The real significance of this is the trouble taken to state that Akinola is not in charge. So the splitters split further among themselves.

Gosh! October already? My calendar must have stopped....

Split? What split?

"a parallel Church for conservatives in America"

Another one? To add to the three-men-and-a-website entities already in existence?

"provoking the biggest split in Anglican history"

Hardly. Can't see Anglicanism being rent asunder by another schism in its long history.

"very vulnerable, very fragile" Church.

Code for "senior prelates feeling very vulnerable, very fragile"

Now, Lambeth Palace will realise that the GS are very serious about wanting unequivocal, clear decisions from TEC and also from the AC with regard to TEC.

Is the ABC willing to see the ABC split in order to accomodate the TEC HOB?

After all, these are the very people who initiated all the strife in the AC by their deliberate actions in 2003, when TEC rejected the calls of all the Primates of the AC (including Griswold!) not to tear the fabric of the communion.....will the ABC see the GS walk for the sake of a few rebellious liberals in the AC?

Did the "months of consultation with other provinces" include consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury? With the Primates Standing Committee? With the Anglican Consultative Council? It plainly did not wait until Lambeth 2008, which is only a few months away.

Looks like Nzimbi is "walking away".

And, in answer to the question "will the ABC see the GS walk"?, he has answered in his own words to TIME magazine: "I don't particularly want to be — I wouldn't say blackmailed but pressured by either extreme on this. I think they'd lose by not coming. I think they need to talk to each other and listen to each other without prejudice."

He can't stop them walking if they've made up their minds and are determined to go, which they obviously are. He's certainly not going to sacrifice his deeply held views about order and unity in in order to capitulate to the extremists, even if for him to do so didn't simply prompt further impossible demands as it has in the past.

I think this announcement is very sad, and very ill advised, and the timing seems designed deliberately to ignore the September deadline set by the Primates themselves.

Nor do I think it bodes well for the health of the US conservatives that there is yet another leadership structure being set up for them to choose from and by which further to divide them each from the other.

Hugh - reading your post, maybe this site should be called "Wishful Thinking Anglicans"...

....if you are right, then it has not taken much, "just three-men-and-a-website entities", to get TWR, Tanzania etc, has it?

But, you are not right....and you are also mistaken if you think that Anglicanism is at its heart all about being a broad church with all views welcome - that is also one for Wishful Thinking Anglicans

NP, the Archbishop of Canterbury is on study leave, and I hope he is not pestered by these ridiculous schismatic gestures. It seems to me that they can safely be trusted to undermine and discredit themselves, without his reactions. That is, I hope that the fact that Kenya is running its own secession-mongering operation independently of Nigeria (both no doubt handsomely funded by US culture-warriors) is indeed a sign of splitting among the splitters.

FJOL - when you see ++Akinola being one of the consecrators of the future Bishop Attwood, you amy be disappointed that your hope for splits amongst your enemies are not coming true.

Given the many who love to blame everything on ++Akinola, pretending that he is the cause of all this AC trouble rather than TEC's 2003 actions, it is not at all surprising to see others taking a lead ....... to explode the lie that it is only ++Akinola who thinks the AC has no right to take scripture which say "do NOT" and teach "DO whatever feels right to you"

It does seem conservatives are going farther and farther out on separate thin branches that are likely to snap beneath them sooner or later.

NP: "it has not taken much, "just three-men-and-a-website entities", to get TWR, Tanzania etc, has it?"

You're right, NP. Doesn't take much to get a majority of 38 people.

NP is right, as usual, when it comes to organisational politics.

There are groupings that were never about broad tent anglicanism, or women, or the downtrodden, or justice in this world.

There are groupings who think that they might as well plunder while this world is here, because it is going to be replaced with a world free of the unrepentant and where they never have to worry about resource management or cleaning up after themselves.

By their own testimony, no woman is or has been authorised to be their teacher within the Anglican communion, and some claim going back to before even Christ.

So every day Eve wakes up smirking that they are still part of this world, breathing its air and living off its resource. Don't bother asking Eve to clean up your messes, by your own admission you have been ignoring and denying her existence for at least 2,000 years. You made this mess, you can clean it up too.

This certainly suggests a split in the wider communion, and a move away from Canterbury. There simply isn't a majority in the CofE for the GS position - as the recent debates in Synod indicated, the CofE does not want to throw out all liberals or refuse a place in the church for laity in gay relationships.

NP, the question is not "Who is right". Only God knows the answer to that one. As Rowan Williams said in his TIME interview: "good religion is good for people because it teaches you... to believe your actions are always fallible... Bad religion tries to persuade you that God is invariably and automatically on your side."

The question is "How do we decide what to do?"

I can't see any basis for saying that Archbishop Nzimbi's email is the answer to that one, unless he is not interested in submitting to the Instruments of the Anglican Communion, in which case he's "walking apart".

Saying "But they started it" makes no difference.

"these are the very people who initiated all the strife in the AC "

As you well know, the current strife has roots extending back years, if not decades. It has roots in bishops who do not actually "hold fast the catholic faith" but are to all intents and purposes congregationalist Protestants. It goes back to an insistance by some that the Church live by the letter not the spirit of the Law. It goes back to conservative bishops refusing to engage with their gay flock, directly disobeying the statements of at least two Lambeths. It was there before 2003, though the precipitate actions of TEC certainly fanned it into flame. The idea that TEC is solely to blame for this is, as the BCP would say, a fond fable and dangerous deceit. I'm beginning to think you would defend the Devil as long as he lived by the letter of the Law!

Boy, I sure hope that Fleet Street rag is right. It would begin to solve a lot of problems. It would be a big defeat for our fundagelical opponents, with international ramifications for them. Might even goad that Gutless Wonder of Canterbury to do something positive for a change.

The two stories (Telegraph,Living Church) don't jibe, do they? Canon Atwood hardly fits the bill as a "prominent American cleric" (mind you, harking back to old business, this is the paper - the Telegraph - that recently described "South Cone" Venables as a "senior Anglican primate").

A prominent characteristic of schismatics is a marked tendency to fragmentation as egos proliferate(see citation below to Peter Anson's "Bishops at Large"). Less than a year ago Martyn Minns was consecrated by Akinola; now Nzinbi is announcing the consecration of Atwood to a rival N. American hierarchy. Plus the flotsam and jetsam of the assorted post-women's ordination "Anglican" successor churches are already scattered across the continent. Note that CANA is not opposed to women's ordination and already has at least two women priests working within its structure, one on the staff of Falls Church, which may be a factor in the reported new division.

The only chance that the breakaway faction of TEC has for a real level of success lies in presenting a unified front to the Episcopal Church - ideally extending to and assimilating the breakaway churches of the late '70's, which have alternative structures already in place. Instead, fragmentation seems to be the order of the day. Does anyone suppose that the bp. of Pittsburg will accept the primatial authority of Canon Atwood?

If the Telegraph report is substantially true - and the phrase "several relatively moderate primates from outside Africa" raises umpteen red flags - this will surely precipitate a split in the communion.

Poor NP still cannot see the forest for the trees, as he/she chooses to ignore the fact that more and more provinces of the Anglican Communion, around the globe, are rejecting the fundamentalist exclusionary model which Akinola, and his minions (including Kenya) are trying to impose on the traditional Anglican Communion.

Then NP has the chutzpah to reclassify this website as "Wishful" Thinking Anglicans; if that was to be the case then its equivalent for NP, and his/her allies, would have to be "Delusional Fundamentalist Anglicans."

Really, NP, open your eyes.

Forgot to flesh out the mention above of Peter Anson's "Bishops at Large", which chronicles the many and varied fruits of roughly a century of "irregular" Roman and Eastern rite successor consecrations between the mid 19th century and the early 1960's. It was originally published by Faber in 1964 and a wrappered facsimile reprint was put out by the Apocryphile Press in 2005 ($24.95 through Amazon.com - the strange and wonderful illustrations alone fully repay the price of admission).

The true value of Anson's book lies in the light that it sheds on the many, many dangers and wonders of "free-range" apostolic succession.

NP - Progressive are quite aware that there is a small group of GS Primates that want to blackmail the ABC into doing things their way are are very "serious" about it. They are going to go forward with Plan B (Plan A is to get TEC kicked out of the AC), set up additional convocations, posturing about not coming to Lambeth, making noises about "walking away" and setting up their own communion. But to date, they have done nothing new except continue to do whatever they want (the same thing they accuse TEC of doing).

Not until they announce that they are officially breaking with the AC, unless the AC recognizes their missions or officially sets up another communion and withdraws from the AC will there be anything "new."

This irregular consecration of Attwood is clearly NOT a reaction to the House of Bishops of Episcopal Church's initial expression of displeasure with one provision of the Primates' Tanzania communique. It has nothing to do with the September 30th deadline for acceptance of its provisions.

No, it's a reaction to the Lambeth invitations -- which included all Episcopal bishops except +Gene, but did not include Martyn Minns or Cavalcanti, who styles himself bishop of a breakaway diocese in Recife aligned with the Southern Cone.

In response, the so-called Global South Primates will 1) create a breakaway North American province and 2) demand equal recognition for its bishops within the Anglican Communion. If they can just get these bishops invited to Lambeth, they hope to be able to seize control of the agenda and declare their breakaway province the only legitimate representative of Anglicanism in North America. The Episcopal Church will then have been "expelled" from the Anglican Communion.

This has been the unwavering goal of a small but bitterly disaffected Episcopal Church faction for the past three years, ever since the election of +Gene Robinson gave them (they thought) the means of achieving it. The so-called Global South Primates, as was seen at Tanzania, act only at the direction of this faction. Let's name names: Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, Martyn Minns, David Anderson. Now comes their last desperate gamble to achieve their goal.

Watch for very loud, very public statements issued (but not written) by the Archbishops of Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, and one or two others demanding that "their" bishops be included in the Lambeth invitations.

Will ++Rowan give in? They are betting he will, and I am not betting against it.

What's the thin branch, ettu?

Don't you realise that these faithful archbishops are deadly serious that they would rather not be yoked with false teachers?

If the unikely outcome of TWR and Tanzania is that TEC gets its own way in the AC, these faithful people are quite happy to go their own way....leaving the AC as a small club of declining liberal talkers, surviving only as long as dead people's money lasts to pay for all the decline.

But, looking at TWR and Tanzania and the ABCs statements in TIME, I think we have reason to be hopeful that the AC is not going to shrink to a complete irrelevance and will be kept to the standard of scripture...then Bishops Minns, Cavalcanti, Attwood et al can come home

Who's left to join this new group? The U.S. is chock-full of Evangelical groups already - and even these are now expressing concern about losing members. The fastest-growing segment of the population is the "unchurched," something that's been true for years now.

So who do they think is going to pack these churches? There just isn't any sizable market for "Conservative Episcopalians" of this stripe in the U.S. The people who were possibly going to join have already done so - a tiny segment on the order of 5-7% of the current Episcopal Church.

This is just another attempt to do what can't be done. Peter Akinola has lost all influence, and this is an attempt to go forward without him. But why would anybody who hasn't already joined, join?

As we all know our history in Scotland, there were the Frees, the Wee Frees and the Wee wee frees.

I propose that we call this new Anglican Church the Nick Nack Wack Acks.

The new touted conservative entity helps reveal to us just what is so patently mistaken with acting and speaking as if the wedge issues of homosexuality were the whole point, only to say that reading scripture in the new conservative hermeneutic is the whole point, only to say that achieving new worldwide institutional church power to judge, punish, and police the provinces is the point.

Meanwhile, the rest of us may notice that what is notable about this Kenyan move is more or less more of the same old thing. (1)Repeats of the false witness -involving a sound bite redacted campaign history and lots of tag words like historic, biblical, continuing, and take your pick - against TEC that patly blames the New Hampshire VGR consecration, when in fact, TEC has been growing in justice and blessedness for a while now - not least in the form of women's leadership, up to and including the first woman primate of an constituent member of the communion. (2) Presumptive collapsing of the real historic Anglican dispersed authority, in favor of new GS claims to be both the essence of Global South Anglican believers entire, and of Anglican believers entire, period. The implicit message gives all that away, clearly: If only we had been running things, none of these changes in church life would have ever been talked about, studied, or permitted. Duh. (3) False witness claims that some new-fangled institutional arrangement will protect realignment believers from dirt, danger, and some fatal weakness which might otherwise spoil their properly masculinized and exclusively straight believerhoods. This church militant is obviously still preaching and presuming legacy presumptions, with all their unexamined and illogical contradictory presuppositions about who queer folks are.

You can just imagine. Dirt. Danger. Soft. Doesn't like to punch other boys on the playing fields. Repugnant. Creepy. Unmanly.

Decode into vernacular street talk? We have to get away, quick, from all these queers and anybody who is friends or family with them, because they are all dirty, dangerous, and will turn us all into cow-eyed sissies who cannot beat up queers for Jesus.

There is little doubt this stuff still gets traction, especially among a certain type of man. There is also little doubt that it wears thin over time, and depends too much on having enemies who are always dirtier, more dangerous, and less human than the certain type of man is.

NP: "Is the ABC willing to see the ABC split in order to accomodate the TEC HOB?"

So, the Global South are trying to pull a "it's us or them" move? Jesus showed us how to deal with those who objected to his dining with sinners. He called them hypocrites and turned his back on them.

Rowan Williams may yet be crucified for his stand in trying to hold the AC together from the rampant factionalism which has infected it. But its very clear that he is playing the Christ role in this little passion play.

The association of separated congregations in the United States with the Province of Kenya is not new, if it has for some time been under the radar. According to an Anglican Mainstream news release, they have 25 congregations - all associated quietly while CANA has gotten all the press.

Much of the difference is because many if not most of these congregations have never been part of the Episcopal Church, although many of the clergy and parishioners have. I'm not aware of significant fights over property, for example. Another difference is that this has taken place in what many in the media consider "flyover" country - away from the major news centers of either American coast. The formative meetings have been taking place in Memphis, Tennessee, and these are small congregations scattered over the American Midsouth. Finally, they have not previously been centralized under one bishop. Instead, a number of Kenyan diocesans have accepted oversight of a few churches each.

Some time ago, Archbishop Williams spoke sadly of the Orthodox experience, with Greek, Russian, Serbian, and other traditions in communion with Constantinople having overlapping territories in the United States and elsewhere. He did not want that to happen in the Anglican Communion. In the United States, I fear it's a little late. Rwanda has long overseen AMiA. Nigeria has a bishop for Nigerian churches, and Kenya will soon have one for churches associated with various dioceses. Will Uganda be far behind?

Nor do I think of this as "splintering." For all the media attention of Archbishop Akinola, Archbishops Orombi, Mzimbi, and Kolini have not been idle. They may be quite happy for a while with a structure more like the Orthodox - not so unlike the Anglican Communion, but with a greater sense of common beliefs - and overlapping, mutually respectful jurisdictions within the "mission field" of the United States. I don't think we on the progressive side should expect them to fall to infighting too quickly, as long as they continue to have a "common enemy" (the Episcopal Church) and a belief that we have left this "mission field" open.

The last consecration didn't get them much in the way of support around the Communion - rather, the other provinces seem to be growing tired of these shrill shenanigans. However, the conservative pressure groups seem to be trying again. Isn't insanity defined as doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results?

Regarding the article in the Daily Telegraph -

While this is just rumor-grade material right now, I really hope it's true and that my bishop (+Stanton) is part of it.

This whole AAC/ACN debacle is a boil that TEC desperately needs to lance, and this sort of thing would certainly motivate them do it! Can you say "presentments" boys & girls ? There, I knew you could :)

There's more here:

http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=826

However, the latest news from Kenya may only serve to strengthen the US leadership in their stance. Earlier this week the bishop at the centre of the row, Gene Robinson, announced plans to allow his clergy to carry out same-sex blessings. And the Executive Council heard from Nigerian gay rights activist Davis Mac-Illya, who heads up his country’s branch of Changing Attitude deliver an attack on Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola for backing anti-gay legislation there.

The new front in the battle has come, however, from Kenya. Archbishop Nzimbi said that developments in North America had left him with no other options. But he hinted that more was going on behind the scenes.

The Nairobi consecration would be “part of a broader and co-ordinated plan with other provinces” Archbishop Nzimbi said. This would “support the international interests of the Anglican Church of Kenya, including support of Kenyan clergy and congregations in North America.”

It appears ++Akinola and ++Orombi are in support of ++Nzimbi's announcement. It's good to see more lifeboats in the water - my hope is they begin to coordinate the search-and-rescue missions soon.

Are African prelates like Big Pete and now the Primate of Kenya really Anglicans? They willfully ignore Anglican polity and set up their own African-brand jurisdictions in provinces of the Communion where they have no jurisdiction. They actually, by doing so, reduce their own episcopal office to a joke, creating episcopi vagantes, to use the terminology of the Augustinian churches in N. Africa in their controversy with the schismatic Donatists.

Sadly, the African prelates do not see the speck in their own eyes, how they have departed from Catholic practice and the faith 'once delivered to the saints'.

Power-grab, stealing the assets of TEC and engaging in piracy are definitely un-Christian behaviors.

At this point there are more acronyms on the Anglican right wing than there are in the US military...

It seems to me that if the GS bishops think that these continued multi-front (coordinated or not) actions will turn up the heat on the US House of Bishops, they have seriously misunderstood the American psyche. Americans to not respond well to pressure. ++Rowan knows this, and has himself allowed that _he_ doesn't wish to be placed under any more pressure than he already has, by continued "unhelpful" incursions in the US.

Of course, it may be that the GS knows full well it will never get its entire way (including, as the "Road to Lambeth" demands, the resignation or removal of Gene Robinson, and not only an end to gay/lesbian bishops but to gay/lesbian priests). The GS may therefore be pressing for as much as they can get when the eventual split comes, which, if they keep up this pressure, it will. The problem with that course is that they will end up with very little, at least on American soil. In this way of thinking they will be around to pick up few pieces once they have completely broken the communion.

"The real significance of this is the trouble taken to state that Akinola is not in charge. So the splitters split further among themselves"

See - here's where I'm puzzled.

TEC is accused of departing from "the faith once delivered to the saints," with the implication being that at some point in the past there was ONE faith, ONE reading of the biblical witness, ONE monolithic Christian moral theology, etc. etc.

So you would think that all of those lifting their skirts and hastening away from TEC would find ONE alternative church where 'the faith etc." is purely held.

But no.

Now there are three.

Which one is the One True Church?

Very puzzling.

I stated above that "CANA is not opposed to women's ordination and already has at least two women priests working within its structure".

I have now tracked down the citation on which I based the statement:

http://apologeticsgalore.blogspot.com/2006/12/question-13-what-is-canas-position-on.html

NP,
Assume for a moment what you hope for: that one of the Instruments of Unity claims for itself the power to determine membership in the Anglican Communion and declares TEC out. Then what happens?
With Kenya's move, there are now 3 "Anglican" jurisdictions in the US (AMiA/Rwanda, CANA/Nigeria, and ?/Kenya), not counting various parishes affiliated with dioceses in the Southern Cone and elsewhere. Which one is recognized as the new official Anglican franchisee in the US? Are Murphy, Minns, Atwood and all the other players going to be able to sit down and create a unifed provincial structure? And are Akinola and Nzimbi going to be able to let their children fly from the nest (subject, of course, to the control of the new Anglican curia)?

NP, you are one tough guy among these liberals in the midst of Thinking Anglicans bloggers. Don't you feel like sheep among wolves? You are totally outnumbered. But you have proved that conscience is an open wound; TEC cannot niddle on it and expect the rest the Anglican Church not to prickle. You don't scratch on an open wound and expect it not to bleed.

The liberals can rationalize all they want. But one thing is needed: REPENTANCE, for the harm they have caused the Church.

How tiresome this has all become, after four years of this the homophobes and mysoginists in the Anglican Communion should stop their posturing and just do whatever it is they want to do. If they think TEC is going to reverse itself and kiss their shoes - forget it. Some of you act like the WWAC is a 2000 year old established religious monolith the Episcopalians had the bad manners to thumb its nose at. Well its not and we didn't in spite of the rhetoric - I care about what the Episcopal Church does and what it does in the world and I don't give a tinker's damn about the rest. And since when did sex become THE central focus of Christianity, if it was SO important why didn't Jesus speak to it? Like I said, its time to either put up or shut up.

"Dark at the Top of the Mitre"...it's a movie about creating a emergency against Christian Gay people that have always existed as friends and family members at all levels of Churchlife...one wonders how this distraction from seeking the persecution of fellow human beins will "play out" in the end. Not a very good a award winning performance on anyones part.

OK, I'll confess it: when I read these articles, I actually broke out laughing. "And yet another one....and how much more mini-game-playing before the dust finally settles?"

I really chuckle at the "Finally-the-massive-earth-shaking-step-has-been-taken" style of the articles as though this was something even faintly new. It's all so entirely predictable, and it has all happened so many times before. One of these days we are going to run out of letters to designate all these alphabet soup combinations.

Back in my day, all these various episcopi vagantes were objects of compassionate humor. I do wish them all well, but I hope they'll get it out of their system soon.

How wonderful.

We now have an unrevealed "RA" reinforcing the flawed beliefs of an unrevealed "NP"., and encouraging him/her with "...you are one tough guy among these liberals..."

RA says "guy;" perhaps there is a secret code in this secret society that I cannot decipher.

But, neither NP nor RA have even acknowldeged the ever-increasing number of global provinces in the Anglican Communion (no longer merely in North America, but in South America, in Europe, and even...oh my...in Africa) who are rejecting the fundamentalist exclusionary efforts of Abjuja and its allies.

Those, my dear unrevealed NP and RA, are the indisputable facts.

There will be no repentance, and neither should there be, for TEC have done nothing wrong. They deserve congratulations, and the sooner the communion splits the better.

I find the glee at the splintering of the church perplexing. Can you please explain to me why you see this as a good thing that builds up the church?

It seems to me that splintering occurs when the heart-felt, strongly believed faith of a group is not being heard and adequately addressed, either by correction that they can accept, or by amendment to the direction of the main body so that their needs are being addressed. Is the splintering that is now occurring what you believe should be the result of the listening process run by those in power in the TEC? Is it not possible, if not probable, that the current attitude and actions of the TEC leadership is in itself adding to the level of splitting that is happening?

Richard, I just wonder what will happen to the liberals in the gay debate if words like "homophobes/homophobia", "hate/fear", "bigots/mysoginists", are frozen out from the debate? Boy, do they love those words. These are very beaten up and tires and worn out words.

The more posturing goes on by the African prelates the more they become a joke on the global scene. One thing I advocate is that TEC cease and desist from any relief efforts to aid African provinces that engage in this kind of posturing through their unaccountable primates, but direct its resources to secular aid agencies, such as Bill Gates's and Bill Clinton's. Yes, we help Africans but not through dishonorable Anglican primates.

Be thankful, RA, that the curators of this page are currently down on ad-hominems (guess you think that that's Latin for "gay-friendly"?) because there's no polite way of responding to the knee-jerk bile you just spewed out. Though were you to re-phrase that last sentence in English, it's possible you might make more sense.

Bravo for all the realignment folks who continue to talk about life boats, rescue and that sort of thing. The message reveals its traditional bent: Save me from queer folks, and all those who know and love them as the often competent and endearing people that in truth they really are.

What chutzpah, to so blithely continue to bear this rhyme so bravely among us while we know better, for real, and face to face in relationship to all our non-straight family members, coworkers, and friends.

How exemplary to fly in the face of the global human facts, still taking legacy presuppositions and flat earth condemnations so much for granted that these views need not even bother to explain themselves much.

Anybody who have dealt much with extended families who go through a characteristic Coming Out process will quickly realize that this is all, pretty much, on par for playing the golf course.

The saddest thing is just how these legacy views are determined to continue consigning all non-straight people to the disposable bins of church life, if not also of public life in general, along with anybody honestly related to them. Alas. Bravo to the realignment then, for so openly showing its legacy colors. Bright negative colors we have all seen and weighed before, and have begun to find wanting in common sense fairness, let alone empirically consistent godliness.

Canterbury once opined that not everybody following these legacy negativities was automatically pledging to the worst of our legacy, but the burdens of proof on that point still rest solidly with the realignment campaigners.

I do not as a believer, for the blog record, need to be protected from either PB KJS or New Hampshire or VGR. I might need to be protected, under some scenarios, from whatever the realignment campaign gets up to next, depending on just how much police power it achieves at any given point in global time.

Those who take a ride on the rescue boats will still find over time that they live on a planet where folks who are not straight make real contributions to our common good, in society and in religious community.

John Henry,
I'm afraid some groups have already beaten you to the punch and have refused to accept money from TEC.

"homophobes/homophobia", "hate/fear", "bigots/mysoginists" RA

Ah, don't remove these very descriptive words as they are so appropriate sounding to me...I've been listening to extremist religious zealots for a lifetime from my view from the pew and couldn't make heads nor tales of all of the anxiety against LGBT people (as if anyone could know anyone else true/real moral character)...I didn't know what you called my brothers and sisters in Christ that hated me and people like me until recently...silly me, I thought they were ALL loving Christians playing "pretend" that Gods world was different than it REALLY is!

No muss, no fuss and denial is *so* multi-purpose.

RA, NP and the minority of alienated bishops you admire: it is the TEC who have lived by conscience on this issue; in the RCC too, conscience is making forward strides; see http://commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1957. Start using your conscience, including your intelligence, and you will find that the tide of truth will bear you up.

"These are very beaten up and tires and worn out words."

Better beaten up WORDS than beaten up PEOPLE, RA.

[And I mean *literally* beaten up, not figuratively as w/ the BooHoo Po' Lil' TEC Dissidents! Ask Davis Mac-Iyalla if you want to know what the former is like... :-( ]

Sometimes it seems that half or more of the posts on this site are responses to one relentlessly negative poster who comes here solely to antagonize people.

What a waste.

RA - it is not that scary being around here....one just has to be able to keep clear on the issues and history and not fall for the constant revision of even recent history eg note how quickly Dromantine, TWR and even Tanzania face revisions attempts to make them powerless or irrelevant.

Thankfully, even the ABC seems to realise that clear decisions are needed to rebuild shattered trust in the AC.....and he is clear that all the strife started with TEC's actions in 2003 (inducing responses from around the world and in the US) ......so despite all the smokescreens and emotional blackmail from some who want to muddy the waters to maintain a subversive presence in the AC, if the ABC wants to keep the AC together (which he does), it is obvious that TEC has to shape up or ship out.....by Sept 30th.

The issues and required responses are not unclear....unless people really want to make them unclear.

AS for Kenya, Rwanda and Nigeria all helping faithful Anglicans in the US, where some want to see division (with no evidence), I see coordinated action.....and Tanzania backs up my view of Primates working together to fight heresy in the AC

I agree with that statement JPM!

JPM - do you notice that the site is called "Thinking Anglicans"? Maybe it is worth having views you do not agree with....if you want to think?

Would you prefer just "Liberal Anglicans All Agreeing" as a site?

I am surprised that there has been no questioning of the timing of Rowan Williams 3 month period of study leave, etc. It is not a sabbatical as he has not been in post yet for seven years, and presumably had a significant break before taking up his present post. Yet at this crazy period in the history of the AC he has chosen to leave the Communion to its own devices. It is a good job our politicians do not step aside when the going gets tough.

Because, Margaret, nothing good can ever come from any organisation which includes conservative evangelicals. Their ideas are harmful and damaging. So, any split which would provide a space free from these people and their views is something to celebrate.

see the first comment on this threat - badman hoping for divisions.....I hope, badman, you have seen the welcome for the Kenyan move from +iker, +Duncan and CANA people........but you keep on praying for division if you like

See Iker's still at it - subverting and attacking from within the church of which he is still a diocesan bishop; giving aid and comfort to those actively conspiring and working to destroy it, but continuing to bask in a power and prestige enjoyed solely because he is a bishop of that church. How anyone with even the barest shred of integrity operate in this fashion?

You see, I don't buy into this tearing-the-fabric-of-the-Communion hyperbole.

The whole saga is indicative of the remoteness of the Primates from the laity they are supposed to represent. And the press have bought into the idea that the Communion is only represented by senior prelates. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is one of the few truly representative Primates, a reflection of ECUSA/TEC's polity. So it is odd that they should be threatened with ex-communication.

Where is the evidence for this *split*? Is the increasingly remote and brittle Primates' Club really representative of *We* the laity? I don't think so. Splits in the Club are not reflected on the ground, but they get the world's media attention. If the Club dismantles, Anglicanism will shrug its shoulders and carry on.

In the vast majority of churches in England, Nigeria, South Africa, New Hampshire or wherever, people worship and volunteer in their churches, apparently oblivious to the antics played out on the world's stage.

Gene Robinson's appointment was a natural development in tradition, as natural as the ordination of women or black people. Natural developments occur whenever the laity are close to the decision-making.

"One thing I advocate is that TEC cease and desist from any relief efforts to aid African provinces that engage in this kind of posturing through their unaccountable primates." I thought some other contributor would have called you on this one by now, John Henry, but they haven't, so here goes. This is a poverty-stricken part of the world and the epicentre of the global AIDS epidemic. Can you square Christian charity with turning your back on these people because of the actions of their "betters"? There have been strong indications that ground-level cooperation between African and American Episcopalian parishes continues to operate effectively notwithstanding the fireworks at higher levels. Which is as it should be. Nothing short of the active intervention of the African hierarchies should prevent this cooperation.

NP To respond to your comment quite a few posts above- I have yet to see a tree arborize and then have the branches rejoin - my point is that there is quite a bit to divide the conservatives - Women's Ordination etc - and that they already seem to be heading their separate ways much as the churches that left in the 1970 era have - and yes I am well aware of the depth of pain that those who have decided to leave the AC to join their own GS variant of the AC are experiencing and feel great sorrow for that- is it not likely that this latest GS Bishop is due to the incorporation of 2 women clerics into the Fall Church structure? IF so does that not speak volumes regarding the "separate thin branches" in my original post?

Okay, a disclaimer: I am not that RA. I may want to remind everyone of the pseudonyms policy around these parts!

I can imagine my conservative priest-friend mildly rejoicing. Am already avoiding talking about this with him.

I had an interesting conversation last evening with a Kenyan couple who are to be married in one of our churches next month. As we talked about the different expectations of marriage in UK and Kenyan society, they started to talk about the local elders, who have to be consulted when difficulties surface in a marriage. They can only be approached with expensive gifts and offerings of sheep and goats.

Some ecclesiastical tribal elders seem to have the same approach, but are demanding human offerings: "We will not speak to you or try to resolve the difficulty until you bring the heads of X and Y". I am far from being a fan of Fred Kaan (I think "The Theology of the Hymns of Fred Kaan" will be in the running for the World's Shortest Book Prize) - but I can't help feel he got close to the mark with his lines:
All that kills abundant living
Let it from the earth be banned;
pride of status, race, or schooling,
dogmas keeping man from man...

Today I read in the newspaper that Zimbabwe's economy is likely to implode within months, and that a recent shipment of agricultural machinery was apparently given by Mugabe to his ministers. Pride of status again. Meanwhile the poor starve and die of HIV/AIDS.

WWJD?

NP In reference to my "separate branch" comment I suggest referencing the discussion below where division among conservatives is mentioned http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/print_w_comments/3626/#64781

_In the vast majority of churches... people worship and volunteer in their churches, apparently oblivious to the antics played out on the world's stage._ Hugh of Lincoln

That's right. They are not anoraks like me.

Brian Poulson - While I don't agree with everything the ABC has done and said, I think his actions of late have been to diffuse the situation and not buy into the reasserters "crisis" mentality. This mentality only serves their purpose of getting people to act NOW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE! They want to keep the pressure up in order to keep the tension up to get their way. The ABC is saying I'm not buying in. God is in control. I think it's a wonderful response.

dear Rabbit - +Iker is very mainstream for the AC - he ain't a subversive.....he ain't the cause of this mess - however you seek to revise history

To bring this closer to home, I see that Bishop Wallace Benn has welcomed the latest insurgency into the United States by African Anglicans:

“I am delighted to hear of the proposed consecration of Canon Dr Bill Atwood by the Primate of Kenya which seems to be an entirely reasonable response to the current wayward reaction of TEC from the standard of teaching of the Anglican Communion. I wish him well and God’s richest blessing on his ministry.”

Bishop Wallace Benn, trustee of Anglican Mainstream.

This, or course, is how what goes on out there comes in here, institution by institution.

drdanfee said,
"How exemplary to fly in the face of the global human facts, still taking legacy presuppositions and flat earth condemnations"

One, you're way off base in describing me. My sister is gay, she's a Christian and I'm trying to get her back into the church - not to try to "change her lifestyle," but because God has a plan for her - all of her. My sister, you, me and all of rest us are far more than our sexuality. Let's stop making sexuality an idol in all this, shall we? I want "rescue" from the pluralism of the TEC leadership, sexuality issues are secondary.

Two, is your comment supposed to be a mixed metaphor? Any good post-modernist knows facts are only expressions of power based on our own presuppositions. Trying to make your case on "fact" while attacking the opposing arguments presuppositions (which you incorrectly identified in the first place) exposes a blind spot in your thinking. Please, be honest about your own biases before you pontificate about my supposed biases w/out ANY idea of who I am or what I'm about.

Or better yet, try to understand my presuppositions (or the presuppositions you want to map onto me) and see if you can try to see my point of view - that's what the listing process is about, right?

"They are not anoraks like me"

Or me!

Having said that, church-goers with access to the media have a perception of the much-hyped "extraordinary obsession", even if they are not aware of the political ins and outs.

Something as pernicious as the Draft Covenant should be a matter of extensive discussion, imho.

Well, Chris, if your sister is gay, then the last thing she will want to do is to join an anti-gay church - thank goodness TEC is there to provide an alternative!
Its all very well for you to say that anyone is more than their sexuality - sure, yes, true enough, but that still doesn't mean we want to conspire in our own oppression

NP, I am not hoping for divisions, I deplore them.

Even if people feel forced to leave their church, I would rather they joined another one than set up a new entity only defined by its antipathy to what they have left. It's not healthy and it's not really viable.

Brian Poulson & C. B. --

I think that maybe (MAYBE) the ABC is trying some Taoist "Wu Wei" since the alternative seems to be standing on somebody else's railroad tracks -- perhaps (I really don't know) not trying to do something is actually the most efficacious thing to do (or not do...)

Lapinbizarre: You quoted only part of my statement. I suggested that TEC re-direct its African aid efforts--not cut them off--through other helping agencies with a sound record, instead of supporting African prelates direct who disdain TEC and engage in acts of piracy on U.S. soil.

well I am pleased to hear that you, badman, are not hoping for divisions.

it is obvious that some hope to split evos (open and conservative) in the UK and others hope that Nigeria and Kenya are split in the help they give faithful US Anglicans - clearly some hope to divide and keep the muddle in the AC but that time has gone....unless the AC is to reduce ot a small no of declining provinces...but I think the ABC does not want that to be his legacy

+Iker is very mainstream for the AC ...NP

That means the "mainstream" must be mannerless and discriminating loudmouths...sounds like more than enough reason to invite them ALL to "stay in the room" (Iker splits when people are about to speak that he doesn't "like") when civilized folks want to discuss relevant religious issues like "Loving one another as WE have been loved."

Iker is not really a good "posterboy" for quality spiritual behavior and/or "listening" of any kind other than the sound of his own noisy voice.

MM, words like "anti-gay church" and "oppression" have been defined by some as any group that doesn't agree that homosexuality is a sin and therefore does not consent to SSB or ordination of non-celibate homosexuals. That is actually a very, very small space in which to work. If some were to "hold less tightly" to these two ideas there might be more room for discussion in TEC and the AC.

In this format, any discussion on how the church should accept homosexuals between you and I would be pointless. I know from your posts (here and at StandFirm) that our ideas of ecclesiology and Eschatology are too far apart for a meaningful dialog to occur.

Merseymike, repentance is a virture, not a vice. To insist defiantly "there will be no repentance" make you feel vindicated or self-righteous in your own eyes. That is the problem with my liberal friends: they over-rationalize, scripture is for them an intellectual chess book. Nothing the Scripture says is ever solidly certain. Everything seem all grey.

Well I have one thing to say to my liberal bloggers: keep life simple, as the scipture has instructed us, and all the heartburn will disappear. Because TEC thought they knew more than the rest of us and have matured and advanced far beyond the rest of humanity, they took a single action that has continued to give the rest of Anglican Church unending heartburn. An African proverb says "a child that keeps the mother up at night will herself not sleep". TEC must REPENT. That is the only cure for all the heartburn.

A quick trip over to Anglicans On-Line will give you a fairly full list of SEVENTY "anglican-type" churches not in communion with Caneerbury, i.e., not actually "Anglican Churches", regardless of what they call themselves. And I know from personal knowledge that at least six of those are splits-from-splinters. One elegantly caparisoned "archbishop" regally reigns over, if I remember correctly, seven very small congregations!

Friends, it just goes on and on...and it has always been thus. The latest Kenyan flapdoodle is only one more in a long, long list of such splinters. They are sad little arrangements, more properly the object of pity than anything else, and although the Telegraph characteristically flies posthaste into hyperbole, it is such a small thing, and no need for apoplexy.

Let's just wish them all godspeed and get on with things.

No, RA. TEC must not repent, because what they did was absolutely right. The Church needs to repent of 2000 years of homophobia, though.

Merseymike,

I must quibble, so please forgive me. As very supportive as I am of the decisions around Gene Robinson's consecration and the support of our LGBT sisters and brothers, I find it difficult to argue that we were "absolutely right" in what we did.

That suggests a level of perfection none of us dare claim for ourselves, and only serves to rankle the "other side."

From my perspective, there are ways we might have communicated our discernment more clearly with the greater Communion, cultivated an earlier and deeper conversation regarding our understanding of what the Spirit was calling us to do, made better provision for those offended by what we were discerning, and responded, at very least, more clearly to the assertion that we would be "tearing the fabric of the Communion."

This all assumes we would have had more courage in seeing the impact of the decision that was coming -- even in the interim period between Gene's election and consecration.

Hindsight, of course, is always 20-20. We deal with the imperfections of our relationships and failings in the context of Communion as we hope the rest of the Communion will continue to work with ours.

But "absolutely right" in anything we are not. Saved only by God's grace are we, at best?

Whether he is an Anglican or not - history will prove Merseymike right. Repentance in the sense of sorrow for sin will surely be required of all churches for their treatment of gay people, being culpable for the suicide of youngsters etc. Repentance in the sense of turning again and again to Christ will also be required, and again Merseymike will be on the side of history regarding the gay issue.

"homosexuality is a sin and therefore does not consent to SSB or ordination of non-celibate homosexuals. If some were to "hold less tightly" to these two ideas there might be more room for discussion in TEC and the AC."

Chris: to "'hold less tightly' to these ideas" amounts to TEC breaking its embrace of (and indeed, assaulting) ***the God-in-Christ in Whose Image these homosexuals were made*** (and whose partnered relationships partake of the *same grace* as "Christ to his Church").

TEC (and millions of other Anglicans throughout the AC) WON'T do this---we will, instead, hold all the *more tightly* onto CHRIST.

[To refuse discussion and dialog is your CHOICE, Chris, and your choice alone. :-(]

Lord have mercy!

"Well I have one thing to say to my liberal bloggers: keep life simple, as the scipture has instructed us, and all the heartburn will disappear."

Yes, Jesus and Paul teach the great simplification: the law of love. In comparison the prescriptions of Leviticus make life very difficult and full of needless heartburn; see http://commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1957.

" Because TEC thought they knew more than the rest of us and have matured and advanced far beyond the rest of humanity, they took a single action that has continued to give the rest of Anglican Church unending heartburn."

A fragile action perhaps, but a forceful rejoinder to the actions prescribed by homophobic prejudice, such as the anti-gay law sponsored by Archbishop Peter Akinola.

" An African proverb says 'a child that keeps the mother up at night will herself not sleep'. TEC must REPENT. That is the only cure for all the heartburn."

What an abusive mother it would be who would say to her crying child: You have the devil stuck in you: you must repent; otherwise I will cast you off.

Neil - do you want to make the case for polygamists too....surely you would not like them to be persecuted etc etc?

Ahhh, more of the same from the Great Minds of the Global South. I'm sure they have plans to make this one more link in the chain that will slowly squeeze the life out of The Episcopal Church. I'm tempted to call it the Rome-Berlin Axis of the Conservative/Traditionalists. Notice how quickly Bps. Venables and Iker were to release their prepared press releases of praise.

There are, my friends, always the unintended consequences of our actions that will become evident in due season. For the Episcopal Church, the unintended windfall profit from all this foreign intervention will, contrary to Global South and Conservative/Traditonalist opinion, be realised in the years ahead. What profit? Be patient, and meantime read some church history.

JCF,

I think you're making a similar mistake as drdanfee and assuming facts not in evidence. Nowhere am I calling for homosexuals to be thrown out of the church! Nor am I calling for them to be treated harshly. We are created in God's image, but our sin distorts that image. I know I'm not as God intended me to be, but I fall on His grace to work in my heart and mind - to make more me holy. The church should be a place were we all experience this grace. In the process God can help us move away from the attributes in Gal 5:19-21 (I am NOT using this as a "clobber verse," but as a list that describes every human - "works of the flesh") and towards the fruits of the Spirit in vs22-23.

I cling to Christ as well - there is no other way to become the human God intends me to be. Perhaps let's keep the focus on Him and keep moving towards Him and we'll end up moving closer to each other.

As for my comment about note getting into more detail w/ MM, that's a result of this format. The message board is a clumsy tool for communicating nuanced ideas and the two of us are very far apart on these issues. There's way too much ground to cover for Simon to keep up w/ postings.

Richard ; I think that no matter how you had done what you did, it would have not pleased the conservatives. They only want gay people in the church if we are willing to accept their theological position on the matter. You could have approached the situation in an entirely different way but from their perspective, you would still be a bunch of heretics!

Chris ; I don't think there really is any compromise possible between those who think that being in a gay relationship is a sin, and those who don't. The belief that it is a sin is automatically going to mean oppression and inequality for those of us in that situation, whatever way you look at it. The only compromise s the one of agreeing to differ but finding space for both views, but that wouldn't be acceptable for conservatives

John Henry. You suggested funneling aid money instead through Gates and Clinton, both of whom have done things that I admire, neither of whose organizations (does Clinton even have a set-up for the efficient distribution of aid money, and if so, to whom?) can be set up to achieve what the existing structure is doing. Parish level programmes pre-dating the present authoritarian stupidity are apparently still functioning and largely functioning well. One does not just drop these, leaving the needy to fend for themselves. Handing the power that will go with the distribution of this money to those already mega-wealthy or likely to use the money to achieve political as much as charitable results, cannot serve the same ends.

Fr. O'Leary, TEC will not repent. Repentance would require a clear majority of the Episcopal Church to reverse their commitment to their understanding of the Gospel, the via media,and the polity of the Church. Gene Robinson's election was not universally popular, but it was done within the canons of TEC and was approved by a supermajority. We are now four years down the road from that election, and the inroads that dissidents have made have still not resulted in the exit of more than a few percent of congregations from TEC. If a great exodus were going to take place, it would have already, especially after Bishop Katherine's election. (And the "traditional Anglican" church down the street from us would have its parking lot paved by now.) I know it's difficult for conservatives to accept, but the actions of TEC's conventions really do reflect the beliefs of its broader membership. They are committed to enduring the tensions induced by via media because they believe in waiting on the Lord. And truly the hurly-burly does not affect most Episcopalians day-to-day. We are busy running Vacation Bible Schools, serving at soup kitchens, studying the Scriptures, worshipping together, and bearing one another's burdens.

cryptogram said:

"Today I read in the newspaper that Zimbabwe's economy is likely to implode within months, and that a recent shipment of agricultural machinery was apparently given by Mugabe to his ministers. Pride of status again. Meanwhile the poor starve and die of HIV/AIDS. WWJD?"

According to the "conservatives," it seems that Jesus would ignore all these things in order to wax hysterical over the prospect that some folks thousands of miles away might allow gay men and lesbians to have faithful relationships.

Somehow, I think not.

"The belief that it is a sin is automatically going to mean oppression and inequality"

Merseymike, there is a whole lot that we will never agree on, and that there really isn't much point talking about, but I was wondering if you could clarify this small statement. You seem to suggest that this is a general rule about sin, and then apply it to the specific instance of calling (rightly or wrongly) homosexual acts 'sin'.

Do you think it is true that it is inevitable that once someone is found to be in a state of sin they will therefore be subject to oppression? For my part I think that we are all living in sin of some sort or other and therefore, according to this general rule, should all be under some sort of oppression, those that sin are unequal and thus all of us are inferior (to what I'm not sure).

The conservative evangelical churches which I have been a part of have *always* made a distinction between discerning of sin, and looking down on the individual in that sin and specifically avoiding oppression towards that person in favour of the liberating love of Christ.

Now, if you don't take this conservative evangelical view, you must either admit according to your statement that a) those who are acknowledged to have sin will inevitably be oppressed or b) there is no such thing as sin. The only way to avoid oppression here is simply to deny the existence of sin, or refuse to call sin what it is.

Of course there is a possible third option, to refuse to judge that something is sin at all. This seems like a very godly thing 'judge not lest ye be judged' but I believe this would be a false application, for instance if a priest is molesting a child, that sin must be identified as happening and then be dealt with.

So my question is just this, regarding this as a general statement and not as something specific with regards to homosexuality and all surrounding issues, do you really mean that? Is there no charity for sinners in your conception of the church?

James Crocker,

I would be very interested in having a translation of your last comment - English will do.

James Crocker, in my church, there is no place for believing that loving a person of the same gender is a sin. It is sinful, in my church, to be prejudiced in any way against a person who is lesbian or gay.

Sin, as Merseymike was outlining, is anything which leads to oppression of people or inequality for particular groups of people.

It is a sin to opress lesbian and gay people. It is a sin to treat lesbian and gay people unequally.

It is not a sin to love another person and express that love intimately. It is not a sin to question the authority of the Bible when the Bible is used to oppress people and treat them unequally.

Going back two days, to RA on 14 June.

I am a liberal and I don't over-rationalize. Scripture is not for me an intellectual chess book. Not everything seem grey in Scripture. Neither is everything in Scripture of equal weight and truth. For RA, that probably looks like nothing is "ever solidly certain". I am a deeply spiritual person and I have enjoyed living in a committed relationship with another man, and I have nothing to repent of before God.

I don't have heartburn, RA. TEC has matured and advanced, not far beyond the rest of humanity, (as you inappropriately suggest) but to the point where they know that discrimination against LGBT people is sinful. For this reason TEC must not repent. There is nothing about TECs theology about LGBT people that TEC needs to repent of. The Communion will one day need to repent for having supported the humiliation and dehumanising of lesbian and gay people.

Goran - I understand that complex syntax can be difficult for those who are not native speakers of English, I will try to keep my responses simple in future.

Colin - I was trying to aviod having the debate be about whether homosexuality is a sin or not, I was asking a general question about the way that response to sin was defined. The more I read through it the more I feel like merseymike's response to Chris is inadequate. For instance, if it is indeed inevitable that defining sin leads to oppression, then surely it is not ok to have both views held to in the church, ie that homosexuality is or isn't a sin (or any other issue, the ordination of women, polygamy, whatever), it is either oppression or it isn't, and I entirely agree with you that oppression is sin.

What I disagree with in merseymike's comment is the assumption that if you call something sin, it will automatically lead to oppression. That is the point I am making. With regard to the specific issue, I must simply disagree with you that naming homosexulity as a sin automatically leads to inequality and oppression. I admit that in some cases it has, but am also aware that in others it hasn't.

"in my church, there is no place for believing that loving a person of the same gender is a sin."

So much for making the case for the broad-tent of Anglicanism or the value of diversity of views.

Even worse, this statement gives the impression Christians can not show grace to one another. No doubt, there have been many awful cases of Christians oppressing homosexuals, it still happens today and I in no way mean to dismiss these facts. But, believing homosexuality is a sin is, in-and-of-itself, no more oppressive to homosexuals than believing substance abuse is a sin is oppressive to addicts. A Spirit filled church can change its attitude with out changing its beliefs.

Chris, that sort of remark means you don't get it. Addicts do themselves harm, and it has physical and emotional results where at some point they need to stop. Gay couples do themselves good, and has physical and emotional results where they carry on deepening their relationship. So believing homosexuality is a sin is very different from giving the same judgment to someone who is an addict. And equating a class of person with a harmful activity is, in many areas of life now, illegal, and it is a liberty indeed that some Anglicans want the privilege to go on saying such.

Chris, Thank you for a wonderful response.

Colin Coward, I respect your views. But again you make yourself a good example of over-rationalizing liberal. I think the great tragedy of todays' culture is the loss of "a sense of sin". This is the liberal agenda-to kill a sense of sin, so that you just do what you want and not worry about it.

To a large extent TEC wants to force this singular agenda down our throats. Just imagine it: to live in a world where you have no qualms anymore about what you do. That is scary, isn't it?

>>>But, believing homosexuality is a sin is, in-and-of-itself, no more oppressive to homosexuals than believing substance abuse is a sin is oppressive to addicts.

That's a very interesting analogy.

In places where substance abuse is considered a matter of sin, as is generally the case in the U.S., policies for dealing with the addicted tend to be highly punitive.

Conversely, in places where substance abuse is considered a medical issue, the policies reflect that, being oriented toward treatment, rather than punishment.

If we are going to use your analogy, it seems clear that those who consider homosexuality a sin cannot help, sooner or later, but behave in punitive ways.

JPM,

You're confusing what God calls sin and humans call crime.

We are made in the image of God; putting harmful substances in our bodies is an affront to God's image. Certainly, that is a sin.

Something be a sin and treated as a medical issue.Since we in the West don't live in theocracies, that doesn't mean incarceration is the default punishment for sin. Current US policy views substance abuse as a crime. The European view tends to deemphasize the criminal aspect, but that view acknowledges there is some deleterious effect, otherwise government funded treatment programs would not be as widely available. Medical treatment may well be the best remediation for the sin of substance abuse, but even in Europe drug dealers and traffickers can end up in prison.