Well it looks like a split to me in everything but name. We ought to find it liberating. Now the C of E can at last get on with its agenda, let's make women bishops without delay and approve services for the blessing of civil partnerships. There is no need to make provision for those who disagree, they can go elsewhere. Nothing else can happen to us, the split is here so we can ditch all the garbage about the importance of unity and go for truth and what is right. Let's have a resurgent and confident liberalism and hopefully +Rowan can at last say what he really thinks about that lot.

It the Covenant is now in tatters, then the time that would have been spent on it at Lambeth could be used to extend discussion of the Listening Process from one to three days, resulting in a generously ambiguous final statement everyone can live with and take something from.

of course its a split - and the answer is to carry n defying these deluded fundamentalists and wait for them to go their own merry way. Nothing can be worthwhile, no progress can be made if they are involved!

Quite amusing too that they appear to think that its up to them to define who is Anglican - sorry, but no, that's just a description of those in communion with Canterbury. Nothing more.

And of course, the primary role of RW and the AofC is to lead the CofE, and I can't somehow see hardline fundy theology and a national, established church being compatible.

Split still on course....

It would seem that Jenson and Co. are determined to concoct a different kind of Anglicanism and without the foundational Head of the Anglican Communion - the Archibshop of Canterbury.

Perhaps Lambeth should define the true identity of who belongs within the Communion - those who accept the authority of the primus inter pares, or those who want to revise the constitution.

If this is not a determination of Schism - on the part of Jensen, Akinola, et al, I don't know what is. What further evidence do we need?

"Details of Foca were finalised yesterday morning and the reading of the statement was greeted with standing ovations, spontaneous singing, hugging and tears of joy. One of those present said he thought the skies were about to open so the delegates could ascend to heaven."

Be careful what you wish for, you Foca-rs, about this "skies opening" business.

A *previous iteration* of the priests of Baal called out for the heavens to open, and we remember how THAT turned out for them! ;-/

The saving grace is that the 'Anglican Covenant' is not yet legally binding. We are still in a position where the Anglican Communion is made up of autonomous provinces whose authority is defined differently according to their own internal laws and the regulation of the states in which they exist. I am increasingly of the belief that the large scale, unified Anglican Communion was all manufactured by Archbishop Carey.

The fact is that the Church of England is unchanged by GAFCON. There are clear principles and procedures about who is ordained, where they train, how they are licensed or permitted to minister, what liturgy is used, who owns building, which bishops have authority and how changed is brought about and this is unchanged.

I am all for downplaying the Anglican Communion once again, forgetting the Covenant and carrying on. If people want change then they can propose change in the General Synod.

Richard Ashby's statement was interesting.

'Nothing else can happen to us, the split is here so we can ditch all the garbage about the importance of unity and go for truth and what is right.'

It sounds just like his opponents.

Well it didn't take long for someone to make the inevitable ribald word-play on FOCA.

However the reference to the showdown at Carmel really was a bit of an own goal. Ahab's accusation sounds very contemporary: "Art thou he that troubleth Israel?" Nice complex have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife question that.

All that remains is to reply as Elijah: "I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord." That's what it's all about.

These people have lost any right to quote Lambeth 1.10 as 'binding', and with it their credibility. They are quite happy to throw out Lambeth resolutions when it suits them. Their Jerusalem Declaration raises the Thirty-Nine Articles to the status of a test of Anglican 'orthodoxy':

"...solemnly declaring the following tenets of ORTHODOXY which underpin our Anglican identity.

4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the TRUE DOCTRINE of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today."

However, successive Lambeth Conferences, almost from their beginning, have made it clear they are not doctrinally binding on all members of the Anglican Communion, nor should they be used as a test of orthodoxy:

1888 - Resolution 19

"That, as regards newly constituted Churches, especially in non-Christian lands, it should be a condition of the recognition of them as in complete intercommunion with us, and especially of their receiving from us episcopal succession, that we should first receive from them satisfactory evidence that they hold substantially the same doctrine as our own, and that their clergy subscribe articles in accordance with the express statements of our own standards of doctrine and worship; but that THEY SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE BOUND TO ACCEPT IN THEIR ENTIRETY THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES OF RELIGION."

1968 - Resolution 43

The Ministry - The Thirty-Nine Articles

"The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops' Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled "Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles" (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:

(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context."

"I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord."

Yeah, like "not everyone who calleth unto me 'Lord, Lord shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven", and "Love the Lord thy God,...love thy neighbour as thyself" and "Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" and "Love one another as I have loved you", and "Bear ye one another's burdens and so fulfill the Kingdom of God", and "inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me." Of course, many of the GAFPRONE really don't think gay people, and probably the EHBLs in general, are His brethren. But then, given everything else about their behaviour, they really can't be trusted to understand the Gospel.

These guys are trying to have their cake and eat it.

They want to grab power in the Anglican Communion without having the authority to do so.

They want to operate as an autonomous international communion without leaving the counsels (or losing the credibility and assets) of the existing structures.

They are dishonourable. Contrast the US Anglicans in TEC, who have meekly submitted to countless humiliations, and even withdrawn on request from the ACC, despite believing passionately in the gospel justice of their actions.

Re; Covenant ... Anglican Scotist thinks it is a viable chance to take an alternative initiative away from from the strict either/or, choose FOCA (or Be Damned?). He also briefly offers a rather keen analysis of the ins/outs of the Jerusalem Statement that is supposed to be launching us into this new and brave future new world.

As to a covenant, I still have mixed feelings. I know that the conservative realignment folks still think almost everything modern is tainted, broken, and dangerous. But to me this ignores the historical fact that various strands of Christianity dominated Europe and much of North America, now, to the point that derivative foundations of democracy, equality, and fairness could be articulated. Even pluralism has some nourished roots in the many mansions that comprise the father's house according to Jesus of Nazareth, not to mention the sheep that nobody knows, outside the branded folds.

So. Lambeth Chicago Quad still seems essentially fine to me. The only area where maybe we need a specific affirmation involves big tent stuff - that nobody is allowed to steal Anglican oxygen from other Anglicans, even if such believers claim they are especially/exclusively scrupulous and loudly trumpet tag words like biblical or orthodox.

Those conservative believers who do not wish to worship and serve and bear witness in big tents have a hard long haul coming to them, as so far as I can tell, the world is still the biggest tent of all, so full of people so beloved of God.

It looks to me from my distance that this is the Jensen Show, with Akinola along to provide bluster and not-so-comic relief.

And Merseymike is quite right to use the f word. We should all begin to name these folks for what they are -- fundamentalists. We Americans who grew up in other denominations are quite familiar with this creature, and many of us took ourselves off to the Episcopal Church as soon as we were of age. We have no intention of going back.

No, it isn't a split.

Yet.

It is, however, an attempted coup d'eglise.

The GAFFEPRONE leadership have painted themselves into a corner. They have declared that they are founding a new council of self-selecting Primates who will enforce their will on the Communion.

Thing is, there are two possible outcomes. Either the Communion will buckle under to the power grab, or the Communion will tell the would-be curia to get stuffed.

Let's look at how this is likely to play out.

The Anglican Communion website tells us that the Communion consists of "34 provinces, 4 United Churches, and 6 other churches."

Of the 38 Primates, five have signed on (and maybe two more eventually).

Of the 800+ bishops of the Communion, something around 200ish have signed on. (Hard to get a grip on this. GAFCON refuses to say who was there. They claim 291 bishops, but we know that several off these bishops belong to denominations which are not part of the Anglican Communion, and several more are irregularly consecrated bishops who are not recognized by the Communion.)

The laity have no structural voice in this process - by design it seems.

So, what will the other 31 - 33 Primates do?

Remember that several of these Primates, while agreeing with GAFCON on the presenting issue, have been alienated by the bullying behaviour of Akinola et al. And many of them value their relatioships with their North American brothers and sisters.

What will the Communion's bishops do?

What will the Primates and bishops do when they realize that the new would-be curia itends to create rival provinces at will?

What will the Anglican Consultative Council do? Even with the Canadians and Americans deliberately abstaining, the insurgents were unsuccessful in subordinating the ACC to the Primates at the Nottingham meeting in 2005. There is no reason to believe that they ACC will be any more compliant now.

My experience suggests that most people respond poorly to bullying, blackmail and threats.

If the Communion submits to the revolutionaries, it is clear that Canada, the US, probably Brazil, maybe Scotland, Ireland and Wales will all be expelled forthwith. So will parts of Australia, possibly New Zealand as well. The Church of England will be gutted like a fish.

And if the Communion does not submit? What is the self-appointed junta's fall back position?

GAFCON has rolled the dice here. There is no fall back.

If the Communion does not submit to their demands (and I don't think it will), they will have no choice but to admit that their new fellowship of counterfit Anglicans is nothing but the institutionalizing of schism.

With regard to the GAFCON/FOCA bullies, Malcolm writes:
"My experience suggests that most people respond poorly to bullying, blackmail and threats."

I would go a bit further and state that the English nation, which have rejected totalitarian assaults from time immemorial, will invariably reject this latest example.

Therefore, the CofE will join its brothers and sisters in Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and, yes, Canada and the USA, as well as Brasil and Mexico, Australia (ex-Sydney) and New Zealand, to form the basis of a smaller (but since when is size a measure of truth or greatness?) true Anglican Communion.

Some parishes, and even a few bishops, will depart, to be sure, but if they were neo-Baptists to begin with, at least it will be honorable for them to depart to that faith community, through this latest incarnation of the Puritans.

Most of the provinces, as Malcolm noted, will continue their present affiliation with Canterbury, and finally we can focus on the mission which Christ taught us.

Is this sad? Certainly.

But is this an historical opportunity for which we should give thanks to God? Indeed it is, Amen.

"All that remains is to reply as Elijah: "I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord." That's what it's all about. - Posted by Dan Baynes"

Really? So why then is FOCA forsaking the Lord's commandments, Dan? (Beginning w/ "Love one another, as I have loved you"?)

Lord have mercy!

'It sounds just like his opponents.'

One the problems with 'Liberalism' is that it is just that. In the attempt for be accomodating and hospitable, liberals tend not to assert their own position as forcefully as their opponents. The 'splittists' have made all the running in this dispute. No words or actions of the liberals and not even the partial betrayal of the Anglican Covenant have satisfied them. Gafcon cements and institutionalises the split so we are now in a new situation.