This is a welcome initiative. Maybe when souls talk to her, they might realize she actually understands the bible, people and organizational/communal needs. This would take it from being a theoretical "I wonder if a women is capable" to an actual "this woman is capable".

The only souls who won't be able to cope are those who stuff their ears and close their eyes so they cannot hear or see the evidence before them.

This is biblical, and one of the prophesies that needed to be fulfilled, that women were to go from calling God "master" to calling God "husband" Hosea 2:16. (So that the church as God's wife no longer is represented by only men, but also by women).

Jesus would approve: Luke 24:25-26

There may be primates who have difficulty acknowledging her primacy because of her gender. Recognition by Canterbury makes a clear statement that many will have difficulty arguing with.

"Because of the serious repercussions in the Communion, we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites [of same-sex blessings], and recommend that bishops who have authorized such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorization. Pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion."

This does sound like a piece of bullying. Clergy are more and more involved in blessing same-sex unions as they become a normal part of life in advanced countries. The logic of this statement is that such clergy should cease to respond to the demand for such blessings or should get out of the priesthood. What Would Jesus Do?

"A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." (Deut 22:5).

Nice suit Bishop Jefferts Schori!

"Nice suit Bishop Jefferts Schori!"

Yes, it is, isn't it?

Reminds me of the old joke about the drag queen who goes for the first time to a smells and bells Anglo-Catholic church for Mass and, upon exiting, tells the celebrant, "Honey, I just love your pretty white dress and your red poncho, but I was kinda worried about your purse being on fire!"

"A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." (Deut 22:5).

never mind the suit. what about my lace?

"A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." (Deut 22:5).

Nice suit Bishop Jefferts Schori!"

Posted by Martin Reynolds

I'm sorry, but is this post for real?

Should we propose that the ABC also have an "acceptable underwear" check, whenever he is meeting with another bishop?

Otherwise, how else could Canterbury be sure that all is in consonance with some antediluvian concept?

But, I do remember my nautical charts in the Navy, which clearly pointed out the edge of our flat earth, lest our ship sail off the edge, so perhaps this is sound analysis.

Frankly, I don't care what Canterbury, or Abuja, or the new PB of TEC for that matter, wear in their daily activity, or at home, or even under their cassocks.

Typical of a Navy type to suggest an underwear check for the ABC! I personally think it should be de rigueur – though the job should only be open to ex-Chief Petty Officers and above.
My chart still shows the likelihood of falling off the end of the real world occurs at Sydney!

...nor shall a man put on a woman's garment...

Hmmm... I rather prefer the Gospel's "dressing code" --

"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:27-28).

Jerry. I do, I hope they have the sense to keep their private parts private. :-)

at the risk of being tasteless (!) I add the following reflection on Dt 23:1....

"Is anything worn underneath the cassock?"

"No, Archbishop, it's all in perfect working order."

Thomas+ thanks for reminding us of that passage. I was also reading Jonathan Sacks' book "To heal a fractured world" on the weekend. He reminded me that God sent Adam and Eve out into the world clothed in skin and fur. Sacks refers to this as God providing them with protection, even though they were being cast out into the world.

A reread of Genesiss 3:21-24 also led to the contemplation that those clothes of skin and fur were actually the incarnate forms of human bodies. (Thus Adam and Eve were no longer only metaphysical, they were now also manifest within this space time continuum).

The other contemplation is that unhealthy obsession with appearances of the coverings explains why many women literally face death to mould their covering into a more pleasing package to either please men and/or earn income. It also explains why so many women are cast aside and traded in for a more recent model. It also explains racism and xenophobia.

Further that the obsession about external appearances also ripples into an obession over control of culture.

God is a God of diversity, who clothes us in skin and fur; and loves us for our holy spark within. God respects us when we respect ourselves and each other.

At one point Sacks' book contemplates that the Cherubim of the Ark are facing each other and wonders why. (When the Ark was recovered in May last year they found out they were facing each other and not away and there was one male and one female form). Maybe that is God's way of saying that the way to God and Heaven is through facing and accepting the "otherness" of our soul mate.

The other thing is that one is female, and thus in the holiest of holies there has always been the feminine, and it is a scandal that for millenium the role of the feminine has been denied, suppressed and slandered. I am sure that Eve does not feel that her soul mate Adam loves her, as his silence indicates he is indifferent to what was done to either her, her children, her name or honor.

"My chart still shows the likelihood of falling off the end of the real world occurs at Sydney!"

A strange map you have in Old South Wales. US maps of the world put America in the middle, European maps put Europe in the middle, and Chinese maps put the Middle Kingdom in the middle - and all of them show New Zealand 1,300 miles east of Sydney. There is life outside Merthyr Tydfil, you know! (Is there life inside it?)

Whether the Anglican Church will any longer be on the map in Wales in another generation is another question, given the current rapid rates of decline and the aging of that small church. In the mean time, Moore College is in rude health, as the largest Anglican seminary in the world, and the diocese continues to grow (not without difficulties but always with prayer) in one of the most beautiful cities of the world.

After hearing the vid streams of PBE Jefferts Schori yet again, I am playing the Magnificat (JSB) for sound track. I feel so very grateful for her election, and near pending investiture. Watching/hearing her again during the touchy moments of the press conference stream only confirmed my burgeoning suspicion that she can deftly sidestep the either/or traps laid for her in so many new conservative presuppositional questions, while inviting us all consistently to be Anglicans in relationship at the Lord's Table. That is pretty much all any leader in such a high position can do, and I for one wish Canterbury were more able to enact both functions as our continuing Anglican worldwide leadership foundations. She will be invaluable in witness for keeping all Anglican doors and windows open to all sources of light, provisional though some of those sources may be.

Oh, well, we are blessed to live in these interesting times. Fort Worth, maybe, and maybe other purist network types, the poor dears, don't have a clue what parts of the Great Feast they are missing, just because they are so afraid.

God works in the twirls, I guess, just as much as in the tidiness. If Canterbury is not quite up to it, Jefferts Schori will do just fine as a role model. Hallelujah for Anglican/Epicopal women all over the planet.

The Church in Wales has indeed suffered a severe decline in membership over the past 75 years, but Robert Anderson will be pleased to hear that at least one diocese – that of our redoubtable Archbishop Barry Morgan appears to have arrested the decline and hopeful signs are emerging. The one thing I can say from my experience is that the Anglican faithful of Wales minister to their communities with a resolve and determination that is awesome.
Perhaps Robert has studied our spiritual history, in which case he will know that while Anglicanism has diminished the great non-conformist churches of Wales have all but vanished over the same period. We have had our “Moore College” experience a century ago and saw its results as the Calvinists particularly were consistently torn to pieces by controversies over the doctrine of the atonement.
The legacy of the bitterness and divisiveness it brought to our communities was still alive when I was a lad and the anger it stirred burned strongly in the hearts of my grandparents. Others have yet to taste this evil, but I see there are many ready and willing to launch it once again upon an unsuspecting world.
God have mercy!

No one denies the growth of Sydney Anglicans, or the other megachurches for that matter. No one denies the sincerity of their commitment to evangelicising and promoting Jesus not just to Sydney, but throughout the world.

But it is growth at what cost? Driving ministerial staff into other Dioceses or churches because they are "incorrect" in their scriptural interpretations and subject to disciplinary action? Increasing controls and the ease of removing ministers? Senior leaders not ashamed to make sermons in parishes reminding the parish of their ability to remove leaders and that they have done so in the past and are prepared to do so again? Failing students from Moore College, not on the basis of the content of their knowledge, but on whether or not they regurgitate course notes?

We know from history that rapid growth does not necessarily mean healthy growth. We also know from history that rapid growth underpinned by a self-righteous church theology that is comfortable with suppression and intimidation can easily lead to the most dangerous genocides and repressions this planet has ever seen.

Such a church will move to preserve itself, at any cost, including retaining an official image that it has the only legitimate biblical or theological interpretations. One does not move against such a church unless one is absolutely convinced that it is an inevitable path to a nihilistic outcome that will bring shame to God's name.

We are meant to bring honour to God and attract people to God through the worthiness of our character and acts. That is what Abraham did. He showed hospitality and openness. He welcomed souls who would want to know his God and he encouraged them. He pleaded for the unworthy, he loved his wife and trusted her advice, he was fair and responsible in managing his household.

He certainly didn't do the right thing because it was the only way to avoid legal litigation and thus diminishment of financial assets.

And how much impact do Sydney Anglicans have on those outside the fold? Given that Sydney remains a liberal city with a vibrant gay community, I'd say very little.

Is Sydney perfect? certainly not. Yet in studying at Moore I have never found that a well researched essay taking an opposing view to a lecturer or even the principal was rejected because of its viewpoint.
I agree that a "liberal" might find the college heavy going - and feel isolated with few prospects of advancement in the diocese. Thats a function of it being a conservative evangelical see. In a similar way a Sydneysider might find a liberal TEC diocese a tough place to be.
The anglican system makes it quite difficult to remove a minister appointed to a financially independent parish whether in Sydney or Southwark. The bishops power is at the greatest during the appointment process in any diocese or in churches they fund as "missions" as the TEC calls them.

Cheryl, are we talking about the same Abraham? You know, the one who handed his wife over for sexual molestation to save his own skin, who abandoned his legal partner and their child to a slow death in the wilderness, who thought infanticide a good idea?

I've always dealt with Abraham as a classic example of how God works through even the weakest and most venal characters.

David

Your comments about biblical characters being human, for better or for worse are valid, and a point often glossed over by puritans.

Remember that Sarah was protected from the King, and the King acknowledged that her God had protected both her and Abraham.

That God comforted both Abraham and Haggar and made a promise to them separately that Haggar and her son would live and go on to found their own nation/s.

And the legal partner was the troublemaking handmaiden that Abraham had only taken at Sarah's insistence as she was barren. The only reason she was cast out was because she kept inciting trouble within the camp and it was the only way to restore peace.

One lesson that this dialogue does show is that we tend to cast a blanket over the whole person, and not always look at the complexity of their character or relationship with God.

There are other good examples of complex relationships in the bible. For example, the whining Job who was still loyal to God, Noah the drunk but managed to build an ark and save the remnant of humanity. Sometimes God's glory shines despite our human fallabilities or even because of them.

One thing I don't respect is finding one or two faults in a soul then justifying dismissing the whole soul's works or lessons. We have all fallen short of God's glory and are all in need or redemption.

Sorry to interrupt the flow, BUT . . .can anybody tell me if it is usual for the AbC to send a representative bishop to the installation of the PB of ECUSA? I had rather thought that ++RW's predecessors had attended in person.

Please re-assure me that this isn't the case. That way I might be able to salvage some of my once high opinion of the Most Reverend Dr. Williams.

Yes it is the usual thing for the ABC to send a representative to the installation of any Presiding Bishop or Primate of the AC. The installations he attends in person are exceptional (Sudan I think, some years ago now, was the most recent exception). Why it should be thought that ECUSA is so important that Cantuar must be there in person - when there are now almost 40 Anglican provinces - is beyond me?

"Why it should be thought that ECUSA is so important that Cantuar must be there in person - when there are now almost 40 Anglican provinces - is beyond me?"

I don't believe that was in any way the implication by Anglicanus; I do believe it was to simply inquire whether the ABC's decision, about whom should attend, was in any way different than the norm.

Clearly, from Mr. Carey's comments, it was quite the norm, as is the status of ECUSA. It is no more important, and no less important, than other provinces in the Anglican Communion.

Wealth is not the determinant, nor are numbers the determinant.

will this lady be installed as the leader of "TEC Global" at the same time or is that in 2008?

To paraphrase a well known punchline -- "That's no lady, that's my Primate!" with apologies to KJS.