It is an insightful article and perhaps what is interesting is what discussed and what is not addressed. The power politics of who will control what and how for what reasons is covered; but the biblical principles of ending tyranny and accusations are not considered.

At one point it suggests "...the Episcopal church in the United States took no such global view when it ordained Gene Robinson to the episcopate. Indeed, the presiding bishop at the time, Frank Griswold, announced that “we thought it was a local matter..." Jesus life and resurrection might have appeared to be a local event (it was before the internet or printing press). But it heralded an underlined affirmation that God wants ALL humanity to be healed and in relationship with God. Jesus and his disciples and followers teachings and influence went way beyond the local event.

Similarly with Gene Robinson’s consecration. Some souls had come to understand that the cycles of tyranny, repression, accusations, deprivations and injustices had gone on long enough. They saw GLBTs being the first to suffer, the first to be apportioned blame for things that had gone wrong in the world. But they had seen cruel priests condone worst crimes, yet claim they were saved by God.

The article concludes with "...a leading evangelical, Bishop Tom Wright of Durham, voiced a robust hope. “I really do believe,” he declares, “that if God had intended the Anglican Communion to shatter, he would not have raised up Rowan Williams to be the archbishop of Canterbury.”" My perspective is that God raised up Rowan Williams to be the Archbishop of Canterbury at this time so that the robust discussion could happen. Many teachers of law in this generation are just as determined to stop something new as they were in Jesus' time. Just as selfish, just as manipulative, just as hypocritical. The shenanigans didn't start in 2003. The vilification of women and. GLBTs has been going on from even before Jesus' time.

If we are outcaste in this reality then there is no relationship at any level of reality. You might want to treat us as dirty slaves or prostitutes, fine, but don’t then claim to have any filial bonds of affection, we are merely chattel that you use if and when it is convenient for your selfish whims.

Interesting line: solutions that pile anomaly upon anomaly. This would seem to be the most positive outcome that can be expected given all that is going on.

The lecture Rowan Williams has just given was excellent. This is where he can be on the button.

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/09/rowan-williamss-excellent-lecture.html

I think this lecture does relate to him as an Archbishop, that he is speaking to and of a society that is - complex and diverse - and the input of the Bhagavad Gita, the New Testament of the Bible and the Qur'an into responses to power that themselves do not mirror such power. He finds sources for the dignity of the individual and the social good, and I reckon this lecture is as important as Jonathan Sacks' book The Dignity of Difference.

I find especially powerful, insightful, and true +Rowan's observation that "The Church is, in this perspective, the trustee of a vision that is radical and universal, the vision of a social order that is without fear, oppression , the violence of exclusion and the search for scapegoats because it is one where each recognizes their dependence on all and each is seen as having an irreplaceable gift for all."

Trying to live out this vision of the Church is precisely why the Episcopal Church consecrated Gene Robinson a Bishop.

It is precisely why, when Jesus comes among the councils of the Akinolas and the Orombis and the Duncans and the Ikers and the Minns, he comes as a prophetic voice, asking where were you when my people were outcast and oppressed and hungry and imprisoned?

I was surprised by the tenor of the article considering Romes position on women's ordination and homosexuality. I almost felt as if Rome (or at least this publication) is hoping for a happy ending for all in the AC.

Bob

In response to what Bob said,
"I was surprised by the tenor of the article considering Rome's position on women's ordination and homosexuality. I almost felt as if Rome (or at least this publication) is hoping for a happy ending for all in the AC."

I should think that prayerfulness is far more becoming for Catholics than schadenfreude; it is only by the grace of God that they don't face a similar fate.

In response to what Rowan Williams said,
“I do accept that there are moments when people say, truth before unity. I understand why the Reformation happened, why in the 1930s the German church divided so violently, where the only unity that could have survived the acceptance of Hitler’s racial laws was a unity which absolutely undermined the integrity of the church.” “Clearly some people in the United States have seen this as that sort of moment. I don’t.”

I cite Godwin’s Law.* In spite of endless discussion, a great deal of suffering, especially by GLBT, and to a lesser extent by others, remains. What value can this suffering have? Jesus redeemed by suffering. Can we follow Him? Do/can/should clergy lead by suffering?

*As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Ley quoted ABC

“I do accept that there are moments when people say, truth before unity. I understand… where the only unity that could have survived… absolutely undermined the integrity of the church.” “Clearly some people in the United States have seen this as that sort of moment. I don’t.”

If was simply a comparison between different theological positions and church life would be much the same under either position, then Rowan's position would be credible.

The distinction lies not in how to handle GLBTs scripturally, that is simply a manifestation of whether a church embraces vilification and power mongering or recognizes that the highways to Zion are peaceful and gentle.

Extremists of those who hate GLBTs are choosing a church life with sermons that recriminate, disregard, despise, justify selfishness, advocate wrath and desire God's vengeance, encourage complacency, and breaks up families and communities

The other extreme recognizes God as just and welcoming, who forgives past sins, reveres, offers hospitality, fosters generosity, seeks justice drenched in grace and compassion, desires healing, longs for God's compassion and forgiveness, listens to our small voices of conscience, rebuilds families and communities.

Many souls are a patchwork quilt where they desire both extremes but at varying levels in different parts of their lives or at different times of their life.

We need to stop souls being unchallenged when they invoke God's name to justify acts of violence, appropriation and repression. We need to stop a few squandering an entire biosphere's inheritance simply so they can live fast and selfishly for a few meager decades. We need to end cycles of poverty, famine, disease, tyranny and repression.

If 2000 years of sound theology was so good, then why haven't we fulfilled the promised everlasting covenant of peace where tyranny and accusations are far from us (Isaiah 54:13-15).

No Rowan, you are wrong, this is one of those moments in history. Better to be hot or cold, otherwise God just spits you out. The fence sitters contain no yeast, no salt, and no fire: they model complacency and irresponsibility to their own churches and to those who look on. You are for peace or you are not. There is no middle ground.

If you want to know if this source is neutral (not) then read this article about Schori. http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=4375

See these comments: "Jefferts Schori based her address... on Isaiah 61:1-9, saying that the verses sum up God's dream for humanity. "This vision of a restored world, this dream of God, is what drives me," she said. The can't phrase "God's dreams" -- an expression as fatuous as it is precious -- is enjoying a vogue in the precincts of squish spirituality, including the Roman Catholic variety."

Shortly thereafter "Hence the invocation of God's Dreams serves as a joker in the theological deck, allowing the verbally nimble to deal themselves an escape from unwelcome doctrinal constraint..."

These souls are not neutral.

Doctrinal constraints mean? Blaming all women for the downfall of humanity because a theoretical Eve supposedly sinned leading all humanity (including Adam) into all sorts of suffering. No, Jesus' sacrifice was never meant to forgive Eve or any other feminine manifestation at any level. All priests are above reproach, and any soul they condemn to death deserves to "die" before God, no book of Susanna to remind us that sometimes the priests are corrupt and the "condemned" falsely accussed.

They wrote a somewhat nice article about ABC? So what. If Schori had "repented" and gone on the hate trail of Robinson and his ilk and their supporters, she also could have received somewhat nice articles written about her from their camp.

But then once the camps that Schori was meant to defend were destroyed or neutralised, they could turn to attack her with impunity.

ABC might being flattered by older institutions in the short term, but if us "unrepentants" were silenced or destroyed, would they still bother to appease ABC with "respect"?