It's interesting to note the great silence these actions of the State and Church of Nigeria have provoked in some quarters...

It is a terrible state of affairs in Nigeria, yet time and again we see the leadership there, including their primate, try to usurp authority and act beyond their own borders, as if all is so well within them that they have the time and resources, to do it.

The fact of the matter is that the Nigerian churches depend heavily on Anglican-wide, meaning English and North American, money to build their infrastructure, which in any event is primitive comparably. The very computers and other telco equipment they use to spread lies about their own people and attack other provinces, have been donated by us.

The church there instead of being a beacon to its own people and indeed, to the world, which it could very well be if it stood up for basic human rights and law in a country torn by war and corruption and violence for decades, instead veers to being nothing more than an another example of that country's deep problems. It is desperately in need of the transformative and healing power of the Spirit.

Now they are trying to say they are founding "Nigerian Anglican" churches in other countries. Who would want to go and pray and commune in such a place? They seem to be little more than front churches for disaffected churchgoers. But more to the point, why would anyone in their right mind, living in societies where the rules of law and due process are normative, for a second go worship in a church so mired in malfeasance?

This situation is appalling beyond words -- will no one in authority in the WWAC (or any of the churches therein) speak out on this?

I think that anyone with any sense should give no money at all to the Church of England. Support your own parish if it is inclusive, but make it clear that no money at all is to go to the central bureaucracy.

This is precisely why, if the militants succeed in hi-jacking the AC and molding it in their own image, as they will surely do, the AC as it ever has been known will cease to exist, and so why, no matter what I think of various questionable actions of our own, I will never align myself with THAT.

My disappointment in ++Rowan Cantuar grows by the day. Why doesn't he stand up to the Arch-bigot Peter Abuja and the other Southern Hemisphere bullies and pirates who presume to have jurisdiction in, say, San Diego, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Virginia, etc., presuming to overide the local godly bishops and taking under their 'bigot' wings so-called Anglican clergy who shop for bishops the way Americans shop for used cars. The BORDER CROSSINGS have to stop.

At least the Bishop of Bangor had the backbone to take a clear stand, maintinaing that "++Peter Abuja hath no jurisdiction in Wales."

++Rowan Williams, on the other hand, has abidicated his responsibilities and turned the office of Cantuar into a farce!

The post above puts me in mind of a (much) earlier post where ++Rowan was criticized for behaving more like a servant than a leader - if only the poster had *meant* to be ironic!

Unsurprisingly, I don't know ++Rowan personally but from reading his work and published opinions it seems to me that he is steering a very difficult course, which is probably causing him considerable personal pain. Being willing to suffer that pain seems to be a course of responsibility rather than abdication.

There have been many intemperate words in the Communion over the last couple of years; none of them have come from the ABC. The worst he can be accused of - to quote his own words - is acting as if he believed in God. He certainly isn't acting to please any earthly party, all of whom are occasionally grumpy and sometimes rude to or about him; for that reason, I have more faith in ++Rowan every day.

In many ways I concur with Paul Hibbert. ++Rowan Cantuar is an excellent theologian and I have read many of his published books with great interest.

But is he a leader? Dr. Rowan Williams allows border crossings to continue unchecked. At least he could invoke the Windsor Report, and state very clearly, as did the Bishop of Bangor, that "++Peter Abuja hath no jurisdiction in Wales."

The border crossings in the U.S.A. by bishops and primates of the Global South are absolutely scandalous. The ECUSA bishops affected by it are, typically, not extreme revisionists, but bishops steering a middle course and not taking any extreme action against traditionalist clergy and congregations.

With border crossings continuing unchecked, clergy and congregations presume to shop for GS bishops who happen to agree with them on this or that particular issue. What happens when there is a slight disagreement, do they shop for another bishop like a 'used car'? Now the Bishop of Bolivia claims to have jurisdiction over St. Anne's Church, Oceanview, CA, the Primate of Uganda over another cluster of parishes 40 miles north of San Diego.

The Anglican Communion needs a leader who is not afraid to knock a few episcopal/primatial heads together, telling them in no uncertain terms to cease and desist.

There is a Panel of Reference appointed by Cantuar after a considerable delay. Why not insist that the Panel be allowed to do its job without self-centered, out-of-control Global South primates and metropolitans taking matters into their own hands and forestalling any action by the Panel?

In the meantime, the situation has become chaotic!

Those churches are in a bit of denial. They remove themselves from Episcopal oversight, therefore, they are no longer in communion with Canterbury, therefore, they are no longer Anglican unless we are willing to say that a church can be in Communion with Canterbury even though it is not a part of the Anglican province of a designated area.

To state that the overseer is a man 6000+ miles away with little if any connection to the congregation except one especial issue, not to mention zero permission from the existing bishop, yet he somehow confers legitimacy and exercises authority, has zero credibility.

There is of course as yet not one single American bishop willing to attempt such cross jurisdictional behavior, for if he did, he would summarily be tried, removed, and perhaps inhibited, thereby giving the lie to the claims that the Episcopal Church lacks the authority to enforce its beliefs or positions.

John Henry refers to the Panel of Reference - a creature of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

It may be that in the long term such a panel may attract the confidence and support of the whole Anglican Communion, at some time in the future the governing bodies of the constituent churches might even grant that Panel a specific role in the resolution of disputes.

At this time it has neither of these. Some member churches (such as my own) have a structure in place for the resolution of disputes and I do not see this changing soon.

If some Provinces have already decided to use the Panel of Reference to resolve disputes I would be interested to hear from any who know of constitutional amendments that have granted it such power. I do not know of any yet.