One has to wonder if this means Nigeria will not come. By the same token, one has to wonder where Uganda and Kenya will be on this. Primates of the Global South Steering Committee have expressed their willingness to forego Lambeth if the circumstances are not to their liking. Will they therefore choose to stay away?

I fear in this gamesmanship we have a major game of Chicken. (For those unfamiliar, it is a high-risk game, frequently played with automobiles, to see who will face longest the risk of death by head-on collision, with the first to turn away being labeled as cowardly, rather than as sensible. My wife considers it survival of the fittest [in this case, most intelligent] playing out in the human species.) If the bishops of the Global South declare their non-participation, inviting Bishop Robinson as a "guest" is relatively low risk. If the bishops of the Episcopal Church declare non-participation, they will be labeled as having denied the Anglican Communion, and the Global South bishops can come expecting no opposition, or none to worry about.

Well, I suppose it's one way to clarify what folks will do. I don't think it's a good way, but it's one way.

I suppose this means that +Minns will get the invite sence we all know that ++Rowan will bend over backwards to keep ++Abuja happy.

If true, good riddance! The ongoing, flagrant aggressiveness of the Nigerians continues to beggar belief. "The Lord bless you as you remain in Christ" My Fat Posterior! The archbishop must surely, finally take a stand this time - that, or forfeit the respect of all parties involved. Akinola & his storm-troopers clearly have precious little for him, when a statement like this is issued in the form of a throw-away email from Tunde.

Well, that's a good start - now all they have to do is finally start the fundamentalist church they have always wish to see....good riddance

"I suppose this means that +Minns will get the invite since we all know that ++Rowan will bend over backwards to keep ++Abuja happy."

Do we all know that? It seems some would like us to believe it, but I never have.

Akinola is the liberals' secret weapon. He never fails to strengthen their hand.

I am in agreement with those who say that the withholding of an invitation from Bp Robinson is an offense to every baptized member of TEC.

That having been said, there is a positive side to all this. The ABC in his explanatory material has made it very clear that the Lambeth Conference is a continuing education event for bishops, no more, no less, not a legislative session. We as a church do not really miss out on anything important by not participating. You can interpret an invitation, or lack of same, to mean whatever you want, but when all is said and done, it's really about continuing education and tea with Her Majesty.

IMHO being asked not to participate in the ACC was a much bigger deal than this.

I, for one, would be sad if the Nigerian bishops stayed away. I understand that there are a large number of Anglicans in Nigeria. It would be sad if their voice were not heard.

Well, we've had both sides denounce some omissions, and we'll see lots more of that in the weeks ahead. After that, I expect that both sides will, at least "provisionally", accept. I don't think either wants to be caught in the bind that Marshall suggests by turning away too quickly, and they can always change their minds later. Besides, there is still a lot that can happen between now and then to clarify the situation (i.e., disqualify, dismay, and/or discourage the adversary from attending). Things will stay interesting for many months to come.

Steven

I am profoundly happy to see that US bishops are being invited. It is excellent to see that past injustice put behind us. It is going to be interesting to see who is prepared to sit at the table with who.

This is so much like preparing an interfaith wedding. Where to sit the inlaws? Who do we inspect for arms? Who will moderate a table? Who would inflame a table? I promise not to put any of my GLBT friends at the same table as an open arch conservative, but the fussy ones will have to be content sitting in the side wings as they will be too offended to sit near the bulk of the "unsuitable" guests in the main hall. If anyone isn't prepared to admit to their misogyny or elitism, please forgive me if they are indavertently sat with "unsuitables". I can't give you a suitable location if you don't tell me what you really want.

Blush

I just scrolled down and saw the past injustice hasn't been fixed.

Mind you, the comments about the wedding party invitations and seating arrangements still apply.

There are some souls who would be invited that I would be delighted if they refused to attend. But the invitations would be made because it is the right thing to do, not because I like or trust them.

"I, for one, would be sad if the Nigerian bishops stayed away. I understand that there are a large number of Anglicans in Nigeria. It would be sad if their voice were not heard." -- Audrey

Audrey, there are also a large number of Anglicans who are LGBT, including in Nigeria. (Admittedly, as in Nigeria, most of these global Anglican LGBTs must stay in the shadows, as their churches are not yet as welcoming as those in the USA, Canada, Brasil, and other countries.)

Would it also likewise be sad if *their* voice(s) were not heard at Lambeth, at the ACC, or in "listening processes" around the world, or in the Church of Nigeria?

Just wondering. (And in case you wonder, I say: Invite 'em *all*, for in Christ there is no male or female, no Jew or Greek, no Nigerian or LGBT.)

Ruidh-

I think if we take the events in Tanzania where the comunique was altered just to keep +Peter in the room, yea I think ++Rowans much more likely to bend for them than anybody.

Indeed - the best approach now would have been to invite them all, and not trying to sift them out in advance.

Who knows whether Akinola will march his troops down again. If he does, wave bye bye (but means he'd be staying)!

Not inviting Robinson is not about Robinson. ECUSA was told that his consecration would tear the fabric of this communion, and so it has. CANA developed as a response to innovations of ECUSA that preceeded Robinson but flow from the same justice centered theology. These are the bitter fruits of that seed, clearly unintended consequences.

Robinson and Integrity's responses seem overly personal, all about him. This is about a worldwide church splintering, much bigger than LGBT alone.

And no, all baptised Episcopalians do not see this as an affront. Many, including me, see this as an appropriate response to the tearing of the communion. VGR's presence would only tear it further and move focus from the tear to the person.

Is there any hope for the Communion and for ECUSA remaining a faithful member? Is it worth all this pain and energy? I only remain to support faithful, loving clergy who preach Christ's love. Can we be congregationalists in ECUSA?

I wish the Nigerian Church well, as she moves farther and farther from the life of the Anglican Communion and its member provinces.

Who would you say was the latest far right wing mouth piece to profile Akinola? Michael Gerson.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/2001-04-11-bush-speechwriter.htm

Under such, and many other, equally chilling, circumstances, I wish my Nigerian brothers and sisters well.

As for "the need" to do all we can so we may, somehow, help our LGBT brothers and sisters in Nigeria ... that is not the only place in the world where LGBT people are, in fact, persecuted, and certainly not the only country in the world where any kind of person is persecuted, for any reason.

There has to be something else to be done for the sake of LGBT people in such hostile environments, besides bending backwards in order to please whatever "but they're worst than animals" Akinola may get all cringy about.

All Akinola is doing is play to some earthly, wealthier master's game (Dallas, any1?). Let him and those likeminded go. Eventually, nothing will stop them from leaving/breaking up/breaking communion/ getting really, really angry.

badman says
"Akinola is the liberals' secret weapon. He never fails to strengthen their hand."

......are you sure, badman?
You heard of Dromatine, TWR and Tanzania???

(Depending on what they decide before Sept 30th, the VGR consecrators can also expect to have their invitations withdrawn - unless they genuinely repent)

Yes, NP, I'm sure. Akinola’s impatience and misjudgment become increasingly apparent. Neither quality has served his allies.

Dromantine was early on, and his petulant refusal of communion did put others off their stride.

He had no hand in the Windsor Report, which was partly directed at border crossers like him.

His obstinacy in Tanzania obtained the Primatial Council proposal and the September deadlines.

But the Primatial Council overplayed the conservative hand, frightened moderate US Bishops, and prompted rapid rejection by ECUSA, and the invitation to the Archbishop of Canterbury. These setbacks mean there is now no realistic prospect of establishing an alternative US Province within the Anglican Communion recognised by Canterbury - which is Akinola’s fault. Duncan yesterday frankly said that his hopes of Alternative Primatial Oversight are now dead.

So far as the September ultimata are concerned, Akinola wrecked the conservatives' position by the totally unnecessary installation ceremony for Minns. When gently asked not to go ahead, he spurned the obviously correct course of a gracious withdrawal. Akinola thereby proved to Primates and bishops that he was out of control, had no respect for the Anglican Communion, no respect for the Archbishop of Canterbury (a point he has repeatedly made in his own words), and no regard for the September deadlines. Indeed, he had already made public his intention to consecrate more CANA bishops BEFORE 30 September.

This blew the September deadlines, and made the maintenance of Catholic order appear more urgent, if not more important, than our chronic (as opposed to urgent) disagreements over human sexuality. Hence, the wholly unexpected issuing of invitations before September, which was not the original plan. Hence, also, the immediate inclusion of the US bishops, who needed reassurance if they were not to sheer off from the communion altogether after the excessive insults and blows rained on them - which would cripple the Communion both as a "broad church" and as a properly resourced body.

Now Akinola has squandered the advantage given to him by the exclusion of Robinson by huffily withdrawing all the Nigerian bishops, less than a day after the invitations went out.

And there’s his disastrous public position on denying even basic human rights to homosexuals and their friends.

He’s done nothing right.

Not a scrap of evidence for that, NP. In any case, there is nothing to repent for.

Indeed, they should be congratulated for supporting justice and equality as opposed to the institutionalised homophobia of conservative Christianity

Harvard Man commented "Not inviting Robinson is not about Robinson. ECUSA was told that his consecration would tear the fabric of this communion..."

Indeed. That has been the focus of my prayers for the last day or so.

This Algemeiner article about Ruth has fed those contemplations, in particular the analysis about the Moabites and Lot's daughters. http://www.algemeiner.com/generic.asp?ID=3447

Back in 2005 a well meaning contributor to the local diocese forum sent a private message asking me if I was okay. My reply at the time included a comment that at some point in history some poor woman was going to have to do this.

Namely, fulfill the Moabite and difficult/embarassing feminine passages of the bible.

Similarly, some brave souls had to fulfill the afflicted, eunuch and outcaste roles to fulfill other difficult passages of the bible. This is what Gene Robinson and those who have concurred with inclusive thinking have done. They have enabled passages such Ezekiel 16:48-63 & Isaiah 56:1-8 to be fulfilled.

There had to be a point in history where some souls were brave enough to trust in God's mercy that they could then act as a rebuke to the puritan priests who serve themselves whilst denying God's grace to all God's flocks.

Abraham, Enoch, Moses and Jesus were not condemned for pleading for the outcastes.

Another comment is that Lot and his family did not try and avoid being sent into exile, not did they seek to liberate themselves until given permission by God through God's emmisaries. Thus they were consistent with Jeremiah 29:3 to 31:5 which tells Gods' peoples to go into exile and wait until the appointed time to be redeemed. The other thing to note is that the angels were responsible for signalling that the time or redemption had come. Their exhortation to Lot and his family was not to look back on the past but work towards the future. There were trials and tribulations to follow but eventually the bible promises that Moabites (and similar outcastes)would be redeemed at the right point in history.

harvard man -

The organization that you're so concerned about has officially been called "TEC" for a couple of years now, not "ECUSA".

Frankly, it boggles my mind how anyone can refer to "justice centered theology" as if it's a bad thing, and is somehow unrelated to preaching Christ's love.

"Tearing of the fabric" is not a consequence of "justice centered theology" but of a clash between liberal and conservative interpretations of the Gospel, both of which have been around for quite some time, both of which can legitimately be called "traditions". Let's stop playing the blame game, and let's stop trying to preemptively discredit the people we're opposed to.

You ask: "Can we be congregationalists in ECUSA(sic)?" -- Again, the mind boggles. Anglicanism is not a congregationalist tradition, period. I'd suggest you start looking for another denomination, if that's what you're looking for.

harvard man writes: "Many, including me, see this as an appropriate response to the tearing of the communion. VGR's presence would only tear it further and move focus from the tear to the person."

So you think it's OK to tear it further by pre-filtering and omitting some of those who attend Lambeth?

My only problem with having both extremes equally invited (including Robinson) is that it's the Nigerians who'll object, and while I would instinctively like to tell them "well get lost, then", that's not productive.

I suppose NP, Harvard Man, that you believe homosexuality is a choice? I have taught for 15 years, 10 working with special needs children. How do explain research that says children with Down Syndrome or 2 to 3 times more likely to be homosexual. How do you say to one of these loving children, who by the way really don't understand why their sexual disorder is so reviled, "your not whole, unloved by God." Well, your loved only if you abstain from being in a loving relationship (or having sex), something you'd not deny yourselves. Do you have a cure to make GLBT folks Straight? Lucky you, to be born unafflicted.

If many of my students who are GL been born in places like Nigeria, what are the chances that they'd not be stoned?

You all speak of sin as if your without it. What qualifies you to throw the first stone or a stone at all?

"Tearing the fabric"; "tearing the communion" - the "four legs good, two legs bad", "Big Lie", smoke-screen of the Radical Right. Give it a rest, Harvard Man.

"Not inviting Robinson is not about Robinson. ECUSA was told that his consecration would tear the fabric of this communion, and so it has. CANA developed as a response to innovations of ECUSA that preceeded Robinson but flow from the same justice centered theology." -- harvard man

harvard man, you have it exactly backward, repeating that favorite old saw of the "reasserters" about how "reappraisers" are driven by Zeitgeist-dictated notions of justice instead of by good, solid theology.

Where do you think our (i.e., "reappraisers'"/progressives') very notions of justice flow from in the first place?

It is not that our theology is "justice centered," it is that our notions of, and actions toward, justice are themselves *theology*-centered. Justice as a moral imperative and "meta-theme" runs throughout the bible and throughout both the Old and the New Covenant. Thinking in justice terms is hardly unbiblical, and derives from both Scripture and Tradition, as *well* as from Reason.

Just sign me,
yale man

I agree with Audrey that it would be sad if the Nigerians stayed away. I'm particularly anxious for the voice of Nigerian (and other African) women and gays to be heard, but of course they are not represented amongst their bishops.

"So you think it's OK to tear it further by pre-filtering and omitting some of those who attend Lambeth?"

I'm not sure who you're talking about here. If it's VGR, it's pretty clear that the Windsor Report itself calls for him to not be invited. Look at paragraph 133.

If it's Minns, Murphy and/or Cavalcante, I can certainly see Williams following Carey's lead and treating Minns as Carey treated Murphy et al.

Also, the threat to withdraw invitations seems to be a shot over the bow of Iker, Schofield, Duncan and anyone else who was considering fashioning their own APO plan. Not to mention a warning to those who might not sign on to the covenant on SSBs and consenting to a non-celibate, gay episcopal candidate come the HoB meeting in September.

And to answer Jown above:
"I think if we take the events in Tanzania where the comunique was altered just to keep +Peter in the room, yea I think ++Rowans much more likely to bend for them than anybody."

It wasn't just Rowan who bent. It was also KJS. She signed onto the Communique as well (her later protests notwithstanding). But Williams didn't bend to the demand to not seat JKS and he didn't bend to the demand to seat Duncan is KJS were seated. He seems willing to play the part of Instrument of Unity and tries to keep people at the table through compromise.

Oh, I think its very productive, Tim - the product will be that they will carry out their threat of starting their own premodern, fundamentalist Church of Akinola, and their departure will certainly be something to celebrate

This is an obvious appeasement of Nigeria. Let's just get that straight for starters. Enough of this mealy-mouthed, Anglican niceness. It is the devil incarnate.

It all reminds me of the beatification of John XXIII. Pius XII was beatified at about the same time. It's the same situation, only in reverse. I suppose the un-bishop Minns not getting an invitation will make some happy. Not me. It should be Akinola who is not invited, as he's the manipulative bully who "consecrated him". STAY HOME, PETEY!

Pius IX, Jennifer - FAR worse!

harvardman,

It's not really a justice based theology you're questioning.

I appreciate Cheryl's references above. Praise God for grace and mercy. But let's forget a just God calls His people to live holy lives. Redemption was required because God's people sinned and violated the covenant. God's justice had to be satisfied.

Justice calls for equality. God has given that - one standard for human conduct and one call to everyone to experience God's love and redemption through faith in Christ.

Rather, you're questioning a rights based theology that calls for different standards for different groups of people.

Which one standard for human conduct are you referring to, Chris? The standard where a man was permitted to have multiple wives and concubines, that prevailed for most of the Biblical period, for instance? If so, what larks for straight men I suppose.

And which "different standards for different groups of people" are you referring to? If I didn't know better I'd almost think you were dredging up that old chestnut about homosexuals seeking "special rights".

I'm not seeking the "right" to belong to the Anglican Church. I think we all should regard ourselves as guests at Christ's table. Unlike certain others, I haven't had any sense that I've been disinvited.

In Canada I as a gay man have the constitutionally guaranteed right to marry another man; but while I think the Church actually ought to acknowledge and ask blessings for same sex unions, I also recognize that the Church is not legally obliged to do so, nor should it be - so I don't have the "right" and I'm not seeking the "right". In point of fact it's the Church's loss if they continue to treat LGBT people as moral inferiors. It's your loss as well, Chris.

I'm quite certain that God has a much broader definition of what it means to lead a "holy life" than any of us do - because it is God's voluntary involvement in our lives that makes us holy, not our good behavior (however defined).

badman - I am not sure what evidence you have for stating that the Sept 30 deadline is no longer valid??

Your reading of the situation seems like wishful thinking on your part. When I look at TWR, Dromatine, Tanzania.....I suspect we will see the following:

a) ++Akinola's demand that the consecrators of VGR not be invited because the ABC does not was to see Alexandria 2008 (at the same time as a smaller and much less vibrant Lambeth 2008 with KJS and VGR);

b) +Minns may not be invited - this is not a big deal as ++Carey did not recognise Amia bishops either.....so, while there is no equivalence between "ecclesiastical correctness" and flagrant sin, I am quite happy to swap +Minns for VGR and his consecrators.

Look at the record of this liberal ABC from JJohn to Tanzania.....do you really think he is going to see the AC split now for the sake of VGR/KJS?? (I said RECORD and not what you wish he would have done)

Chris wrote: “God's love and redemption through faith in Christ.”

Quite a lot has happened to Biblical translations down the ages. Words change content, alien philosophies invade. State, socio-political and ecclesiological agendas transform.

As many ancient words pístis = faith has 2 directions. LXX nómos = tradition; means both to pass on something received, and to receive what is passed on.

Pístis is either trust i n somebody or something, or faithful-ness/being faith-full t o w a r d s somebody or something. Both are over Time.

So when Romans says pístis xristoû, it speaks not of o u r faith in Christ, as translated in the second Millennium, but of Christ’s constant faithfulness towards us.

It’s a direct parallel to pístis theoû = God’s faithfulness – as in the many Covenants in the OT:

God makes a Covenant with humans; humans screw up their part; God still keeps his Covenant.

To translate Christ’s faithfulness towards u s, as o u r faith i n Christ, transforms God’s faithfulness towards his creation into a salvation by Works. O u r acts work o u r salvation.

At best, the aspect “over Time” remains, but this is a different religion into "standard of conduct" - Works.

I knew this reminded me of something, and Jennifer got it: Pius IX balanced against John XXIII. But it is very odd that while both bishops are singled out as church-breakers, one allegedly does so in the privacy of his bedroom. Surely it is those who consecrated Gene R. who are the church-breakers, if anyone. The singling out of Gene R. for non-invitation puts the accent in the wrong place -- on the very "vital spot" where the entire Global South firmly believe it to belong. Thus the debate lurches back from issues of Church Order to bedroom ones.

What's with this posted presumptive repeat of that utterly telltale rightwing notion that gay rights=special rights? Alas, doesn't stand up to even common sense scrutiny - But remains a favorite soundbite mantra of the USA extreme religious right movements. And has sometimes worked in elections and other campaigning. Are such notions a trumpet call to moblize the troops? Or to buttress one's own presumptions, unquestioned, of having special exclusively heterosexual call to rule, especially over the terribly unruly gays?

The accurate summary of the alternative view is that both gays and straights are more or less held to the same ethical frameworks in sex and relationships and community. The framework most often used involves quite a bit of updating for new facts and new views, along with some very ancient (but given patriarchy not all that ancient) core valuing of persons, equality, mutuality, growth in intimacy and caring, and honesty. This framework more or less recognizes that the couple are the ministers of their blessing with the rest of us as prayerful covenant witnesses, joining with the couple as their life spills over generously into the wider community via their care over time, their parenting or other generativities, and the like.

Giving non-straight folks access to opportunities or resources (to which they would otherwise presumptively have access, assuming they were straight like all righting believers are supposed/alleged to be?) is hardly a special rights strategy. I think we are more accurate to call it, an equality of rights strategy.

The simple everyday truth is, straight people with equal LGBTQ friends don't often stop being straight just because their LGBTQ friends are allowed to live, pretty much with a similar range of opportunities and resources.

The one special right we do easily tease out in the realingment campaigning is that special yet dubious right that LGBTQ folks always seem to intensely have, according to most conservative views - i.e., the special right or call to change towards being as straight as they can manage (in appearances if not in substance) so that they fit in better with the ruling straight crowds.

So far, this seems like one special right that most LGBTQ folks choose to forgo for various and sundry good reasons of person, ethics, spirit, and relationship in community.

NP, NP, NP. It isn't that the September 30 deadline is "no longer" valid.

The September 30 deadline never was valid.

The foreign prelates gathered in Tanzania never had the authority to set the deadline.

Malcolm - just repeating that Lambeth 1.10 or the Sept 30 deadline are not valid does not make them invalid.....sorry, even the liberal ABC seems to realise that the Anglican disease of never taking deisions or allowing people to flagrantly break agreements does not Christian unity make....a house divided against itself cannot stand and a double-minded AC is simply a recipe for slow death.

If you get caught speeding, I would love to hear the excuses you come up with to get the speed cop to let you off! "Officer, this is a not a law I ever agreed with....so I was not speeding" (Sounds convincing?)

NP, Your current analogy, like most of your arguments, is empty fluff.

Simply repeating that the Sep 30 deadline is authoritative does not make it so. Unlike you, I have other evidence to point to for my position - including a long history of documentation, including the circular calling the first Lambeth Conference and the resolutions of subsequent Lambeths, which make it crystal clear that Lambeth resolutions do not have the authority you claim.

Likewise, the Primates Meeting has never had the authority you and others have creatively made up for it in the past two years.

You really are in no position to lecture anyone about the futility of repeating false arguments.

Finally, in Canada it is not that uncommon to have legislation struck down by the courts because it was ultra vires (beyond the legal capacity) of the legislative body which had created it. That would be a far beter analogy. If I were apprehended for speeding based on an act of the local school board, I would go to court and argue that the local school board does not have the legal authority to regulate traffic speeds.

The issue, my dear NP, is not that I disagree, but that the bodies in question do not have and have never had the authority which you and a handful of others have attributed to them.

Malcolm,
You are of course right that the bodies in question do not have the authority some people attribute to them.
But it is also true that bullies, throughout the ages, have simply ignored legal realities and forcefully created new ones.

There is a sense in which repeating false arguments can contribute to an increasing sense of fear until those in the centre panic into making concessions they do not need to make. The middle ground then continues to shift, bit by bit, until a new political reality has been created. Legal adjustments follow afterwards.

Erica, I think you have correctly identified the dishonest tactic of the "conservatives." Note that NP simply states over and over again that the arbitrary deadline from Dar has authority.

Clearly they hope that the rest of the Communion will give in to them on this - as we foolishly did about Canadian and American participation at the last ACC meeting. Of course, once we give in, the "conservatives" have their legal precedent.

Malcolm - you do realise that ALL the Primates (including KJS from TEC) issued the Tanzania Communique??

I know KJS has Griswoldian skills in being able to agree and disagree with something at the same time but it is a fact that ALL the Archbishops issues the Communique and there was no minority report.

You seem confused.....but please be clear, The Tanzania Communique was not issued by nasty conservatives but by ALL the Primates of the AC- & the Sept 30 deadline for an umabiguous response from TEC was given by them......I guess you hope that the deadline will pass with no consequences but I suggest that we would never have got a deadline if there were no consequences in trying to fudge the situation for more decades.

The only one confused, NP, is you.

The issue is not who signed the document. Never was.

The issue is this - Do the Primates have the authority to take juridical decisions, to set demands and to establish deadlines for the autocephalous provinces of the Communion.

When the Primates Meeting was first called together in the 1970s, it was expressly set forth that the body had no juridical functions.

In fact, no one even pretended that the body had such functions until the coup d'etat at Dromantine.

You are no "reasserter," NP. You are a revisionist, pure and simple - making up an "authoritative" body for the Anglican Communion where none such exists.

I couldn't give a rat's backside who did or didn't sign the communique. It simply is not relevant.

The Primates have never, and still do not have the authority to demand specific actions of the several provinces.

That's the issue, NP.

The local school board doesn't have the authority to establish speed limits. That they might vote for it unanimously does not affect that in the slightest.

A provincial government in Canada cannot amend the Criminal Code. That the members of the Alberta legislature unanimously agree that country line dancing should be criminalized would be irrelevant because the Alberta legislature has no such authority.

And if the American Congress, the Canadian Parliament and the French National Assembly all unanimously agreed that umbrellas should be banned in the UK, I suspect you'd feel no obligation to get rid of yours.

The issue is not whether I agree with the Dar es Salaam Communique. It never was.

The issue is not whether all the Primates did or did not sign it. It never was.

The issue, dear NP, is that the demands and deadlines established in the Communique were and are ultra vires of the body that enacted them and therefore have no validity.

Of course, I suspect you actually do understand my point, and that your apparent thickness is merely a ruse so you can keep repeating your empty rhetoric over and over and over again.

Malcolm, no Primate signed the Tanzania Communique but they all stood up and said they agreed with it....and most of them understood that to mean that....they agreed with it.

I gues you would have argued that the ABC could not possibly not invite VGR to Lambether 2008? Or maybe you would have said that was his preorogative?

I gues you would have argued that the ABC and AC could not possibly have asked TEC and Canada to withdraw from AC councils.....but they did.

In October, when we have TEC's response to the deadline, we will see how wrong you are because most of the AC Primates do not speak Griswoldian - they meant what they said.....but I suspect that Rowan flying in to see TEC bishops at the end of Sept will result in a fudge (just as he achieved in Canada)

"but I suspect that Rowan flying in to see TEC bishops at the end of Sept will result in a fudge "
Is this the humble beginning of the realisation that there won't be a firework of expulsion?

no Erika - just watching Rowan with J John or Rowan with the Canadians, he has an ability to get liberals to bend to his will as he seeks to keep the AC together

So it was a different NP who confidently posted a couple of days ago:

"Tobias - when Rowan says in October that the TEC bishops involved in "consecrating" VGR are uninvited, I look forward to hearing your spin on that too...."?

NP - "no Primate signed the Tanzania Communique but they all stood up and said they agreed with it."

M - Irrelevant. The Primates do not have the authority, individually or collectively, to make demands, to set deadlines or to enforce either. They could all have agreed that their wind smelled like roses - it wouldn't have made it so.

NP - "I gues you would have argued that the ABC could not possibly not invite VGR to Lambether 2008? Or maybe you would have said that was his preorogative?"

M - Given that Colenso wasn't invited to the first Lambeth, this establishes the precedent that Cantuar can make decisions about who to invite or not to invite. It does NOT establish that the Primates, individually or collectively, can force him to invite or not invite anyone.

NP - "I gues you would have argued that the ABC and AC could not possibly have asked TEC and Canada to withdraw from AC councils.....but they did."

M - The Primates can ASK anyone they please to do anything they please. Any one or any body can ASK for anything. The Primates cannot COMPEL anyone to do anything. They do not have the authority. It was tactically foolish of the Canadians and Americans to accede to the request.

NP - "In October, when we have TEC's response to the deadline, we will see how wrong you are because most of the AC Primates do not speak Griswoldian - they meant what they said.....but I suspect that Rowan flying in to see TEC bishops at the end of Sept will result in a fudge (just as he achieved in Canada)"

M - Or we will see the establishment of the Alternate Anglican Communion that you and others so desperately long for, where the Prince Bishop of Abuja can give himself a lovely new title. Perhaps "Supreme Primate of the Nigerian Communion."

M - Just don't be surprised when some of the other "conservatives" decline to walk with him on his egotistical quest.

Malcolm - please get over this obsession with ++Akinola......

Please recognise that Lambeth resoluitions were not made by ++Akinola alone and that ALL (surprisingly!) the Primates of the AC sent out the Tanzania Communique.

Also, I know of no AC communiques etc sparked by ++Akinola or +Duncan deliberately tearing the fabric of the Communion, do you??

If there is a split, you are seriously deluded (given the above) in hoping that most of the AC is going to accept VGR.......but, as I say, pls get over this ++Akinola obsession because it is clouding your judgment.

NP - Please stop this fabrication that my issue is with the Prince Bishop of Abuja.

The issue has to do with what authority Lambeth has and what authority the Primates meeting has.

I am quite certain you are not as stupid as you are trying to let on. I am quite certain that you actually do understand the point I am making and the fact that it has two-thirds of four-fifths of bugger-all to do with the individual person of the Prince Bishop of Abuja.

But since you cannot make a case that either Lambeth or the Primates Meeting has the authority you falsely claim, you have chosen instead to play the fool and pretend that the issue is something else.

Tell you what, NP - I'll put it in words of no more than two syllables, and I'll type slowly so you can follow.

Primates not have power you think.

Capiche?