Admittedly, I could only take about 30 seconds of KJS. What she said is that they won't have any legislative sessions because in such formats there are outsiders and insiders, winners and losers.

So where the TEC will dominate the vote, there will be a vote. (Albeit, a cowardly voice vote so that there is no accountability.) Where the TEC might lose, we have indaba.

Rowan, are the puppet strings uncomfortably tight?

You haven't listened - and you're scornful?

May I offer my thanks to the leader of a tiny,minority, heretical grouping within the Anglican Communion for her determination of how Lambeth will be conducted. Also my good wishes for her time with "all the bishops of the Sudan".

My problem with the presentation is this. Where there is a clear predicament that needs some sort of resolution, talk is a means and not an end. I know the value of face to face meeting and all that, but the effect is an optimism that is unrealistic. I typed out some notes as they spoke so made a commentary. I was just left unconvinced, and that is as a clear supporter of TEC and what it is doing.

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/05/lambeth-walking.html

Goran:

Don't expect to much out of RobRoy. He's inside the Donatist bubble, hearing only what he wants.
His comments about puppet strings showes just mindset of these people. They think all of us are in league with secret cabals, since in the end most of this is IRD financed troublemaking.

Of course saying that makes me a racist ...

I've looked into this matter of Indaba too. It does not imply lack of resolution or resolutions as at Lambeth. It means participatory meeting around a matter - and out of such an in depth meeting comes the difficulty of a resolution after seeing the other's point of view.

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/05/indaba.html

What I got out of the streaming video was three broad change themes:

(1) from meeting difficult challenges, head on, in our share global church life, to meeting those difficulties face to face. Could, say, Akinola or Duncan or Venebles blithely talk so poorly of me as nothing but a exemplary problem of evil - in Akinola's case as a cancer which needs to be obliterated? - if he sat at dinner in my home across from my partner and children? Or visited me one day at work, thriving and serving in our interdisciplinary professional teams?

(2)from the sequence (more traditional reform/Protestant?) of believing (doctrines) to behaving (strict hierarchical moral theologies?) to belonging (confessional?) - to belonging (baptism across our vivid differences?), to behaving (Peace across differences instead of weaponized doctrinal warmongering?), to believing (overcoming the conceptual faith vs works traditional divides/tensions?).

(3) relating across cultural and other vivid global differences - with indaba group days devoted to hot button topics like authority of scriptures, human sexuality, and less loaded topics like service/social justice.

If these begin to capture the initiative of the next Lambeth, then renewing our sense of our current lived, embodied covenants across our palpable differences (which are anything but simple) before we rush further with some written, confessional, police-punish covenant which by definition reverts to exactly to some strict aspects of, say, Calivinism/Reform/Protestant narrow gatherings of past believers which failed those it could not gather in according to its strictness.

If a design group not dominated by western representatives could nevertheless plan and assist Canterbury to plan this sort of non-westernized Lambeth - where we relate across our global differences in peace as witness to Jesus as Lord, then surely we still have plenty of hope for the communion as it exists now.

If this sort of Lambeth goes forward at all well, it will be a powerful witness internal and external, that the existing communion is simply not broken: global differences do not mean illness, but potential points of enrichment and thriving.

For a glimpse of this sort of direction, just spend a good few minutes talking with, say, a conservative Baptist family in USA Bible Belt who have nevertheless worked through scripture and sexuality issues sufficiently to be able to invite the Out-Partnered-Parenting queer family sons or daughters to the family gathering. Whatever opens those family doors and hearts may, at this next Lambeth, also open global doors, perspectives, hearts.

I had the opportunity recenlty to have a personal meeting with the new Archbishop of the Sudan and his Lady Wife, along with about a handful of other gay and lesbian clergy, and three or four other representatives of my diocese, including a Ugandan bishop in exile, our Suffragan Bishop, and the Africa Officer of the (International) Episcopal Church Center.

It was a frank discussion, and valuable, I think, both for us and for the Archbishop. We did not "solve" anything, but came away from the hour-long session with greater understanding of the situation. I don't think the Archbishop will alter his personal opposition to homosexuality -- though, as he said, it is not his issue -- but at least he now knows that there are gay and lesbian people who take Scripture seriously, and are doing their best to serve the church. I think we came away from the meeting with a better understanding of the practical difficulties TEC and ACoC's decisions (but, to be fair, most blame falls on TEC) created in an environment where Muslims and Pentecostals throw, "Why do you want to be associated with a church like that?" in the face of Sudanese bishops and clergy.

So, no solution, no easy fix. But new awareness.

"at least he now knows that there are gay and lesbian people who take Scripture seriously, and are doing their best to serve the church."

Tobias, I think this meeting sounds wonderful. I am concerned though that a bishop of the Church should have to be told that there are gay people who actually DO have faith. It shows the pernicious effect of the misinformation coming out of the Right.

Thank you, Tobias. You planted, and ++KJS will water, and...? (Lord, hear my prayer)

Thanks Ford,

One of the things Abp Den Bul explained was that in his culture sexuality of any sort is simply not discussed. So it isn't just misinformation (though there is plenty of that) but also lack of information, coupled with a cultural unwillingness, or at least resistance, to even talking about heterosexuality.

At one point the Abp said emphatically, "For me it is not about gay or not. We are all children of God." This helps me to understand others in the Global South who keep saying, "This is not our issue." It is partly that they don't want it to be an issue, but also that it distracts them from their primary mission, which, in their situation, is about physical needs and spiritual warfare with animism and Islamism (not to confuse the two). It also informs me on the irritation some in the GS have about "Northerners" brining their issues into the South -- on either side.

I think we all need to engage in the touted "Listening Process" and that it is at least as much about culture as it is about sexuality.

I'd like to hear more about the Ugandan bishop in exile. He does not seem to be taking the same line as his not-in-exile Primate. Is he invited / will he be going to Lambeth?

I'd just like to say that we in the Diocese of Missouri planted seeds even before Tobias and his friends in NY had a chance to do so. [Yeah, I know that we folks in fly-over country will never get any recognition.]

Archbishop Daniel of Sudan came to Missouri before moving on to New York. We had several events for him, including some social events in which people were introduced to him with "and this is my partner xxx."

But my hat's especially off to Tobias and the NY folks for hosting a gay/lesbian discussion. We were afraid to do that. It was suggested to me, but I was afraid.

We hosted the Archbishop for five days, and he met a whole lot of gay/lesbian Episcopalians. I wonder if he even knew those fervent and committed Christians were gay.

One of the parishes where he celebrated was one of our most gay and most Anglo-Catholic. The day before, an article appeared in the local newspaper, in which he articulated the anti-gay line. Several of us had trouble with that, but we still attended the service, accepted Eucharist from him, and talked with him in the social time afterwards.

I mean really. People in Sudan are dying. Many of the people in our diocese who are contributing money and making trips are gay. Do the bishops and primates in Africa really care whether the people visiting them are gay or straight??

"It is partly that they don't want it to be an issue, but also that it distracts them from their primary mission"

This is much the same attitude in my parish, actually, and one that I very much appreciate. We are an aging parish trying to reignite the spirit of mission that was once at our core. We are in a downtown neighbourhood where people are so cut off from the Church that a couple of Sundays ago, during a baptism, one of the party, during the sermon, took out a cel phone and ordered a pizza for afterwards! One can only assume the impulse to have their child baptised was from the Spirit. Who'd have thought in baptism preparation to tell the families not to use a cel phone during Mass? We have a lot of re-education to do in what is still, confusingly, a culturally Christian place. SSBs are not on our radar, and our inherent discomfort with change, especially at a time when we are painfully trying to make changes, will keep it off the radar for a while yet, hopefully.

Ford
"SSBs are not on our radar, and our inherent discomfort with change, especially at a time when we are painfully trying to make changes, will keep it off the radar for a while yet, hopefully"

Last Saturday we were at a dinner party where the host, an ordinand, asked God's blessing on a plate of fishballs and pasta.

I really do fail to see why relationships should come lower in the hierarchy of things God could be asked to bestow his blessings on than spaghetti.

Bearing in mind, the church doesn't DO the actual blessing, it is stimply asking God for His. For all we know - he might not give it. I'm certainly not sure about the fishballs.

Malcolm, it's Bishop Ben Ogwal; he left Uganda in fear for his live during the Amin years -- his son (IIRC) had been murdered. He served in Central Pennsylvania for some years before coming to NY, where he serves at a parish and occasionally functions to help out with episcopal duties. He was a very good presence at the meeting, not at all in line with the present Primate of his homeland; but I don't know if he is invited to Lambeth.

Lisa, thanks for the good word on the seeds planted in Missouri. That's good farm country and I hope for a good harvest. I hope that some of what he's heard here in the US will shade and shape what happens at Lambeth. Credit Bishop Roskam with the idea of getting the g/l clergy together to meet with Abp Den Bul. He was there at our annual priests conference, (led by another star, Bishop Curry of NC) and Bp Roskam suggested we strike while the iron was hot and take advantage of the situation. It was a very powerful experience.

@Erika Baker:

Surely you knew about St. Gregory of Nyssa's extended treatise on the sacramental nature of fishballs.

Or was that meatloaf? Well, my dad always claimed my mom's meatloaf was divine...

"I really do fail to see why relationships should come lower in the hierarchy of things God could be asked to bestow his blessings on than spaghetti."

Well, maybe there is a reason. Heterosexual sex is inextricably linked with reproduction, which is a sharing in the creative nature of God. Non-procreative sex is therefore a different thing, and "different" here doesn't mean inferior. Matrimony is not about validating relationships, though that is what straight people use it for. It is about asking God's blessing on a state that shares His creativity. This idea is ancient, and quite pagan, which is humourous given the people who promote it most loudly. It also, as far as I can see, defines the sacramental nature of the act. Something earthy, in this case sex, reveals the Divine grace: creativity. Now, we can talk about "primitive" pagan beliefs and how they shouldn't affect us today, but, God could have revealed Himself to any people on the planet. Is it significant that He choose a tribe from among a group of tribes all having this attitude to sex? Why not chose Polynesians? They have a much more relaxed attitude towards sex. This means that we do not marry any couple that is not willing and able to accept whatever children God sends them, since it is their fertility that is important. It also implies that we do not use birth control. If we do not do this, we are not practicing our beliefs. This is not sarcasm. I cannot figure out any other reason why sex should be such an issue, other than the blind, mindless obedience some people seem to think is a prerequisite for redemption. If any conservative wants to correct this interpretation of the importance they place on sex, then by all means, do so. Now, in this context, I wonder how some of those oh so "orthodox" would approach the thorny little issue of some wealthy young couple wanting marriage but not wanting children. Would they risk the loss of finances to the parish by not letting them have their "society wedding"? I ha'e me doots.

Ford
but why equate "relationship" with "sex" and link "creativity" with proceation only, as though that was the only creative act in any human relationship?

When I got married I certainly did not think the church was simply blessing my sex life.
And no-one ever says that childless marriages are not sharing in God's creative nature.

Have you read Tobias Haller's articles on this on his blog?

But I wasn't talking about marrying straight couples vs blessing same sex ones.

I am questioning the deep feelings against asking God to bless a relationship between 2 human beings, ANY relationship between 2 human beings, when we don't bat an eyelid about asking his blessing for so many more mundane and definitely not creative things.

To me it's far more outrageous to bless a vegetable at harvest service than to ask for blessings on friendships or love, whether they involve sex or not.

I could understand you better if you were arguing against same sex marriages (although I still wouldn't agree). But to argue against simple blessings is something I genuinely do not understand.

A stumbling block seems to be the word "blessing", I think the word "invocation" would more appropriate Ford and Erika.

Something that is happening in the U.S. is the emergence of "gated communities", where alike minds/wealth/political/social categories live in great independence from others. This in part is what is fueling the split in the Episcopal Church. It isn't that we aren't talking to one another (without cell phone/e-mail/text messaging/crackberry interuptions (did I say distractions?)). We aren't even living near one another. Something that I think hasn't been met upon yet in the west of England or Newfoundland, yet.

Erika,
Because sex is the only act that creates human life. Humans are creative in many ways, granted, but surely there's a lot more significance, "Cosmic significance", in the creation of a human being than in the creation of a work of art, however great that art is.

What's more, I don't agree with your comparison of Harvest blessings with SSBs. You may not agree, but there are many for whom homosexual sex is a sin. It is part of a gay relationship, so to bless that relationship is to bless, among other things that may be good and beneficial, even revealing of grace, sin as well. A comparison: battleships are for killing people, marvels of engineering and creativity though they be, and I believe it is a sin to bless them. I go to the War Memorial every July 1 to think about the tragedy, not the glory, of that day. But those I mourn for killed others. I am appalled that we would bless battleships, that we would parade regimental colours in our churches, or have anything else to do with the legitimizing of the sin of murder. So I can understand why some don't want to bless what they see as the sin of gay sex. You can't say that sex isn't an integral part of your relationship. You have to convince the "other side" it isn't sinful. You don't do that just by claiming everything else in your relationship is holy and good, true though that may be, nor do you do it by claiming that, since we bless carrots and turnips in October we should be able to have SSBs. No-one argues that carrots and turnips are sinful. I'm not opposing you in this, just pointing out that you are comparing apples and oranges. Or, well, carrots and turnips.

I would note that in the latest issue of The Living Church (North America) that there was an article about "The Blessing of Bikes (Motorcycles)".

Why we get so worked up about (usually somebody else's) sex is beyond me. I think it ultimately comes from an outright abhorrence of nature, and sex reminds us of very much a part of this earth we are.

Ford
I didn't ignore your last comment, we've been away for a few days.

I hear what you're saying but I do begin to think our conversation about this is going round and round in the same circles.
I've asked you before whether you've read Tobias Haller's thoughts on this. It would be really good if we could move our debate on a little instead of both of us reiterating the same points again and again.

"say, Akinola or Duncan or Venebles blithely talk so poorly of me as nothing but a exemplary problem of evil - in Akinola's case as a cancer which needs to be obliterated? - if he sat at dinner in my home across from my partner and children?" - DrDanFee
Good DrDan, Akinola would in a heartbeat. He has no use whatsoever for gay people, except as a tool to attack anything that doesn't smack of his form of orthodoxy. He is lead cheerleader of a Nigerian government effort to crack down harshly on all gay people. Any meeting of gay people is banned in Nigeria, and I believe that "meeting" is defined as two or more people.
The opponents of TEC's actions can't even be bothered to sit in the same room as Bishop Robinson. Some of them can't see our Presiding Bishop as anything but an imposter.
We definitely need dialogue, that I agree. But it's hard to have dialogue if the other side won't even acknowledge someone's humanity. And it is totally insulting for the Archbishop of Canterbury to refuse to even invite Bishop Robinson to the Lambeth Conference itself (were he has every right to be), sticking him instead in a conference hall with vendors. Maybe the Archbishop can arrange to have Bishop Robinson as the attraction in a dunking tank, with a 5 Euro fee to go to saving souls in Nigeria.