So there we go, a "mind of the communion" so far: c being slightly in favour, and then in general 12 for and 10 against. CAPA is thinking of leaving, part of South America is organising schismatic activity.

There is a sense of events moving on, however, both towards schismatic activity and towards doing same sex relationship blessings and potentially consecrations of gay men and women.

Well goodness knows how Rowan Williams will cap all of this. One good thing is the sheer honesty of varied views being published, all as Anglican views of the matter.

Again, one wishes Lambeth 1998 had been nearly so honest, as the original bishop's working group report to the conference would have suggested; and thereby perhaps, maybe, who knows, having avoided some of the false witness and serpentine malignant spin of our new conservative realignment.

(That campaign was obviously favored by Carey as occupant of Canterbury at that meeting which more or less acted as if no new biopsychosocial data were available in human emobidment, as if believers had no effective hermeneutic or other reasons for reaching different discernments, and as if anybody who did not take a traditional line was a spoiled child wishing for the moon to be made of green cheese.)

(Alas. Lord have mercy. Thanks, Lord Carey. This realignment weaponizing of Anglican hot button believer differences has your benificent fingerprints all over it. You certainly did a bang up job, along with a whole lot of other conservative believers who leave self-righteousness, holier than thou Anglicanism bread crumbs along all of our discernment trails in the modern forest. What a grand example of sowing every possible seed of division and exclusion, all to rend the big tent traditions of historic Anglicanism. So that guess who gets sole Anglican institutional power to draw new covenant and doctrinal lines in the sands of time? Alas. Lord Carey and others are failed in saving us from our own consciences, varied as these may be among big tent Anglican believers.)

So far as this interim report goes, hard to know what will come next. The realignment folks will balk at two things at least. They will intensely dislike that it reports variety of views, where they so loudly are shouting nothing but conservative consensus against all Anglican middles and lefty evil doers. They will also strongly dislike that it is interim, with no prounouncement of judgment of guilty on all charges and final sentencing of TEC to outer darkness.

The Revd Richard Kirker says:

“The Anglican Communion appears hopelessly divided on far more issues than how it should respond to the Episcopal Church.

The analysis of views published by Lambeth Palace shows that Anglican Primates are as divided on how to solve our problems as they are over what has caused them.

It is clear that there are deep divisions on the roles of the various instruments of Communion and the Covenant in its present draft form will not do either.

Fault lines are widening. Where lesbian and gay people and their families play a full part in the life of the local Church there is no understanding of why this shouldn't continue, while elsewhere in the world lesbian and gay families are treated as criminals and are excluded completely from Church life with increasing venom.

The same Anglican Churches who are currently opposing America’s rehabilitation are equally determined not to engage in the “Listening Process” and refuse to be associated with any Anglicans who are open to the possibility of full gay inclusion.

It is hard to see where Rowan Williams can turn next in his bid to keep everyone at the table, new tables are arriving weekly as new divisions are announced and he seems powerless to stop it. We all now await his Advent Letter to see what he thinks of the disparate views of the Anglican Primates and how he reacts to the actions of the Southern Cone.”

Happy Thanksgiving, Pilgrim.

As expected. No consensus. Now what?

What does seem clear from this report is that the leadership of the Communion is quite divided and diverse on these issues. Any group within the Communion that purports to speak for "the rest of the Communion," or even "the majority of Anglicans," is suspect.

Such diversity also suggests that a "quick fix" would not be appropriate. While there is good support for development of something like a Covenant, there is not sufficient support or congruence in the Communion to come to that resolution quickly. Clearly, these things will take - must take - plenty of time.

Just goes to show that there really is a significant divide between the Global South conservative view and the rest.

Sounds like a ripe time for a sensible and agreed split.

In an eleven page document I can scarcely find any crumbs of comfort for gays, save for a couple of sentences about "the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons" and the "recommendation to intensify the process of mutual listening". As the Non-Listening Decade draws to a close, in spite of Lambeth 1:10's hollow promise, "We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons", perhaps "intensify" is a euphemism for "start", but I won't get my hopes up.

Great pie-charts. The Windsor Report should have included a similar analysis of the views of a cross-section of the Communion including the laity and clergy - not just the Primates. The authors might then have reached appropriately "balanced" conclusions.

No doubt there will be attempts to match the comments to individual Primates, based on the content and style of writing. Did England gave the thumbs up for TEC? We'll have to wait until ABC publishes his long-expected Advent letter to find out.

I'm afriad I'm not really that bothered what the archbishops think; or what his Advent letter says.

Merseymike said "Sounds like a ripe time for a sensible and agreed split."

I think you have your wish -- the split is happening -- and this has been effectively outflanked by the Southern Cone move.

The words "he is not advancing" (at this stage), seems a well needed warning to all who CLAIM stuff, trying to do precisely this.

There is an interesting discussions of numbers in the comments to this on Stand Firm:

"the tragedy is that we once had 20+"

#laiming there are 13 positive responses, an equal number of negatives, and 12 Provinces who haven't even bothered.

Or summat.

Plurailst - note who has not responded yet....

Richard Kirker says "The Anglican Communion appears hopelessly divided ..."
Sure - it looks like 5-10m support ditching Lambeth 1.10 and 35-45m still support it.....

It has been obvious for a long time that the AC is divided....the question is will TECUSA and other liberals ever have the courage to stop being a liberal church within in a larger church (making oaths but not upholding some and ignoring the 39 articles at will)?

This is good.....we are getting clarity.
We should work for an amicable split (since there are very different beliefs between the two main groups).....let those provinces and parishes which agree with the JSC report be the TEC (Global) and the rest be the AC. Let us be generous to every parish......giving each the freedom to take property and a fair share of pension funds and join whichever church they can be part of with full integrity (that is not subverting from within and not disobeying agreed positions)

Why not do this?
Augustine says schism occurs between people who believe the same things......it is obvious Jensen and Schori do not believe the same things on various issues.....it is obvious Duncan and Bruno have very different views on the authority of scripture and biblical morality.....let's stop pretending we can unite contradictory positions to keep the AC club together.

Unfortunately, liberals have always been too scared to have a liberal church, preferring to be a church within a larger church - scared of being a small denomination.....so I guess the tearing of the fabric of the communion from within goes on....given we know the ABC will try to nail his colours to the fence and will only make a decision if forced to do so.

So, the AC is probably going to fall apart (as it already is in Canada and the US) while Lambeth Palace bureaucrats play politics to try and keep the club together…..for the sake of keeping the club together (certainly not for “unity” in any common understanding of the faith).

In 50 years, projecting growth and decline rates forward, the liberal wing of the CofE will contain very few people indeed......so, I understand the strategy of being a church within a church (it is less embarrassing)

NP: I agree that a split sounds the only practical way forward. However, the ones who leave will be those who cannot remain in communion with the others. I can remain in communion with you and those who hold your view on sexuality, no problem for me: I am a mainstream Anglican, thoroughly in the tradition of classic Anglo-Catholicism, and intend to remain that way. If, however, a Puritan group is not happy to coexist with other theologies within Anglicanism, then I am afraid that is the group which will be leaving, not the other way around.

As for which view is going to die out, give it a few years and the ConEvo chickens will have come home to roost. The Barna survey in the US has shown a huge fall over the last few years in the number of Americans under 30 with a positive view of Evangelicalism. Christian homophobia is the number one reason the young Americans cite for this. The public image of Evangelicals in the UK is now taking an even greater nose-dive because of their unwise and unChristian fixation with this issue. I am quite sure you will see the results in the near future, by which time the damage will have been irreparably done. If you relentlessly tell someone how evil homosexuality is, and that this belief is essential to be a Christian, the day will come when they get to know a really good decent person who happens to be in a gay relationship, the scales will fall from their eyes, and they will begin to challenge the whole of what they have been taught. This is what is happening, and will continue to happen on a large scale - you cannot stop it, and your days of crowing are numbered.

"As expected. No consensus. Now what?"

It feels like a breath of fresh air! Suddenly the ever tightening knot of lies about there being one mind of the Communion, about all primates and bishops agreeing, and about there being only one or two heretical outcasts to be whipped in line or thrown out, has been cut.

The result of that is probably too soon to predict but maybe new shoots of conversation can grow now the claims of unity of the righteous have been exposed for the bullying they are.

NP: we are not governed by the tyranny of the majority! It is clear that what we have is an attempt at a fundamentalist putsch by premodern, undeveloped countries still clinging on to their colonially-imposed religion under the guise of African tradition!
They cannot dictate to other provinces how to organise themselves.
However, I agree that a split is a better idea and that there should be a church without the cancer of the Global South and its premodern unthinking. It will require both sides agreeing to do so without recrimination or claims of people being 'thrown out'. And both would have the right to be Anglican. Indeed, much of the CofE would certainly not wish to follow the Christian Taliban!

Unfortunately, neither side actually wants an amicable split.

I completely agree that the two sides believe almost entirely different things.

The report suggests that there is no clear view about what should happen next - although that was one of the questions posed.

The report shows a more-or-less even split. This is a surprise - the conservatives always claimed to be a clear majority.

The report shows that the Primates Meeting, which lacked authority, is being judged on results - and has failed. Only 3 wanted a new Primates Meeting. Akinola has discredited that body, which was his strongest Communion-wide power base. Now the battle will shift to the Anglican Consultative Council.

But it comes back to this - the Communion is deeply and evenly divided. Does it want to live with its divisions, with a view to healing them? Or does it want to split, each side rejecting the other?

The huge "don't know - don't care enough - or don't want to say" vote suggests the former. That's my preference, too.

NP - "We should work for an amicable split (since there are very different beliefs between the two main groups).....let those provinces and parishes which agree with the JSC report be the TEC (Global) and the rest be the AC."

Huh?!!! Do you honestly think the ABC will break communion with TEC and ACC? If there is to be a split, both will remain part of the AC. It is up to others to depart if they wish, and form a 'Real'/ 'True'/ 'Genuine'/ 'Continuing' 'Anglican' (take your pick!) Communion - which at the minute appears to be only most (but not all) of Africa, Southern Cone, and perhaps SE Asia - some of whom would undoubtedly back off from leaving if push came to shove.

12 Primates have given a positive response
10 Primates have given a negative response
3 Primates have given a mixed response
1 Primate is still gathering views
12 Primates have not responded

Of the 12 that have not (as of 6th Nov) responded:

3 are CAPA (Central Africa, Sudan, and one other)
2 are Central/South America (do you really think Southern Cone didn't respond - which would only leave 2 'sympathetics' - from Mexico, Central America, or Brazil)
3 are United Churches (probably N India, Pakistan and Bangladesh - none of which would feel strongly enough to leave)
4 are Others - this includes 1 with a Primate on the JSC (either TEC, Wales, Australia, or [unlikely] Jerusalem) and probably comprises 3 others from Melanesia, Philippines, Japan, Korea, Myanmar, Hong Kong, or Papua New Guinea - none of which are 'hardliners'.

So from the 'unresponsives' (some no doubt with genuine reason, but most probably because they simply don't feel strongly enough), there would only be a handful at most that would consider booting out TEC or leaving themselves.

Lambeth 2008 will go ahead, with TEC and ACC, and lets see who turns up.

As regrds the Lambeth Conference, it should be noted that (as of the beginning of Nov.) approx. 500 of the 850+ bishops have so far officially registered to attend. The 'closing date' is the end of the year - expect more registrations following the ABC's Advent Letter.

"Sure - it looks like 5-10m support ditching Lambeth 1.10 and 35-45m still support it....."

Again, until something like a referendum is held of all Anglicans, you don't know that. You know that the UNELECTED leaders of 35-45m support it...and that, at least here in TEC, our ELECTED leaders have reservations.

"We should work for an amicable split (since there are very different beliefs between the two main groups)..."

About a mere handful of scriptural verses. What other "very different beliefs" can you point to?

NP: TEC does observe the 39 Articles ... you may observe them printed in the back of the BCP ... of course, they are historically conditioned ... and weomit the parts that had to do with the historical/political issues of the time of their composition. As a child, I often observed them during dull sermons.

"Unfortunately, liberals have always been too scared to have a liberal church, preferring to be a church within a larger church - scared of being a small denomination"
You know by now that this is a lie, not to mention what it says about your understanding of the Church and what She is called to be.

Ford - you know it is not a lie.

There are lots of liberals who cannot say unequivocally that they believe in the 39 articles....and lots who cannot keep to agreed standards (even for clergy).....yet they see some "integrity" in staying in the AC.......but demand the right to ignore or disobey whatever they like.

This is just factual, Ford

Absolutely agree with Ford - "The Church" is called to be distinct. Numbers are meaningless as defining Truth or Witness. Thanks Be To God!

It's obvious that this entire thing is being perpetuated by (most of) the African churches, cheered on by a small number of American conservatives. It's clear that the majority of global Provinces do not wish to expel TEC, nor do they wish to leave the AC. They are willing to continue in a diverse Communion. It's high time that certain Provinces did the honourable thing and either accept this or leave the AC (with the option of a future return of course).

"What other "very different beliefs" can you point to?"
+Harvey is claiming the "gay issue" is only one part, and a small one at that, of the problem. He doesn't like the way the Church in Canada is heading. I can add up the complaints: Prayerbook reform, OOW (which +Harvey supported), women with miters, you know, the creeping liberalism. Add to that the Evangelicals who seriously believe things like labyrinths and contemplative prayer are Satanic, and you have your list. These people have chafed for years at not having the kind of clerical power the Imperial Church says they are supposed to have, and have been reluctant to foment schism on these less socially polarized areas. There are still enough people in society who think gays are sick, predatory half humans that they figure they can get a bit of support on this one, so full speed ahead! This is just the rock they have chosen to founder on.

MJ says "Lambeth 2008 will go ahead, with TEC and ACC, and lets see who turns up."

Maybe so....TECUSA has inherited the cash and pays a good part of the costs of the party, of course........ but if 35-45m Anglicans' leaders are meeting elsewhere, that will be a huge failure for the ABC and the end of the AC as we know it (not a disaster in my eyes....in many ways I would prefer a good clean break from all those who subvert the AC from inside)

Oh, just the thought of the so-called Global South 'meeting elsewhere' and essentially removing themselves from the AC can only be positive! Anything which brings a split nearer .

There are lots of liberals who cannot say unequivocally that they believe in the 39 articles....

This is just factual, Ford.'

Good heavens !

Subscription to the Articles was done away with years ago , in the C of E. What ARE you going on about ?! They are historical curiosities.

Give me the Catholic faith any day--and I do mean Catholic....

Jesus help ! Mary pray !

NP wrote: TECUSA has inherited the cash

NP -- you've been told many times -- and had audited accounts cited to you -- to demonstrate that ECUSA hasn't "inherited the cash." Yet you persist in repeating this untruth.

It's almost as if your teachers have programmed you to repeat back what they've said, even when you know it isn't true.

I've challenged you before on your support for those who lie -- when you called on ECUSA bishopn a model for Anglicanism, even after it was clear he had lied about thehistory of his diocese and the circumstances of its founding, I challenged your apparent belief that lying is a qualification for Christian leadership. Rather than reply or apologize, you disappeared from the thread.

Now you've repeated an untruth again. WHen an untruth is repeated after being refuted, time after time, it begins to look intentional. And an intentional untruth is a lie.

What are the rest of us to understand about your standard of truth? Based on what you've posted on this sit. it surely ain't the biblical one. And it surely ain't the Anglican one.

(And just to be clear, I'm not a member of ECUSA, so my only involvement in this one is a desire to see the truth maintained.)

Humm. By my past, opinions, contacts and activities I would be counted as subverting the "AC" from inside. Would you like to have a clean break from me, NP?

What fascinates me is the complete collapse of the Windsor process.

There are six or seven Churches that seem determined to go it alone - and go all the way - in their support for “real Anglicans”. If there is to be a significant chance of some future reconciliation as well as a genuine effort to limit the harm this schism might cause – then, after a lot of swift praying (and blaming others for the policy failures) we could do with an alternative to this failed Windsor process.

I hope that Lambeth and the ACO can put aside their usual bitching and work together at finding a way forward that is affirming to those who are willing to go on being a part of each other, and yet still reaches out to those who see their immediate future as somewhere else.

but if 35-45m Anglicans' leaders are meeting elsewhere, that will be a huge failure for the ABC and the end of the AC as we know it (not a disaster in my eyes....in many ways I would prefer a good clean break from all those who subvert the AC from inside)

Posted by: NP on Friday, 23 November 2007 at 4:19pm GMT

Clean? Break? Nothing CLEAN about spreading fear and hate amongst the Provinces of The Anglican Communion and driving Christians apart with such unsavory muck...are you one of the "irresponsible bigots" who promote crimes of hate and outcasting/demoralizing of LGBT Christians/others from the pulpet at ALL levels of Churchlife.

Filthy stuff to smurk about.

"a good clean break from all those who subvert the AC from inside"

Like those who are trying to make her a Calvinist, quasifundamentalist Church? That's the thing, you see, self reference. You never stop to think that for a good many, it is people like you who are trying to subvert the AC from the inside. You are trying to make Her what She has never been.

MJ said: "It's obvious that this entire thing is being perpetuated by (most of) the African churches, cheered on by a small number of American conservatives."

Malcolm+ opines: Should be "cheered on and financed by . . ."

And BTW, NP, your historical revisionism is limited only by your faulty and selective use of scripture and other documents."

"a good clean break from all those who subvert the AC from inside"

You forget that even the letters to support +Duncan and +Iker were, according to Changing Attitude, signed by a secretly partnered gay man. I grant you he isn't subverting your purity laws in public, but he's clearly not following the gospel. And yet he will be part of your new clean AC.
You just cannot get rid of us.

Even if you did manage to purge all of us now, there're new gays and gay supporters born every day.

What kind of fantasy world you must live in.

Since the Philippines was mentioned in MJ's comment, I'd like to weigh in a bit. From my observations, it is likely that the Episcopal Church in the Philippines may play it both ways; the outgoing/incoming Prime Bishop and Synod may make noises about supporting the Global South stance, but these noises will not translate into action because, at some point, they are aware that even with financial autonomy, their ties to the Episcopal Church (USA) and more recently the Anglican Church in Canada are very important.

More importantly, as I mentioned elsewhere, this crisis ought to be discussed more widely within the ECP but at the moment only a few are making any noises. The general mood is either that on the ground this does not matter or that, even if it matters, the ECP cannot afford a split on this.

So the primates are still where they were at Dar Es Salaam where Archbishops Aspinal & Gomez said that the split was roughly 1/3 supportive of TEC, 1/3 opposed but not seeing it as a Communion breaker & 1/3 who saw it as breaking the Communion (& would accept nothing but repentance & a change of course which everyone knows is not asked for by the Windsor Report & would never happen anyway).

So the question is what that middle 1/3 decides to do (not what TEC does or what the African primates do).

Erika -- once upon a time the "movement conservatives" could terrify most persons with a same sex orientation into staying in the closet & they really seem to think that they can do so again. I believe that they are mistaken.

Some people want to pretend that TECUSA has not inherited money and Trinity Wall St gets all its cash from passing the plate round each week.....why?

Ford - you know it ain't just one issue. People like Tutu and KJS are pluralists from what they say - contradicting the Lord, St Peter, St Paul and the 39 (ANGLICAN) articles..... the issue is the authority of scripture, Ford...... those who would justify sodomy naturally have to take a "relaxed" view on scripture and this becomes evident in other ways and leaves bishops saying Christ was wrong on certain issues (eg John 14:6 or 3:36 or in giving the great commission ....because, actually, we now know that all that matters is to be a nice person)

Mark - nice try but it is not going to work to try and paint as radical extremists those who do believe in the 39 (ANGLICAN)articles and who agree with our bishops that certain sinful behaviour is, not surprisingly, incompatible with scripture (according to Lambeth 1.10)......... it is quite laughable that you should try to do so and even Rowan Williams has said more than once that this is not convincing given the scriptures give no positive support for sodomy in any context.
As for people who cannot put up with the subversives in the AC leaving....why should they? We have 35-45m Anglicans who are quite happy with our bishops views on scripture expressed in Lambeth 1.10 but if they cannot accept others condoning sin (behaviour "incompatible with scripture") and also some clergy teaching various parts of Anglican tradition and the bible are wrong, these genuinely mainstream anglicans should leave????? Bizarre. You would have argued that Kinnock and Blair should have left the Labour party if they could not tolerate "Miliant",I guess.

NP, 'sodomy' twice in one post! I've never read that word from you before. Now, why have you shifted from sexual issues to lack of hospitality? And why are you still pretending to be obedient to Scripture?

"Some people want to pretend that TECUSA has not inherited money and Trinity Wall St gets all its cash from passing the plate round each week.....why?"

Once again, Trinity's endowment, like all endowments, is restricted to the use of Trinity Church. It cannot be used by the national church, by the AC, or anyone else. Yes, Trinity is wealthy...although much of that wealth, being tied up in real estate, is far from liquid.

NP have you ever been to an induction and heard the Declaration of Assent? No priest in the Church of England has to "believe in the 39 articles" in the sense you seem to mean.There has been a debate about their status from their inception-are you aware of the changes made to the necessary ministerial declarations in the 19th c and again in the 20th c?? The 39 Articles have no official status in some provinces of the Anglican Communion at all. Im puzzled that on the one hand you present yourself as a hard-line conservative Anglican yet display a suprising lack of knowledge about so many aspects of both the history of Anglicanism and its contemporary situation.

"People like Tutu and KJS are pluralists from what they say - contradicting the Lord, St Peter, St Paul and the 39 (ANGLICAN) articles..."

NP, I don't want to be high-brow or anything, but somehow your performance here does not persuade me you're able to even read/understand them.

"... and paint as radical extremists those who do believe in the 39 (ANGLICAN)articles and who agree with our bishops that certain sinful behaviour is, not surprisingly, incompatible with scripture (according to Lambeth 1.10)..."

Well, maybe you should, in fact, find that CLAIM surprising, after all...

Perry - you show the problem.... the myth has been fed too long in the AC that even clergy do not have to believe in anything. The good news is that those clergy who do reject various parts of the bible have delivered only decline for decades while bizarrely claiming to be in tune with modern society.....so, in 50 years, the AC and even the CofE will have few liberals to worry about and we will be left mainly with people who do believe the bible and the 39 articles.

Ford - people so often try to muddy the waters that sometimes it is necessary to be more specific. To be clear, I am against anyone trying to justify any sin in contradiction to scripture.

Erika..... I do not want to exclude you or anyone else. I do want clergy to tell the truth about what the Lord and his Apostles acutually taught and not to mislead people with a made up morality. We are not supposed to preach or justify ourselves......

"Im puzzled that on the one hand you present yourself as a hard-line conservative Anglican yet display a suprising lack of knowledge about so many aspects of both the history of Anglicanism and its contemporary situation."

I'm not. It has been said before that "traditionalists" often know very little of the Tradition and are instead desparately trying to shore up the moral codes of a few decades ago. I have seen no evidence to the contrary in NP.

"I am against anyone trying to justify any sin in contradiction to scripture."

Yeah, right! NP, we all know better. You can say what you like, but we've known you long enough by now to know this isn't true. If you honestly believe this, you're probably the only one on TA who does.

NP wrote: "Ford - people so often try to muddy the waters that sometimes it is necessary to be more specific. To be clear, I am against anyone trying to justify any sin in contradiction to scripture."

I don't really know how, but we've guessed as much...

NP: Leaving aside the fact the the Articles have never had quite the authority you are trying to impute to them now, it is worth considering your own hypocrisy on this question. You clearly reject that protion of the articles which declares that national churches are not subject to the jurisdiction of foreign prelates.

As with Windsor, as with Lambeth 1998 1.10, as with Scripture itself, you are selective in the bits you believe and proclaim and in the bits you choose to pass over and ignore.

Malcolm - it is just silly to claim the articles can be used to protect false teachers.... clearly, where there is false teaching, we are not restricted in going to preach the gospel....or responding to the requests of faithful American Anglicans who ask for help.

Not just my view..... ++Venables says he has has the green light from the ABC to take whole TECUSA dioceses under his wing! Praise the Lord! Even the ABC sees there is no sense in talking of boundaries when some in TECUSA HOB have departed so far from Anglicanism as most Anglicans recognise it..... so, "polity" and "boundary crossing" are not going to work in keeping the false teachers of TECUSA both in the AC and free from faithful Primates responding to the requests of Episcopalians.

"faithful American Anglicans"

I'm about ready to start referring to "Pharisaic British betrayers of the Gospel" if this keeps up. And you really don't see what upsets people about you?

Ford: hang on a minute, have we established that NP is British? I doubt it, somehow.

He claims to attend HTB, which means he is not only British, but, according to those who know, he's probably upper middle class. I think the British term is "Sloan Ranger", or is that dated? Rather like a yuppie, but more class conscious in the old fashioned way.

Mark - very British.... why? Surely you do not want to imply that being British involves being soft on certain sins?

Ford - sorry, I think we got TWR and Tanzania and we are getting a covenant and ++Venables is being allowed to take whole dioceses out of TECUSA because many in the AC clearly feel the the actions of some in the AC are faithless.... it is certainly not "faithful" to "tear the fabric of the communion"

Why do you doubt it, Mark??

"it is certainly not "faithful" to "tear the fabric of the communion""

Neither is it faithful to lie about and demonize those you disagree with. Neither is it faithful to propagandize and lie about people so you can justify excluding them from the Church. Why is it you have no trouble with people on "your side" doing these things? Why is it OK for conservatives to betray the Gospel in order to maintain some sham of purity that everyone can see is no more than a thin veneer over a cesspool of hatred and bigotry, but it is not OK to try to show compassion to some of God's children? We have had these kinds of things posted on this very site, and you have never said a word. As long as someone preaches obedience to the Law, he can break every commandment of that very Law and you don't care. Why?