'our apostolic withess' ?

Pompous gits! They're gonna huff and thy're gonna puff (well maybe not that!) and blow (oops) the House down !

Plese give us a break from all this BS

Interesting. Which resolutions passed by GC are they claiming are contrary to the Windsor Report? The ones in which TEC affirmed its support for the human rights of gay and lesbian people?

Jon

As I remember the criticism, TEC was criticized for not sufficiently consulting with the rest of the Church before acting. But, the so called Global South believes it is appropriate to decide who can speak on behalf of the TEC? Indeed, the Global South believes they and not Cantebury has the authority and right to determine what an Anglican covenant will be. This should be as profoundly troubling for the whole of the Anglican Communion as it is for TEC.

Well, the Gloves are off!

Time for Cantuar to defend himself.

The Communiqué ends:

"* Provinces Represented:

Bangladesh**, Burundi, Central Africa, Church of South India, Congo, Indian Ocean, Jerusalem and Middle East, Kenya, Myanmar, Nigeria, Philippines**, Rwanda, Southern Africa, South East Asia, Southern Cone, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, West Africa, West Indies (** Not present but represented)"

Wonder what this means.

I see under (a) that they generously include the ABC in their discussions.

Re their inability to be at the same table with our new PB. Tough. We chose her. They don't get to request an alternate, any more than we get to request someone in place of ++Akinola.

They did not include the ABC in their plans in (c).

Do you suppose the ABC will go along with this? I don't suppose in the mind of ++Akinola that it makes much difference at this point.

I wait all a-quiver to hear what Bps. Duncan, Iker, etc will say in response.

This is arrogant beyond belief.

Hang on. They've been working on this text for the Covenant for a YEAR? Do they have access to time-travel...?

"At the next meeting of the Primates in February 2007 some of us will not be able to recognize Katharine Jefferts Schori as a Primate at the table with us. Others will be in impaired communion with her as a representative of The Episcopal Church. Since she cannot represent those dioceses and congregations who are abiding by the teaching of the Communion we propose that another bishop, chosen by these dioceses, be present at the meeting so that we might listen to their voices during our deliberations."

It is time for the Executive Council of TEC to consider declaring a moratorium on relations with the Anglican Communion, including TEC's financial support, until a new Archbishop of Canterbury has been appointed who will respect the constitutions and canons of Anglican provinces, and does not refer weighty matters such as decisions on who is TEC's 'recognized' primate to self-appointed 'traffic wardens', like H.H. Peter Abuja et al.

Well, so long.

The shape of the future Anglican Communion comes clearer: 'dioceses' in the US (which ones precisely?) will be overseen from Uganda /Nigeria; individual parishes in US, Canada, UK will follow. The rest will wait and see who's left and start to rearrange themselves accordingly. Everyone will claim a little of Canterbury's blessing, each on their own terms.

The conservatives will split over whether to recognise women as priests (never mind bishops).

Will the remainder (who will be non-conservative rather than liberal) be able to construct a positive, inclusive church? Or will a generation of depression follow before there is sufficient capacity to articulate a new, shared ecclesiology?

Is this "the other shoe?" Certainly, this is a statement of "we'll have the Communion our way, if we have to start one ourselves."

I'm as concerned about paragraph 12 (not in the excerpt above) as much as anything:

12. We received a preliminary report from the Theological Formation and Education (TFE) Task Force. We were pleased to hear of their plans to provide opportunities for theological formation from the most basic catechism to graduate level training for new and existing Anglican leaders. We request that all Global South provinces share their existing Catechisms and other educational resources with the TFE Task Force for mutual enrichment.

In line with paragraph 7 on the Covenant, it looks like there is clear intent to establish a confessional church, with a content-oriented covenant, supported by a common catechism. This isn't a surprise, but it is decidedly un-Anglican.

“Well, the Gloves are off! Time for Cantuar to defend himself.”-- Göran Koch-Swahne

Defend himself, Göran? The dude doesn’t have the guts!

What a shame Desmond Tutu did not come to Canterbury, althpough initially considered.....

I am baffled -- every time something like this comes up (last time was Maryn Minns as missionary bishop, I guess) I think, "Well, this is the step that crosses the line," but nothing happens & then another step is taken.

Yes, the Constitutions & Canons of The Episcopal Church need to be recognized by the rest of the Anglican Communion or we need to go elsewhere -- this is simply getting ridiculous.

Also, seeing Southern Africa on that list is certainly a major surprise -- the language is completely at odds with the statements recently issued by that province -- otherwise, nothing unexpected, I think.

I guess ecclesial boundaries are now utterly meaningless. Perhaps, as this gang is so committed to granting pastoral oversight to the 1% of American Episcopalians who want it, we might consider sending a "Bishop to the GLTB African Church". Whether ++Akinoying likes it or not, there are plenty of homosexual Nigerian Christians.

Question: in b. does 'these dioceses' mean the same ones as 'those dioceses' diretly above? That would appear to mean the US ones that are appealing for APO or otherwise wishing to separate from TEC. Or, does it mean the ones that were part of the Global South meeting? Eitherway -- I object to their arrogant claim of authority over us.
Columba Gilliss

Has anyone checked to see if the bishops attending this meeting were given a copy of this communique before it was published? It's not like +Peter hasn't pulled that kind of stunt before.

"At the next meeting of the Primates in February 2007 some of us will not be able to recognize Katharine Jefferts Schori as a Primate at the table with us."

It will be easy to recognize her - she'll be the only woman. Maybe someone can send a photo...

Sorry - I know that's not respectful and Deeply Serious, but sometimes the whole enterprise of ++Akinola and +Dunkin' etc. and their self-aggrandizing ways strike me as Grown Men Being Deeply Silly But Not Knowing It.

The Gang of 21 at Camp Allen have issued a statement which I'm sure will soon be posted here.

Maybe TA could have a contest like the Bulwer-Lytton contest and invite people to submit parody Pompous Purple Statements and Proclamations...about time for a restorative martini for me.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also...

The Editor or Host of The Daily Episcopalian, Jim Naughton, describes in a comment on the Windsor-Bishops' just released Letter to the HoB, the obfuscations and outright lies of (Anglican) bishops about ECUSA's GC2006, as follows:

'The bishops also write that the General Convention did not adequately respond to the requests of the Windsor Report because it did not legislate an "explicit moratoria regarding church discipline and order."

The obfuscatory phrase "regarding church discipline and order" might best be translated "on the consecration of non-celibate gay bishops." Perhaps it is too much to ask that bishops understand the church law well enough to know what the General Convention can and can't do. It can't tell the people of a diocese whom to elect as bishop, and it can't tell diocesan bishops and standing committees how to vote when the time comes to gather consents.

So General Convention has failed these bishops in that it did not do what it could not do."

The same lies are also propagated by the Primates and Metropolitans of the Global South in their communique from their September 2006 meeting.'

The 'purple shirts' just don't get it. You can't build Christ's Church on lies and deceptions. Repent... repent... repent!

Goran

It was interesting to see Australia was not mentioned. Has there been repentance or a change of position? Or are they still supporting and not declaring their hand?

John

I picked up the passage 10b about Schori too. This would be a dangerous precedent - to start telling another diocese who they may or may not elect. That is taking the need for control and power to the next level.

My suggestion is still, invite all the parties, those who are too "superior" to those invited can not show up or display their bad manners by attacking the other invitees, in which case they have voided their right to attend - see Mathhew 22:1-14.

My other "value add" is on the Matthew parable: a good host would have realised the poverty of the guest and made arrangements for someone to provide him with suitable coverings.

Historic Anglicanism was a beautiful thing while it was alive.

Then it died, on 22 September 2006.

May we live in sure and certain hope of a glorious resurrection?

Cheryl,

Yes, Australia! Didn't actually notice...

I was thinking more of what Paki remarks, that last time (Alexandria) there were others "represented" but not present...

and signatories who had not signed, and a statement wifted high in the first session disappearing the next...

Hold your breath!

I was trying to be polite, Kurt.

++Rowan Cantuar and H.H. Peter Akinola have reduced the Anglican Communion to a hoax and a joke. It is time for ECUSA to withdraw and focus on the real mission of the Church, which is to participate in Christ's ministry of reconciliation and show compassion to all the marginalized people, including gays and lesbians.

I once again recommend for study Philip Kennedy's article "God's Good News for Gays" in: GAYS AND THE FUTURE OF ANGLICANISM: Responses to the Windsor Report, ed.Andrew Linzey & Richard Kirker (2005).

Did Jesus ever mention gays and show compassion toward them? Probably, the answer is YES. It is remarkable that Matthew 5:25 in the Greek Text retains the Aramaic word RHAKA, as does St. Jerome's Vulgate Latin version [although in Greek and Latin other words were available to denote "fools", which has been the common English translation since the AV, such as MOROS, KENOS (Gk.) and HOMO STULTUS (Lat.)]. It seems that the Aramaic word RHAKA/RACHA was an abusive term during the first century AD referring to "fags" or "queers" (cf. Philip Kennedy, op.cit., pp.300-3002).

ECUSA may reconsider membership in the Anglican Communion after the departure, or retirement, of ++Rowan Cantuar and ++Peter Akinola. The time to separate is NOW. ECUSA would still be in relation with churches that are truly inclusive and less homophobic.

AFAIK there was no Australians present although the Diocese of Sydney does enjoy good relationships with the Global South. Australia as an Anglican province is South "geographically" but not "globally" if you see what I mean.

"Also, seeing Southern Africa on that list is certainly a major surprise -- the language is completely at odds with the statements recently issued by that province"

According to "The Living Church" (IIRC), Aelred, ++Ndungane was there at the beginning, then left (not entirely clear why---draw your own conclusions! I believe he has since said, he & the SAC are NOT breaking w/ TEC!)

Isn't it all over, but seeing whether the ABC swallows *this*, too? :-/

I cannot see how the Archbishop of C could swallow this JCF and retain any integrity whatsoever. Here is a quote from a report on 17th November 2005
"In terms which call into question the archbishop's continuing leadership of the 77 million-strong church - the third largest Christian denomination - 17 of Anglicanism's 38 primates issued a highly personal letter criticising his personal ability and demanding that he should take action against "unrepented sexual immorality" in the church...A Lambeth Palace spokesman said last night: "The archbishop has made it clear since before his enthronement that neither he nor anyone else has any mandate to change the church's teaching. If this letter is a contribution to the debate, then it is welcome, however robust. But if it is an attempt to foreclose the debate, it would seem to serve very little purpose indeed."

Obadiahslope

Thanks for clarifying that, I also apologise for using the word Australia but confess to confusion as to whether to use Australia or Sydney. The Sydney diocese has a very strong personality, but they do have friends in the other dioceses, but conversely not all the dioceses would like to be tarred with the same brush as Sydney. Tricky.

The stuff added by Simon on Saturday http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/001938.html is interesting. We might have been dealing with a change management issue, and some of the archconservatives are calming down as they come to understand more of the bigger picture. Mind you, that might be wishful thinking, but I will trust in God's grace and God's ability to expose the truth in due course.

John Henry wrote: “It is time for ECUSA to withdraw and focus on the real mission of the Church, which is to participate in Christ's ministry of reconciliation and show compassion to all the marginalized people, including gays and lesbians.”

While I understand his frustration, and while I would never suggest abandoning our basic Christian principles in favor of the sham of global “unity,” I am one Episcopalian who feels that this is a much more complicated matter in terms of the Anglican Communion, and in terms of the breadth of issues which find Provincial differences in perception and approach.

The “Global South” bullies are trying to create the impression that, as they abandon the concept of the Anglican Communion, that it is really everyone else –- staying in place in the AC -- who are departing.

They are trying to gain an advantage based upon sheer numbers of people in their own ecclesiastical constituencies, and overwhelm those who are slower to react – or too timid to react, as some in very high positions seem to be -- to a hardly disguised putsch within the Anglican Communion. Theirs is clearly a “might makes right” philosophy.

I don’t give a rat’s *** about the numbers.

Let Akinola take his 27 million, and let them struggle with the Islamic fanatics in Nigeria for the future of their distorted views of God, and peace be with them.

Let whatever bully-minded Provinces wish, also go with them.

And let the majority of the CofE, and Wales, and Scotland, and New Zealand, and most of Australia, and South Africa, and Canada, and (name your own choices), continue in their relationships with ECUSA.

We can all stay true to the mission of Christ, and gently close the door as the new Puritans depart, and focus on our calling rather than on whether our numbers are impressive.

The numbers of true Anglicans left in the AC will matter no more to God’s judgment than your personal net worth will matter, so ECUSA should simply stay, and watch as most of the traditional Anglican Communion –-after a bit of angst –- stays with us, and with each other.

Do what is right, and God’s truth and justice will prevail.

Jerry Hannon

I had heard complaints that TEC didn't do enough consulting at GC'03, I was wondering which GC'06 resolutions supposedly contradicted the Windsor Report. While TEC didn't clearly kowtow to the WR's recommendations I don't recall seeing any resolutions passed that where actually contrary to it.

Jon

Pour me one, please, Cynthia ...!....

It surprises and saddens me to read that, for the writers of this report at least, this issue of homosexuality amoung christians has become bound up with desires for true independence following colonial rule.

I support them wholeheartedly in their desire for true equality. However does not the very nature of Communion suggest that we should all be dependent on oneanother, in a loving and supportive way, not a restrictive one.