What we need is honesty and clarity.

Clutching at straws to create some FUDGE will just lead to another problem some time in the future.

Both sides deserve some resolution so everyone can get on with their lives.

Why force people to stay in one house when they believe very different things and fight each other - this is not wise and it is certainly not brave.

Someone once said that a house divided against itself cannot stand - hope the fudgemakers in the Anglican hierarchy understand this.

"We recognise that the Windsor Report was addressed to the whole of the Anglican Communion. This report has been concerned with the response by the Episcopal Church to that Report. We understand that the Anglican Church of Canada is in the process of preparing its response. We have to express our concern that other recommendations of the Windsor Report, addressed to other parts of the Communion, appear to have been ignored so far"

At last, buried at the very end of a report but nonetheless finally there in print, on the table and visible to anyone with eyes --- recognition that there are other parts of the Windsor Report that are directed towards other members of the Anglican Communion and which have not been adequately, no, make that addressed at all. I was wondering if and when someone was finally going to bring that up and I'm glad to see someone finally has. Thank you, Committee! Now can we hear some responses on that from the constituent members of the Anglican Communion to whom those portions of the WR were addressed?

Bravo - The Communion Sub-Group Report gets it right!!! TEC HAS complied with the Windsor Report, other primates haven't. Whatever is to come - at least the record has been made clear.

C.B.

NP,
Some of us believe that staying together when you disagree is what Jesus wants us to do. But no one is being "forced" to stay together, at least on these shores. (I don't think even in England, with its Establishment, there has been any coercive force against nonconformity for some time now!) Individuals -- even groups of individuals -- are free to disassociate from the Episcopal Church, or the Anglican Communion, any time they wish. No one is "forced" to remain at the table with those they regard as sinners, or with whom they disagree on any matter whatsoever. Unlike former times, no one risks "dungeoen, fire and sword" for ceasing to be a member of a given church, anywhere in the world that I know of.

NP

>Why force people to stay in one house when they believe very different things<

Well, following such proposition, Anglo-Catholics which hold a "High" Eucharistic theology and Evangelicals/Charismatics with a "Low" Eucharistic theology should form their own Churches.

For, I would submit that Eucharistic theology is a tad more central to the faith and discipline of the church, than issues of marriage, divorce, and re-marriage, greed (idolatry), or the abstention of eating blood.

What a breath of fresh air. Even handed and optimistic. It doesn't give TEC a completely clean bill of health - but it doesn't write it off either. I'm rather impressed.

I'm sorry Nersen Pillay doesn't like it. But a big, grown up, worldwide church that plans to last until the end of the world has to live with people within itself that it doesn't like. We all have to do that. If we don't accept change, and we expel dissidents, we can't grow and we won't survive because, in the words of that great Anglican, W H Auden: "to stop growing is to die".

It's certainly better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. South Area Clericus meeting at my house tonight for Chili Con Carne: I shall report the news with enthusiasm. I suppose everything could still go pear shaped but I'm feeling marginally better.

RR

We have honesty and clarity. The Sub-Group said TEC complied with Windsor. Given that several dissident bishops - +Durham and +Winchester anong them - said Windsor was THE key, all then is well. Now can we get on with the gospel, please?

Oh and NP? I'll see your "house divided against itself cannot stand" and raise you "how can the hand say to the eye I have no need of you?'"

NP,

No one is forcing anyone to stay anywhere. There are certain things we accept when we become members of a church. It is perfectly alright to disagree with them but that does not give us the right to expect the whole to agree with us.

When you consider that Fort Worth is still not ordaining women and is not forced to do so and compare that to the fact that there are many places where women's orders are not valid there is a huge difference. No one is forcing Fort Worth to do something contrary to its understandings. However, there are a number of provinces that would deny women the right to act in accordance with their understanding (affirmed by numerous others) that they are called to ordained ministry.

What is happening is not that people are being forced to stay or being forced to act contrary to their beliefs. It is that they are being asked to accept and respect other people's right to disagree.

I'm not quite sure why they can't accept that since its beginning the church has lived with such diversity and it is the diversity that has helped us to grow and prosper. For in that diversity many have been welcomed and have come to know Christ as Lord and Saviour that would otherwise not have approached the church. That goes for all spaces on the spectrum - from extreme conservative to extreme liberal (or whatever the politically correct terms you want to insert.)

FWIW, I was in the House of Bishops during at least one of the debates on same sex blessings & the bishops felt quite strongly that this part of the Windsor Report was obviously directed at the Diocese of New Westminster and that The Episcopal Church did not have to address it since General Convention had never authorized rites for blessing same sex unions.

I expect that if they had addressed it, that is what they would have said.

It appears that since the ABC was on this sub-group & at least one of the members is extremely anti-TEC, the report reflects the views of ++Rowan -- hence the approval of BO33 (enacted at his intervention, they all say) even though a lot of people in the House of Deputies who reluctantly voted for it (at the request of the PB-elect) have since repented.

Anyway, it looks like the ABC doesn't want to exclude TEC from the WWAC.

Re: "Anyway, it looks like the ABC doesn't want to exclude TEC from the WWAC."

Please Note- The ABC does not own the WWAC. He has no power (on his own) to include or exclude anyone or any entity.

By the way, even if the current ABC +++Rowan has the power to include or exclude anyone or any entity, he has NEITHER the backbone NOR the conviction to do so, if the truth be told. Whoever is looking up to +++Rowan for some decisive action is wasting his/her time.

HOWEVER, empowered by the HOLY SPIRIT, +++Rowan Williams has the potential to do great things for Christ and His Church, if the ABC would listen more to the Holy Spirit than to the Spinners.

Re: "The group believes therefore that General Convention has complied in this resolution with the request of the Primates."

What a joke!!
The ECUSA General Convention Resolved to "call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”

So, ECUSA General Convention came up with the above Resolution, instead of the clear demand of the WR to place "a moratorium on the election and consent of any candidate for the episcopate living in a same-gender union until some new consensus emerged in the Anglican Communion."

Worse than that, this Sub-Group does not even have the eyes to see or the nose to smell this crap. This a huge joke. Tell, under the ECUSA Resolution that this sub-group finds acceptable, what does "manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church" really mean.

The sad truth is this: Most of these Purple Shirts are more confused than they appear to be. Who are they really serving? Christ or the World?

"For, I would submit that Eucharistic theology is a tad more central to the faith and discipline of the church, than issues of marriage, divorce, and re-marriage, greed (idolatry), or the abstention of eating blood."

You see Thomas, this is where you misunderstand. Eucharistic theology is NOT, for many/most of the "conservatives" on this issue, more important than what the "plain word of Scripture" says. In my private thoughts, I feel about "their" attitude to the Eucharist the way NP feels about TEC's attitude to Scripture. I am just as wrong as he is, difference of belief does not equate with faithlessness, but the difference is certainly there. You must realize that the meaning of words like 'sacrament', salvation', 'tradition', even 'Church' is different for 'them' than it is for 'us', though to think like this for too long leads you to the error of circling the wagons against 'them'. We are at least two very different understandings of Christianity. The trouble is that one thinks itself to be the whole Truth and will not acknowledge the faith of the other.

#1: Anglican fudgemakers?? How about fudgejammers!

An excellent comment, Ann Marie: "I'm not quite sure why they can't accept that since its beginning the church has lived with such diversity and it is the diversity that has helped us to grow and prosper. For in that diversity many have been welcomed and have come to know Christ as Lord and Saviour that would otherwise not have approached the church. That goes for all spaces on the spectrum - from extreme conservative to extreme liberal (or whatever the politically correct terms you want to insert.)"

Sadly, human sinfulness always gets in the way. We can't live with diversity because that puts God in charge of things. JB Phillips was spot on. Humankind's God has to be so small, so that humans have power over other human beings. E.g., "women's ordination is out" (+Iker, Schofield) because that no longer makes women subservient to men. Gays are "beyond the pale of redemption, too" because effeminacy threatens male domination. Anyone who questions "the faith once delivered" (Pike, Spong Borg) or even associates in any way with those who question "orthodoxy" is "guilty" of heresy by association (PB Schori). A great Jewish philosopher, Max Horkheimer, kept repeating in his lectures that an observant Jew must be an a-theist, or else that believer violates the commandment prohibiting images of God. He was spot on. Sinful human beings that we are, we tend to create God in our image, and exclude those whom God includes and loves unconditionally.

"Why force people to stay in one house when they believe very different things and fight each other - this is not wise and it is certainly not brave."

Countless divorces, and scenes of parents divorcing children, or children abandoning parents, are premised on this principle.

Why this enthusiasm for schism? I like this quote from a seventeenth century Huguenot theologian: "Schism, for the Christian, is the worst of tragedies and the worst of crimes."

To foment schism is to go against the prayer of Jesus, "that they may be one."

It is not clear to me that any schism in the history of Christianity was justified or necessary. Even if there was necessity, it was lived as something tragic. Luther trembled over his responsibility to the day of his death.

Frivolous and captious fissiparousness betokens not loyalty to Christ but intolerance of one's neighbour.

All I know is that the Lord has preserved the Anglican Communion for another day, and for that, I give thanks.

Lead us all, O Christ, evermore in the way you would have us go---convert ALL our hearts like unto yours. Amen.

Re Charles' comment at Thursday, 7:59pm.

What exactly is a 'fudgejammer?

Ann Marie - nobody is forcing me to stay in the AC but some are trying to force me and about 70m other Anglicans to accept people as bishops who according to bible should hold no such position.....this is the pressure on the AC and the pressure it is going to have to deal with.

Just to be clear: we are not making this up - you know what the bible says about the qualifications for church leaders: many are not worthy icluding liars, drunkards and, in fact, any unrepentant sinner.......

...that goes for all of us because the gospel is always repent and believe not just believe ad do whatever you think is right (eg Romans 6)

Just read the NT or just read Acts if you want to see why "inclusiveness" is not always and everywhere the right way thing to aim for - sometimes people are wrong and their actions are wrong and unacceptable: this is how 95% of the AC feels about the current leadership of TEC and we will NEVER accept VGR

JCF - are you really open to your prayer being answered if the answer is +Durham and +Duncan are right?

Are you really open to being led by God if that is the way he would have you go?

I hope you are (sincerely)

But you clearly aren't, NP. Look at your previous post, where you say you will never accept Gene Robinson.

Why do you assume that all change must come from those who disagree with you?

"any unrepentant sinner"

Actually, NP, that shgould read any unrepentant homosexual. You don't seem to have aproblem with lack of repentance in other areas.

Merseymike - because I am not the one saying "let's ignore these bits of the bible" - that is why I assume the change must come from those making up a new morality / religion.

I will not change until someone shows me that it was always intended that somebody like VGR should be a bishop - not from sociology / psychology but from the scriptures (which were inspired by The Spirit, remember - so I really doubt he is suddenly contradicting himself and telling me through the current leadership of TEC)

I have no problem with the non-religious who does what he wants...they have integrity to their position. But like many of those non-relgious people, I just do not see the integrity in being ordained but ignoring very clear biblical teaching (as embraced by Lambet 1.10 and The Windsor Report)

Ford - come on, you are normally more reasonable than some on TA!
1Tim3v2:Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach...!

So - when have I EVER said I have no problem with other sins such as (looking at the verse!) drunkeness or polygamy or lack of self-control or lack of hospitality???

No, I mean "unpetentant sinner" - all repentant sinners are welcome -thank God.

NP, this is the problem. You see sin as "breaking the Law". You also find sin by looking at specific verses. That's Bible mining. Of course, Paul says what kind of traits a bishop should have, but I'm sure you'd agree the list isn't exhaustive. And "overseer"? This is Protestant revisionism. For 1500 years (well, perhaps 1300)the Church had bishops, calling them "overseers" is just the way the Reformers justified the innovation of doing away with the Episcopate. A bishop is much more than just an "overseer", it isn't just an administrative job. You seem to have no problem with the sin of false witness being committed by the good bishops of AAC. Is it because Paul didn't say a bishop shouldn't bear false witness that you don't care when +Duncan or +Iker do it? A bigger issue here is one of understanding. Your casual acceptance of the word "overseer" in the above passage shows a very different understanding of the faith than I have. I'm not saying your understanding is wrong, but, as I'm sure you'd agree, we need to acknowledge we don't mean the same thing when we use the same words. I'd venture to bet we'd disagree on the meaning of sacrament, salvation, redemption, atonement, eucharist, perhaps even prayer.

NP,

The problem is that it cuts both ways. Why should I accept that my ordination is not accepted in a number of provinces. There is nothing scriptural against it. The most common excuse I have thrown at me is that it is against tradition not against scripture.

I will agree that there are people who should not be priests (or bishops). I even had a priest that should never have been ordained. There is nothing in the NT or Acts which speaks to whether or not to ordain homosexuals. I would say look at how God works through any deacon, priest, or bishop to see if God has blessed their ministry. The "Satan" is not going to do good work - a house divided against itself cannot stand.

If we could just get out of bed with gays, stop focusing on their sex life from our own judgemental point of view, we could see that God does truly call them and work through them just as God does through straights.

Strangely enough I take comfort that we are not in line with the majority of the 77 Anglicans. Neither was Jesus in line with the religious authorities of his day. They wanted to preserve the status quo, play it safe and that became their idol. Jesus came alone and said no, the work of kingdom is what our focus should be. As Andrew Hutchison wrote on Generation yesterday - we shouldn't be focusing on who's in and who's out - we should be focusing on the issues that make for poverty and oppression and working to bring better wholeness of health to the world (my interpretation of his words). That's what Jesus focused on.

Raspberry Rabbit mentiond, "South Area Clericus meeting at my house tonight for Chili Con Carne"

Heh. Being a native Texan, I'm almost *afraid* to imagine what chili might be like in Scotland =8-O

For those in the States who want an easy way to make the real thing, try this:

http://www.luzianne.com/template_buy_product.cfm?ProductID=71092-00074

or go completely home-made with Lady Bird Johnson's recipe:

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/FAQs/Recipes/chili.asp

Shame on those called to feed and shepherd the flock, but are now operating more like some third-rate politicians than Bishops in the Church of Our Lord. The Lord will surely call all to account.

At the end of the day, The Lord will have the last word on all this. I am not talking of the life after, but of this Disagreement in the Anglican Communion here and now. The Revisionists are wrong, wrong, wrong, and they know it, but don't care.

Ford, Ann Marie

Sadly - I think we will never agree on the words or the meaning of the words which matter.

Basically, I will accept VGR as a bishop if you can show from scriptures that St Paul and St Peter and St James et al would have consecrated a man with his views and lifestyle as a "bishop" or "overseer" or "church leader" in the early church - the branches must stay connected to the vine to live.

No, Spiro, the people who are wrong are those on both sides who create the fiction that their opponents are all the same and are plotting to subvert the will of God for the Anglican Church. They identify "revisionists", "reassors", "bigots", "homophobes", "rebels" and misrepresent each other to put horns on the heads of the opposition. There are those who would say, with as much justification as you feel you have to say what you say, that the "reasserters" are wrong, wrong, wrong, and they know it but they just don't care. The way it is worded is that "traditionalists" are people who know nothing of the Tradition, but defend the morals of a few decades ago as though they were Holy Writ.

Dear Ford Elms,

We have had long-running conversations on this site for some time now and the more I get to know you, the more I respect you, even though we disagree.
I am praying for you, just as I believe you are doing same for me. I have no doubt that anyone who sincerely seeks the Lord will find Him.

It will not surprise me when and if you and I end up on the same side of this issue (It may take decades, but it does not matter).

Therein is our hope.

God's Peace and Love to you, my friend.

"JCF - are you really open to your prayer being answered if the answer is +Durham and +Duncan are right?

Are you really open to being led by God if that is the way he would have you go?"

Of course, NP.

I study Scripture and Tradition---using whatever meager Reason I have---looking for God's leading (and, I listen to the voices of others, including yours NP, for Christian discernment as well). Always.

As +Gene Robinson says, we're *all* too quick to hear our own egos doing a Voice-of-God ventriloquist act---both for ourselves, and for others: I'm as guilty of that as any (Lord have mercy!)

It isn't easy, picking out God's "still small voice" above&beyond the cacophonous din.

But I keep trying---I hope and pray, NP, you do as well. Blessings!

NP,
I'm don't care if you accept +VGR as a bishop or not. He's got no plans to move to your diocese, AFAIK, and you will likely never even meet the man, let alone have the opportunity to refuse Communion from his hand. Your attitude will do more to damage your own soul through anger, hostility, feelings of persecution, and resultant temptation to unChristian behaviour than it will injure anyone else, including +VGR. My only contention to you is that sola scriptura is not the tradition of the faith. It is a Reformation era innovation that may or may not be correct. I cannot argue for the consecration of a partnered gay man in the early Church. They wouldn't even have understood what I was talking about. You seek proof from Scripture, which a theologian might be able to give, indeed, many feel they already have, but I can't. What I am saying is that if you only believe what is in Scripture, your faith is, at best, only a portion of the Catholic faith, you do not subscribe to the Tradition handed down to us, and you thus have no business hurling accusations of "innovation" at TEC. Given that you believe things that were innovative and radical in their day, you also have no business deriding the "innovations" of others. This is NOT a statement on the rightness of your beliefs, merely that in at least two respects you clearly practice the things you see as blameworthy in others.

"I cannot argue for the consecration of a partnered gay man in the early Church. They wouldn't even have understood what I was talking about."

You said it, Ford! :-p

Assuming we could get competant *translation* into Koine (or Aramaic), try explaining "American" to them! (Or, for that matter: "Anglican" ;-/)

"partnered gay man" would be the LEAST of the Early Church's incomprensibilities re +Gene!

[Moreover, wherein the NT says a bishop should be "the husband of one wife", it seems to me that +GR's relationship-status would be *less strange* to the Early Church, than that of Rome/Constantinople (where the requirements for bishop are "NO wife"!)]

"... Constantinople where the requirements for bishop are "NO wife".

Well, even if that one is just because at one time one began to pick monks only for bishop (to that their bishops would be less vulnerable to State pressure).

Further, 3 consecutive spouses are allowed in Byzantine churches because Emperor Basil the Great had 4 simultaneous ones (2 men and 2 women ;=)

Ford - innovation is not always a bad thing - some of the "innovations" of the Reformers were taking the church away from corrupt Tradition and back to the bible.....I only object to innovations which are mistaken, wrong, deliberately taking the church away fom the Bible.....and, as you know, "sola scriptura" is hardly unbiblical as an idea (I won't give you the verses because I am sure you know them)

JCF - thanks for your reply - so pleased that you say you are genuinely open to being led by the spirit even if that meant agreeing with +Duncan....I am not sure everyone is.....we ALL (I include myself and even +Akinola et al) have to maintain that willingness to repent - even when we think we are doing what is right and according to the word and Spirit.

NP,
The idea that insects have four legs is Biblical, but that doesn't make it true. I'm sure you know that the Christian faith is not based on the Bible. We've been over this a million times, and there's abviously no point in doing so again. You put your faith solely in Scripture. I put my faith in the living Tradition handed down from the Apostles. Scripture is a part of this, but it isn't all of it. And that's not faithless, despite what the "reasserters" would have you believe.

"I won't give you the verses because I am sure you know them"

Sorry, but you constantly keep forgetting that you live in a (to the Church) very strange sectarian environment. We do not and cannot know which verses that environment claims for its late modern innovations/heresies (Integrism, Fundamentalism, Trib, Complementarism, fixation with "sex", "Apostolic" leadership, and so on).