The “chop off both extremes” policy is moving ahead and what was seen as a major setback at NOLA seems to have been overcome.
Two comments from Stand Firm of those so executed from process gives a flavour of how it feels:
Where that lovely man Stephen Noll says

As to Bp Iker’s igrnorance on this matter, I suspect any deal-making which involves the ABC and 815 will be with the “Windsor Bishops,” not with Bps. Iker, Duncan and Schofield, nor with Abps Akinola and Orombi. They are no longer welcome in the Common Room.
[19] Posted by Stephen Noll on 02-22-2008 at 10:57 PM

Backed up a few comments later by this from the man himself:

Stephen Noll is exactly right in #19. The Lambeth Palace/ACO office will no longer deal with “the extreme right.” They want to deal with those reasonable “Windsor Bishops.” But they will not stand up and be counted when the push comes to shove.
+JLI
[27] Posted by Bishop Iker on 02-22-2008 at 11:07 PM

This can be found here

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/10316/

Nothing about this involves the intervening Primates who are left firmly out in the cold. They are by their own actions “cut off”, despite their protestations of loyalty their schismatic actions are left looking more and more for what they are.

From the liberal perspective the shadow of a second Province hangs very darkly over the United States, but the Presiding Bishop can say she holds all the cards and nothing can happen without her say-so, the devil will (as ever) be in the detail.

The biggest problem I foresee is that of “interpretation” – some of those involved in this fix have a track record for demanding that their own interpretation is the ONLY way of deciding the issue. I predict that the major problems to this fix will arise from the Seitz and Radner and their trendy catamites who will not let it be …

This would be the greatest of diplomatic coups for the ACO and Lambeth – if it is accepted by TEC’s bishops – and the deepest humiliation for all the GAFCONites who will be left with nothing other than total withdrawal from TEC and complete humiliation – or total secession.

Surely this has to be approved by the whole House of Bishops, not just Bishop Schori?

It doesn't sound like it changes anything substantial enough to require the HoB to endorse it before it gets put into effect, although looking at the details could change that assessment. It looks almost as if it is a strictly symbolic action affirming the connection between those using the Episcopal Visitors and the AC.

Jon

I find this really worrying. The aims of supporting freedom of conscience and Anglican unity are laudable; however, seeing how things have turned out in US dioceses such as San Joaquin, Ft Worth and Pittsburgh, I doubt that this approach will do anything but promote further polarization and strife within TEC and the Communion at large. Where TEC bishops have been allowed to set up exclusionary zones 'shielding' their dioceses from the consensus of the national church (e.g. on ordination of women and sexuality issues), the results have been pretty unhealthy. The exceptionalist diocese can become a magnet for authoritarian bishops and for clergy disaffected with the direction of TEC. Some of these bishops have worked very hard over a long period of time to root out dissent among clergy and laity and enforce a uniformity of theology and praxis across the diocese. The exceptionalists thus grow further apart from the Episcopal mainstream and the conversation in the national church grows more polarized. The special treatment doesn't seem to provide the intended level of relief, enabling the conscientious objectors to relax and live comfortably as part of the larger Church. Instead, the sense of being set apart and aggrieved promotes increasing tension, not to mention (in some cases) a lack of contact with institutional and legal reality. The exceptionalists are encouraged by their leadership to see themselves as a righteous, embattled and endangered minority group. Being under threat, they feel they have to take special measures to promote their interests and protect themselves against contaminating influences. So we end up with a Bishop persuading his Diocese to vote to leave the Church and join another province, and other Bishops apparently planning similar moves. Again, I respect the need to support individual consciences and the desire to preserve Anglican unity, but I just don't think this plan will accomplish either of those objectives; based on experience thus far, it may even make things worse. I would be glad to hear from people whose experience leads them to be more optimistic.

Good analysis Mary Clara. Thank you.

Time will tell, and I think Jon (symbolic) & Mary Clara (institutionalizing segregation has a bad track record) both make excellent points, but I also up the ante not just from The Presiding Bishop to the House of Bishops but all the way to the General Convention (the bishops are not the church).

Wait. Just wait. The estimable Mr. Conger has jumped the gun before. Without knowing his sources - without hearing from them independently - I don't think we can be sure just how "done" this deal is.

However, there has never been anything stated that bishops from other provinces couldn't be participants in either DEPO or the "advanced DEPO" that came from New Orleans. The issue was a mandate from foreign prelates Inviting foreign bishops to function under Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, and so under the final authority of the Presiding Bishop wouldn't seem nearly the same issue.

Now, transparency will be key. The first visiting bishop who exceeds his mandate (sadly, I don't think they'll offer up, say, Bishop Matthews, soon of Aotearoa/New Zealand/Polynesia) will find his license suspended and his colleagues under notice. And there are bishops out there who think we've made mistakes without thinking we're beyond relationship. Think of the Bishops of Central America, or of West Africa, who have been moderate and relational in their criticism.

And, of course, this won't satisfy those already determined in division - Nigeria and Uganda abroad, and those pursuing the Southern Cone at home. However, it may well feel a serious good faith effort (both literally and metaphorically) among the less comfortable of the Windsor Bishops.

But, let's not announce a plan before we've seen the principals' statements.

Bishop John Howe (Central Florida) was one of the participants in the meeting. He has already weighed-in, correcting Petre's story (or spin). Howe writes: "Petre could not have been much more inaccurate!" See his letter, with an outline of the plan, at TitusOneNine:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/10323/

Mary Clara's post has strong echoes of the situation in England under the Flying Bishop scheme. The scheme was intended to be a sensitve pastoral response to offended consciences. It has almost set up a church-within-a-church for many who consciences allow themselves to oppose women priests whilst hoping no-one will ask about their stance on gay priests.

One priest has admitted to me that since he didn't happen to like his bishop he encouraged his parish to opt into Alternative Episcopal Oversight. Clergy 'under' Flying Bishops speak of having nothing to do with their diocesan - some refuse to pray for him by name. Separate retreats are orgnized. Ordinands seem to be able to choose to be ordained by a Flying Bishop, rather than the diocesan. Some speak of being out of communion with the rest of the C of E (except, presumably, when it comes to being Licensed and paid by it).

All-in-all, a ghetto mentality is the result with that sort of 'congrgationalist' disdain for the Church and bishops (to which they owe sworn alleigance) which they would condemn in Evangelicals.

So TECUSA needs to think long and hard before creating internal no-go areas. Certainly, it would be wise to consider putting a time limit in place so that no more parishes can opt out after a certain date. It is high time we did that over here, now that it is clear that the 'process of reception' has taken place and result is decisive.

Important update & clarification from Bishop Howe:

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/10323/

I have continuing doubts about the wisdom of intentionally creating suitably strict conservative No Liberal Go Zones in TEC, via separate oversight for dioceses or even the local parish.

Talking about how conservatives need or deserve special protection from modern empirically-based change in our ethics/theology is a distinctly curious starting point for exploring fair, mutual respect among believers of different conscience.

Will we thus only buy into the odd, original conservative presuppositional spin which hardly ever gets questioned?

Is a conservative believer really endangered if he or she is no longer automatically allowed to say horrible-traditional things about women or queer folks being innately incompetent? In danger of what? In danger of not being able, sometimes under certain circumstances, also to do unethical things to a disliked target person for all the correct conservative believer reasons?

Do not these special zones in church life serve as a powerful means of perpetuating the silly folk fears of getting Gay Cooties? Isn't the fear of Gay Cooties an iteration of the equally ancient folk fears of being contaminated by, say, menstruating women? Do women or queer folks have icky body fluids any worse than your, say, average privileged white/Anglo male?

Do not separate oversight procedures exactly protect and maintain just that sort of social-institutional distancing which keeps so many conservative believers from knowing that they might already know an ethically functioning queer citizen?

Instead of providing special conservative, No Gay Cooties Zones in TEC and worldwide church life, maybe we should be pointing out that no believer of conservative-traditional conscience is being forced to change their own exclusively straight sexual orientation to follow God, nor even to exchange the peace too physically with a queer citizen neighbor sitting next over in the pews, if their strict conscience bids them to keep being fearful and above all, cautious when it comes to this new fangled business of queer citizen-queer believer competency.

As long as the PB retains ultimate authority over new appointments - whether she does the actual consecrations or not - then "the center holds" and all will slowly improve. The conservatives have much of what they want with this scheme but those who can only feel comfortable within a very small, tightly bound box will still complain they are forced to deal with the "disreputables" of the world - as Christ was pilloried for dealing with the disreputables - the whores and taxcollectors -in His time. Hopefully they will find enough love, humility to accept this plan. At least it covers their egos a bit. Akinola on the other hand may indeed need a pilgrimage after all this.

This sounds like one of those rumors about which one can't really comment (intelligently), until we get confirmation (and DETAILS) from *reputable* sources. [Neither of which I see here, yet]

Let's just wait and see what ++KJS actually says about it?

Don't these +people have a practical bone in their overly educated, yet cowardly and "rationalizing" heads?

I further resent ANY more planning, rearranging, accomdoating and "figuring out" of ANY issue that requires the "wider Church" aka "General Convention of TEC" to determine OUR moral and approriate action(s) regarding Episcopal oversight. Full SUPPORT for the Executive Committee and whatever the Executive Committee may decree until Convention is far straight forward, hands-on and wiser it seems!

Unfortunately, "sensible pastoral arrangements" by the ABC and ++KJS always leave the multitudes scratching heads while the madness of discrimination and persecution is promoted by some of the Global South (of which they don't seem to have any opinion), The Network and +Anglicans attempting to export and then import fear, greed and hate!

I can see the logic in Mary Clara's comments - though diocesan 'uniformity of theology and praxis' applies equally in the opposite direction regarding the treatment of the trads by the trendies. And within the worldwide Catholic Church, and cut off (shielded) from the wider sensus fidelium, it could be argued that the trendies represent that 'righteous, embattled and endangered minority group' to which you refer?

I am amazed and appalled (I'm not sure which more) by the comments following Bishop Howe's explanation over on Titus One Nine. Good Lord in Heaven (literally)! Is there nothing that will satisfy these people save schism or a complete takeover of TEC by reactionary forces?

What about mainstream Episcopalians trapped under fundamentalist bishops? Will they be able to get alternative oversight?

Neil, I question whether the pressure toward 'uniformity of theology and praxis' in a diocese 'applies equally in the opposite direction'. Those dioceses whose bishops, clergy and laity are on the whole comfortable with the national church's direction do not feel embattled and marginalized, so would tend to have less of a felt need to impose uniformity, though of course in some places I'm told that that does happen. In any case, my point is that the proposed plan seems likely to aggravate divisions in the church rather than bring us closer together.

Your terminology ('trendies' and 'trads') strikes me as misleading and unhelpful. While working for change, I do not regard myself as 'trendy', but quite traditional (indeed orthodox) theologically. Nor do I feel cut off or shielded from the 'sensus fidelium'. I am doing my bit as a discerning member of my own branch of the Body of Christ.

"Is there nothing that will satisfy these people save schism or a complete takeover of TEC by reactionary forces?
Posted by: Pat O'Neill"

No.

This has been another of Prior Aelred's short answers to difficult questions.

I am concerned about Conger's use of the term "endorsed". The actual quote with regard to +KJS was "nihil obstat" Essentially that term does not indicate the approval or support of any of the content of a publication, simply that a theologian has looked at it and there is nothing heretical in it.'
From my reading of the Canons and Constitution of TEC, there is nothing here that is objectionable. When CANA came into the US, similarly, there was nothing objectionable. It was a mission to support Nigerians ex-pats and receivec the support, even funding, of TEC and TEC dioceses. When the "Network" formed, it was equally unobjectionable. Two questions "liberals" might legitimately ask are: 1. Will the rest of the communion see a diocese's membership in this group as the minimum measure of "Communion" and what could this group morph into? It could be a wonderful and "safe haven" for theological conservatives who believe themselves underserved by TEC or just as easily, if it gains enough power through support of its sponsoring primates, the enforcer of its point of view on the others. It may be a new "majority" will be formed. How will that majority accept and tolerate dissention (left or right)? Will it be the kind of alleged tyranical master that conservatives at Stand Firm have so vehemently objected to? It will be good to see the documents...what exactly proposed and the procedures to accept or reject

The difference is that whilst the GAFCON crowd have gone sailing off, these others are waiting for the Communion to come to their rescue via a Covenant (to properly deal with TEC, as they see it - to exclude TEC and include them and thus restore Anglicanism). Trouble is someone should tell them that any Covenant to do such a Communion's job is not going to be acceptable to too many Churches, unless there are going to be many Anglican Churches in a second division in their own Communion. The Communion conservatives have entered limbo land.

The scheme might just make Jefferts-Schori's hair stand on end...

See http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/

Seems like a real opportunity for all to stay in the same tent but it will take humility on everyone's part - and I feel there are many stiff-necked individuals on both sides whose pride will stand in the way of their love for one another- so a tumble from grace appears likely. It's the old ego thing that over-rides respect for the other.

Mary Clara says, "Where TEC bishops have been allowed to set up exclusionary zones 'shielding' their dioceses from the consensus of the national church...."

I really think we should be careful here. The story-line the Right promotes about TEC is that it is off the rails liberal, but I don't think we should buy into that uncritically. At least two General Conventions have refused to authorize the preparation of liturgies blessing same sex unions, for example, and if a resolution had come forward before 2003 saying "there is no theological impediment to a bishop living in a same sex partnership" it would pretty certainly have been voted down. What GC'03 did was affirm a diocese's calling of a particular person to be their bishop, which I think they saw as a different standard.

It happens I'm on the left on this issue, but I don't think we've reached anything like the level of "consensus" as a church. (For the sake of comparison, we have reached consensus on the issue of the ordination of women).

Mary Clara. Trendies and trads was a shorthand I appreciate is inadequate.

Years ago the Diocese of Chicago allowed women to process thru Indianapolis, who after ordnation were allowed to function as priests in Chicago. Could we encourage such an arrangement as regards possibility of ordination for GLBT folks? In effect, this world provide the equivalent of EV for the ordination process for dioceses limited by those who are EVS. QUESTION: How many dioceses today require aspirants to sign on the line that they are not partnered GLBT?

JPM: "What about mainstream Episcopalians trapped under fundamentalist bishops? Will they be able to get alternative oversight?"

I hope so, because I am in Central Florida.

I wish people understood Bishop Howe's vision for his Diocese a little better. There is nothing mainstream about it. The Diocese of Central Florida website http://www.cfdiocese.org/index.html has links to an upcoming diocese-wide conference, "A Kingdom Mandate," on April 10-12, and you can educate yourselves here if you will take the time. The direct link is http://www.incarnationoviedo.com/a_kingdom_mandate_conference.htm

The three main speakers at "A Kingdom Mandate" will be the Bishop himself, a non-Anglican megachurch pastor named Mike Atkins of Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and the Reverend Dr. Steve Childers - "President of Global Church Advancement and Professor of Practical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary" (Orlando, FL).

You can access MP3 files of Mike Atkin's "teachings" from an earlier revival (yes, revival) at All Saints Episcopal Church in Winter Park. He's very fond of phrases like "the Bible says" and "signs of the End Times."

The Reverend Dr. Steve Childers is pretty solidly Dominionist. The Global Church Advancement website 's "About GCA" page endorses the value of being "Kingdom-Minded":

"Because we believe that God’s ultimate purpose includes the restoration of the entire cosmos and the creation of a new heaven and a new earth, our ultimate goal will be not merely planting churches and raising up worshippers among all nations, but also the spiritual and cultural transformation of all nations, thereby making the invisible kingdom visible over every sphere of life."

http://www.gca.cc/About_GCA.htm

As for the Bishop's own theology, here's a revealing snippet from his homily at the 2008 Diocesan Convention, republished on page 2 of the February 2008 Central Florida Episcopalian http://www.cfdiocese.org/news/pdf/cfe0208.pdf

-quote-
I was at St. Francis of Assisi in Lake Placid last Sunday, and as is so often the case, we had several people give their personal witness before being confirmed. One man related how he was pretty complacent about his faith until he read the “Left Behind” series by Tim LaHaye.

And whether you accept all of Tim’s theology or not, his books pose an incredibly disturbing question:

What if, on that great day when Jesus gathers all of his Church to himself, what if I were left behind?

That question so disturbed this gentleman that he said it forced him back into reading his Bible, forced him back to church, forced him back to Jesus. And he ended up giving his life to Christ, and having it wonderfully changed.
-endquote-

Bishop Howe is taking his diocese somewhere far outside the Anglican tradition. I can see why he needs the cooperation of foreign bishops to do it, but I for one am not going to go along with him.

I agree that the responses on T19 and StandFirm were illustrative. The Prior is correct in his "no" answer.

What is more, there rejectionist responses lay open the "conservative" agenda for all to see. They are not interested in any process which would permit the survival of a liberal remnant within the Anglican Communion.

Charlotte's citation of the "influence" in the Diocese of Central Florida raises an interesting question.

The Anglican shorthand for what determines our doctrine, "Scripture, Tradition and Reason", but what are they anyway?

Of course, all Anglicans share the same Scripture, and it has been assumed that it is in the area of "Reason", from where our differences emerge.

But could it not be that there are *very different sources of Tradition* that determine our differences as well?

Over on another discussion cite, I recently gave a brief description of our sources of Tradition (*Anglican* Tradition, post-Reformation, as applied to TEC) thusly:

"Cranmer, Good Queen Bess, Laud, Hooker, Absalom Jones, Hobart, Wilberforce, Pusey, De Koven, Crummel, Oakerhater, Temple, Li Tim-Oi, Daniels, Luwum, Runcie, Tutu, and "the former Archbishop of Wales": all these (and more!) are part the Episcopal Church's lineage, and legacy. We stand w/ them, as "one great cloud of witnesses", on Earth as in Heaven."

But if, in Central Florida---or, e.g., Sydney---they're referring to Tim LaHaye as a source of Tradition, it's no wonder we're at an impasse.

Lord have mercy!

Nothing, I mean nothing, like a bunch of extreme thinking, grandstanding, destructionists who seem to be aiming for more ATTENTION to turn US OFF with their "solutions."

Most any plain speaking/thinking and slightly sensible +person (the kind with a mitre firmly placed on dead center of their head and their feet planted firmly on THEIR OWN DIOCESE ground) knows these overtly eager "gents" are pushing extra hard to reinvent themselves while covering *other* behavior amongst their brothers and sisters at Church.

OUR FAITH. A FAITH is ALIVE. Fully alive (but don't believe me, just keep watching the behind-the-scene antics of these Anglican volunteer SECRET police looking everywhere trying to find our corpse).

The Anglican Communion and The Episcopal Church don't need clammouring, qualifying, and possibly a feaux, jestures of emergency restoration or a cheap "fix!"

We pass, thanks anyway and please, for all of our sake, stay out of those dark rooms and come out into the light.

Bishop Howe doesn't sound too different from Abp. Peter Jensen of Sydney (Global South Ltd.) who is not averse to the prospect of Lay-presidency at the Eucharist. Many charismatics in the Anglican Communion claim special access rights (not rites, I might add) to the Holy Spirit, yet without giving due emphasis to the grace-giving epiclesis in the Eucharist. Likewise, the Word remains in the Book, rather than becoming flesh, in the sacraments of the Church. Another anomoly with the new dissenters, is that they are of such a broad spectrum of theology that there is hardly any real reasion for them to flee the liberality of Anglicanism, which has always contained a great mixture of the daft and downright dangerous - together with those whose Christian pilgrimage is a serious matter - worthy of persistence in the charism of Faith, Hope and Love.

"the former Archbishop of Wales"

Yes, I like that - almost a different person of a different influence on to the present. Nothing to do with the author of the Advent Letter.

Various Anglican schemes of alternative oversight, along with various draft versions of covenants - all of which so far crucially depend upon goodwill, relationships of affection, and freedom of believer conscience across our hot button differences - are a poor second, and certainly not a good substitute, for just those three elements - goodwill, affectionate relating, and freedom of differing hot button conscience.

Most disturbing, if true, is Conger's assertion that "On Jan 31 Dr Williams met with Archbishop Gomez, Bishop Stanton, Prof Seitz and Dr Ephraim Radner and gave his backing to the emerging “Anglican Bishops in Communion” project, agreeing to issue invitations to the primates of the West Indies, Burundi, Tanzania, the Indian Ocean and Jerusalem and the Middle East to offer primatial pastoral oversight to the Episcopal Visitors."

Has the ABC in fact agreed to "issue invitations" and if so on what authority? And, out of curiosity, why is he conferring with Drs. Seitz and Radner on this issue, particularly since Dr. Seitz, in his commentary, linked above, says of the plan that “it seems a very bad idea”?

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/2/25/house-of-bishops-will-address-bishops-in-communion-plan

Interesting to learn that +Stanton met with +Gomez, Seitz+, Radner+ and ++Cantaur on Jan 31. Recall that it was +Stanton that balked at the CCP meeting's, under +Duncan's guidance, attempt to adopt articles at its organizational meeting in August that would have negated the TEC accession clause... ie. Everything is ok up until to violation of TEC's constitution and canons. He is the ultimate institutional conservative.

Interesting that the "primate" representative was +Gomez. Other than the intrusionists, +Gomez is probably the most unacceptable choice possible for both TEC's moderates and liberals. He participated and preached at the consecration of a boundary crossing bishop. He chairs the Covenant design group whose first draft was repulsive to both liberals and moderates. +Gomez sits and has sat on the ACI board for some time. Seitz+ and Radner+ must know that his participation in the program will be unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of TEC bishops. This article implies that +Cantuar has already invited him to participate, I would assume based on his own regard for him and Seitz+ and Radner+’s say so? One wonders if he was suggested so that TEC would have someone to reject and thereby feel they had some input into the ACI's (Three guys with a website) coup d’eglise.

"US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has endorsed a programme of alternative Episcopal oversight brought to her by a group of conservative American bishops."

Conger can REPEAT himself all he wants, but I'm holding out for an *official* source!

I think the important matter here is that this proposal was brought to the Presiding Bishop of TEC by a few of HER OWN bishops.

For those who are banging the “We TECians are happy as we are – leave us alone!” drum, then I can sympathise with you perhaps feeling that this group of dissidents were stirred into action by the bishops of Durham and Winchester and others – who certainly would not enjoy a similar intervention on their own soil. But these so called “Windsor Bishops” DO now exist and while they showed total loyalty to TEC at NOLA it seems that behind the scenes they are still willing to be a focus for disunity.

So these are AMERICAN bishops asking for this strange provision.

Now, some time ago there were meetings of “Windsor Bishops” and some American prelates described themselves as such, so who are they NOW. Who stands behind this new request for such a significant development in Anglican polity, what are their names and diocese? Why would they announce this divisive project now when it clearly will have no impact on the departed/departing souls – why would they have decided to break with the united front that was so clear and impressive at NOLA?

Those outside TEC have been led to believe that while the Presiding Bishop has considerable influence within TEC and Canons define a decisive role for her/him – Metropolitical power is actually vested in General Convention. If that is the case then only GC could grant what is requested here.

I would suggest that this proposal has Communion-wide implications (not least because of the involvement of Canterbury and foreign Primates) and that all Churches within the Communion should be required to examine this significant proposed change. What touches on all should be decided by all, and as yet we do not have a reception process to examine and validate/reject such a proposal outside our individual governing bodies.

What I find most objectionable in this document is the presumption that there will be a Covenant and that this Covenant will somehow answer some difficulties presently experienced by the sponsors of this proposal. I do not see the member churches of the Communion accepting any Covenant in the near future, nor should the Communion be put into hock by any local agreement that is waiting for its arrival.

Martin Reynolds, one or two of your questions could be answered, at least as regards Bishop Howe, if his past history were reviewed. He is a former rector of Truro (VA) who has been involved in arcane breakaway schemes for the past twenty years, partering with +Wantland on the "PECUSA" scheme to seize legal control of the Episcopal Church, for example.

Other questions arise when Bishop Howe's theology and ecclesiology are reviewied. I have posted links to the "Kingdom Mandate" convention he is sponsoring in the Diocese of Central Florida. There is nothing that could sensibly be called "traditionalist" or "orthodox" in them; they are far out of the Anglican mainstream.

In fact, Bishop Howe is essentially a Pentecostal who wants as free a hand as possible in his Diocese. Given the many abuses Pentecostalism leads to, I can't imagine why he is receiving this level of support.

But because he is "against the gays," the whole Communion is cooperating to give him anything he wants.

The bankruptcy of Anglican theology and identity has never seemed more exposed to me.

I was fascinated by what you shared with us earlier Charlotte – I did not know!

Indeed, judging by the published correspondence it seems people are bending over backwards to please this man.

Apart from those whose names are on the paper, I think there should be clarity on precisely who amongst active TEC bishops supports this plan. Perhaps it is ONLY those mentioned.

Charlotte it would be interesting to see information such as this on each of these fine prelates engaged in the present enterprise, this sort of detail should be much more widely known and much more widely disseminated.

So much for the Sovereignty of the Episcopal Church , after, 219 years of independence. A short term solution that will not satisfy anyone in the long run.

I agree, Martin Reynolds. It has been my observation that too little detailed information about the Episcopal Church is known overseas, and I believe the actual situation has been badly distorted as a result.

I recall the Archbishop of York was very surprised, on his visit to our last General Convention, at just how small a minority the dissidents in the US Church actually were. That is not to say that all of us are liberals, but very few of us are actually clamoring for alternative oversight, and those who are have been at it, in one fashion or another, for twenty or thirty years. It is the same group every time.

Simon Sarmiento has my e-mail address, but there are others who know much more than I, and I hope they will also come forward.

On the ACI proposal... When TEC Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori originally met with the two groups of bishops to present her Episcopal Visitors plan, the deal breaker appeared to be what to do about conservative congregations caught in left-leaning TEC dioceses. The conservatives meeting with her balked at a plan that would not allow for their movement.

From TEC's perspective, it would seem that any proposal that would allow for such would essentially set up not only the conditions for a church within a church but the method by which it could be accomplished. Parishes unhappy with their bishop would simply transfer to one they prefer, and in the Dar-es-Salaam plan, (cf. +Duncan secret Global South Steering Committee letter) one with virtually no accountability to TEC discipline.

On the surface, the ACI plan appears to have dropped a strategy for individual congregations. No border crossing, no interventions without the approval of the bishop with jurisdiction.

But that is necessarily the case viz.: this letter from Radner+ to a West Texas rector Chuck Collins:

"The proposal for “Communion Partners” is really quite simple and limited: to allow for dioceses, and eventually congregations, in TEC to maintain a visible connection of communion with the larger Communion, especially that part of it that has remained faithful to the Communion’s common teaching of the Gospel, during a time of Communion “sorting out” vis a vis North America (among other places), but without immediately embroiling everyone in conflict and litigation. It will allow that connection to take place with Communion-oriented bishops and with Primates."

The relevant words here are, of course, "and eventually congregations in TEC."

Should TEC adopt the plan as presented, it would need to do so with its eyes wide open.

TEC has twice accepted "plans" that purported to do one thing and quickly morphed into something else: CANA and the Network.

Effective safeguards might be possible, a system of monitoring and true accountability for border-crossing. TEC claims to be inclusionist. That should mean that it will make every effort to build a safe place for both the left leaning and right leaning congregations in its midst. Adoption of the ACI plan with maybe some slight variation...(I can't imagine, for example TEC bishops swallowing +Gomez) would surely show good faith, but TEC has been burned twice. Facts on-the-ground were created,--- in months, with regard to CANA .It would need good structures for vigilance and enforcement.

Excuse please, the above: "But that is necessarily the case" should read: "But that is NOT necessarily the case"