"Despite what has been claimed, there is no “ultimatum” involved. The Primates asked for a response by September 30 simply because we were aware that this was the meeting of the House likely to be formulating such a response."

NP? Do you disagree?

I would genuinely like someone - and I think this board is the place to ask - whether I have misunderstood the Dar es Salaam communique on this point of the 30th September.

In the communique it says specifically that the answer OF the House of Bishops should be conveyed TO the Primates, BY the Presiding Bishop BY September 30th. After that, it says, "If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion."

Is that the same as Rowan Williams' version whereby the answer is to be conveyed BY the House of Bishops, BY September 30th, TO the ACC and Primates' Joint Standing Committee, TO Rowan Williams, TO the other Primates and others, after which an evaluation will presented TO Rowan Williams BY them, following which something else may happen?

How do others read this? The date may be the same, but is the anticipated process? (Or, as Terry Wogan says, "Is it me?")

'The struggle to keep Anglican Communion intact was worth the effort, he said. Such a seemingly intractable problem of theological conscience would be a powerful witness of reconciliation to the world. “If we are able to get this right with integrity in some way, that would be helpful to Christians everywhere,” ' Rowan Williams said.

Good words, and hopeful ones. Unlikely to be heeded by some who care only for waht is hammered on their own anvil.....

I'm sure NP believes the Archbishop is mistaken.

Rowan Williams hopes that the meeting of the ACC and Primates will result in a constructive way forward. I rather think the pattern will be one again of an attempt to rough things up, as at previous such meetings. They then might try to force an ultimatum, but not enough of them to do it, and not the ACC. At this point Akinola will have to decide after all his huffing and puffing whether to put this fourth trumpet in the way of his huff and puff.

Hello Pat and Dave

No, I do not disagree - the Primates asked for a response by 30th Sept. There was no ultimatum.

The response TEC(USA) eventually gives will be evaluated as to its unambiguous acceptance or rejection of what the Primates asked for and then there will be a response to TEC from the Primates et al.

I still wonder why TEC(USA) is not simply able to say, "We stand by VGR and our decisions in 2003 - we will not change our position as we believe we are right, even if this means we cannot be members of the AC."

"The response TEC(USA) eventually gives will be evaluated as to its unambiguous acceptance or rejection of what the Primates asked for and then there will be a response to TEC from the Primates et al.

I still wonder why TEC(USA) is not simply able to say, "We stand by VGR and our decisions in 2003 - we will not change our position as we believe we are right, even if this means we cannot be members of the AC.""

I think there are two reasons:

The first is a question of internal polity--the HOB does not speak for TEC, General Convention does. Nothing the HOB decides can be viewed as binding on the church as a whole.

The second is a question of external polity--based on the long traditions of the Anglican Communion, no internal action by a province--other than a clear repudiation of the one or more of the four articles of the Lambeth Quadrilaterl--should force it to withdraw from the Communion.

OK, Pat...but why not simply say, "We stand by VGR, we believe what we decided and did in 2003 was right, so, we cannot in all good conscience change our position."

Seems simple to me....it is not too much to ask bishops simply speak the truth about what they believe - is it????

NP:

I think that is precisely what they have done.

Pat - I think you responded before we actually had the TEC HOB response.....
you still think they have said ""We stand by VGR, we believe what we decided and did in 2003 was right, so, we cannot in all good conscience change our position."

I know they have not said that they have changed their minds....but the ABC has got them into a little fudge and they have not openly and honestly stood up for the VGR decision and defended it....have they??
If they really believe they are right, they should not be giving in to the ABC's request to help him make fudge like this, should they??

Now, we have to see who accepts and rejects these carefully crafted words......

Even if many accept TEC's words here, is it not just a matter of time before we see Lind or someone else being elected as a bishop in TEC......showing BO33 and this HOB statement to be a sticking plaster at best????