Can someone explain Ruth Gledhill's comment "Such a structure exists in Europe, where both the Church of England and the Episcopal Church have a diocese that exists alongside each other in the same geographical territory."?

I do not see any part of Scotland in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Church_of_England_dioceses , for starters..

I was puzzled that Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane would sign off on such a homophobic & misogynist document, but his early departure would seem to be a possible explanation.

Ruth Glendhill's piece is interesting in being quite clear that the proposal emanating from Kigali of a separate & parallel Anglican church in the USA is specifically anti-gay -- the notion that it could be a precedent for other liberal provinces such as England, Wales and Scotland (here I thought the evangelicals dominated the C of E) is an eye-opener -- as is the notion that both anti-gay & liberal church structures could be in full communion with Canterbury but not with each other (rather helpful since the C of E apparently can't sign an Anglican Covenant without authorization from Parliament -- helpful, but logically challenging -- but of course we are Anglicans)

And seriously, have the Global South Provinces already finished work on that Anglican Covenant without the Global North or Panama Declaration provinces even getting a peek?

Thus saith Ruth G:

"The two Anglican Churches [in the U.S.---and then, perhaps in other countries, too!] would not be in communion with each other, but both would remain in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, one of the Communion’s “instruments of unity”.

The concept is not unprecedented. Such a structure exists in Europe, where both the Church of England and the Episcopal Church have a diocese that exists alongside each other in the same geographical territory."

But TEC(Europe) and CofE(Europe) ARE in communion with each other! So Ruth, your so-called "precedent" is hooey! >:-/

*****

"The Kigali communiqué asked Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to resolve this tension by inviting to the February primates’ meeting in Tanzania “another bishop” chosen by the dioceses of The Episcopal Church which have requested alternative primatial oversight “so that we might listen to their voices during our deliberations.”"

This would make a MOCKERY of TEC's democratic polity! Those dioceses (who, BTW, may have voted for +Jefferts Schori *anyway*) HAD THEIR SAY at GC!!!

[Lemme put it another way: should the minority progressive/"Via Media" parishes, get extra "alternative episcopal representation" at Lambeth?]

At the next Primates Meeting, Bishop Jefferts Schori WILL be there, and she WILL be *the* Primate from the United States. Period. The "Old Boys" of the AC have to wake up and smell the coffee! (which *she* is not there to make, BTW ;-/)

I was struck by the word the Evangelical church.

So that is what you are now?

“In a globalised world with new communications, the medieval notion of one Church, one bishop, one territory is totally outdated.

“The Global South primates are saying: ‘Let’s live in the modern world and recognise there are various possible configurations and these should not be determined by geography alone’.”

In other words, they are accepting the fact of diversity and plurality in the AC, however grudgingly. This could have been achieved quietly and without all their fuss! From their din, one could be forgiven for thinking that they are highly princpled people, who could have nothing to do with a church which has gone wrong on so many issues (Authority, Scripture,tradition,Christology, soteriology,sexuality and gender), and whose 'liberal leadership', they hold to be false and insincere. I would have greater respect for them acting on their convictions, and leaving the Anglican Communion. In fact, the ECUSA leadership has said all along, that the two 'sides' could dialogue, live, & work together--and where necessary agree to differ.

I find something dishonest in the way the illiberal, anti-lgbt bishops and others have conducted this. In fact, they are now revealed by the Kighali statement and The Times reporting of it, as modern people. It is a pragmatic decision and far from fundamentalist. They don't need to pretend to belong to a separate denomination from the rest of us, though. I think most people will see through the intellectual dishonesty of their postion. In fact, their position would be liberal, were it not for the fact, that they wish this lliberty only for themselves and would withold it from lgbt people and people with liberal or radical theology. -- YES, I shall certainly not surrender the word 'radical' to them, without a fight !

Perhaps, that makes me more of a fundamentalist then, as I have left the CofE and its Ministry. I felt my position made untenable by the concatentation of the 'Windsor Report' and the 'Pastoral Letter' , so-called, of the bishops, on Civil Partnerships. Sorry, not my position. The C of E's position is untenable and a laughing stock among the general public.

I do wonder if christianity can survive its shameful failure of lgbt people. It says far more about christianity than about us (lgbt people). Certainly, the Church of England's failure of radical witness means it will continue to slide into insignificance.

Laurence

I can understand your frustration, but God's grace demand that we keep trying to move forward. There have been things happening on a global level e.g. fall-out Pope's faux pas which are demonstrating that humanity must embrace a vision of a magnificant God who is capable of reconciling each and every soul back to God in the way that is most suitable to that soul. It is not our place to judge. But we will be judged on whether we hampered or hindered.

I am hoping for honesty in these actions and will act in faith that we are dealing with a "change management" issue, where some souls have taken longer to "see the light" and were more frightened than others. If there is duplcity, God will expose that and discredit the wasteful shepherds.

But we must be peacemakers and we must trust God. We must give them the chance to walk this path, and help them as best we can. God willing, they will come to see that we can not demand that others repent of repression and violence if we do not repent of it ourselves (that applies as much to the Global South as to the liberals).

Cheryl:

I'm glad you raised "Change management". It is a helpful lens through which to view the current situation. The ABC's dilemma is, of course, that, as a theologian, he was expected to be way out in front of the parade, at the forefront of thought; and now, as ABC, is expected to be in front, but not too far in front. My sense is that, publicly, he has been desperately backpeddling to reconnect with the parade. All to no avail, for it now looks as if there will be two parades, each marching out of step with the other, while nominally led by the ABC.Over the long haul, I suppose, the hope is that one parade will catch up or the other will slow down. History, however, doesn't allow for much optimism in this regard.

One wonders if the ABC has had the benefit of OD advice as he struggles to lead this particular parade. Would be interesting to know, wouldn't it.

There is a subediting mistake which had the word 'evangelical' instead of 'episcopal' in the title to Ruth Gledhill's article, both in the hard copy and still currently online. It only makes sense if it reads 'episcopal'.

Göran Koch-Swahne --

Much of Central Africa was missionized by the Church Missionary Society -- an extremely Protestant and Evangelical organization. When I tried to explain to a Roman Catholic Benedictine nun from Nigeria that I was an Anglican and a Benedictine monk, she was unable to grasp the concept -- her experience of Anglicanism being of an exclusively & extremely Protestant type.

One observor at the last Lambeth referred to the junking of the sexuality report of the the committee chaired by Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane & its replacement by virulent homophobia as, "The revenge of the Church Missionary Society."

So, yes, the Anglican presence in the Global South is largely Evangelical (in the English, not the German, sense).

Jim Naughton's "Deja Vu All Over Again" says what I have been saying for some time -- the Network playbook (with Gobal South support or vice versa -- hard to say) has always been to work for schism ("we want the franchise," etc.) -- ALPO reinforces that -- for the majority to continue to act as if there is common ground for mutual respect & compromise is unrealistic -- it just prolongs the painful process -- this is either naive or (just maybe) Machiavellian.

When the dust settles I guess The Episcopal Church may be in Communion with Canterbury or Utrecht or Uppsala but TEC will certainly not be in Communion with Abuja (in fact, ++Akinola already insists that he is is Communion only with the Network dioceses -- presumably all of who bishops & deputies refused to participate in the Eucharists at General Convention).

It is becoming very clear that continuing to enter into dialogue with the ACN, AAC, ANC folk is a recipe for interminable wrangle with no hope ever of reasonable resolution. Their irresponsible proposals have pushed the Communion to the brink of schism. They are not uncomfortable [as Anglicans historically have been] with thoughts of schism. Their parallel-church solution is sorta like getting a soap opera divorce - they never really go away. You're just not in bed with them - which was really their main concern, anyway. Their expert plotting, scheming, and the bickering at which they excel, still goes on - and on.

Couldn't we just pay out their pensions or the like? Give them something worthwhile to consider.

Miserere!

O, no. This Freudian slip makes much more sense as it is ;=)

Andrew

I agree and feel that I am being utopionally optimistic that cohabitation is possible. But I would rather keep holding out the hand and hoping. I wonder if they yet understand the difference between forgiveness and trust. God might forgive them for their arrogance, but He no longer trusts them as shepherds. The victims of abuse (e.g. women, GLBTs, "the other") are being given their voice so that when they are attacked they can speak to their defence - gone are the days of quiet submission. If they wanted it any other way then they should have kept Jesus' promise to the Daughter of Zion and been gentle.

They have been exposed as wasteful shepherds who have take up the issues of conflict resolution, poverty and welfare, environment, peacemaking, corruption control only AFTER it became an electoral and credibility issue. Their first line of defence was to hide and deny their abusive and negligent paradigms, they have only moved forward because there is no credibilty in remaining where they were. Their veneer of charm has been exposed as duplicity, their praise has been for themselves and not for God's glory. This is the wisdom of Isaiah 49 - it brings in accountability and corruption control - there will be diversity and we will live in a pluralistic world where "we watch each other's back".

"Evangelical (in the English, not the German, sense)"

Venerable Prior, they are the same. They say Evangel, they mean Law (and LXX n´mos means Tradition, not law, even less Law).

In Germany the reason for dissembling was evident and Constitutional: the 1555 Peace of Augsburg, requirin the Confessio augustana (and giving outrageous privileges to the Princes that subscribed to it). So the Protestant Princes started calling themselves Evangelical.

Then we have the 1608 Evangelical or Protestant Union, which was the actual plotting of the War of 29 Years. Your Chapman-memo.

The grand-children, great-grandchilren and in-laws of Phillipp the Bigamist of Hesse were to be led by the Calvinist King of Navarre in tearing the German Empire apart. However the same as Most Catholic King of France was murdered by Ravaillac in 1610, which delayed things until 1619.

So yes, they are the same.