Archbishops Anis and Orombi (? who refused to attend in N.O.) did not sign the statement. Clearly, there is a line being drawn in the sand here. Those who want TEC out will not allow the HoB conform to the Windsor Report or the DES Communique in any manner short of total capitulation.

But the JSC Report certainly provides a solid basis for any moderate Primate to find otherwise. As in all political operations - it's all about the middle. What does the middle want and how large a group does it cover.

We'll soon find out.

It ain't a surprise that this liberal dominated committee is bending over backwards to say that TEC(USA) has given an honest, positive response......note, they have not even got all their own committee's responses in but have put this statement out....why the rush?

Seems this committee has not head Bruno and Ely say that ssbs will continue in their areas......

Seems as if they do not know Lind is on the list for Chicago....this proves that TEC(USA) is hardly committed to staying in line with the AC and it is just a matter of time before we have the next VGR type risis.

I think Fucrum and Dr. Goddard are rather more objective (but then I would, wouldn't I?) in their analysis of TEC(USA)'s statements and what in reality is intended. Having said that, pls bear in mind that TEC has not said "Yes, we were wrong" on anything....they have simply agreed to delay and show restraint....that is enough for a liberal-dominated committee (surprise, surprise) but it is not what the Primates have asked for (repeatedly). If the ABC tries to force this JSC view on the AC, he will be pouring petrol on the flames of schism

Objective analysis:

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=237

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=238

hmm ... Interesting.

How are the boundary-crossing Primates going to respond to this.

"How are the boundary-crossing Primates going to respond to this" Well we can hope and pray for rejoicing or at least grace on their part but I fear their reaction may be conditioned by rage and anger and self-interest.

"If the ABC tries to force this JSC view on the AC, he will be pouring petrol on the flames of schism."

When are you going to get it NP? The ABC can't control those who want schism. He can only appeal to the higher natures of those who seek reconciliation. This is the appeal the ABC wanted, no doubt prayed for, and got.

Objectivity!! If God had been objective about mankind we'd still be in our sin and spending eternity with Satan. Good grief!!

To start at the end:

...With the response of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in September 2007, the Communion should move towards closure on these matters, at least for the time being...

I'm not sure how there is closure for the time being - closure ends something and the time being continues on. Nevertheless the JSC report is all positive.

...the use of any such rites or liturgies will not in future have the bishop’s authority “until a broader consensus emerges in 18 the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action...

On this basis, we understand the statement of the House of Bishops in New Orleans to have met the request of the Windsor Report... and the request of the Primates at Dar es Salaam...

And this:

...the Episcopal House of Bishops... confirm the understanding of the sub-group that restraint is exercised in a precise way “by not consenting”, and that this specifically includes “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons”. They have therefore clearly affirmed that the Communion Sub-Group were correct in interpreting Resolution B033 as meeting the request of the Windsor Report.

By their answers to these two questions, we believe that the Episcopal Church has clarified all outstanding questions... on which clarifications were sought by 30 September 2007...

And this:

...the House of Bishops is correct in identifying that the co-operation and participation of the wider Communion, in a way which respects the integrity of the American Province, is an important element in addressing questions of pastoral oversight...

...the time is right for a determined effort to bring interventions to an end.

...the so-called “Windsor/Camp Allen bishops” may also have a key role in winning the confident participation of congregations who have requested such alternative pastoral oversight.

And here is one just for NP!

...Lambeth Conference Resolutions do not have “magisterial” force in the Anglican Communion; that is, they are not per se binding on the faithful of the Churches of the Anglican Communion. Nevertheless, Resolution 1.10 expresses the understanding on Christian marriage and sexual relationships actually taught and held by the vast majority of Anglican churches and bishops across the globe...

"Seems as if they do not know Lind is on the list for Chicago" NP

There are lots of names on lists. For those who do not understand - We Do Not Appoint our Bishops - they are elected.

The matter of consents is another question altogether.

This report strikes me as being much more moderate in tone than the communique that came out of Dar Es alam. Assuming that this report accurately reflects the prevailing sentiments in the broader communion, it would indicate that Rowan Williams completely lost control of that meeting of the primates group. This is a time when the Anglican Communion needs a leader with some political talent. It clearly doesn't have it.

If the 'fucrum' analysis is objective, I'm a dutchman!

Now the die is cast, we'll see the fight for what it really is - temporal power and material wealth.

I think it is too much to say the struggle is merely about temporal power and wealth.

I think, however, that the extreme right has been listening to and believing too much of their own blogosphere hype. The original demands were that TEC not ordain gay bishops in partnerships and not permit same-sex blessings. From that they went on to spin a fantasy of 'Anglican Realignment' that was going to somehow be larger than the splits that occurred over the prayerbook and women's ordination, and somehow be received officially by Canterbury.

Now TEC has essentially given in to the original demands - not perfectly, not completely, but perhaps sufficiently for all but the most extreme Primates. And all of a sudden, actions towards any kind of 'realignment' are looking extreme and perhaps only to be appreciated by very few.

Contrastingly, in the end, the ABC is going to come out of this looking like the wise, patient, and deliberate Anglican leader everyone expected he would be.

NP said: "this liberal dominated committee"

The height of hypocrisy. The "conservatives" refuse to be part of the discussion, then they whinge because the committee is "liberal dominated."

Here is an iron clad rule, NP. Decisions are made by the people who stay to the end of the meeting.

And by the same token, those who didn't bother to attend should stop whinging. They made their choice. They can live with the consequence.

The bishops have no say in the nomination of Lind for Chicago, NP. The selection of candidates for bishop is a diocesan-level decision in the US. Where they do have a say is in the matter of consent - a chosen candidate cannot be consecrated or enthroned without the consent of a majority of sitting members of the HoB. The bishops have undertaken not to consent to the consecration/installation of an active gay bishop. That which was asked of them, they have given. Simple enough?

While I'm here, some at this and other (especially "other") sites complain that same-sex blessings are continuing at the local level in TEC, the Dar Es Salaam communiqué notwithstanding. This is pure wishful thinking. The communiqué asks that the House of Bishops “make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144)”. The request refers specifically and only to the authorization of a "Rite" by the bishops, not to the execution of unauthorized celebrations at parish level. Again, the bishops have given this undertaking.

This is an excellent outcome. Richard Lyon's comment is wrong about +++Rowan. He is smart, and while things may not have gone well in Tanzania, his skills are evident since. As I have said before, this ABC will never exclude TEC from Communion with him. Stephen Roberts is correct, that the fight really is over power and material wealth, but TEC has the best lawyers in the US, many among its communicants and allies, many of those working pro bono. We will retain our churches and other property. If the Akinolites still move toward schism, they will be creating a new Protestant denomination.
Have you all noticed how many media reports treat Anglicanism as a third great 'catholic' church, distinguishing it carefully from other churches of the reformation? The Anglo-Catholic formulation of "the catholic faith as taught by the Church of England" or by its daughters, has now been accepted by other educated people. Thank the 19th century Gothic Revival for that!

I tend to agree that this statement appears somewhat self-serving. I think there is no intention in TEC pews (where some real power resides) to step back from Robinson and also same sex blessings. This is partly because the people in the pews are NOT Anglicans in theology, morality or spirit. They are Congregationalists. I know, I serve in one of their parishes.

A clear statement from the Communion that there are some things which must be believed - the divinity of Christ for example, or the fact that non-christians are 'Children of God' one in a very rare sense of the term. There is still no promised salvation outside of the Church.

Archbishop Anis didn't have much to offer about the suffering and persecution of LGBT Christians/others in his Province during is speech preach in NO? I recall he mostly whined about his own difficulties with other religious extremists after being embarrassed with the consecration of +V G Robinson at TEC...he's not much of a "minister" in my opinion and certainly not a qualified "listener" to anything other than the sound of his own voice...selfish to the dangerous (to others) extreme.

"The Communion seems to be converging around a position which says that while it is inappropriate to proceed to public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions and to the consecration of bishops who are living in sexual relationships outside of Christian marriage,…”

So are all the current clergy around the world living "outside of Christian marriage" being asked to renounce their Holy Orders, including polygamists and gay priests and bishops?

“…we need to take seriously our ministry to gay and lesbian people inside the Church and the ending of discrimination, persecution and violence against them."

“…take seriously…?” Its about time! “…ending discrimination…?” Why do I feel the discrimination deepening and solidifying? This is a long, long way from full inclusion.

I wonder what it looks like from heaven.

Richard

The Communion does have a leader with talent.

Sometimes leadership involves allowing dialogue to happen, no matter how extreme or irrelevant it might seem. In playing the cards and allowing the machinations to occur, we are all getting to see how souls operate and the tactics they are prepared to use.

Dar Salaam might have seemed like a failure in allowing the break out lobby conference to occur, or in allowing them to move between the two conferences bringing in new decrees, accusations and ultimatums. It might have seemed like a failure to allow them to table only just prepared materials and to allow them to pass motions (I nearly mistyped potions - chuckles) on same.

A more "astute" politician would not have allowed materials to enter the agenda that had not been prepared and submitted to then be collated and distributed by certain deadlines in advance of such a political meeting.

But then the world would not have had so many eye witnesses to the kinds of politics that have been going on in some dioceses for some time. Similarly, we have been blessed with similar public shenanigans in the attempts to retain position as a Nigerian Christian representative.

I've appreciated the public display of their antics. There's an American saying "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like duck, then it probably is a duck".

A paraphrase for the Anglican Communion "If it looks like a god, walks like a destroyer and talks like an accuser, then it probably is Satan".

Revelation 2:9-10 "I know your afflictions and your poverty — yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer... Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life."

Revelation 3:8-12 "… I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars — I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you... Hold on..."

Well the same dire flaws that affect 1998's Lambeth 1.10, also affect the Fulcrum and AGoddard comments or views. These are three, mainly.

One. Too much in too many pronouncements is the result of past and current conservative campaigns which for the most part claim to be the only believer views possible, while most recently at the same claiming to be an outcast minority in a pagan society. Can we say, self-serving? Manipulative? Odd? Indeed.

Two, if Lambeth is the mind of this communion, then the way it came to be passed must also be part of its mindfulness. We all know it was rushed into being as Lord Carey and conservatives sought to prevent the real, more accurate bishop working group report that would otherwise have been submitted. Just the skewed and rushed way Lambeth handled this calls any careful believer to more and better discernment than such a statement can conceivably offer us.

One clear indicator of just how much the hot button issues are so little resolved and settled by Lambeth 1998 is given in the internal contradictions. We hear some statement of a traditional, negative view of queer folks, while we also hear the entirely astounding new modern idea that such people have basic human rights which cannot be abridged by either secular society and state or religion. Readers of scripture, followers of church tradition, and quite a few state policemen of previous eras would find this human rights assertion to be complete folly. They knew just how awful queer folks were, and they knew just how roughly to mistreat them in keeping with their negative views. Few believers will fail to realize that we cannot easily keep preaching and believing all manner of negative, nasty traditional things about queer folks while we join them in solidarity of human rights and equality of citizen resources and citizen opportunities. The contradictions are a clear sign that something important is still up, that affects all of us who are paying attention, and that further – and better? – discernment is probably needed.

Third. Lambeth 1998 studiously omits any mention of the available, solid empirical data about just how much good queer folks can and do live out, in their daily lives, all around us – when given the opportunities and the citizen resources to do so. Lacking such data, just how settled an understanding can such a Lambeth offer us?

Page 1-2 they note “Although the tensions within the Anglican Communion will not be resolved until all these matters are addressed, the wider questions, which concern the polity of The Episcopal Church and the provision of pastoral care for those who are alienated by certain recent developments and life, do not form part of the issues which were requested to be addressed by the date set in the schedule of the Primates’ Communique for specific answers on the questions set out below. Those wider matters of pastoral concern remain urgent and are addressed in the second part of our report”

Their reply includes at page 14 “…we do not see how certain primates can in good conscience call upon The Episcopal Church to meet the recommendations of the Windsor Report while they find reasons to exempt themselves from paying regard to them. We recommend that the Archbishop remind them of their own words and undertakings…”

There are thus the political game plays of who is or is not in Communion and on what basis.

My interest is how the life of TEC is going to proceed, irregardless of the machinations of the accusatory saboteurs and scavengers.

At page 5 the US House of Bishops “…does not have the power to bind future actions of General Convention…”

At page 16 on justice and dignity for gay and lesbian persons “If is of fundamental importance that, as we continue to seek consensus… we also be clear and outspoken in our shared commitment to establish and protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons, and to name and oppose at every turn any action or policy that does violence to them, encourages violence toward them, or violates their dignity as children of God… We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children… are full and equal partners… participants… that stands against any violence…”

May God bless those souls who understand and are prepared to worship upon such foundations.

A version of my remarks on another blog:

It's now reasonably clear that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the majority in the Communion are not about to push TEC out or recognize the CCP group as a North American province. I'm glad.

Yet I'm not sure how I feel about this latest set of developments. I don't really think the Joint Standing Committee has suddenly swung around toward support for TEC, or full inclusion, or anything of the sort. I think it's the jurisdiction issue that turned them against Duncan, Minns, and their followers -- the multiple African bishops with their overlapping territories suddenly being created in great profusion in North America.

So (I think) it's really that the Network and other ultraconservatives have threatened the Establishment (literally and figuratively speaking), and the Establishment is now coming down -- hard -- against them.

As they would. Yet something in me finds it hard to cheer the Establishment on. Well, maybe this reaction is all a part of my own process of leaving the Sixties behind for once and for all.

Ruth Gledhill claims in her blog that Elizabeth Paver has given a response to the JSC report, but she doesn't say what Paver said about the report. What did she say in her response?

I notice there is a lot of speculation about the fact that some people didn't sign it.

I would be interested in the commentators above views on the process that was used -- one that seems to have preferenced the views of the people who had time on their hands -- and which disadvantaged those who were busy.

I would also be interested in your views on the probity of the PB Schori's signature to the report. I would have thought that normal "conflict of interest" approach would have been applied here. Do you think I am wrong?

NP froths, er, frets:

"...that is enough for a liberal-dominated committee (surprise, surprise) but it is not what the Primates have asked for (repeatedly)."

"The Primates"??? NP, do you honestly think they are all of one mind? They're not a collective entity like the Borg, y'know. Even the DeS communique' was drafted by committee and intentionally worded so as to mean different things to different primates.

So, when you write "the Primates this" or "the Primates that," kindly in future be honest enough to admit that what you mean by "the Primates" is really just the 8 Radical Reactionary primates whose bags are already packed and ready to leave Canterbury's realm.

Hardly a majority of the Primates, and certainly not enough to portray *their* will as being the same as that of the Primates collectively!!!

Steven wrote, "If the 'fucrum' analysis is objective, I'm a dutchman!"

Sure it is! Well, for extreme outliers of "objective" at any rate. The same way 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2... :D

Davis: "Appoint' is one of those words which gets caught in the crossfire of confusion between American english and English english.

"To determine by authority or agreement" is the sense here. Simon I believe has commented on this before.

NP said, "Seems this committee has not hea[r]d Bruno and Ely say that ssbs will continue in their areas......"

Surely same-sex blessings will be continuing wherever they were happening before. That wasn't ruled out by anything coming out of NOLA.

The toothpaste is not going back into the tube.

Yes, its a compromise, but its probably all that could be broadly agreed upon for the moment. Clearly the issue won't lie down and go away - but at least if the conservative evangelicals do a bunk, the remainder should at least be able to carve out some sort of reasonable way of working.

Margaret,
I see nothing sinister in the fact that some people were not able to meet the deadline for a response. ++Anis was able to issue a private statement a few hours after this was published. Perhaps this was his way of garnering a bit of spotlight. He had ample opportunity to make his views known in New Orleans.

I find the suggestions (bruited elsewhere) that ++KJS should have "recused" herself to be very strange. First and most importantly, she is not on the JSC representing TEC, rather she was elected by the Primates to represent North America.

Second, this document is not a legal judgement, but a report from a committee, of which ++KJS is a member. You will remember that she also signed off on the Dar es Salaam communique, indicating it was a fair representation of what took place.

Third, as the assent was unanimous (apart from those who were not able to respond) in what way is this red herring relevant to the discussion?

Fourth, although she is the Primate of TEC, the judgement was not on her but on the response of the House of Bishops -- which she chairs but does not control. The decision of the House was also nearly unanimous, so again, I see no "conflict" either of interest or content.

What seems certain now is that there'll be no official Primates' Meeting between now and Lambeth while there is a semblance of peace, reconciliation and compromise across the divide, at least amongst moderates.

What's troubling is the use of the word "convergence", as if this is a permanent shift away from full inclusion for LGBT. I agree with Tommy on this.

However, if the listening process is allowed to progress, this "convergence" ought to move in a more progressive direction until such a time as a new consensus emerges about gay blessings and bishops. We might wait forever with that approach, so some churches should be allowed to develop faster than others.

TEC (and ACC) took two steps forward; now they've taken a step back to allow for a little breathing space, for other churches, eg. the British ones, Mexico,... to catch up. With civil partnerships now institutionalised in UK, this could come sooner than we might have expected. Or at least serious discussion of it will.

Thank you Tobias for your response to my post.

I found two points it is that I could not quite understand so would you mind expanding further--

1. You say:
"as the assent was unanimous (apart from those who were not able to respond)"

The point has been made on other websites that some who would dissent notified the JSC that they would need (an incredibly short) amount of time to put their view forward. I wonder what you think of the fact that the JSC considered this to be an issue where such (incredibly short) time period could not be extended.
Do you agree with the judgment that a few hours wait was impossible before the release of the report, and if so, what circumstances made that wait impossible from your viewpoint? I personally cannot see how the Anglican communion would have come to grief if the report had been released 24 hours later.

You see, it appears that the JSC deliberately released its report in haste BECAUSE it knew that dissenting opinions were coming, and it wanted to ensure that the dissenting voices were not heard.

2. You said
she is the Primate of TEC, the judgement was not on her but on the response of the House of Bishops -- which she chairs but does not control.

That was my point exactly, She is standing judgment on a group to which she is not only a party but the leader. Do you not think that this is a conflict of interest? Would you be happy for say, George Bush to be party to a committee investigating the propriety or otherwise of an action by his own Cabinet?
If you are happy with that thought, when would it be appropriate for George Bush to stand aside?

Again, I would have thought the responsible thing to do would be to stand aside and let others on the committee stand judgment, particularly since (as is often the case in Anglican circles) the committee has been carefully selected to predetermine the "right" result by a more than adequate margin for this to occur.

I notice that your site, unlike either Standfirm or Titusonenine, preselects the comments that goes on to ensure against malicious behaviour.

I wonder how come this site (and most of the other sites that approve of the Episcopal Church of USA's position, have to do this, when the malicious comments on both the other sites are treated as par for the course. Are they just more tolerant and accepting of diversity?

"Rowan Williams completely lost control of that meeting of the primates group. This is a time when the Anglican Communion needs a leader with some political talent. It clearly doesn't have it."

Actually, no. Rowan Williams -- though making a strong plea for recognition of TEC fidelity -- allowed the primates to express themselves as they saw fit in Dar Es Salaam -- how could he bring them to heel by some kind of papal fiat? Now he has midwived the responses of the wider communion in the same fashion, and they greatly modify the myopic results of Dar Es Salaam. So the process goes on, and RW is to be highly commended for at no point acting the bully or imposing anything by fiat. He has dont a remarkable job in preserving the texture of historical Anglicanism. To understand his mentality you must read his two lectures on Richard Hooker in his book Anglican Identities.

To read this report is to recognize that the aim is more to placate than to hear the call to rethink direction. On the one hand there is regret about having caused pain by "our actions" on the other there will be retraint "for now." How could this be seen as serious reponse to Windsor or the to the Arican bishops' call of loyalty to "Anglican history and teaching??"

Has the TEC become so blinkered in view as not not to sense the deepening alienation with other provinces, and in wider way between western culture and the places where most Christian now live? The loss of moral direction does not go without notice. What is more, that the Christian Church seems to have lost its direction evident in sexual exploitation and corruption (e.g. in order to perform abroad some of our "heros and heroines of culture" have to be controlled or they can be expected to throw their disrepect of sex and sexuality into the faces of people there!). Is it too late to expect integrity in representing the direction of scripture on the man woman relation from Gen 1 through the NT? By all means stand up for persons whether homosexual or heterosexual and call them to integrity without "lying" about distortion on the part of one or the other. By all means speak up for the dignity of people in light of the clear direction of scripture.

Peace,

Ben Wiebe

Allan posted: "I think there is no intention in TEC pews (where some real power resides) to step back from Robinson and also same sex blessings. This is partly because the people in the pews are NOT Anglicans in theology, morality or spirit. They are Congregationalists. I know, I serve in one of their parishes."

Brilliant.

ALL Episcopalians must be "Congregationalists" because that is what Allan believes about, apparently, all of the parishioners in his own Episcopal Church parish (though I doubt that is even correct about ALL of the parishioners in his parish).

If we are using that bit of strange logic, then all Episcopalians must be Anglo-Catholic because that is what I witness in my own parish (though a bit more candor would have me suggest that some are less Anglo-Catholic than others, and would be just as comfortable in a slightly different Episcopal parish setting).

I wonder if other Episcopalians would care to extrapolate from their own experience, so that we can reflect for Allan the obvious error of his assumption about the Church at large.

Margaret wrote: “I would be interested in the commentators above views on the process that was used -- one that seems to have preferenced the views of the people who had time on their hands -- and which disadvantaged those who were busy.”

There is NO WAY that a person elected to a committee hasn’t got “time” for the work of that committee. NO WAY.

(and that should answer your second question, too)

Kendal Harmon wrote: "Appoint' is one of those words which gets caught in the crossfire of confusion between American english and English english.”

No it isn’t. It speaks to 16th and especially 17th century Absolutism.

It means the unilateral action of a Sovereign promoting his favourites to High Office to impose His special agendas on the Church (e.g. Charles XI:s idea of Supper on Good Friday), as opposed to the Calling of the Church Confirmed by the Head of State, which is the traditional Western approach to express a Consensus.

You guys noticed that +Jerusalem has already distanced himself very strongly from this JSC report which bends over backwards only to see the positive in the HOB response???

And - before you get too excited, this is just a report from one committee (and not even all the members of the JSC!)........ it is not accepted by the AC (yet).

The ABC and Lambeth Palace politicians may be able to sell the TEC and JSC fudge if there are enough people who (after 4 years) do not have any more stomach for conflict......but that would be putting a sticking plaster on a wound.
It is just a matter of time before we see Lind or someone else elected...is it not?

I know the strategy is keep everyone talking and TEC can carry on regardless - but that does not fool everyone!

'And - before you get too excited, this is just a report from one committee (and not even all the members of the JSC!)........ it is not accepted by the AC (yet).'

Tee hee! Just like Lambeth 1.10 :)

Couldn't resist this one NP, even though I see you are completely out of your depth and under fire on other threads, and really feel for you...though you started it and people respond! Greek lessons soon?

Margaret

There have been attempts to "flood" TA -that's why the word count came in. One of the other differences is that you can't edit away your mistakes once published (the main reason I use TA). The other thing is that many other forums simply delete "non suitable" postings. For example, I found out a few months ago that my over 600+ postings from Sydney Anglicans had been removed, which followed quite some time after they simply banning me from posting at all because I refused to stop talking about prophecy, or the fight between good and evil. I could have kept posting if I had agreed to their rules, but then I would have been capitulating on what God had called me to do.

TA is one of the few forums that allows the extremes such as myself to engage with the other extreme and not "edit" the evidence when "their side" loses. I love TA for its fairness, some hate it because they lose the fights, and can't hide the evidence that they lost.

Margaret wrote: “I would be interested in the commentators above views on the process that was used -- one that seems to have preferenced the views of the people who had time on their hands -- and which disadvantaged those who were busy.”

Is Margaret making oblique references to Andrew Goddard and all the other pundits who managed to publish their copious “advice” to the Primates even before the JSC published their statement?

Bishop Anis had access to all the documentation and working papers of the JSC – his view quite clearly did not fit the report agreed by the majority and he published his minority report within an hour of the publication of the main report. There seems to have been a keen desire amongst a large number of the members of the JSC to see this report completed quickly hoping to reflect the members’ opinions and not what their “minders” tell them.

Kendall Harmon – an American blogger – thinks this report “rushed” and calls it “illegitimate” and questions the process that produced it. This seems very strange – the process seemed so open. At one point in a rant he says: “Members of the Joint Standing Committee suggested word changes to an American report which they were then going to evaluate.” This seems very sad. Quite obviously Harmon had no expectation that the JSC and House of Bishops should work TOGETHER at finding a way through this impasse, or that members of the JSC might act as advisors in the process.

The American bishops did not lack advice from Harmon and others as to what they should put in the statement. He then asks (rhetorically one must imagine) who wrote the statement – one assumes the secretary to the Committee did – is Harmon suggesting otherwise?

NP - "You guys noticed that +Jerusalem has already distanced himself very strongly from this JSC report".

Yes, I have and I must change my earlier analysis. It isn't just about temporal power and material wealth, it's about an ability to reach Key Stage 4 in English Language.

That's because the following "analysis" process was followed:-

1. Load HoB response into Microsoft Word.
2. Search "moratorium".
3. Word has finished searching the document. The search item was not found.
4. Conclusion - TEC are non-compliant.
5. Fire up the start new schism wizard and let fly.

I notice that your site, unlike either Standfirm or Titusonenine, preselects the comments that goes on to ensure against malicious behaviour .....Are they just more tolerant and accepting of diversity?"

No doubt it's StandFirm's celebrated tolerance and acceptance of diversity, Margaret - witness their attitude towards gays, PB Schori and anyone else they happen to disagree with. They also delete "undesirable" comments after they have been posted. But thanks for the laugh.

Neil - no, not like Lambeth 1.10....... that was voted for by a majority of the bishops of the AC.....I know you and others want to pretend it did not happen, but it did!

Don't feel sorry for me....except I am quite tired after a late night at church with lots of new people interested in learning about the gospel.

Not to mention, Margaret, the number of liberals who have been banned from that site - in fact, all regular liberal contributors end up being banned. In my case it was because I had my own blog and could give my views there!

Margaret appears to be a prime example of a clueless reasserter who has absolutely no insight into or appreciation for what it's like as a gay Christian to read and post comments in the Anglican blogsphere (much less operate in the world).

Not only are the progressive sites "flooded" with bile and personal attacks against gays if they are not moderated, but conservative sites routinely ban progressives for offering countering positions - I could list a half dozen who post here who I have watched be banned from one or another of those sites.

The leadership of the Anglican Communion puts unity first - that's official, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said it and every single step (including blunders) taken at the highest level from Lambeth 1998 onwards has been driven by that imperative.

Unity, unity, unity.

Even Archbishop Anis does not disassociate himself from the bits in the JSC report which say that Primates who send bishops into the USA without permission from the local bishop are completely out of order.

The reason the conservatives are losing the argument now is not because they are wrong (although I think they are) but because they are now seen to present a greater threat to unity than TEC.

This isn't a tactical blunder. It's the failure of an entire strategy. Human sexuality was chosen by American conservatives as an axe to split away liberal Anglicanism. The split was the point. The Anglican Communion was hoodwinked into thinking the liberals were the splitters. Now they've realised their mistake.

The splitters - the Primates who boycott Primates' Communions - the Ugandan JSC member who boycotted New Orleans while setting up a rival US church - the Network US bishops who left before the New Orleans votes and then complained about the outcome - the JSC members who refused to engage with the report writing process rather than risk a consensus that could never go as far as they wanted in the direction of division and expulsion - the splitters, I say, have been rumbled.

An interesting survey here on attitudes towards Christianity in America by 16-29 yr olds. Perhaps Simon might give this study some prominence? Definitely one in the eye for conservatives. http://www.barna.org:80/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=280

Important bits:

"As the nation’s culture changes in diverse ways, one of the most significant shifts is the declining reputation of Christianity, especially among young Americans. A new study by The Barna Group conducted among 16- to 29-year-olds shows that a new generation is more skeptical of and resistant to Christianity than were people of the same age just a decade ago."

"One of the groups hit hardest by the criticism is evangelicals. Such believers have always been viewed with skepticism in the broader culture. However, those negative views are crystallizing and intensifying among young non-Christians. The new study shows that only 3% of 16 - to 29-year-old non-Christians express favorable views of evangelicals. This means that today’s young non-Christians are eight times less likely to experience positive associations toward evangelicals than were non-Christians of the Boomer generation (25%)."

"Interestingly, the study discovered a new image that has steadily grown in prominence over the last decade. Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is "anti-homosexual." Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a "bigger sin" than anything else. Moreover, they claim that the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality to their friendships with gays and lesbians."

Spread it around the conservative blogs!!!

badman says "Even Archbishop Anis does not disassociate himself from the bits in the JSC report..."

Do try and "see the wood for the trees", badman

It ain't convincing to look for crumbs of comfort which suit your case....do aknowledge the main point the Archbishop is making which is TEC HOB's response is yet more doublespeak and therefore not trustworthy

It seems to us that TEC's new polity now appears to be that of the Church of England.

What a pitiful and sudden moral decline this shows in TEC - I hope conservatives will not let them get away with it ............

The Report has now been adjusted - http://www.aco.org/acc/docs/JSC%20Report%20on%20New%20Orleans%20071003.pdf - Elizabeth Paver is now listed as having assented. +Anis is listed as dissenting and his submission is attached as an addendum. Philippa Amable (West Africa)and Jolly Babirukamu (Uganda) are still listed having not yet reponded, but since both are heavily involved in peace and justice and/or women's rights issues, I wouldn't bet on a negative simply from their provincial origin. Jolly Babirukamu said previously that she
"was attending the House of Bishops and JSC meetings as an individual and at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and was not representing the Anglican Province of Uganda." http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_90458_ENG_HTM.htm

So that's currently:
10 assents
1 dissent
2 still to reply
1 AWOL

You ARE funny, NP! Can't you see that my whole post is about the wood, not the trees?

NP- I think if anyone is looking for "crumbs of comfort" it is you.

Your insistence that the Archbishop's little memo is of any importance is really kind of funny. It seems that his chief issue is that the HoB didn't crawl about in shame after his shameful rant.
That the HoB didn't find the argument that Muslims and other Christians should dictate the practice of TEC, or Anglicans in general, as legitimate is what angers him.
I think he did himself no favors when he snidely and arrogantly declared that TEC was no longer Christian. That his mean spirited and nasty rant in NOLA was spewed shamelessly at a room with (at least) one gay man in it is repulsive and shows just how far he would go to establish power and how little he truly cares for the gays and lesbians. That we are filth, unworthy of respect, is clear from his actions.
This latest, little pouty rant that you cling to with such fervor is only his venom running over.

this is worth reading - lots of logical points (you won't like it Merseymike!)

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/6612/#comments

Margaret,

It appears you assume that the four non-reporting members of the JSC would be negative, and that the rest of the committee, knowing this, somehow rushed the report. I think both assumptions are rash. The report was not released "in haste" but according to the schedule. I understand Canon Paver has issued a response, though I've not seen it; the other two delegates are free to issue independent statements about whether they agree or disagree with the overall report, just as did Abp Anis already has. He is now on record as dissenting from the majority view. I await word from the others.

As raised in a comment a bit later on, TA doesn't allow editing. I confess I misused the word "judgement" in refering to the report of the JSC, which in my earlier point (2) I noted it was not. It is a report and summary of reactions. The fact that all of those who input agree is significant, as it includes a number of "conservative" members of the committee.

The point, however, concerns an alleged conflict of interest. The PB is the chair of the House of Bishops. As such she chairs the meeting, and may or may not agree with the conclusions of that House. Thus, I don't find your analogy to be analogous. Perhaps if you could describe what exactly is the "conflict" it would be helpful. No one would suggest a senator should recuse when a vote on a matter concerning his or her state comes up in the senate. On the contrary, the senator is expected to be an advocate.

As to your comments about "moderation" of comments, StandFirm routinely bans posters altogether, and routinely removes comments deemed "offensive" by their standards. Having posting standards is not by any means unusual in the blogging world.

MJ : I think that describes well what people think of evangelicals . Of course, evangelicals would view it as the expected persecution for holding to their faith!

The rest of us just see the problem as being that 'faith'

I started reading the comments and I'm surprised how many people hope to change NP's train of thought. I don't even read his post. Sorry, but I find most from the far right lost causes, entrenched in their own little narrow world.

Sorry NP, I hate to offend but I'm willing for honest discussion, not your always right and I'm always wrong.

Peace,
Bob

I anticipate that the communion reception processes of the HoB response and commentary upon it will continue to demonstrate the conservative realignment campaign's fav Either/Ors. Either: Submit We are the only biblical believers who still love God and are beloved of God - you will be assimilated into the hive mind of conservative realignment. Or: We must split the communion no matter what in order to save a remnant of untainted believers from all those who will not be assimilated.

Come to think of it, this does rather sound like Borg Communion believerhood. (See Star Trek, itself the brainchild of a former Methodist minister, Gene Roddenberry who decided he could preach better good news via a TV series about space, than standing up in his local pulpit on Sundays.)

If that image holds partly true, then I must be an distant cousin of Seven of Nine, who was captured by the Borg as a child when a research station was overrun, only to be liberated later by Captain Janeway and crew. Hmmm, could Jefferts Schori be one of our Janeways? No wonder realignment conservative posters so dislike her. She is helping drive the freedom trains.

Today's Take Away: Do not be surprised when the realignment refuses to be part of any listening process - either about how to read scripture, how to agree to disagree while coming to the Lord's Table, how to read science data in human sexuality and embodiment, or a whole host of other hot button topics.

LGBT Anglicans watched in horror as bishops of The Episcopal Church (TEC) in the US were forced to reduce our status and exclude us from full membership of the Church.

American Episcopalians now have a public policy akin to that of the Church of England – no lesbian or gay bishops in partnerships and no authorised services for blessing same sex couples (at least for the time being). This policy was welcomed by the majority of the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and Anglican Consultative Council (JSC), while conservatives remain unappeased.

The Revd Richard Kirker Chief executive of LGCM said:
“It is no surprise to us that some Anglicans remain very unhappy and want to see our exclusion not as temporary political expediency but as a matter of divinely inspired prejudice. Having unilaterally raised this matter to an article of faith nothing less than our total rejection and humiliation will do for them.

However the problem facing these Anglican conservatives is that the Windsor Report refused to accept that being against homosexuality was an article of faith - a matter already settled by Divine fiat – indeed it accepted that there was and is a case to argue, the matter remains open to debate and that a change in view is both possible and legitimate if certain rather immense hurdles are overcome.

The American bishops have trumpeted their commitment to our civil rights and liberty and the JSC have welcomed and supported this with selective Anglican Communion statements, in reality while some Anglican Churches are working to listen to lesbian and gay people, others such as Nigeria and Singapore are working with their national governments to continue or increase our legal persecution.

It is clear that some conservative Primates have no intention of keeping their word not to persecute their lesbian and gay members any more than thy keep their promises not to interpose their jurisdictions in America.”

BobinSwPA - I am willing to guess that most people here respond to NP not because they think that they will affect NP in any way, but because there are countless lurkers who read NP's stuff and may think that it has some merit if there is no response.

For all I know NP doesn't really believe most of the stuff he/she writes. But is writing merely for affect, which he/she does quite well.

Further to the issue of preselecting comments, Margaret, the T19 comment page that NP bookmarks above, in the belief that it contains "logical points" - which in part it does ("In effect the ABC is calling the GS bluff" is certainly straightforward enough) - also contains the following, in-house post:

"For the record, the portion of William Witt’s comment that we edited out earlier this morning referred to Godwin’s Law and the previous comments on that thread. Since we had subsequently deleted/edited all of the Nazi-focused comments, we also edited out that reference in Dr. Witt’s comment."

Both SF & T19 edit for content, but do it after posting.

bob - what do you mean by "honest discussion"? Do you mean I must pretend that ignoring the scriptures behind Lambeth 1.10 is a position with any integrity?

CB/Bob - the reason I post is because I see repeated comments which:

1) ignore certain scriptures;
2) ignore agreed Anglican positions or pretend they never happened, have no validity;
3) pretend certain views are acceptable in the AC when they are not;
4)pretend clearly untrustworthy commitments (eg recent TEC HOB statement) are fully trustworthy.

I post because these views need to be corrected and to give the views on TA of non-liberals (the majority of the CofE and AC, you know).....since this is TA and not WLA ("Whining Liberal Anglicans"), I think it is good for there to be an exchange here.....if I talk nonsense, it will be easy to shoot me down. Similarly, if I see somebody else making up history or ignoring verses, it is not difficult to point out the logical inconsistencies of certain posts (not the mad ones or those from people of little or no faith pursuing secular rights in the church, obviously)

"Do you mean I must pretend that ignoring the scriptures behind Lambeth 1.10 is a position with any integrity?"

I think he means that you should begin by accepting that the other side is not ignoring those scriptures but sees them in a different light than you do.

if you refuse to accept that your opponents are arguing in good faith, then you are not interested in honest discussion.

NP-
It must be very tiresome for you to hear/read the following, because it is now revoltingly exhausting to keep saying this to you and the other Donatists (yes, that *IS* what you are and no specious excuses or dodges will block that):

It is not that we ignore Scripture. It is that we take it far more seriously than you idolatrous Fundamentalists do. We see it as the living Word of God that points us to the Incarnate Word and to proclaim him. As far as I can tell, you, and your fellow travelers, see scripture as a dead thing that spoke once and then ossified. You all can’t even really be called “Calvinists” since you’re so far removed from the Institutes that I cannot recognize you as part of the same tradition. You have replaced the daily bread of Scripture with a stone that you then throw at those you disagree with. The Letter kills, and you seem to enjoy wielding a lethal weapon.

Well, T19 have blocked me from accessing their pages, so I can't tell.

One prerequisite for real discussion, NP, would be an end to the lie that anyone who disagrees with YOUR INTERPRETATION of scripture is therefore "ignoring scripture."

Of course, that would require intellectual rigour and moral integrity.

In view of the JSC's over all positive reaction to the New Orleans HoB communique, Jack Leo Iker, on T1:9, is calling in the cavalry: ACI theologians Seitz et al., while his diocesan Standing Committee is setting the process in motion to sever ties with TEC and realign with the new (imaginary) North American Province of the Anglican Communion created by the anti-Pope and anti-Cantuar, Peter Jasper Akinola, who is committed, not to a listening process (required by the 1998 Lambeth Resolution), but to the suppression of gays and lesbians by the corrupt government of Nigeria. Of course, that is not the first time that Bible-thumping U.S. Christians have supported oppressive foreign governments if it suited their unChristian agenda of playing power politics.

The Bible does not Condemn same fender oops gender, relationships.

Do you mean I must pretend that it does ?

'bob - what do you mean by "honest discussion"? Do you mean I must pretend that ignoring the scriptures behind Lambeth 1.10 is a position with any integrity?'

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 4 October 2007 at 4:30pm BST

First this:
NP: "this is worth reading - lots of logical points"

referring to this:
"http://www.kendallharmon.net/blahblahblah"

LOL, NP, you are a card.

A few comments on the comments about my comment!

C.B. said
"Margaret appears to be a prime example of a clueless reasserter who has absolutely no insight into or appreciation for what it's like as a gay Christian to read and post comments in the Anglican blogsphere (much less operate in the world)."

Nice -- please tell me what do you say when you are trying to be insulting?

Merseymike says:
"In my case it was because I had my own blog and could give my views there!"
Mersey - given the volume of comments from you I have read over the years, I think that this is disingenuious to say the least.

As to standfirm and T19 editing stuff - they both have established policies for editing (abusiveness, nazi references; dragging a post off topic after being warned) but in my "clueless" experience of the last four years, very few commentators have even been edited (when as noted above it is AFTER the post and the existence of the post is left usually with a comment on the REASON for the deletion) and even fewer have been banned. And also unlike Susan Russell's site --- where you are extremely lucky to be able to post a dissenting view ("Inclusion") unless she wants to post immediately below it a reply, posts are not edited for dissent but for appalling rudeness.

I have raised this issue before (when allowed and thanks to the owner of this blog for allowing it) because it is one of the greater ironies of this whole dispute that the Inclusive and Tolerant sites are all moderated so strongly, and the other side (so frequently labelled Exclusive and Intolerant) take all comers. I actually think this pattern (because it is not one or two sites) says volumes about the real Inclusiveness of the Inclusive (ie that we only include what we like.)

T19 diverse ? open ? rational ?

The so-called T1;9 blog banned me ! They certainly don't want us queers speaking for ourselves.

As for diverse --forget it. Many of the comments are amongst the most snide and small-minded I ahve read anywhere-- & when part of a cock tail of piety very nauseating !

NP,

There are no "scriptures" behind Lambeth 1998 I.10. What there is has been made up.

Not "scriptures" in any sense.

Wow, NP, Kudos, you are so good at the voodoo yoo doo. Jus fo tha record? Ignoring the conservative reading of scripture that claims to be about what we moderns mean by homosexuality (or sexual orientation) does not equal, by presuppositional fiat, ignoring scripture. Weighing scripture and the traditional readings in several different best practices scholarly and hermenutic frameworks does not equal, by presuppositional fiat, ignoring scripture. Indeed, the best and most immediate indicator of paying attention to scripture is not one's devotional uses of scripture, but rather, one's carefully assembled best practices tool kits for discerning scripture - especially the parts whose historical and cultural contexts are far removed from ourselves in all manner of different ways.

One does one's homework in this regard because one cares about scripture. Cares enough not to mindlessly put scripture in that very high place where only God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are, for real.

"I'm trying to avoid dragging us into unnecessary controversy when there are more profitable things to talk about," - Akinola

Seems to have called a truce too...Good for him.

http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL04453488.html

After reading the comments above it is clear TEC is split. All the talk these last years have changed nothing. It is time to face the facts. Go In Peace, my friends. I loved the church I grew up in being the 4th generation. The episcopal church I was confirmed in is no more. I have found a church that hasn't changed the gospel. The faith once delivered is there for all the seek it. Thank God for caring primates that have come to our rescue.

Martin and MJ's postings remind us that GLBTs are still humans, irregardless of how they are treated by the authorities of the Anglican Communion. They all had mothers and fathers.

We dishonor their mothers and fathers when we refuse to acknowledge their humanity and give them the same dignity we would expect for "straight" members of their families, or place burdens upon them that we would not place upon their "straight" siblings e.g. celibacy.

I agree with Martin that the conservatives have a long term agenda to send GLBTs back in the cupboards, women back in the kitchen and slaves back into the fields. Actually there are some who have a long term agenda to consign this world of "unholy" occupants to hell and anything less is a failure to fulfill scriptures.

MJ Please start dialoguing, this is the second thread you have referred to that study. TA is a diverse community and we would like to know more about you than what is held in one small barrow. Welcome.

Margaret: Stand Firm banned me and that was the reason given!

Anyone seen the loopy 'what if?' poll on Stand Firm? - http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6571/

Asked if in 10 yrs the ABC, Primates, Lambeth Conference and ACC all agreed to SSBs would you agree, all responders said (predictably) NO.

Asked if in 20 yrs the entire Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox communities all agreed to SSBs, would you still dissent, all (apart from a couple of RCs) said YES.

Their reason - Scripture is clear.

Janice has her pick of Churches that are homophobic enough for her taste. LGBT people have far fewer possiblities.

Just think of that in your quiet time ...

Merseymike
Margaret: Stand Firm banned me and that was the reason given! ie "In my case it was because I had my own blog and could give my views there!"

Really?

I read the post banning you quite differently. I took it you were banned because you persistently and with purpose took every possible thread off- topic -- which was one of the stated no-no's right from the start ie you were deliberately and with purpose defying the rules of the blog and having been warned a number of times, you failed to stop.

I'll post the exact wording here:

"As a frequent visitor here and occasional poster, I often find myself quitting reading a thread of comments as soon as I see a MM post. It’s not that I have anything personal against him or his ideas, it’s just that his interjections usually mark the end of any useful comments about the original post and the comment thread, more often then not, gets side tracked into a discussion centered around his comments"

I couldn’t agree more, and that’s why I just banned him. Spirited dissent from revisionists is one thing, but monopolizing every other thread is another. If he wants to get his own blog where he can monopolize the conversation, they’re available for free at Blogspot. Adios, Mike. "

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4502/#84063

So, in total contrast to your sequence of events, the suggestion of having a blogspot came as a RESULT of the banning -- the banning did not happen BECAUSE of the blogspot -- in fact later in the thread it emerges that no-one knew you had such a service until after the event.

I only raise the point because the re-interpretation of events seems to be one of the root problems of this dispute.

"Margaet" thinks that titusonenine does not preselect comments -- what she does not know is that liberal commentators such as myself are quarantined (comments held up for approval) with the effect that most of our comments are not published. This is quite an invidious form of preselection.

Margaret has an incredibly hermeneutic of titusonenine: "As to standfirm and T19 editing stuff - they both have established policies for editing (abusiveness, nazi references; dragging a post off topic after being warned)" -- I was guilty of none of these, nor was I "warned." It was pure and simple disagreement with my views and intolerance of them. In fact pretty much all right wing websites have this policy of banning liberals as soon as they are identified as such. Among those I call neocath bloggers this is true of Philip Blosser, Mark Shea, and many others whose names I do not recall.

" but in my "clueless" experience of the last four years, very few commentators have even been edited (when as noted above it is AFTER the post and the existence of the post is left usually with a comment on the REASON for the deletion) and even fewer have been banned."

How would you know this? Even on this thread several of the "banned" have identified themselves. The ideological homogeneity of T19 tells its own tale of exclusion.

" posts are not edited for dissent but for appalling rudeness."

That is absolutely untrue!

Margaret, about half the comments at Susan Russell's site are from angry fundamentalists, so if she's trying to censor them, she's not doing a very good job of it.

drdanfee - as you know, the opt-out clauses that some "liberals" have argued for including Rowan Williams) have persuaded few.....

also, it is interesting that no special exemptions are sought from "liberals" for materialism etc.....although others do seek to excuse that sin as they want to indulge it.....

John -- thanks for your post -- I've been wondering myself about what seem to be the Donatist lapses of the conservatives. If in their anger they have indeed strayed into Donatist heresy, then their error seems much deeper than anything done by those who they accuse of lapsing into or supporting (at worst) a merely venal sin (i.e., unapproved sex).

NP? Could you respond seriously to John's Donatist observation?

Margaret - I am tolerated round here despite being fairly conservative in my views. Seems possible to post as long as one is not too long or attacking a person. Merseymike et al want to censor and are very intolerant (and are "theology-lite", obviously agenda-driven) but TA itself is genuinely liberal in letting various vews (even insane views and pseudo-academic nonsense) be posted.

TA's NP got quoted by The Times, by the way - I am sure all TA people are proud of me!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2587408.ece

"A blogger on the Thinking Anglicans website summed up the mood in the evangelical camp with his comment that if Dr Williams attempts to force the report on the Anglican Communion, "he will be pouring petrol on the flames of schism." "

Lapinbizarre (3 October 7:00pm BST): While it is true that in EAE (Episcopal American English), bishops have not “authorised” rites of blessing same sex unions, in the language of TWR they have (§144 speaks of “bishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada”).

Tommy (3 October 2007 7:57pm BST): The full phrase you were looking for is “living in a sexual relationship outside Christian marriage”. This does not mean that clergy who are not heterosexual should resign holy orders. It does mean that there should be no ordained polygamists – did you mean to imply that there are any in the Anglican communion?

NP - Who the hell is "Merseymike et al" and how is it they want to "censor" and what gives you the profound insight that they are "theology lite"- so therefore they must be "agenda driven" The only thing they are intolerant of is statements like - the only agenda is sharing the love of Christ. And you make my point again - you say things merely for affect. Congratulations.

The precise wording of the Dar es Salaam request on same sex blessings, which I have already quoted Dr. Renz, is that the House of Bishops "make an unequivocal common covenant that [they] will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention". This they have done. Wishful thinking and incessant accusations from the Radical "Anglican" Right notwithstanding, the wording of the communiqué states "Rite of Blessing", not "rites of blessing" and clearly refers to the possibility of HoB's authorizing a specific liturgy for SSB's.

Had the primates collectively felt strongly about unauthorized, individual, local-level SSR's (which would, let's face it, have been a pretty hypocritical act for most "Global North" primates), or had the small Radical-Right cabal that effectively pulled so many strings at Dar es Salaam been in a strong enough position to insert the stipulation into the communiqué, it would be there, don't you think? It is not. This to my mind, speaks volumes as to intent. "Rite of Blessing" is both what is said and is meant.

I assume that the "Episcopal American English" comment is an intended putdown. Putdowns work when they are understandable or funny, preferably both - this is neither.

Lapinbizarre - Exactly - If your intent is to ban any and all rites which purpose is to bless same sex unions in any way that can be said very easily - just as I have. Given that they go out of their way to capitalize and use the singular "Rite" they are speaking about a specific kind of rite that they do not want to see authorized by the bishops.

Martin,

It would be helpful to keep the language clear. On what basis do you cast gay people as victims (i.e. as "pesecuted")? If society generally has lost its moral bearings one thing that still resonates is "victimhood." Whatever the cause set up as victim. An analogy might help, what we have today in various places is "gay pride day." Far from persecution, this is flagrant exaltation of homosexuality! With it often comes base language and conduct - with some awareness of people and various cultures one can recognize this comes as a kind of assault. Out of regard for them as people many largely ignore it, or on the grounds that there are people who want this, let them have their day as long as they can respect the rights of others. But does this mean "you must endorse this?" Where is the respect here for difference and for those who disagree? If there is persecution it may these days more often be reverse persecution.

Do you seriously think conservative Anglican bishops aim to "persecute" gay people? It is one thing to use direct language about different convictions, this is hardly persecution. Get real - that is to trivialize the matter. What I do hear is a concern to stand up with integrity for the dignity of all people including the wellbeing of the homosexual.

That will certainly mean discerning the direction of scripture and the coherence of Christian faith and witness on this as on other matters through the centuries (should we expect less from those called to be faithful as shepherds?). In that light to speak truthfully and live out the faith to which we are called. Certainly with distortions of sexuality on all sides today, we do not set up as victims those caught up in distortions, who must then be endorsed.

Peace,

Ben W

So far as I can tell NP, you're tolerated round here because the proprietors of the site combine masochism with superhuman tolerance. Since Erika just summed you up pretty well on the parallel "Press reactions to JSC" thread, - http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002669.html#c926470 - why gild the lily?

Thanks, tho', for the glimpse of self-insight contained in "TA's NP got quoted by The Times, by the way - I am sure all TA people are proud of me!", or is this, like the recent MerseyMike/pink champagne business, humour? Makes a change, at any rate, from blaming the Zimbabwe situation on the "socialism" of Nelson Mandela, as you did - jokingly, no doubt - three or four few weeks back.

Lapin - you are an interesting case....when you disagree with someone, you refuse even to aknowledge facts eg - it is a fact that Mugabe has only survived for the last last 5 years because of ANC government support from South Africa - the SA president's brother says so....but NP says it, so the rabbit will not accept the fact!

Margaret wrote: "I have raised this issue before (when allowed and thanks to the owner of this blog for allowing it) because it is one of the greater ironies of this whole dispute that the Inclusive and Tolerant sites are all moderated so strongly, and the other side (so frequently labelled Exclusive and Intolerant) take all comers. I actually think this pattern (because it is not one or two sites) says volumes about the real Inclusiveness of the Inclusive (ie that we only include what we like.)"

Not so fast, Margaret dear...

The comment function here at TA is exceedingly instable.

A great number of comments do get lost in cyber - but that has nothing to do with censorship of any form.

But for your dreams...

(talk of persecution complex ;=)

Margaret said: "I took it you were banned because you persistently and with purpose took every possible thread off- topic . . ."

Much the same could be said about NP. But he's still here. And, infuriating though he is, no one is trying to ban him.

Though I do wish he would stop telling that lie that anyone who disagrees with him is "ignoring scripture."

Ben don't parade your ignorance of the position of lgbt people around the world, and the countries in which we are imprisoned, executed or simply disowned

Do you also disapprove of the Notting Hill Carnival, the Walsinghame Pilgrimage & the national Eisteddfod ?

“Episcopal American English” is not meant as a putdown, merely a means of distinguishing it from the language of the Windsor Report and the Dar es Salaam communiqué. The TEC HoB seems to claim that none of their members has authorised any Rite of Blessing for gay or lesbian civil partnerships. But the Windsor report said that some have. I suggested that “authorise” may mean one thing in the TWR/DES-dictionary and another in the TEC-dictionary.

When the DES communiqué speaks of “any Rite of Blessing,” it adds a reference to TWR par. 143-144 (cf. par. 18 in the communiqué). There is no space to drive a wedge between TWR which notes that bishops have already “authorised such rites” (e.g., Vermont 2004 presumably) and the request in DES not to authorise “any Rites of Blessing.”

The New Orleans response considers it “important to note that no rite of blessing for persons living in same-sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention.” But note what DES was concerned with: “There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision.”

Thus “local pastoral provision” is very much a concern in the DES communiqué.

Granted, the DES communiqué does not address private, unauthorised blessings by local clergy who act against the guidelines of their bishop, but it does concern the “liturgical resources” which are part of the pastoral approach which the Bishop of Vermont “authorised” (TWR/DES-parlance) “made allowance for” (TEC-parlance?) and intends to continue.

http://www.dioceseofvermont.org/Orgs/TFonBlessings.html

Ben

LGCM has members in some 26 Anglican provinces spread over several denominations. In a world where over 80 countries still routinely torture, maim, imprison and murder LGCT persons, you will not be surprised that many of our members face these threats to their lives and liberty on a daily basis.

Closer to home our homophobia hotline and normal daily postbag would tell you a story of hate (much of it “divinely” inspired) against LGBT people that is hard to believe still continues.

As to your direct question on the action of Primates:
Doing nothing when it is well known that gay people are commonly lynched/stoned – and what they say is taken as approval of these crimes.

The Primate of Nigeria would like to the police to put in prison for five years those who would speak out to support gay equality.
The Primate of Singapore has recently written to his government asking them to criminalise lesbianism, it is no presently illegal.

If you would like to contact me off list I will be able to give more information.

Yours truly

Martin

L. Roberts,

I was in particular speaking of "conservative Anglican bishops" as referenced in Martin's post, do you know of any North American bishops who would fail to support the civil rights of any gay people? And I do not know of an exception to this in Africa or Asia (but you might refer to N Korea and places like that and find some - with people in prison for a whole variety of "offenses"). After all it is true that people in various cultures have not endorsed this as a way of life until now in the West there are some at the "pinnacle of enlightenment" who see it that way.

If you have some specific light to shed on the the particular point let us have it, not some generalized putdown. I repect gay people, we all face different challenges and I will walk with them. What I see is the need for integrity in dealing with scripture and the coherence of Christian history and witness on this matter. We face a variety of challenges as Christians,there is enought to deal with - but if we think we can fudge the truth and simply go with the wind we are in trouble! Do we think we can serve the wider community or gay people in this way? (I know of one person from the gay community itself who left after some 10 years, recognizing what he really wanted was to find a partner and have a family and he did - he came out facing resistance, "it cannot be - once gay always gay etc." I understand people are different and I don't prescribe for anyone on this, but this is enough to say that no one on any side of this is in a position to prescribe).

Peace,

Ben W

Ben W,

Will you please use the whole signature as it stands. This is difficult enough to follow as it is.

Thomas Renz wrote: “But the Windsor report said that some have. I suggested that “authorise” may mean one thing in the TWR/DES-dictionary and another in the TEC-dictionary.”

No need for different dictionaries, really.

Occam’s razor would suggest that The Windsor Report is as wrong on this as on its infamous description of the history of Women’s Ordination in the Anglican churches.

Don’t you think?

Thomas Renz wrote: “But the Windsor report said that some have. I suggested that “authorise” may mean one thing in the TWR/DES-dictionary and another in the TEC-dictionary.”

No need for different dictionaries, really.

Occam’s razor would suggest that The Windsor Report is as wrong on this as on its infamous description of the history of Women’s Ordination in the Anglican churches.

Don’t you think?

Ben, some Anglican bishops persecute gay people.

Some do so by supporting legislation which criminalises gay people, especially under regimes where basic civil rights are not respected.

Other bishops persecute gay people by a reading of Scripture which diminishes the humanity of LGBT people and inhibits their freedom to love and be intimate.

Members of Changing Attitude Nigeria and Integrity Uganda are witnesses of persecution. It happens to them.

There is an evil here, that labels gay people as falsely persecuted victims who flagrantly exalt homosexuality.

Ben, it isn't difficult to research the evidence that demonstrates that some Primates and bishops use language so prejudiced against LGBT people that it endorses acts of persecution.

Your post helps identify that extreme conservatives do not engage with reality nor argue from truth. You give me confidence to continue to work for the full inclusion of LGBT people in the church because I am working against people who do not engage in the church's process of discernment with integrity.

On September 19th, NP, you posted, on the "Sentamu on Mugabe" thread, "Mandela's ANC government in SA is strangely supporting this man in Zim[babwe]". Mandela, NP, stepped down as President of South Africa in 1999 - eight years ago. However, what interests me about this comment is not the inaccuracy, be it sloppy or deliberate, but the ever-resurfacing resentment you apparently feel towards the men who were prime movers in the destruction of the Apartheid Afrikaanerdom - the front-rank heroes of modern Liberal Democracy, NP. First it was Tutu and now Mandela - Mandela and his "nice Socialists" - another telling phrase ["Labour voter" NP. Remember? TA, May 31st] from a separate September 19th post. When I see these ongoing attacks on Tutu and Mandela - by your interpretation Mugabe and his odious thugs are the inevitable consequence of the inactivity and neglect of an eight-years-out-of-office Nelson Mandella - I naturally ponder what beliefs actually underly your often-stated opinions.

I could go on. "..... not just with divorced middle-aged women like some other training colleges." My father used to talk like that, NP. And he saw nothing wrong with it. But he was born in the reign of Queen Victoria.

And so ad infinitum. But enough said. In closing, NP, and in response to an aside made yesterday to a post addressed to Erika Baker, no, NP, I have no doubt, from both style and content, that you are not "a woman of ethnic minority extraction". Sorry.

Martin,

Thanks for the reponse.

I is clear that in various countries there are severe penalties for a range of offenses. As in our country laws enacted against drugs, are they helpful at all? What laws do we need and how might they reflect Christian moral teaching? Much of this when enacted in law becomes simply coercive and oppressive (e.g. the law can draw a line on murder but not envy or hate). In countries like Nigeria there are also severe laws against adultery (the death penalty in some cases). Clearly there is a case to be made that not all moral lapses can best be dealt with through legislation or these kinds of penalties.

Peace,

Ben W

Göran - you are right: an alternative reading is that TWR is simply wrong on American and Canadian bishops having "authorised" Rites of Blessing. Maybe.

But if this were a matter of accuracy rather than definition, did the New Orleans statement miss a trick in referring to General Convention rather than state directly "None of us have authorised Rites of Blessing"? Or do they mean to say that only GC can authorise liturgies?

Even if you think it wrong to use the word "authorise" for circumstances in TEC (a Bishop backing a manual with worship guidelines for church blessings on gay civil partnerships which is issued to the clergy of his diocese), are the concerns expressed in TWR/DES already addressed by pointing out that there are no "authorised" liturgies?

Hardly, because the point on which DES sought clarification was precisely the perceived discrepancy between the GC statements and local provision – whatever name you want to give to such local provision.

Ben, you asked in your earliest post:

“Do you seriously think conservative Anglican bishops aim to “"persecute"” gay people?”

The very sad but factual answer is - YES.

And to make matters worse that short lived protector of “true” Anglicanism, The Primates Group – had noting to say about it.

Thomas, I have no experience of the whole picture in TEC but the only two American bishops I have been told of who produced anthologies of permitted material for use in pastoral situations where same sex couples wanted a religious celebration of their partnership (whew!) – introduced those anthologies to specifically exclude any part of the marriage service in the material used.

In both those cases I know they would say that they were acting with GREATER caution in the matter than the “free for all” allowed by the statement of the English bench.

I mention this simply because (as in everything) it is not always as simple as it first seems.

"Or do they mean to say that only GC can authorise liturgies?"

My understaning is that the 2 Houses of General Convention issue Constitutions, Canons and Rites for the whole of The Episcopal church.

So, yes.

"Hardly, because the point on which DES sought clarification was precisely the perceived discrepancy between the GC statements and local provision – whatever name you want to give to such local provision."

Local provision is a different thing entirely, namely local - hence any percieved discrepancy?

Might it be that DES doesn't understand that there could be other ways of understandning, doing, voting, & c. than their own?

Take "appoint"...

"Everything NOW" we call it (or the Julafton Syndrome ;=)

Colin,

You still say that "Anglican bishops persecute gay people." You will note that I was talking in particular about our context where we know the situation on the ground (easy to talk in general about far off situations), there were bishops speaking up for the dignity of all people before this became "the issue." In other settings there may be strong concern to be fair but enacting appropriate legislation in any country is a major challenge; the aim is not to persecute certain people but provide basic protection and direction for the good of families and society ( see also my earlier post on this point).

It sounds like in your view unless the bishops read the Bible as you do they are "persecuting" gay people. You refer to groups for gay people in Nigeria and Uganda, if people go out and campaign for this and againt the AC bishops and others what do you expect but some opposition? The need is to get to some basis from which people can talk about what is right, otherwise it becomes simply a contest of power (of course it may be that one side more or less will insist "right or wrong we will have our way").

Peace,

Ben W

Ben W wrote: "... the aim is not to persecute certain people but provide basic protection and direction for the good of families and society..."

No. Persecution is not "collateral damage".

No. Basic protection for families cannot have persecution as side effect.

No. Direction for society cannot lead to persecution.

No. A 14 years prison sentence in 18th century conditions is not protection.

Quite the opposite.

Ben, some bishops collude in the persecution of gay people, some indirectly, some directly.

Unless people read the Bible differently, they believe the Bible gives them permission to follow ideas and teaching which permit the persecution of gay people.

Bottom line.

Yes, it takes GC to authorise liturgies for the whole of TEC, just as it takes General Synod to authorise liturgies for the whole CofE. But this does not (legally, canonically, factually) prevent individual bishops from recommending/authorising liturgies for their own dioceses - not in England, and I don't think in the USA.

Three of the four rites in the diocese of Vermont "are very similar to the rites authorized in the Book of Common Prayer for marriage, with a principal difference being the vows." In their own judgement anyway, see http://www.dioceseofvermont.org/Resources/TFonBlessings/BlessingLiturgies.doc

Goran, Colin,

If you can only work with your own definition of "persecution" (and safely about people and cases we have no first hand knowledge about)and your own definition of how we "read the Bible" is it any wonder there is no advance in conversation? And if you want to converse here please try to hear posts as intended.

Peace,

Ben Wiebe

I don't see that "persecution" has anything to do with the Bible???

Persecution means in my experience to expose to continuous violence, physical and otherwíse, threatended or executed.

Ben I will not respond in detail as MArtin and others have. Also I (could hardly fail to) notice your ingenuousness and ivincible ignorance.

However, you have made one thing abundantly clear, notwithstanding your unsolicited protestation to the contrary.

It grieves me to say this, Ben, but based on the evidence of your words here: you do not respect gay people.

L Boberts,

Reading you and others it is sometimes hard to recognize we live in the same world! You have "one issue," when I mention the fact that in certain places people are trying to reflect Christian moral teaching in the enactment of law, including adultery and same-sex relations, that is ignored. I say that not all this teaching can be enacted in law and do well by people (we need to work for the civil rights of people with whom we have serious differences!). I point out the need for a reference point or basis beyond ugly putddowns. That issues in language that amounts to insult. It seems that in your case we can not work with real differences and still acknowledge one another with respect. Sad but true.

Since this began on the question of "persecution" I will conclude with something from Times Online dealing with the effort to protect against abusive speech in Britain that may help some to see part of the point:“If such an amendment is put forward it is likely to be in the form of the existing incitement against racial hatred law. The type of actions targeted would not only be violently homophobic words, but would no doubt cover any criticism of practising homosexuality, homosexual acts and lifestyles.”

The question is whether differences can be openly acknowledged and criticized. So far a measure of sanity has prevailed in wider society. A group of Christian lawyers led in this.

"The group led the recent campaign against the religious hatred law, which was eventually amended to protect freedom of speech and freedom of religion and came into force at the beginning of this month."

Peace,

Ben W

Ben
"including adultery and same-sex relations... That issues in language that amounts to insult...
It seems that in your case we can not work with real differences and still acknowledge one another with respect. Sad but true."

You see, we perceive the insult in the automatic grouping of adultery with same gender love.
If you follow the conversations on TA, you will have noticed that others automatically group same gender love with greed, paedophilia, lying, promiscuity etc.

I could acknowledge you with respect if you paid me the same compliment.

Lapin - so many presumptions.....now, I must tell you that members of my family were jailed as ANC activists in the 1980s and I have supported liberation in South Africa, I suspect, in slightly more real and meaningful ways than you may have....but, if it pleases you, do carry on attacking anybody who does not want to ditch the bible to allow vicars to break their vows in their own lives and teach what is "incompatible with scripture" as Lambeth 1.10 states. It still stands, you know.....for vicars with integrity, that is.

J Robison says to me: "It is not that we ignore Scripture. It is that we take it far more seriously than you..."

Oh, yeah - nice one JR .... I will use that if I am ever caught for speeding.....

"Officer, it is not that I was ignoring the speed limit, I was just taking it more seriously than you."

Erika,

Appreciate the response.

Not easy to communicate precisely. I was specifically referring to Nigerian and Ugandan etc law that does group adultery and homosexuality together. The reference does make clear that even so the aim is not to single out homosexuals and "persecute them." You have a point that it is not fair to simply label and group people.

People do face different challenges, as I indicated earlier I know people who have dealt with same-sex attraction and they have not all dealt with it the same way. Some with great integrity seek to understand themselves and scripture and live out their faith. I have also known others who will put down anyone that disagrees, they see themselves as those who represent "the authoritative understanding" of scripture for this time. With the first there is a basis for conversation (and at least room for respect even if there are differences), others assert their views and in one way or another reject or even abuse others. That does affect relationships!

Peace,

Ben W

"So many presumptions" - you're very right, NP. And from what you now reveal I can now see that there can be explanations for the Tutu/Mandela comments beyond the seemingly obvious, coarse one that I have until now placed upon them. But why does one have to flat-out insult you to draw out the apparent complexity of the individual that lies behind the incessantly-repeated catch-phrases? "Lambeth 1:10" gets wearying very fast, NP. I think if you were to enter discussion on Thinking Anglicans based on your own personality and experience, rather than operating as the near-caricature that you often are, you would get far more respect and be taken far more seriously than is currently the case. Think about it. For my part, I do not believe that I will be in your face about South Africa in future.

[So much stuff has been rushing through TA recently that I missed the post to which this replies on the "new comments" page and only saw it, more or less accidentally, yesterday evening].