Good to hear/see all of this narrative, right out in the open. Clearly, Orombi has pledged the rightwing realignment campaign, more or less fully, at least in principle. Quote: We are waiting for something better.

Something better - bear false witness against queer folks, question askers, and alternative thinking or believing folks of all sorts and conditions. Something better - taking every institutional instance in power to deny fundamental human (and human rights bearing?) opportunities and resources to the target folks, that otherwise would be theirs if only they fit in sufficiently.

Gospel = antigay. Period. End of story. Closed mind. Full stop. I refuse to rub shoulders with people because their low morality by categorical conservative Anglican definition is a serious - even fatal? it is either them or us? - issue.

Better than big tent Anglicanism, I would very much suspect. The sooner TEC is supplanted, replaced by the new realigned substitute - in one fell swoop defining all those believers as outside, as newly realigned non-believers - the better, no?

Listening to this, I simply ask why anyone should agree with him, and that if you don't he crosses borders and the rest. Women, he says that's ministry, but sexuality is "life and death" and talks on about the "orthodox". I call it arrogance. He talks of morals, but his view is nothing to do with morals. One person is a bishop and he cuts off communion with them all, and it lacks contact. Does he really expect Rowan Williams to do his bidding? Perhaps he will, though first he will join the Americans in New Orleans including opening an interfaith centre. What did he say - 13 bishops to look after 33 congregations. Wow! That's more bishops per churches than England has priests per churches.

Anglican TV:

My Review of +Orombi's performance: Bold arrogance, the kind that rarely is confused with self-assurance...not a moment of humility or self-questioning/searching, considering...I see him as a dangerous human being who thinks he knows Gods "will" for ALL...this man is coldblooded/spiteful and especially harmful to LGBT people in Uganda (or anyone else who doesn't go along with his bold know-it-all "pitch") and beyond.

I believe +Orombi appears (and isn't really) more "reasonable" and "grounded" than his accomplice +Peter Akinola in Nigeria and therefore he will become the leader of the extremists in Global South/Africa as Akinola continues to strike out.

+Orombi has a warm/deceitful smile and a oversized and "studied" manner.

He really flounders on the distinction between biblical teaching on women in authority and on human sexuality.

"whereas you can see very strongly in the scripture sexuality is clearly, clearly outlined and taught, nothing about ordination of women there" - if I didn't know better, I would think from this that the good bishop didn't know the Bible very well. There is much more in the Bible about subordination of women to men than there is about homosexuality, let alone covenanted and faithful homosexual relationships, and the scriptural arguments against the ordination of women are much stronger (although I don't accept them hermaneutically) than those against gay relationships.

And where does he get "they threw out the orthodox believers in their church" from? He is just making it up.

And, for the record, he says:

"...We have shared with them our needs so they support us, they give us money. Oh they give us money. Since we began to relate with our orthodox brethren they have given us much more money, much more money, oh yeah, much more money. They have given us more money"

In context, he makes it clear that "much ore money" means much more from the schismatics than they used to get from The Episcopal Church.

" .... they have given us much more money, much more money, oh yea, much more money". A refreshingly, almost disarmingly disingenuous admission. And one that brings us back to the issue of Simony in the recent Central African consecrations of Cuckoo-in-the Nest, "White Boy" bishops.

Incidentally, these are the folks who have the gall to make allegations about "the impasse created by a London-based gay cleric, Nickie Henderson, who wants to buy a bishopric in the province [of Central Africa]."

It is pretty clear that both sides are falling all over themselves to give money to their sympathizers in Africa. This says to me that the political power center of the AC has so shifted to Africa that virtual lobbies have been formed there by both liberals and conservatives. As an outsider (Catholic) it appears to me that both sides are equal participants in the shredding of the communion. The ABC is between a rock and a hard place, each bent on having their way thereby making impossible the institutional unity his office represents.

Off-Topic: What does "con-evo" mean?

"And where does he get "they threw out the orthodox believers in their church" from? He is just making it up."

No, this comes from the myth. The screenplay as they construct it is that TEC has been taken over by evil pagan liberals who are systematically silencing and oppressing the faithful remnant. Either he knows this is a misinterpretation of the situation or he has so bought into the myth that he actually believes it. Either way, he is following a lie. If he is anything like the con-evos I have encountered here and on other sites, he will not accept any other interpretation of the situation. What's more, any discipline taken against a TEC bishop to parishes that have stirred up strife is seen as further oppression of the faithful remnant. It's all very romantic, who wouldn't be attracted to the idea that they are defending God's truth against oppression? It's all selfserving martyr questing, which is just as vainglorious and wrong now as it was when bishops in the Early Church warned their flocks against actively seeking martyrdom.

Is not the refusal of APO by the HOB in direct defiance of the DES Communique an example of the oppression of conservatives? Why is it that APO which is supported by the Primates, the ABC (basically the entire AC) is so impossible in TEC? Has the leadership of TEC absolutely no compassion for those who believe differently? The refusal of the HOB to work toward APO in accord with the wishes of the Primates is, to my mind, the driving force behind the acceleration of border crossings since Feb.

In psychology that is called "delusions of grandeur and delusions of persecution" -- both are universally recognized symptoms of paranoia, it not worse...

'Is not the refusal of APO by the HOB in direct defiance of the DES Communique an example of the oppression of conservatives? Why is it that APO which is supported by the Primates, the ABC (basically the entire AC) is so impossible in TEC? Has the leadership of TEC absolutely no compassion for those who believe differently? The refusal of the HOB to work toward APO in accord with the wishes of the Primates is, to my mind, the driving force behind the acceleration of border crossings since Feb.'

Posted by: Arthur on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 at 7:45pm BST

Let's see now....

No.
No.
Yes.

I don't think ypu'd recognise oppression even if it jumped up and bit you on the proverbial

They were at it anyway, Arthur. It's a "revolution".

Is not the going realignment believer refusal to allow APO to acknowledge and proceed under the vocational authority of the Presiding Bishop as called/elected in TEC the whole germ of new Anglican separation in a nutshell?

How very, very odd that the essence of con-evo realignment repression claims is that anybody would question their innate legacy rights to be high and mighty with heavy condemnations of all their favorite target people, while loudly proclaiming how happy they are that Jesus has saved them - unlike these silly, unworthy Others. Gee, isn't there a New Testament parable in there, somewhere?

The upset? Truth be told, they do not own themselves and their salvation, let alone other people and other folks' salvation.

The entire effort to somehow remain Anglican while dis-associating oneself - morally, theologically, financially, and institutionally - from any significant relationship with TEC that matters - is in itself the self-congratulating ultimatum: My realigned way, or the highway, bud.

Off Topic: Con=conservative, evo=evangelical believer. As in: Prog=progressive, Lib=liberal believer. Blog speak=typed shorthand.

In as much as these things can be, the Windsor Report did TRY to strike a careful balance.
So the report said the DEPO TEC had put in place was an adequate response to the needs of conservatives.
Sadly the American conservatives were able to persuade several Primates this was not enough and we all know the rest.

What has struck me recently, and the interview confirms this, is the slide from reason and careful argument into spin and polemic. WE may see this as a proxy war but the script being believed and articulated by the likes of so many in the GS is not that of Jensen, Minns and Sugden but that of David Virtue! Evil unsupportable gossip, downright lies and vacuous opinions masquerading as truth and fact.

It is getting harder to make sensible contributions to this whole discussion as the spin takes over. Really this is getting so dangerous. Lesbian and gay people are already so very vulnerable in the GS and the hate language towards them is picking up pace as the hate language between these former Christian partners increases.

You know, I've been thinking about the claims that there could be the repression of the "faithful remnant" and decided that is probably true.

There are probably parishes that no longer tolerate accusations and vilification against women. There are probably parishes that tell men that it is not okay to beat their wives or molest their children. There are probably parishes that have put in place child protection strategies to reduce the risk of pedophiles abusing parishioners or commmunity members' children. There are probably parishes that denounce the idea that it is okay to ignore the needs of the poor or the outcaste or exhort that one should be grateful for gifts from God - including beautiful fragile ecosystems.

There probably is a form or repression going on. There are probably parishes who are prepared to bring the police in when souls are molested or violent crimes are done. There are probably parishes who take responsibility for protecting their communities and speaking on behalf of the "unworthies".

Jesus warned us in John 14:30 that the prince of this world would come upon his death, but that he has no hold over Jesus. The prince of this world was already condemned in Jesus time (John 16:11). The previous prince of this world loved intrigue, legal loopholes, accusations, deception, violence, slavery, tyranny, corruption and greed. He is now a dethroned divorcee.

So, yes, there is going to be some repression. The divorcee has only his own human powers to call upon, and can no longer use his previous wife's gifts and relationships to subsidise his bankrupt paradigms. The shoe is off and handed back. You can choose to wear the shoes of the divorced bankrupt prince of tyranny and accusations, or you can choose to seek out the possibility of wearing the shoes of the new prince who will be a lover of peace and forgiveness.

Arthur,
What's so oppressive to people in, say, Dallas(I merely use them as a convenient example, my comments apply to any conservative diocese) that there's a woman in Washington with a miter on her head? Has she done anything to silence them? She hasn't even moved to inhibit a bishop who rejects her authority, maliogns her faith, and is actively campaigning to spilt the Church and has been doing so, and claiming oppression by the evil pagan Liberals, long before she came along. A male Primate would be well within his rights to discipline such a rebel, yet she has not sone so. How is this oppressive? Just because she's a woman and people like Iker think she therefor can't be a bishop? So what? It's not like she's actually going to do anything in his diocese, is it? Will she ordain anyone in his diocese, consecrate a church, confirm a child, celebrate a Chrism Mass? What is it, other than her very existence, that is so oppressive? What exactly are the Primatial duties that Iker thinks she can't perform? It's not like her status as bishop, whether or not he agrees with it, has any bearing on his ability to function as bishop in his own diocese. I could see it if he was a priest and she were his bishop, but that's not the case. She's just another bishop, equal to him, with nothing other than some admionistrative authority over him, so what's the issue, where's the oppression? Or did I just answer that in my last sentence?

Arthur, TEC did propose a primatial vicar plan, and the fundamentalists rejected it out of hand, perhaps because it would have made a lie of their political strategy of claiming persecution.

A primatial vicar plan is not the same as APO. The vicar plan simply places someone working for the PB in between the PB and the parishes/dioceses/ministers in question. APO places these people and institutions under the pastoral care of one who believes as they believe.

In the long run, I think conservatives feel they have to leave TEC because TEC does not respect them. With the Mark Lawrence debacle, it is pretty clear that conservative dioceses will not have their elected bishops confirmed within TEC. The greatest threat is the "tyranny of the majority" which is always a weakness of democracy. As TEC has only the legislative authority of the GC without an independent judicial system as a check and balance, there is no structure which can challenge the majority votes of GC.

As an outsider to the present situation (though I once worshiped in TEC) I would say the conservatives are hoping the AC primates would be able to serve as a supreme court for GC providing the bounds within which it can legitimately legislate and still be called Anglican. That seems to me to be a reasonable expectation. A body such as the AC which cannot determine who is and is not a member based on agreed criteria is pretty meaningless to my mind.

The Chapman memo and other secret correspondence of the "conservatives" was obtained through litigation by a group called the Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh. Among that documentation was a clear assertion that no matter what form of delegated episcopal oversight, flying bishops or even flying primates might be offered, the "conservatives" would reject it out of hand.

Martin

This is a turbulence that had to happen. We were experiencing a slow death by the boa constrictors suffocating every attempt at reformation. Just as the Jews were slowly being suffocated out of existence by the Romans, with sycophantic priestly collusions.

There comes a time where you have to make a stand. You have to stand up against tyranny, accusations and corruption and call on God to recall God's promises of an everlasting covenant of peace, forgiveness and mercy for both Jews and Gentiles.

Jesus knew what he was doing that fateful passover. Schori knew when she went to Tanzania there was going to be machinations and an attempt to corrupt her and TEC. "We'll tolerate you, as long as you recant your inclusive vision and come back into the folds of accusations and power mongering." If not, we will villify you, attack you, mutilate your body and attempt to kill you. The spirit of TEC will survive these abominations, just as Jesus did the crucifixion.

Sure, they're going to have some wounds to show the doubting Thomases. But as the doubting Thomases look upon the wounds inflicted by the cruel and selfish, many will be healed and realise that tyranny and hate theology must end.

The accussers have done more harm to themselves than we could ever have done to them. They have played their cards out in the open and now souls can see how cunning, ambitious and selfish they really are. I am sure there are many who now feel like the frightened Malfoys sitting at Voldemort's table in the last Harry Potter book, secretly praying that Harry/Jesus remove the "legitimacy" of this terrifying "Christian" manifestation.

Arthur, would any Anglican church consent to having foreign bishops take control of parts of it? Can you imagine the CoE doing this? Nigeria? Uganda?

Add that was the whole point, of course: to demand what cannot be given and then cry persecution when denied the impossible. We're talking bareknuckle right wing power politics here, not theology.

"With the Mark Lawrence debacle, it is pretty clear that conservative dioceses will not have their elected bishops confirmed within TEC."

Unless you know something I don't, the "Mark Lawrence debacle" came about because, while he had enough consents, they were not submitted properly. He was elected. He did not get the proper consents on time. He was given more time, not exactly what a cabal of plotters would do if they were trying to ostracize him, I would think. As to the "form" of his consents, yes the rules had changed, but is it not the responsibility of the bishop elect and his diocese to know the rules? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, why should ignorance of TEC's rules be any different? This is an especially pressing responsibility, given what everyone knew to be the sensitive nature of his election. Sorry, I can't see deliberate exclusion of a conservative here, it looks more to me like a contrived situation, if anything. Either that or a childish tantrum because no-one is willing to bend the rules for his slipshod organization. Now he has been re-elected. I don't know if he has been confirmed. There is still the issue of whether or not he will declare his loyalty to TEC. If not, why would TEC approve him? He certainly can't argue that he didn't know the rules this time. So, if you are trying to say that his election was a debacle in tones that make it appear you think he is being excluded by TEC "apostates", then prove it. None of us has seen documents and can only judge by what we see. I've given you what I see. Suppose you present your understanding of how this person is being mistreated, 'cuz I just don't see it.

Mark Lawrence stood again recently and was re-elected ---- he was *miles ahead of the field * !

* context wilfully with-held *

"TEC has only the legislative authority of the GC without an independent judicial system as a check and balance"

Probably because the Church ought not to be organized on the same pattern as the United States government, or indeed any worldly government. Basically, it seems you do not think yourself democratically represented in the Church, and not protected by the guarantees of liberty provided in the US Consitution and Bill of Rights, but why should you be? The Church is supposed to be an icon of the Kingdom of God. It is not the Republic of God, and certainly not supposed to be an icon of any worldly governmental system. In so far as our decision making process looks democratic, it is because the Church discerns the will of the Spirit and it is through voting that we, especially the laos, get to express our understand of that discernment. If we are true to our call, we ought not to need the "checks and balances" that some believe to be so effective in protecting liberty in a democratic system. Democracy was not given to us by God, it is a worldly political concept, not of the Kingdom, and we ought not to conform the Church to the ways of the world, right? And address my questions please: how is the current American Primate "oppressive" to conservatives, and how is Mark Lawrence being oppressed?