I am glad the PB is spaking. And also the PC (Primate of Canada).

It needs lots and lots of straightforward honest talking, sharing and discussing.

Andrew Hutchinson's account of why he signed; and indeed why the PB signed is very revealing; showing how conscientious they have sought to be.

However, someone needs to stand up and say, "Enough is enough. This nonsense has gone too far. "

Donald Coggan --bless 'im intended these occasional meetings, as he said, at the time , to be "for leisurely conversation" --not a Canterbury Curia.

Anglicans on the ground the world over, will be as observant of these (and future) edicts as aremembers of the RC denomination-- who ignore all the nonsesne that pours out from Rome & the Curia.

An elderly RC priest of my acquaitance denounced the Cardianl's adoption stance and his Church's homophobia in no uncertain terms recently--- to huge apprecaition by the 1000 odd folks at the service. Some of whom spoke of their lgbt family; and how they value them.

This World Service extended report is by far the best of the radio reports.

I summarised each contributor. Space limits me to one: Bishop of Southwark

I still support him, good and noble, fine priest and bishop. Any Ab of C would find it difficult. C o E is broad and Anglican Communion broader. Archbishop Rowan puts unity right at the centre of his concern, and therefore major problems in pursuing that unity in terms of truth. He leans over backwards to support those with whom he would fundamentally disagree, perhaps he treats rather badly those with whom he naturally would agree. At the present time the American Church is being treated rather badly.

It is not so about biblical authority, it is about interpretation - Anglican position is "thoughtful holiness" of brains as well as souls.

He's the best archbishop we will have because he is a man of God, who believes that provided he can keep people together and talking there will eventually be a meeting of hearts, minds and souls. I think in 6 months present structures will be pushed to their very limit and if the limit means losing substantial parts of the Church we then have to reconsider present structures - then move to a Commonwealth of independent provinces - a sustainable and effective model in decades ahead.

Rowan is not a disappointment: it is sad that we have not allowed him to play to his strengths which is to talk to world and Church about God and related to contemporary life. He can't get round to that because of the noise of everything else.

(Also done Andrew Brown, a Kampala bishop and Stephen Bates)

He thus diagrees with RW - already sees a spiritual commonwealth as sustainable and Williams' approach has been wrong.

Jim Naughton has posted a thread on ++Rowan Cantuar's interpretation of the Primates' Communique as per a press interview in Tanzania:

To quote:

"If widely circulated, I believe it will significantly handicap Bishop Jefferts Schori in her efforts to persuade our Church to accept the difficult recommendations being urged upon us by the Primates. I say this in part because Rowan Williams asserts that gay people living in relationships should not be ordained Not ordained as bishops, mind you, but simply not ordained. In the wake of the meeting in Tanzania, both he and Peter Akinola have spoken out against gay ordination. Akinola is under the mistaken impression that the Primates’ communiqué touches upon this issue. It does not. But these two statements, one on the heels of the other, suggest if we accept the current recommendations of the Primates, other “recommendations” will soon by on their way.

Perhaps more alarming, Williams' statements demonstrate that he has embraced a view of the Communion that vests unprecedented authority in his office and that of the other Instruments of Unity. No such authority has never been conferred upon the instruments by the member Churches of the Communion, but Williams seems to have joined the Akinolytes in behaving as though it has. This leads to the use of profoundly troubling language about “standards” and “teachings” within the Communion."

If TEC is to be purged of all gay clergy, how about the CofE, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church in Wales and the Church of Ireland? What is ++Rowan's game plan?

John Henry
What Rowan actually said is:
Q:It seems that the leaders are more concerned with preserving their cohesion rather than communicating the truth to the faithful. So, given the circumstances, what does the Anglican Church stand for and why are you dilly-dallying to give a stance in this very crucial moral issue?

A:The stance of the Anglican Communion is clear: It has never said anything other than that. The ordination of active homosexuals is not acceptable.

It has never said anything other than that the marriage of same sex-couples is not to be admitted.

That`s what the Lambeth Conference said in 1998, and every meeting has said so since then.

And later:

Q:Archbishop, I will ask you a personal question: You speak as a leader, you have to guide, you have to encourage and you have to be patient. At times, you have to preserve your opinion until the opportune time. What is your personal position in regard to homosexuality and same sex marriages? Are they sinful or not?

A:I have said what the position of the church is and that`s the position I teach.

Q:And what is that position?

A:That is the position laid out in the resolution of the Lambeth conference in 1998. That is the position that I teach.

Q:But are they sinful or not?

A:That is what we have said. The phrasing of the resolution in 1998 was that homosexual relations were not compatible with scripture. As Archbishop, bishop, priest of the church, that is the teaching which I must keep my allegiance with.

'That is what we have said. The phrasing of the resolution in 1998 was that homosexual relations were not compatible with scripture. As Archbishop, bishop, priest of the church, that is the teaching which I must keep my allegiance with.'
R Williams

BUT that is not what he said in his Michael Harding Memorial Lecture; and it is not what he said before a large gathering of gay clergy at The Royal Foundation of St Katherine (Limehose) but a few years ago. I know, I was there.

Why do liberals chop and change like this? Have they no balls ? Or souls ?....

What do they imagine those of us who are gay are supposed to do with ourselves ? --perhaps practice the serial monogamy so characteristic of UK 'family life', and so much a characteristic of the 'family life' of conservatives and Evangelicals of all sorts. THeir teaching on sex and relationships is drowned out by their actual behaviour, on the ground, so to speak ! This includes George Carey's family life; to the extent that he has the brass neck to continue pontificating about all this, to the rest of us.

Have these practising and former archbishops no shame ?

Can't an archbishop change his mind, Laurence? Granted he isn't a Cranmer - the martyr who changed his mind and created Anglicanism - but cut him some slack. The Gospel is about repentance, y'know.

Laurence

Your question "Why do liberals chop and change like this?" makes an inference that Rowan is a liberal.

Nowadays it looks more like he is a conservative who in his impetuous youth contemplated being a liberal. The pity is that the liberals believed that he believed what he said in those sermons and voted him into office on that basis. I am sure there are souls today contemplating whether it was deliberate deceit or spineless shifting under pressure.

No, Steve, once you have truly understood that a form of oppression is wrong you cannot change your mind. "Repentance" has nothing to do with it. Although you might repent not having spoken out sooner or firmer.

I still hope that Rowan isn't spineless but that he genuinely believes that it is his role to be a facilitator of communication and holding the communion together, regardless of his own personal views.

Erika, I suspect (but don't know) that RW doesn't buy this "oppression" talk. If he really thought there was "oppression" going on in this business, I don't think he would mince words. Homosexuals are not really "oppressed" in the secular western world today, so the rhetoric shouldn't be overplayed. They have every right to start up and organize churches as they will. And the adventurous ones do. But nobody - me included - has the right to demand that existing churches change their ways to suit them. Nobody is forced to be an Anglican - or a Catholic. The Reforamtion and its aftermath did secure certain rights for everyone.

This business that gays honestly existing and thriving in church or society somehow innately oppresses realignment believers in some significant manner is hard to credit.

Male-only medical school deans tried that claim when anybody talked about women being admitted, as if having a woman present would so distract the male mind that no work would ever get done. USA slave owners in the south loudly tried the claim for decades, since the immense and hugely profitable USA cotton trade of that era was based on slave labor. Anti-tranny managers tried the claim, indulging us with vague but alarming talk about men scaring the women in the women's bathrooms and women scaring the men in the men's bathrooms. The USA military has tried this talk, claiming that out gays were innnately detrimental to unit moral and combat effectiveness; only to have that proved wrong in the most recent survey of actively serving military grunts on the ground.

Why do we continue to sit by silently while it is repeated as a creditable position inside the church we love? Of all people, we should know better than to sit silent when false witness against neighbors is being made?

Alas. Lord have mercy.

Steve Watson - existing Churches have changed. Movements changed them, theology changed them, cultural settings changed them. Texts have been altered, unaltered texts have been read differently. And they will change again, as they are doing.

We have a woman archdeacon. That was impossible not very long ago. That is a change. No doubt one day there will be a male Archbishop who is partnered with a man and had some sort of church marriage with him.

Unless by then Arhbishops have become virtual, and you just enter the question you want and the answer comes out according to formularies and the latest interpretations.

I think y'all may be misplacing Archbishop Williams. I suspect it's more of an issue of not being in a position to oppose The Establishment since he's one of its major representatives. It's probably comparable to the position the Vice-President of the US is in when his boss takes a strong stand on an issue. No matter how the VP actually feels, in public he certainly can't actively oppose the president's plan. There's probably a parallel situation in the UK parliament, but I'm not sure what it is.

Jon

He doesn't support the 'establishment', but the reactionaries within the Church.

To be honest, there is a simple answer. Leave. The Church is an utter irrelevance in the UK, and deserves to become more so.

John Spong got it right. Christian myths are there to be rejected.

Merseymike, I've missed your posts! I thought you had taken your own advice and washed your hands of the stinking corpse. Please, Mike - at least we can agree that necrophilia is not a good thing?

Oh, I have, Steve, but I will still comment as someone who regards it as my duty to oppose institutional homophobia wherever I find it.