I do understand why Rowan wants us to carry on talking. Cynically, it is because he doesn't want to go down as the AofC under which the Communion finally split. Charitably, it is because he really wishes to preserve a broad, international Communion on principled grounds.
I would simply question whether these principles are 'unity at all costs' irrespective of genuine differences which simply can't be glossed over.
Let me put it this way. I am unreservedly and totally in the 'reappraiser' or 'progressive' camp. I have no intention of either changing my view or ceasing to work for the changes which I believe to be both right and necessary. Conservatives feel the same only in a diametrically opposed way.
The only possibility of long-term agreement is if either side can accept the continuing existence of the other and that recognition and acceptance be given to both points of view. The best that would be would be parallel churches operating within the same umbrella .
But I would suggest that the possibilities of that system working are nil. The divide is just too profound - and it certainly isn't just about gay issues. That has been a catalyst, but the underlying differences are far deeper.
I think more and more people are starting to recognise this and realise that a split is, indeed, not only inevitable, but also desirable. At the moment, emphasis appears to be placed on criticism of the other 'side' - I would suggest that it would make more sense to simply recognise that we differ, and move forward to create new settlements which recognise that profound difference.

To what Mike said - Amen. I'm sick unto death of arguing with "reasserters," and I'm sure they're heartily sick of me...

We can have a (somewhat) amicable divorce now, or an even *more* acrimonious one later. I vote for now.

Well, split or no split, I think it is adamant that the false claims about "liberals" being atheists and what not, and the anti-moderns "bible-believing" be refuted.

And the agendas and corruption of many, if not most, late 20th century "translations" exposed.

Merseymike says "I think more and more people are starting to recognise this and realise that a split is, indeed, not only inevitable, but also desirable".

Inevitable maybe, but not desirable, and it will be at great cost. Some of the congregation of my own church in central London support asylum seekers from Africa, and recently we have been trying to help a number of Ugandans who have suffered abuse and even torture in Uganda as a result of being gay.

The asylum seekers we have met have a deep faith, nurtured in the Anglican tradition in their own country. They tell us that the well-tried system that smuuggles such people out of the country and to safety often relies on Christian prists from a variety of denominations, including Anglican and Roman Catholic. They also tell us that there are the beginnings of gay liberation movements in many of these countries, gaining inspiration not just from the west but from that deep inter-relationship between homosexuality and spirituality uncovered by a a range of ethnographic studies of original African culture.

It may be easy to follow Merseymikes's call and wash our hands of Africa and its troubles. But to do so would be to abandon such gay Africans to the tender mercies of Akinola and his followers, and to deprive them of any chance of support from a sympathetic outside Christian organisation.

Simon Dawson

I too think there is a hope for remaining together, but it depends at this point mostly upon the patience of the Global South -- who appear at this point to want only one thing. If we can somehow live with the status quo ante: a communion without a supreme legislature that can "lay down a law" -- and live with disagreeement, accepting that +Gene may never function outside his own Diocese and Province as a bishop. I have laid this out in an Immodest Proposal which I think describes how we might continue to function as long as people are willing to live with ambiguity and disagreement on some matters that some people feel very strongly about. I've attached the URL to my signature in the Posted By: below.
I agree with Merseymike that this may be a pipe dream, but I see it as the only real hope for remaining in communion -- or at least for part of the communion to remain in communion.

Simon ; simply not true - why can't the split Anglican grouping continue to support those people in Africa - with the American resources which they are currently shunning.

There is simply no logic in suggesting that a split will mean we cannot assist people in Africa. The far MORE sympathetic outside Christian organisation will be able to give that support - an Anglican Communion without Akinola and Co.

I respect & admire the persons posting here & their opinions, but to return to the question of what ++Rowan said (according to Reuters, anyway -- I admit to being curious about what the various participants thought they heard him say), IF we were really talking to each other, then I would say that the wholly admirable hopes of Simon Dawson & Tobias BSG would be worth pursuing; but what I question is whether any real dialogue has gone on for quite some time. William Countryman has written, 'The long period of dialogue in ECUSA leading up to the ratification of Gene Robinson's election was marked by a "godlike" refusal of the evangelical right to participate. It was a refusal that took various forms. To a great extent, they simply did not attend parish and diocesan events intended to encourage dialogue. When they did attend, they simply repeated their existing position without any effort to show how it might connect with other perspectives. Most damaging of all, they refused to listen to the other people present and merely dismissed everyone and everything with which they disagreed. After the "dialogue," they went right on identifying their position with that of the bible as if nothing else were possible, as if no one else had ever read scripture or argued for a different reading of the text.

'The behavior can only be described as abusive toward the community as a whole, and its effects are still unrolling before us in the threats of schisms by which they propose to replicate in organizational ways a long-standing refusal to treat their fellow Anglicans as faithful Christians.'

If there is no mutual trust or respect, I suspect that the pretense of talking to one another will simply make things worse, as Merseymike & Simeon suggest.

And since I touched on the remarks of everyone else, let me add that Göran Koch-Swahne is, of course, correct.

"It may be easy to follow Merseymikes's call and wash our hands of Africa and its troubles. But to do so would be to abandon such gay Africans to the tender mercies of Akinola and his followers, and to deprive them of any chance of support from a sympathetic outside Christian organisation."

Simon, I don't hear in Merseymike's call for a split in the Communion any call for "wash[ing] our hands of Africa and its troubles." I, for one, would not support that.

But I do think it will actually *enhance* outreach to gay Africans -- and other progressive Africans who wish to dwell in the 21st century instead of Akinola's medieval era -- if the AC is liberated from the Anglo-Puritans and freed to proclaim the true and radical Gospel in a renewed mission field: Africa, and other areas in which provinces depart for the new Puritan Communion.

As things stand now, the AC is hobbled from proclaiming said Gospel by the existence of Akinola and Company controlling Anglican provinces in Africa (and parts of Asia and Latin America). Once they break with Canterbury and form their new Puritan (or Alexandrian, or Akinolan) Communion, the Anglican Communion can get back to proclaiming the Gospel, with new missionary efforts in Lagos, Nairobi, and so forth. (Sadly, be prepared for martyrs in such places, but the life of the Church has always nourished by the blood of Her holy martyrs.)

But as Christians we have a responsibility to stand up for Justice, and be - if only a wee bit - prophetic at times.

This seems to be one such.

But Goran - haven't the Lutherans of Tanzania also been taking an interest in the Church of Sweden recently? With you, I am glad they have this fraternal, ecumenical concern for Scandinavian Christians.

Kenya, not Tanzania.