It was written by some Aussies? Oi Oi Oi. It might not have been the wisest piece of correspondence but their hearts are in the right place. Now what we need to do is start move from faction fighting to a bigger agenda - world peace. Working at both the macro and the micro, as individuals, as parishes and as a broader communion. If you want to stop the cycles of war and oppression, then you need to stop the agenda being controlled by those who profit from arms sales, sickness and narcissism. It's time to move to a positive agenda of God's biblical vision for just compassionate sustainable diverse communities. Yes, we will still need to debate with the recalictrants, but we need to do it respectfully. Just because they want "tit for tat" arguments, doesn't mean we have to engage with them on their terms. If they are not interested in the broader goals, then we will move around them. Where they deny us communion, God will provide alternatives. God has given us the chance to break their communications blockades to reach out to each other and the others whom they have rejected. God loves souls who respond to His Call and pick up their hoes to plough the field and nurture God's seeds. God has made a promise that with faith "all will be as it should be".

You know, I've been thinking about this overnight. The difficulty is that there are some things that no matter what one side does, the other can say it is mischievous and damaging. The people who wrote the letter could equally argue that they were responding to mischievous and damaging behaviours. Suppression for the sake of appearances can be a form of repression, yet talk without boundaries can degenerate into slinging matches (especially when some people will inflame the argument to muddy the waters). Somehow we need to find enough emotional wisdom to recognise and not respond to red herrings thrown to side track or obstruct meaningful dialogue. People also need to be allowed to have discrete spaces to talk through the issues from their perspective and then come back with more considered positions. Failing to allow "the other" contemplation and dialogue space degenerates into hecklers obstructing Spirit trying to help souls find wisdom e.g. Acts 2:1-18, Luke 7:29-35

One might take a cue from group relations models, in which our group efforts to accomplish a worthwhile task fall off course when we take up defensive positions in the (most unconscious) assumptions that distract us: fight-flight, dependency, pairing, or me-ness external compliance.

Of course each defensive position is our typical ways of disconnecting from the difficult tasks at hand - either we shall be able to agree, or we shall have to work out the painstaking ways in which we can agree to disagree. So far as the Anglican group task goes, that is pretty much it for the task.

Meanwhile, when we occupy a defensive position, all manner of vivid Eric Berne-like games take place. A favorite played by the conservative realignment folks is simply named, Let's You and Him Fight. Counter-versions of this game also get played by liberal folks, responding to us getting off task.

A group relations (Tavistock) strategy for working with groups involves two leadership points. The group trainer vigorously attempts to stay related to the group as a whole, rather than to any of its individual members or its transiently-formed subgroupings. Sometimes it looks like this is what Archbishop Williams or other leaders are doing, and other times it just looks like nobody knows what in the world to do or say, given how nasty something just got in passing; or given how new and different some little note of positive gay living suddenly appears to be to all the hugely privileged straight Anglicans somewhere.

A second strategy is to clearly call attention to the specific defensive positions, and perhaps also to the game ploys being enacted, at any given moment in which the group as a whole is going off task. This leadership function seems remarkably absent from our international processes and meetings so far, reading back and speculating somewhat from the resolutions, statements, or reports that are issued from such moments in our common life.

This second strategy is quite frustrating for people who are getting some mileage, emotional and otherwise, out of a passing defensive position - because it tends to block unconscious off-task group relations by bringing things into more awareness, while still not suggesting a resolution or way of working on the task. The more difficult our group tasks, the more passing moments of defense we will tend to see, just because defending is always easier at first than working on difficult matters in groups.

So far we haven't even been able to get all the bishops together, without somebody riling somebody else because they are in dire fear of being contaminated - either by queerness or by liberal believer views or paradigms. When the lulls become stuck defensive positions, somebody has to notice what is happening and talk about it clearly.

Recommendation to Canterbury: Say clearly that all Anglicans will be welcome at all near future international meetings hosted by CoE, with full voice and vote, thanks to the sheer enduring generosities of the lordship of the Risen Jesus. Period.

I'm starting to think that we shouldn't allow Anglican leaders to meet any more, unless a highly trained group relations resource person is present to keep the task work on track, and to call attention to passing defensive positions and games which distract, distort, and interfere with the task getting done. Let's take up a collection, quick, and hire this facilitator before our next round of meetings.

drdanfee

Great posting. One of things that I've liked about some of the TA threads is that there have been times that people have tried "..is clearly call attention to the specific defensive positions, and perhaps also to the game ploys being enacted, at any given moment in which the group as a whole is going off task". It usually incites a vitriolic response from the guilty party, but that then surfaces the underlying paradigms driving their behaviour and choices. Maybe if you hang around long enough you can help us identify and understand some more of these patterns?

Lord Carey says: "With regard to General Synod’s vote on disinvestment and Israel, I at no time criticised the Archbishop of Canterbury. I opposed the decision of General Synod in my capacity as President of the International Council of Christians and Jews and as an active participant in the Alexandria Process which brings together people across religious divides in the search for peace in Israel and Palestine."
He should after his own fairly unfavourable experience of the media have had a better idea how this would be perceived. Is this a little faux naivete?
He draws attention to the good work he did and continues to do to bring Moslem Jew and Christian together. Is it not a little strange then that he posts his statement on the website of an Anglican Zionist lobby group?
His behaviour does seem, if not the disloyal form the Aussie letter writers accused him of, at least somewhat erratic and inconsistent.

RE: Doug Chaplin's post. Just on a point of information. The statement was not posted by my father on Anglicans for Israel's website. He merely sent the statement out to those who contacted him about the matter. In fact, the statement can be found on his website at:

http://www.glcarey.co.uk/Speeches/2006/OpenLetterResponse.html?.html

Many thanks Andrew.
I did not know that your father had his own website until this moment :-(

From Lord Carey's press release: "In conclusion, it is mischievous and damaging to the Anglican Communion to suggest that I am opposed to the ministry of Dr Rowan Williams. The vast majority of my commitments and interests in retirement are low-key..."

That explains why he has just (copyright 2006) launched a website posting everything he has said since he retired from office, and promising more to come.

Saying you are "ashamed to be an Anglican" because of a resolution supported by your successor doesn't strike me as particularly supportive but I suppose that makes me mischievous and damaging to the Anglican Communion.

It may be a tiny, insignificant thing but it's getting old. Newsapers and even Archbishops tend to forget one small thing that is part of this whole thing.

ECUSA bishops are *elected*, not *appointed*. Each diocese has the right and responsibility to choose their shepherd. ++Griswold as PB does not appoint bishops nor, truly, does General Convention. It adds an entirely different dimension when people remember that ECUSA is run on a much more democratic principle than most other provinces. Here the lay people have voices that are welcome and votes that count in the processes. That isn't true for the rest of the world (and some of the rest of the world want to take lay people out of the ACC entirely, it appears) but it is for us. So please, reporters and others, rememember that we *elect* bishops here, not *appoint* them from some primal palace.

Thank you for allowing the interruption in the discussion.

It’s an imposing website. More in keeping with his illustrious past than a low key present and future, it has a sort of “business as usual” feel about it.
But having said that I tend to think the “split” scenario is waffle and hype. Perhaps coming at this time it might be helpful though, Bishop Carey, like some of his predecessors has a difficult job steering a course between being a useful servant of the church and a focus for more (if that’s possible!) disunity.
He will be contacted to comment on many issues and where he agrees with the status quo, and offers support his remarks will most likely be ignored and so we will only be treated to the views of the former Archbishop when he is critical.
I am sure he is wise enough to know this, but even so I think he will probably have to say less – even though he may have something valuable to contribute – for though he may see his comments as balanced and careful and even supportive others will not.
He is a good man – ill used by many when he was the English Primate and destined I think to be ill used again.

I've thought carefully about this, and I put it out here without comment. Interview on 'The Religion Report' ABC Radio (linked above)

Stephen Crittenden: You mentioned the Lambeth Conference there. I know it’s the view of some of the signatories to this letter that the division over this issue that the Anglican communion worldwide is experiencing now, does indeed go back to that Lambeth Conference. They would see it as something that you helped create at that Lambeth Conference, that in a sense the church is suffering for that further down the track.

George Carey: Well not suffering from. What the Lambeth resolution did was to express the mind of the assembled bishops so very clearly, so there was no change of policy and what the Lambeth resolution did was to say “This is where we stand. But the debate and discussion with homosexuals must continue”. And so the American church really has brought that to a halt by making the decision which undermines that resolution so clearly.

Stephen Crittenden: I come back to the question, why is this such a big issue?

George Carey: Well it is an enormous issue in terms of our attitude towards scripture itself, our interpretation of scripture, our understanding of the sacramentality of marriage, the social order, and so on, the nature of ordination. All these things are very important indeed, and let me say this, I don’t want to be seen as a leader of a party in opposition. I’m a retired Archbishop, I spend most of my time in inter-faith and educational matters, but all I’m responding to your questions see this as a very concerning matter, and it is very difficult now for the Anglican communion to resolve it.

Stephen Crittenden: Was it almost verging on being a heretical act?

George Carey: Oh, I think so, yes.

Stephen Crittenden: Why would you say that?

George Carey: Well I want to go back to the points I’ve already made, and that is to do with the nature of marriage itself, the nature of our sexuality, and these are not issues that can be handled easily in a quick telephone conversation. But there’s a lot of detail out there. I refer to things I’ve written as well on this matter. I’m not an absolutist on this, I want to make that clear. I think it was a mistaken act. I mean there was a man who was married, fathered two children, divorced, living in a relationship with a man, and appointed bishop. I think that in itself in Britain would have been a very surprising thing. I couldn’t see it happening because our whole canon law would have resisted that. And here is a man who is now an alcoholic, as well, and so all of these issues combine to question that position.

Stephen Crittenden: There are plenty of straight priests in the world of course who are alcoholics.

George Carey: Yes, I know. I think what I’m saying is if you look at the whole issue, it causes us enormous pain, and I cannot see that that decision, when was it, a few years ago, was a good decision that helped the communion. It certainly didn’t. If you look at the American church today, it’s suffering very hugely as a result of that decision.

Perhaps George Carey needs some basic education about alcoholism, as he seems also to need it about sexuality issues. Maybe someone can send him some AA information. Or perhaps he should refrain from discussing things he does not know anything about.

"And here is a man who is now an alcoholic, as well, and so all of these issues combine to question that position" George Carey

And here checks-in George Carey who has now informed us that recovering from alcoholism is another moral question that should be "combined" on the list of "issues" that reveal MORE "questions" against the propriety of "electing" V.G. Robinson and/or supporting the Lambeth Resolution which he, Carey, sloppily mishandled and railroaded into being according to some present (including Bishop Spong).

It is Lord Carey who exhibits manipulative behind-the-scenes Alcoholic "like" thinking and compulsive/toxic behavior when he "commends" his prejudices and "non-absolutist" judgments to us.

Dear Cynthia and Leonardo, George Carey was quite in order to mention what VGR said in his statement from clinic:- that he had suffered from alcoholism for a long time. This *is* a substantive matter because St Paul said that an overseer (Bishop in Anglican speak) must, among other things, be "not given to drunkenness" - 1Tim3:3. I'm surprised that you didn't know that!

Dear Dave, St Paul did not write 1 Tim 3:3. I'm surprised that you didn't know that!

Especially since I have told you so a hundred times over the years ;=)

Dear Göran, that is your *opinion*. You have also mentioned that you are partial to wine... I prefer beer ! ;-)

I am sorry that Dave and the former Archbishop do not rejoice that +Gene is seeking recovery, and do not commend him for his courage and honesty. +Gene is by no means the only recovering alcoholic in the House of Bishops and certainly not the only recovering alcoholic among clergy generally in ECUSA. At our diocesan council [annual convention to some of you] we always set aside a room for AA to meet, as I suppose General Convention does as well [I've never been]. In fact, one of the co-founders of AA was an Episcopal priest.

I suppose Dave and the former Archbishop would rather he had been run out on a rail, and would propose the same for +Gene and his many clergy AA companions.

Sorry, folks, it's TEC, not the WCTU!

Cynthia said. "+Gene is by no means the only recovering alcoholic in the House of Bishops"

Dear Cynthia, what a sad mess some of ECUSA's bishops are in! But you misrepresent me when you state that " Dave and the former Archbishop do not rejoice that +Gene is seeking recovery" - that is not true, and I never said such a thing !... though I do like to see you quoting my name next to "the former Archbishop"! :-)

"What a sad mess some of ECUSA's bishops are in!"
Would you prefer they not in recovery?

What if I had said that [and this is statistically quite likely] some members of the HOB are diabetic, and need frequent insulin injections? Would they be in "a sad mess" too, because they were actively treating a potentially deadly disease? What if there were a bishop with epilepsy who took medication to control seizures? Also in "a sad mess?"

Dear Cynthia, I would prefer that Bishops were selected who were mature commited followers of Jesus Christ, expounders and defenders of the Faith once revealed, and good examples of Christian lifestyle and morality.

I think that you are missing something if you equate addictions with involuntary diseases. Finding oneself being drawn into an addiction ideally requires maturity and discipline to find appropriate preventative actions - dramatic if necessary. Treatment in clinic shows that you are unable to control it yourself; which is better than nothing of course!!

Personally I would ask for non-diocesan duties if I were a Bishop that had fallen into such problems - even if it were due to personal and other circumstances outside my direct control. That's how I think that others should respond if they can't cope - so I should be an example in failure as well as in success..

Addictions to substances ARE involuntary diseases. The nature of these diseases is that the vast majority who suffer from them cannot go it alone: treatment centers for detoxification, therapy, and connecting with a support group like AA is the only hope for probably 95%.

Asking someone to recover from alcohalism by sheer will power makes about as much sense as asking a diabetic to will her body to produce insulin.

"...mature commited followers of Jesus Christ, expounders and defenders of the Faith once revealed, and good examples of Christian lifestyle and morality" are exactly the kinds of bishops dioceses try to elect.

Being an alcoholic in recovery is not inconsistent with any of these. Nor is being in a faithful, monogamous same gender relationship.

I know that many would disagree with my second sentence. I would hope few would be so ignorant as to disagree with the first.