The sooner these three premodern, homophobic provinces set up their own fundamentalist church the better for those left.

Its the only logical solution. A split. It should be welcomed and celebrated.

Must care. Must care. Must care. Must care. Must care...

Lord have mercy!

It would be unkind, I suppose, to suggest the Coptic Church as a precedent for the kind of relevance these guys are going to have.

What about the poaching?

Doesn't count, he?

Well, at least Uganda has finally admittedly that the issue really IS homosexuality (truth in an unguarded moment, perhaps).

Certain members of the primatial circus are throwing a temper-tantrum. What else is new?

The tragedy here is that the Africans will look so stubborn and ignorant in the history of Christianity. Much as the Roman church looks in its persecution of Galileo. And our American fundamentalists look in their denial of evolution. And our current President in his refusal to fund stem cell research. What is it about religion in general that makes it so backward for so long after the reality changes?

There is only one reason not to attend.

They know they've lost.

Like many losers, they will simply declare victory and run away.

I half expect to see Big Pete landing on an aircraft carrier with a big banner that says "Mission Accomplished."

Now, the interesting this will be to see what happens to Anglicans in Rwanda, Nigeria, Uganda (and wherever else) who don't agree with the absolutism of their puritanical prelates.

Once they puritans have officially departed the Communion, the sooner we can begin providing direct support to non-hatemongerers in Rwanda, Nigeria, Uganda (and wherever else). Perhaps we can even consecrate them a bishop or two.

I hardly see a province's own choice to walk apart being the same as "prevention", but then we're getting used to this conservative "victimization" rhetoric by now.

Someone tell me exactly how they are "anglican" if they will not share communion with Canterbury?

So, since the whole purpose of the Covenant was to keep these provinces happy, and since they're not going to be part of the communion anyhow, can we just forget about the Covenant and maybe talk about the Gospel, dealing with sickness and global poverty, you know, the whole Kingdom of God stuff? Imagine the headline: Anglicans Commit to Making God's Love Real to World.

My sense is that they keep issuing these statements ("We're still not coming") in the hope that ++Rowan will cave in to their demands. They have seriously misread him, I think. He has made it very clear that he is not in the "compulsion" racket, and people who choose not to come to the Conference are exercising their own freedom to choose to walk apart. That carefully planted phrase in the Windsor Report is being realized in ways some never expected, but which I have seen as likely from the beginning. The intolerant cannot and will not coexist with that which they refuse to tolerate.

Down to three, then. It was four definites. No it is three and a maybe. Not very impressive this, is it?

I can't agree more with you Andrew. I sometimes wonder if religion isn't a hinderance to progress. I also, agree with Tobias+. I think they keep saying "I"m not coming," in hopes of pressuring the ABC into disinviting TEC and ACofC. What I find really interesting is what would they do if TEC got disinvited and Canada still kept their invites???? When they scream they scream mostly about the U.S. not Canada.
Why???

The question is, Fr. Haller, if we can continue to extend them room to not come at this time without making coming to Lambeth or not a "breaking matter". I don't think not showing at Lambeth is "communion-breaking" and we all need to take a chill pill and allow others to do the same--by not coming, it that's what they need. That's what mature, healthy people and families do.

"can we just forget about the Covenant and maybe talk about the Gospel, dealing with sickness and global poverty, you know, the whole Kingdom of God stuff?"

Oh, John Bassett: from your lips to Rowan's (et al) ears. Alleluia! :-D

I believe Adrian makes an important point.

At their height the GS was threatening over 50% withdrawl if they did not get their way, and up until very recently the MINIMUM we understood they could gather was 6.

The obvious ploy is to emphasise the numbers claimed as membership for the three and we are already seeing this.

The interesting thing is the three leading American bishops who have caused much of this schism are themselves booked-in and paid for at Lambeth.

Just who are Jensen and his allies supporting then?

A rationale for the Windsor Continuation Group is that should Lambeth itself not produce a sufficiently conclusive outcome (all study and chat, a minimum of resolutions, sufficient disagreement, resistance by many provinces to a centralising conserving Covenant), then there will be the Windsor Continuation group going on to try to lessen the impact of recruiting to GAFCON. Assuming it actually does what it says, this GAFCON will try to do its own surviving and building afterwards.

"When they scream they scream mostly about the U.S. not Canada."

I think it has to do with the very different culturally informed behaviour of the two Churches. It's a cultural difference between "You can't tell me what to do" and "I don't have the right to do what I like when I like." What the conservatives find so offensive about TEC is a perception that they don't give a cobbler's cuss about what anyone else thinks, they will be sublimely independant in their own area, by God, because their right to do what they want as they see fit trumps any obligation to consider the feelings of others. Whether or not this is true, and whether or not it is an expression of a much larger anti-Americanism is another issue. I think anti-Americanism plays a big role, or anti-colonialism, actually. Might it also be that the Anglican Church has a very English sensibility that is more easily tapped into by those who have retained at least some of that sensibility from their colonial past, but which America shook off over 200 years ago? I have to say, Bob, while I defend TEC in its actions, I also see the same "sublime independence" in their actions, I think they were precipitate and didn't (which I think they have admitted) consider fully what effect their actions would have elsewhere in the world, and I am always surprised when Americans say they didn't think things would go this far. To me, once they consecrated Gene Robinson, our current state of affairs was a foregone concluasion. I can't imagine anyone being surprised by this. The consecration was not the start, I agree, but that act is seen as TEC deliberately thumbing its nose at the rest of the Anglican world. I can respect "We're sorry, but we feel called by God to do this, to the point that we will risk schism to follow God's call to us". That this was the risk seemed pretty clear. But TEC seems not have recognized the risk, and, after everything that had been said, this suggests a certain lack of concern or understanding of the wider Anglican world. Canada has behaved differently.

So the "orthodox brethren" who pay Orombi "so much money" have called the tune. Big surprise!

"... they support us, they give us money. Oh they give us money. Since we began to relate with our orthodox brethren they have given us much more money, much more money, oh yeah, much more money. They have given us more money." Extract - unedited transcript - from Anglican TV's interview of September last with Archbishop Orombi [with "assistant for international relations" Alison Barfoot keeping watch].

http://www.anglicantv.org/blog/index.cfm/2007/9/9/Archbishop-Henry-Orombi

With regards to the future of the Anglican Communion, I wish we would give far less press to those who are not going to Lambeth and far more to those who are. The future of the Communion is in their hands, not the hands of those who stay away. Let's not let the non-attenders even think they can influence the outcome if they aren't there.

>>>When they scream they scream mostly about the U.S. not Canada.
Why???

Wealthy Canadian reactionaries are not paying their bills.

Christopher, as you know I believe in a laissez-faire approach in all of this, and feel that the communion matters will settle themselves out in time. My sense of the "walking apart" language did not preclude some "coming back together again some day" implication. Much will depend on the extent to which the remainder of the GS attempt to form up as an alternative to the Anglican Communion. That will make it much harder to restore unity at a later time. It may be a step through which we must go, however; but I am concerned that institutions once established take on a life )and longevity) of their own.

Andrew - I realize you think of me as "stubborn and ignorant" but just to clarify, when did evolution become a fact? I thought it was still considered a "theory". I guess you "progressives" just move so much faster and are so much smarter than us. Perhaps you can educate us. When did the theory become fact?

Been a fact since the first primitive organism evolved several billion years back, Cyndee. It became a theory quite a bit later (1859). Squawkings and smoke-screens of Creationists and "Intelligent Designers" notwithstanding, scientific research since that date has consistently supported evolution as fact. There is NO alternative scientific theory. If you doubt evolution, go take a look at what's on offer at Cruft's or the Westminster Dog Show. All these dogs have been bred from a common ancestor, almost all in the last two millennia, most in the last two centuries.

This is wildly irrelevant to the Uganda business. Can we keep on track?

"when did evolution become a fact?"

When God made it happen! Evolution is, of course, a theory, but you seem to think that 'theory' means some sort of idle speculation. There is a huge body of evidence that supports the theory. Discussion about how smooth a process it is continues. The issue is not whether or not evolution actually happens, the issue is the soullessness of those who cannot see it as the action of God. Why is it necessary for you to disbelieve it? Can you not believe that God started billions of years ago? Can you not see the Big Bang as the end of the finger of God, the result of "Let there be Light!"? (Well, actually, the Big Bang was when He started separating things, it was another 300 millennia, by the latest assessment, before He turned the lights on) Evolution is a much fact as any scientific thing can be. I believe that firmly. I also believe just as firmly that God is the Creator of all that is, that "without Him there was not anything made that was made." Why is this so hard for you? The Bible says that God created the Universe, modern science like physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology and the like are simply studying how He did it.

When did the theory become fact?

Er, um, just take it (evolution) on faith Cyndee.

Here, Cyndee (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html):

------------------------------------------

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

I don't have a problem accepting evolution. In fact, I think it rather nicely puts egotistical males (both human and angelic) back into proper perspective.

By the same rational, how did theory that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine become fact? Or that the Jewish Exodus and Moses and his siblings' leadership occured? Or that there was ever such a thing as matriarchs and patriarchs of the calibre of Sarah and Abraham? Or that God called Job "friend"? Or that there is even such a things as prophets? Or the bible is holy and divinely inspired?

Stubborness and ignorance is a two edged sword, it can cut both ways.

Put it like this, Cyndee, its a good deal nearer 'fact' than the myth of creation which is about as scientific as Grimm's Fairy Tales.

I can't believe I have to explain this in such an otherwise intelligent community.

Cynthia:

In scientific terminology, "theory" means an explanation that adequately covers all the facts. The facts in this case include, but are not limited to, fossils, DNA, and observed physical similarities among species. Those facts add up to species evolving from one another over geological time. The "theory" is in how that happens, what mechanisms make it happen.

Like all scientific theories, it is subject to change as new facts and evidence emerge. There is now a controversy over whether species evolve slowly or (relatively) rapidly in isolated populations. ("Relatively" because "rapid" in geological terms means tens of thousands of years instead of hundreds of thousands of years.) That's just one example.

But no reputable biological scientist of the past 100 years has doubted the "fact" of evolution...only the details of how it occurs.

Cyndee -- I'm not Andrew, and I don't know what's behind his (or your) comments.

But evolution is a "theory" in precisely the same way that gravity is a "theory". In scientific terms, calling something a "theory" doesn't mean there is doubt about its validity -- it means that there is no (and probably cannot be) absolute proof of the type that is reducible to a mathematical equation. Fatherhood (without DNA testing) is a "theory", if you like, even if the son is the mirror image of his putative father and if the mother was locked up in a cell with no male visitors except the putative father for six months before and six months after the probable date of conception.

Cyndee - For the record, "theory" (as in "the theory of evolution") is a technical term in science. A theory is never "elevated" into a "fact." Thus medical science uses "germ theory" to explain some diseases and physics points to "the theory of gravity" as the reason why what goes up must come down. They may be theories, but I still wouldn't advise skipping your flu shot or jumping off a cliff.

"In fact, I think it [evolution] rather nicely puts egotistical males (both human and angelic) back into proper perspective." Thanks Cheryl.

Lapin

Don't thank me, thank God for Creating it all in the first place.

After all, humanity's mother's name could have been something other than Cheva (aka Eve), but humanity would still exist anyway.

We are wanted by God, or we wouldn't exist at all. Every morning when you wake up in this reality is a testament that God wants this reality to exist.

Don't let stupid humans or naughty angels tell you otherwise.

God bless.

Again, sorry for my ignorance. If it's such a well known fact that all scientists agree with, why is it still called theory? I must respectfully disagree with the reference to dogs. While I concur there are may different types of dogs, and yes, I certainly agree that species "evolve", there has never been any proof that a dog came anything other than another dog! And to the other commenter, I apologize for throwing things "off track" but it's very difficult to read these type of comments where those who have a different position are labeled as ignorant or bigoted!! Some listening process going on here. I feel so welcomed among these so-called christians.

Try reading this article for an explanation of these terms which is, in my opinion, very clearly set out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

"If it's such a well known fact that all scientists agree with, why is it still called theory? I must respectfully disagree with the reference to dogs. While I concur there are may different types of dogs, and yes, I certainly agree that species "evolve", there has never been any proof that a dog came anything other than another dog!"

You really didn't read anything the rest of us wrote, did you? "Theory" refers to the process, not the fact that it happened. Try this analogy:

Refrigerators keep things cold--fact. They do it by heat transfer through a compressor system--theory. They do it by generating "cold particles"--alternate theory. One theory fits the evidence...the actual machinery of a refrigerator. The other does not.

Oh--and actually, DNA evidence clearly indicates dogs are descended from a common ancestor with wolves. And it also indicates a close affiliation with all the other carnivores, especially bears. If they don't share a common ancestor, why all that shared DNA?

You DO know that humans and chimps share about 98% of their DNA?

Intelligent dogs come from Hyenas, stupid dogs from wolves... I have been told.

The hyena/wolf theory, which was behavioral, was proposed, most entertainingly, by Konrad Lorenz, who I particularly enjoyed on account of our shared devotion to chows. Incidentally Lorenz did not consider wolf-descended dogs, from which he believed - rightly - that chows are descended, to be "stupid", but rather to be less servile than their hyena counterparts.

DNA indicates that all domestic dogs are of wolf-descent, so there goes the Lorenz's hyena descent = servile theory. His books are still worth reading for the anecdotes and excellent drawings.

"it's very difficult to read these type of comments where those who have a different position are labeled as ignorant or bigoted"

As I read the posts, folks are not holding that you're ignorant -- just ignorant of science.

Evolution is fundamental to every science, not just the biological sciences. Physics, astrophysics, cosmology, chemistry, geology -- the inescapable fact of evolution is seen throughout the whole of nature. And science works -- the technologies you use everyday are the practical result of our species' scientific inquiries into nature, and a pretty good indication that science understands the natural world more than less correctly.

"these so-called christians"

Tell me true, Cyndee -- do you believe that a person who believes in evolution can't be a true Christian?

"it's very difficult to read these type of comments where those who have a different position are labeled as ignorant or bigoted!!"

Where were you labelled either of those? And if you want to see true Christians being hostile to those who believe differently, trot on over to a conservative blog like Venomonline. You'll see how benign this place is.