... says Williams. ???

Why is it that "conservative Anglicans who have left their churches" merit a "safe space", but faithful gay Anglicans who need appropriate pastoral care in a non-homophobic institutional structure don't merit one?

"Safe" from what, anyway?

To comment really on a number of recent posts. I am an AC newbie - I am finally getting baptised in the autumn after years of wrestling with the outward irrationality, pomposity and potential harm of much that passes for official religious thought and official religious positions. This unseemly and catastrophic round of rather mundane political fudging in order to keep the institution as such running does not put me off - it does instead make me more determined to enter the AC, with the desire to keep following the same dictates of heart and conscience that have enabled me finally to put aside long-held but ultimately pettifogging objections to God and get on with the business of following the Gospel of Jesus.

To the LGBT and other folks who have posted here rather despairingly after this conference, please do not give up! I don't want to enter the church to find myself a movement of one!

"In some parts of the Communion, homosexual relations are a taboo while in others they have become a human rights issue."

No recognition yet of the fact that for those in the second group, those bishops who support the position of the first group are colluding to suppress human rights. This has to be faced with honesty and compassion. The bishops and supporters of GAFCON are guilty of supporting human rights violations. How long will it take for us to have that conversation?

"We need to repent of statements and actions that have further damaged the dignity of homosexual persons"

Given that the majority of such statements have come from people who not only were not at Lambeth, and who not only see such statements as valid means of evalgelizing homosexuals, but who also claim they are being persecuted if anyone opposes such statements, I can't see much benefit coming from this statement.

Gay and Lesbian Christians continue to be excluded from the process. Is this how the Church achieves "wide agreement on moratoria"? Without hearing the voice of those most affected? This is not the voice of love. This is the voice of conservative culture mascarading as tradition, while the true Tradition remains unfulfilled.

"While acknowledging that the Reflections are “just that, reflections” that “represents the distillation of what the indaba groups have been saying, and saying what would like to happen,” Archbishop Williams nonetheless said that non-acceptance of the moratoria would signify that “we are no further forward,” that the idea of a covenant “becomes more fragile,” and as a result, the Communion continues to be “in grave peril.”"

It would not be "reasonable" to disagree with mere "reflections": but then some will now tout those "reflections" as "agreement, convenantal or binding" to refrain from what might be displeasing to some elements.

If we still lived in the unmeasured world with no finite boundaries as to what resources were available, then their indefinite timeline of incorporation of displeasing souls would not matter. Sorry, we live in the generation that will see the end of the oil age with no definitive energy and resource solution in sight. God is responsible not only for "pure" Christians, but all of Creation. Suitable accommodation and reassurance has to be found for all souls.

Recall Jeremiah 31:37-38 "This is what the LORD says: “Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done,” declares the LORD. “The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when this city will be rebuilt for me..."

See also Zechariah 4:6-14 "...What are you, O mighty mountain? Before Zerubbabel you will become level ground... Who despises the day of small things? Men will rejoice when they see the plumb line in the hand of Zerubbabel. Then I asked the angel, “What are these two olive trees on the right and the left of the lampstand? ... So he said, “These are the two who are anointed to serve the Lord of all the earth..."

Rowan sees himself with the job of keeping the Communion together. At this point, this is as good as it gets.

bTW also ommitted from the Reflections or even the conversations at the Conference was the high number of open, non celibate LGBT in the ordained ministry in many dioceses and provinces. And I don't think it was just that the bishops were scared of talking about that. They just didn't.

A lot of stuff was ommitted. None needs to be scared away from the conversation, seems to be the guiding principle here.

I don't believe the western churches will stop same sex blessings and at least in TEC, gay candidates will still be considered for the episcopate. The west will still move foward while the third world communion members and their western allies become more and more adamant about their position.

Some churches will remain in full communion with TEC and the ACofC while other's will choose otherwise. Ther is nothing new here since that's has already been the situation for years.

I think some rectors and bishops feel affected by all this talk about being inclusive but the vast majority of parishoners don't care or are at least open to all people being welcomed at Christ' Table. I've often thought this is a clergy lead mess. The people in the pews have very little to say about all of this tragedy.

As far as some people feel they've been labeled as the "Gay Church," what are they asking? To be allowed to stone GLBT in order to prove they're just like the other religious groups they're in competition with??? I can hear it now, "Just let us behave just like the other religious groups in my neighborhood!" What happened to following Christ example? This reminds me of my job as an educator where I watch people join in the crowd by picking on someone who's different or just not as fortunate. They think it gives them that "In," but internally they know it isn't fullfilling and they have some guilt about the method of membership they've stooped to to be in the "In" crowd.
(for the record, I have a zero tolerance for bullying in my profession).

The best thing I've found with Lambeth 08 is that most of us are still talking and that's a good thing. It's when the talking stops the the fighting begins.

"While acknowledging that the Reflections are “just that, reflections” that “represents the distillation of what the indaba groups have been saying, and saying what would like to happen,” Archbishop Williams nonetheless said that non-acceptance of the moratoria would signify that “we are no further forward,” that the idea of a covenant “becomes more fragile,” and as a result, the Communion continues to be “in grave peril.”"

So - and the Windsor REPORT was only a REPORT - until it became something one had to 'comply' with.

How long will it be until we hear the phrase "Reflections-compliant?" And guess who will be labled that way?

Not the border-crossing property-thieving GAFCONistas and their friends.

It's all a crock.

My copy of Friday's "Church Times" finally arrived in these parts today. It features a prominent photo of the bishops' and bishops' wives' London march last week for the Millenium Development Goals. Many of the episcopal participants are shown holding up placards with the words "Do justice, love mercy."

Whom do they enjoin to "do justice", I wonder? Is it a counsel offered by the episcopate exclusively for action by politicians, or does it actually begin, like other virtues, at home? Or is it alright for "doing justice" to get put on hold sine die when the issues are complex for bishops to deal with? If so, why should anyone else pay attention to them when they think justice should be attended as a matter of urgency by other people?

It doesn't make sense: we can't preach a radical uncomfortable Gospel that overturns traditional power structures, and then cry off because it's all too radical and uncomfortable and overturns too many of our traditional power structures, surely?

Well said, Fr. Mark. In addition to proclaiming the infinite grace of God, Jesus' ministry was all about overturning power structures. When he overturned the tables in the temple, he was demonstrating against the Jewish power structure, which was in collusion with Rome. The sad thing is that the Church was so uncomfortable with his radical Gospel that it almost immediately put into place a patriarchal power structure of its own, which it has jealously guarded to this day.
OFW

Without seeming too tiresome - but what exactly are those opposed to same-sex blessings recommending as viable outreach to the thousands upon thousands of gays and lesbians now and the millions in the future who are and will be legally married with legal responsibilities for children - in other words who have first class family lives - not to mention the tens on millions of their family members and friends?

The words obsolete and irrelevant come to mind when thinking about the church. The moratorium will have little affect on the lives of gays and lesbians in the West accept to be annoyance - but it will serve to prevent AC from providing leadership and ministry to modern world. That's too bad because the Holy Spirit is on the move AND will move with it or without it.

Fr. Mark is obviously living under a rock! In TEC it is ONLY those who affirm the revisionist agenda and a pro-gay "rights" agenda who do have "safe space". My word, man, at least have the courage to be honest. Whatever else is true, this much is certain: TEC's primate goes tooth and nail shredding the Scriptures and re-writing canons to prosecute her scorched-earth policy against all who dare to cling to the historic, orthodox Christianity, and you have the gall to ask for MORE safe space?

TEC has what it wanted all along: a permanently torn communion with no accountability and no place for those who have the audacity to cling to 20 centuries of Christian faith and praxis. How sad. How utterly sad.

Christ have mercy.

"How long will it be until we hear the phrase "Reflections-compliant?" And guess who will be labled that way?

"Not the border-crossing property-thieving GAFCONistas and their friends."

OOOPS! In my haste and irritation, I meant to ask was how long it will bebefore we hrar the phrase "not Relfections-compliant."

Less hasty but still irritated.

Just sums up to me why I think humanism is better for gay and lesbian people than Christianity. This isn't good enough for me - too much compromise.

Willliams had hoped that 5 years of "talking" might somehow alleviate the stress in the Communion. Talking also kept the "center" of the church (generally the Asians and some such as Tom Wright)in. But alas nothing has changed. Many are still "in" but the conditions are the same: rein in the US and Canada (Windsor, Covenant, Pastoral forum, moratoria.)And again the moratoria (which is a code word by the Center and the Right for "Cease forever") is demanded, now with hopes for teeth to make it stick (i.e punish the US and Canada now when it could not be done without Lambeth and Williams' new authority. The US will not capitulate and with this the "new Communion" in view it is time to leave.
If grown men and women cannot see how humiliating this is for gays and lesbians and in order to get their way demand some "instrument" of punishment, how is this different from the petulant child demanding that Mommie punish the sibling who won't do "what I what." In other words where were the adults in Lambeth?

"In TEC it is ONLY those who affirm the revisionist agenda and a pro-gay "rights" agenda who do have "safe space". "

In what sense are they not "safe"? Are they threatened with violence? Are they threatened with eviction from their churches? Are they even threatened with being forced to perform rituals or liturgies to which they are opposed?

If they answer to all of these is "no"--and it is--then how are these people not "safe"?

Joe seems to not have the capacity to discern between traditionalism and "safe-space" for LGBT concerns. Just because some of our (TEC) churches use Rite 3 1/4 with plenty of "liturgical affirmations" in lieu of the Creeds doesn't mean that there are churches in the TEC that keep closely the Cramner Prayer Book and recite (or sing as may be the case) the offices thereof. And although both may be safe space for my LGBT brethren, it is the decidedly non-"20 centuries of faith and praxis" practicing churches, where the worship is anything but Anglican and traditional, that are truly threatening for people like myself.

Safe space? I'm sure there is a local KKK chapter nearby, if your needs and paranoia are that great Joe. Under a rock somewhere, just waiting for you.

Show me, Joe, where someone was beaten to death for their homophobia? Or shot to death for it?

Just in the past couple of weeks, in the US and UK, LGBT/-affirming people have paid that ultimate price, w/ their lives. And yet you "have the gall" to suggest we DON'T need more Safe Space?

"TEC's primate goes tooth and nail shredding the Scriptures and re-writing canons": be oh-so-glad, Joe, that *I* am not the Rt.Rev. Katharine Jefferts Shori, or you would be hearing from my lawyer! >:-(

Pat, Joe is dead on with how it feels to be an orthodox Christian w/in TEC. Clergy in my church and other traditional ones w/in my diocese are subjected to constant pressure from the bishop to adopt 'more open' clergy and theology, and their careers are stunted or threatened if they stay true to their understanding of the faith. Vestry feel the same pressure, as they complete searches and identify a wonderful candidate, only to have the bishop object for various reasons that simply window dress that he doesn't want a traditional clergy member in his diocese. We are not nurtured and lead by our church, we have to fight it every day.

Accepting homosexuals is what a Christian does, in my view. However, accepting homosexual behavior is to accept behavior contrary to what I understand as God's word and plan. How is it loving to encourage and endorse that behavior, given what I understand God to say in scripture? And if my national church is actively taking that position and will even go so far as to divide its worldwide association to make its point, how can you not see that it will impose that same pressure on those of us w/in its jurisdiction?

I am sick and tired of pretendy "conservatives" peddling their delusional fabrications about how they are persecuted.

It is . . . what is the phrase . . . utter bulls**t.

Pat, the answers to your questions are: no, yes, and YES. If you don't know this you don't know the real score on the ground. So, you see, TEC is not safe space for orthodox people.

Joe writes "In TEC it is ONLY those who affirm the revisionist agenda and a pro-gay "rights" agenda who do have "safe space".

Good grief, Joe, in what boondock do you live; have you never travelled more than twenty miles from your home parish?

Between business and vacation travels, I have worshipped in over thirty parishes in the U.S., from North to South, and from East Coast to West Coast. I have NEVER witnessed anything remotely close to what you are claiming.

I have also worshipped in churches of the Anglican Communion in at least seven other countries, and have spent a considerable time at one of the hotbeds of fundamentalist churches, in Singapore. Yes, some of what they said and did made me a bit uncomfortable, but I tried to focus upon what I felt was the good, and ignored what I felt was a bit scary.

We have differences; so what?

Do I expect that there are a few parishes in the Episcopal Church where fundamentalist Episcopalians do not feel welcome? Of course, I do, just as I firmly believe there are parishes where I would not feel welcome.

Among my own history of seven family parishes, being now over 60, I have inevitably found all stripes of belief, and all manner of tolerance.

In fact, one of the things that my wife and I prefer is evidence of healthy diversity in a parish, and it does not concern us if some have different personal beliefs, or if some have different liturgical preferences, as long as there is welcome for our own.

You really need to experience more than you have, and stop trying to use a broad brush to do the more accurate work of a fine brush; stop demonizing others because you disagree with their beliefs.

What in the name of heaven is a "pro-gay 'rights' agenda, anyway? I have no agenda, but I do believe that loving persons, in monogamous relationships, can be as good a Christian as anyone else. Do I accept tryst-after-tryst by some in the gay or lesbian community? No, I do not, just as I do not accept that in the straight community either.

Furthermore, I have not seen evidence that the vast majority of posters to TA are sanctioning such sexual licentiousness, and I would challenge you to demonstrate that I am wrong.

So, my friend, there is no "agenda."

Joe,

I hardly see that there have been 20 centuries of *unchanging* Christian faith and practice, which is what you imply but do not state. There will be a William Wilberforce for the LGBT and Feminist issues - however, I cannot imagine a similar figure arising from the ranks of the legalistic.

Pat,

Do you believe that other 'rights' be overturned now? Rights for other races, those with physical impairment or mental health and/or cognitive problems, those from the lower classes?

Ask yourselves the searching question: Who were the Scribes of Christ's day, who the Pharisees, who did Christ openly condemn as hypocrites? For far too long the Church has been the refuge of social conservatives - why did Humanism arise in the 19th Century as a social movement - it wasn't just on account of Darwin but the exclusion of ordinary thinking working-class men and women who were shut out.

I will pray that God may enlarge you, release you from that slice of yourselves that you have carved out, and fulfil you - which does not mean only confirm you as you are now, no more than it does when Christ said he came to fulfil the Law.

Mercy, Pity, Peace and Love.

Dear Joe. As you have said: "Christ have mercy", yes, and on you particularly. There, I'm sorry I cannot be more charitable myself but God can be, and indeed is. That is precisely why we who advocate for the human rights of the LGBT community - because we actually know something about the mercy of the God we worship and want others to experience it.

I believe that, at Lambeth, at least, the world's Bishops were talking about the subject. It may well have been that the ears of some were not open but, if we keep on praying for their being open to 'What the Spirit is saying to the Church' there may yet be fruit from the seeds that were sown at this year's Conference.

No doubt there were some embarrassed episcopal attendees, for whom 'sex' might be a dirty word, fit only to be mentioned in the confessional. But to the world 'out there' the reality is that sex is one of the great motivators for living life as the Creator intended. And to think that it can only be enjoyed by respectable heterosexual persons, is to say that those whom God has made in the divine Image who happen to be LGBT, should be, for some strange religious reason, barred from the enjoyment of this most basic life-force.

Whether or not both sides of the argument will seek to comply with the 'Reflections' at Lambeth of the issues of sexuality and border-crossings, will depend to a large extent on the way people in the home dioceses and parishes react to the words that will become flesh in their home patch.

This may be a truce. But for a truce to hold, there have to be willing parties. I wonder how Jesus might have dealt with these issues?
Jesu mercy, Mary pray!

Resolutions were never worth te paper they were written on.

Contaception condemned in 1908 and 1920 but allowed in 1930.

Female ordination condemned in 1948, and allowed in 1968.

No Rowan has done well to dump them.

"Just sums up to me why I think humanism is better for gay and lesbian people than Christianity."

But that's not an intellectually coherent statement. If there is no God, then humanism is the only option.
If there is a God, then the choice is between organised Christianity or finding him on your own or with a group of friends.

Abusive religion is simply that, abusive religion. It says nothing whatsoever about God.

Harvardman and Joe:

Sorry, I just don't see it. Entire dioceses have been acting as outposts of conservative thought in TEC for three decades now...no one was forcing Pittsburgh or Fort Worth or San Joaquin to do anything they didn't want to do. No one forced them to ordain anyone they didn't want to, license anyone they didn't want to, perform any rites or rituals they didn't want to. For parishes in more liberal dioceses, alternative episcopal oversight was offered--and generally rejected, as the "objecting" parishes wanted, not "safe space" for themselves, but all those with more liberal views forced out of all the space.

No one attempted to "seize" any of their diocesan or parochial property until they took actions at variance with the canons of the church they had vowed--at ordination and consecration--to obey.

Ofarnum:

You misread me. My questions were posed to the conservatives who claim no "safe space", not the LGBT community in TEC.

"Pat, Joe is dead on with how it feels to be an orthodox Christian w/in TEC."

You are not an Orthodox Christian! You are someone who believes in a particular understanding of Scriptural authority, particularly when it comes to homosexuality. This is not a component of what it means to be orthodox. If you are an Evangelical, then there is very little about your beliefs that is actually orthodox, indeed, you specifically reject whole swaths of the Faith that spring directly out of orthodox doctrine. What's more, if indeed you are an Evangelical, much of what you believe is no more than 500 years old and represented in its day a far more radical innovation of the Faith than anything you are opposing now. At least have the honesty to admit that instead of hiding behind the word 'orthodox', which merely serves to make you appear ever so "holier than thou". I have never been given one example of "oppression" of the Faithful Remnant that did not pretty clearly show "orthodox" parishes challenging their bishop till he had to take disciplinary action, which they then claimed was persecution. If the underhanded actions of Essentials in this diocese are anything to go by, any claims of "persecution" on the part of the Pseudorthodox have to be taken with a very large grain of salt. Please give me an example otherwise. You are at best a traditionalist, no negative connotations intended. I tend to that myself. If you are a supporter of/signatory to the Jerusalem Declaration of GAFCON, you declare your heterodoxy. Whether or not you are right in any of these issues is another matter entirely. By calling yourself "orthodox", you are claiming that a particular, innovative understanding of Scriptural authority is on the level of Christology in defining orthodoxy. Do you really want to make that claim? If so, do so and show us how radically innovative you really are.

Well said, Ford Elms. I'm so fed up with anti-gay churchpeople hijacking the term "orthodox", as if they have a monopoly on it. I don't hold to any any unorthodox readings of the creed (I am perfectly happy to recite the filioque clause, for example), nor do I perform any unorthodox liturgical actions: I just think that women and gay people should be treated equally.

The history of Europe is littered with the violent deeds of Christians who thought that only their particular take on things was "orthodox" - this is not a road we want to go down again, surely?

Well, it is clear that there are two different churches in North America with two completely different understandings of Scripture and two vastly different theologies. Call them whatever you like - it really matters not - but it is evident that the two sides are miles apart and no one is moving one step closer to the other (Indaba notwithstanding!). As such all we have in common is a missional impasse on both sides.

Therefore, in the name of charity, why can't we just have 2 Provinces? Then churches and/or diocese could affiliate with the Province of their choice and we could all move on. Who knows, maybe someday we'll get beyond the reasons for our separation and come back together (consider the Methodist Church in America, for instance). Oh, I know, the money and the buildings and all that...but really, is it worth it? (And I say that as one who doesn't have a dog in this fight...we have no building issues with TEC.)

Right now millions of dollars are being spent in litigation (on both sides) which could otherwise be spent in church planting, care for the poor, and other missional efforts. Or is it that we just really enjoy the fighting?

"Well, it is clear that there are two different churches in North America with two completely different understandings of Scripture and two vastly different theologies."

The problem, Joe, is that those who argue for one particular understanding of Scriptural authority have constructed a reality for themselves that is in many ways untrue. Their claim to "orthodoxy" for instance. The Jerusalem Declaration clearly shows that a) they are not orthodox by any traditional definition, and b)they actually elevate sexuality to the level of Christology in defining orthodoxy, thus revealing a skewed list of priorities. Many of them adhere to PSA as the central, in some cases only, understanding of atonement. They even claim PSA goes back to the beginning of the Church, when it patently does not. Some of them are so opposed to the ordination of women that they are willing to redefine the Trinity in order to support their position. These show a glaring disregard for what has always been the definition of orthodoxy. Then there is the fact that they play fast and loose with the truth, as is evident by their public statements about homosexuality which show clearly that they have not, despite their protestations to the contrary, listened to one word from gay people. And what are we to say about the unChristian hatefilled things they say about gay people? Or about the fact that while no-one is forcing them to do anything they do not believe is right, they still claim the contrary? Our own bishop here has been accused of requiring his priests to affirm SSBs or leave the diocese. Not only did he not do that, his continued position has been that we in this diocese will do nothing till the Church has decided the issue. He hasn't even said whether or not he supports it! The biggest issue is that we have always tried to be a big tent, tried to accomodate vast differences, and it has always led to schisms as those who demand uniformity of belief separated themselves from those they thought "unholy". The same is happening now.

"Well, it is clear that there are two different churches in North America with two completely different understandings of Scripture and two vastly different theologies."

The different understandings of scripture appear to apply only to a handful of verses regarding sexuality...and I'm unaware of any difference in theology--both "churches" are happy saying the Nicene Creed, for instance.

The problem is that one "church" has made those particular verses about sexuality more important than all the other ones, including--apparently--the Two Great Commandments.

Ford, while it is true that the GAFCON statement is not without its own difficulties it is nonetheless likewise true that there is a broad consensus among Anglo-Catholics, Evangelicals, and Charismatics that the theological innovations going on in North America are not consistent with historic orthodoxy. (And need I point out that the EO and RC share this sentiment?) Yes, sexual ethics are the presenting issue, but the more basic matter is not sex but authority - the authority of Scripture and of the collective mind of the Church catholic.

TEC and ACoC has set a course and they have no intention of altering that course. And while I rejoice that you have a broad minded bishop, I assure you that yours is the exception, not the rule. Which leaves us back to the point of a theological and ethical impasse.

Now, relax for a minute, take a sip of sherry and think on this for a bit: suppose you came to the realization that the AC had indeed reached an impasse; what change would you offer to get us beyond the current state of affairs toward something more consistent with your best hopes for the church. Would it be:

(A) Tell all the "so-called" orthodox folks to get on with the TEC program or get out?
(B) Allow the Primates to decide in a church council the position of the church and make that the norm for all parts of the AC?
(C) Form a new NA Province able to keep Anglicans...well...Anglican while the broader communion comes to some consensus?
(D) Allow the status quo? And with it allow the shameful public divisiveness to continue while millions of dollars are spent on litigation and the bonds of fellowship are further severed?
(E) Some other plan? ...I'm all ears.

But Joe, surely you have in North America a welter of choice if you're in search of hard-line anti-gay religion - you've got Southern Baptists; Roman Catholics; the First Church of the Last True Homophobes outfits here there and everywhere.

If we're Anglicans, though, that's not our end of the market, is it, nor ever has been? Haven't we always been at the mild and reasonable end of the religious spectrum? I always thought that was our particular charism!

"...suppose you came to the realization that the AC had indeed reached an impasse; what change would you offer to get us beyond the current state of affairs toward something more consistent with your best hopes for the church."

Live and let live; agree to disagree. We have done it for 500 years on far more integral issues such as the real presence and the intercession of the saints.

Well good try harvardman, though actually I cannot agree to let you drive your special, keen and all-knowing presuppositional wedge: in between my being a homosexual, and the natural and wholesome outpouring of just that homosexuality - in professional work, in witness and worship and service, and of course in those ordinary graces of ethically committed adult relationships and parenting. (Goodness, what standard am I presupposing? Why, just about that same standard as I would be entitled to apply, if I were discerning my being straight. That is more or less how it goes for queer folks these days.)

You presume, rather easily I suspect, just the great distinctions which neglect to attend to my innate wholeness in just these realms. Am I regular and finite and dependent, heir to the overall human condition? You bet. But not because I failed, especially, to be straight.

"Well, it is clear that there are two different churches in North America with two completely different understandings of Scripture and two vastly different theologies . . . why can't we just have 2 Provinces?"

How do you, Joe, get from "two different churches" to "2 Provinces"?

Reluctantly, I am coming to agree w/ the first claim: in elevating the banning of homosexuality to the level of The Quad, you are no longer Anglican. You ARE of a different church.

...which then refutes the second "request" (nay, ultimatum): you can't have a second province within the Anglican Communion, if you are no longer Anglican.

Rowan notwithstanding (!), TEC and the rest of the *Anglicans* will keep on keepin' on (The Quad), and y'all can go and form your new "No Poofter-Couples Church". The test of Gamaliel holds: if your effort is of God, it will last. If not...

So, Fr. Mark, you've just offered what I called option "A". Thanks for the input. Ford? Others?

Dear, dear Joe,

It is FAR from "clear there are two different churches in North America with two completely different understandings of Scripture and two vastly different theologies." This assertion caricatures both "liberals" and "conservatives" in terms of extremes. It seems that this kind of extreme dualism only serves the interests of those who want schism rather than co-existence. The truth is that most Episcopalians are "orthodox" and take Scripture seriously. But to certain folks who have taken an essentailly "fundamentalist" approach, anything but absolute conformity to their view is seen as "apostasy," "revisionism," etc. Sadly, to judge by your rhetoric, you follow this kind of approach.

On the issue of "broad minded bishop[s]".... I'm really puzzled by the charge you seem to be making. Who are these bishops who are not tolerant of dissent? If they exist, surely you can name them so that they can be called to account. I know of no bishop who has acted against "conservatives" for their conservative views. What is at issue is the behavior of people who claim "persecution" when they can't have their own way in a diocese or in the church as a whole. When they refuse to pay their rightful contribution to the diocesan budget, when they try to break with the church and take its property, then the bishop has a responsibility to act.

"Ofarnum:

You misread me. My questions were posed to the conservatives who claim no "safe space", not the LGBT community in TEC."

Pat - my sincere apologies for the misreading

@Fr Mark:

You write: "I don't hold to any any unorthodox readings of the creed (I am perfectly happy to recite the filioque clause, for example)..."

Somewhat off-topic, and sorry to land on you about it, but this is a pet peeve of mine. The orthodox version of the Creed is to NOT have the filioque clause "and the Son". Those three words were added later by the Western church, while the Orthodox Church has never used that clause and it was not in the Creed in the original version.

We Anglicans actually *should* drop the filioque clause precisely because, in the Anglican-Orthodox dialogue, we agreed to do so, to return to the older (and more truly orthodox) tradition. There are even Lambeth resolutions from way back in 1978 and 1988 to that effect, but the member churches have dragged their feet on implementing it -- the Episcopal Church, for example, didn't bother when publishing the current BCP in 1979.

Indeed at the opening service at this Lambeth, the words "and the Son" were omitted from the Creed, causing people to stumble -- mentioned in passing in this Church Times article: http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/blog_post.asp?id=60573

It also happens that our ecumenical partners, the Old Catholics, dropped the filioque years ago.

(F) Go to the mirror and admit to the person you see there that you don't know all there is about God.

So there you have it. No one can provide a positive way forward for conservatives living in the USA/Canada besides "get on w/ the TEC program or get out". And why not, conservatives are just "fundamentalists" who are "not really Anglican" who fabricate false accusations against inclusive bishops. And some wonder why we say there is no safe space?

I know we all have blind spots. Heck, I read this blog precisely because I know I have my own. But (and I speak to the "progressives" among us) do y'all see yours? ...You offer nothing. You show no charity. You mock deeply held convictions and treat people who disagree with contempt. Thankfully, it seems that the ABC has seen the need for a new paradigm in NA.

Joe,
Without specifying, Pat has pointed out "Plan E," which has been TEC's "plan" all along: agree to disagree on the issues about which we disagree, and stay together on the basis of all we agree on, focused on the long-standing Chicago-Lambeth "Quad". If people who venerate the Blessed Sacrament and people who think that's "bread-worship" (i.e., idolatry, as the rubrics in the 1662 Communion service specify) can stay together in the same church, then surely, it is possible for us to stay together despite disagreements about sexuality ... unless differences over what counts as sexual sin have been raised above differences over what constitutes idolatry!

Joe seems very effective at the usual "conservative" game of setting up false choices and demanding everyone dance to their false suppositions. Unusually, he allowed more than two possibilities, thus demonstrating that he is more creative than the usual suspects.

But as people have made clear, all of his choices are phony. The real choice that we nasty, hellbound liberals have been offering is, as it was described, plan E - disagree, write cranky letters to the church press and continue on uncomfortably together.

On the filioque issue, the Canadian Church's Book of Alternative Services omits the filioque.

Joe, I just don't have the slightest idea what you really want.

Me, I just want to keep on being an Episcopalian---in communion w/ Canterbury, if that's not too much trouble for you or Rowan. "The breaking of bread, and the prayers": that's all I (the *I* God made me to be, that is) really want.

What do you want? Seriously?

With JCF, I have to confess that I really don't understand what Joe wants. I get the sense that the only way he would feel "safe" is if he could be sealed off entirely from anyone who doesn't share his "conservative" beliefs. So, Joe, instead of asking us to give you "plans a ... b ... c ... d ... and e," how about setting out your "plan" for making a "safe place" for "conservatives" WITHIN the Episcopal Church? Then some of us might actually be able to tell you if this is a "go" for us from our perspective. You DO want to hold the Episcopal Church together, don't you? If not, making demands for "safe space" seems just a cynical ploy.

Walsingham: exactly - when is O/orthodox not o/Orthodox?

I think it's time we heard some of the conservatives willing to set out exactly what they do believe about the Double Procession of the Holy Ghost... once they get into real orthodox vs. unorthodox mud-slinging, they might begin to realise why we have given up on that as a way forward for Christianity.

When I was an undergraduate, we had to read that fun book "Fathers and Heretics", nicknamed "Dads and Cads". It was just so difficult for me to remember who exactly was a Dad and who a Cad, and precisely why: it was a life and death matter for some of them at the time, though.

WilliamK:

I suspect for Joe a "safe space" means all the space...especially now that we have a woman as PB. Clearly just being in a diocese hundreds or thousands of miles from the only one with an openly gay bishop isn't "safe" enough.

Joe,
"the theological innovations going on in North America are not consistent with historic orthodoxy"

The majority of GAFCON are Evangelicals whose "deeply held religious convictions" were, in their day, radical redefinitions of Christianity. How can those whose "deeply held religious convictions" are far more radical a reinterpretation of Christianity than anything that is being proposed by TEC have the nerve to denounce TEC for its "innovations"?

"the authority of Scripture and of the collective mind of the Church catholic"

Again, the authority of Scripture means different things. The Evangelical understanding of that authority is again a radical redefinition coming out of the Reformation. Good God, the Reformation was all about replacing the traditional authority structures with the Bible because the Reformers had lost faith in the tradition! And when conservatives stop lying about gay people and backing up those lies with pseudoscientific propaganda, I'd be more willing to accept the "collective mind" of the Church, which so far seems enslaved to the Lie.

"TEC and ACoC has set a course and they have no intention of altering that course."

Bull! The ACoC has no "course". You've been listening to +Harvey! A significant, though not the only, cause of this "impasse" is the conservative persecution myth. It's a romantic idea, but it ain't true. I've never seen an example that wasn't in some way contrived by the "persecuted" themselves. What, for instance is wrong with sending a liberal priest to a conservative parish, or vice versa? Might it not be a good thing for both priest and congregation to be challenged by their interaction? Might there not actually be a strengthening of faith in both groups? Have you ever gotten the other side, how liberal parishes are treated by conservatives? Have you never considered that others might feel just the same way about you? So, my solution? Both sides should start behaving like Christians. That requires that liberals change certain things, but it also requires that you give up your persecution complex.

Thanks, JCF et al, for asking! I'll tell you what I (and many others) want: We want an Episcopal Church that embraces the mind of the communion. To wit, we want: (1) an apology for TEC breaking faith (not an apology that says, "we're sorry you don't understand"), (2) an affirmation from TEC of the trustworthiness and authority of Holy Scripture, (3) the cessation of all SS blessings and all ordinations of persons in SS partnered relationships. Furthermore, (4) we want +VGR to resign and all those bishops who participated in his consecration to either repent or do likewise.

Now, I know the rank liberals in this neighborhood are seething! (...uh...wrong word...true liberals would understand that a traditionalist's position is viable even if not suitable to one's tastes - but semantics fail me...)

Nevertheless, my list should serve to show you just how far apart we are. SS blessings and ordinations of persons in SS relationships are deal breakers for us. In the 16th cen, Luther faced the presenting issue of indulgences, but the real issue was the authority of Scripture. Now the presenting issue is homosexuality, but the underlying issue remains the authority of Scripture.

So, unfortunately, I see no way of holding TEC together and I think the desire to keep it together is causing much harm. Thus, the creation of a 2nd NA province (my option C above) could do much good by creating a "safe space" for everyone. What's more, both Churches could remain part of the AC and both primates could stay and have a voice at the table.

Let me turn this, then, into a question: Wouldn't you agree that keeping Anglicans in the fold - even if it is in a new paradigm - beats the bloodbath that we're finding now? Put another way, wouldn't living together in a strained communion be preferable to full-fledged schism?

So Joe essentially admits the liberal case: that the liberals say "let us disagree and stay together," while the "conservatives" say "we can only stay together if you liberals submit to our views."

Ford,

I love your spunk and wit and passion! Really, I do! However, you are the epitome of a theological revisionist. Your assessment of church history is as flawed as your belief in the virtues of the leadership of TEC and the ACoC. I can only assume, however, that you actually believe the nonsense you write; which only further underscores the deep nature of the theological impasse we find ourselves in.

"SS blessings and ordinations of persons in SS relationships are deal breakers for us."

And, for some of us, lay presidency is a deal breaker. So, what now? Will Sydney or the Southern Cone cease and desist in that practice? I doubt it. Why is it that conservative reviling of those who disagree with them, and the kind of untruths conservatives spread about gay people are not deal breakers? Why is +Akinola's support for the oppression of homosexuals in his own country not a deal breaker? Why are you willing to tolerate unChristian behaviour in conservatives, but when TEC does something which they, rightly or wrongly, believe is God's call to them, that is a deal breaker? And consider that when you are asking TEC to "repent" of having consecrated Gene Robinson, you are asking them to repent of something they feel called by God to do. You are asking people to repent of following the will of God, as they feel they have discerned it. The only way for you not to appreciate the enormity of this is if you have bought into the conservative lie that TEC in particular, and liberals in general, believe nothing. But then again you also say to liberals:

"You mock deeply held convictions and treat people who disagree with contempt."

Apparently you are blind to the fact that this applies far more to conservatives. I speak as someone who has been mocked and treated with contempt by Evangelicals all my life. Do you seriously think that conservatives are NOT guilty of this? I think a bit of self examination is in order for all concerned, but especially for conservatives.

Joe, Church history is not theology, so my misunderstandings of it is not evidence of my "theological revisionism". I enjoy throwing the hypocrisy of conservatives in their faces, as no doubt you enjoy doing to liberals. It is funny though how I am judged a liberal, and a "revisionist", simply because I do not hold to particular Evangelical viewpoints. Please, tell me what you think I believe that is so "theologically revisionist". And what was the Reformation about if no the rejection of a power structure widely seen as corrupt and that had introduced error into the faith as a result of that corruption?

As to the virtues of the ACoC, I am a Canadian. (cough) I can tell you that, despite what you might read in the blogosphere, there is no persecution of "faithful, orthodox" Anglicans in this diocese. Conservatives have falsely accused our new bishop of demanding that his priests affirm SSBs or leave the diocese. He has not affirmed SSBs himself, let alone forced his priests to do so. So, when I see conservatives reviling and bearing false witness against a Godly man like +Cy Pittman, I have to wonder who else you do it to. Again, give me one example of "persecution" of the faithful remnant by the heathen hoardes that is not a situation where they set up a simplistic litmus test of "orthodoxy" for their bishop, barred the doors on him when he refused to do so, then claimed persecution when he disciplined them, or some similar behaviour. I was given the case of an old, by all accounts saintly, bishop who crossed diocesan bounds in TEC and was disciplined for that. Well, he had to know what he was doing was wrong, and I have not been able to find out what was such an emergency that he had to do that rather than allowing one of the bishops of Essentials/GAFCON/whatever they call themselves now, to minister to these people, so again, not much persecution there as far as I can see. Please, show me.

"Thanks, JCF et al, for asking! I'll tell you what I (and many others) want: We want an Episcopal Church that embraces the mind of the communion. To wit, we want: (1) an apology for TEC breaking faith (not an apology that says, "we're sorry you don't understand"),..."

"Breaking faith" with whom? With you? Or with God? The majority of TEC believes that its actions are required to keep faith with God and God's intentions as we understand them. We should deny that in order to keep faith with YOU?

"...(2) an affirmation from TEC of the trustworthiness and authority of Holy Scripture..."

I'm not aware of any authority within TEC that has ever said anything different. The problem is the interpretation of the words of Holy Scripture through the use of God-given reason. You would have each of us abandon our individual consciences to the "mind of the Communion" as if we were some Borg-like collective. No, thank you--the right to individual conscience and reasoned individual interpretation of scripture was one of the things the entire Reformation was about.

"(3) the cessation of all SS blessings and all ordinations of persons in SS partnered relationships...."

Once more--if individual consciences of TEC, gathered in diocesan or general convention, perceive God's intentions differently, you would have us ignore that perception in favor of YOURS? Why is your perception better than ours?

"Furthermore, (4) we want +VGR to resign and all those bishops who participated in his consecration to either repent or do likewise."

Repent of what? Repent of following the Spirit as it was revealed to them in convention? Because YOU believe it was a false revelation (I assume). Again, what makes YOUR determination of this better than theirs?

Joe concluded:
"Let me turn this, then, into a question: Wouldn't you agree that keeping Anglicans in the fold - even if it is in a new paradigm - beats the bloodbath that we're finding now? Put another way, wouldn't living together in a strained communion be preferable to full-fledged schism?"

These are questions progressives and moderates have been asking since before +Gene was consecrated Bishop of New Hampshire, and the answers we keep getting are the demands with which you started your post: only complete capitulation, despite our deeply-held convictions, will really satisfy "conservatives."

If you take your own questions seriously, I think you'll find that the answer is the one we have been giving. Yes, yes, we can stay together "in a strained communion." That's what we have right now in TEC. We don't agree. But we stay together in one national church. If you can imagine us all staying together in one Communion, why is it so hard to imagine us staying together in one national church?

Joe: be realistic, though, about the changing social context here. Europe is moving very fast towards a situation where every EU country will have same-sex marriage on the statue books soon: this is a phenomenon that has been greeted in nearly every country (except Scandinavia?) by derision from church leaders, of various hues. However, the population of Europe, including the UK has liberalised to an astonishing extent very rapidly with regard to acceptance of gay people. We seem to be ahead of the US in this area.

So, when church leaders like Orombi write articles in The Times using words like "abomination", it just looks unpleasant to everyone else. There is not the slightest chance that the Church's mission in Europe would be aided by a return to the position you are advocating: it is like still using the kind of language to describe ethnic minorities which was possible 40 years ago, but now is unthinkable.

The genie, the taboo, cannot be put back in the bottle. One way or another, the Church has got to start speaking more sense to gay people than just saying "we don't like you, go away and leave us alone," which is basically your position. It isn't going to work: it already isn't working. You have to come up with something which includes gay people, which listens to us: hoping we will disappear is not an option. I can see the Archbishop is attracted to that view of things, because he's trying to avoid conflict, but it won't work in England any more than North America.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Ford. My understanding is that what Cy Pitman did was require his priests to affirm that they would abide by the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church of Canada and the Diocese of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador - in other words, to reaffirm the commitments they made at their ordination. Clearly any person of integrity who was not prepared to commit themselves in this was was honour bound to relinquish the exercise of their ministry in the Canadian Church.

The case of the US bishop is interesting in that, despite the hysterical screaching of
"conservative" mythmakers, the bishop himself has conceded that the discipline meted out to him was canonically appropriate.

The thing is, the "conservatives" have been exercising a phony civil disobedience. Real civil disobedience requires a willingness to accept the consequences. If, like these "conservatives," one defiantly disobeys with the expectation of facing no consequence, it isn't civil disobedience - it's pissant pomposity.

Finally, the "conservatives" can't honestly appeal to tradition for their revolt and defiance. A real Anglican traditionalist would know that our real tradition is found in passive obedience.

+Malcolm, that is exactly what happened. It is done yearly, on Maundy Thursday. He moved it up this year because, frankly, there were a few elements in the diocese who needed to decide how they stood WRT obedience to canons. They did. Four, I believe, have left the ACoC. Thing is that in the conservative blogoshpere, as far as it is talked about at all, the claim is that he required affirmation of SSBs or "leave the diocese". Some even call for prayer for the "persecuted clergy"! As I said, if they can treat someone as good as him in this fashion, who else do they do this to? How can I believe anything conservatives say if they have created an emotional environment where some conservatives feel justified in doing this? And I don't think it's pomposity. I think we live in a society that only validates the victim fighting against his oppressors. That means everyone is trying to define themselves as victim. You see it everywhere. Try being a member of a group so identified and saying that you DON'T feel particularly victimized. Try saying that perhaps someone making six figures in North America is not so oppressed as someone watching their children starve half a world away, living in fear that members of another religion will come some night and kill them all. Then you get accused of minimizing your oppressson, taking a victim mentality, and on and on. It's really quite interesting.