I have no doubt that the response most closely read by Lambeth will be that of the Archbishop of Sydney.

As Rowan struggles with a longer vision to hold even a divided Church in some form of community, others have clearer and more immediate plans for the short and medium term that will inevitably thwart him, Dr Jensen makes this clear.

My concern has always been that the attention has never been on the real players here – there is a very urgent move for a new Anglican Reformation and they will not be persuaded by Dr Williams’ vision of the Church. I believe he has already lost control of events and we will see developments emerge from other quarters before Lambeth that will indeed enable us to see a very different Church.

Archbishop Williams no doubt hopes that minds will change if delaying tactics are kept up. Certainly the kind of bigotry that Akinola represents is likely to implode soon; and his followers in the US, who should no better, are likely to come to their senses, ashamed. If not, the power of rational persuasion, conscience and the Gospel, within Anglicanism, must be tragically feeble.

The Affirming Catholicism statement is not correct to claim that RW would be calling time on anglican diverse unity. There always have been, and by definition always must be, limits beyond which the diversity cannot go and still count as Christian. Anglican satanists, for example? It is bound to happen on one of the more new age fringes (see Peter Jones, 'Pagans in the pews').

Also examination is needed of the too-fundamentalist dogma that diversity, even extremes of diversity, is always a good thing. Who says?

I feel strongly that Martin is on to something here. It's plainly obvious that ++Williams has "lost control of events."

And while there may be angst over a communion with extremist, Third World conservatives at the helm, there's also the hope of one formed from moderate to progressive elements of the Church in Great Britain, New Zealand, Canada, the U.S., etc...

So I'll pray for that last hope, and try hard to let the others go in peace.

I think that Williams may as well give uptrying to come up with a compromise. It is quite clear that a split will happen. ECUSA will go its own way and take others in its midst. So will Sydney, who are effectively the brains behind the so-called 'Global South'. What will be left won't be worth having.

RIP Unified Anglicanism

Martin:

I think you are correct. The other players, traditional or r----------, seem to take it for granted that what the ABC proposes will come to pass, one way or another. Some are guardedly optimistic, while others are opposed, but all seem to consider the process a given.

Jensen goes in a completely different direction that I find disconcerting. To him, the communion is broken past repair, patch jobs or compromise. His assumption seems to be that the ABC is running up with a band-aid after the patient has already expired.

Apparently, the proposals of the ABC, which seem draconian to some and merely reasonable to others, are far too little too late in Jensen's mind. I wonder what he DOES have in mind--is Sydney simply going to secede and dump the remainder of its Anglican "baggage" in route to lay presidency and presbo-evangelicalism?

Steven

Thanks for the comment, Martin. The form and idea of a covenant is good; but its function is perverted by partisan wrestling of its meanings. I don't think it is possible to sustain the myth of communion by imperialist coercion into a model of being church. Better it is to give space to a koinonia forming from grassroot relationships. A two-tiered structure might just provide an opening for that. I am quite certain that such a simplistic model for an Anglican federation will quickly diversify into different networks of relationships.

I think it augurs well too for the future of our ecumenical connections beyond our parochial provinciality to begin identifying parts of our Anglican provinces as 'like the Methodists'.

I am glad to see our communion moving towards a post-colonial identity.

Thank God for the Archbishop of Cape Town. In a few paragraphs, he's offered us an incisive and theologically-grounded approach which - to me at least - has much more to commend it to the Communion than the Archbishop of Canterbury's "divorce that dare not speak its name" paper.

Remember when reading Archbishop Ndungane's response that this is from a man who knows personally the cost of struggling with difference in many contexts. He spent three years jailed on Robben Island for his part in the anti-apartheid struggle.

Two paragraphs from the Archbishop of Cape Town's response: "It is our nature as human beings to be diverse and therefore the modern world requires the church to deal with diversity. This reflects the unity and diversity we find within the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose image we are created.

We need to be tolerant of difference."

Even if we have a "divorce that dare not speak its name," no-one can avoid the facts that Archbishop Ndungane has identified. Let us as a Communion face that reality.

Martin --

I believe that your insight is brilliant.

I am also impressed by the comments from the Primate of South Africa (but there is nothing new about that).

We can stay together if we want to stay together, in spite of not agreeing about everything.

Acts 10:28 is a good verse for meditation.

Assuming that the covenant as eventually drafted is unswallowable by ECUSA, why should we assume that other provinces will subscribe to it? And I don't just mean the obviously liberal provinces like Canada and Scotland and New Zealand — when it comes to giving up autonomy, I imagine even some conservative-skewing provinces will be hesitant.

And in particular — what about the CofE? Can we really imagine it signing up to any but the most mild of covenants?

This is all bad news, as far as I can see, for those of us who are "affirming" catholics, believe in the saving life, death and resurrection of Christ, but who believe in the primacy of Canterbury and in the communion which binds us together as one (argumentative) family in Jesus Christ.

As laymen where are we to go. Will we remain in communion with one another if we're in an "associate" Anglican diocese?

I am not surprised by the Archbishop of Sydney's response, he is quite correct to say that the parties had already separated and it is just a matter of doing the divorce paperwork.

Using Sydney as an example (and it may apply to the other extreme in other dioceses), there is the issue of where do the liberal elements of the Anglican communion go whilst remaining in Sydney?

One of the reasons I became so involved in this debate is when it became apparent there were difficulties with tolerance, I contemplated moving parishes. However, it soon became clear that there are no places of refuge and that if I moved I would simply be exposing other parishes to the same tensions my existing parish would face. Therefore I chose to remain in my existing parish, play a low profile and try appealing to the higher authorities. The results we can now see.

Further, I contemplated moving out of the Anglican communion (a tragedy because I loved its broad diversity of both peoples and biblical interpretations) and realised that the issue of puritanism run amock would not remain within the bounds of one denomination.

As I saw the level of consistent sabotaging and character assassination, I realised that this would be happening to other souls who had not been given the grace of God and training to cope with such systemic bullying.

Therefore instead, I sought to try and get souls to realise what was happening and hopefully repent. My prayers of thanks go to both God and Jesus for the large number of souls who have come to realise what we are up against. In some ways it is like the Aussies making it to the second round of the soccer world cup, we might have been knocked out in this round, but we are now better trained and prepared for what comes next.

My prayers also go out that this not be a wasted exercise. I pray that enough souls realise that this systemic bullying has been going on for decades, and that souls outside of the churches realise they have rejected corrupt and power-hungry priesthoods rather than God. I give thanks that this crisis happened before the end of the oil age, and while there is still sufficient civil rights legislature and momentum that the precedent is not lost through "accidental" deaths of leaders, imprisonment or repression by the authorities. Yes, we are separating, but that does not mean that one spouse should be murdered - at least in Christian societies women are not meant to be stoned to death for "adultery". I would rather be accused of adultery and choosing my bedfellows than being submissive and raped by guilt of association.

The other benefit is that I hope others come to recognise bullying beyond individual parishes (some churches have already done some good work in this area) to recognise systemic bullying and how that can ripple into power-coveting with State leaders. This is a lesson that is relevant for the long term, and for people of other denominations and faiths. The challenging question is how to document the early indicators and develop strategies for innoculation before such a virus corrupts a whole church, or takes a society into the hands of a violent regime "in the name of God". One thing I have learnt along the way is that "violence begets violence", and that some of the enemies of Christiandom today are really the enemy of bullies who have aligned themselves with Jesus' name, and that a more moderate and pluralistic approach would lead to more hospitality. That does not cure the existing tensions and souls who have been damaged, but part of healing these souls needs to include a long term vision of how not to get into this space in the future (otherwise all we would be doing is shifting chairs on the Titanic).

Why do we never hear anything about Sydney? It seems to me that the actions of Jensen and his followers represent a much greater departure from Anglican norms than most, if anything, that is happening in the U.S.

Is it just because the gay issue is more emotional than, say, allowing laypeople to celebrate the eucharist?

The Episcopal Church unofficially, perhaps inadvertently, prepared for a split at General Convention when its bloggers stopped using ECUSA (Episcopal Church of the USA) and started using TEC (The Episcopal Church) as shorthand.

Dear New Here, it depends what we mean by "Anglican".. which will, of course, be the subject of debate around the forthcoming "Covenant".

To me heresy and immorality are *much* more serious departures than allowing unauthorised people to preside at the eucharist!

And don't foget that Jensen is Akinola's puppetr master. he controls whats going on behind the scenes.

Takeover time, folks. Time for liberals to have a bit of steel in their backbone - which will mean telling Williams the Spineless to get lost.

Yes, Dave, we all know that sex is more important to you than a direct attack on a key sacrament. That is a given.

But I think that most people would consider treating the sacrament as a mere symbol that any person off the streets can "consecrate" a bit more extreme than having a "bad" bishop somewhere.

I'll tell you why you don't hear Sydney being attacked - they are not ignoring the Bible, making up their own religion.....and they are growing strongly.

Who was the ABC supposed to choose - strong growing Sydney, Reform and "Alpha" churches or dwindling ECUSA and "liberal" churches?

As everyone knows, Rowan Williams is a clever man - he was never going to choose failure.The experiment in "believe what you like and let's play church" is coming to an end....after wasting a lot of time, money, energy and credibility for the CofE

New Here (et al)

It is not appropriate to argue the debate on particular personalities. Especially in a situation where it could easily become litigious.

Further, there is a deeper and more urgent need to understand the systemic patterns and develop theological models that recognise the perversion of the churches into power mongering at any cost. Those models need to be generic and able to apply across denominations, faiths, cultures, and economic systems (irregardless of whether they be agrarian, capitalist, socialist, or any other permutation).

I've also been contemplating the "biblical" truth of this debate some further. We are already familiar with the biblical insistence that "eunuch" could not apply to GLBTs, even though the word homosexual did not exist at the time. We also know they say that there can not be female teachers and priests because Jesus did not appoint any female apostles.

We also need to understand that they are absolutely convinced that Jesus is going to come with a new heaven and earth. They are absolutely convinced that Jesus is going to appear in some absolutely amazing light show and fire and destroy all their enemies, take away all pain and suffering, and never have to deal with shortages or issues of sexuality ever again. And by George, if he doesn't show up that way, then it just plain isn't Jesus, and the bible tells them so.

So, as one of my friends pointed out, if Jesus decides to return more than once and before the end of the world, what does that mean for these souls? They will be like some of the Jews, who insist that God has done no revelations since Moses (read on Algemeiner in the last month).

The next question is "Is it biblical" for God to give them less than the perfect Holy Land (new heaven and earth)? Well, actually it is. That is exactly what God did to the Jews that Moses was leading out of Exodus. Only two souls from the scouting parties had enough faith in God to accept the Holy Land as prescribed and have faith that they could live as God's holy people in that land. The rest of them were banned from the Holy Land because it they rejected it. Similarly for these souls, the idea that Revelation is about to be completely fulfilled and that this whole planet is the Holy Land is unthinkable. Such souls have made the same mistake that the people around Moses made (and the angels are again being slapped for trying to remove the Torah from humanity). If they want, I could pray to God that he create a nice shiny box for them, where all the worthier souls can cohabitate for a 1000 years or so. The rest of us will be grateful for the break and not having to fix their sabotaging everytime we work on honouring and restoring God's creation as He has bequeathed to humanity.

If this is what is good enough for God to give to us, then it is good enough for me to work with.

The very terms 'sacrament' and 'consecrate' are neither of them foundational or early christian terms. Nor are the worldviews they presuppose. One can't appeal to tradition and simultaneously ignore the biblical root of the tradition.

Why are some people suggesting the Anglican Church of New Zealand might leave the Communion (or however you want to phrase it)?
There is no 'blessing' of SSUs, and while there are probably partnered homosexual clergy, none of this is officially sanctioned in any way. Anglicanism is in very serious decline there, Anglo-Catholicism has all but disappeared, but there are still a good number of healthy evangelical churches. Although it is one of the weakest provinces theologically speaking, I doubt that most Anglophile of countries would give up close links with Canterbury.
Canada, OTOH, is a different matter. A schism is a very real prospect. I can see Yukon, the NewWest churches, Saskatchewan and some Toronto-area churches forming a new alliance.

"lay presidency" - please show me where this rule is in the Bible?

I am sure people like Jensen would be against it if the Bible were against "lay presidency"

Disobeying man-made rules is not the same as disobeying the Bible

The "schism" in the Anglican church is all about the authority of the Bible - we are seeing a re-focussing on it which is long overdue, led by the ABC now

Opposition to 'lay presidency' may be a matter of faith or order. For a catholic, it's simply counterfeit (since only episcopally-ordained priests can consecrate bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ) and therefore an act of deception, as well as presumption. For churchly evangelicals, on the other hand, it has to do with respecting the order of the church and its leadership. Yet even advocates of 'lay presidency' don't advocate a free-for-all. They would be quite happy for authorized deacons and readers to lead, just as they preach and sometimes baptize.
Since 'laypeople' can baptize in an emergency, it would seem that they could do the same where the eucharist is concerned. Or is my reasoning wrong here? I would be glad of others' views here and to know why the matter causes concern or offense.

Please help me - my question was a sincere one about what is inherently wrong with the idea of 'lay presidency' in liberal eyes (if indeed it is considered wrong). I recall that Giles Fraser has raised this question but it hasn't been debated here, as far as I know.

Steve

There was some discussion about lay presidency a few months ago (some one else might find the link/dates). I don't have a problem with it per se, as I think if God wants to He can find an isolated individual on an island if He wants to (after all, God was finding humans before the Torah was written). The issues of recognition of gender GLBTs does not change with lay presidency, the arbitrary boundaries can still be enforced.

Dear Steve Watson, we did debate lay presidency here some time ago and at least one liberal contributor admitted that they thought that liberals were allowing it (but maybe only 'unoffically'). As an ex-liberal I must say that I had the feeling that that was the case!

Dear New Here, I don't know where you get your priorities from, but if read the Christian scriptures you will find that heretical faith and immoral conduct separate you from God (to put it mildly) whereas there is no mention of the need for a "priest" to preside at any of the sacraments.. it is certainly not the same order of issue!

In fact: "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." (Luke 6:3-4) I think this could be read as a precedent for lay presidency, even by those who have a high view of the sacraments!

The convolutedness of "proofs" always stunn me!

Allegoría, allegoría, allegoría.

Not plain scripture.

No-one has addressed the question of who invented the idea of a 'president' other than Christ in the first place. Whoever it was, why should we follow them?

The whole idea of having a representative of Christ is absurd when Christ is present anyway; nowhere more absurd than in a context whose very raison d'etre is his presence.

If one person can break bread, how much more a gathering of people?

Show me any kind of 'presidency' -- 'lay' or otherwise, in the Bible--or communion services either for that matter.....

An off-the-top-of-my-head list of non-foundational ideas that came in later:
(1) Sacrament
(2) Communion / Holy Communion (1 Cor 10 is in a non-capitalised sense)
(3) Eucharist (in the present sense, ie referring to a ceremony rather than a thanksgiving)
(4) Blessing food as opposed to thanking God
(5) 'presidency'
(6) 'lay'.
No wonder an answer cannot be reached when the initial concepts are later inventions.