"Unity with Integrity" would be a better way to describe what the Primates' Communique is aiming to achieve.

"Unity" without integrity is what we currently have - and it does not seemm to benefit anyone very much.

Some people are really happy with the communique

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/anglicans-set-deadline-for-us-reforms/2007/02/20/1171733763578.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/an-anglican-unity-of-sorts-but-bring-on-lambeth/2007/02/19/1171733684118.html?page=2 let's you know who is coming to Lambeth

American gays wanting a blessing should come to England. Here blessings for same sex partnerships are becoming routine. We have gay bishops and deans too ! Perhaps England should be 'put on notice' and sever communion with the Anglican communion. There is no logic to the agreement, it's just the mother of all fudges. The Episcopal Church should retain its integrity and respect, simply stand on it's own feet and not be part of this moral blackmail.

This agreement is born out of moral weakness and, once more, Christians are seen as intolerant, bigoted and hateful.

A time of fasting, time-out? This idea has obvious merit and has been shown to work in other spheres. However, it begs the question,"For how long are we to fast? For an indefinite period, for "the "forseeable future"?" to use the ABC's words. In other words, how long will the "cooling off period"be?

When peoples' rights are set aside in the interests of some greater good, it is not uncommon to "sunset" those provisions. A case in point would be draconian anti-terrorism provisions brought in after 9/11, which will soon die unless renewed, - to give a Canadian example.

Following the same principle, it seems to me that if the American, or, for that matter, Canadian, HofB accedes to the request for a moratorium, - in other words, sets aside justice for GLBT's in the interests of unity, it should only do so for a set period of time until the matter is debated again. It should also be made clear, at the outset,that renewal will depend, among other things, on a demonstrated commitment by the Global South partners, to the "Listening process" and their willingness to defend the fundamental human rights of GLBT people within their regions.

I always favour integrity over unity - but it does make things increasingly difficult.
For example, employees of whatever organisation have to submit to the dubious proposition that their organisation and its ethos are superior to all rivals. This is not something one can do with integrity. With increasing education more people will realise this.

It is the same in the church. People are now well educated enough not to have to blindly follow whatever the minister tells them. This leads to a radical pluralism. That is far preferable to mindless obedience - but such fragmentation does make organised action difficult.

Tom above makes the point well. I suspect the reason why the conservative primates have not made much of a move against the C of E is because they can achieve alot more with +Rowan boxed into their camp. This has been demonstrated by this primates' meeting. Without Canterbury what hold would the conservatives have over the rest of the communion? What prospect would a covenant have? For the moment it is essential to the conservative cause to hold on to Canterbury come what may. It still gives them clout and authority. Once the US and Canada are dealt with and the liberals in the communion marginalised or removed then I believe they will deal with the C of E. (Who will stop them?) The take-over will then be complete and the historic comprehensiveness of Anglicanism destroyed. How such a conservative institution will minister to the needs of England will remain to be seen. In my view +Rowan has put the unity of the Anglican communion over and above the needs of preaching the gospel in the culture of 21st century England. Ecumenically, once dissident liberals are mopped up this will make it much more likely that some sort of rapprochment with Rome will be easier and more likely. The bench of bishops will reflect the new politic - anyone liberal or 'dodgy' will be deemed unable to subscribe. Perhaps then we will even see the time that +Rowan could see in theory but never in reality, viz. the re-examination of women in hold orders. Fanciful? I really hope so.

The Guardian piece Unity over Integrity puts the whole thing very clearly. And is followed by some very clear thinking, helpful comments and anakyses of readers.

Some PROGRESS

In the recent past anti-gay forces (I had the typo orces and addd the 'f'--orcs is not such a mistake -- in fact!) would have done their dirty work in private, secretly picking off and abusing individual gay people or couples; now it is in the light of day, with wide community comment, including the media, thinkers and 'ordinary' people. As far as this kind of more corporate treatment of lgbt people goes, it is relatively recent, In the past, those in power made their decisions, and issued their commands from a secret place of entitlement. Now we are all privy to these discussions, threats and edicts ! The sense of entitlement (an important word) of those in power is less likely to carry the day.

We all know the so-called primates --actually a group a very fallible men and one woman, were very split on many things. It would have more honest and moral to have said so. And to have expressed the range of opinions (like the Welsh bishops did quite straightforwardly) , perhaps with votes per opinion. Rather than try to manufature something all would sign in the heat of the moment, in the middle of the night (like a one nite stand, possibly, to be regretted-if not repented at leisure). This latter is very dishonest and not very fit for purpose.

A more honest catenna of views would have had the merit of having some integrity; and be list of ideas for discussion.

It is disheartened to see horse-trading embraced so enthusiastically and shamelessly, in a spiritual gathering, And to see the PB for instance, cornered into a postion we know is not her own. This kind of thing is spiritually and morally corrosive. It kills the spirit. It numbs the capacity for creativity and reflection; it sears the ethical sensibility.

How real did they get about their own spiritual and sexual & intellectual journies ? Probably not at all--- in my book, this means they lack the only authority worth having.

Those of us who have done this, or are embarked on this (a lfietime's exploration), have nothing to fear from such men, unless we allow them to mesmerize us with their claims to social and spiritual superiority,

AlaninLondon has much more of sense of strategy than I. I think I am too naive. (ah well...). This analysis of his (above) has the ring of truth. I think there is a lot in it.For us to think about; and to take on board (especially those in a postion to strategize or influence the institutional Church at all).

Puts me in mind of The Anschluss

We have been WARNED...

As I see these developments, the extreme conservatives are no longer a separatist minority, they are now a legitimate structure within TEC, answerable not the the PB but to a council of primates. When their partners in other provinces decline to withdraw their incursions, because of whatever objection they create, they will be in a powerful and 'legitimate' position to be the official Anglican Communion presence in the USA. In addition to this, the covenant commits the whole American Church to bow to whatever decision the Primates make about them. This is the first step in complete control of TEC shifting outside its constitutional norms. If in fact they bow to these demands, Canada will be next and in fact England won't be far behind.

The other issue that no one seems to be talking about is the new 'Hermenutical committee'. Who's on that body? At what point will we be told what the only legitimate meaning of the Bible can be if you want to be part of the Anglican Communion?

Colour me paranoid, but I see a major narrowing of the broad tent we used to call the Anglican Church. It looks to me like Oliver Cromwell has come back to haunt us and this time may win.

1. Those who have “lost trust” in TECUSA *need* the American Church to “embrace fully” the WR’s recommendations. (DeS 31)
2. Those who have intervened in other province’s jurisdictions *need* to keep on doing it, apparently until there is episcopal oversight that isn’t KJS. (DeS 32)
3. Those who don’t trust the intervening bishops *need* TECUSA to embrace the WR, in order for the interventions to cease. (DeS 33)

And in point 34, it’s stated that the intervening bishops “believe it would be inappropriate” to stop intervening until there is a change in the Episcopal church.

+KJS might speak of a “time of fasting”, and that makes fine sense, but only if the needy people mentioned above were also willing to fast from their own need for non-jurisdictional intervention. (As unequivocally requested in the WR, D155) As this communique does not call for anyone to adhere to WR D155, it all seems ridiculously one-sided and pointless – like picking bits out of Scripture to stress, and ignoring others.

Has anyone considered that maybe the Primates' call for a statement from the HoB could actually be advantageous for progressives? The HoB can make any statement it wants to. They can say that the moon is made of cheese. However, without the force of General Convention, it's rather like the statements from Lambeth in that they are toothless and non-binding. The primates have asked for something that is, truly, only a partial response from TEC. Perhaps we should give them the response that they ask for and then allow them to sort out the fact that it's fairly meaningless. Then they will be faced with having to request the same thing from GC *and* the HoB *together* (assuming the primates come to understand the polity of TEC), which will have to wait (possibly) until 2009. That should allow the clock to run for a while longer, and time is on the side of progress. Meanwhile, if everyone follows the schedule set forth by the primates, ++Akinola and his ilk will have to go home and the dissenting parishes will have to return to the fold. Some interesting possibilites exist.

The report of the Sub-Group gave the Episcopal Church two out of three, with a neutral third, and that itself was a political fix (whatever its merit or lack of merit) that made the Conservatives depressed, and kept the Episcopal Church on board though slowed some of its freedoms. Unfortunately it did not deal with the reality that Akinola and others had already put his foot into the United States.

So the actual agreement ends with a shift in his direction, to apparently create the primatial vicar option once suggested by Jefferts-Schorri, but with foreign oversight, and toughens up compliance with a deadline, but still no actions against the Episcopal Church.

It reminds me of Northern Ireland, where negotiations sway and deadlines get imposed, with no agreement now but a deadline.

The practicalites here do not work. Martyn Minns will remain as a bishop of the Church of Nigeria, and presumably Nigeria will wait for a September declaration by Episcopal Church bishops. In turn they will regard Nigeria suspiciously, because of the reality of CANA. Furthermore, these bishops may decide that they cannot alone make these decisions and need a General Convention.

They may indeed decide that the faithfulness and integrity of their Church requires that they do not sign to these outward restrictions. Plus, the not quite TEC within a TEC does still involve the Communion: wider than Nigeria, but Nigeria leaning and pushing what goes on.

One possibility here is, like Northern Ireland, to play with deadlines, and make little moves and look for reciprocal actions regarding the other side. But to what eventual outcome?

It is not like Northern Ireland, is it, because the eventual agreement is to freeze a situation that is temporary anyway - the isolation of full recognition of gays and lesbians in terms of celebrations and ministry. An agreement to stop something that could start again when the magical religion and rural cultures of north of South Africa apparently "catch up"?

Come on. Churches are (as The Guardian infers) about ethical standards of honesty. The Episcopal Church has democratic processes. If it falls-in, the structures from abroad are basically still there and it has lost its integrity and for what? So it should decide that this inclusion is more precious.

Then dismiss the conserving, bureaucratic Covenant, so that other Anglicans can rise to do the same.

Andrew Innes --
Please see my proposal from yesterday on benchmarks

AlaninLondon --
What you say makes excellent sense, unfortunately

BTW -- my prediction:

Most likely the HoB will sacrifice some gays & lesbians & be told that it is not enough

I can easily go with the first third of what AlaninLondon says (12:38pm)

on another note, I've been trying to find what is scheduled for the Nigerian church in October, to see if that has influenced the September deadline. Unfortunately their website doesn't work so well on my mac.

Can anyone tell me why the September date? Or what is scheduled for the Nigerian church after that?

It is useful to read something, and having read it I am revising my view of this Covenant and what it does. It does look like something very plastic or rubbery. It is possible, for example, to take a view that all the problem scritural texts can be interpreted to still allow faithful lesbian and gay people can be included in all levels of ministry and with church blessings. That's number 3 of 'Our Commitment to Confession of the Faith'.

In practice, though, it means an attempt to impose at communion level whatever is the going balance of opinion and cultural readings of selected scriptural texts. One wonders where the ordination of women would be if individual Churches were not able to innovate on the basis of own understandings.

I would tweak very little of it, even with a radical-liberal approach. This Covenant might find itself subjected to the same lean-on forces that the Sub-group report found in the Tanzania meeting. The conservatives will find this Covenant will do nothing for them.

One wonders why any Church would be excluded once inside it; and though I'd tweak little I'm sure, freshly written, The Episcopal Church if (IF) excluded after the September deadline, could write something so much more inclusive, ethical and with integrity for a basis of others meeting with it on a discussive basis.

It is what they'll do with this Covenant that causes me to think it should be rejected; in the meantime the Episcopal House of Bishops might reject this Tanzanian outcome. It is worth nothing to them, and has no wider value of itself.

Regardless of the outcome in Tanzania, I'll believe all this "England is next!" stuff when I see some real Conservatives being appointed as Suffragan and Diocesan bishops. One of our local bishops in Chelmsford, a delightful and mild Evangelical, has said that in his observation when the gathering of English bishops wants the opinion of a Conservative Evangelical all heads turn to one, solitary, individual: Wallace Benn, the Suffragan Bishop of Lewes. In other words, at present England is a heart beat away from having no Conservative Evangelical representation in its own HoB.

Is it time for (eg) Inclusive Church to invite those of us who are ordained to declare that we will, openly and fearlessly, bless permanent, faithful, stable gay partnerships? Frankly, UK liberals have given the ABC far too easy a ride over all of this - no doubt because of his historic connections and personal friendship with several of the leading players. But times have changed and a conciliatory approach has failed - letting down our LBGT brothers and sisters. Now, maybe, it's time to turn up some heat.

matthew hunt - I believe the deadline has been set in September to give the Archbishop of Canterbury an excuse not to invite any majority American bishop to Lambeth. Invitations go out about then. But those ol' "Windsor compliant" bishops, they'll be going...

I hope the TEC will resist the bullies. Rowan Williams is now clearly held by the (not very effective) ba**s by the Akinolites and no compromise will ever be enough for these schemers. I get rather tired when people say this all started with Gene Robinson - the scheming to steal the church and wrest control started over 10 years ago - and George Carey did nothing to stop it...maybe he even unwittingly encouraged it. I took no pleasure in the humiliation of liberal bishops at the last Lambeth Conference and certainly do not sign up to what was agreed then let alone subsequently. People should remember that it is not within the gift of the ABofC to say who is in communion with the CofE and most priests and parishes will be in full communion with ECUSA whatever the bullies and weaklings agree.

JBE

Yes it is time...but there needs to be a new coalition of groups led by well respected liberal Bishops of the CofE and other senior figures. I am not prepared to sign up to stuff which emanates from campaigning groups which have previous 'baggage' and which have other aims I would not be happy with. This is serious enough to demand a new alliance as the implications are far far wider than the place of gay people.

"Every idol worth its salt eventually demands human sacrifice." -- Karl Barth

Every idol worth its salt eventually demands human sacrifice." -- Karl Barth

What do you mean by "eventually?"

Neil - I agree with you. It was Archbishop Carey who opened Pandora's box in 1998 by actively supporting the massacre of the original draft of Lambeth 1.10 and polarising the issue at the highest level, and we have been paying for his folly ever since.

Martyn Minns = Mr. Slope

Tom Roberts observation that "American gays wanting a blessing should come to England. Here blessings for same sex partnerships are becoming routine. We have gay bishops and deans too !" gets to the heart of the question as to why the American Episcopal Church, rather than the C of E or the Canadian Church, both of which are at least as "guilty" of gay-tolerant actions as ECUSA, has been singled out for the attention of the ChristiaNazis. And the reason appears to be, in significant part, that that Akinola and his buddies are bankrolled by right-wing American interests - interests that do not exist on anything approaching like scale in Canada or the UK - and that they, in turn, serve as willing cats-paws of their paymasters in this matter. This may sound like paranoid stuff, but the mantra "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that they're not out to get you" has validity. The driving force in this confrontation is not theology, it is politics - ecclesiastical and secular politics.

Alaninlondon et al

The only comment I would make is that there will not be a joining with Rome. A close friend of mine told me of a story yesterday where a traveller on a train told her of a radio interview where a senior Anglican commented rather tersely that there will no joining with Rome because "they believe in the Pope".

This same person is also known to denounce their reverence for mother Mary and other saints. They consider this to be a form of idolatry.

Their propositional theology is that Jesus is God, completely and absolutely. No one can intercede or advocate on behalf of anyone else either to Jesus nor over Jesus. It is a very flattering form of theology for Jesus.

But a king needs to understand that flatterers do not necessarily do what is best for the kingdom. If your kingdom is in uproar, the crops are failing, the food is being grossly unfairly distributed, women and children are being raped, ecosystems are collapsing, cities are burning and being bombed. A worthy advisor would point out to the king that all is not well in the kingdom and that actions need to be taken to curb in excessive greed and violence. A worthy advisor would also point out that using intimidation is merely adding fuel to an already burning inferno.

In fact, a worthy advisor would tell the king that he needed to look at how the situations kept developing (because it is a recurring pattern) and rethink the whole way the kingdom is operated and reframe the underlying premises to prevent this appalling state of affairs from developing in the first place.

Prior Aelred:

I have just read your piece from yesterday. Sorry. Missed it. Yes, we're saying the same thing - any moratorium should not be unconditional or for an indefinite period. However, our timelines are a little different.

Overall I am struck by the asymmetry of the situation: a gun to the head for TEC, a slap on the wrist for primates who poach. This, I suppose, reflects nothing more than the power balance within the group of primates.

"Every idol worth its salt eventually demands human sacrifice." -- Karl Barth

Was Karl Barth describing his own antisemitism? In his Advent sermon of 1933 he denounced the Jews as "an obstinate and evil people." As the 1930s progressed, he became, for theological reasons, a defender of the Jews and a bitter opponent of Nazism.

What the Jews were in the Germany of the 19th and 20th century up to and including the Holocaust, the German people blaming them for everything that was wrong with German society, the out-of-the-closet gays have become in the eyes of Evangelical Christians in today's society. What bothers me about the Primates' Communique is that there is not even a hint of condemnation of ++Peter Abuja's anti-gay hate-mongering in Nigeria, as evidenced by the vicious and vile legislation pending and supported by the Anglican Primate and Metropolitan. Has ++Rowan Cantuar's moral stature sunk so low as that of Karl Barth's in December 1933, as well as that of Bishop Otto Dibelius (Lutheran Bishop of Berlin) and Cardinal Faulhaber (Munich), who were antisemitists complicit with Adolf Hitler during the 1920s and 1930s?

Andrew Innes wrote: "Overall I am struck by the asymmetry of the situation: a gun to the head for TEC, a slap on the wrist for primates who poach. This, I suppose, reflects nothing more than the power balance within the group of primates."

Dear Andrew Innes, I think you will find that it has more to do with the relative seriousness of the "offences". Protecting Christian congregations from heretical or amoral Bishops doesn't feature in any of the sin lists in the New Testament... But they do assert that people who live according to some sinful ways have no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God!

Ann Fontaine, clerical deputy #1 from the Diocese of Wyoming posted this of the HoB/D (shared with permission): I have been thinking about Lambeth, the Communique, the Schedule, the requests, the threats, and the fasting. This morning I think that the Communique does describe where we are, as do Katharine's follow up remarks. I think she is asking us to think seriously about what has been asked - all of us, wherever we are on the continuum. It does sound to me like more is once again being asked of those who are gay and lesbian - I hope that is not her meaning. She does not say we must have one answer or another. Lambeth 1.10 does describe where most in the world are to date. As you may recall many of our bishops voted for it or abstained with only a few speaking out against it (like Bp Roskam) so it is safe to assume that others attending believed that "we" agreed with it. Since the last Lambeth conference, TEC has declared through resolutions on same sex marriage, consecration of bishops in same sex relationships, and ordination of priests and deacons in same sex relationships that we no longer agree with that teaching. Although we have not made a repudiation of that teaching per se - our other resolutions show where we are. We could call another Convention, but I think it is unnecessary, the bishops know (or we should write and tell them if not) where we stand from GC 2000, 2003 and 2006. It is within their power to agree to the conditions of the request from Tanzania but I think it would be a mess to have to go through all of this again. We made our "yes" to gays and lesbians -- let it stand. (continued)

(continued)
As to what will happen in the future - the Primates did commit to the listening process with a reporting system, they did affirm our Presiding Bishop and TEC as the only Anglican expression in the US, she was elected to the Standing Committee, she sat at the table for the whole meeting. So all those dire predictions about how we were going to be disciplined did not come true. Some did not take the Eucharist - most did. I think we can say to the Primates -- 1. we do not have official rites for same sex blessings 2. consents are made according to our Constitution and Canons 3. we know we are offending you by our stance on the role of gays and lesbians (and women for most provinces) but we do not ask you to take our stance for your own. 4. we deeply appreciate your willingness to engage in the listening process and to take all this time about TEC in an era of global disaster. 5. we want to work with you to address the pressing needs of poverty, global warming, HIV/AIDS, malaria (more people dying every day than died in the tsunami btw) 6. If you do not want us at Lambeth 2008 - we accept that and will use all the funds we would have spent on that meeting for the relief of suffering around the world. (including all that the dioceses will spend to send our bishops and our contribution to the ACC for this, as well as encouraging Compass Rose to donate their funds to relief and development too). This will be our communal fast. 7. If you decide that we are no longer a part of the Anglican Communion we will continue to work with churches around the world who wish to be companions on the Way with us. The bonds of our affection are rooted in Baptism and gathering at the Eucharist. We are brothers and sisters in Christ not through our own doing but because Christ has made it so. Stepping back from all that I have said so far - I will support our Presiding Bishop but will not refrain from my commitment to full inclusion and doing what I can to make that happen. Blessings of Lent Ann

John Henry wrote: "Has ++Rowan Cantuar's moral stature sunk so low as that of Karl Barth's in December 1933,"

Dear John Henry, if anyone were going round campaigning to exterminate gays you wouldn't need to rely on ++Rowan. My conservative friends and I would be completely opposing such an outrage!

I think that ++Rowan did everything he could to get TEC a "pass" in Tanzania. He took a big risk with his personal reputation by springing that WR compliance report on the unsuspecting Primates (trying to say that TEC had passed two of the three tests so they were compliant)! I wonder what the fall-out for him will be when the other primates have had time to consider how he treated them - burying the report for 6 months, springing it during the meeting, and nearly drumming them into accepting something that they later decided was far from the truth! Now that *could* be a reason for asking whether Cantuar's moral stature has sunk so low..

Last time I looked, brother Dave, fraud and thievery and bearing false witness against neighbors was pretty clearly listed on most effective lists of sins.

The argument that being orthodox justifies the right of orthodox believers to conduct guerilla war raids - on TEC people (especially people who are openly progressive and/or people who are not straight, and especially bishops who are not straight), on pension funds, and on diocesan or parish properties which are otherwise held in trust in perpetuity for future generations is not very plausible: it sounds like the same old saw that the righteous ends justifies the dubious means.

Alas. Lord have mercy.

"But they do assert that people who live according to some sinful ways have no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God!" Dave

Dave, I will tell you that I find you to be a terribly offensive human being who causes great harm to others as you preach your righteous spew, endlessly.

Pat repeats of the six or seven clobber passages every time a loving couple or family comes into sight who just happen not to be straight is getting fairly wearisome, too.

We weary of these pat readings, indeed, but not because anybody is dissing scripture. We who care about scripture bother to discern scripture in all sorts of worthwhile critical contexts, including those which help reveal to us that bans against usury are not a done scriptural deal, that women are equal to men, that the earth is not flat, that the evidence for some form of evolutionary adaptation is overwhelming, that funny and curious things happen to reality in our cosmos when you get to the macro at the speed of light or when you get to the sub-micro at the speed of quarks and their components, that the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles without asking for permission ahead of time from either the Old Testament scriptures that Jesus quoted or from the council at Jerusalem, and that whites were not God's favorite color nor European languages God's favorite languages.

We indeed grow weary of this pat use of the biblical and traditional clobber passages because anybody of common sense with two eyes and a heart can see that the gay or lesbian couple next door care about one another, and care about their children to boot. From an old USA Bible Belt perspective, the believer who thus uses scripture to falsify and mistake the neighbor is perilously skating close to the sin against the Holy Ghost, as if scripture itself were nothing but a dark lie told against the neighbor, when in fact is it the gospel good news of Jesus' incarnation - birth, baptism, preaching, healing, forgiving, accusation, scourging, crucifixion, and resurrection in glorious life among us. Now.

The more we impugn decent neighbors with false witness about their alleged innate defectiveness or immorality, the more glaring the light of common sense that reveals idolatry taking the place of God's real love offered us in Jesus. And the more you impugn us all, including yourself with your stubborn determinations to prematurely sort out who is welcome at the kingdom feast and who - you? - unquestionably deserves ahead of the end of time to be seated at the right hand of Jesus. Alas. Lord have mercy.

Wrote Lapinbizarre: "Akinola and his buddies are bankrolled by right-wing American interests - interests that do not exist on anything approaching like scale in Canada or the UK - and that they, in turn, serve as willing cats-paws of their paymasters in this matter."

Indeed, ++Peter Jasper Akinola, apart from being an anti-gay hate-monger, may also be guilty of simony, a great sin in the Middle Ages. And ++Rowan Cantuar, by his silence and not censoring ++Abuja for his role in the hate-legislation proposed by the Nigerian legislature, may also be complicit in simony. May His Grace have the guts, and spine, to step down as Cantuar before his office will be totally disgraced and rendered irrelevant!

Lapinbizarre,

You are not paranoid. You're right on the money. This whole mess is tied into global politics that go far beyond the Anglican Communion.

Today's Irish Times has an editorial which reads in part:

"Yet, while the American bishops have been given a belt of the crozier, Archbishop Akinola has escaped without censure and his supporters in the US have the green light to set up a church-within-a-church under a primatial vicar or senior bishop. By allowing bishops to interfere in the internal affairs of other autonomous Anglican churches, the primates have set a dangerous precedent that undermines the historic and patristic understanding of bishops as the focus of unity within their dioceses. And they have rejected a key concept within the 39 Articles - the foundational document of Anglicanism - in which Article 26 declares that "the Unworthiness of the Ministers hinders not the effect of the Sacraments".

"The continuing arguments within the Anglican Communion are damaging the church's mission and undermining the Gospel. Many must question the priorities of bishops who can meet in one of the world's poorest countries but spend most of their time debating sexuality rather than poverty and injustice.

"A split in the Anglican Communion may have been postponed but now appears inevitable, even if it is only through forming a two-tier structure, in which only some churches have full membership. However, the constitution of the Church of Ireland commits that church to maintaining communion with the Church of England, and with all other churches agreeing with the principles of the constitution's "preamble and declaration", and to promoting "quietness, peace, and love among all Christian people". The Anglican Communion may split, but the Church of Ireland must remain committed to maintaining communion with all parties."

Prior Aelred, that's good stuff there.

You can sort of predict things (though inconsistencies happen and it is a bad business living in the future).

That TEC says enough to be 'passed' to the astonishment of Conservatives and goes to Lambeth 2008, also because of the argument of really must not split except in extreme circumstances and better to have TEC in the Covenant where it can be monitored.

This is the flexible Covenant that drives the Conservatives mad. And then the Covenant suddenly becomes a lot more doctrinal than everyone thought, thanks to some primates leaning on others.

But TEC is in, and there is hardly a means to throw someone out once in...

(process repeats)

My model for my cracked crystal ball is, of course, Tanzania 2007. It is where ethics went out of the window.

Having read too much of this corrosive stuff and seeing how one fix was replaced by another I sat in the church Wednesday evening at first wondering why I was there. Fortunately we had some fun and I enjoy the company of interesting and sensible people.

It is corrosive, all this, and would be right if TEC said no to it all, and got on with being a Church: made a sacrifice by so doing and offered its model of service to the world.

RHH - and yet I still doubt that Barth would support the liberal agenda. He is big on not bowing to the pressures of society, but even more than that, he is totally against the liberal protestant hermeneutic, and in terms of interpretation is one of the most outright (if intellectual) fundamentalist evangelicals of the 20th century!

John Richardson - are you sure you mean that? Maybe he is just well spoken. I'm sure +Nazir-Ali would disagree about there being no other conservative evangelicals. You might even get something out of +Tom, although as usual, it would be quite heavily qualified.

This evening, at Ash-Wednesday service, our OT lesson was Isaiah 58:1-12.

I found myself almost weeping as I heard myself accused alongside my enemy.

May God have mercy on us all.

hpb
Austin, TX

"1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144)"

The bishops are not asked to crackdown on gay blessings, but only to refrain from authorising a Rite of Blessing. Such rites can continue as they are currently. If the bishops can say "we do not have official rites for gay blessings" that would be quite an adequate response to the primates' bullying. If they break communion with TEC for that, they will look only more foolish and petty that their Tanzania junket (a discussion of US gay bedrooms in an African country rent with poverty and other grave problems) has already made them look.

James Crocker - Tom Wright would certainly not describe himself as a "Conservative Evangelical", though he would say he has friends in that group. His clear alignment with Fulcrum, the Open Evangelical 'opposition' to the Conservative Evangelical Reform, means that he is neither positioning himself, nor regarded as, a voice of the Conservative Evangelical constituency. Michael Nazir-Ali is conservative, and he is evangelical (lower case!), but again, his roots are not in the Conservative Evangelical constituency, though he is highly respected by them. Significantly, though, in the run-up to the last appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury, although Nazir-Ali's name was 'in the frame', he was not regarded as a Conservative Evangelical candidate by the constituency. In fact (which is my point) there were no Conservative Evangelical candidates.

One of my complete bemusements in the last couple of years is portraying this as a human debate only. The liberals being portrayed as "..bowing to the pressures of society".

I'm sorry, I don't consider the 2004 SE Asian Tsunami and the heavens shaken by a neutron star explosion; Nias Easter confirmation earthquake; Australia's "drought-breaking" 2005 rains following the matrix face revealing dream; Katrina wiping out the walls of New Orleans; Wilma forming in less than 12 hours to a Cat 5 after an was sent email to Sojourners (lines of appeal with Anglican Communion having dried up) plus Wilma had the lowest barometric pressure ever recorded; Wilma parking itself over Mexico for three days until a second email was sent and then joining up with Hurricane Alpha and a Nor-easter; Wilma heading for Florida (fulfilling the comments that when George W. Bush said he couldn't sell looking after the environment to the Americans, and I asked whether he was talking about the people of New Orleans and Florida) and it happened in that year's hurricane season; Cat 5+ cyclone Larry sweeping through Queensland after Christians denied we had to care for the environment and around the same time in the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth games where the Aussie boys lost the 100m relay race on a technicality and the Aussie girls won on a technicality (after I'd called for back up and didn't get it), cyclone Monica dipping to avoid Darwin after and "Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi" acknowledgment on this forum. cont...

,,,cont

Then there are all the dreams and visions that of course you can only take my word as having happened, but could be verified by the higher realms if they could be bothered backing a woman up on anything.

Coincidences stacked on coincidences to the point that I have been called a Baal prophetess by my enemies (and no apology ever offered).

The same souls who deny all these coincidences would have been denying the miracles if they had been in the camps following Moses through Exodus.

My vehemence is not based on the whims of humans. My vehemence is based on if God is going to back me up this much, then I am sure not going to let a verifiable confirmation such as this go to waste because some males don't want to lose their bullying victims and some other males would rather see souls being abused and humiliated than admit they are not perfect and saying sorry.

Now I just sit back and wonder what you are all going to say to God for not acknowledging God's interventions? I half hope someone would murder me, I would love to see the explanation and spin they would use to God to explain their attacking a verifiably anointed prophet.

These people may claim not to be conservative evangelicals, but their words belie this self-definition.

However, if they are not to be considered conservative, it shows just how beyond the pale the CofE has become.

I wish that more people would be honest. Evangelical and Liberal Christianity are two different religions. Two different worldviews. They have hardly anything at all in common with each other.

I think there must be people who like being persecuted. There is no logical reason to want any sort of organisational connection with conservative religionists.

Peter Forster? Graham Dow? Reform fellow-travellers, if not actually paid up members.

Merseymike - I would have thought the fact that Conservative Evangelicals are pretty well barred from preferment would be a sign to 'Thinking Anglicans' that the CofE is NOT (yet) beyond the Pale. Incidentally, a highly placed member of the Crown Nominations Commission said this was the case to Reform representatives not so very long ago, and said there needed to be a deliberate programme to identify and prepare people from that constituency for 'higher office'. I'm not sure that has happened. Certainly I've not had the phone call!

JBE - Peter Forster, Graham Dow and others are indeed conservative and evangelical, but Dow, for example, is a Charismatic (as a statement of fact, not as a pejorative label), and would not therefore be seen as (or see himself as) from that constituency. I know these categories can get a bit subtle but they are often not understood by those outside the UK scene (forgive me, I don't know if that includes you). That is one reason why I point it out here.

The other is simply to make the observation that there is an unacknowledged 'stained glass ceiling' in the CofE, in addition to the more obvious one that women cannot yet be appointed as bishops.

Careful Merseymike, you sound a little like Dave and those Anglican-Mainstreamers who say that religious liberals are pursuing another religion (or "virtually" another religion as Apollos or Dave has said.

As regards Dave above, well I find his view "virtually" obnoxious, and strongly agree with Leonardo Ricardo posting today at 12:38am.

However, I'll risk a Merseymike here with one agreement with Dave:

>I wonder what the fall-out for him will be when the other primates have had time to consider how he treated them - burying the report for 6 months, springing it during the meeting, and nearly drumming them into accepting something that they later decided was far from the truth! Now that *could* be a reason for asking whether Cantuar's moral stature has sunk so low..<

I think this is a valid point. Clearly Rowan Williams (I don't go for all this + ++ +++ stuff) has looked in one direction a while and given conservatives the thought he had signed up, whereas I have actually read some of his output previously. And no doubt this Sub-group report was very silently kept, while the conservatives got themselves into a right lather of expectations, and sprung into the meeting. Perhaps there was no other way. The Covenant is equivalent to that Sub-group report. But all that did was make the communique inconsistent with the Sub-group report, and leaning in the opposite direction the horse trading might still produce an outcome by US bishops of more people compromising themselves while everyone sort of carries on doing what they did do before...

What if one had found this in the Irish Times instead:

“By allowing the American Episcopal Church to introduce two heresies in her life, the innovation of women in Holy Orders and the full acceptance of homosexual sodomy, the primates have set a dangerous precedent that undermines the historic and patristic understanding of the Church Catholic’s life, orders and teachings.”

Well, that will never come from the leader pages of a left-liberal, secular and utilitarian paper such as the IT, will it!

Richard Lyon @ 1:34 am GMT:
"You are not paranoid. You're right on the money. This whole mess is tied into global politics that go far beyond the Anglican Communion."

Jim Naughton has blogged about the Institute for Religion and Democracy and its support by right-wing funders.

The fear and hysteria and disinformation promoted by the extreme conservatives in and out of our church help keep the public's attention off of peak oil and the collapsing dollar and global economy. This, in turn, keeps the public divided and conquered, while the ruling class loot mom-and-pops savings, 401Ks, and IRAs. All part of the globalization agenda of the WTO, IMF, and the G7: just follow the money - look at the big money right wingers who've funded the Duncans and the Akinolas and pay close attention to the relationships.

I've had enough of fear-driven politics in and out of the church!

It's pretty clear that the sub-group report was used as part of a psycho-political tool. I think everyone is quite impressed with how the whole process was extremely cleverly strategised and manipulated by Canturbury and the associated 'establishment'. Really, very impressive.

But where is this game going to go? Have they strategised (and can they manipulate) beyond September? Or is Rowan referring to more than the primatial vicar when he calls it experimental?

Now all parties have seen the way the game is played, surely they will adapt and advance the game according to those rules. How far down this road of political manipulation and manouvering do you want to go? What do we all become?

A recent chart song asked 'Where is the Love?'

There's a funny radio programme in the UK at the moment, a feature of which is an ultra-pessimistic Indian man who asks via a phone-in show, incessantly and comprehensively, "Vhat is point?"

Rowan, "Vhat is point?"

Dear Leonardo and Pluralist, I am sorry that you find my posts obnoxious, but what I am saying is little more than relating traditional Christian interpretation of what is written in the Bible and information regarding sexuality. Why do you find that obnoxious?

Isn't there an incongruity between your your inner convictions on 1. sex and 2. Christianity ? Again, you might like to ask yourselves *why* ?

grantly on Thursday, 22 February 2007 at 3:12am GMT

Agreed on the quality of the stuff -- credit to Mother Ann!

We have been told about the crisis for years now -- every meeting (of anything) is "the last chance" -- so far we have managed to limp along not quite agreeing -- we'll see how long it will last...

Because your religion is obnoxious, Dave. That's why it must be opposed at all times in the civil sphere. There's been some good examples of those lately. And you have lost the arguments.

John - I think the truth is, these categories are pretty subtle to most everyone except the people in them. If someone is conservative and evangelical that ought to make them a conservative evangelical, charismatic or not, by my limited understanding. If you mean by Conservative Evangelical, Reform, then that's slightly different - bit like me saying there are no Liberal Catholic Bishops as no-one from LGCM is on the bench.

(FYI I'm a priest in Truro diocese, so many of my parishioners at least would regard me as outside the UK!)

Ordinand - in the interests of being thorough perhaps you should have included 'heterosexual sodomy' in your imaginary editorial. Statistics tell us that sodomy between men and women is far more commonplace. Your tone and language does seem somewhat fixated.

"John Henry wrote: "Will the Nigerian action lead to another Holocaust against gays? If so, ++Rowan Cantuar will be complicit due to his failure to reprimand the hate-monger of Abuja at the Primates' Meeting."

Dave objected to this. “Dear John Henry, There is a huge distance between moral disapproval of something, and rounding up and executing people who's beliefs and behaviours you disapprove of; I hope... or is that the way you would like to treat people who you disapprove of ? – In which case I better watch out!?”

I asked Dave for a clarification, he explained: “I wanted to question the assertion in the post by John Henry (20 February 2007 at 9:10pm) that expressing moral disapproval is the first step towards mass murder.

I also wanted to know whether this meant that John Henry's disapproval of MY beliefs etc would mean that he wants to murder me ?!“

You wrote that in your next post, dear Dave. “There is a huge distance between moral disapproval of something, and rounding up and executing people whose beliefs and behaviours you disapprove of; I hope...”

The answer is that there may be “a huge distance between” them in the best of cases, but that in the event of sociopathy or co-dependency, times of duress or great change (such as the 11th – 12th centuries, the 16th – 17th centuries, 19th – 20th centuries) the first invariably leads to the second.

Every historian can point you to numerous examples in different parts of the globe, and tell you that “beliefs and behaviours” have precious little to do with it – its power play and politics in that order.

You need to read, learn and inwardly digest this, Dave, because you keep mixing your prejudice with your religion, and your Neo Platonism with the Bible.

The answer to you second post is that John Henry does not want to murder you. You know this for a fact.

But then, your question has no bearing on the previous. It’s Spin. Propaganda technique. Ad hominem attack. Dismissing the person to avoid facing the facts. De-humanizing the person as a method to control the debate. Rounding up and executing the person who's beliefs, standing or outlook you disapprove of. Killing the person to kill the argument.

And there we go full circle.

John Henry’s observation is correct: “If so, ++Rowan Cantuar will be complicit due to his failure to reprimand the hate-monger of Abuja…”

If not before, it is clear from what happened at The White Sands (the parallel meeting at The Beachcomber, the refusal to partake of the Body of Christ, the threats to leave the Communion and the meeting, the desperate last minute tantrum to kill the drafts of the intended and unanimous Communiqué and proposals), that the development in Nigeria towards “rounding up and executing people . you disapprove of “ and the pending legislation to that effect – moved by the Nigerian Primate and his office – has nothing to do with “moral disapproval” but has personal and psychiatric causes.

You’re in bed with the wrong people, Dave.

John Richardson comment Thursday, 22 February 2007 at 8:46am brings not-so-fond memories of the 1970ies Alphabet-soup Left.

Oh, there were such HUGE differences!

Though no one could even guess them from outside ;=)

A Fundie, is a Fundie, is a Fundie…

(the trouble with the Elizabethan Settlement is that it never was more than a Marriage of Inconvenience – at best)

Dave wrote: “Dear John Henry, if anyone were going round campaigning to exterminate gays you wouldn't need to rely on ++Rowan. My conservative friends and I would be completely opposing such an outrage!”

I cannot see any of you doing that for Nigeria, Dave – and no, I wouldn’t dream of relying on ++Rowan for anything. He is a subtle theologian but understands nothing of group psychology and the dynamics of meetings.

Bad leadership is betrayal.

This entirely artificial crisis has now reached the point when someone has to leave if the AC is to remain standing in any form.

++Williams's refusal to let ++Akinola go as he wanted to in Dar, will force someone else out.

Unsurprisingly, that someone is TEC, which will be blamed for Williams's incompetence as a leader.

Dave wrote: "...what I am saying is little more than relating traditional Christian interpretation of what is written in the Bible and information regarding sexuality."

"Traditional" Dave?

I do not know of any sect that would be "traditional", could you tell us a bit more about it?

John Richardson has made me realise that there is 'a stained-glass ceiling' for Cons. Evangelicals and gays.

We never know with whom we will end up in bed !

Dave, go peddle your "La Bible c'est Moi" line to an audience that isn't, well, *thinking* (i.e., actual Bible-reading) Anglicans?

*****

The Irish Times nailed it!

Goran, do you really understand the Church of England any more than we understand Svenska Kyrkan (SveK)? They are quite dissimilar entities, with different beliefs and histories. You do not seem to grasp that the liveliest parishes in England are evangelical, that the majority of ordinands are evangelical, and that evangelical scholarship - biblical and theological - is among the finest in the world; I include Tom Wright, Alister McGrath and Oliver O'Donovan among these, not to mention non-Anglican evangelicals who have great influence in the English scene (e.g. Kevin Vanhoozer, Don Carson, Hugh Williamson etc). I am quite aware that you have no time for any of these, but these are tenured professors among the leading unversities in the world, with many publications to their name, so they are hardly ignorant backwoodsmen. If you have published any comparable commentaries or tomes, please tell us. The only Swedish theologians I know are Lennart Bostrom and Ake Viberg, but that's only because they write in English.
I have to say that I find your own 'take' on theology and the Bible very eccentric (a church of one, perhaps?) and often impossible to understand. I wonder if your views reflect the cultural insularity of SveK and the prevalence of outdated philosophy and theories there. It is at least known here that *almost nobody* attends SveK, and I have asked you more than once what you thought of the prosecution of Pastor Ake Green, but you have steadfastly refused to comment. Was he treated unjustly? We imagine sililar things will happen in England. We believe you have similar tensions within SveK, but of course there are very few evangelicals in that Erastian, politicized body, so the impact is much less. Please understand that the Church of England and SveK are really quite different - and we are fighting to keep things that way. We don't wish to be extinct in 15 years, as SveK will be.

“By allowing the American Episcopal Church to introduce two heresies in her life, the innovation of women in Holy Orders and the full acceptance of homosexual sodomy, the primates have set a dangerous precedent that undermines the historic and patristic understanding of the Church Catholic’s life, orders and teachings.”

Gosh, about half the Anglican Communion has undermined patristic Catholicism then, in that they accept women priests.

Dave, I am not into bibliolatry and your interpretation of Christianity, and if you identify something as traditional (as has been done against every change) you are making a selection that denies other just as legitimate hermeneutical readings.

Yes Steve Watson, I do.

And no, I don’t really think you “know” these 2 fellas because “they write in English”. I think it's because they come from a Calvinist High School of 0 Faculites ;=)

Which also explains your abbreviation SveK. It means betrayal.

On a personal note, I do not think Wisdom literature, Proverbs, and all the Hellenism of this World are at all Christian. Never did, never shall.

(as to Pastor Green I have already told you that I have explained his case in great detail to dear Dave. Ask him, I'm sure you have his adress)

Please: comments should be related at least vaguely to the content of the article: in this case some press coverage of the recent primates meeting.

And do not indulge in ad hominem attacks on other commenters, please.