How, in God's name, have we progressed from Thursday's situation, when the Communion Sub-group, chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury, concluded that ECUSA had largely met the "Windsor" requirements and expressed regrets that "other recommendations of the Windsor Report, addressed to other parts of the Communion, appear to have been ignored so far", to tonight's state of affairs, where a "pastoral council", the majority of whose members are appointed outside ECUSA, will have authority to monitor the internal policies and practices of the American Church and to offer succour to groups that are in active, open rebellion against ECUSA. And no condemnation of the flouting of the Windsor Report by the Nigerian Church and others who are actively interfering in the internal affairs of ECUSA.

The communique is, in fact, a confused, garbled mess. Regardless of which, it inaugurates a state of affairs totally unprecedented in the Anglican Communion, in which factions within the Communion attempt active interference in the internal affairs of a member church, with the threat of sanctions for non-compliance. Time, perhaps, for ECUSA to walk its own way and leave others catch up as best they can.

And in the meantime, perhaps, pick up their own tabs?

Grey, grey, grey, but that's OK.

It's a trade-off between impaired autonomy and impaired communion.

If I understand correctly, the secessionist parishes of ECUSA are now diverted from the dangerous embrace of Akinola back to the wider lap of the Anglican Communion. I spoke with a parishioner of Falls Church the other day, who described the pain of secession; now it looks as if the rift will be healed.

The whole thing bears the stamp of Rowan Williams, reminding one of his minute and scrupulous examination of the synods of the early fourth century and their shadowy participants of subtly varying theological hues (Arius, SCM, 2001).

Where does that leave gays? I think we should first recognize that the issue is primarily about authority and unity rather than a gay-related one. Second, we should admit that public blessing of gay unions has not, or not yet, established itself as an acceptable church practice. Ranting against the bishops as discriminatory, imperceptive etc. is a way of NOT making the argument in favour of such blessings. Third, the call to listen to gay-lesbian experience is still there, and if built upon will inevitably lead to a true and just acceptance of gays in the Anglican Communion.

Looking at Dr Williams speech on marriage (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/070205.htm) I have three thoughts: (1) This extolling of married love is very Anglican; Roman Catholic preachers tend to be less celebratory, being sour and envious celibates, or being more aware of the eschatological proviso that puts virginity ahead of marriage as a Christian vocation. (2) The sermon will be read by gay-lesbians as telling them "get a life" by forming a monogamous same-sex bond; did RW think of this? (3) How do such sermons impact on those who are unhappily married, widowed, or on lonely bachelors and spinsters? Recall Thoreau's observation that "the majority of men lead lives of quiet desperation".

Many gay men are sceptical of civil partnerships (with all the financial and legal aspects, including potential divorce proceedings); such a model of love and marriage is "out of their ken". Is this because of (a) male psychology; (b) homosexual psychology; (c) indoctrination by society or church; (d) indoctrination by a promiscuous gay milieu; (e) moral sloth that fails to rise to the high ideal of lifelong commitment; (f) other factors?

Any good liberal knows the cultural interpretation of turn the other cheek. you could only slap people with your right hand in those days. backhand slap - done only to slaves. after the master backhanded you, you turned your cheek, inviting another slap. problem was a) the master couldn't backhand you with his left hand, it was unclean (or something). b) forehand slap = only done to equals.

Jesus was breaking set. If we in the liberal side of the church think it's a choice between the LGBT community and the Anglican Communion, we're not thinking properly. And, frankly, on the liberal blogs, I've been hearing a lot of people not thinking properly. We have to break set, and we can, because God gave us brains and wants us to use them. Plus, we have time to do so - the Anglican Communion moves slowly.

My initial reaction was over-optimistic; I had missed this: "Archbishop Williams, looking discomfited, admitted that the cost of getting Archbishop Akinola to join the other primates in signing the unanimous communique was allowing him to continue to trespass on Episcopal church territory, at least for the present."

Well, perhaps Jefferts Schori will show amazing forbearance and persuade the ECUSA to walk that extra mile. Given the democratic nature of the ECUSA, the House of Bishops cannot hold back unilaterally on SSBs -- they must persuade their flock to hold back for the purpose of ensuring communion -- indeed, they should argue to gay couples looking for SSBs that their patience will be at the service ultimately of the fabric of charity in the Communion.

The sulphur of schism is very acrid at the Kendall Harmon site, where everyone is talking of giving the TEC enough rope to hang itself with. I think the TEC should avoid being trapped in a posture that can be considered schismatic by these people.

I wonder if anyone at Tanzania made the positive case for SSBs? What is needed is action, not reaction; positive argument and affirmation, not whining. The ECUSA will fulfill its prophetic role if it continues to listen, dialogue and speak its conviction, even if it must refrain from actions the Communion is not yet educated to accept.

While I see a lot of impetuous pique in those calling for schism on both sides, it may well happen that conscience on one side or both will make impaired communion unavoidable. Rowan Williams had an intriguing statement on that last year:

"It is true that witness to what is passionately believed to be the truth sometimes appears a higher value than unity, and there are moving and inspiring examples in the twentieth century. If someone genuinely thinks that a move like the ordination of a practising gay bishop is that sort of thing, it is understandable that they are prepared to risk the breakage of a unity they can only see as false or corrupt. But the risk is a real one; and it is never easy to recognise when the moment of inevitable separation has arrived – to recognise that this is the issue on which you stand or fall and that this is the great issue of faithfulness to the gospel. The nature of prophetic action is that you do not have a cast-iron guarantee that you're right."

Final impression of the Global South: their "firmness" and inflexibility comes from a refusal to reconsider their convictions, and this refusal is laced with homophobia. They at no point speak in a manner consonant with dialogue with gays or lesbians. Their willingness to follow the nakedly homophobic Akinola clearly indicates that their deepest motive is not concern for scriptural authority or church order but an unreflected rejection of dialogue with their gay-lesbian sisters and brothers. I know that such a judgement will sound shrill and one-sided, but it seems to me that the abundant documentation in this debate bears it out substantially. Even had the Global South spokespeople paid lip-service to gays and their families, expressed even token repentance for past injustices to gays, shed even a few crocodile tears, even muttered platitudes about their sympathy and understanding for gays, this might have altered the complexion of the matter. But the tone of hostility of gays and to gay-friendly ecclesiastics such as Jefferts Schori was set early, by Akinola, and was reinforced rather than softened in the prevalent Global South rhetoric. All of this is a shameful record, which will stand as a stupendous moral failure of the Global South, whatever validity their may be in their unease with liberal ethics and theology.

Surprisingly, Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney leaves open the possibility that the ECUSA attitudes are "prophetic and true": http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/senior_clergy/archbishop_jensen/articles/truth_and_unity_collide

The Rowan Williams passage that Fr. O'Leary quotes is interesting. One feels great sympathy for Dr. Williams. It seems clear that during these past few days he has been deeply humiliated by Akinola and his supporters - the real reason for the way that the ground has shifted during this period. The archbishop's main priority, of course, must be to preserve what unity remains in the Church of England. If the ongoing external interference in the affairs of ECUSA continues - and I think it certain that it will, for entirely too much human pride is invested in this situation - it is unlikely that the shock waves will be confined to the western shore of the North Atlantic.

In an earlier post, Fr. O'Leary notes that "we should admit that public blessing of gay unions has not, or not yet, established itself as an acceptable church practice". Yet once a year I may take a pet rattlesnake to the very middle-of-the-road (no offence intended by the description) local Episcopal cathedral to be blessed. Interesting dichotomy. And interesting pre-Christian overtones to the blessing of animals. Strange situation. Where do Abp Akinola and his buddies stand on this one? One suspects that they may not approve. Paganism in ECUSA? Our next, exciting installment, perhaps?

Clarity, honesty,trust, real unity - that's what we desperately need in the AC

Maybe "TEC GLobal" needs to be launched for that to occur for both the AC and TEC under its current HoB.

Fr Joseph

You obviously feel very strongly at this stage.

On one of your earlier postings on this thread you commented that "Many gay men are sceptical of civil partnerships..."

This is not just a gay male phenomenom. Many heterosexual males and females are sceptical of both civil partnerships, de facto relationships or even church marriages.

In large part because there are a layer of people who only get married because they "have to". There are another layer who get married for opportunistic reasons (e.g. the other partner's assets) and are not honest about their motivations. There are another layer who court someone pretending to be nice and gentle, but once married drop any pretence of caring and proceed to act as if their partner is nothing more than a millstone cramping their style or even go so far as to act as though they don't exist.

This isn't an issue of gender of people are doing with their partner of whatever other gender's "little bits" in the bedroom ( :-) Thanks to whichever author came up with that phrase last week - one of the Giles, I think).

The sanctity of life long monogamous relationships is not based purely on whether or not children are conceived and raised, nor whether there is a ceremony with or without a religious rubber stamping. There is also a need for genuine commitment between the two souls concerned, and no amount of churchly intervention or appropriate forms or paperwok can make the relationship healthy and functional.

There are many men and women out there who can testify that churchly (non)intervention has been ineffective, oblivious or even collusive with dysfunctional abusive behaviours within domestic relationships. And I am sorry, but neglect and ignoring a partner is one form of abuse - it hurts psychologically, emotionally and often financially and physically as resources are diverted or withheld that are required to provide basic sustenance and a stable dwelling.

I would like to see how things are played in the real world. Are people going to be genuinely hospitable to those they don't approve of, or are they going to be machevelianly charming whilst planning how to eliminate the alternatives?

One of the dynamics that has caused problems for Christianity (and many other faiths) over the eons is the attempt to supercede and replace previous covenants. This is an extract from a letter I sent to one such group this morning, and has some key principles that our own communion could benefit from contemplating:

"Do not make a mistake of thinking that Isaac’s inheritance voided Ishmael’s inheritance. That is the same error as thinking that Jesus’ covenant voided the Mt Sinai covenant. Everlasting covenants to one group of souls continue to apply, other groups are added as and when God is ready.

To resolve conflict in this (our) generation, we need to understand that God has multiple covenants and that Jesus acts as the advocate on behalf of ALL the covenants. Those to the eunuchs (Isaiah 56:3-5), to Ishmael (Genesis 21:8-21), the Recabites (see Jeremiah 35), the Christians, the Jews, and those of other flocks known to God even if not yet named to humans (John 10:16).

God despises sibling rivalry and the attempt to disinherit and destroy others e.g. Ezekiel 34:17-31 and Obadiah 1:10-18

Rather, God calls us to hospitality and this is how Jesus meant to fulfill his destiny as in Micah 4; which includes "He will judge between many peoples and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. Every man will sit under his own vine and under his own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid, for the LORD Almighty has spoken. All the nations may walk in the name of their gods; we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever. “In that day,” declares the LORD, “I will gather the lame; I will assemble the exiles and those I have brought to grief. I will make the lame a remnant, those driven away a strong nation. The LORD will rule over them in Mount Zion from that day and forever."

I hope this helps your people, remember if you seek to exclude others then do not be surprised if others seek to exclude you."

The Covenant proposal does in fact look like a ”compromise” – one of the compromised kind inexperienced and dysfunctional meetings are wont to come up with.

The Primates grants what is not theirs to those who have no right asking for it, at the expense of the holders – the church chosen for political attack.

The "Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the Primates undertake to end all interventions" is a clear warning that the drafters are not up to the task;

No one can predicate an action on an action not within their reach, which may or may not take place in an unreliable future.

Completed to make it symmetric, including addressing the developing social, legal (Civil Partnerships) and canonical situation in the churches of England, Canada, Scotland, South Africa, Australia & c., as well as the reality and illegality of diocesan crossings, poaching, piracy & c., and with a paragraph or two on TEC and other Provincial constitutions and canons (the importance of General Convention, appointment or not appointment of bishops & c.), and why not a condemnation of the up and coming Akinola-driven Nigerian legislation, this draft may perhaps be worth consideration.

As a draft – for it is only a "draft".

Nevertheless. I think a Covenant will do little good (possibly bring a very temporary relief in some corners) but is certain to cause havoc everywhere in the longer perspective.

The Primates (the least irrational ones, that is) need to be told in no uncertain terms that contrary to establishing Hierarchy (which seems to be what they think they are doing), they are legalizing the present IRD Anarchy for all Provinces and all ages to come...

Do they really want to have pirates and poachers in their own backyards – if not now, in 5 years time?

Not to mention what a spectacle this is to the bystander.

Father O'Leary, you do yourself no service when you mischaracterize those with whom you disagree. The thing that matters here is that Anglicanism find a way to be a genuinely catholic church.

When I said there was but a thread left earlier in the week, I was talking about for the Communion. If there is a split, everyone loses. We need to have a sense here of the greater good.

The report, which was inaccurate and was implicitly critiqued in the final communique, would have made, in my view, schism more likely.
I believe in the present situation there is now more room for hope for the future of the Communion.

I concede that some reasserters seem to want schism for its own sake, but that is not the position of the majority, nor certainly of the majority of reasserting leadership at the present time. I have consistenly tried to critique such notions, and will continue to do so.

And for his next trick, the ABC will get over his post-colonial guilt and tell the Nigerians where to stick their extra-provincial meddling. Won't he?

As I understand it Robert Piggot's comment below is not accurate:

"Anglican archbishops have demanded that the liberal American church accept a separate organisation for breakaway traditionalist congregations."

It looks to be more analogous to the Church of England's Provincial Episcopal Visitor scheme (= flying bishops), as the Primatial Vicar, although appointed with some representation from outside TEC, is to receive consent and delegated authority from the Presiding Bishop of TEC. Thus, as far as I can see, there is no "separate" organisation being set up here, and certainly no parallel church. The breakaway groups have been told that they must accomodate themselves to this arrangement, that is, they must acknowledge the jurisdiction of TEC.

I'm away in Cambridge and able to react from a commercialised NHS hospital and at a rush of digesting this news.

It seems to me it hangs on this primatial vicar taking over from Akinola, via the original suggestion of the Presiding Bishop. At the same time, the Episcopal Church has to freeze its intentions. The power that Akinola has by being in the US already has pushed the thing his way, at some steps from the Sub-Group report, but not completely.

It seems to me to be a mess, one where clarity and best result is saying to TEC to not to agree to the freeze. They might, and wait to see if Akinola gets out. He may not, but his is the real power. At the same time, the Presiding Bishop remains a player.

The fault of this is surely this thing called the Anglican Communion. It is playing too big a role and causing no end of distortions.

The interesting outcome, as far as I can tell, is that both liberals/ progressives and conservatives are now saying the Episcopal Church should leave the communion. I think it should do its course as set, and let it be removed.

I read The Guardian first (well, browsed at it in one of these hospital shops) and it is about leaning on the liberals. It is more complicated than that. There is still no censure on TEC, there is still full inclusion, it just has to freeze itself. Well, it might for a while, but if Akinola and company don't get out then it should get out.

There may be more important principles of autonomy and prophetic witness towards inclusion than this fix. This is my view.

This fix in any case means no fix for the Anglican Churches - actual Churches - because it means - just as a TEC within is TEC *IS* now back on the agenda (which is inconsistent) it also means a C of E within the C of E (and so on).

In other words, Rowan Williams' first political fix, which was enough, the two out of three, was not enough for the powers in the communion, and so he has gone for a TEC within a TEc, it spells disaster for Churches if it helps the communion, and it should be chucked out.

Matthew
That was the Today programme blurb from the BBC website, not (AFAIK) a quote from Robert.

Just to say, briefly, that it's of course too early to come to a final conclusion on all of this.

It seems that if TEC stays within the Anglican fold as currently constituted that they won't be able to ordain gay bishops or publicise a same sex blessing ritual until a wider consensus emerges (one that we haven't even managed to accomplish in our own Province of England or any other province apart form Canada). And of course I'm very sad about that.

Apart form anything this allows a prolonged cooling off period, which in the long run will turn people away from the current high octane conflict based discourse towards more settled and open reflection, which can only be good.

I would also say this - my view has been for some time that the reform of the secular law abd defence of human rights for LGBT peopole is far more important than debates in Anglicanism.

Progress for LGBT people doesn't come to an end, it continues in all sorts of ways within society - including for instance in parishes and other church groups.

We're too far focused on what happens at Convention/synod level and not sufficiently focused on other levels - parishes and dioceses, local communities and the government.

And when that happens, the churches will (eventually) follow but it will take a lot of time. It took the American Church at least 3 decades to move to where it is now, and even there the move has been painful and difficult.

More time is needed for the prophetic move of TEC to be able to gain a wider consensus. This settlement offers the prospect of that, but obviously no guarantees.....

"It took the American Church at least 3 decades to move to where it is now, and even there the move has been painful and difficult."

And it isn't all of TEC that has gotten to "where it is now". The thing is that certain parts of TEC took Lambeth '88, and before, seriously, listened, and found they couldn't depersonalize gay people any more. Whether or not they have made the right decisions as a result is another story. The point is they made these decisions fully aware that they were talking about fully human beings, not some poor afflicted husks. I believe this is why the Right has no interest in listening. They are afraid that if they are forced to confront our humanity, that we are PEOPLE who are gay and not some poor straight people who are afflicted by the "experience" of same sex attraction, this will somehow make them turn away from their message of "no gay sex". Now why this should be is a mystery, unless they secretly feel their opinions are actually based on bigotry hiding behind Scripture, as a good many think. Surely, if their message is from God it isn't weakened by actually listening to the experiences of those to whom the message is directed. Surely if they think the salvation of gay people hangs in the balance, they would want to find out as much as they can about us so as to better reach us with the message of salvation, no? Their unwillingness to do this shows how hollow is their "concern" for my salvation. They are more interested in defending their position as the poor persecuted Faithful Ones.

Just a thought, I'm wondering what would happen if the TEC HoB proclaimed moratoria (as per WR) for a certain specified time frame (only) to allow for the listening process that Lambeth requested & which has only been done by TEC (& possibly the Anglican Church of Canada) AND to allow time for the foreign bishops who have recruited parishes from TEC to apologize and withdraw.

But I am very interested to see what ++Katharine will do with this.

I find myself with a sad deja vu of another Brit waving a paper and saying peace in our time.

Ford

The emotions of your experience are not unique to GLBTs. Try being a bleeding heart liberal in an archconservative diocese where you are told that the suffering in Africa is okay because it's part of God's plan. Try keeping a straight face when the leaders of that same diocese try to come out batting as the most moral crusaders for the African continent.

Try being a woman in an abusive marriage.

Try being a child being molested by people "in" with the church leadership.

Trying being an indigineous parent who has had their children stolen, or one of those stolen children put into a "proper" Christian family.

The healing for is GLBTs stymied if they fall into a victim mentality that exclusively obsesses about their circumstances. Profound healing comes when a broader perspective is taken and the bible re-read with a view to how God perceives mistreatment of children, the poor, women, the elderly, the afflicted, the marginalised, the outcastes. That integrated interperative perspective makes it clear that the problems confronting GLBTs are not unique to them.

The dynamics of a church leadership that condones or even encourages complacency, marginalisation, hate sermons, self-justifying paradigms/blinkered thinking, clique behaviour apply equally across all forms of discrimination. The labels, who is being targetted might vary. The resources and who might defend you might vary. But only marginally.

It is merely changing labels on an underlying dynamic that says it is okay to ignore the needs of "non-citizens".

One roadblock to comprehension was scholars obsession over labels, e.g. not taking a step back to define what it was that Jesus did not like about Pharisees led to a failure to develop a more generic model that can apply across different denominations, faiths and circumstances. The same error was made when they called me a Baal prophetess. They failed to ask what it was that God hated about Balaam (and conversely what God loved about Abraham). Thus they did not have a generic model and fell into the trap of chasing labels and not analysing substance.

I think God has really enjoyed the last couple of years. No new texts, just making people go back and read the existing texts. The words have been there all along, and you didn't see them? Not my problem, says God, and so much for all your "complete" wisdom. (Isaiah 45:18-25)

Craig ; I don't agree.

I think the time has come to give up on the Anglican Communion and for all gay people to leave the Anglican church

If TEC hasn't got the courage of its convictions, that will be sad, but there is absolutely no way that I would step into a CofE church again.

Canon Kendall, I was not referring to your own postings so much as to the comboxes full of stuff about giving the TEC a noose to hang themselves with.

Merseymike,
For all I can see, leaving the Anglican Church hasn't helped you much. You are incredibly angry and resentful when it comes to the Church. Unless you were even moreso before, leaving the Church really hasn't helped you at all. You obviously bear large scars on your soul, if leaving the Church has helped them heal, it doesn't show. With that parting word I take my leave. It's Lent, and I am fasting from Thinking Anglicans for the next 6 weeks at least.

I may be posting on the wrong thread here... I'm getting more and more frustrated at the conservative's efforts to reduce my relationship to sexual activity.

It's like describing the feeling of putting your baby to your breast for the first time in the words of using a Mothercare breast pump!

As Elm speaks of Lent, I've been feeling particuarly on the defensive today and my prayer for Lent this year has to be that God may keep finding me and help me not to become cynical, angry or disillusioned. Reading all those posts from angry and disappointed people is terribly corrosive and I shall pray that I will not develop my own victim mentality!

No, Ford. I simply wish to oppose homophobia. And I think it is primarily located within institutional religion.Thus, I oppose it.

In this journey I have come to realise that much of traditional Christianity is nonsense, in my opinion. So, your approach no longer makes any sense to me - simply because I don't regard myself as a 'Christian' in the way you might define it.

My only interest is in opposing homophobia. I really couldn't care less about either the Church as an institution or Christianity as a religion. If it is positive towards gay equality then I will support it, if not, I will oppose it.

I am certainly aware that homophobia needs to be challenged and fought.I don't feel that your sort of compromising approach has done any good at all. If thats what you mean by heal - becoming a compromier with no backbone who seems to think that religious myths are more important than gay and lesbian equality - well, thats not a place I would wish to be.

Frankly, I think that the problem is Christianity itself. Unreformed, it is something I would prefer to see marginalised and opposed