Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori wrote

_aspects of this matter may change in the next 14 months, and the House of Bishops' September meeting offers us a forum for further discussion._

As I suggested, the reply slips might be a bit late - the effective reply slips perhaps. Bonnie Anderson's response is right too: Gene Robinson is duly elected and selected so therefore he should attend.

Even Martyn Minn's limited statement is about right, a great deal can happen and some will still be working from the September 30 deadline.

However, if correct, it looks like typically Akinola is about to fan the flames, that

_withholding of invitation to a Nigerian bishop, elected and consecrated by other Nigerian bishops will be viewed as withholding invitation to the entire House of Bishops of the Church of Nigeria._ The Venerable AkinTunde Popoola

Plus it remains committed to meeting in the global south and resolution before Lambeth, not during. However, these 60 and indeed all the TEC bishops but one are invited, and that one may come as a guest. Once again, it is up to the sectarian to do the walking, ie Archbishop Akinola.

That CANA and AMiA are not recognised does have implications for recognition of Nigeria and Rwanda too, that they are impaired, and, presently, in a way that TEC is not - TEC is fully recognised.

IC clearly realises that TEC's strategy of "give us what we want now!" does not work so they want to be more reasonable....

So, it seems IC wants to go back to the old CofE liberal strategy ( something like "let's all talk the issue to death while some carry on breaking the rules and contradicting scripture" - while being paid from other people's money to shrink congregations all over England, of course)

Given how dourly the realignment conservative believers who post on TA view anybody who thinks or discerns (and therefore, lives and prays) differently, I cannot help wondering just why they wish to remain Anglican.

Besides the custom, property, and so forth?

Would not a whole range of other closed believer conservative religious communities fit their beliefs and needs more closely than traditional worldwide big tent Anglicanism? The claims that the rest of us must be wrestled into conformity for the eternal good of our own souls makes little or no real sense, except to the believers who have let themselves pledge realignment obedience.

Indeed, I have sometimes stayed in rather conservative venues, as institutionally defined at times, mainly because of face to face personal relationships of contrary grace and breathing space - but only for a clear and called purpose, and everybody involved always knows our time will run out, so to speak, in the institutional sooners and laters.

That is part of why we follow Jesus of Nazareth as Risen Lord - because in effect, Jesus says to us, I know that your time is running out, but be of great good cheer, and abide in me where time is no longer divided into kairos and chronos.

I can't speak to the conservative believers who post on TA, drdanfee, but I've a pretty good idea of one thing driving the CANA folks over in N. Virginia & Colorado Springs, and that's up-market brand-name purchasing. The associate rector of Falls Church recently stated that "two-thirds of the worshipers are Methodists, Presbyterians or Baptists", so, hootin' & hollerin' to the contrary notwithstanding, a strong, deeply-felt corporate "Anglican" identity seems improbable. A strong conservative identity is a different matter - individuals named as members of one or the other Virginia church include US attorney general Alberto Gonzales, Oliver North and, before his return to the RC church, Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas.

The Episcopal Church is the Church of Presidents from Washington onwards, not to mention those excellent transatlantic social connections. It has first-rate social cachet, the right brand name (sits easily with Gucchi, Ralph Lauren and BMW possessions and N. Virginia homes), but what to do about these godawful lefty social ideas? Hostile takeover, obviously. Far nicer than sticking with those down-market Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist establishments. And this, in large measure, is what this whole to-do is about - the hostile takeover of an up-market label.

Well, lapinbizarre, I happen to be on that 'conservative' side of the fence. Unfortunately, what I perceive is a classic 'bait and switch' by the leadership of ECUSA. I was 'lured' into the Episcopal church a little over 30 years ago, by a set of beliefs and understandings of Christianity that was taught to me by ECUSA. Now it seems that the 'leadership' has decided that those beliefs were wrong, and I have to start believing something else. After all, they certainly know more about the condition of mankind and the meanings of Jesus teachings than primitive folks like me or St. Paul. In any case, the problem (as I see it) is that ECUSA is re-interpreting some of the beliefs of the church, and the interpretation of certain passages of the bible. However you justify it (fairness, inclusiveness, justice, whatever) the bottom line is that the fundamental understanding of what the bible says about certain things has been 'redefined'. Some of us can accept that, and some of us can't, but you cannot say that the ones who are intent on the 'historical' beliefs are trying to 'takeover' ECUSA. That is an outright falsehood, and disingenuous. The current HOB is intent on redefining basic tenets of ECUSA historical beliefs based on the assumption that they know more about the what Jesus 'meant' in his teachings than his apostles. They certainly have the power to do so for ECUSA, but it is wrong of them (and you) to claim that those of us who believe the historical view (and some would say the biblical view) of things are trying for a 'hostile takeover' of the church.

drdanfee, I think you mistake us of the 'conservative' bent. We, unfortunately, are the ones that are trying to follow the 'historical' faith. The Anglican faith as delivered by the historical church. ECUSA (guess that is you) is changing the definitions. We see the issue as YOU trying to force US to abandon the beliefs of millenia because you know more than those poor ignorant Christians who came before you (guess that includes me). At this point, I guess I am no longer Episcopalian, based on the changes that have occurred in the belief structure of your church, but still hope that I can remain Anglican.

oh dear Lapin - you really would not be pleased to see Tutu's mansion!

TomB wrote: “The current HOB is intent on redefining basic tenets of ECUSA historical beliefs based on the assumption that they know more about what Jesus 'meant' in his teachings than his apostles.”

The assumption is rather that the historical Church knows more about what Jesus “meant” than un-historical Calvinism does.

“They certainly have the power to do so for ECUSA, but it is wrong of them (and you) to claim that those of us who believe the historical view (and some would say the biblical view) of things are trying for a 'hostile takeover' of the church.”

Beliefs – “historical” or no – and “takeover” are 2 very different things. There i s a hostile takeover going on in the church of the Americas since some 30 years back. Just now it seems to be failing, but still.

However, your “historical view” are the beliefs of 16th to 17th century Calvinism, as c h a n g e d in 20th century USA. Not those of the Church. Nor are they in any way “Biblical” but the in-reading of alien categories from Philosophy.

So, sorry. Modern, late modern and a-historical.

As the 20th century progressed (WWI, WWII, various -isms, State oppression, persecution and killings on an industrial scale…) the Church (the historical churches) became less infatuated with the Indo-European intellectual legacy of European Academia (and its fruits), taking more interest in its long neglected Hebrew roots.

This development is not confined to TEC, it’s a happening continually all over the Globe, including de-colonization and various forms of empowerment...

But yeah, are they different!

TomB writes: "I think you mistake us of the 'conservative' bent. We, unfortunately, are the ones that are trying to follow the 'historical' faith. The Anglican faith as delivered by the historical church."

and "At this point, I guess I am no longer Episcopalian, based on the changes that have occurred in the belief structure of your church, but still hope that I can remain Anglican."

There is a whole comet-tail of "Anglicans" who say the same - see the rather amazing list at http://anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html

Personally, I would rather you stayed in and fought your corner, as you are perfectly entitled to do. This will force all of us to justify and examine our beliefs and direction, which must be a good thing. But we must air our differences in good faith and with mutual respect, of course - it does no good if we simply try and kill each other off.

There are times, NP, when I wonder if you were put on the face of this earth just to waste the time of folks with better things to do. Here we are yet again - NP, Desmond Tutu, "Continually Do Cry" time. Why the obsession with Tutu's mansion, NP - other, of course, than to distract from serious issues? We're starting to catch on to the fact that your popping up, hollering "Desmond Tutu's Mansion", indicates that a major nerve has been hit elsewhere, but does the expression "mean-spirited" ring any bells, NP? Or ought the archbishop to wait until he reaches his Father's house - current indications are that he may be there quite soon - for that mansion? Don Armstrong didn't and my betting is that the archbishop of Ajuba didn't, either.

Anyway, you're flat-out wrong, NP. I would LOVE to see Tutu's mansion. I am DYING to see Tutu's mansion. Direct me to on-line sites; post photographs by the dozen on Flickr; pen descriptions in loving, pornographic detail - but satisfy the craving that you have aroused in my, and likely a thousand other breasts hereabouts, with your incessant whinging. Assuming, of course, that you can do this - that this is not just one more load of Radical Right wind and water.

In short, how 'bout you put up or shut up, NP?

"N's Genius without Thought or Lecture
is hugely Turned to Architecture"

Nice, Göran.

Lapin - I am merely pointing out the inconsistency in people who would criticise what they see as "greed" in some conservatives but do not even want to aknowledge that some of their heroes have made a bit of cash over the years and live very well too.

Tutu has a lovely house in a very rich suburb called (appropriately) Bishop's Court in Cape Town. He bought this house and I am happy for him to have this comfort.
Obviously, details and pics of his private house are not available on the net for security and privacy reasons etc but it is well known in Cape Town that Tutu lives there.....and good luck to him, I say!

Please, no further off-topic posts on South African housing for retired clergy. This blog article is about Lambeth Conference invitations. Retired bishops don't get invited!

Thank you, Simon!