is: at whose direction has ++Akinola been acting? His own, or that of his backers in the US "Network"?

I have this image in my mind of a board game. We could call it "Ecclesiology". Each of the provinces of the Anglican Communion would be positioned around the board, and you could buy each one as you landed on it. Build four churches on your diocese, and you can trade them in for a cathedral. If you're lucky, your opponents will take a chance and get a card that will send them straight to purgatory, do not pass go, do not collect 200 tithes. We could have fun deciding what color each province could be. Perhaps ECUSA could be pink.

I think it's awful that we've come to this point in our intra-church relationships, but I also think there's a time when you just move on. Progressives like myself are not going to talk "reasserters," "confessing churches," or the self-proclaimed "orthodox" out of their positions. They not only oppose us, they despise us.

When I get too depressed reading diatribes on Thinking Anglicans, I go for a walk in the neighborhood. There, among the fruit stands and 99 cent stores and Greek delis and crowded sidewalk cafes, are hundreds of people going about their business in peace and relative harmony. I look at them and I have a lot of hope for humanity.

I think it's time we progressives stopped taking the bait, and focused on building up our own conferences, structures, and mission. There's a bigger world out there. Let Akinola say what he likes. Who cares anymore? And let's turn our energies to engage that world out there with the deep insights *we* have into the role of the Christian faith in contemporary life.

I'm taking a personal pledge right now not to respond to ecclesiastical politicking, but to try to post comments on all the other issues Thinking Anglicans posts -- hurricanes, interfaith relations, and so on.

Anybody else want to take the pledge?

"I think it's time we progressives stopped taking the bait, and focused on building up our own conferences, structures, and mission. There's a bigger world out there. Let Akinola say what he likes. Who cares anymore? And let's turn our energies to engage that world out there with the deep insights *we* have into the role of the Christian faith in contemporary life."--Christopher Calderhead

I fully agree! Let's be about our business as Christians rather than concern ourselves with the likes of Peter Akinola and David Virtue. If the evango-fundies want to split, that's fine with me.

Charlotte has summarized this in a succinct & correct manner. And her question as to who's pulling +PJA's strings is rather key.

If it's the radical, reactionary conservative groups in N. America, then he's in for a surprise. Once the dust settles, he & the other African bishops will get precious little *real* support for pressing issues in the "Global South" like AIDS, the way multi-national corporations operate in the Third World, debt relief, etc... Issues which are anathema to the radical, ultra-rightwing positions of the IRD (the puppetmaster of the AAC/Network).

So I pray that +PJA is pulling his *own* strings and goes ahead with his breakaway communion. The whole thing would be MUCH cleaner as a result...

I guess the CofE's evil twisted ultra right-wing evo-fundie reasserters like me will be the next group to be levered out towards Alexandria (or Abidjan)...

Before you nice loving "progressives" convince yourselves that you are justified in not listening to people like me I would at least like to remind you that I am still standing where I was - that you have walked away from me, not the other way round.. And your "progress" has been to deny central tenets of the faith and moral teachings of the church.

As Os Guiness said recently "Surrender to the spirit of the age destroys the credibility of faith. There is little distinctively Christian to believe, and the intellectual of today can say as Oscar Wilde said to a trendy clergyman of his day, 'I not only follow you, I precede you.'"

Oh well, the only things that really grabbed me at Canterbury were the Black Prince's armour and the Huegenoet's chapel !

Dave wrote: "And your "progress" has been to deny central tenets of the faith and moral teachings of the church."

(sigh) We've gone over *this* before, haven't we ? In your considered OPINION we have done this. The considered opinions of some of your co-religionists have resulted in different conclusions.

So it's fallacious, as well as highly disrespectful, of you to argue as if you're right, my side knows it, and we're disagreeing with you simply to be perverse or evil.

It's time for a divorce, Dave. Whether it will be amicable or nasty is really up to your "side."

Dear Simeon, Our faith is a matter of what we believe and how we live.

If someone can't believe in parts of it (eg the Virgin birth, a physical resurrection, Christ being God as man), it is not a matter of my or your *opinion* that they are denying a central tenet of the Christian Faith... it is a matter of *fact* !!

Similarly if someone doesn't accept the basic moral assumptions of Christ and the Apostles etc, s/he is rejecting them.

As for the "divorce"; the liberals seem to be the ones *actually* taking nasty actions in ECUSA and it's penumbra - whilst shrieking about the horrid things they accuse the conservatives of wanting to do (like keep their jobs, or the church buildings they use and paid for)!