When will Rowan Williams speak out against Nigeria's new laws criminalizing homosexuality, which also criminalize even advocating gay rights? More to the point: When will he - or anyone - speak against the Anglican Church in Nigeria's open support for these laws?

I'm afraid I don't listen very carefully to much the Archbishop has to say these days.

I find it noteworthy that the ABC left the "[on homosexuality]" out of his statement. A lacuna perhaps admitting his embarrassment, that he knows full well that there *is* NO "discipline and teaching of the Anglican Communion" (which could suffer a "radical change") regarding [that which cannot be mentioned] in the first place?

He certainly sounds embarrassing from here. >:-/

[So, the CEN printed something misleading? There's a shocker! {sarcasm/OFF}]

Thank you for correcting the error in the C of E Newspaper report.

Thank you too for Archbishop Sentamu's comments on Guantanamo Bay and related matters of US arrogance. We have a great deal to repent. It would be wonderful if we could value good relationships that support good ministry in the world without repentance at all, and hold our real criticism for the outrage of the sorts of Western arrogance represented by Guantanamo and save our repentance for those things that require our serious attention.

We will have to wait to see how the Holy Spirit moves in all of this: how the Spirit moves in General Convention; how the Spirit moves in the Election in California; how the Spirit moves in the perception of the rest of the Communion, and especially in the heart of Rowan.

There will be a great deal of furor now over the nominations in California. I can well believe that all five named candidates are qualified, and perhaps would be good, Godly bishops. It will be interesting to see whether other names are offered. But this election will not be over until the General Convention. And there will be other issues addressed there as well. Let's wait and see....

IF - and I repeat - IF, California elects a partnered gay person, and, IF General Convention voted to confirm such and IF the consecration were to go ahead THEN we will have a mess that will force some kind of "walking apart" which will be messy, tragic. It will be the de facto dismissal of the concept of mutual responsibility and interdependence that makes communion possible around our Anglican world. Politics and polemic will have triumphed. The splintering and sundering will be ugly, painful and bring no honor to Christ, the Lord of the Church. It will be hailed as "prophetic" by its proponents, as US hubris by its opponents. Meanwhile the "lost child" will be most of our congregants and congregations who are already bewildered and dismayed by the forces so destructively at work. MAYBE we have had our head in the sand as to how to be Church and Christian in in the new secular and post modern age. Maybe it takes this amount of pain and dislocation to forge a new vision of Anglican presence and ministry in our suffering world. This degree of hubris, animosity, polarization and pitting one set of "rights" against another certainly fits the political world but does not have the hallmarks of love, the Holy Spirit and mutual submission in love to the Uniting Lord of the Church.

Then again he did say that he would bring a sword. Hmm.

A split is the only way, Ian. The only way. The pathetic compromises of Williams are no alternative. We need the American church to take the bold steps that will at least bring forth a possibility of a Church worth belonging to - and the Church of England, in my view, isn't such a church at the moment. I am waiting to see what happens whilst positively NOT worshipping within it until it does.

The candidates for California bishop have all served faithfully and well, bringing the Word to people and bringing people into the Church. They have done nothing wrong. To the contrary, they have done everything right. Therefore, they have presented their names.

So why should they not continue to use their God-given gifts for the lifting up and further building of the Church? Why should they not serve as they have done for many, many years, if in the end the discernment process discerns them? ++Rowan threw Canon Jeffrey under the wheels and I suppose this is what he would like to see happen in California.

And he keeps mentioning "one Church." There is one Church that now permits clergy to enter into civil partnerships. (England.) There is one Church that is going to formalize blessings for civil partnerships, many of them of same sex people. (Scotland.) And scandalously there is one Church that encourages discrimination and rejection of its own lbg people. (Nigeria.)

There are many lgb in the Church, if they cannot serve in all areas as the canons of the Church specifically allow, since they ban discrimination based on orientation, then we must stop baptizing all babies.

In our time in the Church my wife and I have come across many, many fine lbg who lead Godly lives and strive to serve the Church. They have sought out the Lord.

The Lord welcomes all to the banquet. All. He never turns anyone away, not a single person.

Why should we stand by and permit anyone to be denied roles in the Church He founded to bring all to Him? If the Episcopal Church in order to be faithful to its own people who have served the Lord and the Church well, as they have throughout its history, cannot find room in the Communion because of this, then it is a sad Communion that I for one cannot be bothered to miss.

Thank you for correcting the top article, which presume to state that ++Rowan made comments regarding California.

I should note my error about the Church in Scotland. It is the Church of Scotland and not the (Anglican) Scottish Episcopal Church considering blessing cp's.

"It will be the de facto dismissal of the concept of mutual responsibility and interdependence that makes communion possible around our Anglican world. Politics and polemic will have triumphed. The splintering and sundering will be ugly, painful and bring no honor to Christ, the Lord of the Church. It will be hailed as "prophetic" by its proponents, as US hubris by its opponents. Meanwhile the "lost child" will be most of our congregants and congregations who are already bewildered and dismayed by the forces so destructively at work."

But of course the anti-gay policies and pogroms advocated by the Anglican Church in Nigeria - and the vicious rhetoric by its leaders - are not to be any part of "mutual responsibility and interdependence."

As usual. The "Church" cares nothing for people - only for its own surival. It was ever thus.

certainly a strong group of very well qualified candidates, three of whom show quite clearly (contrary to the assertions of some) that liberal congregations are declining in membership.

As far as the complaint about "one church", maybe some diocese in Canada should elect Peter Elliott to purple, because I guess just having a partnered gay Prolocutor of General Synod isn't enough.

The Archbishop of Canterbury says "it should not be the decision of one Church alone" - in context, clearly meaning one national church within the Anglican Communion acting alone. That might be overcome by a gathering movement in, for example, not only ECUSA, but the Canadian, English, Welsh, and Scottish churches of the Anglican Communion.

But this is subsumed in his much stronger statement requiring "the highest degree of consensus for such a radical change."

This is a firming up of his Presidential Address to the ACC meeting in Nottingham in June 2005 when he said: "...where there is a strong scriptural presumption against change, a long consensus of teaching in Christian history, and a widespread ecumenical agreement, it may well be thought that change would need an exceptionally strong critical mass to justify it."

There is no doubt that he is now siding with the conservatives on this issue. He draws an express distinction between theological debate and institutional change - he did this when he said, in answer to questions at the Global South meeting in Egypt in November 2005: "...theologians will go on discussing this and it would not, I think, be possible to stop them. We ask theologians to look at difficult questions. They come up with different answers. For nearly a century in the 4th century in this country of Egypt, the conflict over the doctrine of the trinity raged between theologians and bishops and was not resolved overnight. But I distinguish as clearly as I can between a question a theologian may ask and an action or determination the church may take, or only the bishop may take. I think that is a necessary distinction for the life and health of the church."

He is ruling out support for same sex blessings and gay bishops for the foreseeable future. He will not allow any church to be in the vanguard of change (if he can help it). That essentially condemns the church to wait until it has already been left far behind by the peoples it seeks to evangelise on this issue. It requires the whole world to agree before there can be change.

It is the antithesis of the point made by the Dean of Emmanuel College Cambridge this month, when he said: "I am concerned that in setting its face so publicly against gay relationships the Church imperils, perhaps terminally, its standing to speak authoritatively on the subject of relationships generally. There is no shortage of people who wish to portray the Church as reactionary and irrelevant."

Which is more important? The institutional harmony of the global church - "the highest degree of consensus" before change - or the mission and credibility of the church on the ground, in countries where sexual orientation discrimination is so widely accepted to be wrong that it is illegal (as it is throughout the European Union, the heartland of historic Christendom)?

Sometimes, you have to take a stand. Doing nothing is not always the safe option, let alone the correct one. I accept that opinions on this subject differ. But I don't accept that the question must be closed until everyone, everywhere, in the worldwide Communion, is of a single view. That is equivalent to deciding the question against those who advocate change.

The Church of England is, in its origin, a radical and reforming church. In the sixteenth century, it allowed married men to be bishops - something the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Church still do not allow and which was very controversial in the Church of England at the time: even Elizabeth I didn't like it. In the sixteenth century it introduced vernacular church services - something, again, which the Roman Catholic Church did not at that time approve and which was controversial within the Church of England. In the twentieth century it allowed women clergy - still not allowed in the Roman Catholic Church or in the Orthodox Church, and still controversial within the Church of England (even after the departure of many Anglicans from the Church because of this issue). The Archbishop of Canterbury is applying a new standard here in the degree of consensus which he requires.

It doesn't look good.

Should the independence of the Church of England have been "the decision of one church alone"? Should the apostles have listened to the "consensus" of the Sanhedrin and stopped preaching Christ? Good thing for us that the Council agreed with Gamaliel instead of Caiaphas. (Caiaphas was the one who said it was good that one should suffer for the many: a good utilitarian at heart.)

I still don't think we'll know what Rowan actually believes until we see the invitations to Lambeth. As to his current comments: I can well imagine he's feeling squeezed from both sides. The Nominating Committee in California has made a statement, even if not as stridently as the Global South Primates (at least those who are actually speaking).

I reviewed the initial candidates for California, and I would note that they are the perfect "spread" to accommodate our American perspective on a fully diverse list of candidates. From this American perspective, I would suggest broad diversity was probably seen as an end in itself, and not a predictor of the outcome of the episcopal election. Even if we exclude the one straight Anglo male candidate (and from his CV he's still pretty liberal), there are *four* candidates representing the value of cultural diversity, and not just two.

Badman, I think that if the EC were actually able to restrain its impulse to elect and confirm these candidates we might find that much of the oposition would take care of itself. I agree with Merseymike that schism seems inevitable. But, givin the international reaction to date, it would be the EC committing schism if these consecrations were to occur.

If, instead, we can avoid this provocation, I think we might find that a number of our opponents in the South will pull themselves out of union rather than have to continue to live in Communion with the US and Canada.

Patience will accomplish more here than rushing forward.

I'd agree, badman. Given that the CofE is declining and dying, and we know that conservative Christianity has little appeal in Britain, it is in danger of becoming an irrelevant and largely ignored sect - and disestablishment will complete the process.

Why does this seem like deja vu all over again ? A liberal diocese may elect a person in a same-sex sexual partnership to be their bishop in the pre-GC period, so it must go to full GC for approval. Thus the debate is diffused onto aspects of a person's ability, rather than just focussed on the real issues (sexual righteousness, and schism with the Church).

I guess it's bye-bye ECUSA.

I recently sent a private email and commented that God could be using the Anglican communion as a "safe environment" to role model dialogue on difficult issues.

There are some issues that are so vexatious and passionate that if one tries to draw the lessons out directly in that area one is likely as not to precipitate violent civil unrest, for example the look at the passion and violence that is arising out of the Danish cartoons or sectarian violence in Iraq.

Thus God could be using the Anglican Communion to demonstrate how to develop respectful dialogue on passionate issues such as homosexuality and ordination women bishops. It could be argued that in publicly having to work through our differences that God is holding up the Anglicans as a fractal pattern of possibilities where the lessons can be demonstrated and shared with our brothers and sisters who are facing more entrenched, global or violent disagreements.

Praise be to God, there are signs that some souls are recognising these possibilities. I was heartened by these two links:

A good link for an awakening that true winning will not come from violence nor hate; but from winning the psychological and emotional battle is http://www.countercurrents.org/baroud230206.htm

This is a nice article “Freedom Sandwiches” gives a window into the psyche of some peoples who have been reeling from unstable and violent societies for quite some time http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/27223

Merseymike would like to believe that the Church of England is declining and dying, but the statistics published by Church House suggest otherwise - not to mention the substantial numbers of people coming forward for ordination (by way of contrast with other denominations) and the massive growth of Fresh Expressions.

His oft-expressed desire to split the Church of England would of course be an opportunity to refashion it after his own preferences, or at least to join the particular splinter of which he approves. But it is not going to split. It is growing, and changing, and rapidly becoming a more Evangelical church than it has been for many years.