A good deal of the to-do over the last few days has been about the catholicity of the church. The strength of Dar es Salaam is that both sides took catholicity seriously: the communion of the faithful is more important than scoring points - though there were limits to this seriousness on both sides.

One of the ways in which catholicity has traditionally been expressed is that a minimum of three bishops take part in the consecration of a newly elected bishop. These tend to be intra-provincial affairs, so a new bishop in York province is consecrated by the bishops of that province, though often with visitors from other provinces, or from bodies such as the Old Catholic churches.

Has the time come, perhaps, when episcopal consecrations should as a matter of course involve bishops from widely dispersed provinces, the better to express the church's catholicity? It would potentially give early warning of problems in that where a newly elected candidate's orthodoxy or way of life gave serious cause for concern: refusal to assist at a consecration might be less damaging than the unseemly mess we currently have. I'm pretty sure that for many catholicity trumps democratic election or royal letters patent.

This is nasty stuff from Canon David Anderson President of American Anglican Council: “It makes it so clear that Gene Robinson is unacceptable in his capacity as Bishop that he is going to have to go. He could either go gracefully and resign or he’s going to have to be removed. Otherwise, TEC cannot meet the demands of the communique.

“It is very difficult to say if he will go gracefully. He has been the poster boy for the gay and lesbian community. He might actually be at some risk from his own community if he steps down voluntarily. It might be better for him to be forced out than to step down voluntarily.

Utterly lacking in basic humanity, making out as if the gay and lesnian lobby are holding him in position under a threat of violence, the only violence being shown is that of Canon David Anderson President of American Anglican Council.

This is the ethical objection.

“It makes it so clear that Gene Robinson is unacceptable in his capacity as Bishop that he is going to have to go. He could either go gracefully and resign or he’s going to have to be removed. Otherwise, TEC cannot meet the demands of the communique.

“It is very difficult to say if he will go gracefully. He has been the poster boy for the gay and lesbian community. He might actually be at some risk from his own community if he steps down voluntarily. It might be better for him to be forced out than to step down voluntarily"

This from Anderson certainly reveals much about him. The term 'poster boyy is demeaning. The suggestion that +Gene would be in danger from the glbt community if he resigned as bishop is simply outrageous. I do not see how such a mean-spirited and sneering person can attract a following.

What about the other gay bishops then, Anderson ?

Why are YOU so 'concerned' yourself?

Have we to start naming names ?

The responses of individual TEC bishops on the Episcopal News Service site, listed here, are for the most part, very encouraging and some are inspiring too.

Reading the comments of TEC bishops in the ENS reports has set me thinking. During the 60s, 70s and 80s, I was actively involved in the CofE as a member my parish council and our diocesan synod. I was a founder member of the (then) Gay Christian Movement. As a young man, I was privileged to move in the highest circles of the CofE hierarchy on a social basis. I cannot now recall hearing much, if anything, about the Anglican Communion in those days, although I knew of the Lambeth Conference. I don’t think I was aware at all of the Anglican Consultative Council or the Primates’ Meeting until I started following church issues again in 2003. The Primates’ Meeting, in particular, seems to have sprung from nowhere as a powerful and authoritative body. I am interested to know, therefore, from where it draws its authority. To what extent is its governance recognised officially by the CofE?

The draft Covenant refers to the three historic formularies of the CofE. Unfortunately, none of these formularies addresses the issue of homosexuality but the Book of Common Prayer, if I remember correctly, does insist that councils of the Church can only be summoned by Princes as the representatives of God on earth! Thus, General Synod is authorised by the Church’s Supreme Governor to conduct the affairs of the Church on her behalf.

What I would particularly like to know is when, if ever, General Synod has acknowledged the authority of the Primates’ Meeting in the affairs of the CofE. Also, when did it empower the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to sign documents committing the CofE to particular courses of action touching on its teachings and discipline? (I assume that nobody would disagree with me that by signing the ultimatum to TEC, the Archbishops have committed the CofE to complying with the same restrictions that they are seeking to impose on the Episcopal Church.)

Regular commentators to this site will probably be more aware of the workings of General Synod than I am and will be able to point me to the relevant Synod resolutions, if any. Their advice would be welcome.

Anybody among us who thinks that the formalities requested by the Communique and Schedule will have to be the institutional end of it is seriously under-estimating the vigor and the funding persistence of the Anglican New Right. Just as they wish to drum Bishop Robinson out of the diocese which knew him, participated in his ministry, and thus discerned him as their bishop - so the rest of us for the reasons already stated, i.e., in sum, we are not Canon Anderson clones.

Isn't anybody listening? I think the New Anglican Right typically means what it says.

Reading the reports of the Bishop of Abuja (a.k.a. Archbishop of Nigeria) that have been published on ANGLICAN MAINSTREAM I do hope and pray that His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury is taking note. It is quite clear from the statements attributed to the Most Reverend Peter Akinola that being truly Anglican has nothing to do with being in communion with the See of Canterbury. The new definition is being in agreement with the Provinces in Africa for whom HE speaks.

Is there any way in which the truth can be brought home to Dr. Williams that his policies and behaviour to date have done nothing other than weaken the Anglican Communion and compromise any claim which he had to personal integrity? Dr. Williams, as an eminent theologian, knows how Holy Scripture should be handled and applied. Sadly, as a human being, he seems completely incapable of expressing and applying that knowledge for the benefit of the Faithful.

His response in the face of the context in which the African Anglican Church seeks to proclaim the Gospel is breath taking. 'Context' is allowed to Africa but not to North America or Europe. Have we forgotten that at the last Lambeth Conference Dr. Williams would NOT sign Lambeth 1.10? He knew then, as he knows now, that it was wrong. This loose use of 'not consistent with Holy Scripture' could more readily be applied to usury (the banking world) and to divorce. But nobody is voicing that position.

I have a terrible feeling that I am moving towards what I suspect is an 'Akinola position' - contempt for Rowan Williams. God help me!

Laurence writes:
"What about the other gay bishops then, Anderson ?
Why are YOU so 'concerned' yourself?
Have we to start naming names ?"

Don't be coy, Laurence. If you know of bishops who are violating the church's commandments in their conduct (not their affective life), you have a DUTY to name them.

But you must not be party to groundless innuendo.

' Have we forgotten that at the last Lambeth Conference Dr. Williams would NOT sign Lambeth 1.10? He knew then, as he knows now, that it was wrong.'
Anglicanus

This point is sO important. Thank you Anglicanus.

Signing it now cannot make it right. His postion is untenable.

BUT could not the other 146 who wrote the letter of dissent and apology to lesbian and gay people , now come to Rowan's and our rescue ?

Terence Dear's point above is very important.
He is in touch with a historical perspective, which sheds light on today.

He is right in his recollection and his analysis.
The primates meeting is a johnny come lately with no authority . Let's use lower case to spell it. The higher case lends a spurious validity....

"I assume that nobody would disagree with me that by signing the ultimatum to TEC, the Archbishops have committed the CofE to complying with the same restrictions that they are seeking to impose on the Episcopal Church."

No Terence Dear, I do not think that was what they meant ;=)

The answer to Anglicanus is Nothing.

TEC is being asked to accept a solution that AMiA has explicitly disowned -- on the basis that its constituent congregations are now part of the Diocese of Rwanda -- and that the ACC expressly believes will not be complete until +VGR has resigned or been deposed. Certainly CANA will not be placated. Why should TEC have any wish to step into such a sinkhole?

Laurence

Your question "Have we to start naming names?" is one of the core conundrums. There are people who are gay, but they don't come out of the closet. In Nazi Germany, the members of the gestapo who had Jewish ancestry were often more vicious so as dissemble and divert attention away from themselves. See "I'm so anti-semetic, there's no way that I am Jewish". History tells us that the same thing happens with souls who have not come to terms with their homosexuality. In fact, I know a couple of homosexuals who are really good at picking those strong homophobics who are actually in denial over their own sexuality.

So, hide your sexuality, or you are out in the cold.

Simon --

Sorry if these are duplicates, but I didn't see them here:

This is a VERY different take from the Primate of Canada:
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/world/anglican-communion/017/article/archbishop-hutchison-discouraged-by-primates-communique/

This may be a confused reporter, but it sounds like Nigeria is going to insist that the COE renounce "Issues in Sexuality":
http://allafrica.com/stories/200702221147.html

My other contemplations in the last few days have been to do with the eviction and rejection of GLBTs from our theological public life and second class citizenry within our parishes (if they can stomach the hate sermons).

I found myself contemplating the parable of the prodigal son. You know the one, the son who doesn't want to live the pure life and asks for his inheritance and goes out into the big wide world. Squanders it on narcisstic activities and bankrupts himself. Becomes miserable and decides its better to be a servant in his father's home than broken and destitute on the streets. Goes home.

What happens? His father has a PARTY to celebrate his return, scandalising the other brother who perceives the remaining wealth to be all his since his brother squandered his inheritance.

There are several scandals in this parable, but two that are particularly relevant to the Anglican Communion. Firstly, the father who does not reject his child, even though the child insists on leaving for a decadent lifestyle. Secondly, the father unconditionally greeting the child, and being prepared to spend resources to make the child feel comfortable. We are not talking about giving the child sackcloth and a cot in the stable here, we are talking about a party with all the friends and neighbours celebrating and greeting the child. No second class citizenry for the child who left the "pure" life nor calvinistic repentance upon the child's return.

Further, the child lived in a society where they could leave and come back - they were not murdered or imprisoned for their curiosity.

Successful parenting means giving each child what that child needs to come to maturity. Some children can easily lead a disciplined life from a young age. Others need to rebel and experience the wild side before they become mature. Some never grow up. Some forms of failing to mature include not taking responsibility for providing for oneself or dependents, failing to recognise that the world does not revolve around one's ego, believing that the only good people are those that agree with you, recognising your obligations to future generations and putting in place the infrastructure to provide for them.

Anderson's comments are absolutely shocking. For a Christian and a clergyman to suggest that rigging a legal system is accepable is simply shameful. To then suggest, as he does, that he is aware of this happening in the past, without speaking out is just as deplorable. This is the stuff of dictatorships, not a Christian polity. Saying that gay people would wish +VGR ill is pathetic and just looks like projection to me. After all, +VGR wasn't wearing a bullet proof vest to protect him from us at his consecration, was he.

"Is there any way in which the truth can be brought home to Dr. Williams that his policies and behaviour to date have done nothing other than weaken the Anglican Communion and compromise any claim which he had to personal integrity?"

Perhaps send him the latest from ++Akinola about a Sept deadine for you guys, and add a picture of dear Neville, clutching a scrap of paper from Hitler in his hand.

Maybe then he will wake up.

But I doubt it.

Yes the linked articles are quite interesting. If the African news piece has gots its message right, the new realigned Anglican Communion is going to disown progressive believers, queer folks, and some others in CoE who possibly could be targeted. And use these examples of discipline to show its good faith to the Vatican. There is nothing that brings folks together for a strong while like having a common, horrible enemy.

It is a familiar, exquisitely tuned symbolic moment: The armed authority solemnly says, Make us a choice, then, by either allowing us to shoot that person over there for being an unconformed thought criminal or for being a queer person, or perhaps we will have to shoot you for being unorthodox. No, of course not, no real live bullets are yet involved; but the words are bullet like, and the appropriations of final authority to know who is saved and who is not, whom Christ welcomes to Eucharist and who is rejected, is simply stunning and - well - obvious.

This replays much that people with presumed power over others in the name of God or, almost the same in import, the name of the state sooner or later seem unable to resist.

The irony is that this should above all happen in public via the Anglican realignment, when being Anglican was formerly lampooned for its permeable boundaries, welcoming of a wide variety of types of thinkers and believers, and well you who have been around for several decades already know the old drill that is now completely out of Anglican bounds according to Africa.

I don't know whether this is just a matter for a long, long, long season of fasting as PB KJS tells us now - or a case of the dysfunctional family that has decided to let its wild child run everything because they have gotten afraid of him and fear what he might do next if they set limits. It is more and more looking like we must burn down the house in TEC and Canada at least, if not elsewhere, too, in order to preserve these places as Anglican. What a fine, ironic paradox.

While Canon Anderson certainly raises questions about his own integrity, it should be noted that he recognizes the integrity of his opponents: "I believe that they will willingly leave the communion before they will sacrifice their ideals, their integrity. Many of the most influential bishops deeply believe in the gay and lesbian cause and believe that it is approved and blessed by God. I cannot imagine a situation where they would sell that out."

I offer a Modest Proposal that should settle this nasty feud once and for all. It really makes no theological sense to ban gay bishops but permit gay priests and deacons. Holy Orders is one sacrament not three. And of course we could ban all gays from both Orders and Marriage (thinly disguised as blessings). Why only two sacraments? What is the logic of that? Ban one, ban all i say. We ought catch them at Baptism and forbid it. And now with dna testing we can at least tell when the tendancy is there. I am advocating forbidding membership in the Body of Christ for any person whose dna suggests that they might become gay. While this might be a bit expensive for some African Churches, there seems to be millions in American money to promote their campaigns against the TEC so with this controvesy behind us, the money could be used to sort out the rakes in the first place. For a few years, some retro testing would be in order. That will ferret out those closeted Bishops and Deans, by God. It's high time we move forward on this, not in half measures but in full. There are so many other questionable groups hanging about our churches and we need to make a start of this. The sooner the better. The divorced and the masturbators will be much easier to spot!

For those of you of tender heart; i offer this by way of satire. I am currently working on a rite for Same Sex Blessing and it will be used in California this year. Of that i have no doubt what so ever.

Pluralist,

Where does Anderson say these terrible things? I don't find them on the AAC site..

Steve Watson
I made no reference to bishops 'breaking commandments'. Though clearly you and Anderson have broken them .

The innuendo is in your own eye.
I could name those bishops who are keen train-spotters would that be innuendo ? I could name them with a light heart because I don't think Anderson,Giddings, Reform , Mainstream and sundry other head-bangers would start a campaign of attacks and vilification,as they did against Jeffrey John and Richard Harries. What a way to treat a faithful servant on the eve of his retirement.*

The gay bishops of the Church could be more open if given the necessary personal and moral support from those less vulnerable. I do realize that the Rightwing American paymasters machinations using Akinola, Anderson et al have got even heterosexuals worried. We are not used to this level of dirty business in Church, by and large.

A HUGE question is :* "Why are Churches so unspportive?" This was discussed very movingly on T19 some time ago. How many had had to join *sports, hobbies or social groups for friendship and fun; and fellowship and solidarity. I felt sad hearing this form such a hugely committed and church involved group. I also felt sad as their words rang true for me. If the Cof E bishops were a football team , would they have supported their gay mates in the team better than their gay bish colleagues? Let alone John left behind in the changing room ? Is a peculiarly anglican thing ? I just don't know. Except that I have found a free church I got involved with, far more sympatico, friendly. and good craic /fellowhip than a lifetime in the C ofE ever brought me. But can I generalise from this ? ... ...... probably.

(You can attend a C of E service for weeks before any one says more than, "You're in my seat !"). I DO think this is relevant to the current anglican woes. If the primates had been down the bar together most nights it would have done wonders for their deliberations !.....

"Fancy a pint ,Steve ?!"

"While Canon Anderson certainly raises questions about his own integrity, it should be noted that he recognizes the integrity of his opponents" (Fr O'Leary)

Yes, and if he had stopped there, fine. But he didn't. He carried on instead, talking of the 'brilliance' of the double bind the communique puts those members of TEC into and the consequences that would have. Taking the smug, 'pleased', tone of the rest of his comments into account as well, this man has done himself, his position and his organisation no credit at all. As a result it is hard to believe he has any respect for those he disagrees with at all.

Harvard Man

The remarks of Anderson were linked in the original article above, and are at
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=1301

Dr Fee asked: "Isn't anybody listening? I think the New Anglican Right typically means what it says. "

So did Herr H. Didnt' stop people laughing.