Southern Cone is a Province and a church, but not an Archdiocese.

one of the few time when I think Gledhill gets it right, righter than Bates did--the "rebuke" to the conservatives is quite mild, while the words directed to TEC are clearly an ultimatum...and one that indicates Williams has no understanding of the place of bishops in the American polity.

It's no use. I've gritted my teeth and re-read the Advent Letter twice this morning (wondering if perhaps I was a trifle overwrought last night), and I simply can't believe it's the same document as the one to which Stephen Bates has had access. He describes something that entirely reverses the tone of the published letter. Is there a lost draft?

Alternatively, do I detect some frantic reverse-spin by Lambeth Palace staff to try to lessen the impact?

A perfect example of spin:

(1) A hundred lines on the Guardian, and mention the Times and Telegraph in a footnote (no immediate mention of the fact that they put a different spin on things);

(2) The Guardian article itself spinning in precisely the predictable direction, rather than aiming at balance (ie truth);

(3) One two-line throwaway remark about Gene Robinson not being invited.

I don't think the main divide is between liberals and conservatives, since after all there are plenty of people happy to accept the best from both and reject the worst from both. The main divide is between spinners and truthseekers.

In so far as Stephen Bates is right, it is at a price that attempts to centralise and lock in a very conserved Communion and push it towards being its own Church. He seems to be "hell bent" on this, and peculiarly the "nutters" at the far end of the evangelical spectrum who are too far gone to fall in are likely to be the ones who assist a more liberal and flexible communion, that will stop Rowan Williams in effect imposing via the purple this redefinition of Anglicanism.

I just read Mr Schofield's letter to his vagrant flock and found that it says "Archbishop Venables" with astonishing persistance.

;=)

Christopher Shell writes @ 12:41 pm GMT: "I don't think the main divide is between liberals and conservatives, since after all there are plenty of people happy to accept the best from both and reject the worst from both. The main divide is between spinners and truthseekers."

Very well put.

My initial reading of the letter wasn't as optimistic as the Guardian's. Rather than condemning "attempts by conservative church leaders to undermine the US Episcopal Church for its support for gay rights", ABC seems to be condemning them for creating "rivalry and confusion" at a local level, and for ignoring Windsor, even though they may express the "common mind" of the Communion doctinally. In the context of the paragraph it is written, "Not everyone carrying the name of Anglican can claim to speak authentically for the identity we share as a global fellowship" can be read either way. In the trade-off between gay rights and episcopal anarchy, there seems to be little Advent hope for those wishing to see the iron fetters of homophobia yield a little.

The 'via media' argument of the Times piece isn't credible. Those supporting Wilberforce, Mandela and Rosa Parks didn't adopt a via media approach - human rights causes never do - otherwise progress would never be made. Neither should Gene Robinson, Jeffrey John and John Reaney, and those who support them, be classed as extremists.

Perhaps Mr Bates is translating from what I had thought was convoluted English but perhaps I had mis-identified it. I read an entirely different letter.

Hmmm. I didn't think liberals had a "worst." If so, what is it (or are they)? Surely the worst is not what liberals have done in instigating and furthering the present crisis via VGR et al.!? I thought that was a prophetic advance, the very hightest and best of liberalism! Surely the "plenty of people" ALSO AGREE WITH THAT WORLD-WIDE!

Well, so much for heavy handed sarcasm. However, the point remains: Chris' statement sounds good, but what does it actually mean? Neither side (nor the reputed "plenty of people") seems to be able to agree on what constitutes the best/worst of conservatism and liberalism. Frankly, what liberals think to be the "best" conservatives usually think to be the worst--and vice versa. As for the "plenty of people"--as far as I can tell, they are (as usual) pretty hard to poll as it is the activists on both sides who make their voices heard.

Still, as far as I can tell, the "plenty of people" have a disconcerting tendency of agreeing with conservatives about liberal "worsts" and with liberals about con "worsts." Food for thought.

Steven

We have just posted online the Fulcrum response to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent Letter 2007:

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=256

Yes, there's lots of spin going on, but Bates is not the only guilty party. Let's not forget Gledhill, who has been the secessionists' de facto press agent for some time now.

We know what progressives don't like about the Advent message, but there's also plenty to infuriate the fundamentalists.

For one thing, the letter denies the notion that TEC is apostate, the justification for practically everything the secessionists have done, from piracy to secret conspiracies to grand larceny.

Further, the letter makes it clear that the episcopi vagantes will not be at Lambeth. Minns and Anderson and others, despite their new pointed hats, will once again be conspiring in motel rooms next summer.

Despite the many statements from Akinola, Duncan, and others that the time for talk is past and it's now time for decisive action, Williams proposes more talk. Will the usual suspects now back down from their demands for immediate action?

Last, Williams has made it clear that those who boycott Lambeth are out. Again, some big talkers now have no choice but to back down or walk.

It's not all doom and gloom here for progressives.

"Alternatively, do I detect some frantic reverse-spin by Lambeth Palace staff to try to lessen the impact?"

David B, you've presented the MOST optimistic take on this (i.e., Stephen Bates is getting a second "official" source, and not just the execrable Advent letter)

Lord have mercy!

I'm with David B, I think the version Stephen Bates is referring to is not the one that finally got published.

All those draft editings were also probably done on different scenarios. Who knows, maybe ABC has developed some savvy and had different people working on different versions, unbeknownst to each other. Then when the journalists jumped, ABC could work out who was feeding each various journalist. An effective way to flush spies out of one's castle.

I agree with Christopher Shell's comment "..there are plenty of people happy to accept the best from both and reject the worst from both."

We might disagre about what is the best and the worst and where those boundaries lie, but there are things that we both agree are an anethema e.g. sexual abuse of minors and rape of women.

Fulcrum's comments reveals the problem undergirding what the ABC sees as the way forward. His view, and their view, is a fantasy - wishful thinking. As others have commented, the time now is to deal with reality, and to acknowledge that events have moved on beyond all this verbiage.

is view, and their view [Fulcrum], is a fantasy - wishful thinking. Neil

Absolutely. The reality is to let the fundies get on with it, to restore what is taken, replacing personnel, taking back property, but then in the same way not to give any credence to Lambeth 2008, which is just a recipe for creating a pseudo Roman Catholicism based on these so called Instruments of Communion. As someone said to me this morning, what we need is to restore the words "via media" and this Archbishop certainly won't do that.

As for Fulcrum, it represents a few who think they are at the centre of the Anglican Communion, the problem being that this body is where the fault line is found. In the Anglican shift to the right, it is not as if they are doing the old broad Church job. They are not temperamentally inclusive, and in any case they are rejected by many of the most active Conservative Evangelicals. Just as the Anglo-Catholics split, so are the Evangelicals, and as I say the curious thing is that people of liberal views might actually find the far right evangelicals helping them along.

My view, which was for a loose Communion, is now that a division is preferable to what is on offer, and that the resultant either main, other or third Communion of liberal temperament will be able to be looser and tolerant. Shame though.

I don't get this New American Century - Karl Rove thing; inventing Reality expecting it to come true.

I know I am old fashioned, but in my book it's lying, if not ready for the funny farm.

I would also recommend checking Baby Blue's thoughts on the Archbishop's letter. They are interesting.

http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/

It's titled "Listen very very carefully" and, as I write, is the third item down on her site. I have not been able to create a thread-specific link to it.

Lapin

The reference to Baby Blue is sheer genius. The Mutually Assured Destruction imagery was wonderful.

However, I am in Australia and for those of you who don't know, we had a change of government a couple of weeks ago. The previous Prime Minister lost his own seat, only the second time to have happened in Australia' electoral history. There was a huge swing to the Greens 9% and their preferences are acknowledged as having got Labor in (there were some who also chose the environment but voted Labor not Green).

Enter Bali United Nations Climate Change conference last week. The new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd gave an early talk which referred to how we are the generation that will be judged, "there is no plan B", we don't have another planet to flee to, so we've got to get it right on this one.

Read this article from the Australia http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22934549-11949,00.html It is the best article in terms of the dynamics of how a consensus came about. The New Guinea representative commented ""We seek your leadership," Kevin Conrad told the Americans. "But if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please get out of the way.""

Coming back to the Anglican Communion, we are seeking leadership, but if for some reason they are not willing to lead GLBTs and their supporters, leave it to the rest of us. Please get out of the way.

'As for Fulcrum, it represents a few who think they are at the centre of the Anglican Communion, the problem being that this body is where the fault line is found.'

This is exactly how Graham sees himself - but he is truly well connected and listened too. Plus he is sensible and his predictions are pretty accurate. However, Fulcrum does not, as you say, represent the true heart of the CofE - but rather the up and coming (and successful) 'acceptable' evangelicals. What is surprising and that the ABC seems not to ask or listen to voices and constituencies from the 'via media'. The Archbishop's Council, plus his own staff tend to be career type clergy and laity rather than head hunted for balance/breadth/talent as used to happen until Carey buggered the whole thing up.

Sweet of you Cheryl and thank you, but the credit is entirely BB's. And yes, there really is some thought-provoking stuff in there.

"What is surprising and that the ABC seems not to ask or listen to voices and constituencies from the 'via media'."

Who are they and how are they organised?
ConEvos are pretty good at campaigning, liberals less so but at least there are a few groups. Who represents the via media and how do they try to influence the ABC?

'Organised' is hardly the word Erika - and hence the problem. But the departure of large numbers of Catholics after the ordination did not help balance. And neither, these days, does that historic reliance on the self-appointed Cuddesdon and Westcott axis. The old way things were organised (and of course this can be criticised as being too 'patrician') was to spot talent, scout for people and invite them to apply for positions. Hardly the most transparent or accountable way to proceed. However, there was a degree of balance and the system worked a lot better in that views from the parish and generally from 'closer to the ground' were heard. It is the job of bishops to inform themselves. And they can hardly rely on the generally 2nd rate career minded assistants and archdeacons they appoint - all of whom seem to bow down and say 'yes' to any mad idea or scheme. The old way would have seen diocesan bishops generally less afraid of appointing 1st rate people who might outshine them. The ABC has inherited a staff/structure where he seems to look no further than the completely unrepresentative Tom Durham. He is not the via media - but you raise a very important point as to who they are and how organised! Not Fulcrum though, and I will join the 'resist the ABC' campaign of Pluralist anytime when it comes to the mad Covenant.

What I'd like to know is, since the Advent Letter, which bishops in England would find the price of the condition of attendance at the Lambeth Conference 2008 too high for them to attend. Clearly it must be a personal decision, and it would not be easy to criticise, but there are bishops associated with saying no to the Covenant, and there are inclusive bishops. Now it is a condition of going to Lambeth 2008 that they accept the outcome of a Covenant, and whilst the outcome of a Covenant is not set nevertheless the dynamic is that it makes the Instruments of Communion clearer and that it follows the only acceptable Bible reading, according to the Archbishop of Canterbury, which is that of Lambeth 1998 1:10. So those associated with no to a Covenant, and those who want an inclusive outcome, ought to consider staying away and being available for the exclusions that are inevitable.

I took the view that it was best to attend Lambeth 2008 and let the fundies carry on with their own projects, but I don't see how those against Anglican international centralisation and those for inclusion of all Anglicans can now go.

Of course the Archbishop may qualify the basis of his invitation, as he rings around finding out how much bishops object to attending. There is great value in meeting those with whom you disagree, but not if the outcome is already given.

Hi Steven-

What is the 'best' and the 'worst' of liberalism/conservatism?

The worst is where preconceptions equal conclusions; the best is where the two are able to be different.

The worst is ideology-ruled; the best is evidence-ruled and research-ruled.

The worst is where personal preference and fashion are mistaken for valid criteria; the best is where they are seen to be no shuch thing.

As part of the (allegedly) disorganised centre of the C of E I neither read ++Rowan's letter as kicking liberals, in the way that many on TA have, or as rejecting the conservatives (as Stephen Bates claims). I took it as a call to continue to engage with one another, and a process via Lambeth that will assist us in doing so.

And perhaps thereby hangs part of the problem. Nobody seems to be actually trying to attend to what the archbishop says, they're just mining it for statements that support one position or another. The "listening process" we need is not restricted to hearing the voices and stories of our lgbt neighbours (though I don't want for a moment to detract from the seriousness of that), it's about listening to anything with the intention to engage deeper than point scoring.

And then can I stress that to listen long and hard, and even to understand, is not always to agree. Sometimes we fall in to the quote one of my university lecturers often used, "If at first they don't understand, say it again louder".

I still think part of the "disorganisation" of the centre is that there is a huge gulf between what I would perceive as "high church" English liberalism and its "low church" USA counterpart. And I use the words not as synonyms for Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic but to distinguish between a high and low doctrine of the church itself, and of the distinctive office of bishops in the church in particular.

It means in practice that no matter how much someone like me might agree with a theological or ethical position taken by TEC we can't go along with the USA way of progressing the issue. Hence when ++Rowan comments about TECs polity he has not failed to understand it, he just (along with most of the rest of the communion, conservative and liberal) disagrees profoundly with it. And sometimes from this side of the pond it sounds as though the polity is more precious than the theology.

Lapin:

Thanks also for the BB cite. I actually found myself a bit nauseated afterwards. BB's comments and analysis ring shockingly true, but worse for us than for you. Don't worry. The process is intended to bring your cause to where it wants to be, they are just trying to calm things down a bit. The slow-down is only temporary.

As for me, I have to wonder why I am shocked. Perhaps I'm not as cynical in my heart of hearts as I like to think I am.

Steven

Neil: I think what you say is completely accurate. The C of E needs to find a future way to be that does not rely on the out-dated virtues of the old patrician Establishment caste, but which instead reflects modern diverse meritocratic Britain. That will necessitate having a rather looser structure, I would imagine, sitting more lightly to people seeing things and expressing themselves differently. Yet here we are with these ludicrous attempts to actually tighten up the structure, suppress difference: it is a lunatic policy for the C of E to follow.

"when ++Rowan comments about TECs polity he has not failed to understand it, he just (along with most of the rest of the communion, conservative and liberal) disagrees profoundly with it."

Yes, TEC's democratic, lay-empowered polity is the worst one possible...

...only (paraphrasing Churchill) it's just better than all the others!

What do you expect, David Walker? Some kind of Hoffer-like "Escape From Freedom" over here Stateside? "Yes, yes: we Poor Unwashed Pewsitters realize that our bishops are our moral/theological betters . . . and primates are BEST OF ALL!"

I say "it will never happen". And I say that, ***not*** out of some cussed Yankee stubbornness, but because the EVIDENCE of superior "Thy Will Be Done!" polity in "most of the rest of the communion" is SO LACKING.

While far from perfect, TEC's democratic polity, at its best, shows itself to be a *vehicle for God's Grace*: respecting BOTH majority and minority viewpoints, and always, ALWAYS ***open to the Holy Spirit*** to hear where She may be leading us next (Yes, even if that's to UNDO something we discerned her to say before).

And in contrast, throughout "most of the rest of the communion"? It's all about "Here's talking DOWN at you, peons!"

Does THAT reflect Our Lord, who "came not to be served, but to serve"?

God alone knows---but *my* (S,T&R-formed) conscience says "Stick w/ democracy . . . until an overwhelming, canonical vote says otherwise". ;-/

Lord have mercy!

Steven ; it does suggest a fundamental dishonesty, though, and what good on any 'side' can emerge from that?

"when ++Rowan comments about TECs polity he has not failed to understand it, he just (along with most of the rest of the communion, conservative and liberal) disagrees profoundly with it."

Well, I disagree with having a monarch.

But that doesn't mean I reject or denigrate the UK. Having rejected monarchy for ourselves, we are not out to abolish it in other peoples' countries.

I also think the way the ABC is chosen profoundly confuses church and state.

But I don't think I have any right to tell the C of E how to run its polity ... even if that does result in the current Spineless Gutless Wonder of Canterbury.

Fr. Mark - I didn't express myself well! I think some of the former 'balance' within the CofE was affected by the departure of 'Catholics' after the ordination of women. The old patrician system I agree is not sustainable, but nevertheless had its virtues. However, the effort to bring about the meritocracy you mention in my view has not yet been successful - and we are still left with the likes of Tom Dunelm and Graham Kings and a rather dull staff at Lambeth (plus the vestiges of the old Cuddesdon/Westcott axis) - self appointed people who think they have a divine right to govern the CofE (and now, like Adolf, they have ambitions to expand and create a new worldwide 'Anglican Church' which in my view needs absolutely to be resisted). But Rowan is still culpable. Because it remains the responsibility of the Arcbishop of Canterbury himself to work out better mechanisms by which to consult more widely, and listen to the 'via media'.

Fr Mark

Your desire for a C of E that "...that does not rely on the out-dated virtues of the old patrician Establishment caste, but which instead reflects modern diverse meritocratic Britain."

That might help solve the problems in Britain, but we need global solutions if we are going to solve global problems.

Tyranny and recriminations against the feminine (especially Cheva who was apparently never forgiven and will never experience grace) have brought humanity to the brink of global extinction.

We are all like souls who are marooned after surviving a crash on an isolated island. We can stand around and argue and recriminate, or we can get on with building a viable community and making the most of what is available.

Like some of the islands around Australia, when "civilisation" finally finds our descendants, will they judge them admirably or be contemptuous of their incestuous violence reinforced by tyrannical social structures that give a few "power" over the rest?

We will be commended for having contributed to building one of the great civilizations or for having a pirate's narcisstic legacy?

Joseph's stewardship made Egypt resourceful enough that even Jacob's own family had to buy grain from the Pharoah.

Joseph understood the Pharoah's dreams warned of perilous times, and rose to the occassion with a solution, which the Pharoah had the wisdom to recognise and give Joseph authority to implement.

Today our leaders can be the Pharoah who entrusted and empowered Joseph's exhortations, or the Pharoah who relied on selfish sorcerers who lack no real understanding of what is happening nor what is required to avert a global disaster.

There are false prophets who would be saying as humanity became extinct that "it was all Eve's fault". There are leaders who recognise Joseph and that Cheva has the creativity and motivation to help them find solutions and enable survival.

I would rather trust those committed to grace and life than those committed to accusations and death.

Neil: I think you are quite right. I don't think we have yet seen an attempt at making the C of E leadership more meritocratic or accountable. As the Bishop of Carlisle's "gays cause flooding" comments and the Bishop of Hereford's loss of his tribunal case show, bishops can be utterly inept and unethical and still not be called to account in any way. The bishops are not in any sense representative of the people they are set over. We could start with having some women at the top, couldn't we?

It's always fascinating to see the differences between what one has said and what has been heard.

I offered one reason why many in the English mainstream (where I'd locate myself) don't relate easily to TEC - namely a disagreement (not lack of understanding) of TEC polity. I presume that instead I was heard as attacking that polity, as what I seem to have got back is further stout defence of it and counter-attack on other forms. A case of "Say it again, louder", as I quoted my former lecturer.

I'm sufficiently open minded to believe that TEC's polity may indeed (as asserted) be the finest system of church governance under heaven; that isn't what's causing the blockage. The difficulty is that TECs way of deciding things isn't the way that most Anglican provinces do it, nor is it historically the way Anglicanism developed (unless you have a VERY high theology of 16th century English parliamentarianism). Indeed there is some irony in the preference for the title "episcopal" in part of the communion that appears to see bishops primarily as repositories of territory and property (with a consequent constant stream of litigation over the same).

I do feel much of the tension is that it is very hard to be a completely integrated member of a club whilst insisting on playing by different rules (witness the relationship between the UK and EU). Even if the rules one is proposing are better.

I shan't bang on about this any more. As my maths lecturer knew full well, "say(ing) it again louder" rarely gets the point across better.

But if anyone wants to read, hear (or even see) me on less contentious territory I am preaching the sermon for the BBC's Midnight Mass this Christmas.

People have been asking what will happen when the extra-mural ordinations hit the CofE. Well, according to an easily missed and easily misconstrued paragraph on Anglican Mainstream, they have.

Kolini of Rwanda has ordained a deacon for the church of All Saints, Algarve, in Portugal, within the jurisdiction of the diocese of Europe. The church is a schism from St Vincent's church, but is assiduously promoted by A-M, which has a link to its website. This church appears to be outside any episcopal jurisdiction (ergo congregationalist?) but has made use of holy hands in Rwanda rather than either Bishop Rowell or Bishop Whalon.

Is this the thin end of the wedge we've been expecting?

Problem is, David, that the CofE is far more institutionally homophobic and backward-looking than TEC.

The Anglican Communion really is a waste of space and the sooner it collapses, the better.

"And sometimes from this side of the pond it sounds as though the polity is more precious than the theology." Maybe this creates too stark a disjunction between polity and theology, David, but JCF's apoplectic response showed that you hit a nerve. To accuse Rowan Williams of failing to *understand* TEC's polity was probably never fair. His is a failure to *appreciate* (in the full sense of the word) TEC's polity, along with others.

TEC's polity can be looked at from different perspectives. I suggest that the ABC along with other Primates gave the impression a few months ago of failing to understand this polity because the point of view adopted then was the most charitable. (For those who know the concept, maybe it was a case of "overacceptance".) But interpreting TEC's polity in the most catholic sense was beginning to look strained, so now the ABC is prepared to wonder aloud and states: "there seems to be a gap between what some in The Episcopal Church understand about the ministry of bishops and what is held elsewhere in the Communion."

This is not saying that "TEC is out of line" but it acknowledges that there is a difference between locally adapting the historic Episcopate and abandoning the historic Episcopate in all but name and that the way TEC operates raises questions for a number of people in the Communion.

The ABC does not "reject and denigrate" - these are far too strong words to describe his measured language. He does not tell TEC how to run itself, he says that there is a difference in theology which needs to be addressed rather than glossed over.

David,

I would really look forward to hearing your sermon. Will it be on Radio 4 thereabouts?

Your comments, I think, would make the most sensible interpretation of ++Rowan's words on this page so far. I promised not to say anything further, but for now, I will step in to praise your refusal to point-score about this.

David W: I'm sorry, though, that you describe your BBC sermon as "less contentious territory." Won't it be a better sermon if it is, highly contentious territory?

Hi Fr Mark-
I think 'gays cause flooding' is a slightly dumbed down version of what the bishop actually said. Not having access to what he said I am not sure how far I agree with him - but surely it is widely accepted both that human behaviour can and often does influence nature negatively (especially in these days of global warming) and also that fewer constraints on behaviour will have a proportionally worse effect on nature (and on anything else) than having more constraints on behaviour. What is so good about constraints? Well, consider this fact: In America anything goes, freedom is God. Result? Of all the spoilt babies who have ransacked the planet, America is most culpable. Coincidence? Or is there some cause-effect connection here?

Christopher, I understand your argument: humans are adversely affecting the environment. In so far as gay people are human, something not agreed on by all conservatives, we have an effect opn the environment. Fine. I also don't have access to what the bishop said. Given what I consider to be the basis of your argument: gays have an adverse impact on the environment by vuirtue of being human, I can't help but wonder if you'd have the same reticence if the Lord Bishop had been quoted as saying redheads cause flooding. Their role is surely equal to the role of gay people in the human impact on the planet. I'm sure you remember how both 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina were blamed on gay people, not to mention a list of other natural disasters.

"This is not saying that "TEC is out of line" but it acknowledges that there is a difference between locally adapting the historic Episcopate and abandoning the historic Episcopate in all but name and that the way TEC operates raises questions for a number of people in the Communion.

The ABC does not "reject and denigrate" - these are far too strong words to describe his measured language. He does not tell TEC how to run itself, he says that there is a difference in theology which needs to be addressed rather than glossed over."

After the CoE itself, TEC is the senior member of the Anglican Communion, its existence and polity actually predating the Communion. Seems a little late for the others to be objecting to how it runs itself.

And it's not a difference in theology, it's a difference in ecclesiology. TEC is not a "top-down" church, never has been, as befits a national church for a nation that has always prided itself on a "grass-roots" tradition in all things.

As I understand it, Anglican Churches do in some way qualify their episcopacy, and in England it is qualified not just by synod but the reality that decisions can be overruled in parliament. The American qualified episcopacy is more spoken about because it reflects (in a limited way) their separation of powers within their political system.

One wonders if the English bishops decided something regarded as upholding doctrine on some significant issue, that the synod acquiesced, but then parliament voted against. Presumably, the Archbishop would want this sending up to the Instruments of Communion for investigation, presumably for the Communion to tell the bishops in England to prepare for disestablishment.

The problem with opening cans of worms is that the worms tend to spill out in consequent directions.

David Walker: I didn't "mine" the Advent Letter "for statements that support one position or another". I found it remarkably logical, one thing leading to another, and consistent with the conservative side of the Archbishop, which is his (near-Roman) Catholic ecclesiology, this time disastrously dovetailed to one way of reading the Bible only, which was the unexpected bit regarding clarity, being linked to expectations of Churches on other Churches, from which he then centralises every major decision and creates a new focus of episcopal loyalty.

He is imposing his ecclesiology, he is imposing the one method of reading, on everyone else; consequently he has set up the Lambeth basis of invitations in order to achieve clarity of centralisation - which is a new Anglicanism. He is innovating, and it goes against what exists.

Merseymke:

I agree completely, but perhaps I'm just a simple minded colonial raised on "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

I'd much rather have folks vote their conscience with integrity than have this kind of underhanded, back-door, backroom, wink-wink stuff going on. It smacks too much of the Star Chamber.

After all, is their reputation in the eyes of history, as those that preserved a strained unity for a few more years, worth what they are doing? If a split is inevitable, which I believe it is without some major pull-back by one side or the other (which ain't gonna happen), all they have done is to delay the inevitable--and possibly make things worse in the long run.

The war between the North and South was delayed in just such a way by temporizing and compromise that--in the long run--accomplished nothing and made the war more costly and bloody when it came.
Plus, those that took part in these compromises are not generally seen as heroes by posterity. Actually, quite the opposite in most cases.

Steven

"I'd much rather have folks vote their conscience with integrity"'

See, Steven, this is the issue. It is the Kingdom of God, not the Republic of God, for a reason. I believe the laity should have a say, but the Church is not a Democracy. The ideal is that the ecclesia gathers and sincerely and humbly seeks the will of the Spirit. That's the ideal, not the real, I know, but we should aim for it, none the less. Society's sanctifying of the democratic process may be good for society, but, as we are constantly told about gay people, why should we let the World dictate to us? Yes we vote, in the hope that at least some of us are doing what we ought and sincerely seeking the will of God, but it is a mistake to consider the Church a democracy like any other worldly democracy. It isn't, it oughtn't be, and too great an idolizing of the democratic process when it comes to the Church is merely following the ways of the world rather than the ways of God. If you're "voting your conscience with integrity", you are voting for what you want, not necessarily for what God wants.

One element of the choosing of bishops and their authority that has not been mentioned so far is this:

While the Archbishop of Canterbury is a non-authoritative figurehead, no-one outside England greatly cares how s/he is chosen. Currently, s/he is chosen by the Queen of England on the advice of the Prime Minister of England (and the rest of the UK) at least in form, and in fact by some mysterious body purporting to represent some elements of the Church of England and, particularly, the province of Canterbury. This presumably ensures the person chosen is appropriate for and effective in the C of E. WHich is perfectly fair. And, so long as that person has no power or authority in the wider Anglican world, that's not a problem.

If the post becomes one that has authority, however, limited -- an Anglican Pope of Patriach, so to speak -- that method of appointment will no longer be acceptable. At the very least, the current requirement that at the time of appointment, the ABC must already be a subject of the QUeen limits the potential choice to Canada, Australis, New Zealand and Bermuda, outside the UK, and permanently makes outsiders of everyone else in the AC. If, as seems likely over the next decade, the first three of those countries decide to sever ties with the (Englsih) monarchy, we will be in a place worse that the RC church for three centuries where the only choices were Italian by custom rather than law.

In a sense more importantly, it begs for the question to be asked: Is the person best suited to lead the CofE also automatically the person best suited to lead the AC -- and when the answer comes back "Clearly, no", what then ensues?

It caould be that after Carey and Williams, the compulsory Church of England chosen leader is unacceptable: centralising the Anglican Communion makes it very unacceptable (but let's hope and intend it is never so centralised).

Christopher
here the original report from the Sunday Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

In answer to John Holding - a split, because at the moment, its only Canterbury which is holding the entire thing together.

OH, those floods, I thought that we LGBT folk had caused Katrina, no wait, it was the tsunamis, yes, that was it!!!!

Thanks for your posting John Holding.

It opens up the whole question of should the Queen of England have more veto and influence in shaping the nature of the Church of England/Anglican Communion than the Church itself? (Either within England or on a global scale).

When there is no major changes afoot or England as the global power represents the global position, there is no dissonance.

When humanity faces extinction through war, famine, disease and environmental desecration, underpinned by "establishment" theology, then it begs the question of whether the "establishment" should have the right to restrain the church from innovating?

Let's face it, 2000 years of putting the feminine aspects of God in a box and denying their existence or calling them evil certainly hasn't brought humanity to the peaceful utopia promised in the book of Revelation.

Maybe rather than insulting women and fantasizing about how things would be better when this world and its manifestation are gone, religious leaders might get more mileage over accepting this reality contains elements that confront and confound and the best way to heal the problems is to work to their strengths and mitigate against their weaknesses.

In insulting Cheva and the consequences of her actions, souls have forgotten the gifts and attributes that she brought that made this universe viable, unlike the previously "perfect" Lilith whose universe collapsed because it was too harsh to support sustainable life.

Re Graham Dow's remarks:

This is a pretty clear link, isn't it?

It is accepted on all sides that human behaviour to some extent affects the planet and the weather etc.. If the said behaviour is adverse, so will the effects be.

It is further accepted that the recent liberalisation of homosexual practice in the west did not take place in a cultural vacuum (would anyone disagree?). It was part and parcel of a whole raft of measures and changes, social and legal, which had one things in common, namely the denial that sex and marriage go together like a horse and carriage. Whether one is speaking of abortion, divorce, verbal sexual obscenity in public media, graphic ditto, they all suddenly took off around the same time (late 1960s / early 1970s, and ever since). These are clearly not unconnected issues, but form an interrelated network. The liberals agree that it is interrelated and refer to it as the sexual revolution, often citing the pill as its alma mater.

Does anyone disagree that the common factor is the denial that sex and marriage go together? This is a single denial which is absolutely guaranteed, if followed through, to have multiple repercussions.

One could, of course, try to argue that the liberalisation of homosexual practice which took place at the same time was unconnected to this general 'sexual revolution'. But I have never met any liberals who believe this.

By a remarkable coincidence, the new morality bore a passing resemblance to the old immorality, ie following one's animal instincts, and seeing the self (as opposed to the wider oikonomia) as the most important unit.

We have already mentioned (something which few would deny) that selfish behaviour has a negative effect on everything, including the planet. (I say 'including' - but of course pretty much every single human effect is encompassed within the planet.)

So - the recent liberalisation of homosexual practice was an undeniable part of a wider move towards self-gratification, which in turn is calculated to have a negative effect on the planet as all merely self-gratifying things do. As I said earlier, this is not a straight cause-effect, but there is no less causation involved for the fact that the said causation is a web rather than a chain.

Ah, but you appear to have become fixated on a single, small part of gay rights legislation - decriminalisation of gay sexual activity between men, later adjusted to be both gender and sexual orientation neutral and based on principles of equality. In fact, sexual offences still exist, but now apply to all.

However, nearly all the other changes are the very opposite to what you suggest and are in fact both communitarian and aimed at integrating gay people within the wider community - meaning the acceptance of responsibilities, not just rights.

Look at civil partnerships. The right to serve in the Armed Forces. The responsibility of bringing up a child.

None of those are concerned with the self, but are about both partnership with others and responsibility towards others.

These are certainly positive things which contribute to the further integration of gay people within the society and hence strengthen society as an outcome. The alternative is to regard a relatively large minority group as outside the boundaries of society.

"If the said behaviour is adverse, so will the effects be."

Well, no. We do many things that are not adverse in themselves, feeding and warming our families, for instance, that have an adverse effect on the environment.

"Does anyone disagree that the common factor is the denial that sex and marriage go together?"

I do. The common factor was opposition to dangerous ignorance that arises from shame and guilt, creating an environment in which people can fall prey to misconceptions, and disease transmission and unwanted preganacies can skyrocket. Separating sex from marriage had little if anything to do with. Who ever claimed it did? I'm shocked tht you seem to desire a return to this dangerous ignorance.

"the recent liberalisation of homosexual....is calculated to have a negative effect on the planet as all merely self-gratifying things do."

Really? You, I assume, get no pleasure from your marriage, else I would have to accuse you of self gratification as well. Still not understand how your words and judgemental assumptions put the lie to your claim to "love"? So. Conservative Evangelicals denying that global warming even exists and oppose greenhouse gas cutting measures, the creation of huge mega churches that require people drive for miles to get to them, that require huge amounts of heating/airconditioning, these, do not bear comment, but me, who composts, tries to buy local as much as possible, falteringly tries to be environmentally friendly, I'm hurting the environment by living with another man. Right. That's rather a contorted process of "logic" there, Chgristopher, although I DO admire the ingenuity that went into its construction! As elaborate arguments go, it's lovely to look at, but it doesn't stand up.

Christopher: so your logic goes: gays came in with the 1960s; the 1960s liberalising of mores was destructive; along comes another form of destruction (bad weather); ergo, the gays are to blame for the bad weather. Wow, no top prize for compelling argument there, I'm afraid.

My logic goes: some illiberal churches wrote gay people out of the script for a long time, so that their members were completely ignorant of the fact that a certain proportion of their decent highly ethical fellows have always been gay; the rest of society finally breaks down social taboos, so that gay people can be articulate and honest without persecution; said illiberal churches still contain people who haven't really noticed that their fellows may be decent highly ethical and gay; ergo they scream "get them out of my church!"

Whose logic is the more compelling?

I'd find Christopher's argument more credible if he told us he lived in a hut or a cave, with no utilities, did not drive, fly or use public transport, did not buy consumer goods, bought second-hand clothes, grew his own vegetables, reared his own animals, and voted Green.

"voted Green."
Voting is a modern invention, a liberal human right not mentioned in the bible. And it clearly leads to corrupt societies where majority gratification rules. I'm sure he wouldn't want to do it.