Alberta has a reputation as the most, um, "ethically-challenged" (re civil rights) part of Canada, and the Edmonton Journal has done nothing to change that rep, w/ their coverage:

""blessing" same-sex unions, contrary to Anglican orthodoxy"

"their pro-gay agenda"

Spare me. :-/

[In contrast, fine work by the Toronto Star]

God bless the Anglican Church of Canada!

And then he arrived in Canada to "address" the Bishops...odd, just days after a inspiring pro-inclusive LGBT meeting and shortly before the Anglican Church of Canada Synod meets on blessing LGBT partnerships...I wonder if +Wright or ++York were unavailable "lobbying" for exclusion/outcasting this time...someone has to do the dirty work when the others have failed so miserably.

ABC, we're still waiting at The Episcopal Church for your spiritual leadership/interest in our Anglican "mission" to include ALL Christians at every level of Church life...you know, loving one another as thyself...you've got a date with destiny even if you refuse to keep it (or see it).

Initially it struck me as odd that the ABC should visit Canada, but decline the offer to cross over the Niagara Falls.

On reflection though, it seems the TEC HoB's rebuttal of ABC's Pastoral Council proposal is more wounding to the ABC than either province's pro-gay agenda.

Doesn't seem odd to me at all that he's not coming to the U.S. How many times since the 2003 election that ignited this smoldering mess has the U.S. HOB declared that the Archbishop has no control over them? That no outside members of the communion have any rights within the area controlled by TEC? Did not the HOB's response to Tanzania make it perfectly plain that nothing and no one was going to change the direction or attitude of TEC? Now they want him to come and listen to them because he hasn't listened before. I doubt Williams is as deaf or stupid as many seem to believe. Unable to decide what to do to save the situation, but not unable to understand the problem. So why go somewhere only to be browbeaten and/or mocked.
Can't have it both ways. If he has authority, perhaps more should be done to appease other members of the communion. If not, why put himself in such an awkward situation.
Let him have his sabat. as he chooses, perhaps silence from the top will help others calm down as well and help people decide what authority they really want Canterbury to have.

This coment from Peers is pertinent: "Generally speaking, the tradition in the church has been, I don't like what is happening in my church, so I must leave. Not, I don't like what is happening – you must leave."

What we are seeing is a layer wanting to bring in the authoritative top-down decreeing that is seen in some other institutions. The world is coming to understand that one solution does not fit all situations, and that we need to find solutions that will work at a local level (e.g. ways to produce energy and reduce energy loss). Global companies are balancing global targets to what is appropriate in each local environment (I bet they don't advertise soft drinks with women in bikinis in the Middle East).

Yet some souls want to bring back the "good old days", even though most souls are recognising that the structures often created more problems than they solved.

Are camps fighting to have control of a large institution that looks good on their resume (please no news coverage of any mistakes or corruption in any dioceses)? Or are camps fighting to have institutions that meet the needs of their parishioners and are respected and respectful of the broader civilisations in which they mingle?

One camp is calling for reverence of an elite pure male priestly caste who acts with impunity against the weak and their enemies. The other camp is calling for reverence of all souls and seeking a code of honor that protects the weak and their enemies.

The latter might seem like the weaker path, but it is actually the higher path because it protects not just the elite male Christian priests, but also the women and afflicted, and their enemies. In civilisations, souls that act with honor incite others to act with honor too. In decent civilisations, there is shame in attacking souls who have behaved honorably. There is also protection from God for souls who behave with honor and do not gloat over or exacerbate others' suffering.

God will often turn and smite those who rejoice in others suffering. If you look at some of the world's long term conflicts you have, you will see that each side gloats when the other suffers. So God might let them win one battle, but will then turn and smite them for rejoicing in the others' suffering in the next battle. That is why some conflicts have not been resolved.

Bring in true justice: mercy and compassion for both your own and your enemies. Then God can bring in justice for all peoples.

There are so many unanswered questions. One is: Why will the ABC not see the US bishops?

If it is that he is offended by the rejection of his Pastoral Council, why did he not say so? He is leaving the page blank for every kind of interpretation.

Cheryl,
"So God might let them win one battle, but will then turn and smite them for rejoicing in the others' suffering in the next battle."

Do you really believe that God actively intervenes in the outcomes of battles according to what he thinks of those waging them? What happened to free will, total freedom combined with total responsibility and human accountability before God?

Otherwise we're back at a view where a tyrant God directs life on earth according to his own will, ignoring this suffering, responding to that - totally unpredictable, totally unknowable and, in the final analysis, not trustworthy.
I'm sure I misunderstood you!

While I have much admiration for TEC in the way it has handled the whole Dar es Salaam thing, there is a very different polity south of the border. Canadians are much more "British" in our understanding of things. Pierre Burton once said the main difference between Americans and Canadians is that Americans are in love with liberty, Canadians are in love with order. We are far less likely to lay claim to our own autonomy than we are to seek ways we can be seemly. Think British Empire. I keep saying, we didn't mind paying our taxes 200 years ago, we don't mind doing it now, we'd rather drink tea than throw it away in protest, and we know salt water makes a poor cup of tea anyway. I'd suggest ++Rowan's coming here without going there is linked, at least in part, to this likemindedness. People have asked why Canada is not being treated like TEC, I'd suggest this is why. We have been having this debate, and not at all silently, and our bishops are closer on this than they are south of the border, yet it hasn't been near so talked about.

nonanglican doesn't get it.

No one has denied that the Archbishop has the authority he has.

What the Americans (and implicitly the Canadians, and anyone who actually understands Anglicanism) has denied is the accretions of authority being claimed by the Primates, both for themselves and for the Lambeth Conference. (But not, it must be noted, for the person of Cantuar, and certainly not for the Anglican consultative Council.)

You see, nonanglican, the Archbishop has never had and never claimed authority over the American Church. The Anglican Communion is not a top-down heirarchy. Cantuar's primacy is a primacy of honour, not of power.

The Primates, meeting together, have no juridical authority, nor have they ever.

Likewise Lambeth (where all the bishops meet) is about fellowship, consultation and reflection. Certainly all three of these "intruments of unity" (as we call them) has issued statements from time to time. But those statements have only ever carried the authority of moral suasion, and have never been legislative acts.

Anglicanism was, at its root, a rejection of the idea that a foreign prelate (at the time, a certain bishop in Central Italy) should have authority over the church in another country.

If that was a good idea then (and I think it was) then surely it is a sound principle for today.

Erika

I think God can and does intervene in SOME battles. The bible tells us that is the case. Ridiculous victories when failure was the only sure thing, amazing faux pas when a sure thing crumbles into nothing.

Also, when you read the Jewish prayer books (which I've been doing in the synagogues the last few weeks), their prayer books specifically call for not gloating over your enemies' suffering lest Hachem turn and smite you too. Some of the recent postings on Thinking Anglicans are targetted not just at Anglicans, but are also gentle reminders to others (including Jews or Muslims) of basic biblical principles that seem to have been forgotten in recent conflicts.

It is the same as one should not attack someone who appears to be insane, sometimes holy people will take on the appearance of insanity to survive an awkward situation. As David acknowledges with Psalm 34, which refers to his story in 1 Samuel 21:10-15. It is said that Mohammad used to ask a schizophrenic woman to pray for him each day as he believed that God answers the prayers of the insane, and his guarded respect is consistent with David's own conduct.

On the question of whether God wants the world to look this way. I would say No! On that I am sure both you and I agree.

What I will say is that sometimes God will not intervene so that humanity and other souls take things to their logical conclusion. God then intervenes to ask if this is what we wanted and to offer to help us put things back into a more balanced and sustainable boundaries.

Some of the debates are being held at levels higher than humanity. One debate was whether God should have created humanity. They have tried to discredit humanity to justify destroying humanity. God has made it clear that humanity and the earth stand. Further, God has made it clear that the Jewish consciousness does not need to be groomed by a Jewish society, and that God can take random individuals and do it all again. So there is no point exterminating the Jews, because God will simply recreate them.

God's Will will be done, and Wisdom will be there helping God every step of the way.