Could it be that the Battle of the Bishops is caused not by one openly gay bishop but the absence of any more? The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality contains one gem which seems to support his theory, in a section of the chapter on "The Witness of Science" which asks: "What evolutionary rationales might account for homosexuality?". One reason given is:

"Although homosexuals may have few children, their empathic and nurturing qualities may promote cohesion among family or clan groups".

Bishop Ingham nails it. And Bishop Gray's comments show up the border-crossers for what they are. There is nothing remotely principle about their incursions. They are raiding and poaching, pure and simply.

Well in the two bishops varied statements, I do hear the familiar TEC witness.

Alas, in the WCG groups recommendations that we must immediately sacrifice all queer folks as citizens, not even regretfully and reluctantly, but with enormous chutzpah, courage, gusto, and all the glittering good will that spin and modern media savvy public relations packaging will muster for us as Anglicans drawing up a new deal for policing and punishment - well this reveals, but it does not mainly reveal what the group no doubt dearly and fervently wishes it did reveal.

The real revelation, heard like those previous shots heard and rung around the world, is that we can no longer claim to create safe places for extremely conservative and privileged exclusively straight believers, as if they were the ones that needed real protection from the queer folks.

Poor Rowan, poor group. All have done their level best to get it wrong, just exactly backwards in fact. Akinola does not need to be protected from VGR, but surely VGR and MacIyalla need sorely to be protected on occasion from Akinola. This is so nakedly on display now that I do not think that genie of an unintended message can really be put right back in all the global bottles from which it has sprung, despite all the hardest conservative efforts to the contrary.

Can Rowan have been half so clever, as to have planned and intended this as the real message published at this Lambeth?

The longer and louder this real witness is on such grand and global display, the sooner we shall pass through all the impending tipping points. Even those who have followed Akinola so confidently today will nevertheless have growing doubts, tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow as they see - up close and personal - just exactly what pledge of policing and punishment they were so deeply and so keenly prepared to sign with such a flourish.

This will be that Lambeth that revealed it. In great and gory and gloriously nasty detail. An odd and unexpected gift of God, and a gift that will transform those of us who have ears to hear what the Spirit is indeed saying to us now, the churches.

Has anyone else thought this strange, that the other really important sexual conundrum that might have caused even more of a division within the Church - that of Divorce and Re-Marriage - did little more than ruffle a few hetero-sexual feathers with the hierarchy of the Church? There are not only clergy but bishops of the Church who are divorced and remarried - without losing their jobs or pensions, or the right to minister. (And, one might say, with the right to criticise those in faithful monogamous same-sex relationships).

Why is it that these bilically-unsanctioned hetero-sexual relationships did not come under the same Communion-breaking stress as those of homo-sexuals within the Church? Is it because the mainly hetero-sexual Bishops of the Church did not consider the failure of marriages as important a threat to the spiritual health of the Church as the threat of gays within the ministry?

After all, Jesus had something to say about marriage and the need for fidelity within the heterosexual marriage relationship. But he may not have breathed one word (except perhaps in Matthew 19:12) about homosexual relationships.

From this, one might suspect that the Dominical statement(s) on hetero-sexual marriage could be by-passed by the Church - though frowned upon by Jeus; whereas any sort of sexual relationship between people of the same gender (not mentioned by Jesus) could be considered cause for schism and anathema. Strange interpretation of Gospel?

"Has anyone else thought this strange, that the other really important sexual conundrum that might have caused even more of a division within the Church - that of Divorce and Re-Marriage - did little more than ruffle a few hetero-sexual feathers with the hierarchy of the Church?"

Not at all, and the reason why is obvious: these "heterosexual" bishops (because can we really say they all are?) are married themselves, and may one day need to avail of the right to divorce and remarriage. God forbid THEY should be required to be celebate all their lives. God doesn't want one of His bishops to bear the burden of Episcopate without the support of a helpmeet, well, Anglican bishops anyway. So, if one's marriage fails, one must be allowed to remarry. It's sad, but God forgives THAT breach of a sacrament. But then again, many of them are of a stripe of Christianity that has an innovative understanding of sacraments, to say the least. Even if they would define such remarriage as immoral, they obviously think heterosexual immorality is less significant than homosexual immorality. None of them refuse to celebrate the Eucharist with a divorced and remarried bishop after all, nor so they refuse to be in the same room with one. Clearly, homosexuality is of an entirely different nature. They would also argue that we ahave decided that issue. It seems that once something has been decided, it ceases to be "innovative" or "reassessor" behaviour, and becomes accepted truth, accepted after the fact as having always existed. That must be the reason why gay inclusion is unacceptable while other radical innovations are not merely acceptable, but God's Truth.

Ford
"Even if they would define such remarriage as immoral, they obviously think heterosexual immorality is less significant than homosexual immorality"

I think you haven't quite understood it yet.
Heterosexual immorality is bad, but at least we acknowledge it to be a sin while we commit it. And once we've divorced and repented we're free to move on.

Homosexual immorality is realy really bad because the libruls are trying to justify it and claim that it's not a sin.

Frankly, I read with utter incredulity the comments of the Bishop of Mississippi. I was born and raised in that state, and, in fact, I was confirmed by his grandfather 51 years ago. And as far as I am concerned, I do not believe for a moment that most Episcopalians, then or now, living in that state ever thought of themselves as Evangelicals. In fact, up until relatively recent times, most Episcopalians--at least on this side of the pond--had no idea that there were Anglican churchmen calling themselves Evangelical. Low Church, yes, no doubt, but NOT Evangelical. No mainstream Episcopalians I know, or have ever known, believed in the things the current Bishop Gray claims he believes. The people of Mississippi, and the South in general, know what real Evangelicals are. And believe me, as any real Evangelical if they think Anglicans are in their camp. They would laugh at the idea. The next thing, I suppose, is that we will be having altar calls, and people will be coming down to the "altar" to "accept Jesus as their PERSONAL saviour." Come on. This is a joke.

On bp Ingham,

The bishop still does not get it. He presumed within the ACC to flout the standards of the communion for years. Now he acts as if there is no place for reflection on how the communion can stay together (as in Windsor).

It is all a little like a household with spoiled children (they decide when and what to eat when or if to go to bed etc). A household without regard for and the presence of order becomes impossible, without appropriate consequences we may simply expect power plays and conflict that ends in chaos.

The question is not whether to punish or not to punish. It has nothing to do with seeking to "punish or impose penalties." Rather, it is question of consequences. Can it be that we have become so installed in our "liberal individualism" that disregard for other members or the good order of the household is of no consequence for us?

Ben W

Who has a Veto on "good order"?

Power play - mentioned by Ben W, usually means patriarchal power play. Women and Gays don't usually have the muscle for it.

Patriarchy has had it's day. God made just as many women as men - and the human sexual continuum made sure that there were varieties of sexuality more complex than simply male/female.
The question is, what does the Church do about it?