Very tedious and badly written. One gets fed up with this endless obsessing over procedure, processes, implementation of already dubious attempts to impose 'authority'. People have lives to lead. I know many gay persons who lead virtuous lives. Some of them are Christians. Some are Anglicans. Most British people nowadays see no problem in this. Most British, American and Canadian Christians see no problem either. Nor do Brazilian Anglicans. Nor do black South African or Botswana Anglicans. All this is pathetic and demeaning, and infinitely burdensome for our gay brothers and sisters.

The C of E - and Anglicanism generally - is Catholic. It is also Reformed/Protestant. The latter genie can never be put back.

I (for what it is worth - very little) remain totally committed to Angican unity. But if it's not on offer, so be it. Conservatives - among whom I number some dear friends - have lost this battle. I think not very far down they know it. Time to get on with serious stuff. I know many conservatives who think this. Liberals, keep your nerve! But also continue in love with conservatives (even RobRoy!!!!!!).

As I read this, much of what comes through to me is the call for a "cease fire." I think they'd probably get my vote on this. However, cease fires seldom take place until both sides in conflict have come to feel that they would rather stop in place--even though it is not their ultimate goal--than continue to sustain their current losses. In the real world, it is usually the byproduct of a bloody stalemate.

And, it definitely appears that the two sides are unlikely to be able to come up with an agreed and comprehensive list of things (to be undertaken by each) that would constitute such a cease fire until a stalemate is reached in the current struggle. Consequently, I look for continued and unfortunate battle for the time being.

Steven

PS-Cease fires have their down-side. At their best, they provide a cooling off period and a space for debate and settlement. At their worse, they become an entrenched nightmare (e.g., the DMZ separating North and South Korea and its byproducts).

“There have been different interpretations of the sense in which 'moratorium' was used in the Windsor Report. Our understanding is that moratorium refers to both future actions and is also retrospective: that is that it requires the cessation of activity. This necessarily applies to practices that may have already been authorised as well as proposed for authorisation in the future.”

I realize that this is a work in progress, an interim report, but the use of “retrospective” and applying to acts that have already been authorized, alarms the heck out of me. Bye-bye +Gene Robinson? Thanks for all your good work, take our gold watch and go home? All you Canadians, your blessings are null and void, and you’re strangers living in sin?
I may be an arrogant American not attuned to the complexities and subtleties of the wider world, but while TEC may be forced to refrain from consecrating any more gay or lesbian bishops (and priests?), Nigeria and the others will give up their extra-Provincial (diocese poaching) activities only when a dank and sulfurous Region freezes over. Therefore the moratoria, in my humble opinion, are one-sided.

Two quick observations and a general comment.

There IS no confusion about the status of Lambeth resolutions. They are advisory only and always have been. Lambeth is not a ruling body for the Communion, nor was it ever meant to be. The only ones who are 'confused' about this are the ones who wish to attack TEC and Canada via such resolutions.

The fact of border crossing and vagrant bishops is not 'controversial;' it is a clear violation of the practice of the church going back to Nicea.

On the whole, the document does not seem well balanced.

Thought #1: "While acknowledging that resolutions of one Conference have been reviewed, and directions changed at a later Conference, nonetheless, like the resolutions taken by councils of bishops in primitive Christianity, they are of sufficient weight that the consciences of many bishops require them to follow or at least try to follow such resolutions. They are taken after due debate and after prayer by the ministers who represent the apostles to their churches"

Are bishops FREE to follow their consciences, or not? Who decides what is legitimate conscience-following, and what isn't?

Re the second sentence: The Church of "the apostles" (i.e., The Twelve) may not have had a "House of Deputies", as an EQUAL partner in church governance. TEC, thank God, DOES! :-D

[to be cont'd]

Thought #2: "The question of the moratoria...

* There have been different interpretations of the sense in which "moratorium" was used in the Windsor Report. Our understanding is that moratorium refers to both future actions and is also retrospective: that is that it requires the cessation of activity. This necessarily applies to practices that may have already been authorised as well as proposed for authorisation in the future.

* The request for moratorium applies in this way to the complete cessation of (a) the celebration of blessings for same-sex unions, (b) consecrations of those living in openly gay relationships, and (c) all cross border interventions and inter-provincial claims of jurisdiction."

Bishops, as the ones doing the border-crossing, are *directly* responsible for complying with the 3rd moratoria (AC-wide). In TEC's context, the bishops are *indirectly* responsible for the 2nd (and have, regrettably, complied w/ it, via B033 and the HofB Fall '07 Clarification). It remains to be seen, what they will do in the case of actually confirming an LGBT bishop-elect, however.

TEC bishops are NOT collectively responsible for the 1st moratoria, and cannot attempt to enforce upon each other. Were they to try to do so, GC would become a FRACAS of monstrous proportions. Is this what the "WCGs" (Water Closet Gatekeepers?) really want? {Sigh} Don't answer that question...

Lord have mercy!

[to be cont'd]

It would be well for all of us to be calm as this "report" is considered by the bishops at Lambeth. This is a report of the Windsor Continuation group, charged with making recommendations for the implementation of the Windsor Report. If Simon will allow me, I will offer several entries critiquing each of the important parts of this report from the various perspectives in TEC. To get to the bottom line, however, if the Lambeth Conference were to support the ABC in implementing these recommendations, more or less in their present form, I think the following would ensue: 1. The General Convention of TEC would reject, politely of course, most of the substantial recommendations; 2. A minority of bishops in TEC (the so-called Windsor bishops) would support most of the substantial recommendations; 2. TEC might be marginalized to something like "temporary" observer status in the Communion; 3. the Windsor bishops would request special oversight from the ABC and inclusion at full status in the Communion; 5. RW would find a way to grant their request; 6. RW will have succeeded in formenting schism in TEC, a schism that might be inevitable, in any event; 7. The FOCA Church will continue its "interventions" apace in any conceivable scenario. These are just predicitons, of course, and they depend on the recommendations emerging from Lambeth unscathed and the decision of RW to implement them. Ultimately, as Blessed Julian would teach us, "ALL will be well. And all manner of things will be well."

Thought #3: What's with all the EUPHEMISMS???

"the swift formation of a '***Pastoral*** Forum' at Communion level to engage theologically and practically with situations of controversy as they arise or divisive actions that may be taken around the Communion"

"The existence of such a Forum might be included in the Covenant as a key mechanism to achieve ***reconciliation***"

"We believe that the Pastoral Forum should be empowered to act in the Anglican Communion in a rapid manner to emerging ***threats to its life***"

[Euphemisms are highlighted]

First of all, w/ all the calls for "swift formation" and "empowered to act...in a rapid manner": why am I reminded of BLITZKRIEG? "Send in the Anglican Commandoes: two men got married in Milpitas!" [NB: Milpitas is a SF Bay Area hick town, which my late mother---a long-suffering SF Giants baseball fan---would say the Giants' season was headed "all the way to..." ;-/]

"Pastoral" "reconciliation" "threats to its life"???

BS!

These are nothing but euphemisms for the ACCRETION OF POWER-OVER, and EXCUSES to exert it!

"No way, Jose!" TEC will say. ;-)

Finally: re "Ways of halting litigation must be explored"

Ah yes: as the old lawyers' saying goes "When you have NEITHER the facts NOR the law on your side, bang the table!"

Lord have mercy...

Will Lambeth 2008 be remembered chiefly for the structural humiliation of an openly gay bishop, the plight of gay Africans highlighted by the granting of asylum to Davis, and the disenfranchisement of gay Anglicans wishing to have their civil parterships affirmed by the church community?

Notice how the language has been strengthened from "moratoria" - suggesting a temporary prohibition - to "complete cessation" - implying a permanent move.

Critique from a TEC perspective:
"a common understanding of the role of the episcopal office within the sensum fidelium of the whole church". This recommendation will not be well received by the General Convention of TEC, if it survives discussion at Lambeth. First, what " whole church" is this recommendation referring to? It seems to imply that there is a world-wide Anglican Church. Apart from this being a theological fiction, the General Convention will not welcome any recommendation that seems designed to "enhance" the role of bishops in TEC to a point where their role will be more like that of the monarchical episcopacy of the C of E, and many other Anglican Churches. Historically, at its founding, and until now, there is a mainstream view in TEC that unaccountable bishops have been the bane of Christianity, and that we do not wish to move to a view of the episcopacy more to the liking of RW, or the conservative bishops of FOCA.

There is something very presumptious in saying
that any group are "children of God, loved and valued by him" as if our/the bishops assembled/or anyone can tell God whom to love. Perhaps, 'we recognize that God loves .. .' would be more humble. But, they willing to live that out?
Columba

Quite simply, TEC should tell them to bog off. The final page of the document is, in any case, hypocritical rubbish. Mealy mouthed religionist nonsense which would be laughed out of court in any other walk of life.

Its either equality or institutional homophobia - there is nothing in between as hard as the Church might try to be in more than one place at once.

'Pastoral care' is about as much use as a chocolate teapot and its about time these wet apologists for discrimination woke up and recognised that it ain't enough and never will be.

Another critque from a TEC perspective:

"The Archbishop of Canterbury - is described as having an 'extraordinary ministry of episcope, support and reconciliation' (Lambeth, 1988); 'the central focus of unity and mission within the Communion [with authority] to speak directly to any provincial situation on behalf of the Communion where this is deemed to be advisable'. (Windsor Report 2004)"

The General Convention will resist any enhancement of the authority of the ABC vis a vis TEC. The majority simply do not trust him or his ecclesiology. Some factors that have contributed to this distrust include: 1. the refusal of RW to meet with leading liberal bishops of TEC, one on one when they are in England, while he seeks to host leading conservative bishops threatening to fracture the communion; 2. the weird "secrecy" surounding RW's sabbatical in the US, including his avoidance of Episcopal churches during months of study here; 3. the great effort that it took to get him to meet with TEC's House of Bishops while he was in the US; 4. the stories of his open expressions of impatience with our ecclesiology and the concept of episcopacy as our bishops understand it; 5. his letter to Bishop John Howe of Central Florida, in which he seemed to state that the relationship of Bishop Howe to teh General Convention and TEC's House of Bishops is secondary to Bishop Howe's communion with the ABC; and 6. his refusal to meet with +Gene Robinson or to accept him as a bishop at Lambeth, while expressing sorrow and regret over the boycotting of bishops who acquiese in their countries' jailings and executions of LGBT persons. I cannot imagine any document that gives the ABC an enhanced role with regard to the national churches having any chance of acceptance by General Convention within the forseeable future.

Another critique from a TEC perspective:

"The request for moratorium applies in this way to the complete cessation of (a) the celebration of blessings for same-sex unions, (b) consecrations of those living in openly gay relationships, and (c) all cross border interventions and inter-provincial claims of jurisdiction."

Now we come to the presenting issues: The General Convention will not agree to a complete cessation of the celebration of blessings of same sex unions. We have already passed a resolution, after Lambeth 1998, that stated that, although there is disagreement in the Church over this issue, we regard the blessing of same-sex unions as part of our common life. Many bishops prohibit such blessings. Some permit them, especially in the larger metropolitan dioceses. Such blessings have been part of our common and pastoral life for over a decade. After all the threats and bullying by other primates and the condescending lectures from some C of E bishops in particular, there will not be a majority in General Convention to prohibit such blessings. Such a prohibition would also be an unacceptable encroachment on the liturgical and pastoral authority of our diocesan bishops. Threatening to marginalize TEC to observer status in the communion will be of no avail. There is a growing feeling in TEC that our pastoral needs as a Church are not being respected in the communion. Finally, very many of the delegates to the General Convention are, I believe, sick to death of the attacks on gay people and on our long standing commitment to their full inclusion in the life of the Church. We find dealing with the "instruments of communion" unacceptably painful, especially for the most vulnerable among us. Among the majority of the delegates, I believe, there is no willingness to throw away the Gospel of full humanity in Christ for all of us, or to sacrifice our LGBT sisters and brothers in order to belong to the Anglican Communion. Speaking as a priest, I would love to remmain in communion, but not at the cost of a single gay person or of the Gospel as I believe it. We feel that we are not demanding that anyone accept what I think is the the majority view. We do not expect other provinces to agree with us. We make provisions for those in our dioceses who do not agree with this view. It is not forced on anyone. Yet, many of the conservatives canot live with this. Even if marginalized, TEC will be okay. We will make mission partnerships with other provinces and dioceses. If we are marginalized from the communion, the mourning period will not be long. Is it not tragic that things have come to this? But no Covenant or other provision will change the facts, sad as they are.

Yawn, as a queer person involved in this or that ethical activity in my daily life and relationships, I cannot much agree with the unceasing tone of crisis, as if we are all supposed to be nothing but utterly shocked that queer folks openly live among us, displaying all manner of goods which our religious theories solemnly inform us are impossible for them to live, according to very strict and very plain traditional definitions.

Yawn, If I had waited for Canterbury to tell me I was called to be the best queer person I could be, let alone a majority vote of all possible Anglican bishops, I should still be waiting, no doubt. My relationships, my work, and all the other parts of my daily life which would register - if only I were straight - simply do not sink in as meaningful to these strict, plain-minded conservative believers.

Oh well.

I suppose that cannot be helped right now.

If we stay, we cannot ethically abide with an agreement that we shall promise intentionally to be less than our best, and folks, that does include relationships. If we go, ditto.

PS. Which Anglicans really needed that last draft page, anyways?

I am not very impressed, to be honest, with the activist ranting on this site. The Americans think the battle has been joined but to be honest, in the country of one of their partner churches, the ECP, it will be very difficult to get the so-called "gospel of inclusivity" across.

Why? A recent survey found that, across all religious groups, whether Christian or otherwise, same-sex relations are always wrong. I'll quote the pertinent passage here:

'In 1998, another huge 84 percent of Filipinos called sexual relations between two adults of the same sex “always wrong.” This was the average of 83 among Catholics, 88 among other Christians, and 88 among non-Christians—hardly any difference by religion.

On the other hand, in 1998 those calling same-sex relations “always wrong” were minorities of 46 percent in the CW and 30 percent in the NCW. I have no idea why Catholicism makes some difference in Western Christian countries, but no difference in the Philippines. What I want to point out is that, in such areas, attitudes towards practicing homosexuals were much less intolerant than in the Philippines.

Incidentally, Filipino disapproval of same-sex relations has dropped by a few points, to 79 percent in 2008.'

The full article is here:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080719-149357/Filipino-attitudes-on-sexual-relations

Four out of five Filipinos consider homosexual behavior to be wrong. While attitudes are changing, as they should, I am really sure that any effort, as people will perceive, to impose values that threaten the heterosexual, familial, and (I hate to say this) patriarchial basis of our society, will be met with fierce resistance.

It's a good thing the ECP is not breaking ties with TEC on this, but it's a bad thing that they haven't spoken the truth in love.

Yawn, as a queer person involved in this or that ethical activity in my daily life and relationships, I cannot much agree with the unceasing tone of crisis, as if we are all supposed to be nothing but utterly shocked that queer folks openly live among us, displaying all manner of goods which our religious theories solemnly inform us are impossible for them to live, according to very strict and very plain traditional definitions which seriously reserve a great many of those goods, exclusively to exclusively heterosexual people, again by traditional definitions.

Yawn, If I had waited for Canterbury to tell me I was called to be the best queer person I could be, let alone a majority vote of all possible Anglican bishops, I should still be waiting, no doubt. My relationships, my work, and all the other parts of my daily life which would register - if only I were straight - simply do not sink in as meaningful to these strict, plain-minded conservative believers.

Oh well.

I suppose that cannot be helped right now.

If we stay, we cannot ethically abide with an agreement that we shall promise intentionally to be less than our best, and folks, that does include committed, caring adult relationships. If we go, ditto.

PS. Which Anglicans really needed that last draft page, anyways?

My personal reaction to these three documents is very mixed.

Firstly, being a Christian brought up in the Church of England, a former Franciscan Brother, and now a retired (honorary) priest in the N.Z. Anglican Church; I am mindful of the need for Christian Unity within the world-wide Communion - but not at any price.

Secondly, I feel that what is being asked of the women and gays of the Church is to "bide your time, your day may come" - a call not unlike the Roman Catholic call to revert to pre-Vatican II enlightenment in spirituality and liturgy. Meanwhile, the secular world awaits the Good News that Jesus promised to everyone who would be drawn to him through his body, the Church.

It seems to me that Canterbury has already been made the innocent party in a divorce by the Global South contingency - most of whom are absent from this Conference; the paradox here being that these latter now claim to represent the 'Orthodox' remnant of the Anglican Communion.

As a shameful, schismatic breakaway has already been unilaterally declared - by FOCA, the Global South, CANA, and various dissenting formerly -Anglican remnant churches in the USA; the dice, seemingly, has already been cast. Just recently the CANA dissenters in the USA have asked to be made a new Province of the Church of the Global South - an entity not yet part of the Communion.

Perhaps the truly-respresentative Anglican Church ought to consider closing ranks around those who want to follow the Inclusive Way of the Gospel as Anglicans - letting the Afficionados of the Global South, GAFCON and FOCA form their own boutique form of religion. This is not the first, nor will it be the last time that our beloved Church has been fractured on the cold, hard stone of Puritanism.

In view of continuing acts of piracy - on the part of certain of the African Primates and the Primate of the Southern Cone (most of whom, except for Venables and Drexel, are not part of the Conference) - within the Provinces of TEC and Canada; are the rest of the Communion's bishops hoping for some sort of act of repentance on the part of the interlopers? The possibility of that happening, I'm afraid, has long past. As indeed has the possibility of de-consecrating the lawfully appointed Bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson. And as for all the other gay clergy and bishops already ministering within the Communion; are we going to de-frock them?

Here is Anglicanism's greatest chance to proclaim the end of it's hypocritical stance on the issue of the ordination of Gays. Who knows, we might even be able to help the Roman Catholic Church to come out of the closet on this issue. Would that not be a great act of charity to all concerned?

UBI CARITAS, ET AMOR!

Come to think of it, I guess I'm surprised that they're not trying to make TEC stop ordaining gay priests.

Peterpi wrote: “Therefore the moratoria, in my humble opinion, are one-sided.”

It is a proposition which will not last. Dead in the water. Won’t hold.

Not to mention highly Immoral. Trading property against Human Rights!?...

Who could have though this up other than Apparatchniks?

Now, does anybody believe this scheme, really??

“Trading” some of the most valuable property in the World (on the threshold of Washington, in the Virginia cases, no less ;=) against losing Human Rights for gay people??? TEC should give up many of its congregations and churches – and Gay American Citizens their Civil Rights?

Why not let the Courts of Justice go through with what they have already begun? TEC will keep what is theirs and Gay Americans get their full Civil Rights, including Marriage...

Another critique from a TEC perspective:

"The request for moratorium applies in this way to the complete cessation of ...b) consecrations of those living in openly gay relationships..."

General Convention will not agree to this "request". The best that the Primates could get out of General Convention 2006 was an agreement to "exercise restraint in consenting to the consecration" of persons whose manner of life would cause problems for the communion. Why? General Convention has twice taken a formal position on the inclusion of lesbians and gays in the life and ministry of the Church, including a resolution phrased in non-discrimination language. Anyone familiar with the tortured history of the US and TEC over issues of discrimination, including slavery, the Civil War, and the end of segregation and Jim Crow will understand that there is no going back when General Convention takes a non-discrimination stance. The resolution referred to above, BO33, which passed a tthe last minute at GC 2006, was asked for by the new Presisidng Bishop, +Katherine, and given to her as a gift that she might be able to dialogue with the Primates and convince them of our desire to remain in communion with them. Even then, the process of passing this resolution was nothing less than traumatic for many delegates, and the resolution may only have passed because gay delegates publicly argued for it, and offered their continued suffering to the Church as a temporary way forward to invite further dialogue with those who disagreed with us. One needs to keep in mind that this is not melodrama. Hadly a year goes by in the US when a gay or trans person is not murdered for their sexuality. The General Convention deelgates are already asking themselves how well this has worked out.I think that their reflection includes these important facts: 1. The reports of the Listening Process reveal that those most opposed to our position have, in the main, refused to engage in the Listening Process. 2. In spite of the option of alternative episcopal oversight, the intrusions of foreign prelates into our Church have continued, even in dioceses where the bishop is unequivocally "orthodox". 3. Leading conservative prelates have advocated for the jailing of gay people who gather to advocate their human rights, while others have been conspicuously silent in the face of violence and intimidation of their gay church members. 4. Bishop Robinson, who even his detractors would agree (of course for them, apart from his sexuality,) has proved to be a very good bishop and a fine person. +Gene has been turned into a folk hero and a cultural icon by the shameful way that he has been treated by the ABC and the conservative bishops who cannot find a way to behave decently. Americans love nothing so much as an "underdog".+Gene's enemies have turned him into a hero by their refusal to speak with or listen to him. 5. Everyone knows here in the US that acceeding to this demand will not be enough. The conservative Primates will call for a "complete cessation" of the ordination to the priesthood of gay persons in relationship. How could anyone in their right mind imagine that a majority at General Convention will agree to this "request"?

Karen McQueen+ wrote: “Is it not tragic that things have come to this? But no Covenant or other provision will change the facts, sad as they are.”

Inept leadership.

Ren Aguila quoted: “'In 1998, another huge 84 percent of Filipinos called sexual relations between two adults of the same sex “always wrong.” This was the average of 83 among Catholics, 88 among other Christians, and 88 among non-Christians—hardly any difference by religion.
On the other hand, in 1998 those calling same-sex relations “always wrong” were minorities of 46 percent in the CW and 30 percent in the NCW. I have no idea why Catholicism makes some difference in Western Christian countries, but no difference in the Philippines. What I want to point out is that, in such areas, attitudes towards practicing homosexuals were much less intolerant than in the Philippines.
Incidentally, Filipino disapproval of same-sex relations has dropped by a few points, to 79 percent in 2008.“

Which means the Prejudices are not Bible, nor Religion, only Culture, only Culture. And changing for the better over Time.

Sheesh, as a queer man, I'm supposed to take this stuff seriously? The pastoral care bit in that report is insulting. I'm getting so sick of this crap, I just wanna say to the bishops, "oh, just go away."

Some points: 1st Co-dependency: “Bishop Handford acknowledged that would leave a number of congregations currently under the care of African archbishops without a home. A new "pastoral forum" would care for them, pending a more formal agreement.”

2nd Dysfunctional family language: "It's a bit like having a member of the family who is not getting on with the family, having an aunt or uncle who can take them under their wing while they work for the restoration of the family."

3rd Abdicating their resposability: “It is a sign of official recognition that some sort of two-tier Communion could be among the least-worst outcomes of the crisis over homosexuality.”

4th “Traditionalist American bishops in Canterbury said a renewed moratorium on gay bishops and blessings probably would persuade conservative Anglicans to abandon the creation of the alternative church envisaged by the "alternative Lambeth" conference of traditionalists in Jerusalem last month.”

Unthinkable, it will never happen.

5th The generally agreed point of negotiations is not letting any of the parties down, but let both retain as much as possible ;=)

Ren
With activists ranting on this site you mean the kind of people who want to protect those persecuted like Davis Mac-Iyalla, right?
And you mean those of us who just want to be allowed to live in love and peace, regardless of what an individual in Nigeria or in the Philippines might think about that.
If people in the Philippines believe same sex is wrong then it’s up to them not to sanction it in their own country, provided they do not persecute gay people.
I cannot see why it should affect a single one of them if another far away country has different views.
Why does the view of people in the Philippines matter, but the view of Americans does not?
Why is it important what Nigerians think, but not relevant what liberal members of the CoE believe?

And, as Susan Russell points out on her blog in response to a similar survey:
“For one, I cannot help but imagine if such a survey was taken in 1950's Topeka, four in five residents would have believed that segregation was perfectly OK and that the Brown v. Board of Education decision to integrate public schools was in error.
For another, I do not remember "Blessed are you who have complied with the will of the majority to exclude the minority" in any of the Beatitudes.”

I suspect that there is enough of a fudge here that the Church of England will not split, unlike ECUSA. I think one big difference is that gays in England (unlike in the US) do not *need* Anglican support. The UK state protects and supports them pretty throughly (and there's little chance of this changing, given David Cameron's just attended the civil partnership of a cabinet friend) and homophobia is in drastic decline nationally. So the C of E can presume on the patience and long-suffering of its gay members, who have chosen to help try and turn the supertanker round, rather than find a more liberal church.

The C of E an hold by the moratorium without worsening the current position of gays within the church. Because of its structure, the C of E archbishops can prevent those in openly gay partnerships becoming bishops. Sympathetic straight/celibate gay bishops will allow those in gay civil partnerships to become priests on the basis that they have taken mutual vows of continence (and that sneaking around looking in their bedrooms to check this is too grubby for words). Blessings of civil partnerships will be done unofficially by priests, who will then get reprimanded by bishops, but who are unlikely to get dismissed over that.

What is the point of all this 'Don't ask, don't tell'? So that twenty years down the line the evangelicals in the C of E will be more willing to re-read their Bibles in a different frame of mind, once they see godly people in faithful civil partnerships, and once an older more anti-gay generation has died off. A split within a national church has particularly complex and problematic repercussions, and the C of E may well be justified in taking an infuriatingly snail-like pace on this, as happened with women priests.

All these anguished attempts to "save the Communjon," All these senseless arguments which merely paper over reality. What seems to me abundantly clear is the necessity for a split. We should not try to patch up the Communion with these awkward, desparate and ultimatley futile means and measures. We need a split. It alone will clarify who we are (not Pastoral Forums or covenants - each more cumbersome and ridiculous than the next). Why this desopration to "save the communion" when at present it cannot be salvaged? And why assume it is not God's will for us to part ways. I say let us split. In time same 25 to 50 years (A mere second in God's time) we will probably reunify - but on a firmer basis. Let the split begin.

Will Bishop Gene continue to pray with his Franciscan friends in Canterbury - and ask them, of their charity, to pray for our Communion?
We in the South Pacific will join with you.

UBI CARITAS ET AMOR. Love, Joy and Peace!

Erika, you said:
Why does the view of people in the Philippines matter, but the view of Americans does not?
Why is it important what Nigerians think, but not relevant what liberal members of the CoE believe?

Because, in the end, the center of Christianity is shifting from the North to the South. (Remember the average Anglican comment?) We in this country are definitely part of it. And the South, let's face it, is working pretty hard to preserve the things people in North America take for granted, like the heterosexual family.

Filipinos will not deny people like you the right to say all they want about protecting gays and lesbians. We are tolerant of that. As far as I know, my former professor in university, who is openly gay and is an activist for LGBT issues, has not been threatened with death for what he has said or done.

We wouldn't want to kill off gays and lesbians as in Nigeria, but you have to understand that a large number of people in the Global South--not only the Philippines--feel betrayed that you are abandoning the values your forebears taught us. How, for instance, marriage is a life-long relationship between man and woman. And how a family is founded upon these things.

But I find this rhetorical flourish to be exactly what I mentioned in the beginning. If you don't care about us, then you don't care for the growing number of Americans who can trace their roots to my country. I apologize if my initial statements came off as offensive, so I understand if (as I perceive it) you snapped back.

Personally, 'Magistra', I would rather the Church shake off the bonds of hypocrisy - acknowledging that we are all sinners, in one way or another, and none of us has the right to cast the first stone. "I came, not to redeem the righteous" said Jesus, "but sinners"

Sadly, the 'Church of the Righteous' seems to be gaining the upper hand in some quarters, whereas Jesus' experience with the Scribes and Pharisees should warn us of God's hatred of duplicity.

May God have mercy on us all!

I don't understand why it is wrong for conservatives to break some of the most ancient canons of the church by crossing diocesan boundaries, but it is ok for liberals to break some of the most ancient canons of the church by ordaining and consecrating practising homosexuals and blessing homosexual relationships. Can somebody please explain this to me? I mean, surely if one is wrong, so is the other?

For information on canon law regarding homosexual practice, see section 3 of 'Between Agape and Eros: revising traditional Orthodox teaching on homosexuality' by Andre Florin at http://weblog.xanga.com/swissdivine/562993145/between-agabe-and-eros-revisiting-traditional-orthodoxy-teaching-on-homosexuality-by-andre-florin.html

"Come to think of it, I guess I'm surprised that they're not trying to make TEC stop ordaining gay priests"

Hush hush! Right now they think +Gene was found fully priested under a cabbage leaf!

If you let them know there are gay and lesbian priests in TEC [and everywhere else in the Communion, for that matter] they might come all over faint.

And don't tell them there are lots of other bishops just like +Gene out there. They might just pass out!

magistra: the cost of the C of E policy that you outline above, though, is not providing full pastoral care to our gay members; dishonest clergy playing the system and honest ones getting thrown out of it; bishops continuing to speak platitudinously about justice while having no credibility with anyone else in society because they don't attend to this question of justice.

In short, the cost is the sacrifice of gay churchpeople and of the credibility of the institution. Worth paying? Morally right? Attractive to the outside world that we so urgently need to reach?

One really does wonder what the point of it all is: we are not Christians simply to keep bishops in work!

Ren
I know you believe what you believe with sincerity.

I just completely fail to see why, in a Communion of churches, national churches cannot follow their own discernment process provided they don't impose it on anyone else.

What binds us are the creeds, the 39 articles and the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral.

What we think about sex, the death penalty, divorce, usury, the acceptability of waging war, whether the MDG are a good thing or not, and whether it would be good to curb the use of fossil fuels to combat the greenhouse effect is of secondary nature.

I still don't see why "gays out" should be the one criterion for being part of the Communion.
You can dress it up in as much holy language as you like - it's nothing but paranoia, fear and a power game.

James wrote on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 at 11:58am BST: “I don't understand why it is wrong for conservatives to break some of the most ancient canons of the church by crossing diocesan boundaries, but it is ok for liberals to break some of the most ancient canons of the church by ordaining and consecrating practising homosexuals and blessing homosexual relationships. Can somebody please explain this to me? I mean, surely if one is wrong, so is the other?“

Well James, if – as your link seems to suggest – you want to defend the time honoured tradition of the Church (dating from the 10th century) of Chastity for All and Abstinences (commencing with soap and water) for the Ordained (I still remember it distinctly), HOW can you reach this incongruent conclusion into late modern Social politics???

"...you have to understand that a large number of people in the Global South--not only the Philippines--feel betrayed that you are abandoning the values your forebears taught us. How, for instance, marriage is a life-long relationship between man and woman. And how a family is founded upon these things."

Not abandoning, expanding. Making them available to those from whom they were excluded before.

Ren, in answer to one of your questions is that science and a willingness to be more honest about ourselves is demonstrating that certain "canons" that James quoted and "values" that our (U.S.) 'forebears' taught are just plain wrong.

And in case anybody here thinks that what happened to Davis can't happen over here (or in the UK for that matter), try telling that to the folks at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church. Those killings were LGBT hate fueled. Plain and simple. What did I just say? PLAIN WRONG!

"We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship”."

Is there anybody out there who can give me one credible piece of evidence that anyone in GAFCON even understands what this means, let alone considers it a good way to behave? Unless you consider imprisonment, manipulative brainwashing, and the deliberate spreading of misinformation about gay people to be "the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship", I sincerely doubt it. Any conservative? Anybody at all?

Then, Ren, the answer is to have separate bodies representing the different views - not to expect the 'North' to abandon progress in favour of premodern prejudice. Quite simply, homophobia is unacceptable.

Personally, I can't reconcile gay and lesbian equality with Christianity any more, so I no longer view myself as a Christian.

"I can't reconcile gay and lesbian equality with Christianity any more"

Redemption; grace; liberty from guilt, Law, death itself; removal of fear of anything the world has to offer; knowledge of the presence in your life of a God who holds you in the palm of His hand and who loves you despite all your imperfections; showing that full self-sacrificing love to the world, that means nothing because some people are too narrowminded to validate you in the way think you are entitled to?

Sadly, the word 'Christian' has become a byword for homophobia for many people. It ought not to be the case, which is why the efforts of those working to achieve better religion from the inside with the support of those looking in from the outside are worthwhile. A recent example of this was Andrew Marr's interview with Gene Robinson and Ian McKellan - one of the most touching collaborations I have seen.

The Chief Rabbi's comment yesterday during a speech to the Conference was a stark reminder of the dangers of stigmatization and the effort needed to achieve peaceful co-existence and reconciliation between communities:

"We may have forgotten this, but for a thousand years, between the First Crusade and the Holocaust, the word 'Christian' struck fear into Jewish hearts. Think only of the words the Jewish encounter with Christianity added to the vocabulary of human pain: blood libel, book burnings, disputations, forced conversions, inquisition, auto da fe, expulsion, ghetto and pogrom."

I have so many observations, I can't think straight (never mind become straight).
1) Thank you Karen MacQueen+, your observations are right on! You express succinctly what many of us feel. Especially posts 12:48 and 1:47. Your parish is lucky to have you!
2) I think conservatives expect liberals to follow resolution 1.10 part 1 to the fullest, while conservatives feel free to blatantly ignore parts 2 and 3. Likewise conservatives expect the moratoria on blessings, and consecration of bishops (and ordination of priests?), to be strictly followed, while they are free to continue diocese poaching.
3) We in the West (or North) have been Listening to conservatives, but does anyone seriously believe that +Akinola has Listened to a single GLBT person?
3) We could throw +Gene Robinson overboard, along with every openly gay and lesbian priest, and it wouldn't be enough. We could de-frock and de-consecrate every woman priest and bishop, and it wouldn't be enough. Like another said, there is no going back, and we should support those we have ordained or consecrated.
4) Lastly, I fail to see how TEC, CofE or the Church of Canada's positions on women clergy and bishops, gay and lesbian clergy and bishops, and blessing of (legal in Canada and England) same-sex couples has any effect on the policies of any Global South church or province. They have their understanding of the Gospel, and we should respect that. Why can't we have our understanding of the Gospel respected as well?

Why should the C of E fudge the issue and be hypocritical, at the cost of gay Anglicans and its own credibility? Essentially, I would say, because there are English Anglicans who are now opposed to gay marriage who can be persuaded with time and patience that it is acceptable. Alongside the hardline bigots, there are a lot of people who are still ignorant about gay people, because they've never knowingly known any. They are likely to base their views on gays on a few celebrities and activists (which is like learning about heterosexuality on the basis of Brittany Spears). What civil partnerships and a more open UK society means is that such people are going to increasingly realise that the guys in the house opposite or the second cousin they dimly remember are gay, and that normal people are gay, not scary gay people.

But if you say to such English Anglicans now, 'choose between a church that allows openly gay bishops or one that doesn't', many of them will choose the familiar, the traditional option and just say no. I don't think most people change their views on a 'strange' group based on intellectual argument: they change them on the basis of meeting people who they admire who happen to belong to that group. When women priests were first ordained in England there were parishes who felt they 'weren't ready' for a woman priest to preside: a lot of them are now happy to accept them, because it's not 'a woman priest' in the abstract they've got, but Mary or Sarah or Jill X who they know and trust.

I think it's worth waiting a while (and attitudes towards LBGT are changing fast in the UK) to get more people on board and make sure that when there is eventually a split only a few parishes will join the Church of England (Homophobic Usage). The danger of splitting now is that if there is a large 'traditionalist' faction left in England once the dust settles, those outside the church will not distinguish between the two Church of Englands and the bitterness of the arguments will do even more damage to our credibility.

In the same way that the report of an ad hoc committee has, by some bizarre transfiguration, an immutable foundational document for the Communion, we have already begun to see how the "preliminary observations" of another committee have become the basis for hard and fast rule making.

Feh!

Thanks for all your replies.

To be honest, I can only wonder why this is driving both sides apart. When Bishop Schori was here in town, I think that, when I heard her speak about the MDGs and how the Episcopal Church both in my country and in the US are working hard to achieve them as part of the gospel mission, I felt proud to be a Christian. But it's easy to believe the reasserter critique of the Episcopal Church that the Church, far from proclaiming the Gospel, has become nothing more than a mere NGO or social welfare agency.

I'll also say that, as one who is equally aware of the struggles LGBT people face, it has been difficult for me as well to be consistent in my position on the subject. Some of my friends are gay and lesbian. One lesbian friend of mine recently chided me for expressing the reasserter view, and we remain friends. On that, I am open to judgment, but I wish too that you should all have your positions on the matter open too. After all, no one of us is truly certain until the eschaton.

And as I said, many of us may hold socially conservative positions, but the truth is, stories of violence against LGBT people are rare, and overt homophobia is uncommon.

One bit of good news, as Goran pointed out, is that attitudes are changing. That is another way of reading those figures. At the same time, I hope that we can remain together despite these difficulties, as Jonathan Sacks and Duncan Gray were clear about yesterday. (Gray's comments were reported by +Alan Wilson.) And I am grateful again for the conversation. I'll be in a listening mode for now.

"the South, let's face it, is working pretty hard to preserve the things people in North America take for granted, like the heterosexual family."

I don't have the slightest idea what this means (beyond being a "reductio ad absurdum"). Would this include the "Sudan female=chattel" Southern model? (See http://my-manner-of-life.blogspot.com/2008/07/sudanese-statement-marriage.html )

"We wouldn't want to kill off gays and lesbians as in Nigeria,"

Are you looking for applause, Ren?

"...but you have to understand that a large number of people in the Global South--not only the Philippines--feel betrayed that you are abandoning the values ***your forebears taught us.*** How, for instance, marriage is a life-long relationship between man and woman. And how a family is founded upon these things."

More "revenge of the formerly-colonized" . . . against YOUR OWN LGBT family members? A bishop in freaking *New Hampshire* for heaven's sake? How much this sounds like Caiaphas, "who had given counsel to the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people." (Jn 18:14) Whatever the crimes of colonialism---I don't doubt them---they are NOT the responsibility of LGBTs, merely for being queer!

"If you don't care about us, then you don't care for the growing number of Americans who can trace their roots to my country."

And what about the "growing number of Americans who can trace their roots" to ALL HOMOPHOBIC COUNTRIES, who've fled here (as w/ Davis Mac-Iyalla to the UK) for their very lives?

"I apologize if my initial statements came off as offensive, so I understand if (as I perceive it) you snapped back."

Perhaps you should quit while you're behind, Ren, if every "apology" should seem to require another. :-/

Finally:

"Because, in the end, the center of Christianity is shifting from the North to the South."

I don't want to be part of ANY Christianity, wherein THE center isn't Jesus Christ.

Lord have mercy!

Addressing only item 4 -

1) Because Bishops are Bishops within the entire communion - (the ABC's recognition that the Bishop of San Joaquin is still and Anglican Bishop even though now under the Southern Cone should be evidence of that).

2) Because you can't call blessed what the scriptures call sinful (If it were one of the 'doubtful things' I'd be all for 'diversity' but as it is contrary to the 'needful things' it is a place where unity should be the order of the day...)

Bo wrote: “1) Because Bishops are Bishops within the entire communion - (the ABC's recognition that the Bishop of San Joaquin is still and Anglican Bishop even though now under the Southern Cone should be evidence of that).”

Surely, to be true, this would have meant an invitation to Lambeth for xSan Joaquin?

2) Because you can't call blessed what the scriptures call sinful (If it were one of the 'doubtful things' I'd be all for 'diversity' but as it is contrary to the 'needful things' it is a place where unity should be the order of the day...)

Sorry, they do not! Only the translations do so (exposing the present standard in exegetics ;=)

This “argument” is late 12th century BTW. Saint Pierre Chanteur (Singing-master, that is head teacher at Notre Dame Cathedral School) is the one who first claimed it c:a 1180. Saint Pierre Chanteur was anti Ganymede, that is anti the contemporary Clerical Gay subculture.

In his mind “The Church Apostate”, blessed what God had forbidden (in the Scholastic reading of Leviticus 22:13) and “forbade” what “God” (through Academic Neo Platonism from Alexandria) had “blessed” (“the Alexandrian Commandment” sometimes called “the Missionary Position”).

Ren
"but I wish too that you should all have your positions on the matter open too"

You are asking me to be open about the morality of my own life, as though it was simply a theological position I was holding and not everything I am.

This really isn't negotiable.
I can be open about true theological questions, but I cannot pretend to be unloved by God and sinful simply because some other people don't know this yet.

You guys can keep on talking about us as though we were a mere ethical problem.
In the meantime, I shall keep on living, loving and walking safely in the knowledge that God loves me as I am and that he has stadfastly guided me into the life I'm leading.

Bo, Have you ever heard of modern Bible Study? Try this with people outside of your own congregation - and with someone who's actually attended a course of modern theological discernment processes. The discipline is called hermeneutics. I recommend it for anyone who thinks that the teaching role of the Holy Spirit ceased with the publication of the King James Bible. - And make a specially study of the Gospels - they happen to be the most authoritative of all the Scriptures - for a Christian, that is.

You may actually learn something of the Love of God for all God's children that you didn't know before, for instance: "A New Commandment I give to you, that you love one another as I have loved you; by this shall all (people) know that you are my disciples". - per 'The Word-made-flesh'.

Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church!

Addressing only item 2- (of Bo's)

You can bless what the scriptures call sinful. Been blessing military units for years, as they plan to go out and commit state sanctioned murder. OH, that's one of the big ten ONES!

So what's your point?

Bo,
Indeed, bishops are bishops in the entire communion. So when the Primate of Nigeria says jailing gay people for 5 years is a good thing, that makes the entire Church look evil. When the Primate of Sudan says there are no gay people in his country, when in fact we know not only that such people exist, but they live in fear for their lives, it makes the entire Church look bigotted, ignorant, and party to the oppression of some of God's children. When they lie and spread misinformation about gay people, speaking prejudice instead of truth, when they vehemently defend their right to insult us under the guise of "evangelism", when they give the impression that the scientific community that disagrees with them is actually conspiring to hide the "facts" of homosexuality out of political correctness, they make the entire Church look ignorant and bigotted. So, you see, THEIR actions, Godly though they, and I think you, might think them to be, actually have severe consequences, not only for the Church in the West, but for the Gospel as a whole. You are quite wrong in your assertion that we cannot bless what the Bible calls sin, we have been doing it for usury for about 500 years, remarriage after divorce for nearly a century, and state sanctioned murder for the past 1700 years, to name but three "blessed sins". So, trotting out the "you can't bless sin" argument just makes us all look like a bunch of hypocrites.

Ren,

I keep marvelling at your request that I should remain open to the (whose?) possible conclusion that lgbt love is sinful. And I’ve spent some time trying to think of what I should now say to my love (I apologise for the repetition to those who have read something similar from me before):

“Thank you, my love, for spending your life with me. Thank you for all your self giving love, especially when my oldest daughter spent 2 ½ years in and out of hospital during her leukaemia treatment. Thank you for having held me through my worst fears during that time, for having cried with me, prayed with me, given me the strength to look after my girls and carry on living in hope. Thank you for looking after my younger daughter, for making sure she had the psychological support she needed, for stabilising her when, yet again, she came second. Thank you for being there when my business slowly folded because I was rarely there to keep it going. Thank you for loving me and holding me through all the ups and downs of life. I know I promised to do the same for you and I know you need a lot of support at the moment because of difficulties in your side of the family. And I’d really love to be there for you as you have always been there for me.

But, you see, my love, there is one insurmountable obstacle. Ren in the Philippines hasn’t yet made up his mind whether we are sinful or not. And so we have no choice but to be vigilant. Should he and the many of his friends decide that what we’re about is really unacceptable, then we will have no choice but to separate. I’m sure the girls will cope with a divorce and the instability it brings. After all, they’ve already proved their resilience to adversity time and time again – despite their mother’s lifestyle that is so clearly a serious attack on traditional family values. At least they will be safe in the knowledge that their mother is finally on the way to a more moral life.
And you will cope perfectly on your own, you’re a strong woman, after all, and will find a way through the current struggles with a much lighter heart once you no longer live a sinful life.”

Really?

Thank you, Erika. Says it all.

Thank you, Erika! I now await the response that the Christian life is hard, (yet He tells us His burden is light and His yoke is easy), we are all called to sacrifice, and that what you describe is on a par with a married man's struggles to abide by his marriage vows or forgoing that second piece of trifle on Christmas Day so as not to commit the sin of gluttony. (remember when those have been trotted out on these pages as valid comparisons?)

Thank you, thank you Erika.

There is no answer to your piece.

Thank you.

You have nothing to apologize for Erika. You are loving and nurturing for more than one of God's creation (which is more than I can say for myself), have tried to make the path we all trod a little less difficult and you have helped shine God's light upon all those you encounter.

As tacky as it may sound, thank you for being you.