"My guess is that when the invitations go out later this year, some of the US bishops and suffragans might be invited with observer status only"

On what *basis* could ++Rowan do that? (beyond, "I'm the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I don't have to explain")

At the ACC meeting in Nottingham (2005), TEC (and the AngChCanada) were *invited NOT to send voting delegations*: it was all *voluntary* (and the two national churches took up the invitation---which, in hindsight of the votes taken at Nottingham, would seem to have been a mistake).

How would the ABC officially withdraw voting status from (which?) TEC bishops? Apply some kind of "Jim Crow"-reminiscent *segregation* of the polls?

I still believe that, failing a universal invite to ALL canonical Anglican bishops (most definitely including TEC and AngChCanada, most definitely including +Gene Robinson), *creative nonviolent direct action* will become necessary (and probably desirable!)

This is a question from America - what is Anglican Mainstream? Do the individuals invited represent a spectrum of churchmanship and progressive/conservative views? I suppose as is often the case that representatives of gay and lesbian Anglicans are not invited?

Thanks.

Cynthia, read their own description of themselves at
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/whoweare.asp

I see that Anglican Mainstream is affiliated with our own AAC. Why should they be the only 'interest group' invited?

Having seen documents from the AAC, it is clear they wish to replace TEC as the 'brand name' Anglican church in the US, and that they have no interest in dialogue, listening, or anything other than taking over this church. They are unscrupulous in their methods, and would turn TEC into a monovocal confessional conservative church in which only the like-minded would be welcome. GLBT people and ordained women would not be welcomed, to be sure. They represent a vocal minority with in TEC although they are strong in a few dioceses.

I am disappointed that the ABC would not invite a broader range of views. Perhaps some of the invited bishops will bring this?

If the leaked information is accurate (not a foregone conclusion, without alleging that Mrs. Gledhill is not passing on accurately what she received), there is something troubling about this. Why Anglican Mainstream and not Changing Attitudes? As am American I need to ask do the bishops identified show a full spectrum of opinions, or a particular leaning?

I have said repeatedly here that I believe we should work toward reconciliation, even if ultimately we fail. If the meeting planned does not represent a spectrum of opinions, has even ++Rowan lost faith in the effort for reconciliation and communion? This seems counter to his comments in his recent interview, even in light of his concerns in that interview about the American church.

While I'm more optimistic for the health of ECUSA, I'm increasingly pessimistic for the Communion as a whole. Given the April 24 meeting, I think for the first time I can see England severing communion with the United States - something I had thought nearly impossible.

What disturbs me the most is that senior English bishops get invited to discuss how the instruments of unity should respond to whatever evolves over the next few months. Of what value are the instruments of unity (and what respect can they command?) if they are to take direction from certain English bishops - or bishops of any single country for that matter?

I'm beginning to think the path to schism began when ECUSA organized itself with a bicameral General Convention and election of bishops by diocesan convention. We just exercise authority in a far more democratic and dispersed way than most of the Communion, and through mechanisms even the brightest minds of the Communion fail to grasp. (Witness the statement in ARCIC III "Gift of Authority" that every Anglican diocesan can veto an act of diocesan synod - not true in the US.

Dirk C. Reinken+
Trenton, NJ

WHEREAS we don't know which candidate will be elected in California, and

WHEREAS we don't know whether the elected candidate will be confirmed by General Convention, and

WHEREAS we have no idea which of the myriad proposed, rumored, imagined responses to the Windsor Report will be embraced by General Convention, and

WHEREAS we don't know by what yardstick (or whose yardstick) that response will be judged, and

WHEREAS the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada might not be the only provinces judged to be on the wrong side of the Windsor Report

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED...
that we not get too worked up about anonymously sourced items such as this one.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the resolution before us and second the comments of the gentleman from the Diocese of Washington.

I am utterly amazed that Anglican Mainstream are invited to this meeting. They are not the 'mainstream'; their own statistics confirm they are a tiny, extreme minority. See those stats here: http://frontparlour.blogspot.com/2005/12/anglican-fringe-dribble.html

What on earth are they doing there without representatives from other, opposing interest groups? This is shocking bias. If this is true, then there is no hope for reason to prevail during these 'next critical months'.

What is Williams thinking? This is farcical, risible, pointless.

Any residual respect I had left for this man has now evapourated.

I agree (in plainer terms) with Bishop Dirk's suspicion above: the Anglican Communion is stuffed, with Archbishop Rowan Williams as chief taxidermist.

The key anonymous sentence in this report is:

'The wording of the invitation makes it fairly clear that Lambeth is expecting no backtrack from Ecusa and is therefore working out how to manage the oncoming schism.'

As Ruth has not published the complete wording of the invitation, it is hard to judge whether that is indeed an accurate description of it. The Living Church reports that Lambeth has refused to comment.

It seems to me that it would be sensible for Lambeth Palace to plan for a whole range of future events, including the possibility that ECUSA does provide a significant degree of "backtrack".

Not to mention whatever the Canadians eventually do.

I think those that are urging caution about this report are probably right to do so. The fact is, that we know about one meeting which Rowan is holding in April, I'd be surprised if there weren't other meetings to discuss the future of the Anglican Communion.

The situation with regard to issuing invitations to the Lambeth Conference is that these are within the Archbishop of Canterbury's gift. I doubt though that he could cherrypick the bishops of a particular province unless he had the agreement of that province. My opinion is that he would have to invite all or none of the bishops of ECUSA, but he could certainly decide to give them an observer status - again I think he would only do so in consultation with ECUSA. It is after all, a conference over which he presides and hosts.

It is not frequent that I find myself in full accord with Andrew Carey, but I think he is quite right in his comments here -- the line-up reported for this particular meeting certainly seems to have a decidedly "conservative" slant -- this not not mean that there will not be other meetings with groups that have other opinions -- and even more importantly, the notion that the ABC can decide which bishops within an independent province should or should not be invited to Lambeth is unlikely (which is not to say that he might decide not to invite any bishops of TEC as full participants -- he is the host, after all)

It should be noted that, as I recall, Ms Gledhill's sources have been off the mark before. Either that or she's in "prespin" mode where she's trying to spin a story before all the facts come out.

I would like to suggest a reason no commentator has yet mentioned for inviting primarily conservative clergy to the April 24th meeting: namely, that these are the clergy who have voiced the strongest objections to TEC's actions at GC 2003.

It seems reasonable to think that they would be prepared to accept a fairly narrow range of actions and resolutions from GC 2006 as the needed evidence that TEC is working in good faith with the provisions of the Windsor Report, while the Bishop of Southwark, for example, might be prepared to accept a much broader spectrum of actions.

I don't claim that the invited clergy are all in agreement with one another as to what actions from TEC they would find acceptable. In fact, I would think they are not in full agreement; thus the Archbishop may wish to know from them where the consensus points are. There may be one or two outliers among them.

In line with what Charlotte notes, it may well be that the ABC is calling these leaders together to alert them to his wish, as previously expressed, to have as many people at the table as possible, and to plead with them not to overreact and withdraw their participation should that be the case, as they have threatened to do.

Charlotte:

I see the logic of your suggestion. And I'm not concerned specifically about the opinions other than those of the Archbishop and of General Synod as a whole. I would still hope and pray that he would seek consultation representing the whole of the Church of England, in multiple meetings if that's more reasonable.

Sadly, "preview" does not help when you still see what you intended to say -- the above should read "-- this does not mean that there will not be other meetings with groups that have other opinions -- " (which at least makes sense, even if it turns out not to be true).

OTOH, the thought that a handful of reactionary bishops & political action groups in England should dictate internal policy to an independent province of the WWAC is mind boggling &, I believe, entirely unprecedented.

Tobias --

An interesting speculation -- it is certainly true that the ABC keeps saying that he wants as many people as possible at the table -- but if trying to invite all has the consequence that some will definitely stay away, thus reducing those present to a smaller number than if he had exercised pre-emptive exclusion, then what?

One phrase used in Langrish's speech to ECUSA's HoB highlights the disordered perspective the church hierarchy has in relation to the issue of homosexuality. In referring to ECUSA treating people of same sex attraction as wholly equal with heterosexual people before God – that is, not seeing homosexuality as a bar to intimate, loving relationship or membership of the priesthood or episcopacy - the church officially sees that as acting:

“in a way that injects further difficulty into the life of the communion”.

So, the difficulty experienced in the lives of millions of GLBT men, women and children around the world due to prejudice, oppression, injustice, abuse, violence and death is seen as secondary (not worthy of a mention even) to the awkwardness caused by some parts of the church embracing them lovingly as equals whilst most other parts continue to view them with disdain and even support and encourage societal prejudice, oppression, injustice and abuse (which inevitably lead to violence and, for some, death).

The speech delivered by the Bishop of Exeter Michael Langrish, on behalf of Canterbury cites unity, ecumenism and interfaith (especially Islam) dialogue as being fatally damaged should ECUSA continue to embrace its GLBT Christians as full equals with heterosexual people before God.

Can’t ECUSA be allowed to be LIGHT TO THE WORLD? Do they have to cower before the condemnation of other faiths, denominations and provinces? Do they have to continue sacrificing queers because the rest of the world says it should and Canterbury is too spineless to upset the world?

Rowan Williams and the culture at Canterbury clearly and repeatedly demand there be an overwhelming global consensus before they allow any individual province any change in how they respond to GLBT people, relationships and clergy.

Such an overwhelming consensus is of course impossible now and at least for the next one or two centuries. The only thing able to conjure up such a consensus would be a miraculous intervention such as God manifesting himself with accompanying clouds and trumpets, shaking hands with all Anglican bishops and commanding them, face-to-face, to change policy. How else could it happen apart from a couple of centuries of world-wide cultural evolution?

So, no matter what progress in theology, the sciences and other arts, no province may come to accept and deal with people of same sex attraction as equals with heterosexual people in the church and before God.

That decision has been made.

Now, Canterbury is sending its representatives out to bring this message to progressive provinces:

'Continue to sacrifice queers and your conscience on the altar of unity, ecumenism and interfaith dialogue. We hereby declare this an integral element of Anglican identity; perform these sacrifices or you will no longer be considered worthy to commune with us, and you will no longer be considered part of Anglicanism.’

To Canterbury, every queer man, woman and child is expendable and their suffering inconsequential. We are paid lip-service with endless reports and platitudes whilst they encourage and appease our oppressors around the world and within the so-called ‘communion’.

What kind of church is this? Is it the Church of Christ?

God, I'm depressed. :-(

While I appreciate getting the gist of +Exeter's speech (to TEC's HofB), I would appreciate in the future, Simon, your excerpting all sources quoted by Ruth Gledhill, directly to *here*. After reading her latest round of TEC-bashing, I have decided to consign her to the netherworld of T19 and VirtueOnline, and not pollute my mind w/ anymore whispers from the Father-of-Lies. >:-(

But back to +Exeter again (whether or not he speaks for the ABC). He seems to be saying "Yeah, TEC, go ahead and do your conscientious & prayerful consideration of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, to discern God's Will . . . and NO ONE WILL GIVE A D*MN. You either *do* what Windsor says, as +Akinola & Co. *define* what it says, or (in Brooklynese) FUHGEDDABOUTIT!"

In +Exeter's terms, "Communion" ceases to be (as Gledhill's bete noir, ++Frank Griswold put it) a "Gift from God", and is now merely whatever the majority (a voting majority *only at the episcopal level*) FORCES on the rest of us (and then that *force* is called "engagement").

But where is the *responsibility* to ENGAGE TEC???

To quote (?) +Exeter:

"So it does seem to me, as I listen to those other parts of the communion that I know best, that any further consecration of those in a same sex relationship, any authorisation of any person to undertake same sex blessings, any stated intention not to seriously engage with the Windsor Report, will be read very widely as a declaration not to stay with the communion.'"

What about your responsibility, +Michael, to *respond* to those "parts of the communion that I know best", and tell them what TEC is *actually* saying to them: "we want to be with you, in the One Body of Christ---however, we will take our *orders* only from the Head, which is Christ Jesus"? (I sense +Exeter prepared to do a Pilate-like washing of hands...)

So a Nigerian bishop inquired "'You brought us the Bible, why do you not now believe it?'"

TEC has acted as it has, BECAUSE we believe it! ***ALL*** are one in Christ! :-D

If the Anglican Communion falls away, the Episcopal Church *will follow Christ*, no matter the cost.

[But that doesn't mean I'm not depressed. My heart breaks, for the non-Christlike non-love, being dumped on my beloved Church. :-(...]

The ABofC has shown that he does not wish to alienate faithful Anglican Christians even though he disagrees with them. So it seems reasonable to assume that the ABofC's meeting with "conservatives" will be matched by one or more with "liberals". However I worry that his "Listening" to the conservatives has more to do with determining the absolute minimum that ECUSA could get away with, whereas discussions with "liberals" will focus more on how the conservatives might be moved "forward".

So, if I were in the conservative meeting I would be wanting to ask ++Rowan how we could help the liberals move back to truly Christian morality and beliefs!

ps Americans should remember that the CofE is much more evangelical and conservative than ECUSA... and that most CofE mission agencies are more evangelical-leaning (eg SAMS is heavily involved with the *real* diocese of Recife). Anglican Mainstream UK is supported by the CofE church networks that have large and growing churches !

Dear AM And JCF, Don't forget that same-sex sex is hardly the only sexual behaviour that is considered sinful. You are not alone! Is the church "oppressing" and "sacrificing" people who want to divorce their spouse to marry someone else who they now love ? What about people who want multiple partners, or people who are in love with their siblings ?

Is it "non-Christlike non-love" to call people to self-denial in every area of sexuality - or just in the area of homosexuality ?

Each one of us in the Church must submit all aspects of our personality to Christ, who in his love will empower us and transform us so we can grow closer to his divine and perfectly human nature, helping us along the journey of becoming the people God created us to be, as we help each other. For all of us this means changes, self-denial and sacrifices. God calls us to holiness, not to self-fulfilment.

ps Jesus mentioned once that in heaven there is no more marriage - we will all be like the angels.. so at least then there'll be no more sexuality problems..

"Is it "non-Christlike non-love" to call people to self-denial in every area of sexuality - or just in the area of homosexuality ?"

So you're saying ALL HETEROSEXUALS ARE CALLED TO CELIBACY (no exceptions), Dave? Must have missed that...

Forgive me, Dave, but it seems to me there are an awful lot of divorcees in the pews and no one is talking schism....

Let's not even talk about the hateful bigotry of comparing my faithful, monogamous partnership with incest and pedophilia. Why am I not surprised.

Dave:

Thanks for your comment. Its always nice to have a bit of sanity injected into the "debates" at TA. It is definitely a breath of fresh air.

Steven

If John Milton is right about angelic nature, and we humans will be like the angels when we are in heaven, then we certainly will have sex, and our pleasure will not be bound by the limitations of particular organs, and, not only that, if we are indeed like Milton's angels, we will be able to assume either gender to do so. You may find this in "Paradise Lost." But perhaps that would be much too racy reading for the neo-neo-Puritans.

Dear JCF, Everyone who has any sexual desire outside those that sanctioned by Christ and the Apostles are called to [try to] abstain from sin if they want to follow Christ - not just homosexuals !

Dear IT, I would want nothing to do with a Bishop who had divorced to remarry either ! And I *didn't* mention pedophilia... just other "equal consensual" sexual options ! So why is it "hateful or bigoted" to even mention same-sex sex alongside them ? Aren't they all called sins in the Bible because they are sexual behaviours that are against the "created order" ?!

Dear Cynthia, now who's sex obsessed ?!

Cynthia:

It's been a while since I read "Paradise Lost", but I don't recall any gender switching in Milton. I'm not even sure that sexual organs were involved. If I remember correctly, the angelic body was of such a refined and subtle nature that some sort of mutual interpenetration of bodies could take place.

Hmmm. An interesting turn for the discussion to take. I suppose I'll have to drag down my copy and refresh my memory on the subject.

Steven

P.S.-Milton was definitely heterodox in some respects. For example, he certainly seems to present the "Son" as not being coeternal with the "Father"--Anyhow, thanks for bringing up an interesting point. I'm not certain it has much to do with the topic, but it is interesting. /s

I can't help thinking that Ruth Gledhill and I have read different versions of the speech by the Bishop of Exeter. On blogofdaniel.com I am trying to get some interpretations on what the follwing passage might mean. I think it is a stretch to call it a warning about impending schism. But I am not quite sure what would constitue a more accurate characterization.

The passage: "I suppose one of the major challenges for the Episcopal Church now has to do with whether there are enough of you to stand on broadly the same ground, holding a range of opinions on the issue of Lambeth 1.10 but firm in carrying forward the Windsor vision of a strengthened and enabling communion life. This, I believe, is the key question rather than questions (unhelpful questions I think) about whether the Episcopal Church will either be pushed out of Communion or consciously walk away. Let's be clear: On the one hand no one can force another Province or Diocese either to go or remain. We are not that kind of Church. Yet equally, no Diocese or Province can enforce its own continued membership simply or largely on its own terms. There has to be engagement. There is no communion without a shared vision of life in communion (at least that is how I understand Windsor).

So it does seem to me, as I listen to those other parts of the Communion that I know best, that any further consecration of those in a same sex relationship; any authorisation of any person to undertake same sex blessings; any stated intention not to seriously engage with The Windsor Report -- will be read very widely as a declaration not to stay with the Communion as it is, or as the Windsor Report has articulated a vision, particularly in sections A and B, of how it wishes to be."

Perhaps those who are so fascinated with other peoples' sex lives might find joining the Shakers a pleasant relief. Of course, I think there are only about two elderly Shakeresses alive these days, since they did take celibacy seriously!

Jim --

That is puzzling -- the North American Churches are to disenfranchise their members who have a same sex orientation because of Windsor, but the ABC & the primates have both already rejected the larger role for the ABC that Windsor called for & no one seems to have done any work on a workable Covenant (which must either be vague enough to be pointless or precise enough to guarantee schism since it will prevent necessary adaption) & the boundary violations have increased rather than abated -- the Windsor Report was supposed a starting point for discussion addressed to everyone -- but it has become a weapon directed at the North American Churches -- so sad.

The Windsor Report is hardly "a shared vision" untill ratified by the different churches or Provinces.

I just finished reading the address, and many things about it struck me; and I want to address a couple.

First, while he was there to offer greetings and give an address, he is very clear that he is giving is personal opinion. There are points at which he talks about facts, as opposed to his opinion. I don't see any significant points where he says anything amounting to, "Rowan says," or "our House of Bishops says," or "General Synod says...." I'm not suggesting that Rowan didn't send him for a specific reason; but I still don't want to read too much into the fact that he was sent, and that he was sent.

Indeed, he describes his own House: "On Lambeth 1.10 a wide spread of views will be found in our own House although, as our own most recent report 'Some Issues in Human Sexuality' makes clear, the great majority of us see the matter as being multifaceted and complex, not capable of a quick resolution,....So despite the range of opinions there is an almost total intention to stand together, and with the rest of the Communion, in taking no precipitate action, as the listening and engagement go on." He then goes on to say of the Episcopal House, "I do believe that I have heard in this house this week, by and large, a desire for shared life in communion and ongoing engagement with others in just what this must involve." So, the variety of opinions within the context of broad support for the WIndsor process is something he has experienced in both settings.

And that frames my second point: this is a moderate , and largely supportive (and no, not entirely encouraging) statement. Certainly, he says he was encouraged by the initial work in preparation for the official response of the Episcopal Church, which must come from General Convention. Certainly, he seems to see the important focus being the Windsor process, and "maintaining the highest level of communion possible" as the Windsor Report phrases it.

Now, some of it still causes concern, or at least confusion. He doesn't "want either" regret for causing pain in the Communion or for the action in confirming the election of Bishop Robinson. At the same time, he doesn't make clear what he means in wanting repentance instead - "that seeing of an action or behaviour in a new light, the light; of new circumstances under God, understanding it afresh and changing behaviour accordingly, not out of fear but out of love." Sounds nice, but it doesn't suggest any particular (or even general) action.

Still, it hardly seems the stern, finger-wagging scolding suggested (hoped for?) in the Gledhill article.

I agree with Marshall Scott that the meaning of "repentance" is obscured by the bishop's clarification -- also odd that none of the English bishops seems to find anything wrong with the WR when none of the English contributors to "Gays and the Future of Anglicanism" could find anything good to say about it, either historically, theologically or pastorally.

Jim & Marshall: glad to see that I'm not the only one confused by +Exeter! ;-/

"Dear JCF, Everyone who has any sexual desire outside those that sanctioned by Christ and the Apostles are called to [try to] abstain from sin if they want to follow Christ"

So, we're down to semantics, again: what do you mean by "sanctioned"? (a very strange word admittedly, which can mean *either* "approved" or "prohibited"! It's right up there w/ "cannot advise"...)

Like many, many faithful Anglicans---all around the world---I am convinced, via my prayerful consideration of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, that Christ, through his church, blesses same-sex unions (or, as I prefer, *marriages*), when they are undertaken in mutual subjection of the partners to Christ (and then, to each other).

Blessing trumps "sanctioning"---by any definition! :-D

In light of all of these warnings, it is good to remember that in 2000, at their Porto meeting, the Primates issued a Communique stating:

"We believe that the unity of the Communion as a whole still rests on the Lambeth Quadrilateral: the Holy Scriptures as the rule and standard of faith; the creeds of the undivided Church; the two Sacraments ordained by Christ himself and the historic episcopate. Only a formal and public repudiation of this would place a diocese or Province outside the Anglican Communion."

Dear JCF, I don't doubt that you are convinced that you can bless something that the Bible's writers called sin, but I don't think that you would convince any of them ! And sadly, I wouldn't call someone a faithful Anglican if they weren't [trying to be] a faithful follower of Christ....as described in the New Testament. "Anglican" describes a *Christian* church - would-be-followers of the Christ who walked on earth and told us to baptise people and teach them to obey everything He had commanded.

If ECUSA percieves itself to be autonomous, a self-defining socio-cultural group for religiously inclined liberals, then they won't be able to deny their beliefs and go back on what they did 3 years ago. Then at least maybe the rest of us will be a bit less distracted from trying to convert the world. However I do hope that they will then finally officially recognise that they have parted ways with Anglicanism, start acting honourably towards members, churches and clergy who want to be true Anglicans, and allow everyone to choose which way they want to go, rather than all the smothering dissent, defrockings and grabbing of buildings and assets that have marred the last few years !

'True Anglicans'. If thats people like you, Dave, then no thanks - but clearly there are many other people who are also Anglican.

Personally, I don't want to be part of the same church as conservatives, so unless there is a split, I will be permanently counting myself out.