Ah. He starts off excellently with his clarification of the Rowan Williams' role, but I'm not sure the penultitmate paragraph is all that great.

It might not be aim to be about accepting doctrinal opinion but as soon as it says `believe the others hold the essentials of the Christian faith', well there you have Nigeria in a nutshell. Somehow I can't see anyone taking bets on them not making homosexuality an `essential'.

Simon,

Is Bishops Wright & Stancliffe's paper on Women's Ordination & the Bible available online?

If not, could you make it available here?

Canon Strudwick's article is certainly impressive and presumably comes with some knowledge and authority since he is part of the initial drafting team.

According to Stephen Bates, the "two tier" notion (which the ABC said was a misunderstanding anyway) is pretty dead:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1816854,00.html

After all, Archbishop Akinola rejected Canterbury's paper before reading it (as well as after) -- insisting on expulsion of all who don't agree with the interpretation of Nigeria:
http://www.anglican-nig.org/communique_episynod_june06.htm

Chip
The Stancliffe/Wright paper is not, as far as I know, available online at present.
I will certainly make enquiries about it. I do have a paper copy.

This is a message from a guy who decided to join the RC Church nearly 50 years ago. The reasons that then seemed persuasive were historical. The Anglican Church,in which I was baptized, seemed, despite a unanimity that would today appear to be only a dream,less than satisfactory. As one of the former priests at the London Oratory said, 'It wouldn't do.'

Now there is, on the ground floor at least of the RC Church, a massive division between those who are prepared to think intelligently about their beliefs, and those who derive comfort from the sort of diktat that one usually associates with ayatollahs of the most extreme persuasion.

I am enormously grateful to the Anglican Church, and to its current Archbishop of Canterbury, for showing that it is possible to be a Christian and yet maintain intellectual respectability. The Church of England, from its origins, aimed to be inclusive. Could it, perhaps, remember now that special vocation, and say to those who wish it to become no more than a sect, 'Take your absolutist tanks off our territory?'

Yours in Dno, (as we used to say)

Christopher Allen

Well, Christopher A, that's quite a tale.

Though you sound fairly well settled on a Roman end-of-life (may it be long and consoling!), in that Communion in which you pitched your tent so long ago...

...just know that, if at ANY point you are merely willing to *let go* of the "assured exclusivity" of the RC claims, you're more than welcome to come home to Canterbury (or, speaking for myself and *my* church, "815 Second Avenue, NY, NY": the Episcopal Church). God bless! :-)

There are very strong doubts that this suggested covenant process will be able to work. Archbishop Jensen of Sydney has already spoken the language of separation, as before a divorce. We all know that no amount of counselling or discussion will produce reconciliation, without mutual goodwill and trust and the desire of both sides to try to make things work. It is by no means clear that that is the case. There is also the profound shift in principle that this proposed move to limit provincial autonomy would involve.
I would rather see an attempt at a two tiered covenant though - first level issues and second level - than a two tiered Communion.

I think limiting provisional autonomy is a non-starter, in any case.

Actually, I think the entire thing is a non-starter although I understand RW's wish to try and hold things together.

But I really think he is wrong. It makes more sense to look for a way of separation.

john davis --

Archbishop Jensen was already talking about relignment of the Global South apart from Canterbury before Rowan's appointment to Canterbury (i.e., long before most of us had heard of Gene Robinson) -- I suspect I read it here -- if I were clever enough with the archives, I might be able to come up with a link.

I agree with your sentiment, certainly good will is an essential in marriage counseling, but we all know that it is impossible for there to be agreement on what is adiaphora --that has been the dispute with the puritans at least from the time of Hooker.

I try hard to get into ++Rowan’s thinking. It seems that he is saying, “Given the abyss between the two parties, the only possible way to keep them together is to allow them to be apart/together, with some a bit more ‘in’ than others, but nobody excluded.” It seems that if this plan is carried out, it would require the decision by the majority, and in reality that would push the minority to the side. But it seems massively unlikely that the Episcopal Church (or the Anglican Church of Canada) would accept such a second-class status.

The problem is that the emotional load and the ‘ick’ factor play major parts in the rejection by many of the ordination of persons in a same-sex committed relationship. A second year psychology student could tell you that plainly we are dealing with the phenomenon of psychological projection: that one hates ‘out there’ what one despises in oneself (most often unconsciously). And there is no way to overcome this issue short of including an extensive course of Jungian therapy as prerequisite to ordination.

Rather than to try to lay on a solution from the outside (as poor ++Rowan is trying to do), the wiser path would be simply to allow the matter to “settle out” by itself. All properly and canonically ordained Anglican bishops get invited to Lambeth. Then if some choose not to attend, that is their action decided by themselves, and not imposed from without. And whatever they decide to do (e.g. setting up an “alternative Lambeth” in Alexandria) it will be their decision, and they will not have been forced into taking it.

This puts the responsibility (and the onus) back on the actors themselves, and both justice and mercy are served.

The problem is not that partnered gays are being ordained. The problem is the reaction to that. If person A takes an action which is not intended to harm person B in any way, and person B chooses to react in anger and hatred and revulsion, the problem does not belong to person A, but to person B. “You made me do it!” is a psychologically indefensible justification. Person B is personally responsible for his/her reaction. A has acted in good faith; B has responded with judgment.

The most important dynamic is that provinces take responsibility for their own actions and not be forced into a straitjacket imposed upon them from outside.

Exactly John-Julian. How very well put. Thank you.

John-Julian wrote "This puts the responsibility (and the onus) back on the actors themselves, and both justice and mercy are served. The problem is not that partnered gays are being ordained. The problem is the reaction to that. If person A takes an action which is not intended to harm person B in any way, and person B chooses to react in anger and hatred and revulsion, the problem does not belong to person A, but to person B. “You made me do it!” is a psychologically indefensible justification. Person B is personally responsible for his/her reaction. A has acted in good faith; B has responded with judgment."

Dear John-Julian. The problem for me is that the church cannot fulfill it's mission to save people from this sinful and rebellious world and bring them into the kingdom of God if it does not correctly teach Christian belief and conduct.

Salvation is salvation from sin by God's grace through faith.

Since same-sex sex (along with many other consentual sexual relationships) is sinful according to Scripture and 2000 years of Christian teaching, it is important that people know it is wrong. How can I then accept that my church teach people that it is in fact now ok ?

And bishops are supposed to be champions of Christian faith and conduct. By blessing sin and denying Christian beliefs, bishops destroy the communion between churches and even destroy the church. They do not deserve to be included just because someone elected and consecrated them...

We should be united by the truth, not just "bonds of affection" and episcopal power.

All very old-hat, Dave. I don't think I believe a single word of what you have just written. How , then, can there be the sort of unity you want?

The only way to achieve it would be to have a solely evangelical denomination - I think about 30% or so of the CofE would take the same approach as you, so I can't see that sort of denomination being 'Anglican'

Dave: I wish you'd ENGAGE John-Julian's *logic*:

[w/ your permission, J-J, if I may restate]

We have Christian communities "A" and "B".

BOTH desire to "save people" "by God's grace through faith"

"A" believes itself to be doing so, in good faith . . . and believes "B" to be doing so in good faith, as well (or at least keeps on open mind on the question).

"B" believes itself to be doing so, in good faith . . . but utterly DENIES that same good faith to "A".

"A" puts its HIGHEST VALUE IN FAITH . . . which is to say TRUST, in God.

"B" puts its HIGHEST VALUE in its (self-proclaimed) "correctness", its *possession* of "truth."

How do "A" and "B" stay in communion---minimum acceptance of each other, in Table fellowship?

I don't know.

...but I *believe* that I understand which side sounds *more like* the HUMILITY that Christ enjoined, in the Gospel.

Dave wrote: ”The problem for me is that the church cannot fulfil it's mission to save people from this sinful and rebellious world and bring them into the kingdom of God if it does not correctly teach Christian belief and conduct.”

“Christian belief and conduct”, also called Works...

“Salvation is salvation from sin by God's grace through faith.” or Works ;=)

“Since same-sex sex (along with many other consentual sexual relationships) is sinful according to Scripture”

Book, chapter and verse, please!

“and 2000 years of Christian teaching, it is important that people know it is wrong.”

Only if true. It isn’t.

“How can I then accept that my church teach people that it is in fact now ok?”

Because your Church tells you so, Dave dear.

“And bishops are supposed to be champions of Christian faith and conduct.”

So they are.

“By blessing sin and denying Christian beliefs…”

Exactly when does a “belief” become Christian?

Who said Neo Platonist and Gnosticist ethics from Alexandria is Christian?

"the church cannot fulfill it's mission to save people from this sinful and rebellious world"

Two things: one is that the 1994 Doctrine Commission's report 'The Mystery of Salvation' didn't see that as being the totality of the Church's calling (raising the question of 'what are we being saved from/for?' isn't something to be dismissed in an 'everybody knows' way) and secondly, what is the force of 'sinful and rebellious'? If that implies that sin=rebellion, then we have to say that Scripture teaches us otherwise, despite lines like 'sin is lawlessness'.

A bit more rigour, please, Dave!

What if we let go of institutional boundary drawing and admittted we are a family -- like all families a bit on the messy side with some members wishing they didn't have to admit being related to some others but admitting that family membership is not theirs to determine? See the Celso story on Anglicans Online. Todays conflicts will seem as history-bookish tomorrow..