Craig Uffmann's comments are very interesting.

I do think that both Rowan Williams and Katharine Jefferts Schori are practitioners of "overaccepting." The master of this art is Desmond Tutu.

These three bishops see good in everyone and leave everyone with the impression that they are accepted and affirmed. Dealing with both liberals and conservatives, both aggressors and victims (in South Africa or Northern Ireland in Tutu's case) the "overaccepting" pastor makes them feel: "you're all right".

Yet this curiously does not prevent them from pointing out sin and error.

Focusing on the positive they challenges people to live up to what is best in themselves.

The analogy of Jesus's conversation with the Samaritan woman is excellent.

It is nice to see that titusonenine are taking up such positives reports. Ululations continue in some quarters -- one poster says TEC ain't no Samaritan woman, but rather a Caiaphas!

A cross-post from Tobias Haller's blog, concerning those who cannot bring themselves to share Eucharist and grow in charity (recall that probably in olden times, the terrible pitched dilemma was the outrageous Anglican notion that Puritans and Catholics could share eucharist and thus lay down their weaponized doctrinal disputes):

… more cruel and unreasonable are they than brute beasts, that cannot be persuaded to be good to their Christian brethren and neighbours, for whom Christ suffered death, when in this sacrament they be put in remembrance that the Son of God bestowed his life for his enemies. We see by daily experience that the eating and drinking, together maketh friends and continueth friendship; much more then ought the table of Christ to move us so to do. Wild beasts and birds be made gentle by giving them meat and drink: why then should not Christian men wax meek and gentle with this heavenly meat of Christ? Hereunto we be stirred and moved, as well by bread and wine in this holy supper, as by the words of scripture recited in the same. Wherefore whose heart so ever this holy sacrament, communion and supper of Christ will not kindle with love unto his neighbours, and cause him to put out of his heart all envy, hatred, and malice, and to grow in the same all amity, friendship, and concord, he deceiveth himself, if he thinks he hath the spirit of Christ dwelling within him.

-- Thomas Cranmer, (Defence of the True and Catholic Docrine of the Scacrament, 1550)

Thanks to Dave Walker for an absolutely astute analysis.

"It is clear that Lambeth Resolution 1.10 is going to continue for the foreseeable future as the standard of teaching by which the Anglican Communion as a whole will live."

A reflection....

I had a good friend, a gifted, gay Anglican priest, who met a violent end.....because he looked for love in all the wrong places.....because his church didn't offer a responsible alternative. That was 25 years ago, and it still doesn't and won't "for the forseeable future." How terribly, terribly sad.

But if that is to be the situation, does the church have anything to say to a young gay person, who is troubled, beyond,"Try not to do it. But if you must, do it and confess it." I'd love to hear from Canon Philip Groves or someone in authority, on this. Will the church provide guidance to its clergy on how to sensitively deal with young gays? Will it provide the equivalent of "Anger management" courses for young gay people, who are having difficulty controlling their sexual impulses. Or will it be left to individual clergy to muddle through.

Resolutions have consequences, sometimes tragic consequences, on the ground. I haven't heard anything beyond "motherhood and apple pie" - vague statements about pastoral care, to suggest that the church is willing to accept and address the consequences of it's resolution.

Too many comments needing to be made in too many places. Dave Walker's cartoons delighted me. Jonathon Petre's quote of Colin Coward pleased me.

One thing that has left me fuming for the last day are souls who claim to speak on behalf of the Holy Ghost/Spirit. Two reasons, firstly, two years ago leaders associated with this camp denied that Spirit spoke directly to people, so I still am bewildered how a camp that completely denied Spirit two years ago can claim to have the "inside word" on what Spirit does or does not endorse.

Secondly, I am really, really pissed off that people can say that Spirit intended the holy texts to be used to justify hatred and explusion of God's children. (Isaiah 45:10) Or that the holy texts were meant to be a carte blanche enslavement and brutalisation of women in perpetuity, all because of one woman's (Eve) "mistake" so many eons ago. Or to infer that God is incapable of healing or forgiving or redeeming Eve and/or other women.

It is a form of rape to impose circumstances upon a woman and then congratulate her for surviving and telling her that you knew all along that she was "strong enough" for the tests bequeathed to her. Women have no desire to be raped, survive violence, raise children in poverty, just so they can be patted on the back at the end. Women want to be loved, treated with honesty and respect: they want to be able to trust and not be looking for the next trap or snare that is going to "refine" their character.

Sure, we might be strong enough to survive without men or their approval, but don't expect us to thank you for the tests. Don't expect us to trust you, as we know that around the corner you plan to throw us into the next crocodile infested pond to prove that we can survive.

But if that is to be the situation, does the church have anything to say to a young gay person, who is troubled, beyond,"Try not to do it. But if you must, do it and confess it." I'd love to hear from Canon Philip Groves or someone in authority, on this. Will the church provide guidance to its clergy on how to sensitively deal with young gays? Will it provide the equivalent of "Anger management" courses for young gay people, who are having difficulty controlling their sexual impulses. Or will it be left to individual clergy to muddle through.

'Resolutions have consequences, sometimes tragic consequences, on the ground. I haven't heard anything beyond "motherhood and apple pie" - vague statements about pastoral care, to suggest that the church is willing to accept and address the consequences of it's resolution.'

Posted by: Andrew Innes on Saturday, 17 February 2007 at 9:40am GMT

Thank you for this Andrew Innes, it is absolutely right. 'Resolutions do have consequences.' I remember when I used to struggle, alone, as rather lost young gay person---off to the conessional, after my all too frequent 'slippings-up'.

I was very moved to read of your friend. We owe it to him and to all young people.....

'I am really, really pissed off that people can say that I am really, really pissed off that people can say that Spirit intended the holy texts to be used to justify hatred and explusion of God's children. (Isaiah 45:10) Or that the holy texts were meant to be a carte blanche enslavement and brutalisation of women of God's children. (Isaiah 45:10) Or that the holy texts were meant to be a carte blanche enslavement and brutalisation of women ..'

Thanks as always for your generous sharing Cheryl.

'..Spirit intended the holy texts..' this phrase has particularly struck me, in its context.

I have been much occupied by the sense that we have direct access to Spirit --as Jesus says in his message. It is so easy (forme) to lose the living truth of it and act on it. Enter it.
Have the priamtes at Dar received the Spirit ? I look for signs of it. Will they speak to each of us in our onw tongues ? Will they bind up the poor all along the route from the airport (movingly reported by Andrew Hutchinson of Canada). Will the beseexh the Government of Nigeria not to pressahead with Criminalizing lgbt people and any who would support us ?

Yes, kudos once again to Dave Walker for summarizing it all to date. His voice is a spiritual gift to us. Yeah Dave.