I guess I am having a series of uncharitable moments in passing, today. The more I read from realignment believers about how they are so profoundly endangered by the brute facts - obvious to all or most of us by now - that (1) good and ethically decent folks are living differently from them, and to make it even worse, (2) are not necessarily asking for permission in advance from the Southern Cone or other realignment leaders to be alive and loving and breathing on the planet - the less patient I feel with this constant drumming of the threat, danger, and repugnance gongs.

If Presiding Bishop Venebles has such a shaky faith that two men or two women in love for thirty years of caring in a far, far distant country can shake his tree, he is the one who needs to look at the roots of his tree - not go on and on and on about how repugnant and dangerous the couples are, because they more or less are hewing to common sense values of care, and the like.

Of course his tree is shaking. If two men or two women are alleged to be caring for so long, under the auspices of evil, then it is evil which must fall because as the New Testament Jesus preaches to his audience: The evil house divided against itself cannot stand.

In the context of this and other similar posts, I'd draw attention to the list of failed or failing states and note that Nigeria is 17th, Kenya 31st, and Rwanda 36th. Exactly how much of this economic and social disaster is caused by the evil of same-sex partnerships, or are there perhaps other rather more pressing issues for the bishops and churches of these countries to address than the moral problems of the USA, which, curiously, doesn't appear on the list. Motes, beams, pots, kettles.

"point towards a creation of a viable, stable and orthodox Anglican presence in the United States."

NEWSFLASH, ++Gomez. There already IS such a "viable, stable and orthodox Anglican presence in the United States", and it's called The Episcopal Church!!!

Archbishop Drexel Gomez writes:

"...the Instruments of Communion must determine the most appropriate response to this unfortunate spectacle of a fragmented Anglicanism within the United States of America."

There are a number of appropriate responses to what is happening in America, none of which Drexel has in mind, I suspect.

The Epsicopal Church should be recognised as the only lawfully constituted Anglican body in the USA.

Those who hold divergent views on the place of LGBT people in the church need to communicate with each other and engage in dialogue within the USA (which some are doing) rather than attempting to set up a number of alternative bodies around which conservatives can organise.

Drexel should be able to recognise that conservatives are blaming the Episcopal Church for something which is a dynamic within the whole Communion. The picture in the USA is a more public and dramatic version of what is happening across the Communion and within other Provinces such as England. The Communion is being fragmented by the people who are creating fragments of churches.

One of the reasons this is happening is that leaders like Drexel are either unable to see the bigger picture or deliberately blame one part of the Communion rather than helping the whole Communion to understand that fragmentation affects us all and is the responsibility of us all.

Drexel is one individual carrying a lot of responsibility for the future and with the power to be creative or destructive for the church as it works through its understanding of human sexuality. He is encouraging greater chaos and misunderstanding by blaming and projecting onto TEC rather than offering a more accurate analysis of the worldwide crisis for Christianity and helping the whole Communion engage more deeply and truthfully with the presence of LGBT Christians.

Surely, with all this planting of 'traditionalist' bishops going on, tradition has something to say to them? Something from the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils perhaps? How about these?:

Nicea (325)
"6. The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church's canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail."

"16. Any presbyters or deacons or in general anyone enrolled in any rank of the clergy who depart from their church recklessly and without the fear of God before their eyes or in ignorance of the church's canon, ought not by any means to be received in another church, but all pressure must be applied to them to induce them to return to their own dioceses, or if they remain it is right that they should be excommunicated. But if anyone dares to steal away one who belongs to another and to ordain him in his church without the consent of the other's own bishop among whose clergy he was enrolled before he departed, the ordination is to be null."

Constantinople (381)
"2. Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches: but in accordance with the canons, the bishop of Alexandria is to administer affairs in Egypt only; the bishops of the East are to manage the East alone (whilst safeguarding the privileges granted to the church of the Antiochenes in the Nicene canons); and the bishops of the Asian diocese are to manage only Asian affairs; and those in Pontus only the affairs of Pontus; and those in Thrace only Thracian affairs. Unless invited bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business. If the letter of the canon about dioceses is kept, it is clear that the provincial synod will manage affairs in each province, as was decreed at Nicaea. But the churches of God among barbarian peoples must be administered in accordance with the custom in force at the time of the fathers."

Those who are suffering under some illusion of there being a “middle way” through the present confrontation must be particularly daunted by this statement from Drexel Gomez.

Gomez is clearly signalling that his position is now against Rowan’s Lambeth invitations and he joins those who are declaring North America is in “open season” for those Primates who want to go hunting there.

Once again we see those who have been shifted into the “centre ground” moving back to their old territory. TEC may well continue to be recognised but not, I think, as the sole representative of Anglicanism in the US.

I hear that there are plans for another 10-15 new missionary bishops in the offing.

I wonder what sort of welcome this Primate will now receive at General Synod?

I think that it is time that this man be asked to step down as Chair of the Covenant Design Group.

The simplequestion from any member of the synod to Mr Gomez is how can he on the one hand support division in the USA and on the other present a proposal for a Covenant apparently designed to prevent division among Anglican Churches. In other words, should he not sit down?

More dreamworks. Gomez refers to the Dar es Salaam as a unanimous statement rather than as the compromise composite it clearly was -- not everyone present agreed with each separate part of the whole. Which of course is the problem with creating such curate's eggery in the first place.

Mark Harris has picked up a quote from Drexel Gomez saying: “A ‘church within a church’ is the plan for the Covenant”
Can't see that making him many friends at the Church of England General Synod in July either.

See http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2007/06/archbishop-gomez-and-his-not-too-bright.html#links)

And once there are two American provinces than any argument against anyone else wishing to have a second province in a geographical area will be thin indeed.

About time liberals started to organise properly - starting with open defiance of the homophobic regulations of the church.

But we all know they are too wet to do so - or they would have been working for a split not continued 'communion' with evil forces of bigotry

"I hear that there are plans for another 10-15 new missionary bishops in the offing."

The former rector of All Saints' Dale City VA, Mr. John Guernsey, is to be a bishop from yet another African Province that has violated the Council of Nicea ... I don't have a link handy, but this will soon I am sure be posted to TA.

As far as I am concerned, the more African bishops in the US the better ! They will be (are) the best argument agaisnt their factionalism, arrogance and homophobia(etc etc etc. They will have half a dozen congreations apiece in their fiefdom---- oh what a fiefdom !

People with questioning minds and an urge to apply faith in social and other settings will know where to turn.

++Drexel Gomez seems to understand what the ABC calls "the mind of the Communion" very well indeed.

He ain't going to let the tail wag the dog....sorry, those days are over