We listen, Tunde, much the same way as bartenders listen: someone venting their feelings. It's just the decent thing to do.

But feelings aren't any more than they are. They're not rational, nor "traditional" (much less "biblical").

Listen, with compassion, Yes (after all, we have our OWN share of irrational feelings!)

But repent, on the basis of those vented feelings?

Heavens, NO.

[A blessed Holy Week to everyone at---and everyone reading---Thinking Anglicans (with prayers for the Anglicans Online staff, in their time of grief)]

I hope many of us will honor and give thanks for Bishop Anis' determination to stay in conversation, even after disappointment and low expectations. We are, I expect, facing the end of the Anglican-Communion-as-we-have-known-it, but he, at least, seems willing to pursue "the highest level of communion possible."

That said, I'm less surprised than he that members of the Joint Standing Committee would believe "resolution," at least in terms of development of a Covenant and its reception (or not), should take until 2015. As the General Synod of COE observed, "reception" isn't real until it has been addressed through "the constitutional processes" of the various Anglican Provinces. It's just going to take that long.

And it should. We need to remember the wisdom of such old sayings as, "Marry in haste and repent at leisure," and "Big cases make bad laws." We may dislike the discomfort of living in transition and difficult conversations; but I fear we will not like more a hasty "resolution."

I feel for Bishop Anis. I think perhaps he feels more in the middle than most. Between the North Americans, whom he believes have gone too far in moral reflection, and those in the Global South who just dropped GAFCON in his back yard without consultation, I would not be surprised if he felt particularly squeezed. I appreciate his willingness in this to try to stay in conversation with as many as possible.

"I pray he soon realizes that continued participation with those he believes are wrong, who listen to him but are not ready to repent is a tactic encouragement for what he believes is wrong to continue."

I hope Tunde realizes that this is a stance that those of us on the other side of the divide can take as well.

If I may I think it's slightly unfair to note this article by Bishop Mouneer and then quote from the comments section of the article over which, of course, he has no control and which may be as un-insightful as some of the comments around here (including on occasion my own)!

I'd much rather talk about what Bishop Mouneer HAS said himself. I got the chance to meet Bishop Mouneer up close last year when he spent some time at our theological college and I was deeply impressed by him as a person and also impressed by his commitment to dialogue in his home country of Egypt where he enjoys very good relationships with significant Islamic leaders in the country. I learnt a massive amount from listening and talking with him.

While I am sure plenty of people here may disagree with his theological position or with his assessment of the state of the Communion or his reflections on the JSC, I'd like to applaud his decision to go to Lambeth and to commit to listening whilst also sharing his own position.

Indeed, all things that he should be doing as a Bishop of the Anglican Communion. However, it seems to me such a position is in marked contrast to some of the other noises we are hearing from various places who are making petulant threats and doing the equivalent of taking their ball home if they can't play the game their way. I know he has and will take stick for such a position but I applaud him and will be praying for him and all those like him who are prepared to keep up the engagement and the listening.

The comment that Schori's presence inhibited some from speaking freely is very telling.

It's much easier to slander and accuse someone behind their backs than to their faces.

It's much easier to paint someone out to be truly horrible and evil and to convince others of the truth of your accusations, when the accussed is not in the room to witness what they are.

Shades of Jesus standing being tortured before his accussers before being taken out on the cross comes to mind.

Oh well, after Jesus was crucified they were able to resume their "much more important" discussions.

Didn't fix the Roman empire did it?

For that we had to rely on the Germanic and Celtic races. From whom we adopted our monogamous morality.

God, you gotta love those pagans!

To pick up one aspect of the Bishop's comments - the timetable for the Anglican Covenant.

The Bishop said the JSC was told the Covenant process would be complete by 2015. This is up to 5 years later than the previously published timetable would indicate.

But why? What is the extra time for? What does it mean for debate about the Covenant?

(I've put a more detailed account on the MCU blog.)

Poor Tunde, will he ever grow weary of being always so absolutely right in all hot button conflicts? Will he ever grow tired of threatening, hinting at further intimidations or bullying to come after the much vaunted conservative Anglican revolution, having to always deal with everybody else who is so consistently wrong and nothing but wrong in ethics, theology, doctrine, church life, social life?

Has God in holy wrath called Tunde to wrest the democracy and work and love and daily life, right out from under the sinful feet of all those non-conservative citizens or believers he so patently despises and rejects? Shall we repent of bearing true witness to the decent, good daily lives or work or loves of queer neighbors whom we see all around us in so many modern democracies?

What is that sort of false witness in Tunde's moral economy?

Alas, heavy is the head that wears the Tunde crown and wields the Tunde media sceptor.

Paul Bagshaw's more detailed comment is at:

http://modernchurchblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/bishop-anis-and-anglican-covenant.html

"While I am sure plenty of people here may disagree with his theological position or with his assessment of the state of the Communion or his reflections on the JSC"

Actually, what I do take exception to is his characterization of the situation as a "crisis". A crisis implies that if some corrective action isn't taken soon, dire consequences will result. What dire consequences are imminent if something is not done to put a stop to occasional under the table SSBs or remove a bishop who is honest about his sexuality? (Why are there no dire consequences imminent if we don't put a stop to closet lay presidency at the Eucharist, or any of the sins we have declared 'non-sins'? But I digress.) It seems to me that the only thing making this a "crisis" is the fear mongering and panic of those who will leave if we all don't sign on to the belief of the absolute shameful, life shortening, wantonly chosen filthiness of gay people that so distorts their very humanity as to make it permissable to treat them as other than human. If not this, then what exactly are the consequences of waiting till 2015? I am opposed to a covenant anyway, but I am totally against ramming one through because of some trumped up crisis. And do you notice how he DOESN'T talk about gay people at all? Gays are just the rock they choose to founder on. It's all about a lack of clear decisive overarching decisions of policy, no-one is actually in control. Well, except God, but He's way up there, out of the way, we need to be in control here, on the ground. And we exert that control by going after the clear and present danger of the wanton rebellious homos and liberals who want to destroy the Church.

Well put Ford.

We have the crises of poverty, famine, AIDS, global warming, end of the oil age, xenophobia, misogyny; irreverential lusts for greed, power and violence.

But apparently homosexuality trumps all of these issues. And in fact any and all of the above can be justified provided one is relentlessly hunting down GLBTs and their advocates.

I take comfort that their reality is that they only visit this planet once and then, because they are too good for it, taken away to a nice little heaven away from all us heathen and unclean souls with our dirty little planet.

Personally, I prefer to dwell within a living planet teaming with organisms than the sterility of their clean heaven. There is profound joy in complex ecosystems, with affirmations found by every stream and in every niche, where delightful surprises manifest from the most surprising and inauspicious circumstances and beings.

Ford Elms wrote, "It's all about a lack of clear decisive overarching decisions of policy, no-one is actually in control. Well, except God, but He's way up there, out of the way, we need to be in control here, on the ground. And we exert that control..."

Exactly. To quote from 1 Samuel 8:4ff "Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, 'You are old and your sons do not follow in your ways; appoint for us, then, a king to govern us, like other nations.' " But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, 'Give us a king to govern us.' Samuel prayed to the LORD, and the LORD said to Samuel, 'Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them...Now then, listen to their voice; only, you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.' "
So Samuel gave them God's dire prediction of what it would be like to be like all the other nations,
"But the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel; they said 'No! but we are determined to have a king over us, so that we also may be like other nations, and that our king may govern us and go out before us and fight our battles.' "

And so, some of us, in order to control the rest of us, want to be like all the other churches. I pray that those who want "a king over us so that we also may be like other nations" will fail, for the sake of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Lois Keen

Amen Lois.