"Over at Stand Firm Greg Griffith is extremely unhappy with the latest report."

Lord, forgive me my Schadenfreude.
Lord, save me from my Schadenfreude.
Lord, let me feel compassion for Greg, and all who believe as he does. Amen!

Pray for the Church.

At this point, this is very interesting.

So, ith a few hesitant points, the upshot of the working sub-group is that "GC06" did meet Windsor's expectation, but that the Global South has not at all in terms of incursions inro TEC's space.

It means that the Covenant process is going to be around this position, on the communion doing things together.

So that's all right then. Except it isn't, is it. First of all, the Covenant, if it is pitched at this level, will be no use for those who see it as a maintenance of orthodoxy around a world communion. It will be pointless. And it would be pointless - narrowly drawn, about processes and possibly about consensus building and likely to see dicoeses behave in their own way here ane there.

Secondly, if this is the measure of the outcome, and all primates go back into the Anglican jungle happy enough, then Akinola on a charge is going to look rather instead like a Duke of York who marched his troops up the hill only to march them down again. He would look a fool.

The chances of a recognised TEC within an unrecognised TEC must be near zero now, and a recognised mini-TEC inside a recognised big TEC seems pointless from an Anglican Communion perspective, so it means that the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) will have to carry on.

So the Bishop of Winchester on the radio this morning, and the good friend of Rowan Williams the Bishop of Durham, seem to have been a little sidelined. They are looking a bit daft.

Now they are going to have to decide. Do they support the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) or the Anglican Communion? Is the Covenant likely to be any more than a wet weekend?

Fudge is interesting, because it calls on those who are really aggressive, ie the Church of Nigeria, to be so, rather than the one standing where it is, TEC, to act. Well, we shall see. The other (or "the") HQ down the line has got to decide what to do, from the top of the hill.

Hmmm. Everybody makin' nice nice. What does it all mean? Well, as the old saying goes: It ain't over 'til its over. We can't really tell what kind of horse trading is going on and what kind of deals are being struck until the whole thing grinds down to its conclusion and we, hopefully, have the whole deal out where we see it. (Or, at least as much of it as the Primates have worked out to this point).

Steven

As far as I can see, the report doesn't actually mean much in terms of what the Primates will actually do. I could be wrong, but it seems to be that the sub-commitee was loaded with the most innocuous people that could be found. These are not the far-right or far-left people who cause division in the communion. No real progress will be made until these people are allowed to sit down together, and properly talk (argue?) these things through. It would be very unanglican, not very policital, but everyone would know where they stand.

And it all begins with a whimper and not a bang. Is the bang yet to come?

Whatever the case, the ultra-conservatives online are foaming at the mouth, and that is rather a lot of fun to watch.

Has ++Akinola marginalized himself such that no one will stand with him in his unholy wrath? Let's hope he returns home frustrated and starts his own Communion. It appears that his incursions into TEC may be squashed. Hmm.

On reflection - this is what I learn from the Sub-Committee Report.

1. A consensus - a unanimous agreed position - has been reached between a leading Global South Primate, a leading liberal Primate, two conservative lay people, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the liberal Secretary General.

2. The consensus is to hang on to the Episcopal Church for dear life - to give it the benefit of every doubt, and to strive, strive, strive for unity. Not to give up. Not to split.

3. The consensus is to insist, absolutely, that there is a stop to same sex blessings and to gay bishops. At least for now. Let's talk. And then we'll see.

4. Some sweeping up follows from no 2 and no 3. Namely, the Windsor Report applies to everyone. No cherry picking. No singling out. So the days of cross border interventions are numbered. They are going to be stopped as well, just like the same sex blessings.

5. And there's a threat in there, too. "We do not see how bishops who continue to act in a way which diverges from the common life of the Communion can be fully incorporated into its ongoing life." Did you notice that? Obviously, in context, it means that any US bishop who steps out of line on same sex blessings won't be going to Lambeth 2008. But I suspect it means that Gene Robinson won't be going either - unless he takes a vow of celibacy, like Jeffrey John. And I think it means that Martyn Minns won't be going either, unless he keeps out of any diocese which hasn't agreed to him being there.

6. One last thing I have learned from this - yet again, Akinola doesn't speak for as many people as he and his allies claim. He really doesn't have the Global South in his pocket.

In summary: the sub-committee policy is conservatism AND unity. Everyone has to agree to both. That’s the deal.

The Christian courtesy prevailing is a great credit to Anglicans, especially Drs Williams and Jefferts Schori. The whole squabble may end in something edifying, which is much needed.

The authoritative report finds that the Episcopalian Church has passable jumped through the hoops.

Let's try to understand the rage of those who see lurking in gay-related issues an article by which the church stands or falls. But they have failed to articulate their case in such wise as to give it that massive importance, to make it a matter of orthodoxy. A sign of their inarticulacy is the fact that they have increasingly swerved away from gay-related issues to Christology, revisiting stale controversies of the near-forgotten Bishop Spong and pouncing on innocuous expressions of Dr Jefferts Schori.

It is easy to make noise, hard to make a case. Anglican fudge has defanged the teeth -- not of orthodoxy -- but of precipitous black-and-white identifications of orthodox and heretical.

And the last sentence of the report suggests that the would-be orthodox might take heed lest they fall. They too may have to do some hoop-jumping.

Incidentally, the full complexity of gay experience never even begins to surface in these ecclesiastical squabbles about gays; this was confirmed for me again by today's offering from the following site: http://www.thewildreed.blogspot.com/

What the subcommittee report is saying is that the TEC is basically in good faith and that any quarrels people have with it are not sufficient to be taken as grounds for schism. I do not see the Primates pushing the case for schism, however people like Griffith, Sarah Hey, Ruth Gledhill, David Virtue, and even the Bishop of Winchester seem to revel in the thought of schism. The reasons they will not push for schism are (1) they have failed to articulate a coherent theological case for excommunicating or breaking communion with the Episcopal Church; they flip-flop hopelessly between muddled outrage at gay-friendly attitudes and unconvincing efforts to reheat jaded theological controversies about Christology; (2) if they attack the TEC as non-Windsor compliant they will be forced to examine the mote in their own eye, namely, their own total disregard of Windsor in certain of their activities, which can plausibly be condemned as schismogenic.

If we are following the conservative blogs at all, we can surely hear clearly that Tanzania was supposed to (quote) discipline (unquote) TEC for not unanimously damning folks who are not straight in favor of folks who are, along with other key clusters of the legacy stuff. Various ConsEvs visions of this have been mentioned or suggested. The trial images and the punitive understandings have been more or less vivid in most ConsEvs blogging.

Apart from the joy to see - or at least to overtly imagine seeing - and here it does seem to reach implicitly personal intensities - to see high profile TEC non-conservative leaders singled out and punished - the rest of the most active blogging tends to involve this or that plan or hope that conservatives can use the worldwide communion to sidestep having to keep living in the same church with non-conservatives, as a first step towards laying claims to the properties and funds involved, and a second step of basically using the communion copyright claim plus the siphoned off money to become the only possible Anglican church in North America. A few comments even admit that Canada is going to get it, eventually, as much as TEC is; unless of course using TEC to set a big punitive example puts the fear of ConsEvs into Canada and it quickly turns its back on any non-straight folks inside it, along with siding against its own Charter of Rights (which has oft been interpreted to moderate or even interdict just the sorts of negative thinking, feeling, and doing which is supposed to be essential to the antigay ConsEvs best conscience).

Whew.

Is it really surprising that any non-extreme bishop, left or right or middle, has some hesitations about signing on to this readymade realignment agenda?

For one thing, as anybody knows (except those who have already convinced themselves that progressive understandings of non-straight people make no sense to queer folks or their family or their friends), the fault lines of variance run right through many of the provinces.
If we must realign, mainly according to our variations which have to be turned into battling Anglican fault lines, almost all of the major provinces are rendered vulnerable to some sort of protest formation - only next times, plural advised, on the middle to left ends of the hidden Anglican spectrums. Such strain marks may even be hidden in Nigeria itself, waiting to be thoughtlessly provoked by the new draconian antigay laws.

Fewer and fewer people will have all that much to lose, since these new laws leave so little unpunished space for any Nigerian citizens or believers who are not rabidly antigay already. And the rest of the planet has indeed started to awaken to what is going on in Nigeria. If the planet could help bring down apartheid in South Africa, just think what hidden vulnerabilities in an increasingly global economy Nigeria may encounter if it hews to its most negative traditional paths.

No matter what happens, follow your best conscience, and let God be God. Nothing is done, nothing finished - or indeed the closed realignment views would already be the total of all that we could possibly know and understand.

Simon - pls keep this thread on until the end of the meetings.........JCF and Pluralist are very likely to be less happy in a couple of days time.

We have seen no conclusions so far.
It is far too early to be writing off +Durham and +Winchester and to be celebrating for TEC. Far too early.

Someone will be paying the price of keeping all at the table.

I have no illusions - only by affirming and increasing the hostility to LGBT's will this be achieved.

I can see no joy in affirming what we have always believed, TEC has done enough, we were sold down the river. This may not suit the separatist agenda of some - but they have not lost yet. There is still a head of steam for recognising the separatists.

I apologise for erroneously allowing through a highly objectionable comment. It has now been removed. At least it has shown to some of you why total moderation is needed here.

I've been looking at the lamentations on titusonenine. One asks: "why would +++Cantaur put his name to something so obviously absurd?" But it is surely not absurd to say that the ECUSA despite difficulties have shown good faith and cannot be treated as schismatics, and to ask their critics why they have completely ignored other aspects of Windsor.

" this otherwise silly report." The history of theology and diplomacy is littered with such inspired silliness – e.g. the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification.

"the driving force behind his actions has been to keep as much of the historic Communion together for as long as he possibly can."

And that is what this report will achieve. It is not just a matter of keeping a ramshackly old Communion together; it concerns the life and health of the Church. The Global South constantly underestimate the great damage schism will inflict. In a few years they will be handling gays openly themselves, and they will look pretty foolish then if they have cut themselves off from their original church home.

"So why this report, and why now? I wonder" -- the timing is perfect, as the disarray of the schismatic forces shows.

"Could it be a way of signaling them that the price for a dual province in North America is going to be their agreement that the TEC stays in too (on the grounds that their full response to the Windsor Report is still unclear)?" I don't think the Primates will agree to any dual province.. If you allow it in one province you will end up having to allow it everywhere. Gay-friendly Nigerians could easily ask for alternative primatial oversight and if sufficiently numerous for a province of their own.

If the cumbersome idea of two-tier membership ever materializes, will TEC necessarily be in the lower tier or Nigeria in the higher, especially if both were judged by their treatment of gays (and that could easily become the criterion – look at the speed of change in Europe).

"I think the stakes are now very high and +++Cantaur and ++Abuja are staring eye to eye and looking deep into each other’s soul."

Drama! But Rowan subtler; a seasoned Lambeth bureaucrat, and a capacious theologian. He holds the winning cards.

'And it all begins with a whimper and not a bang. Is the bang yet to come?'

Surely it is the admissablity or otherwise of banging which is moot ?

NP - Of Course it's not offer. Akinola will probably pick up his marbles and leave this afternoon. But he is the schismatic, not TEC. This has been true from the beginning, so why shouldn't it end this way? The non-Anglicans leave, as they should.

C.B.

NP,
Despite all the back and forth between you and I, I do appreciate that you are as passionate about your faith as I am, likely moreso. I appreciate that it distresses you that there are bishops, even on another continent, who countenance what you truly believe to be wrong. I mean no sarcasm here. I am disturbed that you seem to be saddened that schism might not occur. In spite of all I have said about those on "the other side" avoidance of schism is something to be glad of, not sorrowful. It means we will keep on talking, arguing, perhaps even hurting each other, but that is the price to be payed for coexistence. We need each other to pull and push so that pendulum doesn't swing all the one way. Be happy. This is a Good Thing.

NP, I am not celebrating etc.

I wrote "At this point, this is very interesting."

At this point, because I am aware that inconsistencies are part of meetings, and there are going to be pressures as a result of these findings.

NP, you have been clear virtually every post that TEC innovated, is in the wrong and called for "Global TEC" to begin and do something different from Anglicanism. The Windsor findings contradict your view, and an agreement by Primates and a Covenant consistent with this will also fail to support your view.

I am opposed to a Covenant. A Covenant will either be inadequate for the Conservatives or too restrictive for the liberals. It may even be good for neither. Nailing something together by a Covenant when it is spinning furiously will just lead to more shattering. In my view a spinning organisation needs the lightest touch possible if it is to slow down. Federation not communion, even just live and let live.

You might notice, furthermore, that I share some of the views of the Conservatives, in the sense that the Windsor findings are something of a fudge. However, the difference is that I am liberal-radical, and that the theological changes that have taken place ought to be incorporated more openly into Anglican definitions.

The Archbishop wrote recently that there are cultural and historical reasons why the creeds cannot perform the function of keeping the Anglican Communion clearly as one. This is an admittance, by a roundabout route, that we in the West can and many do apply a more liberal and symbolic interpretation of these old creeds - and my point is that if the creeds of the old language cannot do it neither will a Covenant with new language. People will not be put into a straightjacket.

However, a Covenant that is just about Communion and not doctrinal won't however bother such liberal people, but on the other hand it won't do much of a job either for Conservatives and the noisier bishops.

And in any case, my view is that the incursions in to the United States will not stop, and that the structural changes by Akinola will continue regardless. If they don't he will have egg on his face, which is inconsistent with the glory heaped upon him by his own website.

NP, I've just noticed that you have used the word "fudge" as well - perhaps we have an element of agreement, though sometimes fudge can be useful (say on a non-essential matter or something that would upset a more fundamental finding).

If you want to see my attitude to Covenants and the like, and all these written attempts to hold people in, have a look at a piece of mine just published on the National Unitarian Fellowship website:

http://www.nufonline.co.uk/viewpoint.html

Called Moving On, it tells why I moved to the Anglican Church and includes some analysis of conservative postliberal theology (what do you think of that?) as well as more liberal postmodern theology. I also refer to Rowan Williams' theology

I am not sure if the non-registered can see the discussion that resulted at

http://yorkshiregirl.org.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=45

Having reviewed Yesterday's Radicals about beliefs in the nineteenth century, it is worth pointing out that Broad church radicals are not a new innovation, and TEC is hardly doing something new.

"JCF and Pluralist are very likely to be less happy in a couple of days time."

Happy, NP? I'm afraid you just don't know me well enough.

Breathing a (momentary) "sigh of relief" does not happiness make. {*}

There are still far too many (like yourself?) who can't accept me the way *God* made me---insisting, rather, that I've remade my affections in a sinful direction---for me to be TRULY happy.

I carry on, bearing my particular cross, nurtured for the journey by Christ's Body & Blood, given (wonder of wonders! :-0) for *me*. And there are moments of happiness, to be sure.

But true happiness (Godly JOY) awaits 1) the Final Consummation (Parousia) and, short of that 2) reconciliation w/ all my brothers and sisters (starting w/ you, NP). God speed the day! :-D

{*} Thankfully, I'm past the Schadenfreude stage, praise Christ...

Sorry to misread you, JCF.

Yes, true happiness eludes all of us in this life....that's partly why I hate the prosperity heresy.

I would love to be reconciled with you but the only problem I have is that it still seems to me that you are saying something is good / holy which is explicitly given as sin by the spirit-inspired word....would not JC have said "I accept you - go and sin no more" and is that not what Rom 6 would lead you to do?

"true happiness eludes all of us in this life"
Not all of us, NP. Google St. Seraphim of Sarov for the story of one of the many people who have been granted theosis in this life.

"spirit-inspired word". Why put the Spirit inspired word above the Spirit filled Church? Why put the word above the Word?

Ford - "Heaven is a place on Earth" - that is theology by Berlinda Carlisle

Word > Church because the Church / Tradition can get things horribly wrong (as you have pointed out before)

NP,
So can sola scriptura. I ask again, if the "plain word" of Scripture is so plain, then why are there so many different kinds of Protestants? Heck, why are there so many different kinds of Evangelicals? I mean you can't all be right? Just because the Church got some things wrong and needed to be reformed doesn't mean we have to reinvent the Church and give Her a new source of authority. That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

"Heaven is a Place on Earth"? What? Doesn't the New Jerusalem come down to the New Creation in Revelations? If you want to see salvation soley in terms of escaping the consequences of breaking the Law, then fine, but don't go claiming it's "orthodox". The Incarnation is for the redemption of all Creation, not just so we can play in the Heavenly playground when we die. That's....wait for it... Orthodox Christianity. If you want to claim the word, you have to claim the faith, and stop making "orthodox" mean "what we get from the Reformation". Didn't you read the link I gave you? And, sorry, but you can pretend as much as you like that the Bible is separate from the tradition, it isn't.