It is usual two have two different guys in the roles of 'good cop, bad cop' -- not one cop changing masks and scripts back and forth.

What is this load of BS ?! Why toy with people's sensibilities ? I would prefer Akinola-style offensive-honesty to this pussy-footing-god-knows -what offensive patronsing crap .......

Don't f------ insult our commonsense like this ---please.........

Still no reference to the Church of Nigeria, despite its support for the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Bill which has been condemned by Nigeria and African human rights organisations, Amnesty International, the European Union, the US State Department, etc etc as a breach of fundamental human rights.

This is odd, because the very first Lambeth Conference resolution of 1998, Lambeth 1.1, says:-

"Affirmation and Adoption of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
On the fiftieth anniversary of its proclamation in December of 1948, this Conference
(a) resolves that its members urge compliance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the nations in which our various member Churches are located, and all others over whom we may exercise any influence"

The listening process website records:

"In Nigeria the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2006 is passing through the legislature. The House of Bishops has supported it because we understand that it is designed... to prevent wholesale importation of currently damaging Western values. It bans... the formation of any gay groups. The Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria has twice commended the act in their Message to the Nation."

Yet again the Archbishop fails to speak plainly about an important Lambeth Conference resolution being openly flouted by an Anglican Communion church, in contrast with the many words poured out against the US Episcopal Church.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the Anglican Communion is more interested in denying all homosexuals a sex life than in upholding its own policy on fundamental human rights.

I agree with the ABC
(safety, respect - of course)

Finally!!

Dear ABC,

Thank you for your statement regarding the "safe place" our Communion must be for LGBT Episcopalians/Anglicans and fellow Christians of all denominations.

You're getting warm but not quite "there" yet when ignoring the and BLATANT ugly and threatening and most of all DANGEROUS voices of +Akinola/Nigeria (author of "Hooligan Children of LGBT people") and +Orombi/Uganda (I noticed he turned his "righteous opinions" down a notch but that still doesn't mean he didn't/doesn't torment former Integrity Uganda members and their retired Bishop counselor/shepard) and then there is the back-up U.S. "Network" lynch mob represented by such voices as Fr. Matt at Stand Firm who writes he will refuse Communion to "rainbow" family/friends/supporters to "protect" his flock:

http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2007/03/dan-and-matt-debate.html

...then, if you are really paying attention you will hear the high pitched yelping and battle call for "takeover" against The Episcopal Church and it's HOB, Executive Council and General Convention from the Presiding Bishop of the tiny Province of the Southern Cone. Presiding Bishop Venables would exclude LGBT Christians from ALL levels of Church Life fellowship/society in his small part of Latin America (a "Global South" society that has little or no interest in his puritanical mission/witchunt against LGBT people and remains loyal to the vastly more dominant denominations who know how to "love" oneanother better, albeit more discreetly) and beyond his Provincial Borders while betraying his Anglican Communion brothers and sisters in Provinces he apparently "covets" because his religious message is falling on deaf ears at home.

There is so much to be done but why don't we start with a TRUE welcoming of ALL Baptised Christians at the RAIL at The Body of Christ for Holy Week/Semana Santa?

Wow thanks, Canterbury. But, are you really, really, really, really sure about this statement? Eternal hellfire is not a safe place where the human dignity of people who are not straight is a foundation of trust and respect. I thought scripture already told us all that we needed to know? You know, God's closed and complete revelation to us about matters sexual?

Given what is happening in Nigeria and the other places you mention, we were indeed wondering where Anglicans really stood.

So what are the top four recommends you offer us, that would in Canterbury's considered opinion help make all Anglican churches into safe spaces where the fundamental human dignity of non-straight people can be presumed foundational?

How are we going to do this wide-range listening process while keeping what we hear completely out of the next Lambeth Meeting 2008? When do you recommend we do respond to what we hear? Can any dissenting vote on changes scuttle everything?

Just how are some or all, of the many different legacy negatives concerning all that is allegedly bad about not being straight, modified by the best current Anglican thinking around the world? What are our bases for such modifications in our views?

If so many of our key legacy negatives are disconfirmed, as some claim, what is left to condemn?

Please reply by September 30 this year, in order to observe current Primate Meeting deadlines for realigning the communion rightward.

Is that it?

"respect for the proper liberties of homosexual people"

Now, I know that the whole statement is very important. This is what Canterbury (I use the term because I believe from my lay, remote, ignorant perspective that there is a bundle of people in 'Canterbury' that is a complex dynamic, not just ickle ol' Rowan.

But, it may be good message, as much as they could muster, to try to prevent homophobes in Africa arresting, torturing, imprisoning, killing people just because they advocate for the rights of people who find themselves to be of same sex attraction. It may be the best they can do, bearing in mind their silliy home politics, let alone their lately forays into quasi-vaticanality.

But, something has changed over this past decade or so. This public conflict over this 'issue' (not people, as it really impacts, but abstract 'issue'), has brought some of us (I suspect many, in these times and of this day's mind) to a point of expectation, an expectation that we never had before - could it be that justice, equality, mercy, forgiveness, acceptance, love, freedom could apply to me? Us? All of us? Might be the Good News that previously was little more than a taunt?

Can I be among the all of us? It's time to know. We can't have the pretense anymore. There are millions of faithful and potential faithful who count themselves outside of the Grace and Love of God because of this 'issue'. The apathy of the 'institutional' 'church' in the face of this fact (let alone the Nigerian legislation) makes me not want to be associated with the 'institutional' church (so I'm not).

'Respect for the proper liberties of homosexual people' is pertinant for the current Nigerian crisis, perhaps, but 'love of homosexual people' might be more up-front Christian.

Or, at least, human.

Alleluia!
(and in'sh'Allah, too)

;O)

At last! Now we have to make sure the statement - what is the phrase the conservatives love so? - ah yes, make sure the statement "has some teeth in it".

The archbishop simply cannot find it in himself to admit the evil done by Nigeria and its arch-persecutor. blaming hate crimes on the West while ignoring their codification in the South is incredible.

And this is the community leader to whom the House of Bishops wants us to be attached? The "fast" we should undertake is no participation, and no funding of anything until the next GC. Time to name the evil and shake the dust.

FWIW
jimB

Talking and thinking are critical but of no lasting value without action - I have the decided impression that RW is 99% the dilettantish talker and will delay the 1% in him that wishes to act for as long as he possibly can - well, at least he should be able to write a few papers or even a book about actions that he might have taken but, for whatever reason, never quite got around to "actualizing". The priorities of different cultures are part of the difficulty of engaging in full discussion.

Rowan used to write insightful and challenging books and articles.

Now he writes pablum.

The Church's loss, certainly.

But Rowan's loss mostly.

Hmmm. One little word makes all the difference--"proper".

Now, one may ask themselves, "Just what is a PROPER liberty?" Is the ABC's definition of "PROPER" the same as the LBGT definition of "PROPER"? You can bet the LBGT definition of "PROPER liberty" is not the same as Bob Duncan's definition of what's "PROPER liberty". Now, the question is, as usual, "What does Rowan mean by 'PROPER'?" Is his "PROPER" the same as an LBGT "PROPER" or a Bob Duncan "Proper" or ????

I'd say it's not safe to assume too much here. And, Rowan (as usual), is expert at keeping everyone wonderin'.

Steven

He only has to resign to make it a safer place.

Dear ABC,

Please note the attached link to a Church that is MORE than just a "safe place" for LGBT Christians and you won't believe it but it's right down the street from Presiding Bishop Venables bunker in Buenos Aires:

http://actualidadgay.blogspot.com/2007/01/la-primera-boda-religiosa-de-dos.html

Matthew

Ezekiel 18:4 Every living soul belongs to God.

Deuteronomy 5:14-15 The covenant of the Sabbath covers all humanity and even the beasts in the field. It also alludes to keeping the Sabbath as a way of remembering that God brought us out of slavery from Egypt.

You are covered by God's grace, no matter if you are male or female, young or old, perfect or afflicted, of the elite or an outcaste.

It is humans that deny others' access to Zion, but Zion seeks out and finds all her children. Unlike Edom, Zion understands the concept of hospitality and does not challenge God's offers of unilateral grace.

but of course, the CofE must fight tooth and nail against any legislation designed to make Britain a safe place. uh huh.

What are proper liberties? What are improper liberties then? Is the safe place dependent on interpretation of proper liberties.

The trouble with underhand nuanced language is that it gives those being half-criticised every get out they need.

I'd like to see some proper language.

Thanks Leonardo --that sites looks great !

Wish I had some Spanish ! Even without it the aliveness and vibrancy comes through ! ...

Leonardo - thanks for the link.

Deeply tickled I am that the pair chose the Feast of the Immaculate Conception for their nuptials!

Thanks for the translation Erika !

I was moved by their deep love for each other.
How marvellous that they came from the Jewish and Christians respectively, and that this was reflected in their ceremony and celebration.