I see that some liberal leaning blogs are more positive about both the Communique and the Covenant. I'm not sure I am, but the view I'm going towards is how unhealthy all of this is.

Looking at some of the responses these bloggers get in the merry-go-round of messaging, one thing that comes out is how the process buys off peoples' integrities.

We already know the loops and hoops that Rowan Williams has jumped through by which a once thoughtful theologian has become some chairing bureaucrat of impossibilities and looking like he's had brain surgery, where someone responding ends up rather cheapily creating a character called "Akinilliams". No doubt by signing up, Katherine Jefferts Schori has been compromised too - so far her calm and incisive commentaries have earned her a strong reputation in a short time, but having signed on the dotted line has now the problem of looking in different directions at once and who will look isolated if her bishops decide they cannot comply with this communique (though increasingly it looks like it won't take too much to comply, and this Covenant is close to being meaningless).

Some of the denominationalist Unitarians I knew, who defined themselves by contrasting with the other, and I found to be tedious and unable to see their own contradictory outlooks, used to define Anglicanism as hierarchical and liturgical duplicity. I think this is built in, and demonstrated during Tanzania 2007.

Pluralist --

One can make the case (although I am not convinced) that ++Katharine felt she did not have primatial authority to refuse to sign, since the Communique give the responsibility to respond to the HoB.

I HOPE they say, "We said what we meant & we meant what we said & other changes would require a change in canons & thus the actions of TWO General Conventions -- your turn!"

I FEAR they will try to sacrifice a few gays & lesbians only to be told (AGAIN) that it is not good enough.

I am also concerned that ++Rowan has laid the groundwork for a "Windsor Bishop" schism (which will come back to haunt him).

Ken Arnold's words about trafficking SEX SLAVES need to be taken seriously. Once again Nigeria is at the hub of the sex traffic. Not only does the Primate and Metropolitan of Abuja encourage hate-legislation against Gays and Lesbians in his own country and in Africa, but he is silent on the SEX TRAFFIC. By dancing around "Big Pete" at Tanzania, the Anglican primates are complicit in dehumanizing a large group of human beings, while, hypocritically, expressing repentance for the slave trade two centuries ago. How about their silence about the present abuse of many people on the margins of society?

TEC would be well-advised to separate itself from the Anglican Primates' Circus and its gross immorality.

"One can make the case (although I am not convinced) that ++Katharine felt she did not have primatial authority to refuse to sign, since the Communique give the responsibility to respond to the HoB."

I would seem plausible that she has as much authority as she needs to issue a minority report. It also seems plausible that the folks who elected her to the standing committee were not willing to support her in doing that. The statement she did issue after the meeting reflects no expression of dissent on her part or of deferring action to the broader polity of TEC.

I honestly shake my ancient monastic and 50-years-ordained head in disbelief over all of this.

As far as I can see it, all we have is B033 writ large and the unprecedented intervention of foreign primates into the life and polity of TEC.

The tear-stained sacrifice called "B033" earned what? A grudging invitation for +KJS to Tanzania's senatorial table (with 7 primates still refusing to be with her at that "other" Table). And, having accomplished that, that "temporary" B033 is now expected to be made both more exclusive (i.e., the replacement of "restraint" with plain old unqualified "exclusion") and, for all practical purposes, permanent – for at least another generation or three.

And three foreign prelates are to be given the majority power on a commission which will decide who "primates" several dioceses in TEC – a design very clearly intended merely as the seed of a parallel non-TEC Anglican entity on these shores. (And which also allows dissenting bishops to keep their pensions.)

And the legal protection of Episcopal property is to be forsaken.

And the "Instruments of Unity" in all their various and curious manifestations are gradually to be slipped up to curial status. And TEC will graciously be permitted to continue underwriting all of it.

And all of that IF (and only IF) TEC gays and lesbians are thrown to the wolves once again for an indeterminate period of time – perhaps another 40 years in the wilderness.

And what is the tit-for-tat? TEC gets to stay in association with a collection gay-bashing, authoritarian, inhumane (or wooly-headed) primates and provinces who now and always shall despise everything about TEC, our values, and our polity.

And I even see this whole bubbling pot of malevolence apparently being mildly accepted – even by groups like Inclusive Church!

I simply shake my old head in disbelief. I remember that someone else's birthright was once sold for a mess of pottage, and it seems to be an unlearned lesson. I wonder if our PB and bishops will really be able with any integrity to sign on to this massacre because it will involve tip-toeing delicately over the strewn and sacrificed bodies of our GLBT brothers and sisters.

I shake my head!

The Charlie Brown article with the dynamics of Lucy's consistent conduct probably epitomises my concerns. It doesn't matter how fair, how perfect, how reasonable the wording; thugs are going to be thugs.

The same as it doesn't matter how many new books are added to the bible, how many new prophets are sent, how many new religions are spawned. Thugs will be thugs.

All of the holy texts rebuke the thugs, the thugs gloss over those parts. Or remove the inspiring passages and/or books that show how to protect yourself from their predatory behaviours or that God sends emissaries to get souls out of a pickle.

They were doing it to Moses, they did it to Jesus and to Mohammad. That's just what thugs do.

On an up note, I have come to understand that the endorsement of the Nigerian camp's flying Bishop and alternative primal oversight is a wonderful blessing. No censure, no "you shouldn't be doing that", no "that's unbiblical behaviour".

So now the precedent has been set, I am looking forward to the email telling me who will be providing alterntive primal oversight for the liberals in Sydney Diocese. I am looking forward to linking up with them. :-)

Oh, and why did I stop sharing communion? Because people were starting to get hurt e.g. the Nigerian affiliates tried to make out that their suffering is more legitimate than that of "armchair" theologians in affluent countries. My retort at the time was that it was just as scary to be in an armed robbery in your own home if it is a shanty town or a suburban home. The next weekend the assistant minister was away as he had been involved in an armed robbery and left bound and had to free himself as he lives by himself. The next time he did a hate sermon, I walked out of the church and vowed to not go back because I did not people being personally attacked. By doing it this way, I am fighting for principles and not against particular individuals, so individuals are not at risk. Thus my actions are for sake of my enemies' safety.

But I would love to be part of a communion that welcomes both male and female, young and old, rich and poor, "pure" and afflicted, experienced and immature. I am sure that will happen as and when God is ready.

I do know it won't happen if the thugs are allowed to pillage any parish they deem unsuitable.

Kudos to MadPriest for the briefest (AND truest) analysis of all this: "Shite"! :-/

The Mad Priest has a really marvelous paste up of KJS as Neville Chamberlain.

I want to offer a slight correction here because this is something that keeps popping up all over the place. Amendments to the Canons of the Episcopal Church do not require two sessions of the General Convention, only the concurrence of both houses in a single session (Canon V.1.1). Changes to the Constitution and BCP require two "regular" sessions (special meetings don't apply). (Articles X and XII).

Tobias --

Thanks for the correction!

FWIW, I have always been told that the way GenCon1976 approved the ordination of women (i.e., by saying that "man" in the canons was generic) was that it was the only way it could make it happen in one convention -- is this the origin of the "urban legend"? Is there some other reason for that (angrily denounced by its opponents at the time) legal strategy?

Ahem!
Now that I have had a chance to draw a breath, after reading the Primates' Communique and the appended schedule - a few thoughts.
First, I think that the bishops of TEC should ask their canon lawyers if they have the authority to consent to the primatial vicar scheme as presented to them by the primates, without referring this matter to General Convention. I believe that they do not have the constitutional authority to consent to this scheme. Although ++Katherine proposed a primatial vicar, this person was to have functioned under her jurisdiction, within TEC. Parishes to be gathered under this vicar would do so with the consent of the local bishop, who would retain some jurisdiction. The primates' scheme calls for a vicar to function esssntially under the authority of a commission of mostly foreign bishops/primates, and would take jurisdiction over dissenting parishes and dioceses, i.e. function across all jurisdictional boundaries in TEC, apparently without leaving any jurisdiction for the local bishop. This scheme represents a serious intrusion into the polity of TEC, and would require significant changes to the Constitution and canons of TEC to be legally implemented. I believe that there is very little, if any chance that the House of Delegates would consent to the changes needed to implement this scheme.
I recommend that the HOB respond to the primatial vicar scheme by re-asserting ++Katherine's original proposal for a primatial vicar within TEC, and under her jurisdiction. They should state that anything more than that, i.e. a positive response to the primate's scheme, is not within their exclusive authority, and that the matter must be referred to the GC, which meets next in 2009. There is little reason to call an earlier special convention, since it would cost millions of dollars and, at least at this time, the outcome would be the same, i.e. rejection by the House of Deputies of changes to the Constitution and canons necessary to implement the primates' scheme.

This is a sorry spectacle. And the worst of it is that +Katharine and ++Rowan, who are probably fine people, have issued the most damning, un-holy, mendacious statements that could be imagined. Call down Tennessee William's Big Daddy to curse this dreadful "compromise."

"the peace of God, it is no peace,
but strife closed in the sod.
Yet let us pray for but one thing-
the marvelous peace of God"
W.A. Percy(Hymn #661, to Georgetown,1982)

Prior Aelred - I don't think they will go into reverse. There are two developments: bishops are showing that the price is unacceptable, and Akinola is threatening to walk out of communion with *Canterbury* in September if nothing is done about the Episcopal Church. Plus the arguments, from Rowan Williams' own hand, for the Communion of these opposites, is very thin.

You know, it is just possible now that the TEC bishops continue with a prophetic, ethical, inclusive church and provide some minimal statement, that therefore in September there is another fudge attempt to hold all sides, and then either there is a walkout by Nigeria, or perhaps the Episcopal Church breaks off anyway.

If TEC goes, Canada won't want to be in the restricted group, nor many others. If the Nigerians go there will be a sense of relief in some provinces that at last some progress can be made of a fully welcoming Communion.

Next time, with Nigeria in with Canterbury, the logic must be a conservative Archbishop of Canterbury. Next time, with TEC in with Canterbury, the logic must be a liberal Archbishop of Canterbury who can actually chair the Communion with some consistency with his published views. Should both be in, no one sane would want the job, and would probably have to be a conservative, someone like George Carey (oh, he was the previous chap) and then TEC and more would be gone anyway.

If PB KJS truly believes that a season of fasting would benefit the largest number of Anglican or other believers round the world, I am willing to consider giving her the benefit of a doubt. She was, after all, in the real Anglican rooms with the other Primates. It is a blessed miracle of our era that she sits now on the Primates Standing Committee. So yaaaay God.

Thus I am willing as a pilgrim to say adios muchachos for a while. Let TEC settle matters with the support of my absence. All that is needed is the clear word.

If I were single and only had myself to risk, well I would probably sit out this storm as I have sat out so very, very many other storms in church life. As it happens, however, I have to think about my partner, and the children. As it happens I do live in a large metro area, and I actually have no dearth of gay-friendly churches where I am still overtly welcome, along with my partner, along with the children. I can readily count four within a ten block radius of my home.

I do hope good and positive things arise from my supportive absence, if/when the invitation is given by TEC in order to better minister to the remaining communion.

I would only be just down the blocks, after all. Our planet is getting functionally smaller and smaller. We are all getting functionally closer and closer to one another, and more often involved in one another's lives.

My how times have changed, when I think back to compare that with my childhood and youth in USA Bible Belt states.

I carry inside me in this season of fasting, all the glorious joy and thanksgiving and room for inquiry that I once thought were essentially built into the given historic Anglican frames. In that I may have been rash and mistaken, and I will no doubt possibly stand quite corrected as this train wreck continues to unfold in worldwide slo-mo.

Jesus is still Risen Lord. God's gift to all of us.

Prior Aelred (begging Simon's indulgence to answer this slightly off-topic question in this forum):

This appears to be a bit of urban legendry. The idea of approving the ordination of women via a reading masculine language in the Constitution, Canons and BCP as generic was voted on (and defeated) at the General Convention of 1970. The 1976 action successfully amended the canons by adding to Canon III.9 the statement "The provisions of these canons for the admission of Candidates, and for their Ordination to the three Orders: Bishops, Priests and Deacons, shall be equally applicable to men and women." This only took one Convention. And what a convention it was!