"The working group considering what a covenant would look like has already made it clear that there would need to be an end to the blessing of same-sex relationships in church and no more ordinations of gay bishops. ... Getting the Episcopal Church to meet its side of that bargain would be what's known as "a big ask".
It would be reluctant to give up its independence or to compromise what many see as central to American Anglicanism."

From one (not asked) inches away from the bus-wheels running me over, here's a "Big NO!" to the "Big Ask".

It's not about TEC's (much less my) "independence" or "American Anglicanism".

It's about *fidelity to God-in-Christ*: the God who MADE ME queer.

Lord have mercy!

There is also this report on World Service BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7535533.stm

As Davis has been in Canterbury for the past few weeks, and now resides in England, I wonder why a World Service journalist has to report this, and not one of the many more local ones who seem to be desperate for copy.

Simon

JCF, I'm inclined to agree with you. If the demands of the Windsor (Continuing) Process have already been stymied - by the Primates of the Global South already declaring they will not cease their illegal border-crossing in the USA and Canada - how could TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada be expected to resile from their prophetic and clearly-enunciated commitment to the recognition of women and gays in the ministry of their Church? Or does belief in the literal inerrancy of words in the Bible in some way trump the Gospel imperative of the Word-Made-Flesh in Christ? "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten Son of God, full of grace & TRUTH".

Come Holy spirit, and fill the hearts of your people with the fire of your Love - as shown to us in the death and resurrection of Christ. Amen.

"Or does belief in the literal inerrancy of words in the Bible in some way trump the Gospel imperative of the Word-Made-Flesh in Christ? "

The problem is that for many of them, it seems, the literal inerrency of words in the Bible IS the Gospel. THE Gospel is confused with the Gospels, and THE Word of God is redefined to mean the words of God in Scripture. One of the contestants on last season's Survivor was an Evangelical who was very distressed that, despite being in a stunning natural environemt, she missed her Bible and felt she couldn't "spend some time with the Lord" without it. I felt really bad for her that in the midst of God's overflowing natural bounty, she couldn't perceive Him all around her. Clearly, for her, God is to be found in the pages of a book. I suspect this is the problem with many of these people. But, once you give up the idea that God can be a piece of Bread, where do you go?

Thank you, Ford, for that affirmastion of my feeling about the whole argument. The supremacy of the written word - over The Word-made-flesh in Christ - is probably one of the reasons why most Biblical Fundamentalists are rarely practising Sacramentalists. One such 'Anglican' community in my diocese omits even to mention the Sacrament of Holy Communion in it's worship notices. What does that say, I wonder, about it's view, and practise, of the presence of the Living Word of Christ, which he gave to us in the Eucharist, within the community of His Church?

"What does that say, I wonder, about it's view, and practise, of the presence of the Living Word of Christ, which he gave to us in the Eucharist, within the community of His Church?"

I think it reveals a concreteness of thought and a discomfort with anything that cannot be measured, defined, or in some other way appreciated by the human mind. So, the Sacraments can be nothing more than memorials or public acts, or something. How can you prove God can be a piece of Bread? Look at the ridiculous argument that "This is My Body" can't possibly mean that since, when Jesus said it, it would have required Him to be in two places at once! How can baptism be about regeneration since the baptised are clearly no better as people afterwards than they were before? Regeneration must be proven by obediuence to Law. One of my biggest problems with Evangelicalism is this denial of the mystical. I made this argument before here, only to be told by an Evangelical that they certainly do not reject the mystical since, unlike the liberals, they affirmed all the miracles described in the Bible! That this merely proves the literalism that destroys mysticism seemed lost on that person. I affirm the miracle that takes place on our altar every Sunday, and I don't need it to be written down in a book in order to affirm it, either.