At last even the telegraph is starting to see sense

The Anglican Communion has no future. Without its malign influence, I am sure that the bulk of the CofE could hang together, bar the headbangers who would join the First Church of Akinola.

These people aren't interested in anything than building a fundamentalist church in their own image. Williams must stop being so naive.

I'm sure Abp Rowan will get fed up of these squabbling children before long, and do just what the Telegraph counsels -- take up a pastoral mission to the church on his doorstep and delegate the affairs of the wider Communion to some suitable subcommittee.

The ABC needs to communicate, clearly and publicly, that excluding Bishop Jefferts Schori is not on the table and then cancel the meeting if the attempt is made to change the agenda to put her membership to a vote. If his office has any meaning at all as "instrument of communion," it is to insist that the (autonomous) churches that make up the Anglican Communion must have a seat in the bodies where we consult with one another about matters of mutual concern. The appeasement should have stopped long ago. It must stop here.

I say this as someone who is very pessimistic that the Anglican Communion can or should be rescued. The dynamics are poisonous. Better to see what forms of catholicity can emerge out of the ashes at this point. Perhaps they won't be as bound up with the Commonwealth and other vestiges of empire.

"he had no right to invite Bishop Schori to the summit without their consent."

Really? Isn't this a Primates' meeting, and isn't she a Primate?

Why doesn't Nigeria have the decency and balls to get out of the communion and see how many follow of their own volition?

Pardon me, but isn't it the ABC's job to issue invitations to the meeting of Primates as well as Lambeth? If so, it would seem to me that the conservatives would have no real recourse. The ABC sent the invitation. The only choice the other primates have is to RSVP either in the affirmative or the negative.

Merseymike, I would hate to be part of a parochial CofE that washed its hands of all the emerging liberals in African countries just because the conservatives are shouting louder at the moment. "I'm alright Jack" is not an attitude we should be taking just because it's easier. We must continue to fight for the Anglican Community as long as it exists.

This is not the end of the Anglican Communion--it is the beginning of the Nigerian Communion, which will be committed to spreading their interpretation of the Gospel regardless of humanity's divine call to love, forgiveness, inclusion, and redemption. I would much rather be in an Anglican communion that celebrates God's diversity in creation, that affirms Christ's gift on the cross, freeing humanity from the cycle of violence, bigotry, and vengeance, and allows us to embrace one another without prejudice, as God embraces each of us. If the Anglican Communion must affirm its particular dialect of Christianity as one of radical grace, radical acceptance, and radical redemption, then so be it. Let's get on with the work we are called to do.

Merseymike is spot on. The sooner the ABC learns the truth of the old couplet "Bad company is a disease, Who lies with dogs shall rise with fleas", the better.

"Conservative Global South leaders, who represent well over half the worldwide Church, are determined, however, to discipline the liberal Americans"
And here is the point! It isn't about gay people, it isn't about sex, it isn't even about scriptural authority. These are merely the pieces with which the game is being played. It is about getting power over and punishing the awful Westerners, the inheritors of the Colonialist legacy. That they lack the nerve, and perhaps the ability, to argue from a religious and theological perspective is taken, falsely, as an indication that their position has no theological legitimacy, bolstered by the false claim that authority is to be situated solely in Scripture. That these conservatives claim to represent all non-Western Anglicans is also untrue, as made evident last week by the remarks of some African bishops who, one assumes, would be included in the "well over half the worldwide Church" these conservatives claim to represent.

ps. Have only just read the "Telegraph" story. Akinola & co. claim that Rowan Williams is "adopting authoritarian powers"? Talk about "all the nerve of the town cow"! You couldn't make this stuff up.

To paraphrase Lincoln, "You can please some of the people all of the time and you can please all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time."

And surely by now the ABC must be wondering why he ever decided to leave Wales!

Beware of Daily Telegraph reports and editorials. As I understand it, Rowan Williams is not arranging:

massively complicated plans to divide the 38 Anglican provinces into "constituent" and "associate" members of the Communion [editorial]

He is rather hoping to produce a Covenant into which provinces can opt in or opt out, and therefore being in full or impaired communion. Those left out will surely form their own connections.

Where the Daily Telegraph is right is that the emphasis on an Anglican Communion is wrong anyway. It is as if the Archbishop is trying to present a "Church" to the Pope, when he discusses ecumenical issues.

There is not such a thing, just initial exports from England that have been reworked differently in parts of the world and run their own affairs.

The Nigerian Church is doing a lot of preplanning for the February gatherings. They are out to make all the strategic moves, and Williams the Chair of the meetings might find his own (continuing) impotence worsen against the preplanning. If they are against even Sentamu appearing (are they?) then they are out to get their way. The Nigerians and others probably do not need a Covenant to define the structures of who is in and who is out, but use the more structural vehicle of CANA and more on a non-geographical basis.

The Episcopalian Church is obviously going to have to look after itself, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is not a CAEU soon either, a structural route to missiona and grab so called orthodoxy. The Archbishop of canterbury might indeed like to return home and watch his boundaries too.

The essence of the Anglican Communion is the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Therefore, some "if's."

If Akinola and his followers believe they can address the ABC in this tone, then the ABC's authority in the Communion has evaporated.

If the contents of the message to the ABC are as reported here, then Akinola is seizing the moment to consolidate his power, the ABC has truly lost all control of events, and I suspect the Anglican Communion, at least as we have known it, is dead.

If +Rowan acqueses now to orders from Nigeria, as Yeats put it, things fall apart; the center cannot hold.

I am glad that the Nigerians and other conservatives are coming further out, into the global open. (Chapman Memo gone global?) They have hidden behind the sexual sins smokescreens for way too long. (Canterbury loves that smokescreen apparently as much as they do, or at least finds plenty of occasions like equal adoption to use its disguises.) Honest discernment needs honest raw data into which we can all, all, all inquire; and weigh; and reach provisional conclusions open to further truth.

The current church preoccupation with counting orgams is frankly medieval in its details and foundations. It sounds presuppositional negative harmonies aimed at human embodiment and our rich animal heritage, both of which are now brightly shedding new light thanks to the New Biology. It is way too insistently preferential of ignorance and fear, of neurotic shame and neurotic guilt, over information and adult maturity of conscience or discernment. Because humans are indeed fallible, we are supposed to make the further, final jump to believing that humans can no longer know or sort out through reason and empirical method anything that is good or anything that is useful? -except, oddly, just exactly what conservative power brokers inside our churches bother to tell us in favor of their own divinely revealed and established leadership?

Alas, these self-righteous and closed-minded folks are leading us into back, into the historical pits of religious ignorance for his namessake. If we follow, we who follow bear the responsibility, except if we be coerced and threatened and imprisoned for not following. Come to think of it, isn't that what is supposed to happen to queer folks in Nigeria, starting soon? The sooner and more publicly the Anglican realignment folks get really, really nasty with KJS in global public, the sooner we can see and hear and taste and weigh the situational truth of what they are made of.

++Rowan Cantuar deserves no better than how he is being treated by ++Peter Jasper Akinola. After all, since GC2003, he has pandered to the "bully", who now even presumes to be the "gate-keeper" of those to be invited, or uninvited, to the Primates' meeting.

Rowan and Peter deserve each other, having turned the Anglican Communion into a farce.

Merseymike, I have to disagree. the Anglican Communion has a future. if possible we should hang together. viewed in that light, the actions of these unnnamed "conservative leaders" are reprehensible.

however, if the Communion has to split, I would obviously prefer that the Akinola gang leave rather than liberal provinces be expelled. to that end, if they're so offended that ++KJS and ++Sentamu are coming, I'd love for them to leave.

if they leave, or if they chose to stay and engage with the rest of the Communion (not condemn it), then the Communion has a future.

There are serious questions lodged about/against the closed conservative views, including most urgently three doubts the rest of us may entertain.

We may doubt whether this closed reading/allegiance trend can successfully scrutinize and avoid its own innate pulls into idolatry - using the legacy religious materials, up to and including scripture-by making them idols to whom we must bow down free from any and all questions.

We may doubt whether love the sinner/hate the sin is an adequate practical frame for just those historical instances in which we find we have believed dramatically false things about the neighbors.

We may doubt whether high minded avoidance of dirty others (who are otherwise, empirically, mostly just like us?) is the best institutional witness for either the full gospel or for the historic leeway of the legacy Anglican traditions.

The same behind the scenes authorities and funders for Anglican realignment who ultimately helped nurture the infamous Chapman memo, and the third appeal for Primatial oversight surfaced by legal discovery in court in Pittsburg, are still clearly at work here - they care little for the rest of us, but they care greatly for their own conservative agenda which is not the full gospel they define it to be.

Otherwise, God would simply have revealed Jesus by striking a few thousand Roman soldiers dead, along with various ancient near eastern pagan temple devotees, along with maybe a sizeable group of overly legalistic and self-involved Jewish sectarians of the era.

Did not this same Jesus of Nazareth also say things to us like (1)the Sabbath is made for humankind, not humankind made to be imprisoned within the Sabbath rules, (2) there are other sheep which were not yet revealed or proclaimed even at the time Jesus was walking the earth, (3) Jesus has many other things to reveal to us, which the apostles could not bear in ancient near eastern times, (4)the Holy Spirit is going to lead us into all truth and all righteousness. ???

Either we can trust and pledge that ultimately all possible truth - known provisionally via all best practice rational avenues - comes from God because God is good. Or we may conclude that bell jars of revelation have a singular holy truth which cannot be scrutinized further and is only susceptible to acceptance or rejection. Which is the preferred conservative hermeneutic we are being asked to follow?

Anglican puritans want dominance at any cost...they insist and demand we listen/believe with the blindly...they don't want adult conversation about anything with anyone because they have all their twisted "Scriputural" answers to all of their "selective" questions already...they *are* unreasonable to the MAX...such a emotionally unstable and *driven* force of arrogant spewing has only one way to go...the famous "fall" will come because, like it or not, God and human beings of all denominations/backgrounds are NOT going to be patient with such nonsense, basic greed and smugness nor with the boastfulness and manipulating/behind-the-scene religious takeover "tactic" of this mob of Christians.

It's hard to "love them anyway" as Bishop V.G. Robinson of New Hampshire suggests when the oppressors are such a sneaky and pompus gang of "holligan"*.

*"Holligans" are the children of LGBT people as defined by +Akinola but in this case it is the puritan mobsters where "holligan" applies better I think.

It seems to me that the ABC has only two options in dealing with the impending division: either agree with Akinola &c and essentially bless their takeover of the WWAC, or stick by the actual rules -- few as they are -- and let those depart who are unwilling to coexist, or commune. The effort to "constitutionalize" the "fellowship" is destroying it faster than simply letting it be, and in ways that will have far greater destructive impact, in the C of E and elsewhere. Dividing into parallel jurisdictions out of communion with each other is simply a novel name for schism, ecclesiastical mutton dressed as lamb.

"But in a humiliating blow to the Archbishop’s authority, senior conservative leaders..."

And so the end-game begins. It really is almost sad to watch Abp. Williams' authority and position, and the whole AC for that matter, implode like this.

"Almost," except that I'm so perturbed at the way he continues to give in to the bullying of the "senior conservative leaders." It's truly Neville Chamberlain-esque in its cluelessness...

The Nigerian Christians still must live in country where half their countrimen are Muslims, and the need for co-existence is seen in the tone of the church's statements quoted above. It is no excuse for supporting oppressive laws, but it is something we cannot ignore. I doubt they would have had such a chance to have their conference in Sokoto if they were not seen as standing against the decadent immoral West.

Has anyone bothered to inform these "senior conservative leaders" that Primates are not INVITED to this meeting? It's a meeting of Primates...if you're a Primate or Presiding Bishop of a church within the Anglican Communion, you have every right to be there. This distinction seems to have eluded +++Rowan as well, or he'd never have debated whether or not to "invite" ++Katherine in the first place.

I have to say, though, they have a point about the ABY. He may have historic precedence over even Canterbury, but York has long been second fiddle and, hence, not a Primacy.

Y'know what really gets me? As Honest Pete Abuja's Purity Roadshow trundles on, his financial backing is increasingly going to come from the sorts of folks whose financial wheeler dealings and politickings has caused so much suffering to the peoples of the GS in the first place.

Someone defended City of London bonus payments recently - has it struck anyone else that the payment of that sort of obscene cash comes from somewhere, and usually from harsh investments in GS countries?

So ++Abuja is being paid, ultimately, by the folk who have violated his own flock. Makes a spot of b*gg*ry look pretty thin even for a raging fundamentalist, no?

Erika - we wouldn't be

We would be part of a global movement without colonial ties which could pursue links with exactly those people - who are currently marginalised and persecuted in places like Nigeria

What I think has no future is the Anglican Communion. A global network of inclusive churches is certainly something to welcome

Actually, we can see the beginning of these problems back in the 19th century when the C of E decided to divide up the mission areas. Sub-Saharan and Western Africa went to the Evangelical CMS, and the progeny of that tradition are now sitting up and howling about sola scriptura (as CMS taught them to do).

The only reasonable end is that the ABC do what the ABC has always done: just issue the dang invitations — to all. That will set up Akinola & Company to be the "Deciders" rather than the ABC. It will then be clear just who the schismatics are. Any thinking person knows that the split is coming. The ABC merely has to decide if he is going to be the agent of the split or pass that dubious honor to the reactionaries.

Unless, of course, he really DOES despise Americans (as has been suggested)!

David Rowett is spot on when he writes: "So ++Abuja is being paid, ultimately, by the folk who have violated his own flock. Makes a spot of b*gg*ry look pretty thin even for a raging fundamentalist, no?"

For ++Peter Jasper Akinola homosex is the SIN that trumps all other sins. At the same time, through CANA and Mr. Martyn Minns, ++Abuja engages in thievery, coveting, and alienating, the parish properties of the Virgina dissidents, which canonically belong to the Diocese of Virginia. Since when is "stealing" and "coveting" no longer a sin, ++Peter Jasper?

Aaron writes:

"if you're a Primate or Presiding Bishop of a church within the Anglican Communion, you have every right to be there"

which of course begs the question. Is Schori a bishop or even a priest for that matter? She certainly would not be recognised in England as a bishop (as her performing any episcopal acts would be illegal) and even her priestly orders are still open to question. Just because the TEC deems to "consecrate" Schori a bishop knowing full well that this is contentious does not mean that the rest of the communion have to accept such high handed, aggresive and arrogant actions.

As with all of these things there are just zillions of meeting that I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for - all that strategizing, all those linked conversative blogs, all that provision of funding and infrastructure that must be necessary to coordinate a proper schism - all that preplanned wiping the floor with the reputations of people who have been identified as the enemies of God. Incredible!

“It is clear that those most involved in the power struggle within the Anglican Communion are about to strike. The Church of Nigeria has been unwilling to wait on a Communion-wide solution to the present conflict and has taken matters into its own hands by establishing a scismatic off-shoot in the USA.”

“We have reached this point several times before, but it appears that there is now a concerted effort from American conservative groups to force a decision at this conference that will give them a new legal standing in their attempt to seize control of the assets and property they currently control.”

“According to English canon law membership of the Anglican Communion lies in the joint hands of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. In this context it is interesting to note they will both be present at the Tanzanian meeting.”
(extract from LGCM comment)

@Aaron:

A minor nitpick, but please remember that the Archbishop of York is indeed "Primate of England".

The Archbishop of Canterbury is, of course, "Primate of *All* England", but the Archbishop of York is most certainly a primate, even if he is not *the* primate of the Church of England. I think ++Rowan's rationale for having him there is thus perfectly acceptable and even downright sensible, provided ++Rowan acts at the meeting only in his capacity as chairman and not as the head of the Church of England.

Missing from all the commentary I have seen so far is an accurate estimate of the number of Primates willing to back Archbishop Akinola's planned split from the rest of the Communion.

I think, however, that many fewer Primates will be willing to back him in this consequential action than have been willing to go along with his previous actions, which in the Evangelical view will have been, by and large, merely symbolic gestures.

Refusing to take Communion at Dromantine with representatives of the Episcopal Church, for example, would be, for many Evangelicals, a merely symbolic gesture, expressing the absence of a feeling of fellowship. It would not have for them the significance such actions carry in Catholic theology. It would not have been for them a consequential action.

Now, however, Archbishop Akinola's Communion-splitting actions are about to effect measurable, quantifiable changes in Communion structure, finances, and membership. We have already heard from a number of African bishops who do not think he should proceed with his plans for a rival, African-headed Communion. I wonder how many will actually support him in Dar-es-Salaam?

I agree with drdanfee when he stated: (Canterbury loves that smokescreen apparently as much as they do, or at least finds plenty of occasions like equal adoption to use its disguises.)

This is additional to my point, and picked up by others. That, at the same time as Akinola and company are clearly being strategic, and, after their own meeting, coming to the primates meeting for an outcome, the Archbishop of Canterbury has been involved in allying the Church of England in an anti-equality stance and the bishops are going to introduce smothering amendments to two clear motions to the General Synod.

In other words, the Church of England leadership is adjusting to accommodate to the stance of the Anglican Communion and its Global South, by nip and tuck and kicking into the long grass, for which there will quite possibly be a "reward" of a takeover attempt that does intend not just to define this Communion but go physically into territories outside own provinces according to self-defined necessity, as has already begun.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is rapidly approaching a point of decision. The choice he faces is between 1. to be Peter Akinola's lackey and cede all real leadership to the Global South, or 2. to exercise leadership, to be a man, and affirm his place as the one who is the spiritual leader of Anglicans worldwide. I pity the Church of England if he takes the former course, as every sign suggests he will.

Athos - There is no Communion-wide mechanism for choosing Primates. It is something done by the national church itself. As long as ECUSA is a member of the Communion, the other Primates have to accept her as its Presiding Bishop. If they think that gender is somehow tied to one's ability to serve God (a heterodox position that denies the efficacy of the incarnation...if anyone should object to another province's choice of Primates, that's a pretty good reason right there) that's their problem. It's up to them to decide if their position is worth severing communion. Unless/until they do, they are in communion with a church lead by a woman.

Walsingham: Good point, in which case the "conservative leaders" are making a bald power play without a shred of legitimacy.

"The essence of the Anglican Communion is the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury."

This sounds odd. I thought the Anglican Communion was a family of AUTONOMOUS churches. The ABC is a primus inter pares, and a symbol of unity, nothing more.

Is it not rather odd that he is "chairing" the meeting of the primates?

Can one church declare itself out of communion with another Anglican church without thereby leaving the Anglican Communion?

Can a church declare itself out of communion with the C of E without thereby leaving the Anglican Communion?

The proposed covenant idea is supposed to resolve these questions, but with the danger of forcing the Episcopalian Church into the position of impaired or lesser communion. It would be better if categories would be created into which churches could gravitate of their own accord. That is, you could have a consortium of liberal churches and a consortium of conservative churches, both in communion with the C of E and both recognized as authentically Anglican, though both would say that they are in impaired communion with the other.

Baptizing the status quo in this way would be a good idea, I think, and could be sternly opposed to the exclusionist and power-grabbing tactics that more and more emerge as the underlying truth of the Global South's talk of the Bible and sexual ethics.

John-Julian wrote: “Actually, we can see the beginning of these problems back in the 19th century when the C of E decided to divide up the mission areas. Sub-Saharan and Western Africa went to the Evangelical CMS, and the progeny of that tradition are now sitting up and howling about sola scriptura (as CMS taught them to do).”

I must agree with JJ. The irony of the Last Battle on Colony Hill waged by the Colons of The New Global Moi Empire Enterprise – a branch of the New American Enterprise Inc., funded from Chicago, Pittsburgh and Colorado – in defence of 19th century Sociology, Theology, Colonial Laws (and an over-dose of Anti Islamism), is breath-taking.

It will be the shortest Empire in History ;=)

Charlotte wrote: “I wonder how many will actually support him in Dar-es-Salaam?”

They won’t. All this Le Monde c’est Moi numbers game is a smoke-screen for not having the numbers.

Otherwise there wouldn’t have been years and years of indeterminable lies and spin and propaganda; the anti Moderns would have thrown the Moderns out decades ago.

NGMEE group meetings have been overwhelmingly about schooling, seminaries, health, economical and other development issues. Attendance (always selective) has been around or just above 50% – admitting that not all present have been Primates.

Ayes have always been less and resolutions un-signed or allegated ;=)

In reality, the New Global Moi Empire Enterprise is not able to muster more than 17 primatial votes on neutral issues, the “hard core” being in the 11 to 14.

Perhaps. It is time for all this to end.

"Just because the TEC deems to "consecrate" Schori a bishop knowing full well that this is contentious does not mean that the rest of the communion have to accept such high handed, aggresive and arrogant actions."

As the early Christians were branded "atheists" (because they prayed to God-in-Christ, not Caesar), now TEC is branded "contentious...high handed, aggresive and arrogant" because we pray over (laying hands on) Bishops Jefferts Schori and Robinson. TRUTH will out.

What if they threw a Primates Meeting, and everybody came? Conversely, what if they threw a Primates Meeting and, like the wedding gathering of the parable, some sullenly refused?

Lord have mercy!

“According to English canon law membership of the Anglican Communion lies in the joint hands of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York."

I did not realize they had this power! So the churches making up the Communion are "autonomous", but their membership of the Communion is decided by the C of E alone?

Does this mean that the Global South are lobbying the C of E to declare ECUSA out of the Communion, threatening to withdraw themselves if this is not done? This would surely be a rather ineffective blackmailing tactic.

When do we see TEC Global launch?
It will be such a relief (for both sides) when it does

Thank God our Archbishop is not willing to sit with the American primate who supports the ordination of a gay bishop.

No matter what it would cost gay-right movement will never succeed in Nigeria.

Aaron: "which of course begs the question. Is Schori a bishop or even a priest for that matter? She certainly would not be recognised in England as a bishop (as her performing any episcopal acts would be illegal) and even her priestly orders are still open to question. Just because the TEC deems to "consecrate" Schori a bishop knowing full well that this is contentious does not mean that the rest of the communion have to accept such high handed, aggressive and arrogant actions."

Aaron, from the little I know about Anglicanism, the ordination of female bishops is perfectly legal in many churches of the Anglican Communion. What is the basis of your objection, and of your allegation of invalid ordination?

Aaron
A bishop in order to fulfill his role has to be a bishop standing in the Apostolic Succession which primarily means upholding the teaching and practice of the Apostles. If a Church decides (on their own fiat) to elect a person to that Office knowing full well that many will dispute her ability to stand in the Apostolic Succession they should not be surprised (and neither should we) if they discover her ministry is not welcomed. AS Rowan Williams said with regard to Jeffrey John a bishop's minstry if it is to be effective must command allegiance over the whole ecclesial body. Clearly there is no dispute over whether men can fill this role but there is over the ability of women to fill this office. Thus we should only pursue peace and that which builds up our common life. And that is simply what female priests and bishops cannot do. But let us be clear and honest about one thing. It is those who arrogantly assume powers to rewrite the legacy of the Apostolic age who are at the source of this sad divison. All the traditionalists are doing is reacting to the provocation of fundadmentalist, intolerant liberalism.

In 1913 the Bishop of Zanzibar, Frank Weston, made a presentment to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, accusing the bishops of Mombasa and Uganda of "propagating heresy and committing schism", because they had made common cause with protestant missionary societies in East Africa, and celebrated the Lord's Supper with them in a Presbyterian Church at Kikuyu. Weston's letter is an astonishing document, containing no fewer than 13 "whereas".

There is a sad irony in the fact that the heirs and assigns of these bishops will apparently refuse to communicate with other Anglican bishops in Weston's own cathedral in Zanzibar.

I have often observed that the Devil is not an original thinker: he tends to use the same temptations time and time again. But then why should he be original? We seem to fall for them with astonishing regularity, generation after generation.

We can, I suspect, only pray that the ire of Akinola will be as to as little effect as the wrath of Weston, and that ++Rowan will meet it with as straight and as dead a bat as did ++Randall. (For the benefit of American readers, that is a metaphor from cricket.) Maybe after Dar es Salaam there will be a Cricketing Communion led by Sydney and a Cricketless one led by Canterbury.

Ronald Knox wrote of Kikuyu that it was officially seen as "eminently pleasing to God, and on no account to be repeated". I hope there will still be room for wit after Dar es Salaam.

Athos? Isn't that the place where no female, even an animal, is allowed for fear of it polluting the place and distracting the faithful?

Athos wrote, "All the traditionalists are doing is reacting to the provocation of fundamentalist, intolerant liberalism."

Congratulations! "fundamentalist, intolerant liberalism" gets the George Orwell Doublethink award of the week!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

Truly a breathtaking example! Proctors from the Ministry of Truth will be delivering your award shortly...

Athos,

Your comment on women's lack of ability to be priests or bishops is not even deserving of a comment and so I shall not even try other than to say there are no words describe my frustration and pain over some people's lack of ability to see reality.

Ann Marie+

"Thank God our Archbishop is not willing to sit with the American primate who supports the ordination of a gay bishop.

No matter what it would cost gay-right movement will never succeed in Nigeria." Femi

Yes, any "rights" movement has trouble in Nigeria where it is much more common for, thuggery against fellow citizens, tribal discrimination, exploitation (of oil workers) repression of LGBT people, their friends and families and JAIL (proposed anti-human rights legislation that "your bishop" endorses) for "assembly" in public.

Such viciousness against fellow Christians/Muslims/others and general all-around ignorance plus the rampant greed factor still are considered "high standards" in Nigeria!

Nigeria, IS the perfect setting for +Akinolan styled virtue.

"It would not have for them the significance such actions carry in Catholic theology."
Charlotte,
This is a good point. They have been saying for some time that we have two different churches in one. They are right. Some primates attended a celebratory dinner that night, when, to me, what they had done was cause for grief. The only way I can make sense of it is that they either put their lust for power ahead of the Kingdom and its values, or they really didn't attach any significance to the Eucharist as anything other than symbol.

And, Femi, you need to realize that, far from sounding defiant, this:

"No matter what it would cost gay-right movement will never succeed in Nigeria."

sounds very much like:

"No matter what it would cost freeing the slaves will never succeed in Alabama."

You need to understand that, even if you cannot accept it, the majority of Westerners see gay people as human beings, not shadowy predatory perverts hanging around in back alleys, prostituting themselves, as I have read in Nigerian online publications.

"Is Schori a bishop or even a priest for that matter? She certainly would not be recognised in England as a bishop (as her performing any episcopal acts would be illegal) and even her priestly orders are still open to question. Just because the TEC deems to "consecrate" Schori a bishop knowing full well that this is contentious does not mean that the rest of the communion have to accept such high handed, aggresive and arrogant actions."

Is Williams really a bishop, much less an archbishop? He was chosen through a barely quasi-democratic process in which the laity were almost totally marginalized, and which is implicated in the secular political order by way of the Prime Minister's participation. Bookies actually took bets on the outcome. Besides, he's male in a church that won't yet consecrate women bishops. Why should the rest of the communiion have to accept such high-handed, aggressive, and arrogant actions?

Of course, I don't mean the above seriously. Quaint as the process of selection appears from this side of the pond, that's the way you folks do this, and much as I am disappinted in him, he IS the ABC, whether your polity is like ours or not.

Bishop Jefferts Schori is our Presiding Bishop, hence our Primate.

As the late great Molly Ivins might have said, suck it up!

Fr Joseph O'Leary,

That wasn't my comment - it's diametrically opposed to my own position. Please don't mistake it for me! That was someone talking to me.

Authorship of a comment can be determined by the little, greyish name at the bottom of the comment, sometimes a link (if the poster has a web site). When the name is in the body of the text it's usually someone addressing another poster, as I have done here.

Cynthia asks: "Is Williams really a bishop, much less an archbishop?"

If democratic election is essential to the episcopate (about which opinions may differ, as they have through the history of the church) ++RW qualifies very nicely. He was elected and consecrated Bishop of Monmouth, in the Church in Wales. As the Church of England is still in full communion with the Church in Wales there was no need for him to be reconsecrated when he was translated to Canterbury, and as he was acclaimed at his enthronement at Canterbury, I think we can assume that his translation had the overall approval of his new diocese.

Ann Marie and David H

Please be more self-crtical of your own entrenched positions. Ann Marie it is a simple historical fact that the consistent witness of the universal Church has been to restrict the presbyterate and episcopate to men. This was done following the exmaple of Christ and His Apostles and for millenia it was understood that this is what Scripture taught. Now apparently a new understanding of Scripture has arisen that some folk have accepted. But there are many who doubt the validity of that exegesis and you can hardly blame them or be reduced to calling them names when they would rather adhere to the witness of the ages rather than the transient, fleeting mores of contemporary society. It is in this sense that a female bishop simply cannot be said to represent the teaching of the Apostolic Age or the universal Church; which is a sin qua non of being a bishop. Hence doubts arise as to the validity of her orders. It has NOTHING to do with her godliness or ability.
David H simply try to resist the libeal consesus on this website and you will see what I mean by liberal intolerance and fundamentalism!!

“According to English canon law membership of the Anglican Communion lies in the joint hands of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. In this context it is interesting to note they will both be present at the Tanzanian meeting.”

Knowing that makes me uneasy.

Watch your pockets . . .Athos and NP are in the house and stalking this progessive blog in order to shift the discussion away from the outrageous behavior of "some" of the GS primates. There must be a "blog-speak" term for this kind of stalking . . .anyone have an answer?

See what I mean!! Am I not welcome in this open, liberal and tolerant blog? I am not trying to shift discussion away from anything. I am trying to get folk to see that the issues are far more complex than exist in your fundamentalist world. But if you are reduced to ad hominen arguemnts and name calling it just confirms me in my suspicions that your theological arguments aren't up to much.

Athos,

I orginally was going to post a biting reply but have decided that silence shall be my answer. I am tired of defending my call. If there are people wh cannot accept the reality of that call it really is there problem not mine. I am at peace with God and with the call. It is not that my position is entrenched, it is that God has shown me different and I have choen to follow God rather than human beings.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

thread/comment hijacking.

"David H simply try to resist the libeal consesus on this website and you will see what I mean by liberal intolerance and fundamentalism!!"

Athos, stop seeking persecution. Yes, there are people here who occasionally let their tempers get the better of them and don't always practice what they preach. I fight a battle against lumping "the Evos" into one homogenous judgemental legalistic group, but a quick perusal of my recent posts will show you that I often lose that battle, especially lately. It's why I am toying with the idea of giving this up for Lent. And there are on both sides of the fence people for whom their way is the only way, but doesn't weaken the basic premises. Would you discount C.S. Lewis because he had a predeliction for S&M? Both sides seek to exclude those they see as being at cross purposes with the values of the Kingdom. They just don't agree on what those values are. We need to point out the hypocrisy of the other side where we see it, I admit my recent bouts of it so you don't have to go searching through what I said recently, trust me, it's there. We really ought not to be smug about it, all the same.

Athos has made an excellent point, and I hereby propose (on the model of Christ and his apostles) than anyone not male and circumcised be ejected from the episcopate. There is after all no conclusive evidence in Scripture that the episkopoi and presbuteroi were anything other than Hellenized Jews who had taken Hellenistic names.....

I really thought this sort of argument had gone out with the play-pen.

"Athos and NP are in the house and stalking this progessive blog in order to shift the discussion away from the outrageous behavior of "some" of the GS primates. There must be a "blog-speak" term for this kind of stalking . . .anyone have an answer?" Byron

Nope, but I notice the puritans are running around causing diversionary tactics everywhere...it's almost a schedule they observe at all the different progressive blogs (some are being moderated where once they were not because of their righteous grandstanding and hatefilled silliness)...especially the most "tedious" of "trolls" seem to be sticking their snearing faces into our Communion dilemmas and offering semi-coherent ramblings about their "position" on the Windsor Report, abominations, lust, etc. (then running and hiding behind their excluding/feardriven version of Christianity while poaching on other peoples Church property)!

I don't think there is a handful of honorable folks contributing from the "opposition" but then, I think they are all emotionally and spiritually flawed anyway and ALWAYS have!

Fifty years ago my Mother suggested I avoid "religious nuts!"

I did/do what my Mother told me.

Byron asked
There must be a "blog-speak" term for this kind of stalking . . .anyone have an answer?

I can only think of 'loitering within net'.

I may have done a multiple posting. Apologies.

In the wake of Athos' (and the rest of the musketeers'?) postings on the ordination of women, a genuine question.

One of my folk has today been offered a bishop's selection conference: this is particularly interesting becasue it marks the end of a long journey from adamant opposition to the ordination of women to examining her vocation herself.

Now I am aware of a good number of people who've made that journey. How often is the journey in the opposite direction made, from support to opposition? Anyone any tales to tell? Would there be a significant message if the traffic were overwhelmingly one-way (yes, of course, national apostasy, no need to post that one....)

I hate to nitpick, but I believe that the rule about Canterbury & York is not to determine who gets to call themselves Anglican but who is in communion with the Church of England and therefore invited to Lambeth (which has always included non-Anglicans like the Old Catholics & Church of Sweden -- both pro-gay & advocates of women in ministry).

Membership in the Anglican Consultative Council is determined by a 2/3 votes of the primates. Since that body is a rather recent creation, one might wonder if membership in it is what constitutes being an Anglican.

Note that it is theoretically possible that The Episcopal Church could be excluded from the ACC (& not be "Anglican") but still be invited to Lambeth (not that I think that will happen, but it could).

Prior Aelred writes: "Note that it is theoretically possible that The Episcopal Church could be excluded from the ACC (& not be "Anglican") but still be invited to Lambeth (not that I think that will happen, but it could)."

Indeed. The Utrecht Old Catholics are also invited to Lambeth, but are not in the ACC. Meanwhile Anglicans and Utrecht Old Catholics (not to be confused with the various episcopi vagantes in North America using the "Old Catholic" name) are in full communion as per the Bonn Agreement of 1931.

One wonders if ECUSA will end up leaving the Anglican Communion (either willingly or kicked out), but still somehow remain in full communion on the same level as the Utrecht churches (wild-eyed ideas of ECUSA joining the Union of Utrecht instead of the Anglican Communion notwithstanding). ECUSA would technically not be "Anglican" in the mainstream sense of the word, but certainly would still be in communion with Canterbury and other Anglican churches.

I can't see why ECUSA couldn't join the Old Catholics.

They are high-church in style, but theologically liberal,and allow gay priests in relationships.

About women bishops --

Currently Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori (like any woman priest who was ordained by a male bishop whose orders are recognized by the CofE) could legally preside at a celebration of the Eucharist in England, but not perform any Episcopal functions. However, a man who was ordained to the priesthood by her could not do so, unless the C of E eventually DOES approve of women in the episcopate, whereupon said male priest's orders would be retroactively valid.

Is that correct?

Mynsterpreost,

Actually, I was on a thread a couple of week's ago where there was a man posting that he had moved from supporting ordination of women and moved the other way after the fact. I can't remember his reasoning. But that is the only case of which I have heard.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

From Athos: "But if you are reduced to ad hominen arguemnts and name calling it just confirms me in my suspicions that your theological arguments aren't up to much."

I've noticed much more lately that when traditionalists can't hold their own in a discussion with progressives, they resort to cries of "ad hominum attack!".

When that happens, the discussion has pretty much concluded because they're unable to support their theses any further.

Thanks for clarifications about who determines who is Anglican.

Apologies, Aaron, I meant Athos.

Athos: "it is a simple historical fact that the consistent witness of the universal Church has been to restrict the presbyterate and episcopate to men." Still the case for Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but not for the churches of the Reformation. If you want to stick to this position, you could become RC or Orthodox -- and keep your fingers crossed that women presbyters will not be ordained in those churches as well! Doubts about the validity of female ordination would seem to imply the suspicion that churches practising it are in a state of apostasy or deadly error. You have the right to think so and to soldier on in the hope that your church will reverse the error. But it would be a happier situation if you could take it that Christ has given a wide charter of freedom to his churches in how they deal with ministry and sacraments.

"for millenia it was understood that this is what Scripture taught." Actually, no one raised the issue, did they? It is only recently that the question has been raised at all. Just as the issue of slavery was raised in the 19th century and was found to be incompatible with Scripture, though on the surface the letter of Scripture upholds slavery.

"Now apparently a new understanding of Scripture has arisen that some folk have accepted." Some churches have accepted it, not just some folk.

"a female bishop simply cannot be said to represent the teaching of the Apostolic Age or the universal Church; which is a sine qua non of being a bishop." The churches that have female bishops see no problem with her representing the apostolic teaching.

Femi,

I *sincerely* hope you are NOT the "Femi Afolabi" who threatened Davis Mac-Iyalla to be "bathed with acid" last month (I'm supposing that Femi is a common name in Nigeria---but your homophobic sentiment above sounds distressingly similar :-( )

Lord have mercy!

Fr Joepsh suggests that the question of female presbyters has only recently been raised. Then why was Hooker discussing it in the 1590's and why were the Montanists in the 3rd century rebuked for having women priests?

@Merseymike:

The question is, would the Union of Utrecht churches want ECUSA? Being well-acquainted with the Old Catholics in Germany and having heard remarks to such effect, I think an ECUSA-Utrecht merger isn't that easy.

While ECUSA and the UU churches are very similar, ECUSA has (whether deserved or not) gotten something of a reputation for doing what it wants to do without paying much attention to other sister churches.

For one thing, ECUSA would be the 2-million-member behemoth in a union of churches whose largest member is about 20,000, and with over 100 bishops to the UU's nine. That can be intimidating for the UU churches and a temptation for ECUSA to throw its weight around. Not a recipe for a lasting relationship.

Furthermore, some Episcopal parishes in Europe have on occasion been sharp-elbowed with the OCs in their area (as one example, the Frankfurt ECUSA and OC parishes used to share a church but parted ways years ago; I've heard that some Episcopal people tried to poach the OC youth group at one point).

The presence of an ECUSA bishop in Europe (speaking of crossing borders) also rankles a bit. ECUSA can hardly scream about CANA when it has a similar 'congregation' in the middle of UU territory with its own American bishop -- +Pierre Whalon has made some remarks to the effect that ECUSA has global jurisdiction, which doesn't sit well with the OCs -- and with the way some European ECUSA parishes tended to behave in the past, it's hard to imagine them submitting to a bishop who may or may not speak good English or understand their background.

Thus there is some irritation already there that could jeopardize any union.

IOW there are more practical considerations that could torpedo an attempt by ECUSA to join the Union of Utrecht. Thus while I too am fond of the Old Catholics and would love to see Old Catholics and Anglicans move closer together into a full union, I have to say I'm also taken aback at the enthusiasm coming from some ECUSA people for the idea, because they don't seem to be fully aware of the issues involved. Precisely that enthusiasm could work against them.

"Athos has made an excellent point, and I hereby propose (on the model of Christ and his apostles) than anyone not male and circumcised be ejected from the episcopate."

Don't forget: not just male and ciscumcised but fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew, and possibly the Greek of the 1st century, born in Bethlehem ...

And sorry, when I pretended to cast doubt about whether the ABC is 'really' a bishop, I was trying to expose the silliness of doubting ++Katharine's orders by the same logic. In reality I have no doubt at all that the ABC is a bishop!

Well Athos, as to the Montanists, we can only know that these 2nd century accusations are propaganda, slander.

Which means we cannot trust it at all.

Probably it is simply as false and misleading as the corresponding 2nd century accusations against the Gnosticists, the real teachings and errors of which, we with the find of the Nag Hamadi library, now know how they looked.

As to Dr Hooker, tell me something less distorted than the usual calvo-readings propagated on the Internet.

Athos, if I remember correctly, the charge levelled by (eg) Eusebius is that the Montanist women were 'prophetesses', and objection was raised to their charismatic tendencies.

I could be wrong, of course, I'm no patristics scholar and would happily accept correction that Eusebius or Epiphanius uses 'presbuteros' to refer to these ladies, but if my understanding is correct, then in this specific your case rests on poor patristic foundations. Hooker falls outside my period, but nothing of importance has happened in the faith since 451 anyway.

Bishop Pierre Whalon has a fine article on the parallel jurisdictions in Europe:
http://anglicansonline.org/resources/essays/whalon/parajurisdiction.html

also here:
http://anglicansonline.org/resources/essays/whalon/europemodel.html

I don't see the need for any further "integration" of The Episcopal Church & the Union of Utrecht -- after all, the Archbishop of Utrecht presided at one of the Convention Eucharists in Columbus (a service where the Mar Thoma bishop also received -- the Network bishops do not attend these services).

@Prior Aelred:

With all due respect, +Pierre is trying to draw a distinction between CANA and COACE largely based on a timeline -- in effect arguing that the European Anglican jurisdictions or "networks" or whatever he wants to call them are grandfathered -- while also arguing in a "what, me worry" way that it's OK for COACE to exist, but not CANA. He even uses precisely the same pastoral arguments for COACE to exist that are used to explain why CANA was necessary -- accommodating doctrinal and cultural differences. I believe that it's precisely such contradictory arguments that irritate Old Catholics and would make any attempt by ECUSA to fall into their arms difficult.

Either you believe in a catholic principle of territoriality (which the Old Catholics very definitely do), or you don't. In particular I see little effort to encourage Anglican parishes in Europe to seek oversight from local Old Catholic bishops, even if they do have niceties over licensing to at least try and uphold a minimal sense of jurisdiction.

+Pierre is trying to defend the continued existence of a newish sort of creation that is a jurisdiction in all but name, while arguing against the existence of very similar creatures. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. No matter how one tries to label COACE and the "Diocese in Europe", they are jurisdictions that just doesn't belong there anymore.

If we in ECUSA want to be consistent in our criticism of CANA, and I think we should, then it's high time to do the Old Catholics a favor and stop invading their turf.

The need for further integration does not end with mere mutual recognition. It has to end in visible, full unity -- "that they may all be one". Merely presiding at a Eucharist is only the barest beginning, and we need to return to the principle of one local church and one bishop for that church if we're ever going to learn to get along as Christians, just as we share a President we don't always agree with but accept his rule anyway.

Encouraging small groups of people to have the bishop that suits them and only them only sows more division. By supporting such division, you have no basis whatsoever for criticizing CANA.

Walsingham --

Excuse me, when did I criticize CANA? I am perfectly happy to have people who do not want to be Episcopalians leave The Episcopal Church & have never said anything otherwise.

Bishop Whalon clearly does not like the European anomaly, nor do I. Welcoming each other's bishops functioning in each other's "cultural & historical" parishes is certainly a start & exactly the opposite of what CANA is doing, isn't it?

@Prior Aelred:

"Excuse me, when did I criticize CANA?"

The criticism is implicit in the way you've criticized Nigeria in the past for not sticking to their side of WR (rightly so, I might add). For example, you wrote: 'Nevertheless, it does seem true that all of the criticism from Canterbury has been directed at North America for moving too fast toward "inclusion" & none at "The Global South" for [...] intruding into the jurisdictions of other bishops (both also condemned by the Windsor Report...).'

COACE and the Diocese in Europe are also apparently intruding into other jurisdictions, even if they are grandfathered. +Pierre claiming what amounts to global jurisdiction for ECUSA doesn't help, either.

Of course I have criticized Nigeria for its hypocrisy -- I don't remember ever mentioning CANA -- as I said, I am all for people who don't want to be Episcopalians not being Episcopalians (although it may well be that the majority of people in Falls Church & Truro who voted to leave TEC were not, in fact, members in the first place).

But bishops are bishops of people, not dirt. There have been multiple jurisdictions based on different faith communities from the beginings of the church -- that is not going to change.

Bishop Whalon does not like the current situation in Europe & is trying to change it. It really has nothing to do with CANA (which is about setting up a different faith community apart from the existing church). I honestly have no objections to CANA (stealing property, yes, but ++Akinola AND the canons of the Nigerian Church agree with me on this).

As to Prophetesses I just found some interesting things about the apostle Philip and his 4 daughters in Eusebius's Church History, Book (=part) 3.

He also has a few things to say about authentic and spurious scriptures of the NT...

... nothing of which would go down well over the pond, these days ;=)

Now that we are embroiled in the aftermath of the Primates Communiqué and Camp Allen, this discussion seems to have been forgotten. To make my point once again, CANA has no right to exist as an Anglican jurisdiction set up within another. CACE does, because there is no pre-existing Anglican jurisdiction in Europe. Furthermore, the English and American congregations in UU jurisdictions existed for the most part well before the Bonn Agreement. Recently I refused to allow the creation of a German-language mission without it being at least formally under Bishop Joachim Vobbe's jurisdiction. I may be wrong, but my position is not self-contradictory, at least.
I stand by my statement that the Convocation of American Churches in Europe provides no justification whatever either for CANA, despite Archbishop Akinola's claims, nor the other non-geographical jurisdictions coming into existence in TEC.