It really is high time this farce was brought to a close. Why hasn't anyone got any courage - what we need is a split which will clearly divide the two entirely separate religious belief systems in the current Anglican church.

Liberals need to stop being so wet and wimpy and recognise evangelicalism for the dangerous and harmful belief it actually is. An atheist nation would be far better than an evangelical one.

'Christianity' is dead. There is no unified Christian belief. Thats the one thing the conservatives have got right - and its about time liberals woke up ane realised it.

Fantastic second hand reporting from Ruth Gledhill in The Times:

_Dan Van Biema and Catherine Mayer describe his appearance as “benignly rumpled” with “wild black eyebrows” that “try to unseat his spectacles.”_

I'm concerned at the moment that my front fringe is pushing down my spectacles despite a haircut some weeks back. This clearly has deep implications about my present lack of paid activity, and expressions of liberal viewpoints most recently - compared with the liturgical consensus of the Anglican Communion, as my forced lowered spectacles give that artificial professorial look and make me think I ought to use those scissors I got from the pound shop during our last trip to Scunthorpe. "I might then see a bit better," I said, with deep theological meaning.

Come on. Make me a journalist. You all know it makes sense.

"Liberals need to stop being so wet and wimpy and recognise evangelicalism for the dangerous and harmful belief it actually is. An atheist nation would be far better than an evangelical one."

The result would be that the extremists win in both cases, and each extreme gets to drift off in their own direction.

Furthermore, as a Christian our first duty is to unity, not division. We are called over and over to unite. Blaming the other guy is convenient, demonizing the other is easy. And I am certainly no fan of the things that ++Akinola or the bishops of the Global South or those in Wycliffe Hall are doing. But there are two things to keep in mind. One, I intend to stay and fight for my church and not abandon it to them. Two, it is my moral duty to stay with them even as I may at times mortally disagree with what they stand for, even as they may disavow me. That is hard. Very hard. But nobody said being a Christian was easy.

Williams is quoted by Reuters as saying "It's impossible to get from Scripture anything straightforwardly positive about same-sex relationships"
This suggests that it is a waste of time trying to reason with him. He is obviously a closet evangelical with the typical evangelical emphasis on scripture as the ultimate criterion. This bibliolatry is a form of mind virus which disables the rational faculty. Williams is surrounded by evangelicals inherited from his predecessor. His wife is an evangelical. Under his rule the Anglican Communion is becoming more evangelical and sectarian. We must face the fact that the outlook is extremely bleak.

I fully concur with Walsingham.

By the way, PB Katharine Jefferts Schori handled herself extremely well in her interview by Bill Moyers ob PBS last night. Transcriptions of the interview can be accessed via www.episcoscope.com. She gave a reasoned rebuttal to the stance of ++Akinola et al, while maintaining that we must not exclude from conversation those who differ from us.

Walsingham. I don't believe there's virtue in having my Christian walk subordinated to fascist authoritarianism in the person of Peter Akinola or the primates. If Christianity isn't better than that then I'm outa here. God's bigger and better than that.

No-one is suggesting anyone should 'leave'.....there is a difference between 'leaving' and recognising that there is no case for a unified Communion any longer.

Its not a case of 'abandoning' the church to anyone, but agreeing that the sensible way forward is not to be part of the same denomination. A divide does not mean one group 'leaving'

I think it is anything but one's 'moral duty' to stay with those who peddle evil. The myth which needs to be slain is the idea that there is a single 'Christianity' and that we somehow have the same beliefs....we don't. The only thing shared is the name. Otherwise, we have absolutely nothing in common, and there is no logical sense in pretending that is the case.

Thanks for the links to Religious Intelligence and GetReligion. I'd not seen the sites until I read this post.

Yes, Bishop Jefferts Schor's Moyers interview was a wonder to behold. Not many people on my 'people with soul' list, but she's on it now. I like her more and more.

If there is any spiritual value linked to remaining in association, it might be that we demonstrate at least some of our harried yet hallowed journey towards finding how people of different, even conflicting views, can live in peace. Including - how? if? when? - such different people can participate fairly and honestly in shared institutions at multiple levels of cultural life, from the most local to the most globalized.

We are undergoing an unfinished journey. Going off planet is not the option that couterbalances the ReCon claims that the planet all really belongs to ReCon believers because only they know and believe in exactly the right sort of Jesus.

Goodness knows, I wake up some days and start the day realizing that this planet feels so little like home that I endure it rather than enjoy it. But alienation passes, and to be a pilgrim is to journey, uprooted yet rooted.

Being Anglican used to innately mean that such contradictions and complexities were more or less par for the course; until the most recent campaigns for realignment, alas.

A taste? See Barbara Brown Taylor at Grace Cathedral in apostate SF land - no doubt surrounded by non-straight believers of every imaginable sort, and maybe even some rather conservative or traditionalistic believers, too.

At: http://www.gracecathedral.org/mp3/sermon/ser_20061105.mp3

Just now reading RW's book "Anglican Identities", I lament that his voice is so often wasted on the tawdry questions of ecclesiastic politicking. The title of the book　might suggest musty ecclesiasticism, but its contents are luminous, civilized, and show a mind steeped in, nourished by and critically engaged with the best thought and writing of the English Church since Tyndale and Hooker.

"Its not a case of 'abandoning' the church to anyone, but agreeing that the sensible way forward is not to be part of the same denomination. A divide does not mean one group 'leaving'"

Er, what kind of mental gymnastics does it take to make an obviously self-contradictory statement like that?

"The myth which needs to be slain is the idea that there is a single 'Christianity' and that we somehow have the same beliefs....we don't. The only thing shared is the name. Otherwise, we have absolutely nothing in common, and there is no logical sense in pretending that is the case."

We do have things in common with them, as difficult as that may be for you to imagine.

Among Christ's last words in prayer was this: "that they may be one, as we are one."

That is the most powerful signal I can imagine that our highest duty as Christians is to find a way to remain in unity, even to face down what may appear to be evil or heresy. Demonizing one another does nothing to solve that or to fulfill the mission Christ gave us when dying on the cross.

@Curtis:

"I don't believe there's virtue in having my Christian walk subordinated to fascist authoritarianism in the person of Peter Akinola or the primates."

I didn't suggest subordinating anything to ++Akinola or the primates or "fascist authoritarianism". You're putting words into my mouth. (Though I do think the rhetoric could use a few degrees of cooling.)

I do suggest staying true to the traditional model of Anglicanism, which is a decentral model of church governance, thus precluding the very things you describe.

Walsingham,
How do you propose to face down "evil or heresy" when both sides believe the others are the evil heretics? The Anglican church has no agreed on authority, so how do you solve the problem?
What do you see the two sides having in common, other than using the word "Christian"?

Two people start walking at the same place at the same time. One goes North, the other East. They end up in totally different places. Can they still claim they're travelling together? Will they ever meet again?

Walsingham ; if a group agrees to divide in two, then no-one leaves - there are just two groups rather than one. Not one leaving the group, but a divide of the group. It would have to be a MUTUAL agreement that this is the best way forward, though.

I think you are kidding yourself with regard to core beliefs. Those of liberals and conservative evangelicals are fundamentally different, as much as some in the middle would like to see us all as one happy family!

@Chris H:

Unfortunately the comment limit precludes me from going into much depth as to what we have in common with other Anglicans around the world, so by the nature of the commentary I'll have to stick with an admittedly rather anodyne response. But starting with just the very basics, we have the Creeds. We have the historic episcopate and apostolic succession. We have a belief in the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. We have a belief in the conciliar nature of the Church. And there is so much more. What is so distressing is that we have gotten so hung up on and distracted by the issue of homosexuality and let it get in the way of so many other things that unite us, and the temperature of the rhetoric is largely to blame, not the specific disagreements. We are so blinded by our inability to agree on one thing that our ability to agree on other things is forgotten. And that is incredibly sad.

When one goes North and the other goes East, we can meet again. The Earth is round.

@Merseymike:

When any division occurs, in this case *both* are leaving the body of Christ and committing an act of schism.

I didn't claim that we are all one big happy family or that we should even pretend to be one. No one should be in any illusions about it. But it will take much hard work, much reflection, and much time.

From a rather more cynical point of view, already time is working *against* ++Akinola by his own tactical mistakes. Quite frankly I would not have imagined a year ago that all of ECUSA's bishops save one would have been invited to Lambeth. The notion that ECUSA's entire polity (possibly even including +Gene as a guest) would be present, but Nigeria's would not, would have seemed ludicrous. But that is exactly what looks like what is going to happen.

And the more ++Akinola isolates himself, the more he will be forced -- again from a more cynical point of view -- to work with the rest of the Communion, including ECUSA. And the problems will be resolved. It takes a calm composure, dedication to the cause, and a firm resolve to maintain unity while not giving up on each other. That's all I am asking for and I think that's all Christ would want us to do. "That they may be one".

Walsingham - that prayer was for believers.....I wonder what he would have made of Spong and TEC

"that prayer was for believers.....I wonder what he would have made of Spong and TEC"

NP, I've copied this so that I can quote it the next time you try to pretend you don't believe those who think differently than you to have no faith at all. Spong, even TEC, MAY be heretical, but here you're saying that they aren't believers. Learn a bit if Christian humility, old bean, you can find a lot about it in the Scriptures if you would but read them.