I could imagine the Archbishop of Canterbury might want to go along to the TEC bishops' meeting quietly, and slip in without a lot of advance bruha-ha and lobbying...

....because he knows all the arguments they will make, having heard them ad nauseam, and he could make them much more strongly himself if he wanted to - so, the ABC is right not to waste mor of his time with TEC.

He deserves a break given how stressful his time as ABC has become following the unilateral actions of ECUSA in 2003 which have hijacked the AC for a few years now.

I hope the ABC has a great rest and has lots of time to focus on prayer and the Word.

So he won't tell anyone just where in the U.S. he's going ? Even tho' he's refused to meet with TEC House of Bishops or Exec. Council ?

Perhaps, as one prominent Episcopalian with a waggish sense of humor has suggested recently, he's planning on vacationing at a hidden location of the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI), or maybe at the Ahmanson estate...

Part of the purpose of such a meeting is for the broader public to see some demonstration of good faith effort on the part of leadership. Much of Rowan Williams' problem is he seems to think that the business of the church is best done by the purple shirts behind closed doors.

The ABC is suppposed to meet with the Canadians in Niagara Falls, Ontario, just across the border from the US. Why could he not travel from there to meet with, say, ++KJS, Bonnie Anderson, and others? Or if that is too short notice, if he is spending some vacation or sabbatical time in the States later, why could he not meet? I still don't see why he cannot accept a civil invitation. He has time to meet with all kinds of other people in other parts of the world. Is he afraid to meet with the HoB? Or is he just clueless rather than spineless?

NP et al,
The point of Williams openly visiting TEC to talk is not simply to hear argument or engage in debate.

Such action might be significant in other venues, yes, but there is more to the importance of a visit from the ABC than that. It would be good to see him in person, whether or not any argument or debate takes place. Maybe instead they might eat together, pray together, do bible study, vent mutual frustrations and speak out for what might be hoped for--none of which necessarily involves arguing and bickering, all of which are incumbent upon Christians serving the same Master.

Even if Williams has turned out after all to be a staunch ally of Akinola and Minns, there is still a point to his being present with integrity as person and to accept the presence of the bishops et al of TEC as persons.

Whatever horrors emerge from what likely will be even more heated acrimony in the future, we would do well at least not to lose our grip on the reality of those with whom we are breaking away, with the reality of their being persons, human beings.

Todd - if he comes to the US HOB, what will he hear which is new?

David H. noted of the ABC's travel plans, "Perhaps, as one prominent Episcopalian with a waggish sense of humor has suggested recently, he's planning on vacationing at a hidden location of the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI), or maybe at the Ahmanson estate..."

I would suggest that consideration be given to the possibility that the ABC will instead be bunkered down, with right-wing patron US Vice President Dick Cheney, at that famous "undisclosed location."

Paranoids of a feather must surely flock together.

I've got little to add to Todd's and Richard Lyon's comments, except this: Americans place great faith in "summits" and face-to-face meetings as techniques of diplomacy. Granted, summit meetings often accomplish little, but they are considered diplomatically significant simply because they take place at all. This may be an American foible, but it's one with deep roots in their culture.

For the Archbishop of Canterbury to refuse the face-to-face meeting to which he has been explicitly invited, on the other hand, conveys to Americans that he is not at all serious about negotiating with their church. Let's remember that the resolution inviting him was proposed by +John Howe, one of the most conservative of American bishops. (And to refuse the invitation because he's on vacation! Americans, you know, simply don't take vacations these days.)

++Rowan's decision seems to Americans to be a calculated slap in the face, and they will respond in a culturally appropriate manner.

++Rowan doesn't need to come to the HOB to learn; if he wants any hope of TEC signing off on the remainder of Tanzania he needs to come here and *teach.* The ultra-Catholic 'Mirfield' view (for the sake of shorthand) of church unity he holds is virtually unknown over here, IMO. The few who might espouse it have questionable credibility w/ moderates to liberals b/c they are also anti-WO. There are no articulate liberals in TEC who are as Catholic as the ABC; +FTG might have been the only one and as immediate past PB he has limited influence. ++Rowan needs to come over here and explain to the HOB why unity is of such theological importance rather than being merely expedience, given that the cost is so high. He tried phoning in his views in the run-up to B033, and those who held their noses and voted for it now feel it got them nothing at all. If he expects the HOB to even move one inch towards doing such a thing again and facilitating TEC as a whole doing it (by calling a Special GC) he needs to make his case more effectively, and that means in person.

The one thing he could *learn* from meeting in person is seeing for himself that the ACN's numbers of 40% in dissent are hogwash. Perhaps standing in front of the whole HOB and +KJS asking each bishop to tell him F2F the numbers on the ground in their diocese would get the point across.

I am struck by the way that NP and other reactionaries are defending +Rowan's refusal to meet with the American House of Bishops.

Traditionally, "conservatives" and "traditionalists" believed in good manners. Now, because it suits their agenda, they offer up a half-baked defence for what can only be described as Rowan's rudeness.

Yes, Rowan Williams is a rude and uncourteous fellow. That's what it comes down to. Bad manners. How very un-Anglican.

"if he comes to the US HOB, what will he hear which is new?"

Inasmuch as I'm tempted to ignore you and your rudeness ("ad nauseam"), NP, I am moved to consider whether this might be, for you (as for +++Rowan), a Teachable Moment:

"Listening", as Lambeth 1.10 enjoins, isn't JUST about *hearing* (i.e., the content of the words spoken). As an *incarnational* faith, Christian listening is also about (mainly about?) ***BEING WITH***, in the flesh.

Would Rowan hear anything new? Possibly not (though I actually believe otherwise).

But will he incarnationally encounter unique, beloved-of-God IMAGO DEI in the persons of TEC's bishops, benefitting immeasurably thereby? Yes. Without a doubt. Alleluia! :-D

Canada's Globe and Mail reports that the Archbishop of Canterbury "will not step across the border" to meet bishops of the Episcopal Church:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070412.ANGLICAN12/TPStory/National

This isn't going to go down well at all.

I see that Bishop Stacy Sauls is a member of the group charged with responding to the Primates' Communique. I hope very much that a part of that response will include Bishop Sauls's report on the activities of the Network in attempting to undermine and seize control of the Episcopal Church. Some in the USA who have heard it appear to think that the Network's activities may be actionable under the statutes dealing with racketeering and organized crime. In any case, it would be bracing and salutary for the Primates, especially ++Rowan, to receive it.

ABC will have the Communion that he has worked for. As he sows, so shall he reap.

During my recent divorce from my previous husband I commented that he now has what he worked for. He prioritised the business over the family, so now he has the business and not the family.

Ditto on a planetary scale. Souls have worked to build empires and dynasties and neglected their families and dependents in pursuit of some greater vision. Ditto on a communion scale. Bishops who have worked to build a misogynistic solo scriptural communion are now finding that some members of the family actually don't like them and would prefer not to be married to them.

ABC has prioritised the bishops of a particular flavour and they have prioritised how to develop their own dioceses. They all have the dioceses and communion that they have worked for.

They did not include the US church in recent Lambeth conferences etc. so the church does not reflect the character of the US church. That is not a surprise.

Ignore a wife for long enough and she will get the message that her husband is not interested and get on with building a life on her own. Negligent husbands should not be surprised to find their wives no longer interested in them, particularly if they wait until the crying is over. Once the crying has stopped it means they no longer care for the husband.

That doesn't mean we don't wish our previous husbands a happy and good life, we just don't want to be part of it, particularly not at an intimate level or where we might again be vulnerable to their negligence and/or cruelty.

Since +++Rowan has not yet met with the TEC HoB, it is impossible to know just what he might learn by a personal meeting instead of relying on a church version of the game of telephone and "he said I should tell you..." Relying on others to tell you what someone said is not terribly, er, reliable.

It is also extremely insulting to those of us in the TEC that this seems to be reaching a point where the TEC may no longer be a part of the AC, and he cannot even be bothered to meet to discuss it in person when he is asked to do so at his convenience and our expense. Perhaps he would rather the TEC HoB travel to London to meet with him?

Perhaps he sees things as that he does not have the authority to negotiate with the TEC - and that it is the role of the Primates Meeting to make such decisions. I also suspect the TEC position is that it is NOT the Primates Meeting place to make decisions of who is in communion with +++Cantuar, but is up to +++Cantuar and ++Ebor to make that decision.

I almost think each side (how Christian is it when people are picking "sides") is waiting for the other to "call it quits" first so that one can be the bad guy.

Someday, someone is going to mention, in this order: Rowan Williams, Nero, a fiddle, and Rome burning.

I find it impossible to resist some rumination on the relations between Rowan Williams and TEC. Why, for goodness sake, will he not find time to meet someone - anyone who is not among the dissidents?

It can't be cowardice. It may be that on appointment to the primatial see he had some sort of "Damascus road" experience, and at once was converted to some sort of extreme Catholicism and now acts as a fifth column for the Vatican Secretariat of State.

I think it is more likely, however, that he has been told by the Global South Steering Committee (or whatever they call themselves) that if he has any contact with TEC they will walk, and so the schism he dreads will befall. He knows that TEC will not willingly desert him, but that Peter Akinola and his associates will. Is it simply that he trusts TEC to be loyal, no matter how provoked they have been?

In the words of the late, lamented Kurt Vonegut, "and so it goes."

JCF - so, you would support him "listening" to all views or just TEC's current leadership? If he goes to TEC bishops, he may be invited to Abuja again - it would be only fair that he listened to all, right?

He has spoken to TEC and Nigeria and Sydney and Cape Town ad nauseam (factual, not insulting and can you not see the nausea in his face?) - let him have his sabbatical, he deserves it, give the guy a break!

It is not time for more chat. It is time for decisions to ensure the long-term health of the AC. For TEC, it is time to decide whether to go it alone and lead a global (if small) liberal organisation or come into line with the AC if it wants to stay.

The ABC has tried hard to hold the AC together but in the end, the differences are not easily swept under the carpet (even if Tom Butler would like to do that and TEC has not agreed with his call for more gradualism in its agenda. Even Rowan Williams realises now that hard decisions have to be made because the repition of arguments on both sides is helping nobody but we are wasting too much precious time and emotion fighting each other.

Suppose TEC rejects the Dar es Salaam communique on 30 September and the primates meet to decide on TEC's fate; TEC's natural allies - Canada, Wales, Scotland, South Africa, Australia, Brazil will surely refuse to sign up to anything detrimental to TEC. There will be noise from within the CofE too.

TEC are right to be bold and state what they think, without fudging the issue. Let's not forget, they have gained huge respect in many quarters for steadfastly upholding human rights and dignity while others have shied away or even acted to the contrary.

Time to stand firm against fundamentalism and Curia.

I agree Hugh - I also want TEC to stand firm and walk apart so that the AC can get on with its mission without the ongoing distraction of TEC's innovations.

(it wil be healthier for TEC too as it will be able to take its positions with integrity and hot have the doublespeak we have seen in the past)

NP,
Are you deliberately not engaging with what JCF actually said about "listening" not being the same as "hearing" and "speaking"?

This is about more than pretending to be capable of long distance diagnosis of nausea and it's cause in the face of a person you haven't met!

Please, I don't mind you having different views to most of us on this blog, but it would be really nice if you could engage properly with the arguments people make. They're worth taking seriously!

"TEC's natural allies - Canada"

Beg pardon? I like everything else you said in your post, but this? We have been handling this issue very differently than TEC, and our bishops are much closer than those of TEC on this. That is not to say there isn't argument, nor that the upcoming GS will not be a slugfest. The point has been made that the American culture of individualism and rebellion against authority that is at the core of their nation's Mythology (note the capital 'M') informs the behaviour of TEC. We do not have the same political history. We didn't mind paying our taxes 200 years ago, and we don't mind doing things differently than our southern neighbour today. We're much more "English, everything must be seemly and decorous" than they are, so don't bet on Canada's unqualified support for TEC.

"He has spoken to TEC and Nigeria and Sydney and Cape Town ad nauseam" NP

Oh, I guess I missed most of the ABC's major "speaking engagements"...probably because they, if any, were held in secret or private and excluded any REAL and "open" transparent conversation...when will the ABC start "speaking" before us and talking "spiritual" turkey with OUR HOB in person at TEC instead of cowering to the threats of Nigeria, Uganda and Singapore and lurking in his own shadowy/awkward TRUTH?

NP,

You're right. He has spoken to TEC ad nauseam. But he has never listened to or heard them in the full diversity of their own voices.

Even without meeting with TEC, he has every right to meet with +Abuja. That's not in question. What is in question is that he has spent so much time listening to one side side without making an attempt to hear another point of view. To compound the issue, he then issues judgement without a full hearing.

On top of that, where there are glaring problems that tear God's heart, he remains remarkably silent.

The one thing I don't understand is this: Why are the reactionaries so deathly afraid of the prospect of Cantuar meeting with the American bishops (as opposed merely to certain American bishops who have an egenda to split the American church)?

NP, why are you so frightened?

"Since +++Rowan has not yet met with the TEC HoB, it is impossible to know just what he might learn by a personal meeting instead of relying on a church version of the game of telephone and "he said I should tell you..." Relying on others to tell you what someone said is not terribly, er, reliable."

He might learn that - conrtrary to what Bp Dunkin' and other have said, and despite the loss of some large congregations to Africa and elsewhere, the number who are deeply unhappy enough with TEC to want alternate oversight is much smaller than their volume of complaining would suggest.

He might learn that a large percent of those who went with Truro and The Falls Church had never been confirmed or received into the Episcopal church,

He might learn that in many parishes like mine, which is the only established Episcopal church in the area [the diocese has a plant established that is designed to appeal primarily to the unchurched], we have learned to get along, and to accept our differences on issues of sexuality. He could see that people holding very different views can worship together at God's table.

He might learn - finally - that we don't 'appoint' bishops, and that our polity does not allow the Presiding Bishop or the HoB alone to make policy for TEC.

He might learn that, although we believe that conversation around contentious issues - speaking and listeniing - is a good thing, TEC has no interest in forcing any other part of the Communion to copy our polity or our policy.

He could learn a lot. Why would a scholar fear to learn?

Rowan Williams appears to be unwilling to listen publicly to both sides in TEC. Most Americans find that basically unfair and a bit shocking on the part of a person holding such a leadership position. My question is whether the matter looks any different from a British point of view. Are there any differences in political culture involved in this, or is this simply about Rowan Williams and his approach to dealing or not with controversy?

What follows is total speculation and is offered as nothing but the thoughts of this failed novelist, who would write the novel about ++Rowan this way:

++Rowan, as everyone knows, did a dastardly thing when he first accepted, then rejected, the appointment of Jeffrey John+ to his bishopric. He did it under pressure from the extreme right wing, because he believed the extreme right wing to be very strong in global Anglicanism.

Since then, in order to justify his wrong action, he has consistently represented the extreme right wing as being much stronger than it actually is. He appears to believe, for example, that the Network's call for a parallel province is supported by 40% of US Episcopalians, and that the Anglican Communion Institute is a large and well-funded organization.

Only by misrepresenting to himself the actual strength of the Anglican right wing in this way can he continue to justify his betrayal of his friend. It is a self-serving delusion, but one on which the extremist right has known how to play.

He is about to find out that it is indeed a delusion. That will be utterly shattering to him. He is going to lose the American church, and with it a substantial part of the "Old Anglicans." He will not be left with much at all. I am really quite sorry for him.

The human capacity to delude ourselves about sexuality has never had a more far-reaching or pathetic illustration.

If this was an ordinary working summer for Rowan then I might expect him to squeeze a meeting with TEC HoB into his (undoubtedly busy) agenda.

It isn't an ordinary summer. He is on sabbatical and then taking some holiday. It is absolutely unthinkable in UK terms for a sabbatical not to be honoured. Let alone to interrrupt it for a session dealing with the single most difficult issue of your everyday workload.

The ABC gives a lead by example to his bishops and clergy here in the C of E. To break his sabbatical would set the most dreadful example. (Even were it likely to produce some substantial breakthrough, which there is no suggestion from TEC that it will)

And remember, the issues around TEC may be the most difficult questions facing the ABC at present but that doesn't mean they are the most important. He has a family, an academic life, a national church to lead, a personal faith to sustain and invigorate. His decision to continue with his sabbatical shows he hasn't lost his sense of proportion.

Finally, to corroborate what others have said, big showpiece meetings have a pretty low reputation in Europe. They're worth having if and only if the delicate negotiations that of necessity take place out of the media glare have produced something to fanfare. We've seen that in evidence in recent weeks in Northern Ireland where the meeting between Adams and Paisley was the iconic moment after the details had been hammered out beforehand.

Meanwhile, San Joaquin wants the Windsor Bishops to proceed with nominating a Primatial Vicar by June 1.

http://cariocaconfessions.blogspot.com/2007/04/from-san-joaquin-standing-committee.html

...TEC HoB travel to London to meet with him?" Andrewdb

Now there's a real all-las-Americas IDEA!

Why don't we "pack up" our Episcopal HoB quickly and lease a 747 (departing Kennedy for Heathrow fast as can be) and have our good bishops pay a call on the ABC? Do you think a visit, after processing in full regalia from Westminster Abbey, would be noticed or even welcomed by the ABC and our Anglican brothers and sisters in the UK (perhaps the various Bishops palaces would consider hosting our Americano Knights and Ladies in shining purple)?

Shall we invite the Bishops from Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama, Puerto Rico, The Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Colombia, The Virgin Islands (American), Haiti, Equador, Brazil and Canada too? Let's introduce the ABC to REAL LOVE and inclusiveness at the Anglican Communion/Western Hemisphere North and South/East and West!

Would the ABC answer the door after our Shepards use their Crooks (Bishop VG Robinson can go first) to bang loudly at Lambeth (can't seem to get the mans attention any other way) LET US IN!...please let us in dear +++Rowan because we need YOU to PRAY with us and let the whole of the LISTENING PROCESS continue to be experienced amongst us all...there are so many loving Episcopalians/Anglicans at The Body of Christ and I think it's time for YOU to get to know us ALL!

I accept what you say Ford Elms about the different approaches of TEC and Canada. Thanks for the insight.

My reference to "natural allies" was based on specifically what the primates have said and done. ++Hutchinson went along with ++Jefferts Schori's "agreement" to the Dar Es Salaam communique, in order to put on a united front. He would have opposed it had she opposed it on the last night (from what ++Hutchinson himself has said).

Richard Harries shed light on how ABC ticks. I don't think it's a question of political culture as Richard Lyon suggested - after all, if Tony Blair was in Rowan's boots, he'd be over there like a shot - so much as ABC's catholicity and the sacrificing of one's own personal liberalism, as he sees it, for the sake of unity and doctine.

He's taken the line that "homosexuality is incompatible with scripture" is the default position of the church for the time being, but hopes that the listening process will eventually move the "consensus" in a more liberal direction, but probably not during his tenure. His obsession with consensus has got the better of him even when, deep down, he disagrees with the majority view.

"The ABC gives a lead by example to his bishops and clergy here in the C of E. To break his sabbatical would set the most dreadful example."

Example of what? Work?

The Americans are under an ultimatum under which neither the requirements nor consequences are clear. The deadline is September. That's the reason for summit. It's not for show, and it's not about American/European differences in style.

ABC may be reluctant to meet for a number of reasons. One of those is that many American bishops readily make public the details of meetings.

I concur, too, with the thought above it is not the Americans who are making the most credible threat that they will leave the Anglican Communion. Remember the Ayitola and the Iranian hostage crisis during the Jimmy Carter presidency. Akinola is his parallel.

John B. Chilton: Interesting points, and I'm glad you are making them. I want to expand on one of them, if I may:

"ABC may be reluctant to meet for a number of reasons. One of those is that many American bishops readily make public the details of meetings."

Here there really is a cultural difference -- and it's not just cultural. It's written into American law. Would that the officials of Lambeth Palace could understand this. I pray they may.

In the state of Florida (where I live), the "Sunshine Law" requires that all meetings of any kind whatsoever on state business be open to the public. Private communications between state officials on matters of state business -- those "corridor conversations" we are all familiar with -- are against the law in Florida.

Of course the Episcopal Church is not an arm of the state of Florida, but various members of the Episcopal Church in the four Dioceses to be found in the state of Florida will have had to learn to do their business in accordance with the provisions of the Sunshine Law.

Thus the ABC's preference for closed-door meetings among a very few principals selected through non-public criteria will "savour of corruption" to ANYONE trained to operate under something like Florida's Sunshine Law. (Not just Church liberals.)

Am I making myself clear here? This is a very, very late date for the Anglican Communion's top officials to begin to consider genuine issues of multiculturalism and multilateralism, but even at this eleventh hour, some willingness on the part of Lambeth Palace to understand how their actions appear to others who do not share their own cultural presuppositions would help. And I don't mean "presuppositions about human sexuality or its expressions," as I hope I have made clear.

"Am I making myself clear here? This is a very, very late date for the Anglican Communion's top officials to begin to consider genuine issues of multiculturalism and multilateralism, but even at this eleventh hour, some willingness on the part of Lambeth Palace to understand how their actions appear to others who do not share their own cultural presuppositions would help. And I don't mean "presuppositions about human sexuality or its expressions," as I hope I have made clear."

There do seem to be some differences between American and British culture about disclosure to the general public. However, nobody is proposing an open public meeting with the HoB. The bishops of TEC are not the general public. They are Rowan Williams peers. Remember that bit about first among EQUALS?

OK, I give up now. I've been hoping -- and it was a foolish hope -- that the Archbishop of Canterbury's refusal to meet with the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops had some other explanation besides settled animosity toward the Episcopal Church.

Perhaps we'll still hear something at his press conference in Toronto on the 16th.

Otherwise, I suppose we'll have to accept that he does understand the significance of his gesture and is deliberately and rudely refusing to sit down together with our bishops and talk peace. He is saying: First do as the Primates have ordered you to do. No debate, no discussion. Then, and only then, will I recognize your presence.

So, as is increasingly clear to all (have you all seen Mark Harris on Preludium?) the Episcopal Church is gone. How and in what fashion the Anglican Communion will continue in our absence is still to be revealed. But I think ++Rowan could still have pulled it out of the fire, if he'd been willing to interrupt his vacation to do so.

Erika - how do you know I have not met the ABC?

Ann Marie - nice try but the fact is he has been "listening" to "liberals" for decades, in factm, as an academic, he wrote some of the best "liberal" arguments (and even he has not convinced himself e.g see his current stance relative to what he once wrote)

Malcolm - not scared of the ABC meeting the TEC HOB - just think he is not going to hear anything new whatsoever and that he deserves a break.

NP,
sorry if I misinterpreted your posts. You said you are a normal member of a normal London congregation and I took that to mean the kind of person like me, who wouldn't meet the ABC in a million years.

But if you have had occasion to speak to him in the last couple of week and you have actually noticed ill health in his face, AND have had the opportunity to discuss its cause in detail - than I apologise without any reservation.

PS: You still have not commented on the original comment about the meaning of "listening".

Erika - no point commenting on the meaning of the word "listening" when the word has been redefined to mean "agreeing" by certain interest groups.

People have been listening (i.e. hearing arguments) for decades but not been convinced by people like VGR. I am sure you can listen to speeches by Pres. Bush and not agree with him sometimes?

NP, I'm really sorry you're refusing to enter into any constructive conversation with us.

JCF tried to move the conversation to a different level with a completely new argument which deserved much better than the usual brush off that people are bored with liberal debate. If that is how you "listen" and respond, then the conversation is indeed dead.
What a shame!

NP,
I'm interested to know how the listening process went on at your parish. Did you invite gay groups in to talk about their lives and the pain they have had to endure? Did you invite in gay couples with kids to find out the particular difficulties they go through? Did you talk to gay people who have lost a partner through illness to understand the grief of not being able to comfort the person you have heard snore for the last ten years as they spent their last hours on earth? Did you even bother to ask why your message falls pretty much on deaf ears? I ask the latter because, if you are truly concerned about the salvation of gay people, you surely want to know why they so vehemently reject your message, so as to be better able to preach it.

I have the distinct impression that all you have been listening to are likeminded people croaking on about how they are the faithful remnant being beseiged by the evil liberals. I sincerely doubt you have done any listening to gay people or those who support something other than jail for us.

Erika - it is not a shame - years have been wasted in chattering and "listening" and chattering some more. Even the ABC now acceptts we are in a time of decision-making (eg the Sep 30 deadline with which he is working)

Nobody - not TEC and not most of the AC benefits from ongoing division and internal strife so it is not time for listening to well-known arguments on both sides. Damage is being done to everyone so we have to stop the delays for the so-called "listening" to continue. Let us give each other credit for having heard, understood each other and disagreed.

Why are "liberals" so scared to end the chat and have a global, "inclusive" church apart from the AC? TEC is lucky to have inherited money to make that possible yet so many still lack the confidence to go for it. Pls go for it - or are you going to go with the ABC's wish that you wait another 50 years before the AC may accept TEC innovations?

NP,
we're not scared to end the chat, we're just deeply sad about it. It's never happy to lose a part of your family, however much you may disagree with them, they're still family.
Of course, we will let you go if you absolutely insist, but we will certainly feel the loss.

NP,
It isn't fear. It's that breaking of communion is a severe thing, a great failing in us all, a failure of our witness to the love of Christ. To break communion is thus no small thing. Our existence as the community of the baptised is corporate, our salvation is corporate, even our God is a community of persons. You only see things through the individualism of the Reformation, and forget that traditional Christianity places huge emphasis on the community of believers, and that our love for each other should be our overriding motivator, not some quest for exclusivist purity. That is one of the great failings of Protestantism. It leads to the rediculously self centred "Jesus is my personal saviour" nonsense.

NP
I would say the same about "conservatives", why are they so scared to take their message and form an "exclusive" church of their own.

I have always experienced the Anglicn Church as a broad spectrum of views, but conservatives within the Communion now want to throw me and my views out.

I believe in an "inclusive" Anglican Communion where Gay and Lesbian Christians are welcomed as full members.

Charles says "I would say the same about "conservatives", why are they so scared to take their message and form an "exclusive" church of their own."

..because if you look at the Primates' statements and Lambeth Resolutions, conservatives have no issue with the AC so there is no reason to leave, especially as, post Tanzania, the hypocrisy which has been allowed to exist in the AC is being addressed and there will be a covenant to prevent future similar messes.

(I would leave if my views were those of a small minority in the AC but they clearly are not that - even the liberal Rown Williams is acting in a way which leads me to stay eg his attitude to Lambeth 1.10)

NP,
Is that the eye saying to the hand I have no need of you?

"I would leave if my views were those of a small minority in the AC "

So, then, what you're saying is that trying to work through our differences or find some way to get along, that's just bad, and it is better to split ourselves up into smaller and smaller groups of like minded people, 'perfecti' like the Cathars. How is this better? How does this further the Kingdom? Anyone outside the Chruch will say, well, how can I believe Christianity, for starters which Christianity do I believe? This is our current state. If my admittedly rather catholic ideas are so distasteful to you, it's even written down in very plain language. Jesus prayed we all might be one. But He didn't stop there, it was "so the world might believe." So, if you can't accept a catholic argument, there's an "it's in the Bible" argument that might be more to your taste.