Need to read all the links but "“American males who are homosexually active have a life span that is three decades shorter than the norm,” Atwood said Wednesday. “How can a church say, ‘You are precious, we care about you, we love you, we want the best for you and now we want to bless behaviors that cause you to die three decades early’?”

Gee. Maybe that explains why the Nigerian Anglicans are touting that anyone who is HIV positive should not be allowed to enter University nor graduate nor marry. Apparently HIV infection is proof of their sinfulness and unworthiness and justifies their being excluded from the qualifications that might enable them to afford the medication that could extend their lives.

Are all those infected Africans also guilty of sinning? Or is it only the females that deserve to die?

Of course, there is no such thing as masculine rape, so it doesn't matter what God does to females or GLBTs. That is proof of God's judgment.

Better to be in hell with all those sinners, than in heaven with all those judgers...

WoW !

If my life is being cut short by 3 decades, how come I am already 56 1/2 ?!

I love the way these bishops tell it ! ...

Now, reading such bilge could be a serious risk to life and limb --- for anyone who reads it without a hoot -- or at least a smile.....

I recall, not so long ago, a northern England bishop waxing lytical on how 'penis & vagina were made for each other' !

The congratulatory message from the General Synod members is sanctimonious claptrap of a high order. "there is neither ..... male nor female"? Say what, now?

And would someone point out to Chris Sugden that the "Canon Dr." business he so dearly loves is over-egging the pudding to the edge of vulgarity? The prefixes "Rev'd Canon" and "Rev'd Dr." are standard usage. "Canon Dr.", insofar as I am aware, is not.

Jesus wept.

Nothing less than a rush to reverse-colonise.

So far as Bishop Atwood's reliance on Paul Cameron's work, unquestioned, unweighed:

Alas, we are rapidly becoming a church where the holy texts are being used to try to save us from the facts. I believe even Canterbury has called this, unintelligent readings of scripture.

Alas. Lord have mercy. Has the rest of the Anglican planet grown weary of USA-type rightwing shenanigans, yet?

Andrew Carey has written:

"To add to the Anglican chaos"

But then..

"I'm not greatly sympathetic however to the official Anglican Communion response that the consecrations create 'increased confusion'"

Presumably he prefers "adding to the chaos" over "increased confusion". Not quite so bad then.

He also writes:

"Of equal scandal to the theological drift of the Episcopal Church into a kind of uncommitted unitarianism"

I might know something about this. The Episcopal Church is not even at the stage of Channing's writings, never mind anything recognisable as unitarian beyond that. It is an easy label to chuck at the Episcopalians, but it is not accurate, even via any "kind of" or "uncommitted" qualification.

Canon Dr. Sugden has posted "Not schism but revolution" on Anglican Mainstream:

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=2046

Do the Conservative forces actually think they can replace TEC as a coherent, viable alternative? There is no way they will be able to hold together - the theological rift between them is just too wide. And some are realising this: http://fatherjohnheidt.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-really-divdes-us.html

"At a recent meeting of the Society of the Holy Cross, the Moderator of the Network of Episcopal Dioceses, Bishop Robert Duncan, re-assured the some forty priests gathered there that Anglo-Catholics would certainly have a recognized and respected place in whatever new Anglican structures should develop within this country. His understanding and defense of our position was clear and thoroughly appreciated. But then one of the priests asked him about the ordination of women, and we discovered the great distance that still divides us.

As the bishop continued to talk the fundamental nature of that division became all too clear. We are not divided simply by the women’s issue nor with others by the homosexual issue but by the same fundamental theological issues that have always divided Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals within our own Communion, and Protestants and Catholics throughout the world ever since the Reformation. The issues confronting us are theological rather than biological."

There are a couple of hundred reports from the world's media, but not the Anglican Communion website. Perhaps the AC office regards these consecrations as extra-Communion affairs, not really newsworthy. They report instead on the Episcopal Church's relief of communities affected by Katrina. That's what I call caring for the flock - practical help. What Anglicans should be doing - not obsessing over the private life of a New England bishop.

This whole idea of temporary, virtual bishops is rather puzzling. Doesn't a bishop represent a geographical area with a kathedra? Are the ordinations and confirmations performed by Atwood and Murdoch temporary too? To be revoked if TEC reverses its liberal policies?

The most disturbing thing was to see the chief proponent of the Anglican Covenant - as spiritual leader of this schism - preaching anti-gay rhetoric from the pulpit of a national cathedral. He wouldn't have got away with that in York.

"Of equal scandal to the theological drift of the Episcopal Church into a kind of uncommitted unitarianism"

How much would I LOVE to see Mr. Carey (et al) *sued* . . . by the Unitarians! ("How DARE you lump those primitive trinitarian Episcopalians in with us?!") *LOL*

Would anyone be able to advise the identities of the nine Provinces whose Primates reportedly attended (and some may have participated in) the episcopal consecration, in Kenya, of the schismatic Americans?

While we know a few names cited in various articles, I would prefer knowledge to speculation about the others.

Certainly I would expect, based upon public comments over the past six or so months, that the attendees would not have included Brasil, Canada, England, Ireland, Mexico, Scotland, South Africa, Wales, or the USA.

Pluralist:

What I found most remarkable about Carey's article is found close to its end, where he seems to mostly be objecting to the consecration of extraterritorial bishops because the Africans didn't wait until after September 30th. Seemingly, he thinks they are jumping the gun, but that the same actions would be understandable and permissible after the 30th.

As no one expects TEC to change course, I guess the obvious response from the Africans would be why wait? Perhaps Carey believes that the appearance of comity and mutual respect must be retained until the appointed deadline--i.e., the forms must be observed! One can almost hear a snort of disdain for the brashness of Americans and the impudence of Africans. Very COE I suppose.

This is not to say that I don't agree with him. I just found his attitude interesting.

Steven

PS-I'd give my vote for most slanted article from a supposedly objective news source to Alex Kirby of the BBC. I would not object to it as an editorial, though I might differ. But, as an (ostensibly) objective news report I give it several thumbs down for biased reporting.

Carey writes: "Some kind of alternative oversight scheme should surely have been worked out which responded to the need of those congregations."

Such a plan was proposed and was quickly rejected by those for whom it was designed. If your ultimate aim is to set up an alternate Anglican presence in the US and to steal all the property you can squat in, then no plan of oversight could possibly do.

That's clearly been the real aim all along - power and property. See - sigh, again - see Jim Naughton's 'Follow the Money' analyses posted on the Diocese of Washington [DC] website.

Steven, these sorts of actions - preferably a united response - might become needful if it is revealed that the Windsor Process has absolutely no teeth whatsoever. So the timing is important but I am critical also of the tactics. Why are more bishops felt to be the solution? Why are provinces separately consecrating? Sadly, this points to division among the Primates as much as it does to division among US conservatives.

This article by Chris Sugden should be highlighted. It is clearly a call to arms. In Big Brother style, here's its best bits:

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=2046

Not schism but revolution

the Communion has been increasingly under the dominance of leadership which is over-influenced by the assumptions of western intellectual culture through the dominant role of the Church of England and ECUSA. People are now saying publicly that this unrepresentative dominance must end.

In other words, since the Archbishop of Canterbury has not provided for the safe oversight of the orthodox in the United States, he has forfeited his role as the one who gathers the Communion.

refusing to attend a dumbed-down Lambeth Conference

the old leadership gets increasingly out of touch with reality. The Archbishop of York

The Communion will remain, but the form and the leadership will change

“American males who are homosexually active have a life span that is three decades shorter than the norm,” Atwood said Wednesday. “How can a church say, ‘You are precious, we care about you, we love you, we want the best for you and now we want to bless behaviors that cause you to die three decades early’?”

How disingenuous or ignorant of Bill Attwood,not sure which - because, of course, if the Church offered gay people the opportunity and encouragement to form loving, committed, life-long relationships, then young gay people would not engage in the high-risk activities which tragically shorten the lives of too many. He has blood on his hands! May God forgive him.

A sort of figleaf of legitimacy for these consecrations is that they are "temporary" until TEC falls into line (for oversight). But this is with weeks to go before these people could justify the consecrations on a different footing - they could have waited a few weeks.

The simplest explanation is that they knew TEC would not submit to international oversight - knowing the General Convention system - plus decisions that it could not break.

There will be those who do think there might be a Communion process, and it can stop change. Others simply want no change, full stop, via a different organising basis, a new, in practice, alternative and competing, communion. That they are making bishops from many places is something to sort out, but they have probably thought of that. They will be part of a new communion.

However, the speed of acting is a mistake. They are the ones doing the walking. They know this, and so it has to work: and why they have to now follow through. Longer term their communion will have to come into every Anglican covered land, and soon come to England.

Neverthless, schisms rarely proceed according to intentions. The Puritans ended up being liberals, the Methodists never reformed the C of E but ended up forming a denomination and splitting themselves until later. The moderate element in the Church of Scotland retained itself even after its division was mainly glued back.

This schism will either be a flop outside source countries, or perversely might even lead to the original Communion being less stretched, and more able to act ecumenically. The evangelicals will have split, like the Anglo-Catholics did, and weakened.

As to the Provinces represented by their Primates, with a note that Nigeria was represented by another Archbishop, the Boston Globe story indicates the following at the Kenyan consecrations: Central Africa; Indian Ocean; Kenya; Nigeria; Rwanda; Southern Cone; Uganda; West Africa; and West Indies.

Are there really any surprises here?

This would seem to represent a summation of the future split-off from the Anglican Communion; originally I thought that would simply be the Nigerian Communion, but with Uganda and Kenya jockeying for their own slice of the pie, one wonders who will be in charge in the store windows, and perhaps also behind the curtain.

"the Communion has been increasingly under the dominance of leadership which is over-influenced by the assumptions of western intellectual culture through the dominant role of the Church of England and ECUSA. People are now saying publicly that this unrepresentative dominance must end."

I guess it's time to recognize that the actual opponent here is not liberals or gay people but our dedication to reason, science and reality.

This post Colonial language would make some sense (and have corresponding credibility) if it were not for the fact that all these angry old men are British (some of them living on other continents ;=)

Steven wrote: "Seemingly, he thinks they are jumping the gun, but that the same actions would be understandable and permissible after the 30th."

Very amusing that one.

"Pre-emptive action" is the word of the Game...

(and of this Age ;=)

“American males who are homosexually active have a life span that is three decades shorter than the norm,” Atwood said Wednesday. “How can a church say, ‘You are precious, we care about you, we love you, we want the best for you and now we want to bless behaviors that cause you to die three decades early’?”

Following that line of reasoning, guess we can count out the self-created victims of obesity as well, eh Atwood?

http://bp1.blogger.com/_YvDVwol-LzA/RtdZT4F9xII/AAAAAAAAASs/rYTHixhj4Bc/s1600-h/art.kenya.ap.jpg

I suspect SE Asia would want to align themselves with Akinola et al.and perhaps Congo. But i think ++Central Africa is soon to retire, and is likely to be replaced by someone more moderate. I cant somehow see the West indies breaking from Canterbury, nor West Africa.Some other provinces could well split-the tiny S Cone cd see a parting of the ways with Uruguay and P.eru declaring UDI Its interesting that Burundi seems to keep out of this despite the obvious cultural/linguistic background it shares with Rwanda.The result will be general fragmentation , Im sure. How it will affect the C of E is very interesting since so many in the C of E are so little concerned with the Anglican Communion in any case and the Established/Folk Church dimension, though weaker still really dictates the religious sociology.

Well the empirical research will hardly stop dead in its tracks, just because the new Bishop Atwood or somebody else is too busy grabbing for holier than thou neo-Cromwellian power over others to bother reading it. Ditto, other best practice iterations of scholarly investigation.

Perhaps in the end, this realignment rightwing business will more or less be akin to the international Scopes Monkey Trial of our era, as it continues to publish and expose its disdain for facts, its rather facile disdain for our modern tool kit of best practices investigation and hypothesis testing, along with its utter disdain for anybody its realignment aka revolution cannot dominate, intellectually and spiritually.

Yes they claim it is God's doing, but so far as I can tell, it is still mostly their own doing. I'd follow people who ask questions according to our best practices tool kits, even if fallible, any day of the week. If faith is closed, grounded in nothing but just that sort of blind certainty being preached to us as realignment aka revolution, then that claim of faith is in fact idolatry according to standards grounded in scripture, in tradition history, and in common sense human reasons. If that is idolatry, then real possibilities of faith and pilgrimage are neglected.

Have these people no shame? Well, not much, apparently, since they know how finally and totally they alone are right. How much more trash talk do we need to hear before we clamor for a recall on all these lead-painted toy boxes of realignment?

Canon Mark Harris kindly requests that +Bishop Gomez says adios:

http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2007/08/time-to-go-archbishop-gomez-leave-with.html

I agree, it's time for ++Gomez to stop listening to the sound of his own voice.

Perry Butler said "I suspect SE Asia would want to align themselves with Akinola et al.and perhaps Congo....Some other provinces could well split-the tiny S Cone cd see a parting of the ways with Uruguay and P.eru declaring UDI"

If the push comes to the shove, I think the same may be true of S E Asia. Whilst Singapore and Sabah may choose to align themselves with an Akinolaite schism, I would be surprised to see Kuching break communion with Canterbury, and doubt that West Malaysia would either.

The Canon Dr concluded there is a change in leadership. I would say we have been seing a lack of leadership (very "cultural", that one ;=)

What would have happened if the Archbishop of Canterbury had engaged with the legacy of his predessessor, instead of ignoring it?

Perry Butler and Graham Ward conjecture which provinces might hive off. Let them go. Who cares where the homophobes are as long as they don't destroy the Anglican Communion.

Maybe I care more than most; my family's links with the Dioceses which now make up the Province of SE Asia go back almost half a century, my wife is a Malaysian Anglican, we were married in Sabah by the last Archbishop, and have just returned from a holiday there visiting family and friends. The point being that to me the Anglican Church in the so-called Global South is more than a pawn in a political game. It is individual Christian souls, it is family, it is friends. Most of them are deeply conservative - products of the society in which they live, as much as the churchmanship they have grown up with. Remember it is less than 10 years since the former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia was jailed for sodomy. Little surprise that many - probably most - Malaysian Anglicans would claim that they've never met a gay person. This is not to defend the stance that their leaders have taken. Whether the schism is being driven, or merely cheered on, by reactionaries in the US, UK and elsewhere, the recklessness of the primates threatening to withdraw from Lambeth is a massive betrayal of the churches in these countries as they threaten to end the Anglican church as we know it.
The hope reflected in my earlier post is that if it comes to formally breaking communion, I think it may not be as clear cut as many expect, as a number of individual dioceses may choose Canterbury over the lead of their own primates.

cynthia writes:

Carey writes: "Some kind of alternative oversight scheme should surely have been worked out which responded to the need of those congregations."

It is exactly because John Habgood persuaded the General Synod to pass the Act of Synod which allowed flying bishops for those who opposed women's ordinationthat we are in this mess now. The nonsensical wheeze of 'alternative episcopal oversight' was never dreamed of before that. It has no place in the Church and the Act should be repealed immediately. What we want is not more authorised flying bishops but none at all.

Jerry Hannon was asking about who exactly the primates attending were: so here is a list quoted from a report by Hank Steenstra on Stand Firm, who was there:

Among the assembled throng were nine primates of the Anglican Communion or their representatives. Those personally present included Archbishops Benjamin Nzimbi (Kenya), Henry Orombi (Uganda), Emmanuel Kolini (Rwanda), Gregory Venables (Southern Cone), Drexel Gomez (West Indies), Bernard Malango (Central Africa), Justice Akrofi (West Africa) and Ian Ernest (Indian Ocean). Archbishop Peter Akinola (Nigeria) was represented by Archbishop Nicholas Okoh. Total support but regrets for being unable to attend came from Archbishop Donald Mtetemela (Tanzania), Archbishop Dirokpa Fidele (Congo) and Archbishop Joseph Marona (Sudan).

I notice that these lists do not include either John Chew or Mouneer Amis. They are, as Graham Kings noted in a comment at titusonenine, "Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the Global South Anglican movement".

Perhaps the unanimity of the Global South is not quite as total as some would have us believe.

As for Nigeria's primate sending a delegate archbishop in his stead, I'm sure there was a good reason for this.

It is exactly because John Habgood persuaded the General Synod to pass the Act of Synod which allowed flying bishops for those who opposed women's ordinationthat we are in this mess now. The nonsensical wheeze of 'alternative episcopal oversight' was never dreamed of before that. It has no place in the Church and the Act should be repealed immediately. What we want is not more authorised flying bishops but none at all.

Posted by: liddon on Monday, 3 September 2007 at 9:10am BST

Is the time approaching to do away with bishops altogether? Or at the very least the so-called 'historic episcopate' which has now become through 'the primates' far more trouble than it's worth. What price symbolism ? Especially when it doesn't work. Did it ever ?

If you're going to keep bishops, at all, let them be ordained by groups of so-called 'laity'...

It would solve a number of current difficulties the church faces .....

“American males who are homosexually active have a life span that is three decades shorter than the norm,” Atwood said Wednesday."

This is no small matter. We have had, in the last four months, these exact statements made here, with no attempt to retract them. Now, decisions are not being made on the basis of such propaganda, but attitudes are bolstered as a result of it, the "faithful are whipped up into higher states of self-righteousness, and it is absolutely disgusting for Christian leaders to be quoting these lies as though they were truth. They should be taken to task publicly. Frankly, I would like to see some pretty public grovelling forced on those who call themselves Christian leaders and yet practice this kind of duplicity. they shame themselves, their office, and the entire Church with such disgusting behaviour. The phrase "Father of Lies" comes to mind.