Someone is trying to fool you. A moratorium is proposed. The proposal is to make this moratorium "retroactive".

Newspeak. if ever there was any.

Just a question. Did the Bishop of Rochester turn up to Lambeth in the end or did he really boycott it?

Anyone who believes that the border-crossers in North America will give back what they have seized is living in a fantasy world.

Am I the only one who noticed how many of the headlines turned what is a proposal under discussion and debate into a "done deal"? Once again, the press is failing in its responsibility to report the facts responsibly. If I weren't a "liberal revisionist" I'd be talking about an especially warm place in Hell being set aside for the journalists who seem determined to stir up trouble just to sell papers....

The Anglican Journal writes:
"Aside from New Westminster, at least four other Canadian dioceses – Ottawa, Montreal, Niagara and Huron – have asked their bishops to give clergy permission to bless same-sex marriages “where at least one party is baptized” and to authorize an appropriate rite."

You know, that surprises me - I thought they were requesting permission for same-sex blessings, not "marriages."

If AJ has got this wrong, they should be asked to issue a correction.

[If I've got this wrong, I'll just add it to my list of things I've gotten wrong this week...]

Unless I'm mistaken about the composition of the group from which this proposal has come, there wasn't a liberal voice among them. So once again, proposals for action are coming without having folded in all the voices at the table.

It boggles a North American mind that Gene Robinson can be excluded from what is becoming a discussion about him, the liberal voice can be excluded from this group and yet there is an expectation that liberal minds will set aside their biblical study and theological reflection to accept what is not a solution, but a surrender conservatives.
I've seen too many significant theological voices silenced by the Roman Catholic church because their thinking did not toe the line. Will we be seeing such activity in Anglicanism next?

Rae Fletcher - "Unless I'm mistaken about the composition of the group from which this proposal has come, there wasn't a liberal voice among them."

Well, to be fair, John Moses, the former Dean of St Paul's, would be fairly 'liberal' - in the sense that there should be a place within the Communion for those on both sides. From a BBC report at the time of his retirement in 2006:

The Dean of St Paul's Cathedral in London has attacked traditionalists in the Anglican church for conducting a "witch-hunt" against homosexuals.

"The thought that anybody should be shown the door by the Church, I just find deeply offensive," said the Very Reverend Dr John Moses.

The Dean made the comments on the eve of his last service at St Paul's before his retirement in August.

He said the Anglican church must adapt to global conditions.

"It has to be recognised that we live in different cultural contexts, and pastoral questions which are deeply sensitive might have different solutions in different places," said Dr Moses, one of the most influential members of the Church of England.

"What I do know is that I don't find the truth by slamming the door on the debate. I do not actually want to know about people's sexual orientation, if I am honest, I take people on trust."

Dr Moses, who has led services for Asian tsunami and the 7 July bombings, conceded that he had no answer for the bitter dispute but "hated" the idea of exclusion from the Church.

"We are preoccupied with one small matter and it is being presented as a question of Biblical truth and fidelity to scripture. I think this is simply not good enough.

"Because on that basis, you will not have a divorced person, you will not have a woman, and I could go on."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5172726.stm

Pamela - the AJ is correct.

While New Westminster's resolution was to bless same-sex unions, since that resolution passed Canada has allowed same-sex couples to be civilly married.

So the more recent resolutions from the four Canadian Dioceses was to "bless same-sex couples who have been married in a civil ceremony". This is actually asking for a higher level of commitment from the couples.

Note: It is not "same-sex marriage in church" - it is a blessing of a Civil marriage - and there already is a service for the "Blessing of a Civil Marriage" in the Canadian Book of Alternative Services.

WilliamK,

"the press is failing in its responsibility to report the facts responsibly."

Wrong tense. I've often thought it would be an interesting project for a journalism student to review the reportage of CNN,CBS,NBC,and FOX for the two weeks following Sept. 11, 2001, to see how much of what was reported was actually true. The driving force is to be the first with a particular story. Whether or not that story is actually true is secondary. This is not a new thing. I had an editor recently say quite matter of factly that when reporters attend a scrum, they often already have their stories written and are just looking for a soundbite to back up what they've written!

Rae Fletcher,
"there is an expectation that liberal minds will set aside their biblical study and theological reflection"

Actually, you are being kind. I think if you read the kinds of things they say, you'll see that actually they don't think liberals minds have done any theology at all, do not believe any aspect of Scripture, indeed are actively seeking to discredit Scripture, are merely trying to buy the acceptance of the world with political correctness, and, if they have any faith at all, are pagans.

There is so much misinformation about the status of this report made yesterday that it is tipping violently towards disinformation. The ABC said at the weekend that this would not be a substantive document, but more in the nature of a progress report. He made a remark which rather mixed metaphors about running it up the flagpole and seeing who salutes it. It would be a good deal better all round if people did just that, rather than jumping to conclusions like the newspaper sub-editors seem to be doing. (How the Telegraph can justify the headline it prints is beyond comprehension) Those who aspire to be thinking Anglicans shouldn't be so paranoid: let the bishops listen, reflect, pray while they have the opportunity.

I for one couldn't care less about border crossings compared to the exclusion of my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Let the conservatives cross our borders. The fruits of their labor will be small, and perhaps they will then leave us alone to witness to the gospel of Christ, which is inclusive. And here is one Episcopalian with a message for Lambeth. I will not hate or exclude no matter what you say. If you ask me to, you are asking the impossible for you are asking me to betray a trust. No.

I believe that the Canadian dioceses which have approved same-sex blessings are (also) approving the blessing of legal same-sex marriages, which are now fully acceptable under Canadian law.

If those approving same sex unions were to repent, slit their wrists and die, a great many Anglican bishops and archbishops would still not be satisfied. They have been waiting 200 years or more to expressed self righteous indignation and have no intention of stopping any time soon much less curbing their blatant territorial ambitions. What a disgrace that none of the documents highlight the protection of homosexual persons from attack and imprisonment (though earlier meetings before Lambeth did produce such documents). Let's all return to the middle ages and forget the tiresome heritage of the enlightenment.

Ford:

Chortle! The statement in your last paragraph is definitely humorous, but probably a bit over-stated for most conservatives. It would probably be more accurate to say that most conservatives believe that liberals are unable to accomplish any of the things you list without the results being tainted, distorted and twisted by their presuppositional mindset. This twisting will obviously be more acute when liberal presuppositions run counter to Scripture.

However, since this type of accusation is passed back and forth rather freely by both sides, we are not likely to get anywhere soon arguing Scripture.
And, why expect that. I don't think there was ever a real meeting of the minds between the Puritans and the rest of the Church. The Puritans eventually learned their limits and were, generally speaking, willing to live within those limits (though many continue to grumble) and some left for greener pastures.

I'm willing to accept a liberal faction in the church. It's just that they, like the puritans of old, will have to learn that there are limits beyond which they cannot go, despite the fact that these limits chafe.

Steven

“If those approving same sex unions were to repent, slit their wrists and die, a great many Anglican bishops and archbishops would still not be satisfied. They have been waiting 200 years or more to expressed self righteous indignation and have no intention of stopping any time soon much less curbing their blatant territorial ambitions.”--Canon G

No doubt, quite true. But “waiting 200 years”? Which of the main fundagelical dioceses have even been around that long?

Can’t be Nigeria; the first mission of the CofE was established there only in 1842. The Nigerians haven’t even celebrated the centenial of their first diocesan bishop (1919) yet.

Can’t be Uganda, where the first Anglican missionaries arrived in June of 1877. It wasn’t until 1897 that the first diocese of Uganda was carved out of Eastern Equatorial Affrica.

Can’t even be be Sydney. The Rt. Rev. William Grant Broughton was consecrated the first Anglican Bishop in Australia in 1836, so Sydney still has 28 years to go.

Meanwhile, truly historic Churches of the Communion, like the American Episcopal Church (1784, first Anglican Bishop consecrated outside of the churches of the British Isles) and the Anglican Church of Canada (1787, first Anglican Colonial Bishop) get dumped on by the recent evo arrivals.

Steven,
I refer you to the GAFCON statement, to be found here:

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/anglican_communion/gafcon_statement.html

I draw your attention to the second paragraph under the heading "The Global Anglican Context". Read this in the context of statements by +Akinola, among others, that TEC is "apostate", as well as frequent statements by them that TEC, oh and Canada as well, do not believe Scriptures, etc. and realize that this is merely the most recent statement from them of the "faithlessness" of liberals. You may well be a conservative who takes the view that liberals are constrained by their "presuppositional mindset", an argument that is just as applicable to the Right, by the way, but those who would be called leaders of the conservatives within Anglicanism, and who call themselves "orthodox", certainly do not share your reticence to outright deny the faith of anyone in TEC or elsewhere who does not share their approach to Scriptural interpretation. Many of those people who follow these leaders are also not shy about making such statements.

"I believe that the Canadian dioceses which have approved same-sex blessings are (also) approving the blessing of legal same-sex marriages, which are now fully acceptable under Canadian law."

Only one Canadian diocese has approved same-sex blessings - New Westminster.

No other dioceses have approved blessing anything.

The laity+clergy of four other dioceses have asked their bishops to approve the preparation of a rite for the blessing of a same-sex civil marriage. They did not seek the right to be able to carry out such blessings. For that to happen, the Bishops will first have to agree to the preparation of a rite, and then each Synod will have to approve its use and the policy of carrying out blessing of same-sex civil marriage. At this point, no one is asking for the blessing of any same-sex relationship except marriage.

In each case, however, the diocesan bishop has withheld consent to the motion, which is required in each diocese for the motion to take effect. So, strictly speaking, no diocses in Canada to this point have validly approved the blessing of same-sex civil marriage, and no diocese has asked for the preparation of a rite to do so.

"No other dioceses have approved blessing anything."

Only Pets, Houses, maybe even Cars and Hunts...

To clarify the clarifications of the unclear Canadian situation:

The Synods of Ottawa, Montreal, Niagara and Huron have each adopted an identical motion requestion their respective bishops to authorize a rite for the blessing of persons in same-sex civil marriages, and to issue guidelines for its use by priests whose conscience permits in supportive parishes.

There is (Charles Nurse) an existing rite for the Blessing of a Civil Marriage, but it is not found in the Book of Alternative Services, but rather in the Book of Occasional Celebrations. (A 2004 motion at General Synod was adopted to have the Rite published in upcoming editions of the BAS, but I am not aware of such a new edition being prepared or published yet.)

However, Charles is correct to say that this is a higher level of commitment. In defence of New Westminster, when they started Blessings of Same-sex Unions, there was no such thing in law as same-sex civil marriage.

Re John Holding, the bishops have not witheld their consent. They have consented to the motions, but have not yet acted on the request. When they do, there will be no need for further Synodical action to authorize the rites, as the bishops have the authority to do so under their powers of jus liturgicum. Nor will the Synods need to approve any policies. They have asked for guidelines and are awating the drafting and promulgation of same from their respective bishops.

Clearly clarified?

On another page I have remarked on the manner in which "preliminary observations" have become immutable fiats.

As to the composition of the committee, it isn't quite fair to suggest that Victoria Christchurch via Edmonton is a conservative. She did chair the Canadian commission which deemed that the issue of same sex unions is not core doctrine, and she has not been opposed *in principle* to the blessing of such unions.

She is a moderates moderate.

But she is, it seems, the most liberal voice on an incredibly unbalanced committee.

No, Steven, they don;t have to do anything. If the conservatives wish to throw the liberals out,then that is up to them - it will mean the disintegration of the CofE, however. So, don't expect mealy mouthed compromise with your religion, which is essentially homophobic and repressive, and urgently requires revision.

What we are seeing now is just a very painful and extended ending to the illogicalities of entirely contradictory views sharing the same space.

Please pardon my lack of clarity. Four Canadian dioceses have voted to allow their bishops to permit the blessing of same-sex relationships. These bishops have not yet done so, but, strictly speaking, such blessings have been approved. Our bishop has said that his decision will be made after Lambeth.

Thank you Malcolm+, for your clarification of the fact that the Windsor (Ongoing) Commission is not totally Conservative in composition. And we will be very glad to welcome +Victoria to our Christchurch Diocese in New Zealand, as soon as she has completed her work at the Lambeth C.
We are hopeful that she might help to stem the ominous trickle of Global-South-oriented clergy from the Sydney Archdiocese into our territory.

Please pardon my lack of clarity. Four Canadian dioceses have voted to allow their bishops to permit the blessing of same-sex relationships. These bishops have not yet done so, but, strictly speaking, such blessings have been approved. Our bishop has said that his decision will be made after Lambeth.

Sorry Richard, that's just not so, at least in the case of the Diocese of Ottawa. I was a member of the Ottawa Synod when that vote was taken. I can attest that it was made clear by the mover and by the Bishop as he presided over the debate, that the motion was in fact advisory -- a way of taking the temperature of the Synod, so to speak.

It was also made clear that even if the Bishop did approve the motion (which we knew he would not, at least until after Lambeth) and did ask for preparation of such a rite -- not for blessing of same-sex relationships, but for the blessing of same-sex civil marriages already in existence -- the Synod would be required to pass a further motion actually approving use of the rite, and approving the idea of blessing same-sex civil marriages.

I certainly voted to ask the Bishop to ask for preparation of a rite, knowing that the Bishop intended to take it as advice only, and knowing that that satisfied what the mover wanted. If you were at Lambeth, as it happens, you could ask the mover -- I understand he's there participating in one of the presentations.

I did not vote to approve the principle of blessing same-sex civil marriages (though I would have done so if that had been the motion) because that wasn't up for voting on. It was the substance of the debate, of course, but not what we voted on.

I should be very surprised if the understanding were different in the case of Montreal, though I cannot speak to what was understood in Huron and Toronto. The motions, however, were all substantially the same.