The Canadian response looks like a principled, theologically sound, dialogical one. Especially to be noted is what it says about the hermeneutics of Scripture -- as opposed to the odour of fundamentalism attaching to Lambeth 1.10.

By the terms of the Tanzania communique, should the Canadians be excommunicated along with the Episcopalian Church?

I am not a Canadian, so I'm not sure I should be commenting on this, but frankly I think the change should be canonical. From the conservative perspective, a canonical change requires a high level of support, From the liberal perspective, a canonical change provides the same kind of stability and legal footing as the marriage canons. The precedent of remarriage after divorce is a fair one.

A Response to the Windsor Report comes as a breath of fresh air. There have been so many dishonest, cynical and politically motivated reports--from Issues to Windsor to the C of E Bishops' 'Pastoral' Letter, to the recent stuff from Dar es Salaam--that this is refreshing, encouraging and outstanding in content and the process that delivered it. All people of all viewpoints and experiences have been consulted, respected and their views included. The whole process has been participative, egalitarian and open, with full participation of 'lay people'--and it shows. The medium is the message. Minority voices of many kinds have been engaged and heard --and represented here with clarity. Including theological, racial and sexual minorities. The experience of women has been brought from the margin, and they have challenged the rosy view of the history, of the ordination of women struggle, espoused by ordained men post eventu (very very post!). Lee Tim-Oi is spoken of very movingly, and with great respect. The creeping centralisation coming in under Carey and Williams is named and challenged. As is the attempt to give unwarranted and unauthorised authority to the office of the ABC; and the words and deeds of the primates' group meetings and the Lambeth Conference. It points out that the member Churches of the AC have never been consulted on these innovations, let alone consented to them. It repays study and in any case is a pleasure to read--and a model of the classic Anglicanism that was once so characteristic of anglican meetings and documents, at their best.

Laurence, the Windsor rewriting of Li Tim Oi's story to serve the purposes of ++Drexel Gomez et alii is pretty awful to behold. It a good thing that the Canadian Church responded to a revision of her story that stood 180 degrees from her own understanding of her vocation and that of Bishop Hall.

Mark Harris posted about this on her feast day this year, http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/search?q=li+tim+oi

I left a comment, as Li Moksi was one of my most beloved friends.

The church's tradition is not about stasis, but about life. Faithfulness is not taking a stand, but taking a journey.

We will see where General Synod takes the Anglican Church of Canada. I assume that ++Rowan will wish to coerce the synod much as he did the Americans last year. I am not sure he has much more magic in his sleeves.

From the liberal perspective, a canonical change provides the same kind of stability and legal footing as the marriage canons.

The CoGS also decided that any resolution passed by General Synod must be passed by a 60% margin in order to pass in order to provide that stability and legal footing.

Good document: I'd highlight these points in the Response:

14. We affirm Windsor's call to "those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:

* To express regret for the consequences of their action
* To affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
* To effect a moratorium on further interventions.

We also call upon these archbishops and bishops to seek an accommodation with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care." (¶155) We as a Province have been affected by bishops who have intervened. Such interventions are contrary to the Windsor Report, Lambeth Conference resolutions and the Primates' Communiqué of 2005.

18. ...We believe that, among Christians of good faith, there can be legitimate differences on many issues, and we wish to protect the freedom of conscience of those with differing views. We believe that further work needs to be done on expressing a theology of diversity, including its limits, especially as rooted in the theology of God the Trinity.

31. The Covenant process could provide a place where the evolving structures of the Communion can be discussed and agreed upon... We affirm that “we do not favour the accumulation of formal power by the Instruments of Unity, or the establishment of any kind of central ‘curia’ for the Communion.” (¶105) ...We would be wary of the over-development of structures which would make it difficult for the Church to respond quickly and easily to fulfill its mission in its local context. We are distrustful of the development of structural changes driven primarily by issues and in the midst of acute crisis.

And one contained opinion:

...In some cases provinces will continue to have close and comfortable ties with each other but in other cases there will be a relationship which may more closely resemble the ecumenical relationships which Anglicans enjoy with other Christian denominations. This loosening of our ties would be preferable to a tightly controlled centralization

Bear in mind that this is not yet a Canadian response; it is merely the putting forward of resolutions. The response will be more adequately judged after the votes in June. The resolutions can be amended at Synod, which happened to the SSB resolutions in 2004.

It seems the Anglican Communion, not the British SORs, is the proper place to voice concern for the Freedom of Conscience.

Laurence, the Windsor rewriting of Li Tim Oi's story to serve the purposes of ++Drexel Gomez et alii is pretty awful to behold. It a good thing that the Canadian Church responded to a revision of her story that stood 180 degrees from her own understanding of her vocation and that of Bishop Hall.

Mark Harris posted about this on her feast day this year, http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/search?q=li+tim+oi

I left a comment, as Li Moksi was one of my most beloved friends.
Alison

Thanks Alison for sharing this. I am so glad you knew her like this. I have long admired her and moved by story, have felt a spiritual encouragement from her and a closeness, somehow. I am so glad she has a special day in the Calendar ofCanada, I assume (or US ~?). She certainly is one to commemorate ! I am so glad to have been directed to this website page celebrating her memory.

Yes, it is good that the Canadian Church has put the histort straight. Also challenging the unwarranted innovations of Carey, Williams and the primates---why didn't they stick to Coggan's modest goal of 'leisurely conversation'?

Whatever, the voting in the GS come June, nothing can detract from the authenticity of the process of sharing and respectful listening that gave rise to this document. And nothing can deny the truth of it --- even if no-one 'votes' for it.

I should rather see Canada and TEC maintain their witness to the truth, with this depth of integrity, and end up formally 'separate' from the AC--than vice versa.

There is no process for expulsion from the AC--this won't stop Williams and the 'primates' group' --but it does mean that they cannot act to exclude these Churches, with any integrity. It would be another sham--- and we will all know this. Just as Lee Tim Oi was always in the truth --- even though it took the white men in power, a long time to recognize it.

Yes, we will see where the GS takes the Church.

Whatever happens-- no 'mere resolutions' these !

So funny how important some people think Canada and TEC etc are in all this

- don't you realise that even financial threats have not worked to date and there is a clear view emerging in the AC that it is willing to see TEC and its small friends around the place walk - we can afford to lose a small no of declining churches from the AC (in fact it will free us up to get on with the mission of the AC)

- don't you realise, your PB has just signed up to the formation of the new Anglican church in the US with a new leader chosen from outside?

NP, not according to the Tanzania communique she isn't. It is supposed to cause a withdrawal from outside, whilst this communion and local primatial oversight sets up, except the infiltrators received assurances about CANA continuing which renders that primatial oversight fairly pointless come September 30 or any further deadline.

OK the Canadian text is not a response, properly, yet.

At the end of the day, a change in canons is almost certainly required. As I interpret the defeat of the one resolution, the intention would be to begin such a process of canonical change only at or after General Synod 2010.

One of the great canards emerging from the so-called Global South has been that the "liberals" have rushed headlong into this innovation. While I cannot speak to all times and all places, I can say that a "liberal" bishop declining consent to successive synod resolutions (as +Michael Ingham did in New Westminster) hardly constitutes a headlong rush. Likewise, deliberately extending a process by at least three years hardly seems a headlong rush either.

I had the privilege of knowing Li Tim-Oi slightly when I lived in Toronto. Curiously, it was several months before I realized her role in such a grand story.

(Quote) The church's tradition is not about stasis, but about life. Faithfulness is not taking a stand, but taking a journey. (Unquote)

Wow thanks loads A. for putting this into words. I too resonate more with the centering image of being a pilgrim, rather than being a canon lawyer.

Pilgrims take stands, too, of course; but they always know they are called into daily transformation, even if that just means we keep on keeping one for the time being.

From some relative distance, I feel sorry for the realignment folks, because common sense suggests they are bound to be disappointed in the end. A grand new rightwing world and chuch are hardly going to happen short of force. And having realigned whatever can be rightwardly pushed among us, what is next, what is left?

Meanwhile a whole new progressive movement is gathering strength, too, across Christian differences and even across interfaith differences.

See: http://www.tcpc.org/template/index.cfm

Wow, I feel a bit ashamed. I didn't know about Rev Li Tim Oi's story.

I suppose this is what Lambeth relies on. Happy ignorance and blind obedience of the sort pledged to Duncan in the Westfields Response.

I saw the name mentioned a couple of times and looked over it, until now.

The most appalling thing is the Windsor Report's lies and disrespect of this woman. The most astonishing thing is that the women who know of this are so temperate in their response, such as Bishop Tottenham.

The Windsor Report has nothing to do with God. Nothing to do with truth. Everything to do with politics and lies.

I feel a greater peace in putting aside Anglicanism now. If I'd have known about this, let alone how much 1:10 was serious, I would have left three years ago.

Windsor compliant? Shame on you.

If this is what comes of modern Anglicanism, then I hope for its destruction. What a mess. What a shameful mess.

NP writes:
"There is a clear view emerging in the AC that it is willing to see TEC and its small friends around the place walk - we can afford to lose a small no of declining churches from the AC (in fact it will free us up to get on with the mission of the AC)"

I seem to remember someone writing 'The eye cannot say to the hand "I don't need you." And the head cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"...There should be no division in the body..its parts should have equal concern for each other.'

The sub-text may of course be that members of small churches, liberal churches, churches with a sacramental outlook, churches which sing hymns as opposed to worship songs, churches which aren't like MY church are full of people who are only pretending to be Christians, being in reality children of wrath predestined to eternal damnation. Now if that's what some of our correspondents believe, let them be open about it. If they believe that God doesn't love everything and everyone he has made, but actually made some so that he could hate them, let them be open about that too.

But if not, then let them remember that the love of God is broader than the measures of man's mind. That the gate leading to life is narrow, and there are few who find it, and that the faithful two or three who keep the lamp of the gospel alight, however precariously, as they are able, are not less in the Kingdom than the megachurch of thousands where there is no prayer and no word of testimony at a baptism service (and I have a particular occasion and place in mind). As our bishop said to us only this lunch-time - we are taught to love God, our neighbours, our enemies and ourselves. In that order.

This is the sort of reasoned and thoughtful contribution Robin Eames was expecting from Provinces when he said the Windsor Report was a process and not a judgment.

However the Anglican Communion website tells us in bold print:
“The Reception Process has now closed”

We are now at the “Covenant Reception” time.

We are assured that:
“What is to be offered in the Covenant is not the invention of a new way of being Anglican, but a fresh restatement and assertion of the faith which we as Anglicans have received, and a commitment to inter-dependent life such as always in theory at least been given recognition.”
This “spin” is something we can expect to her a great deal of – “NO! Its nothing new dears, it’s what your bishops and their helpers have been planning for a long time – You didn’t notice? Ah, well whose fault is that then? Don’t worry little ones, in this urgent crisis (say urgent several times) trust these wise old bishops and their advisers to sort it all out.”
The preface for the NEW Covenant gives some sort of time-table – a little vague and hesitant, but as yet we have not seen a “Covenant Reception Process timetable” – but my information is that its reception has probably already happened - and that too is now closed.

(To turn the song from the "South Park" movie on its head) Praise Canada! :-D

*****

"- don't you realise, your PB has just signed up to the formation of the new Anglican church in the US with a new leader chosen from outside?"

NP, to those of us who are *very concerned* about the "Primatial Vicar" proposal, quotes such as yours can only help us SLOW DOWN, and look ***carefully*** at what this proposal requires (in varied interpretations, e.g. yours). Thanks! ;-/

[NB: it's interesting to see that even some Episcopalian *conservatives* like Bp. John Howe (Central Florida, IIRC), are expressing negative reactions to the PV proposal, also]

"...PB has just signed up to the formation of the new Anglican church in the US with a new leader chosen from outside?"

A dog might wag its tail to be nice, but that doesn't mean that the dog is being wagged.

People might want to be careful not to drool over their fantasies being fulfilled. In sharing their dreams with what they want to do to us, they repulse others away as well as us.

Actually, maybe it is better that they continue to insult and attempt to intimidate us. At least they are proving that they do what we have been saying they do all along.

crypto - the point is TEC is proving repeatedly and consistently that it is from a different body and the body analogy was never meant to accomodate heresy, as you know.......but there is time up to 30th Sept for TEC repentance.

JCF - I think TEC ought to think very carefully before accepting a PV because it is an unprecendented giving away of authority in a province....as some have said, the ABC would not accept it in England

(it is a fudge and we have all eaten enough sour fudge, nobody gains from all this strife - I prefer a clear solution to the problem that we have of 2 religions in one organisation)

yes Cheryl - it is better if we have open and honest intentions and actions - that's what was good about Tanzania (there was more clarity than ever before on the response required being unequivocal)

(what we do NOT need is eg Griswold both being part of a call for VGR not to be made bishop and then presiding over that occasion - we do NOT need that sort of "thinking" or "integrity" any more because it has been proven to be destructive)

"...we do NOT need that sort of "thinking" or "integrity" any more..."

This "we" have never wanted this kind of "thinking" or "integrity" at at anytime. The only reason the "any more" phrase is being used is they haven't worked out how to gag the dialogue yet.

Have no illusion that if there was some way of bring back the censorship clamps, they would do so.

These priests who now say "sorry God, we know we got busted by the secular states, but we are so sorry and we fully repent, so don't make us have to be nice to the outcastes and afflicted" are simply opportunistic liars. The minute they could overturn the secular state or get exemption from public scrutiny, they will be back at overt forms of aggression and corruption.

They don't care about how they hurt people.

They don't care about God's name.

They only care about their positions of power and authority and like to use God's name to justify their paradigms, but they throw out or ignore God's missives the second they think they aren't being watched or held accountable.

Okay, they care about the environment, because they've been shamed into it. They care about the poor, because they've been shamed into it. They care about justice on this earth, because they have been shamed into it. They say the words mercy and compassion, but at every opportunity they look for every loophole to justify witholding justice, mercy and compassion from as many souls as they can.

Then they preen themselves to claim they are the most loved of all god's children! Their prayer could be "Mirror, mirror who is the fairest of them all?" With the subtext of "Go out and kill him/her if it is not me".

NP wrote: "JCF - I think TEC ought to think very carefully before accepting a PV because it is an unprecendented giving away of authority in a province....as some have said, the ABC would not accept it in England"

Moreover, she hasn't got it, so she can't give it away.

A Presiding Bishop is not a Primate.