It's all the same self-righteous spew no matter which one of the gang "monikers" the Anglican Communion Network/Council/Institue/whatever chooses to use. These threatening tirades are simply about strongly "talking down" to other Epsicopalians and the demonstrating of NO intention to engage in a better understanding of one another or to show any willingness to LISTEN to anything but the sound of their own insistant and demanding voice! Just another shrill WARNING of MORE pending "gang" violance against LGBT people, Episcopal Women in the priesthood, OUR families, friends, supportive loved ones, fellow Christians and the Presiding Bishop elect Katharine Jefferts Schori. Why meet at New York at all? We don't cower dispite the ongoing hate.

Pssss...is the sound of hot air seeping through the cracks of any good/sane intentions/hope however, the soft breeze of the Holy Spirit won't be kicked out of us no matter the threat.

This angry "mob" of Anglican/Network/Communion/Institute/Whatever zealots is warning us they will crucify again... but perhaps they've forgotten we've been to the cross and we are no longer afraid of them.

It is not surprising that the Anglican Communion Institute should embrace conciliarity and support the Williams/O’Donovan axis at this time. The time has come for them to back off – they almost did that a year ago when they announced their work was done and they were shutting up shop – but it didn’t quite happen.
I regret to say that over the past few years their theological contributions have in the main seriously outclassed the little we have seen from our side of this dispute.
I have sometimes pondered on what soporific drug they used to stupefy almost the entire liberal academic establishment in the west and how it was administered so effectively over such a long time.
This paper is a careful study in how to adopt the appropriate position before the proverbial hits the fan – it recognises the dangers and pitfalls that are around and is masterly in demonstrating to everyone that they are going to avoid them from now.
It is perfectly timed.
You’ve got to hand it to these boys – they know what they are doing!

The men at ACI have their collective heads in the sand and are trying to turn back the clock to the church of the 1950s. The Episcopal Church is falling apart? Why? Because they say so? I think not.

Why don't these guys go and form their neo-Puritan "no one but us" church of the 1950s and leave the rest of us -- the Episcopal Majority -- alone?

Oh, and nothing like making an idol of the Windsor Report, which is a flawed document that GC 2006 did NOT adopt as a way forward. A wise decision I believe

In exactly what way are these people mainstream?

If I start calling myself "Archbishop of Canterbury" as often and loudly as possible, does this mean that I can move into Lambeth and get me one of those fabulous ensembles that Rowan wears?

Good Grief!

The number of flat out false (not just misleading) statements in the release from ACI is breathtaking -- I have neither time nor energy to plow through them all.

They are wrong about church membership (although the Gospel is not a numbers game) & the authority of bishops in TEC & the authority of the primates in the WWAC on & on -- I do believe they are right that the toothpaste cannot be put back into the tube. All along TEC & the ABC have said, "Can we talk?" & the neo-Donatists have said,"No!"

So, in a sense, there is nothing new here -- just "reassertion."

Well, ho hum, the conservative conformity juggernaut rolls onward, rather like a tank in a standard battle movie. The loud sucking noise we hear from time to time is either a vacuum-pressured occasion of greater conformity that makes Anglican theology as predictable and standardized as a gross of canned Boston beans. Or, sometimes it seems to be a curious wind that blows in repeat of this or that ill-advised maneuver the church has adopted to embarrass following Jesus of Nazareth in some past era. Even the current Vatican seems quite in a rush to repeat the house arrest issued against Copernicus, but this time the target figure is Darwin, and a certain construction of his evolutionary theory which is first iterated as a sort of secular faith statement so that it can be attacked by the real conservative faith statement. Talk about fixing the fights.

I note in passing how the ACC - the single international instrument of worldwide communion which intentionally includes a stab a democratic representation among all of us believers - is sidelined and backgrounded, and how Lambeth is lifted up even higher as a ruling/conciliar body.
Ditto for legal/punitive readings of Lambeth 1.10, the Windsor Report, and whatever ad hoc neo-conservative document or think paper or report of the moment seems to chime in to maintain the spin.

Progressive believers are not dead, dying, or silent. Any more than, say, evangelical believers are all neatly/comprehensively subsumed by these conformities. If you think the progressive believers are a wild and frilly bunch doomed to frou frou extinction within our lifetimes, by all means do spend some time among the charismatic believers and get five somewhat contradictory words of prophecy about the Anglican Communion from three spirit-filled prophets.

But of course, since neo-conservative think tanks like ACI regard/define any views not their own as innately DOA, why should they not predict that everybody is dead or dying, except naturally themselves.

The good news? You can just keep on following Jesus of Nazareth, no matter what. Don't wait for the next Lambeth to explain it all to you.

Martin:

Thank you for an intelligent comment.

Steven

Is anyone else struck by the fact that those who have, for decades, resolutely REFUSED to ***listen*** to the "still, small voice" of LGBT Anglicans (and our quiet, Christian *lives*) are now screaming "Hear Ye! Hear Ye!" at the top of their lungs? And DEMANDING that we listen to *them*?

Lord have mercy!

I agree with Martin's assessment, that their game plan is well considered and thought out. The key to being a successful serial predator is to make it completely unbelievable that such a trustworthy character could ever do anything heinous. That is why we are horrified when we hear of people who were building bombs whilst being a respected high school teacher, or pedophiles who worked in a childcare centre.

The discipline section is interesting, and a core premise to their authority is expressed early in the paper "Our unity does not centre merely on liturgy or corporate worship but grows out of a common faith in the self-giving love of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no foundation other than the foundation the apostles have already laid."

This leads to bemusement - the apostles were God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? If not, were they only men? If only men, why is their foundation the only holy foundation? The principles of Moses and Abraham no longer apply? The foundation of faith as espoused by Paul in Hebrews 11 is meaningless?

This again reminds me of the worst characterstics of Jacob's Rachel: including seeking to discredit, alienate and disinherit Jacob's other brides and their offspring. Then there is the dispensing of Jesus/Jacob's spirit/services like some pimp when there is a chance to garner something for themselves (e.g. tithes, power or mandrake root).

Speaking of the Vatican and Darwin, it fills me with unease that they might be retracting the position stated with great clarity by John Paul II that "Today... new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

Come one JCF....it does not mean that people have not carefully and respectfully listened to you just because they do not agree with you.

The ABC, for one, has listened for years- has he not? He does not have to fully agree with and obey you, having listened. Conservatives have listened too but are not persuaded....just as you are not persuaded by them.

Why don't we listen to someone else who reached out to outcast sinners (like us all)? He showed incredible acceptance and forgiveness as he said, "go and sin no more."

Martin Reynolds pondered on:
'what soporific drug they used to stupefy almost the entire liberal academic establishment in the west'.

For good or ill, the entire liberal academic establishment is largely unconcerned with the ravings of the Anglican Church.

A couple of years ago there was discussion at the Old Testament Society Conference (so I am told) about 'the Faustian Pact between the academy and the Church'. at the end of the day, the majority of academics aren't Anglicans living out their lives in the hinterland, and the assumptions of the Anglican Mainstream mafia do not impinge any more than healing crystals do on the BMA.

On top of that, I recall a discussion about 20 years ago with a very able RC philosophy of religion lecturer, whose experience of the RC church via the Blackfriars route was such that she doubted the existence of that authoritarian catholicism which many have encountered out in the sticks. If the rantings of AM types appear restricted to law students in the Christian Union, you probably tend to dismiss it as 'just a phase'.

A further thought---

From the ACI: "The Episcopal Church is falling apart."

Forget "Episcopal". The *Church* has been falling apart, ever since Pentecost (The Holy Spirit, while "firing up" the disciples for mission, did not remove their sinful, *divisive* human natures. And we are their children!)

And YET, the Church, as Christ's Body, goes on. It can't fall apart, and won't (despite the worst efforts of her fallen members!)

All of the People of God live into this tension, of brokenness in unity, unity in brokenness.

Before the Second Coming, we may never be able to resolve this tension. We must simply remain *faithful*, to Christ---and Christ-in-one-another.

God bless the Episcopal Church! :-D

"The ABC, for one, has listened for years- has he not?"

If he didn't listen to his friend, Jeffrey John, he sure as heck isn't going to listen to me!

"Conservatives have listened too" (*)

Um, evidence?

Sorry, NP: I just don't see it... :-(

(*) By which I mean, being open to having their *opinion that the Bible condemns homosexual practice* CHANGED.

The sticking point is not that one group does not agree with the other. The sticking point, and the danger point, and the new Anglican Realignment boiling point is that one group is prepared to assert its views as absolute, final, and normative for depriving people of jobs, housing, healthcare, and the right to legal contracts of care and commitment - simply because that group baldly defines queer folks (and sometimes other groups, too) as bad, and nothing but.

If this were simply the conservatives banging on the sturdy pots of their favorite penalisms, and their smug internal conversations about how right they are, they would indeed cause little stir among the rest of us. They have more or less been doing just this for several decades of increasingly rapid and astounding empirical and global change.

The difficulty is they wish to interfere with people in God's name as a holy or holiness calling. Which target is the target of the heated moment depends. In one moment they are demeaning queer folks by repeating falsehoods about how immoral they are, and demeaning in definitive ways the relationships, the parenting, and the serious or gifted service that queer folks are doing all over our suffering planet. The next, they are setting up false definitions of everything under the sun that they define as liberal or progressive. So far, democracy, science, equality for women, and a host of other sources of healthy oxygen in the 21st century ethos have been bad mouthed if not criticized as completely irrelevant to godliness. Covertly, this bears inaccurate messages about many of the conservative believers who are in some fashion evangelical or catholic or whatever, but who haven't pledged allegiances to these retro, backward looking grabs for institutional power.

Alas. Lord have mercy.

JCF

To listen does not necessarily mean to agree.

Would you say that you have not listened to "conservatives"?

We can all respectfully, carefully, prayerfully consider arguments and reject them as wrong or weak....having listened.

NP

We can agree to disagree. There can be diversity within the church, just as there is within the whole of the body of Christ (all denominations). However, ABC himself has put a boundary on how far the tent stakes are to be spread - and it is not to include tolerance of homosexuality (and in the last few weeks we no longer discuss the divinity of Christ, either).

Not only is there to be no tolerance within ABC's communion, the same people who would suppress us and delegate us to cooks and cleaners (please smile as you keep our premises clean) are not content to impose suppression within the communion. They also act to insist that the secular state also have zero tolerance on homosexuality.

In some ways it is like moving through a church of jellyfish. There are unseen tentacles that you can not see but you sure feel the sting when you walk into one. I have one friend who has black-banned the church, simply because the three times she tried to get involved she got "stung". She threw her hands up in the air and said she could never been "good enough" and walked away. Yet she is one of the wisest women it has ever been my privilege to know, and reliably makes biblically consistent choices with good grace with every curve ball God throws her way.

I would rather be with the sinners and the afflicted, and at least be honest and humble and under no illusion that I am above sin and am dependent on God's grace. I choose faith in God over dependency on cruel suppressive men.

Cheryl - sorry to hear your friend's bad experiences.....

"Agree to disagree" - depends on the issue - there has to be agreement on "crucial" issues for there to be meaningful unity and association ......

I am sure you would put limits on what views can be included, even if those limits are different to the ABC. Everybody has there limits

Thanks so much for this moving, and deeply true post, Cheryl.

The 'conservatives' hold a point of view--while we lgbt people are fighting for our lives around the world...

"Agree to disagree" - depends on the issue - there has to be agreement on "crucial" issues for there to be meaningful unity and association ......

Yup, the niceno-constanitopolitan creed in its unexpounded (sic) form will do me nicely. That is, a statement of faith by a bunch of Greeks using a highly elaborate and symbolic language which opens possibilities by use of paradox and the like. As the Chalcedonian definition does, come to think of it.

Christianity got in with Zen-style thinking before ever California was colonised...:-)

Cheryl wrote: "However, ABC himself has put a boundary on how far the tent stakes are to be spread - and it is not to include tolerance of homosexuality"

I don't think that is ABC's position, or the position of evangelical churches. They are tolerant of homosexuality as orientation, which is what I take the term homosexual or homosexuality to mean. They are intolerant of church leaders who either teach that homosexual genital acts are not sinful, or who habitually practice such acts. And rightly so in my view.

"...are tolerant of homosexuality as orientation, which is what I take the term homosexual or homosexuality to mean. They are intolerant of church leaders who either teach that homosexual genital acts are not sinful, or who habitually practice such acts."

I surely must need another cup of coffee to understand this. It is OK to "be" gay but not to act upon one's sexuality?

So it would be OK to 'be' gay but practice heterosexual genital acts [presumably while married to someone of the opposite sex]?

OK - let's try an analogy. It's OK to "be" left-handed, as long as you don't engage in left-handed acts? You can "be" left-handed, but have to use your right hand to eat, throw a ball, etc.?

Yup. Heading for the coffee machine.

The nice thing is that you do not have to engage in genital same sex acts if you do not want to, even while you demand that others just say no to some of the best and deepest givens of their human natures, including their queer sexuality.

Queer folks and their allies are living the Peter experiment, admittedly: Do not call unclean that which God has called clean, and in its early church contexts, the Gentiles were archetypically unclean according to the most ancient and venerable Jewish traditions, scripture readings, and so forth. Two summary images of Gentile uncleanness that repeat and permeate the legacy ethos were mentions of the uncircumsized, along with allusions to non-kosher food contaminations. Gentile believers did not get circumsized, even though that is admittedly a covenant commandment from Yahweh that every educated ancient near eastern person knew. Gentile believers did not observe kosher food laws, even going so far as to have that breakthreath faith that allowed them to eat meat sacrificed to false idols.

If only the plumb lines being laid down included the forebearance that Paul recommends in his letters, without using legalisms to kill off the spirit of tolerance and agreeing to disagree and eschewing police powers.

In our newer case these days, part of the vision lowered down from our heavens was the data from science that shows how sexual orientation and gender variances are part of normal human nature, not intrinsically incompetent or evil.

This superficially plausible but ultimately contextual distinction between orientation and acts is not much more than a heuristic way to maintain the unjust status quo that lets straight people have lives, relationships, families, and unquestioned access to resources/opportunities, while it presumes hindrances, doubts, barriers, and risks attendant upon any non-straight person having such means of life.

This traditional sense of exclusively straight holiness/morality is nothing but a whitened sepulchre, hiding inside its pure-looking exteriors the heaps of dead human bones - i.e, of straight innate superiority/privilege, along with the even stinkier bones of domination arrangements/police powers all around the planet.

We are not disagreeing about crucial issues, unless exclusively straight cultural-institutional privileges cannot be questioned.

Queer folks, progressive believers, and their allies/similar beyond the pale folks - can still adhere to the classical Quadrilateral without faking it. But that is suddenly not enough for the new conservative realignment believers.

Alas. Lord have mercy.

Both NP & Andys' initial replies prove the point that tolerance to homosexuals is beyond the boundaries of their tent stakes. We had a discussion months ago where this dialogue came to the point that we want GLBTs - but only if they are non-practising and keep it a secret. I presume they are only wanted for their tithes and domestic skills, which effectively makes them the apartheid slaves of the conservatives. Witnesses to everything but unable to articulate their existence or experiences without being branded or disciplined.

One of the biggest conundrum in this whole thing is that homosexuality and sexual variation will not disappear because we don't talk about it. It has been consistently there throughout human history, as has procreation between men and women. If we can't stop it being there, we might as well moderate the behaviour into reasonable boundaries, and if God thinks life-long monogamous relationships are suitable for heteros - then they are suitable for others too.

I'll quite happily take God's word "eunuch" and use it to cover the diversity of humanity, including those who are "deformed". Isaiah 56:1-8 is inspirational, not just for the eunuchs but for all the other brides, in whatever form, that "pure jealous Rachel" would seek to exclude from her husband's shelter.

I loved Kyoto where they referred to reconciliation as Cinderella still waiting to be be invited to the ball. http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=21060 I can not help but think of the "pure" as the wicked stepmother with her daughters trying to deny and hide the existence of the father's other daughter...

If, for example, a persistent liar comes along, I would not automatically exclude him but I would tell him that he is required to repent and believe...i.e. stop telling lies

I guess nobody will disagree with this...but some will agree merely because it fits with their views and it happens to fit with the Bible.

Give us proper authority - not just your preferences. "Liberals" have not won the theological debate - even the ABC has all but abandoned his speculative writings from his time as an academic.

Please keep the comments clearly focused on the original subject matter of (either of) the two documents.

Sorry not to be commenting on the original subject matter...but would someone explain why quite a few people end posts with 'Lord have mercy'? I am not clear what they mean, why they say it, and am finding the habit rather irritating as I am not sure they do either! Does it add some mystical weight of emotion to their posts? Is it simply heartfelt piety?

"Lord have mercy" often is my personal petition to God/Jesus to help me have the on-going faith, TRUST, wisdom, courage and HOPE necessary to be able to continue to endure the ignorance, lies, fear and discrimination spoken/acted against me and *other* fellow Christians by arrogant religious extremists.

many thanks...so anybody can join in this refrain I guess...

The week before Semana Santa this year a dear friend of mine died. She was a "charismatic" Roman Catholic and died a very painful death after three months with "full care" in a hospital bed. Dear Ruth was 76 years old and didn't want any "pain medication" as she wanted to "honor" the God that had lifted/taken her multiple addictions from "mind altering" sources away from her 43 years earlier...the last afternoon of her death I was seated next to her bed in the hospital and she kept crying out "Lord have mercy"..."Lord have mercy" took on extra meaning to me that day as the Lord *did* have mercy and Ruth was taken quickly away from us free from pain at last.

Thanks be to God everyone can join in this refrain.