Of course, its rather mean and nasty of me (which will not surprise my detractors), but I cannot help but observe the irony of all of this in view of the new PB and her ardent supporters. It seems that her elevation is a bit of a pyrrhic victory after all. Seemingly, she'll barely have a chance to get herself in the clubhouse door before she's thrust back out in the cold along with the rest of the representatives of "associate" members. Likewise, for the denomination she represents, a continued hammering against the perceptions and strictures of the communion as a whole will have gained nothing in the long run (at least in terms of the communion as a whole) but exclusion.

Steven

I'm cool with not being a "full Anglican." Under these conditions especially.

But they'll still have to deal with us.

Given that at least a third of the CofE wouldn't be able to sign up to that sort of doctrinal statement, we could be in interesting times!

if the covenant includes all of the provisions of the windsor report's mandated apologies and moratoria, and all of the provisions of Lambeth 1998 1.10, then no church could possibly join, because no church has done what was promised in 1.10, and no church has done the pleasing things about human rights for gay people that those resolutions and documents call for.

but we already know that the "we will listen to gay people" and "we stand for gay civil rights" talk was just a dishonest lie. it will only compound the dishonesty if those parts are conveniently left out of any covenant agreement.

+++Rowan is now peddling the lie that one can be a bigot inside the church without being a bigot outside the church. the right wing already knows this is a lie, and are happy to make lying promises not to be bigots outside the church. the question is: will +++Rowan lift a finger to protest? or is it only the left-wing whose sins (if they are sins) really matter?

Rather than being a blueprint for schism, as it is somewhat simplistically described by Ms. Gledhill and others, it seems to me that the document is actually a challenge to the authenticity of the Christian faith of each one of us, no matter what party we belong to.

It reminds us of the uncomfortable truth that as Christians we all need each other, that 'only the whole Church knows the whole truth.' It sets us the challenge that "if we believe that we are answerable to something more than our immediate environment and its priorities and are held in unity by something more than just the consensus of the moment, we have some very hard work to do to embody this more clearly."

Nowhere does Dr. Williams indicate that any of us can simply ask all others to become as we are. I believe that he wrote this document to start the work that we really need to do if we are to be truly faithful to the One who is calling us.

Not bad; not bad at all. Finally a response that begins to make a good bit of sense, and lays out some clear paths for the future. Thank you, +++Rowan.

I, for one, could live with the "second track" solution; maybe even prefer it! After all, what does it mean in practice to be "second class" in this new split-level Communion: not going to Lambeth, maybe not being part of ACC (which takes a vote of 2/3ds of the primates -- including us and Canada and SA and Mexico etc.) So let's say that's what happens; as my CPE supervisor would say, "Annnnd.....?"

What would we actually lose in this scheme? Two weeks of meetings every 3 or 10 years? In the interim is the MISSION, which is what the church is FOR! What a novel idea. As Lear put it, TEC (or those of us in the majority who are called to sit out the innings in the meantime as we wait for a new consensus to emerge) can be God's spies, and stop worrying about who's in and who's out, and all the intrigue and gilded butterflies of the ecclesiastical "court." And maybe spend more time on the real work of the church.

This was the point I made at the Convention when I spoke in favor of the process leading to a Covenant: the problem with the contemporary church is we're thinking about _ministers_ instead of _ministry:_ all this focus on personal qualities and manners of life instead of whether we do what Jesus said to do.

Jesus seems to have been completely indifferent to the "manner of life" of those he called to serve, and those who served him -- as long as they actually served. (Remember the woman who washed his feet with her tears, and Simon's pious reaction?) You know, Jesus never mentions personal holiness at all; it's part of the purity code he rejected. He talked about prophetic righteousness and not judging others. Hmmm... could sure use more of that in the Anglican Communion!

The only downside to Rowan's reflection is his still being mired with this particular sticky matter: "The Church's One Obsession" with its own structure, its *being* rather than its *doing*; the tendency to exalt form over function. But I'm hopeful the two-track solution might actually be liberating for us all!

So let's embrace an imperfect communion based on mission instead of a pure one based on the lifestyles of the missionaries!

I don't entirely see why Archbishop Williams assumes we need two tiers if we're only talking about those currently in the AC. Why shouldn't we take some of the stories about the events around the time of the American Revolution as inspiration, and insist that assent to the Covenant must be unanimous for the Covenant to come into force? Such an insistance could perhaps help everyone involved relax a little in the assurance that they wouldn't be driven out of the family by any majority.

Jon

I think ECUSA will opt to break away rather than fund a bigot's communion. Let Akinola pay for it - will make a change from the usual begging bowl mentality.

"I'm hopeful the two-track solution might actually be liberating for us all!

So let's embrace an imperfect communion based on mission instead of a pure one based on the lifestyles of the missionaries!"

I couldn't agree more. And actually I think I'll be happier Downstairs.

I trust that when the Anglican Sorting Hat is finally passed about, Ruth Gledhill will end up in Slytherin.

The Episcopal Church and the rest of those who believe in full inclusion of glbt people have a number of good options. I would give a lot to spend the next ten years focussed on our witness and our mission and not on purity codes.

bls wrote, "I'm cool with not being a "full Anglican." Under these conditions especially."

I'm with her. Pre-2003, the word "Anglican" gave me a nice feeling, like I was connected to the Mother Country (most of my ancestors came to the New World via the Virginia Colony).

But now ? Quite frankly, and with apologies to all the good-hearted CoE folks on the other side of the pond, it just makes me a bit sick to my stomach. American ANGLICAN Council, ANGLICAN Communion Network, ANGLICAN "Mainstream," etc... you get the picture.

Pity Rowan has forgotten the tradition of a church that does not care for windows into men's souls - that only asks that we all pray by the same book. I see him as being a midget in a huge suit of armor. Unable to actually weild the power given to him, he must appease, appease, appease. I wish he would move to Nigeria and join those whose values he finds so much more valid.

So, will the CoE have to be an associate member of the Anglican Covenant since they support "challenging" ideas like ordaining women, allowing their priests to be in same-sex unions, and might actually have (*gasp*) women bishops in the near future?

How is this plan ever to work? As I see it, the "1st Class" members will be the CoE and the Global South. The "2nd Class" members will be the developed world. At what point are the people of the CoE (numbering approximately 17 at this point) going to look around and notice that it's nothing but them and some very strange (not queer) men from a land far away sitting at a table arguing about who's on top? Meanwhile, the Americans, Canadians, Scots, Aussies, Kiwis, etc. are partying on the sidelines. Can the CoE exclude itself from the Anglican Communion? Can the CoE even make the professions necessary to get INTO the Anglican Communion, as envisaged?

It's time to cut the "Southerners" off. Let them form up around ++Akinola. Those that don't wish to can stick with +++Cantuar. OR, split the primacy to a dual relationship between +++York and +++Cantuar. The two archbishops remain in communion with each other, but there is no "touching."

In order to save the Anglican Church, we need swift action. The proposal by +++Cantuar would allow too much time for argument, during which time the Church would dry up and blow away because its spiritual resources are being spent arguing about "position" and non-essential points of belief.

Pick up the scalpel and cut on the dotted line.

Archbishop Rowan doesn't seem to want to recognise the pre-conditions necessary for the two tier approach to work as advertised. As Bishop Nazir-Ali showed us, this "solution" will turn into a "divorce that dare not speak its name," as not everyone involved wants to work on the assumption that all Anglican churches are Christian.

The sense of proportion driving this "solution" is also flawed, as the American Church is the only situation that Archbishop Rowan's "solution" wants to address. Why is the "divorce that dare not speak its name" paper so silent about the Province of Central Africa?

What worries me about this whole debate and especially the tone of it, is that a huge proportion of the comments being made are about the behaviour of other people.

YOUR behaviour, your belief is MY first order communion breaking issue.

The sense that we have all sinned and fall short of God's glory - or as Jesus put it we need to remove the lump of wood from our own eye before we can see properly the speck of dust in our neighbour's - seems to be absent from consciousness: which is presumably why the teaching was given in the first place.

Listening in its various aspects seems to have been replaced by waiting for the other person to finish so I can say my piece.

In contrast to the best Anglican traditions of attention to each other, and taking responsibility as adults we collectively (I am an Anglican) seem to be handing it all over to ++Rowan Williams - a corrosive idea fostered by the media, and one we need (in my view) collectively to resist.

As ++Rowan says (as I read) in his piece, none of the strong strands which have been part of the Anglican church and tradition can properly claim on its own that 'to be Anglican is to believe what I believe and to do what I do'.

Yet this claim is increasingly being made by different groups.

Indeed some of the comment on Rowan's piece is 'thank goodness he's speaking for me and against them' - but it doesn't seem to me to be like that. He seems to be calling us to hold together with those who are different - which is hard - much harder than lobbing anathemas across the void.

Before the release of ++Rowan Cantuar's official statement, I was re-reading for my personal edification Humphrey Carpenter's biography of ++Robert Runcie, 102nd Cantuar, published in 1996. ++Robert Cantuar dealt very openly, in his interviews with +Harry Carpenter's son, with the issue of homosexuality in the C of E, especially among teachers of theology at Oxford and Cambridge. Years ago respected gay C of E clergy came out of the closet, owning up to their sexual preferences. Not a big deal at that time, compared to the African and ACN outrage that gays and lesbians seem to provoke these days. The C of E seems to have regressed since then, pandering to biblical literalists and the Metropolitans and Primates of the Global South. How can ++Rowan Cantuar live with himself and his own conscience unless he too opts for 'associate status'in the Anglican Communion for the C of E along with TEC, the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada. Weren't the openly gay clergy at Oxford, Cambridge and Mirfield an integral part of his academic circle of friends a few years ago?

Merseymike - Akinola does not seem worried about losing US money, does he? Some people have principles

If you want to talk about "begging" - look at the English "liberals" who are sustained by money they diocese gets from the growing evangelical churches! Hypocrisy....

Anyway, CofE "liberals", please join TEC - it is tiring funding you and embarassing being associated with your declining numbers even as you claim to be "inclusive" and shrink year by year.

John Henry asks, "Weren't the openly gay clergy at Oxford, Cambridge and Mirfield an integral part of his academic circle of friends a few years ago?"

Tempora mutantur et nos in illis.

Ahem, the debate has moved on a little since then.

This was probably inevitable, unless those who would support or are GLBT were prepared to deny themselves and silently submit to the absolutist conservative paradigm. It is not necessarily going to be an easy process, I for one ponder what to do, being based in Sydney and a diocese that is proud of its uniformity (which makes me an ugly duckling indeed). There will be other dioceses that will also have people who have been isolated from sister/brother souls (at both ends of the spectrum), and the question will need to be addressed of how to link with a branch that best suits our temperament and gifts.

Nor do I regret that this has happened, if things continue the way they are and there will be further invasions, further economic investments into military expenditure and tax cuts for the rich cross funded by unequal trade agreements and denying the poor and needy within their own countries, further destabilisation and economic sanctions, further hate mongering.

At least this way I have not been a rubber stamp to the above, and should things continue to escalate can say to my children that I have done my best to try and avoid a future that is based on fear and intimidation of the many by the elitist few. Nor will I have to apologise to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or any other religion or ethnic group for atrocities done in the name of "Jesus".

Nor will I have to apologise to God for not only hindering other souls' egress to God but actually attacking them as they try to find passage.

My conscience is clear that I have done my best. My prayers are that the liberal branches embue their culture with an intrinsic understanding of the need to be "above" approach and do not allow themselves into being baited into rash or foolish statemens or behaviours.

It is good to see some measured statements by Rowan Williams. As an outsider who attends Anglican services, I think what I have found most disturbing over the past few years is what I would call the Frank Sinatra mentality of some parts of the American church - I did it my way (and if you don't like it, tough); the disregard for the idea of a body of christ in favour of an ideology of individualism, and the triumphant tone of having done something that they know will cause problems. I can see no objection to women bishops or gay clergy, but I (or even married clergy if RC), but I can't help thinking that gung-ho attitude presented is not a good way to behave.

I agree, bls and others are onto something.

Let us consider it in terms of 3 positions:
a) it is permissible for someone who is gay to become a bishop subject to the same criteria as anyone else (ie being good for the job);
b) we must have some representation of LGBT folks amongst our bishops;
c) there can be no LGBT bishops.

I would object to the latter two on the grounds that they impose constraints on God, serving an earthly institution's hierarchy rather than giving God any say in who does His work when & where. Additionally, they are arbitrary: why draw the line at the role of bishop? If being any of L.G.B or T is wrong at that level, surely it's also wrong for a canon, rector, priest, non-stipendiary minister or member of congregation?

Whether you subscribe to the idea that being gay is a sin or not, "we all .. fall short of the glory of God", in a number of ways. Christianity does not confer instant beatification; it is a path of becoming more Christ-like, with whatever bugs being ironed out in His good time. For anyone in the church, regardless of role, to point the finger at another in judgement of one issue, whilst neglecting their own failings, is at beast a failing of humility and probably hypocrisy to boot.

Naturally, all of you are focussing on the gay aspect to all of this. When it comes to negotiating the terms of this covenant, given that most of the primates will be from conservative non-women ordaining churches, will those churches that ordain women priest and/or bishops be offered associate status only? An interesting thought. (I think it is not only gay and lesbian Anglicans who need to be afraid but also women.) Second thought. The Anglican church in England is 'by law establised'. If, as +Rowan indicates, core and associate membership could mean core and associate status WITHIN a province, then effectively, as applied to the C of E, we could be in a position in which possibly a sizable number of English Anglicans would be unchurched. Surely, this would reqire primary legislation, and the breaking up of the historical assests of the C of E. Whilst the Synod might pass such legislation would the Westminster Parliament rubber stamp it? Third thought: in such a process would not the C of E end up in either calling for disestablishment if thwarted by Parliament, or have it thrust upon it if it insisted in going down this route (after all it would become just one more denomination and not the church of the English).

John Henry-
What you are saying is that Rowan Williams ought to side with his friends.
In other words, weighing up the issues and arguments counts for nothing, merely sticking to cliques.
It reminds me of the commendations on the backs of books that come from the author's best friend (keep it in the family!). To which one responds: how can I tell if it's a good book or not - because the best friend 'would say that, wouldn't they?'.

If we all simply agreed with our friends, it follows that they should also agree with us. End result, everyone is trying to agree with someone else, and no-one is saying what they actually think, or even encouraged to think for themselves at all.

Personal ties are strong, and few people are successful in rising above them. It is precisely those who can rise above personal biases whom we should appoint as leaders, and precisely those who cannot whom we should not. That, in a word, is what integrity (personal and inetllectual) is all about.

The ECUSA made a very good impression on Christians worldwide last week. We saw a human church, engaged in open discussion, Pauline parrhesia -- a church of the people and very much a church of the Gospel.

And for this it is threatened with secondary status, while the Nigerian prelates who trample on basic Gospel values, of justice, mercy and charity, are assured of full ecclesial health?

Funny the ECUSA react as if they seem almost happy with second-rate status. I guess it makes them feel close to Jesus, who was banished outside the walls?

The ECUSA made a very good impression on Christians worldwide last week. We saw a human church, engaged in open discussion, Pauline parrhesia -- a church of the people and very much a church of the Gospel.

And for this it is threatened with secondary status, while the Nigerian prelates who trample on basic Gospel values, of justice, mercy and charity, are assured of full ecclesial health?

Funny the ECUSA react as if they seem almost happy with second-rate status. I guess it makes them feel close to Jesus, who was banished outside the walls?

Alaninlondon:

Interesting thoughts. As previously noted, the devil's in the details. There is a lot of ground to be covered, one way or another, between here and there.

Tony:

Thanks for the thoughts as an outsider, especially one with "liberal" proclivities. However, you'll never get'em (TEC libs) to admit that their own attitude is primarily at fault. They compare themselves with themselves which is, of course, no comparison at all.

Steven

R Williams' reflection is interesting, worth pondering a lot.

This paragraph struck me: "It is true that witness to what is passionately believed to be the truth sometimes appears a higher value than unity, and there are moving and inspiring examples in the twentieth century. If someone genuinely thinks that a move like the ordination of a practising gay bishop is that sort of thing, it is understandable that they are prepared to risk the breakage of a unity they can only see as false or corrupt. But the risk is a real one; and it is never easy to recognise when the moment of inevitable separation has arrived - to recognise that this is the issue on which you stand or fall and that this is the great issue of faithfulness to the gospel. The nature of prophetic action is that you do not have a cast-iron guarantee that you’re right."

If only the Roman Church had spoken like that about Martin Luther.

Perhaps Akinola is not worried about losing ECUSA money because he already has other conservative sources bankrolling him? I recall Andrew Brown suspecting that at the last Lambeth there was a lot of cash rolling around certain pressure groups which most emphatically did not pass through ECUSA's books.

I do find NP's argument (which can be boiled down to 'push off you liberals, we don't need you') a little simplistic. For one thing, I don't regard myself as at all liberal — more a critical-orthodox (hows that for a neologism?) yet have considerable sympathy with a non-fundamentalist reading of scripture and tradition (fundamentalism itself being an Enlightenment phenomenon, not part of the historic faith). 'Liberal' is being used as a convenient term for anyone not wearing a conservative evangelical hat, and is no more than an exercise in name-calling.

And some socio-economic data I have seen on the cash-cow evangelical churches suggest that although they are good at pulling in the wealthy, the real rate of giving among such congregations is considerably less than that of less economically favoured parishes. The classic study on this one was (I think) a comparison of parishes in the diocese of Newcastle.

Anyway, NP, once you get rid of the liberal/gay/critical/non-patriarchs, who on earth will you have to whom to feel superior?

NP; I think there will be a good many CofE members and churches who do opt for TEC. Certainly they could not, in good conscience, sign up to anything the so-called Global South would approve of!

It will certainly be a lot easier to reformulate a Christian mesage for the postmodern society without those who prefer revealed messages of an earlier era.

most of the primates will be from conservative non-women ordaining churches

This isn't true. Most Anglican provinces now ordain women to the priesthood.

AlaninLondon raises some interesting points, particularly regarding establishment.
But on a personal level, as someone residing in the province of Canterbury who could not in any way agree to the covenant as described, where would my membership lie? No TEA, no flying bishops. I don't particularly want to break communion with anyone, but am feeling increasingly cast aside. Am I henceforth an Associate Anglican? An Episcopalian? Or simply a Christian, trying desperately to hang onto faith, truth and love?

"Naturally, all of you are focussing on the gay aspect to all of this. When it comes to negotiating the terms of this covenant, given that most of the primates will be from conservative non-women ordaining churches, will those churches that ordain women priest and/or bishops be offered associate status only?"

An interesting thought indeed. A little more thought could turn up some more points of differing practice and belief:

Remarriage after divorce? Only if the spouse is dead? Only once? More than once?

Lay presidency?

Elected or appointed bishops?

Then there are the more characteristically American protestant deal breakers:

Card playing.

Drinking.

Going to plays or movies, watching television.

Listening to secular music.

And, of course, the ultimate dealbreaker: It is said that the Southern Baptists are so down on gay marriage because they fear it might lead to dancing.

I agree completely with Jonathan Clark above. The main thrust of the reflection is that it wants to challenge us to learn how to live together in charity, not to divide into self-satisfied doctrinally pure camps.

I am greatly saddened by the number of those on both sides who seem to assume that such an effort is doomed to failure.

Off the wall idea, but what if it is the Central African, Southeast Asian & Southern Cone of South American churches were are accorded second class status for their exclusionary policies (actually, I think the the points raised by AlaninLondon & Stephen Bates regarding the feasibility of the notion probably renders the question moot).

Nick ; I don't wish to 'live together'with conservative evangelicals. They follow an entirely different religious path. Separation would be both more honest and infinitely preferable - there can be no compromise between two such diametrically opposed outlooks.

Wrote Christopher Shell:

"John Henry-
What you are saying is that Rowan Williams ought to side with his friends.
In other words, weighing up the issues and arguments counts for nothing, merely sticking to cliques."

You misread my intention. I was appealing to ++Rowan Cantuar's personal integrity and conscience rather than admonishing him to "stick with his friends".

Moral integrity, and having experienced 'out-of-the-closet' gays as theological teachers of international reputation at Oxford, Cambridge and Mirfield, he should, if there is any moral fiber in him (and I am not saying or alleging that there is not), offer to 'designate' the CofE
as an 'affiliate' member of the Anglican Communion before presuming to pass judgment on TEC, grading GC2006's response to the Windsor Report as inadequate. Openly gays and lesbians have made a significant contribution to the CofE for many years as well as to TEC. Why should they be sacrificed on the altar of the Global South?

Or were gays and lesbians only helpful to ++Rowan Cantuar - a means to an end - as he ascended the career ladder? Now that the 800 lbs gorilla is in the room (i.e., Nigeria and the Global South) do they no longer matter and are irredeemable sinners?

Ironically, today is the Feast of St. Irenaeus of Lyon, who, based on Ephesians 1:10, taught that in Christ the whole historical relationships of God and humanity are "summed up" or "recapitulated" in all their dimensions. This destiny which Christ embodies and enables for humanity will finally be realized and come to fruition in the last days, when all things. God's whole creation, are marvelously renewed. In the end, even hell will be empty.

merseymike, and all whose beliefs reject those who differ... is the "no compromise" a Christian posture? Why can I not live and commune and worship with those whose beliefs are antithetical to mine? I can worship (I hope) with an Akinola if he is willing to kneel at the rail with me. I could accept the body of Christ from him. I could recognize that he is a sinner as I am. Is this not the essence of being Anglican? Remember who is God here, my friends.

Dear mynsterpreost

you are right - we (the vast majority of Anglicans, even in England) do not need the "liberals" because they only bring confusion, falling numbers, financial deficits and burdens on the majority, distraction and their made up religion which ignores the Bible whenever it suits.

"conservatives" are not wanting to feel superior toanyone - we just want to have some confidence that people ordained in the church actually believe what they signed up to....we have had decades of bishops and vicars undermining the Bible and the articles of the church and now the time has come, as the ABC seems to agree, to admit that there is a different religion within Anglicanism which is not giving the same primacy to the Bible as the vast majority of Anglicans.

The "liberal" message of "believe what you like and let's play church" has only emptied churches for decades - it has no foundations and is not sustainablee in practical (financial) terms. ECUSA loses 35,000+ members p.a. for all its talk of being inclusive but Alpha is building new churches, even in England.......I don't see strong liberal churches growing and planting new churches in England, do you?

Hi John Henry

Is it true that RW experienced 'theological teachers of international reputation at Oxford, Cambridge and Mirfield' who were also 'out'?

Mirfield - OK Harry Williams - scarcely a major international theologian. Though I have long thought that the friendship of such figures may be a factor for RW, much as it shouldn't be if one is wanting to be objective.

The ones at Oxford and Cambridge escape me - who were they? I was at both institutions over 15 years in the 1980s and 1990s, and they were certainly not thick on the ground, let alone strident with it. I cannot think of a single one.

"undermining the Bible"

Yes, dreadful. We should really have learned from the Taliban and destroyed anything inconveniently disturbing of bibliolatry. Perhaps a ban on studying the Biblical languages would help, along with the torching of the Vatican/John Rylands/British libraries. Silence any archaeologist not currently leading an expedition to find Noah's Ark. The odd well placed stick of dynamite at places like Kuntillet 'Arjud wouldn't come amiss either.

Pardon my spleen, but if talking about what the Bible says (rather than branding it infallible and inerrant and then performing theological gymnastics like 'as originally given' to hold the resultant mess together)is 'undermining the Bible' then we've got real problems, for study is thus declared incompatible with discipleship — except in a form so Procrustean that it is about as far away as you can get from the 'glorious liberty of the children of God.'

We'd better silence all the geologists, physicists, anthropologists and evolutionary biologists while we're at it. Then the heavenly Jerusalem can descend upon... Lagos? Sydney? Kampala? Rochester?

The "liberal" message of "believe what you like and let's play church" has only emptied churches for decades

I'm no sociologist of religion, but it would be interesting to know at what point the clergy of the CofE (for example) became 'liberal'. If decline is to be pinned on 'liberals' then we would expect a pretty close correlation, would we not — but the decline began in 1906, at which time I would guess that the liberal option was not even on the parish horizon.

I believe that extremist expressions of faith are building in most faith traditions. Were I a Conservative that would give me cause to wonder whether the numbers game is necessarily of God.

Having attended a Church Growth seminar yesterday, it was most interesting to note that (despite the hype) growth is to be found in all CHristian traditions, and - oddly enough - hard-line biblicism dies not seem to be a significant factor in growth. At this end of the Humber Bridge, the hard-line congregation in town is not growing, which seems to bear that out.

Anyway, I shall now belt up....

Dear mynsterpreost

If you are right and "liberals" are seeing growth too, when can evangelicals expect to stop giving money to subsidise them?

Alpha or "liberalism" for church growth - the ABC clearly knows which team to back

"If you are right and "liberals" are seeing growth too, when can evangelicals expect to stop giving money to subsidise them?"

I refer you back to my earlier point - the study that in real terms, those 'successful' HTB-esque parishes often have a lower level of giving than their (on the face of it) underperforming brothers and sisters in less economically favoured areas.

Sacrificial giving is to be found in all parts of the Church — if Alpha-esque Christianity is appealing disproportionately to the rich and comfortable, perhaps we should be worried? I am aware of one such congregation flourishing in this diocese, stuffed to the gills with London commuters.

Decline began in 1906:

Correct, I am sure - although this was a decline from an impossibly high peak.

From memory WW1 also had a negative effect. To some extent, this was inevitable, since if you kill off such a high proportion of the country, churchgoing stats (like all other kinds of stats) aint exactly going to go up.

But the steepest decline has its roots in the 1960s. One could try to argue that this had nothing to do with the social and political changes that took place then - but this would be special pleading. It has everything to do with them.

"since if you kill off such a high proportion of the country, churchgoing stats (like all other kinds of stats) aint exactly going to go up."

I think the causes were rather more deep rooted than that. And I'm not too sure about the 1960's argument — 'post hoc' does not mean 'propter hoc' for one thing. One might argue (mischievously) that the '60s decline was a reaction to vain attempts to maintain 1950's authoritarianism, and that the so-called 'liberal' response was an attempt to stem the haemorrhage?

Any sociologists out there?