Nothing new or unexpected in the Living Church piece.

But it's fun to see the source for the "KJS in tears" statements on various Venomonline blogs ;=)

George Conger does not actually say that, surprise, surprise...

Sarah Dylan Breuer at http://www.sarahlaughed.net/anglicana/2007/03/david_bena_leav.html notes the recent letter issued by the Nigerian House of Bishops at http://www.anglican-nig.org/hobmarch2007.htm which suggests that they and CANA are proceeding full steam ahead with continued intervention in U.S. dioceses regardless of what Canterbury or the U.S. House of Bishops has to say about the Primatial Council idea.

"Language that at one time spoke to the Church of England and the issue of civil partnerships was dropped as the primates adopted an American focus for the document." (DIVIDE and CONQUER)

If TEC caves to these bullies they will then be free to turn their "focus" on the UK priests in partnerships. What is the CofE HOB going to do when given an ultimatum demanding repentance for tolerating their gay priests? It would be better for them to stand up now and support TEC.

[Regarding an absolute against bigotry; legal protection] Who is he trying to fool with this? [Andrew Brown]

Perhaps he is trying to reconcile his own personal position and outlook with the actuality he is dealing with - in other words, it is a form of unpersuading statement made anyway whilst he is upholding a unity with those who practise bigotry and offer the opposite of legal protection. It is a thin connection between what he would persuade, write and act upon freely, and what he is actually doing and perhaps his own attempt at hanging on to personal integrity.

Meanwhile the Living Church report shows that assurances were received about CANA continuing and that it is not going away, and therefore surely waiting to proceed, whatever the other oversight arrangements, especially from the end of September if not before.

The continuing press on the ground by realignment forces/groups like CANA seems to clearly point towards narrowing our Anglican spaces even further.

If this is the true path for the communion to unquestioningly walk in the near impending future; what use is listening, because it never really is listening? The pat answers of the religious right are there ahead of us, awaiting any and all possible questions in presuppositional self-content, closed.

This new, vigorous closedness is new to me as an essential Anglican element. The rest of us are still walking on, since we began to follow Jesus anew outside of the USA Bible Belt churches which invited us to leave in the first place. We asked too many questions in our faith? We were queer or queer friendly in our families or social networks. We were ... fill in the blanks.

Now some remaining questions involve: (1) Will TEC declare itself as closed in conformity with the communique and schedule, instead of open? (2)What other Anglican provinces worldwide must also announce they are fasting from intellectual life vitamins (tolerance for ambiguities, inquiry, empirical hypothesis testing, critical scholarship, the positive lived witness of non-realignment believers) in favor of a more basic biblical diet, based more heavily upon ancient near eastern mores and understandings?

... based upon Ancient near eastern Philosophy and late Modern translations into "application".

If the pieces by Conger and Plowman are broadly accurate, and it appears that they are, it is clear that nothing will satisfy the Not-Particularly-Global South, short of total domination of TEC and the Anglican Communion. The timing of the appointment of the "new" CANA bishop shows a particularly fine sensitivity to the need for restraint and the preservation of “Windsor” principles at this difficult point. On reading these articles, one feels that the best possible outcome of the recent Tanzanian jamboree would have been to let Akinola's signed statement out of the bag, sticking responsibility for the breaking of the communion firmly where it belongs, in the hands of the Global South, and leaving the field clear for the remaining majority of provinces to create a "Thinking Person's Communion".

Clearly compromise is out of the question, when the choice is between a Communion attempting to deal with realities of the 21st century, and one firmly rooted in the late Bronze Age taboos. Elijah and the prophets of Baal time, anyone? I – and many others, I doubt not - would happily watch Archbishop Akinola prove his scripture-based credentials by calling fire from heaven, and would likely be sufficiently impressed to heed his words and warnings, should he succeed - always with the proviso that the fire be called down under scientifically-verifiable conditions.

On a serious note, TEC should, as a matter of intelligent policy, strive to keep matters on an even keel, preserving as great a degree of internal cohesion as is possible, until such time as the Global South heads off to play in its own sand-box, as will clearly happen sooner rather than later.

The last minute disclosure of some information was noted at the time. There was the document that had been completed six months earlier but not released. There was also the references to Schori having dialogue with Spong.

As a hidden arrow, I can see why they would copy this strategy. What they have forgotten is that I spent twelve months before the tsunami trying to use official channels to warn them something was coming. I then spent 18 months after the tsunami trying to communicate and appeal to the appropriate authorities.

They can not say that they were not forwarned of my agenda, nor that they could have taken on board the concerns and avoided things escalating to the next level. They can not say that God did not send a messenger to try and avert a toe to toe showdown on theological principles.

As Gandhi would say, first they ignored, then they ridiculed, then they attacked. Now they lose.

If God were only moving within the "hallowed" bishops, then this would not be a problem. I think God has very clearly shown that God moves for both the just and the unjust and that we can expect unexpected allies from unexpected quarters.

This is an excellent bible study that was only issued last night http://hrc.org/scripture/week.asp It talks of moving beyond judgmental theology, very relevant for these times where souls are overly obsessed with institutional power and blind to its risks.

"Over several grueling sessions, marked at one point by tears and raised voices," The Living Church Foundation

Good Lord, Global South grandstanding bigots aren't even civilized and have I have lost the tinest hope they will "listen" to anything other than promise of greater self-importance while LISTENING only to the sound of their OWN hatefilled VOICES.

http://fromgloryintoglory.blogspot.com/2007/03/reflection-on-meeting-with-presiding.html

This is a most interesting post from a leader of Integrity about a meeting he and Susan Russel had with the PB. If his analysis is correct, KJS has committed herself to supporting and selling the recommendations of the primates communique. That also jives with my impressions from watching her webcast.

Her commitment would explain why Rowan Williams thinks that he can move ahead with their implementation before any sort of formal response from TEC. Will the majority in TEC be willing to pull the rug out from the PB? She managed to sell B033 against the popular will. She would appear to think that she can pull yet more rabbits out of the same hat.

Does TLC report actually cite who was crying and who raised their voice? Seems a bit of a reach to assume it was or wasn't a certain primate.

"Boundaries within these blocs were also fairly fluid and differences in churchmanship led to disparate views on how to proceed."

Telling statement indeed. Maybe the GS primates aren't a monolithic bloc of backwards people from LDCs.

“Akinola was the last to sign the document. In Akinola’s briefcase was a signed statement by global south primates, ready to be released as a minority report with the communiqué if it had not been strengthened. It also would have signaled a breakup of the communion.”

“Illness prevented Archbishop Akinola from joining the primates’ Sunday excursion to Zanzibar. However, he was able to craft an addendum to the communiqué which he presented to the primates upon their return that evening.”

Archbishop Akinola wasn’t the only person staying at the White Sands Hotel not to travel to the Communion service on Zanzibar. Bishop Martyn Minns and Canons David Anderson and Chris Sugden remained behind.

This is only speculation, but might they have helped Archbishop Peter Akinola rise from his sick bed and walk from the Primates’ end of the hotel to the open area where he had on previous days been meeting with the bishop and the two canons in an upstairs room?

Mighty they, together, have been drafting the addendum to the communiqué which Archbishop Akinola was carrying around in his brief case?

Might they have been plotting the break up of the communion?

I would value a statement from Martyn, David and Chris confirming that they didn’t meet with Archbishop Peter Akinola on the Sunday and had no hand in crafting the addendum.

If they were active with him, then I ask the question - who are the more faithful Anglicans? Those who travelled with the majority of the Primates to Zanzibar to commemorate the abolition of slavery, or those who didn’t attend because they needed time to plot the downfall of the communion and draft a document as an addendum to the work undertaken by the majority of the Primates.

Either way, it is clear that Archbishop Akinola was working independently of all the other Primates to engineer his own agenda, and he succeeded. Tragic and manipulative.

Colin

Interesting points, but a public statement means nothing. It doesn't matter when the document was written, that it was there pre-prepared and pre-signed says it all.

Drdanfee

You will be pleased to know that the "USA Bible Belt churches" are not so clear cut anymore. Similarly the walls of Red versus Blue states is also breaking down. There are those who recognise that there is common ground that is the interests of both red and blue, and there are common issues that are in neither's interest.

We saw an early ripple with the late 2006 US senate elections. More is happening. For example, I saw a marketing interview for the new movie "Bobby" the other day which made this same point. http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=159986 and http://www.filmexposed.co.uk/?file=feature&id=73 in which there is the Estevez quote that caught my attention the other day “Unfortunately ‘liberal’ has been turned into a four-letter word in the United States. I think that [the Bush administration] have used it as a way to divide people. I don’t believe in this red state, blue state idea. I think that we are red, white and blue.” and on the TV interview he said "we are American".

Let that mean the best of what America can give to its own people and also to what it can give to the rest of humanity. I am tired of hearing that being the top dog in the biggest rubbish dump is the best thing possible - that reminds me of "Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome".

Colin Coward speculates that Martyn Minns, David Anderson, and Chris Sugden might have helped Archbishop Akinola with the "briefcase statement."

Hmmm. This has happened before. What other documents has Martyn Minns helped Akinola with?

Well, there were a couple of statements issued after meetings of the Global South. One carried the signatures of persons who had neither reviewed or signed the document, and angrily disavowed it after it was issued.

The other had no signatures at all, and was issued after the meeting was over. It purported to represent the position of all parties to the meeting, but did not, and was again disavowed by several participants.

Now, let me speculate just a bit further.

While the "briefcase document" was being crafted, all the other Primates were at the Zanzibar cathedral. So who was on hand to sign it? No one but Akinola.

We know from descriptions of the meeting that all but a few of the participants had left by the time Archbishop Akinola started threatening to use the document.

Whose names were on the document? Were any of the other supposed signatories still present?

And yes, I'd like to know: Were all the signatures genuine?

Hmm, so Peter Akinola becomes de facto leader and principal public face of the Anglican Communion in September, just about the same time as the first prosecutions and deaths under the new Nigerian legislation are hitting the headlines. Lots of photographs of him consorting with Mr Sugden, Mr Minns et al, who having said nowt against said legislation, taint irreparably their various pressure groups by association. ConsEvs are faced with unpalatable choices, lines of retreat having been cut off by well publicised statements and photo-opportunities on a par with George Galloway being photographed with Saddam.

Did Mr Machiavelli write this script...?

Why is it that whenever I learn the sordid details of the way +Akinola and his allies treat +Cantuar, I am reminded of those memorable lines from Russell Hoban's 'Ridley Walker':

"Sharna pax and get the poal
When the Ardship of Cambry comes out of the hoal."

Come on Mynster - evos are not forced to choose between ++Akinola and TEC.

Given his recent work and statements, we are quite happy with the ABC as he defends Lambeth 1.10 as the "standard of teaching" in the CofE and AC. WE choose to stick to this traditional understanding /teaching and not TEC innovations. We do not choose Akinola....we choose the authority of Scripture.

I do not agree with the Nigerian legislation but I am not backing it by disagreeing with TEC's innovations....not if we are logical and fair about things.

Hi Cheryl thanks for the link and comments. I think we are pretty much on the same or similar pages, here. I, too, dearly wish that Canterbury had simply repeated, over and over and over again: We are all Anglicans. Full Stop. Period. And let the indignant realignment campaign fur fly until it had either wearied or demonstrated its dominating intentions sufficiently to lose the interest of all non-domination-hungry believers (whom I suspect are still the majority of worldwide Anglicans?).

But, alas, Lord have mercy, Canterbury could not speak up. So now the realignment campaign cats are indeed out of the bag and with this sort of love directed at TEC, who needs S&M dungeon masters?

Sad thing is, Jefferts Schori is either waiting for the non-GS primates to come to her aid, or she is not going to get any help because internal TEC support means nothing to the realignment primates. The blogs are replete with celebrations of God laying down biblical rulers for the worldwide Anglican Communion. And we all know just whose rulers those rulers are, do we not?

Alas. Lord have mercy. Nothing to do, really, but just keep following Jesus of Nazareth, regardless of whether or not an invitation to Lambeth arrives in the proper post at the scheduled time.

With great respect, NP, it doesn't matter two hoots whether evos choose the authority of Scripture or the authority of Abuja. When the midden hits the windmill, the people who matter - that is, the world, those among whom we're supposed to spread the good news, will see photographs of ++Abuja next to the darlings of the reasserting movement. The association which will be made will not be one which COnsEvs wil find to their taste, I suspect.

Those who sup with the devil must use a long spoon, and I think that in this case the spoon's not long enough,

Whenever I think the comments at Stand Firm e.g. get a little strong, I come over and see how moderate they really are. For example, Mr Coward posits a conclave on the basis of nothing more than physical proximity and then says he would 'welcome' disavowal by the people he claims were involved. And it appears that none of the other posters have been shocked by this egregious disregard for the rules of fairness.

I see what you mean, Mynster - but I am sure you can see the same is true of association with the likes of VGR.

I was in the back of a London cab the other week.....and was distressed to hear the man's view of the CofE as a place he would not send his children because of perceived immorality. "They are all...., mate."

I put him straight but I think your point about association is right and cuts both ways.

Yes, I too find London cabbies excellent arbiters of moral values !

Seriously, they are a good lot round here, and my husband and I find them non-homophobic to us and genuinely supportive. Mind you we have known some of them for almost 20 years now. They have seen the comings and goings of an ordinary couple.

NP perhaps you might have challenged or explored the implied homophobia of your cabbie ?
The gayness of the anglo-catholic movement has been an open secrret for years --- for those not looking the other way, or passing by on the other side ...

Looking at various articles/links posted in the last coupleof days, it looks like my prediction of a queue of COnsEvs trying to say 'no-one told us about ++ABuja's darker side' is not too far from the truth. The wheels on the COnEv bus are starting to fall off, sabotaged not by nasty liberals but by the inconsistencies within the ConsEv agenda. Williams doesn't need to beat 'em up, they'll soon be doing it themselves.