I was trying to think what this all reminded me of--- "Be our primate, and make me your bishop, and I will be loyal to you". What do these bishop-wannabes think might happen, under their new leader(s)?

Then, I remembered:

"Finally all the trees said to the thornbush, 'Come and be our king.' "The thornbush said to the trees, 'If you really want to anoint me king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, then let fire come out of the thornbush and consume the cedars of Lebanon!' (Judges 9: 14-15)

Lord have mercy!

It's a even dozen ---Anglican Mainstream forgot one, Rt Rev Bill Cox is now a bishop of the Southern Cone

Bishopites:

I can't tell if it's RUSH to get a piece of whatever non-humble anti-LGBT Christian pie is left or simply a RUSH to be important sounding as in your "Grace" or simply a RUSH as in stampede which is a giant orgi of mass impulse among herd animals or a crowd of religious zealots acting like herd animals.

It's seems to me these "gents" seem less valuable as there are more of them "minted!"

Elements of a mirror-image of the late-19th century, colonial "Rush for Africa". Part a question of status (everyone else had two "cuckoo-in-the-nest" bishops and Kenya had to maintain face); part cold, hard cash. "There's gold in them thar hills."

Has it occured to any of you that these global south primates are simply and after much waiting on the instruments of our communion responding to the expressed need of those parishes seeking episcopal oversight in good faith and conscience?

The motivations you attribute to primates of our Anglican Communion seems to say a lot more about you than them.

The "Anglican Mainstream" text linked to concludes: "The Province of Wales has six bishops, the Scottish Episcopal Church has seven."

Obviously, this is supposed to justify such a profusion of bishops and suggest that the so-called "orthodox" and "faithful" (as if no-one else in the US Episcopal church is orthodox or faithful) have enough bishops to be a proper province.

Trouble is, these are not full time bishops with big enough flocks to justify themselves. Several of them are full time clergy in parishes.

The significant statistic is that Wales has ONLY 6 bishops and Scotland ONLY 7, whereas the Episcopal Church already has 111 diocesan bishops, not counting suffragans etc. Only one of these is openly gay and there have been offers of alternative episcopal oversight for the most sensitive conservative souls.

None of these new bishops even has the courtesy or basic ecclesiology to seek the permission of the local bishop for their work. Uganda sought permission from the Bishop of London - and got it. Sandy Millar is now a Bishop of the Church of Uganda ministering in London, and also an assistant Bishop in the diocese of London, which shows that the Bishop of London and, indeed, the Archbishop of Canterbury have no objection to his ministry.

But this new lot are so keen to insult their fellow American Anglicans that seeking, even getting, permission would spoil their fun. It makes it all look like nothing more than self aggrandisement and point scoring.

Pathetic.

Can we have one? Oh I think we've got one, sort of. No thanks.

Back to 11, John Rodgers retired. Starting in August he will come out of retirement to serve as interim dean of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry.

See the Who's Who page on the AMiA website for a list of their current and retired bishops ...
http://www.theamia.org/amia/index.cfm?ID=DF1ECBB6-6013-4CC2-8829278CB13B8544

We like to think of ourselves as a supermarket of Anglicanism here in Murka. The plan is to shop around for the bishop that suits your whim and swear allegiance to him. It's an American tradition. Southern Baptists have perfected the art. But a wikipedia read on PURITANS will let you see that Anglicans have been here before. I guess those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

But George, several others are technically retired, i.e. they are now in receipt of their pensions. And this funny American-only concept of retired bishops not instantly losing all their rights of membership of a house of bishops surely allows those who want to do so to count Rodgers in, at least as much as Bena and Fairfield.

Query: is Bishop Cox officially translated/received? I know he's acting on behalf of Southern Cone (an annoyance in this part of the central US), but I'm not aware he's formally changed provinces.

Church culture often becomes a fractal representation of the culture from which it comes.

When there was the big Live8 concerts and push to honor the millenium development goals, there were a lot of quandry questions as to how the African continent had managed to degenerate to such a level for such a long time.

One thing that strikes me in this current phenomenom is that we are seeing an inability to cooperate with those we don't like or flatter us. So, if the powers that be aren't going to give us what we want, we stage a coup to get the biggest share of resources that we can.

It sounds a little bit far-fetched, but then think of the need to give South Africa "alternative pastoral oversight" back in 1987. In recent discussions, it was clear that South Africa is more tolerant on the question of homosexuality. The critics dismiss that as their having survived the yoke of apartheid. Those who brought that country out of that dark well quietly comment that homosexuals were amongst the most vicitimised and amongst the most courageous fighters against apartheid.

Like the Jews in the holocaust, the South Africans witnessed that GLBTs are always targetted as "easy prey", because they are seen as "unworthy" and therefore not protected by God.

Civilisations are built with cooperation. Civilisations are built with multiple castes and ethnic groups, different trades, travellers and locals. Civilisations that are unsafe for women, children and the outcastes eventually implode on themselves as it becomes a power grab between barbarians and their sycophantic priestly castes.

http://www.torah.org/learning/rabbis-notebook/5764/balak.html is an excellent study. Part of it compares Moses humility and selflessness, to Bilaam's pride and self-absorption. In Numbers, those who were not prepared to cooperate with Moses were unable to build a viable alternative and constantly bickered.

Civilisations cannot be built upon waves of coups and destruction of souls' homes, communities or infrastructure.

These new churches will be known by their fruits. Will they build cooperative communities that are able to help those neighbours around them? Or will they be posturing grandstanders looking at how they can accuse of being less deserving than themselves? Will they rely on God to provide for them, or will they participate in looting raids to resource their theology?

Just what kind of episcopal oversight is actually needed or wanted by these various parishes? Most parishes I've known are quite happy to see their bishop once a year or less often. I know we are an Episcopal church, but the clamoring for prelates does seem a bit disproportional. As many of our conservative dioceses have been able to have as little as possible to do with our past two primates, their sudden need for Primatial Oversight also rings a bit hollow... or convenient.

At this rate the breakaway church won't have any priests left. Too many cooks in that kitchen...the soup is bound to be spoiled.

"Thinking" Anglicans may see the possibility that the new AC presence in the US is being set up....ready for the post September launch of "TEC Global" - but then one would have to think rather than just attack "enemies" to see that.

Tobias, for the bulk of the people in the typical sleepy Church I might agree with you.

But those asking for oversight believe (even if you disagree with it) that it is a question of being under holy authority. They are concerned for their own spiritual welfare if they continue to remain under episcopal leadership that disregards the commands of God for the teachings of men.

As hard as this is for those on the left to believe it, those seeking oversight are actually afraid of coming further under God's judgment for being in communion with brothers in Christ who are willfully disobedient to God and his commands. It is not so much about "contamination" for there are always unrepentant sinners of every sort in every church, as it is about being under judgment for brazen willful disobedience at the highest levels. Of course that fear of the Lord is overshadowed by a repugnance and anger at such sinful disobedience and presumptuous disregard for God's holy word -- The later is what we see expressed most, but don't doubt that there is a holy fear involved as well.

And this is not a "Donatist" issue. If reasserters saw the reapraisers repent and return to traditional teaching they would gladly renew their fellowship. That Donatist argument is such a silly canard.

"The motivations you attribute to primates of our Anglican Communion seems to say a lot more about you than them."
And +Akinola's shameless powerlust is what exactly? Surely you're not suggesting he's motivated by some lofty ideals about protecting the people of God?

"episcopal leadership that disregards the commands of God for the teachings of men."
But they do the same thing, so why should I choose the teachings of some men over the teachings of other men just because some fundie screams "It's in the Bible" and denies the obvious truth that he is as guilty of this as those he would condemn? As to the taint of fellowship with sinners, Jesus had some choice words for those who think like that.

"presumptuous disregard for God's holy word"
How about presumptuous disregard for the faith of others? How is it that those on the Right are unable to even acknowledge the faith of those they oppose? How about acknowledgement that the Anglican Church is not, never was, please God never will be, a fundamentalist/literalist Church? We believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but it is only ONE part of the Tradition He gave us. If you don't believe that, fine, but stop trying to force the Anglican Chirch to conform to your particular vision of Biblical aurthority which has NEVER been part of our belief.

Ford - you are right, when we see false teaching, we do no respect the false teachers - just like St Paul told us (for very good reasons, not for our own fun or power or whatever)

_ready for the post September launch of "TEC Global"_ NP

Blimey, NP, I thought that one had gone to the back of your collection.

There is no launch date. Once again, as someone else said (his record collection), it is more like waiting for the first day of 2000.

"when we see false teaching, we do no respect the false teachers"

Sanctimonious bull! You have no trouble with remarried divorcees being priests and bishops and when challenged on that come out with the weak little "They're not my direct leaders" and this from someone who believes that if Spong denies the Resurrection, all liberals do! You are quite content with false teachers as long as alos teach obedience to the Law as you interpret it.

Ford says "You have no trouble with remarried divorcees being priests and bishops "...... not true. Pls do not misrepresent me.

"Pls do not misrepresent me."

NP, when confronted with the fact that the remarriage of divorcees is an innovation in Church teaching, and that it is a trifle hypocritical to claim that you are observing Biblical morality while having no problem with divorced and remarried clergy, your only response was that such people are not your "direct leaders". This despite the fact that you have no trouble attributing to liberals in general the extreme heterodox statements of a few who are NOT the "direct leaders" of most "liberals". You do not suggest that those remarried divorced clergy who are as pharisaic as you are in your adherence to the Law go off and form their own Church. Thus you clearly do not have a problem with them.