A rather elegant solution to this problem, in my view, is to simply demand sexual abstinence from all Anglican bishops, and - perhaps - all priests. In addition to shifting attention away from the unseemly spat over homosexuality, a strictly-policed policy of clerical celibacy would have the advantage of drawing the Church of Canterbury closer to the Church of Rome - a consummation, apparently, devoutly to be wished. It would, moreover, require the straight bishops to continue their sex lives, should they choose to do so in defiance of the ban, with as much discretion as the gay bishops of the Communion currently do.

After all, the current Christian fad for family life and marriage is a very recent thing.A very good case can be made for returning to the Pauline-Augustinian position that it is better to marry than to burn, but that we expect Christ-like celibacy from our priests. Then again, perhaps the Anglican bishops (and their spouses at Lambeth) would rethink their priorities if their own sex lives came under the communion's microscope...

I can honestly say, and "I'm unanimous in this," that I want nothing to do with something that remotely resemlbles the Roman Church!

I have no need to hold back basic human rights because they can't abide by it in Nigeria. It seems that Nigeria, Uganda, Rwaanda or even Kenya are less than ideal models of Christianity, of tolerance and acceptence of people who are different.

"Until a consensus is reached, the American and Canadian churches must refrain from consecrating more homosexual bishops and carrying out blessing services for same-sex couples, the paper says.:

"Consensus is reached"??? When's that supposed to happen, the Second Coming? (Right after consensuses on the ordination of women and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist---Hello, Sydney!---I suppose)

"If they do not, they will face being pushed to the margins of the communion and find themselves excluded from the councils that are central to the governance of the Church."

I don't know if this is from the original, or Wynne-Jones's take, but WHENEVER you see a passive construction ("pushed" "excluded"), you're seeing WEASELING in progress (no offense to the small, carniverous mammal). "We will KICK OUT poofters and their friends": there, that wasn't so hard to say, was it?

Lord have mercy!

[Still, waiting to hear from a more reliable source than the Tell-a-Lie...]

What a disappointment Rowan Williams has turned out to be. He has prevented all voices from coming to the table, confused the dialogue by his comments on some things and his silence on others and now seems to want to claim for himself and the conference a degree of authority that neither has ever had.
What has happened to synodical governance, certainly the primate of Canada has no authority to sign on to such an agreement other than to promise to take it back to the Canadian General Synod for consideration there. Rowan's proposal puts the church right back where it was when the 1998 Lambeth conference was convened and fails to even consider the theological study and debate that has taken place in the last 30 years in North America.
All Rowan will do is opt for one kind of schism over another. He'll retain the conservatives and lose the liberals.
Having very little sense of loyalty to Canterbury I'm beginning to think that it's time the US and Canada went their own way.

Since the Windsor Report, TEC has not consecrated any more gay {or lesbian} bishops, although several have been on diocesan ballots.

That such persons were nominated shows the continuing move towards acceptance in TEC, and also should remind the rest of the Communion that our polity is not top down; nobody - not the HoB nor the Presiding Bishop can dictate whom a diocese may or may not nominate and elect.

Since the Windsor Report, promiscuous border crossings by vagrant bishops have carried on apace, as has the attempt to steal TEC property.

I just bet the vagrant bishops [most of whom did not deign to come to Lambeth - what Christian fellowship!] will read this report and tearfully give up their incursions and hand back the property - sure. And the moon is made of green cheese.

Please, does Rowan really believe the covenant can stuff the genie back in the bottle - either genie, either bottle - TEC et al or GAFCON/Foca (or whatever alphabet soup I'm supposed to use now)? I can't believe he's that naive. He must know absolutely that the GAFCON/Foca/assorted alphabet folk are never ever going to stop their incursions into the territories of fellow bishops. So Rowan must be counting on our liberal value of making nice and giving way and stuffing our LGBT loved ones back into the closet in hope we can make progress another day.

Please tell me why we should make nice, throw our GLBT friends, family and colleagues under the bus again just to keep the peace? It won't be enough. You know it won't, and the incursions will continue anyway. Why, in the name of God, and I mean that prayerfully and fervently, should we reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ as we have come to understand it, a gospel that has given more hope and life to those who have been despised and rejected than all our centuries of traditional Christianity which demanded they repent and live a heterosexual life or be celibate, never knowing the human love that is the foretaste of God's love in Christ Jesus? How dare we be expected to drive them back into the darkness after they have had a glimpse of the Light and a taste of the Kingdom? I will not do it. I say to my bishops, if they read this, I will not obey if I am ordered to take away the Light from before those I love. (A bit over the top, I admit, but at this point I no longer care.)

Amen to what Lois said!

Nigeria and the other usual suspects are about to announce the creation of a brand new GAFCON province in North America. Does that sound like the action of those who are (1) planning to stay in the Communion, and (2) willing to return parishes to their rightful bishops and withdraw into their own territories?

It's hard to believe that such bright, well educated people could really be so naive as to think that GAFCON is going to return the looted parishes to their rightful bishops and go home.

I assume that MRG's suggestion about mass-celibacy was tongue-in-cheek.... But I think it does very effectively make a serious point. It seems to me that much is being demanded of gay and lesbian Anglicans who wish to serve the Church. For such a call to sacrifice to be taken seriously, it would be nice to see the heterosexual majority offering to share the pain. "Until a consensus is reached" about the valid ministry of non-celibate homosexuals, perhaps all heterosexual priests should embrace celibacy, in solidarity with the (demanded) self-denial and cross-bearing of their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. I won't hold my breath....

"Please tell me why we should make nice, throw our GLBT friends, family and colleagues under the bus again just to keep the peace? It won't be enough. You know it won't, and the incursions will continue anyway." -Lois Keen.

No one could have said it better then Lois Keen. The African primates who have taken charge of alphabet soup parishes that lawfully belong to TEC are utterly immoral people (unless piracy is a moral endeavor!) motivated by greed and the sinful desire to exercise power. At best they are neo-Donatist heretics who presume to know whom God will judge worthy or not to enter the Kingdom of God. Definitely, they are not Anglican. Anglicanism, throughout its history, has never practised (African) Donatism. I pray that ++Abuya, ++Uganda, ++Rwanda, ++Kenya will repent of their ways.

RE: waiting for a consensus

Now that one of the talking points has become "American gay liberation causes African Islamists to kill Christians," it looks like we'll not only have to wait until the Anglican Communion reaches a consensus favorable to the consecration of gay bishops, but until the Islamists do, too.

Amen!

I think it is interesting that the report due to become public this afternoon, claims that USA and Canadian churches should refrain from consecrating gay or lesbian bishops and from blessing gay or lesbian couples. A published book claims that C-of-E has a coupled gay bishop and the two bishops I asked about this nodded their heads to say yes I know it. There are also numerous blessings of gay and lesbian couples in UK and I imagine in other places (Autralia? New Zealand?). Isn't honesty a Christian virtue?

Having been baptised and confirmed within the boundaries of the Church of England, and since being priested in the Church of Aotearoa/New Zealand, I have a perspective on the Anglican Communion that is see3mingly aglay from that of some of the English Bishops at Lambeth.

Despite my love of 'Mother Church', I would not want to have to choose between my loyalty to her and my loyalty to the Gospel - as experienced within the polity of my adopted N.Z. Church.

My problem with this new attempt to mollify the parts of the Church that have cultural problems of their own - which are endemic to their own religious and moral context - by requiring all constituent parts of the Communion to abide by their particular shibboleths (re homosexuality and women) is that this will seem to invalidate my own view of the liberating power of the Gospel I have been licensed to proclaim.

I now see nothing wrong with being an 'Anglican' but not conjoined in a legal alliance with the other Churches of the Communion - if that is what becomes necessary through this proposed legislation. I just hope it will not be passed.

Amen Lois et al.

Personally, I never made a vow of celibacy and accept that God created this world because God desired this world. If God no longer wanted this world or its occupants, then we would no longer exist.

Some stupid humans might want to align with some stupid angels and claim that this is a "fallen" world from "original" sin and best course is to avoid engaging with it.

Fine. Don't engage with it. But then don't complain when the occupants of this world take responsbilitity for its existence, sustainability and take on the responsbilities of stewardship and nurturing. Don't complain when we relish the gifts that come from being a part of this planet, nor be repulsed that we find love in each other.

If this world is so repugnant to such "holy" souls, they are welcome to leave. The universe is big enough to find a "divine" home for them, and we won't mind not listen to their insults.

The Prince of Peace, Counsellor and Comforter can not fulfill the Covenant of Peace if he is repulsed by and rejects this planet's occupants.

Personally, I am more interested in a mature male that can take responsibility and provide for this planet than some whining spoilt child who complains they aren't being flattered enough and the presents aren't "good enough". Spoilt brats can just sod off.

Father Ron Smith,

Lambeth Conferences cannot "pass" legislation.

Dear Goran,

Thanks be to God for that, anyway,

But will their be attempted subtle coercion?

WilliamK, I would not require celibacy of all clergy: I would just settle for some consistency.

Lambeth 1.10, which now apparently has the authority of Holy Scripture, holds up *lifelong* heterosexual unions as the ideal.

Add to that Scripture's take on divorce and nearly two millennia of church tradition, and it is clear that remarriage after divorce is not permitted, so matter how many ingenious loopholes those who want to remarry might devise.

It seems clear to me that if homosexuals are called to celibacy, the same is true of heterosexuals who marry poorly.

JPM,
You are missing some important points. First, heterosexuals are human beings, loved by God, though evil and criminal. So, God has compassion on their weakness and gives them a second(third, fourth, fifth,....)chance. It doesn't even matter if they are beyond the age of procreation, which is of course, the underlying purpose of matrimony, because their "complimentary" bits make it possible for God to make a miracle a la Sarai, so even the manifestly non-procreative sex of two 70 year olds is still, on some level, holy, since God COULD still make a baby.

We, on the other hand, may or may not be human, may or may not have been made by God, and cetainly are in a willful state of rebellion and could be normal if we wanted to, but we just don't care about God. Not only that, but we are in all likelihood plotting to bring about the destruction of everything that is good and holy in Western society. So there is no need to make allowance for us in the Divine economia. Lifelong celebacy and self abasement are the price by which we buy God's love. Sarcastic, maybe, but can you deny that there is on some level the idea of "justification by works" in their theology? Humans must do something, even if that is abase themselves utterly, to earn God's love.

Of course, Ford--how could I have forgotten?

Dear Goran, (please forget my spelling error in my last post, saying 'their', when I really meant to say 'there') your point about Lambeth not being able to legislate is really pertinent on this and every other issue about the Conference.

Perhaps this is a distinction we all ought to make at this time - the important one - between the Law and the Prophets. (modern-day, of course).

Father Ron Smith wrote: "Perhaps this is a distinction we all ought to make at this time - the important one - between the Law and the Prophets (modern-day, of course)."

As one of my teachers once said: Now, this is not Law! adding, as an aside to herself (it isn't Gospel either...)

;=)