Two excellent essays.

Institutional integrity is a golden idol with feet of clay. This gay boy is not going into that Tophet.

Dear Katie,
Thank you for putting in persepctive something that has troubled me for the last week,i.e. the two tracks at Lambeth: Indaba groups and the Bishops on the one hand, and RW and the Windsor Continuation Group on the other.

Were these two processes really headed in different directions, or are we not yet fully informed about what our bishops had to say in their various groups? My concern here is inspired by the video conference of the Presiding Bishop of TEC and Bishop Mark Sisk of New York, in which they seemed to agree that there "was no sentiment by the bishops" to suspend the moratoria enacted by TEC. Actually, the only moratorium that exists is the "restraint" that we agreed to exercise in giving consent to the election of a gay bishop. That's what BO33 actually means.

There is no moratorium on blessings of same sex unions in place in TEC. Our House of Bishops has only agreed not to authorize a rite for the blessing of such unions.

I can only pray that we were truthfully represented at Lambeth. +Katherine came home from Dar Es Salaam with a demand for mortatoria less specific than these, and, at that time she suggested a "fast" (it was near Lent) from advancing the cause of LGBT persons in our church. I responded to this by preaching a sermon in my church titled, "A fast from injustice for Lent."

These calls for patience remiod me of the calls of white leaders during the Civil Rights Movement. I was an unimportant worker in that movement. The calls for waiting, for not alienating the power brokers, for patience in the face of discrimination were rightly denounced by the black persons who led the movement. Powerful establishments do not freely renounce their power in the name of the common good. Imagine of William Wilberforce has listended to this advice, which came from the church, as well as the state.

No. We need to tell the truth to the Anglican Communion. Many of us are committed to removing the commitment to restraint in election and consecration of bishops. We intend to let the Holy Spirit have her way. We want and need the voices of gifted LGBT persons in our episcopacy, just as we need female bishops, and bishops who are persons of color. Anything less and we have a church led by a bunch of the priveledged.

I highly recommend Mr Naughton's piece. I find it wise and sympathetic.

Yes, the fight must go on -- Gene Robinson has his truth. But the methods must not be such as destroy church unity. The two Lambeths analysis is convincing. The Robinson side should build on the first Lambeth and keep up the critique of the second Lambeth.

Sherrod's article left me bemused.

How can one possibly tar the Episcopal Church with the same brush as the Bush administration?

I would have thought the tactics of the Bush administration were much more in keeping with the conservatives than the liberals.

You know, the whole world is going to end unless you adopt our paradigms, of course the "enemy" has weapons of mass destruction, who needs the truth or a fair hearing when we know we are right, might is right, why play fair if our interests are at stake, God didn't intend for there to be justice for "them", war is okay when our stakes are at interest, we never admit we made a mistake, free speech is fine (as long as you agree with us), God wants us to control the world and any tactics are okay as long as we win and control them, we are above the law and/or divinely decreed, God doesn't care about suffering or famine - they are all part of his "grand plan", we don't have to worry about the future as God will take it all away so we are not accountable to future generations or others, God wants all women punished and repressed because Eve committed the "original" sin, God is dead, Jesus is the only loving manifestation from God and Jesus doesn't love "the other" (or women, or GLBTs...).

Mr. Naughton,

The Archbishop premises his call for sacrifice on the principle of 'kenosis' the self emptying of Christ.

Where he fails to make his case, however, is equating the sacrifice required of lgbt persons who have literally been sacrificed by the churches for generations, and the sacrifice required of those bishops intent upon self aggrandizing expansion of their domains by incorporating conservative parishes and dioceses in revolt in the US and Canada.

The archbishop needs to be told 'we already gave' when it comes to time to ask the Americans and Canadians to sacrifice some more. Such a delay only encourages the beliefs of those are convinced that homosexuals are unworthy of any official recognition or blessing by the church. Attempts to coerce others to agree with their bigotted views is a form of moral blackmail which should be resisted. As Dr. King said when calls for patience were made of him, 'the time for doing right is always now.'

Wow I just had a fact flash. I am not the Archbishop of Canterbury either.

So as an Anglican believer I do not have to sacrifice my worship, witness, work, and committed relationships - all to live down to the trashy views some bishop or believer might have about me, say, in Bishop Minns church in Virginia, or in some Southern Cone parish or alleged diocese headed up by you know who.

That Rowan would ask us to sacrifice is remarkable enough, insofar as a great many believers and non-believers are already doing it every day - not least those queer folks in nations like, say, Uganda or Rwanda or Nigeria?

His theology of sacrifice - do not disturb the nasty expectations of, say, Akinola with positive lived commitments to your partner or your children? - seems even dodgier.

Well I did not start walking to follow Jesus of Nazareth because I wanted to live down to traditional and conservative definitions and beliefs which little value me or my potentials for daily life as citizen or as believer - but instead because I caught a living glimpse of living upwards towards some better ways of life beyond all that.

I pray that all will not step back from the good that Jesus is doing in their daily lives, just because somebody else takes offense according to some piece of traditional or conservative negativity.

Somewhere, somebody wrote that the worker who puts her hand to the plow and then turns back is not worthy of her calling?

Alas. Lord have mercy.

Dear 'Spirit',

Sometimes I think you are an agent provocateur for Rottsweiler Ratzinger.

These are two spirited, honest pieces, distinguished, moreover, by wit (especially JN's). Not much of the latter is evident on the other side.

There's a great tension here. Living as I do in the UK and - especially - in the diocese of Durham, I'm terribly aware of it. On Sunday, we (= partner, me and 3-year old) went to communion in the Cathedral. It was wonderful (no doubt, partly because of the absence of T Wright). We sat behind a largely black family (one white mother). Three of our gay friends were there. Anyone who is not an imbecile or a hypocrite could instantly reognise them as gay. No one - in that context - gives a hoot. That is Anglicanism at its magnificent best. It connects only with one side of Lambeth 2008.

I strongly recommend you 'convert' to the C of I, as previously suggested.

Well put, Dr Dan.

"Three of our gay friends were there. Anyone who is not an imbecile or a hypocrite could instantly reognise them as gay. No one - in that context - gives a hoot. That is Anglicanism at its magnificent best. It connects only with one side of Lambeth 2008."

Much the same can be said of the Anglican church in Tokyo that I occasionally attend and even of many RCC churches. But if Durham Cathedral were to have a public blessing of a gay union the other side of Lambeth 2008 would raise its ugly head. Negotiation of official change in church teaching and practice, which I too, unlike Pope Ratzinger, believe to be long overdue, has to be negotiated in a theologically and canonically responsible manner. Patient persuasion and gradualism is what Rowan Williams has explicitly recommended.

If I were a member of TEC, or the Canadian Anglican Church, I would feel exactly the same as Katie Sherrod and Jim Naughton. The American and Canadian Churches have opened up the way for Anglicans to finally come out of the closet about the incidence of homosexual relationships, not only among the rank and file of our committed membership, but also in the ministerial echelons of our Church. (Honesty or Hypocrisy?)

The Church has to grow up into Christ and deal with the world as it is today - and not the world of the Bible. If we could only treat the Bible as our Founding Document, and not the ongoing Maintenance Manual, perhaps we might be able to 'hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church' - today, and not just to past generations.

Gay is here to stay. What does the Church do about that? Well, the Anglican Church in Nigeria, for instance, carries on in its Victorian understanding of human sexuality by colluding with the Nigerian Government in it legislative intention to throw gays into prison. Is that what we want to perpetuate in our countries, where there is government reocgnition of the need for legitimately covenanted same-sex relationships?

Where does 'Fellowship in the Gospel begin and end? What are the abiding parameters of feloowship?

Spirit of Vatican wrote "Negotiation of official change in church teaching and practice, which I too, unlike Pope Ratzinger, believe to be long overdue, has to be negotiated in a theologically and canonically responsible manner. Patient persuasion and gradualism is what Rowan Williams has explicitly recommended."

Tell that to Ghandi, or to Martin Luther King, (or in fact to Martin Luther).

Tell that to Jesus, who obviously should not have procesed into Jerusalem on a donkey and preached in the Temple, inciting the crowds, but should have sat down to years of patient negotiation with the scribes and pharisees in "a theologically and canonically responsible manner".

I suspect, however, that if Jesus himself, anxious for spiritual change, had followed the advice currently given to LGBT Anglicans, and be patient, he would have died of old age.

Simon

Furthering Simon Dawson's comments to Spirit of Vatican II:

Thirty years isn't enough time for persuasion and gradualism? Is fifty? One hundred? At what point is one permitted to say "enough" and act?

@Pat O'Neill:

Thirty years ago AIDS was still the "gay disease".

Thirty years ago the notion that gays could be married in any state of the Union would have been completely absurd.

Thirty years ago the idea that gays could openly serve in the military would have been shouted down and the supporters treated as pariahs.

Thirty years ago it was perfectly socially acceptable, even commonplace, across America to blatantly discriminate against gays in the workplace.

Thirty years ago a politician being openly gay would likely end their career for good. (Barney Frank being the notable exception.)

Yes, there is gradual progress. It's right there staring you in the face. Naturally things aren't perfect and there is much work to be done. But if you insist on forcing things to go faster in our Anglican Communion, particularly taking steps to effectively remove TEC from that Communion, all you do is destroy the Church you are trying to save, and in the end achieve nothing else.

Personally I feel lucky that TEC was invited to Lambeth at all and that the Anglican Communion is still (barely) holding together. Count your blessings.

Interesting batting-to-and-fro as we try to decide whether the positive or the negative prevailed.

Great strides have undoubtedly been made. Great evils still occur. Individuals only have the one life. The whole debate is utterly stupid, both relative to other things, and in itself. The arguments of 'the orthodox' are absurd. And, at least in the West, they are so out of touch. These things we need to hold on to, even if it is not always wise to shout them out, and even as we try - and must try - to remain in full communion with them.

As for gay blessings, they undoubtedly occur in the C of E, as elsewhere, though not yet in Durham Cathedral (Durham city and diocese, most certainly). They can't be stopped. They need not be official, whether as rites or as publicly announced, though it would be much better if they were. Much better, too, if they were hailed as 'marriage'.

The moratorium on appointment of (actively) gay priests or bishops is a much harder matter. Can Schori impose this? Does she want to? Will her bishops agree? (Some have already disagreed - more power to them.) Could the TEC hierarchy stop these things anyway? Surely not.

I hope that if TEC is willing to stump up financially, there will be a tacit deal. Very ignoble, but better than the alternatives.

Walsingham:

So we should wait another 30 years for the church to catch up? Oh, and it didn't take 30 years for those things to happen anyway...most of them happened two decades ago or more.

John:

No, Schori can't impose anything. Only the General Convention can do that...and it is unlikely to do so.

Walsingham wrote: "Thirty years ago AIDS was still the "gay disease"."

It wasn't invented yet (but fighting over women was on...).

The first headlines from San Francisco came in late summer 1981.

Walsingham, wrote "Thirty years ago the idea that gays could openly serve in the military would have been shouted down and the supporters treated as pariahs. (snip) Yes, there is gradual progress. (snip) But if you insist on forcing things to go faster in our Anglican Communion, (snip) all you do is destroy the Church you are trying to save, and in the end achieve nothing else."

I can't speak for all of your examples, but I do know about the military example, being part of the campaign to change the UK military gay ban.

Your argument that change can come from gradual argument and consensus is wrong. We tried negotiation and patience, it did not work. So we took the Government to the European Court and won, and forced the Government and military to stop sacking and prosecuting gay men and women.

Before the change, many "experts" in the military predicted that forcing a change would damage or destroy the armed forces, as homosexuality was incompatable with military life, Now ten years after then ban groups from the armed forces march in uniform in the annual London Gay Pride march with official approval. And the reason - it is good for recruiting. The predicted catastrophe did not occur.

Very few such changes happens peacefully, they have to be forced through. The changes invariably meet predictions of disaster if they were to happen. The predictions, invariably, turn out to be wrong.

Simon

Simon Dawson, you underestimate the force of (a) prophetic speech (b) rational argument (c) sharing of experience. These should make unnecessary illegal actions, such as for example ordaining women in the RCC. These are not gestures of civil disobedience but are seen as tampering with essentials of church order.

"you underestimate the force of (a) prophetic speech (b) rational argument (c) sharing of experience. These should make unnecessary illegal actions"

But SpiritVat2, ab&c are OFTEN "illegal" (under the dominating laws or canons)! Are laws/canons, like the Sabbath, "made for man" or vice-versa?

The "gradual evolution vs. direct-action revolution" debate is an on-going one, no doubt about it...

...but "Go Slow" arguments ought ONLY come from WITHIN an oppressed community---not AT them! >:-/

Lord have mercy...

@Simon Dawson:

The rest of my post was clearly about American politics and how change happened in America. Given that the discussion is about American politics, the American church, and the historic treatment of gays in America, your sole exceptional example of gays in the British military is frankly irrelevant.

Besides, if anything your own example demonstrates a case where the legal system was used to protect rights and hardly involved the sort of out-and-out willful ignorance of due process that others are agitating for. In the case you cited, the legal system did just what it was supposed to do and the "good guys" won -- by playing by the rules.

@JCF:

Under existing TEC canon, there is nothing to prevent a priest from blessing a same-sex union, and TEC has a self-imposed non-canonical moratorium on consecrating gay bishops. Even if the compromise from Lambeth is implemented by TEC, there would not need to be a change in canon, just an understanding by Convention that that moratorium would continue for the time being.

You are also confusing "laws of men" with laws of God. The Church is not the same as a civil legal institution, and we have a sacred duty to uphold it as best as we can. Picking and choosing which canons we obey and which ones we don't leads to the Church disintegrating, just as San Joaquin's shenanigans and ignorance of canon have set a dangerous precedent.

@Pat O'Neill:

And, pray tell, what super-duper secret plan do you have to achieve all this in less than 30 years without destroying the Anglican Communion? The only plan on the table right now that has better than a snowball's chance in Hades is the one from Lambeth.

You seem to have a problem with your history. The first gay pride rallies were in 1970 (38 years ago) and even then the changes they pushed for didn't really happen for at least a decade. "Two decades earlier" than thirty years is thus impossible, and many of those changes are still happening now. After all, Lawrence vs. Texas was only five years ago.

Either way, the sorts of things done in the LGBT movement in the 1970s would be simply impossible in the Church. I hardly think anyone is going to demand TEC bishops fly into Nigeria for a bit of pushing and shoving or marching down the streets of Lagos. Shouting in people's faces will do little to convince them, either. "Direct action" in that context is just plain nonsensical and attacks the paramount thing in the Church -- agape and unity.

Walsingham:

I propose the same "super-duper" plan we have had all along for women's ordination and consecration, as an example:

What happens in the USA has no bearing on what happens in Nigeria and vice versa. Two churches, two different attitudes and beliefs on all but core issues--such as the role of Christ as God and savior. If the Communion can survive lay presidency in Sydney, surely it can survive an open gay bishop in New Hampshire!

@Pat O'Neill:

Under any catholic understanding of the Church, the churches in the Anglican Communion don't enjoy that degree of autonomy. It is not an "I'm OK, you're OK" kind of thing. And no, I don't think the Communion can survive lay presidency in Sydney, which *does* affect the core of Anglican beliefs as stated in the Quadrilateral.

If anything Sydney is a another perfect example of why we need to pay more attention to what is happening in other member churches and react accordingly, and strengthen the common institutions we have. In any catholic understanding of the Church, it is through the common mind of *all* the Church that God's Will is expressed, and the common mind of Anglicans on homosexuality may be divided, but lay presidency is not and never was permitted in the Anglican understanding of the historic episcopate. (Not even the Methodists allowed for that sort of thing.) Nor, for that matter, is border-crossing.

The problem is that just trying to get the status quo isn't going to work. The Anglican Communion is falling apart at the seams under the current scheme, and it is not realistic to expect "full steam ahead" to work. That's what got us in this predicament in the first place. I'm reminded very strongly of the early American period when we had the Articles of Confederation, and the chaos that resulted. The reaction was what gave us the Constitution, and was a lasting system that worked. The current Anglican Communion is like that early Continental Congress -- just plain too weak to ensure its own laws and regulations were taken seriously.

Walsingham:

My understanding of the creedal belief in "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church" is that it is 1) something to be prayed for, not something that can rationally be said to exist today, and 2) that said church is made up of all the believers in Christ as God and savior, no matter what individual little fillips of liturgy, doctrine and tradition may otherwise divide them.

And if the churches in the Anglican Communion do not have the level of autonomy I describe, then how do you account for the differences in women's ordination among them? If they can make up their own minds in regard to that, why not in regard to the ordination and consecration of active homosexuals? Is the former really of lesser import than the latter?

@Pat O'Neill:

'And if the churches in the Anglican Communion do not have the level of autonomy I describe, then how do you account for the differences in women's ordination among them? If they can make up their own minds in regard to that, why not in regard to the ordination and consecration of active homosexuals? Is the former really of lesser import than the latter?'

The churches in the Anglican Communion are notionally autonomous in the sense that there is no legally binding mechanism to *make* them do anything. The shared communion is entirely voluntary. That does not mean that they are free to do whatever they like. The Anglican Communion is designed to maintain communion in that voluntary way, by having consultations to coordinate policy and ensure we're all on the same page.

When it turns out that we are *not* on the same page, then communion is broken. Hence we actually bear a much greater responsibility to make sure that that does not happen.

It is much like living in a village with no police. To avoid crime and chaos, it is much more important that the residents talk to one another and act responsibly -- for their own good. Maybe Rome is a police state in comparison, while we're anarcho-syndicalists, but we definitely have a problem with chaos right now.

As to just why there is a difference between women's ordination and homosexuality, you're asking the wrong person. I don't hold that position and I'm not going to defend it. What matters is that many of our sister churches DO hold that position, and if we want to maintain unity, we have to at least take their understanding of it seriously -- particularly because we're the ones introducing an innovation, even if that innovation is with the best of intentions.

Dialogue can work, and did work at Lambeth. We have to give it a better chance than we have, instead of just screaming at each other.

Dialogue only works when both sides are listening. I have seen little evidence that the "no gays allowed" side of this issue has listened to the other side at all.

Walsingham wrote: "What matters is that many of our sister churches DO hold that position, and if we want to maintain unity, we have to at least take their understanding of it seriously..."

But if it is not serious? Do we take it seriously then - or do we speak the Truth in love?

@Göran Koch-Swahne:

'But if it is not serious? Do we take it seriously then - or do we speak the Truth in love?'

One, how do you judge if it is serious? Clearly most of our sister churches (and members within our own churches) opposing us are quite sincere, and from that sincerity follows their seriousness.

Two, "take seriously" does not mean "to agree with" or "to take on their view". It simply means that we talk to them with the utmost respect and try to understand why they believe what they do.

As an example, opponents of women's ordination are often portrayed here as being opposed to cooties or think women are icky. That is a perfect example of *not* taking an opponent's position seriously -- instead, a grotesque caricature is posed. A kind of straw man.

It also means talking directly to the opponent and not past them. Granted, TA is heavily tilted towards the leftish bits of Anglicanism and relatively few conservatives engage in debate here. Anyway online media are horrible for a debate -- too many passions running high, too little understanding the reactions our words cause, etc.

I believe this is why the ndaba sessions worked. The participants were forced to look each other in the eye and take one another seriously. They HAD to talk, and they HAD to take one another seriously, while still disagreeing. The participants came away with a much better appreciation of what the "other side" really though, rather than just mocking the straw man they had built up in their minds.

We all need to be doing ndaba to save our Communion.

@Pat O'Neill:

The evidence is Lambeth. The most extreme bishops didn't show up, but many conservatives did, and they talked.

The "talking" that was done before was mainly of the preaching-to-the-choir sort that I alluded to above. There *was* no dialogue to speak of. It was only when people were forced to sit down and listen to one another that things changed, which is why Lambeth turned out as well as it did.

Furthermore, you will never convince an opponent until you understand why he or she thinks that way, and you must *always* be ready to question your own perception of their reasoning. Once you start to pigeonhole someone, you've made a grave mistake and you yourself have damaged the chances for dialogue. Dialogue is thus more than just presenting your point of view. It's *understanding* the other person's point of view.

"The evidence is Lambeth. The most extreme bishops didn't show up, but many conservatives did, and they talked."

...and talked and talked and talked. Talk is cheap, as the saying goes.

In the end, the only action was to ask the North American churches to stop listening to the Spirit as they hear it, to make this "sacrifice" for the unity of the Communion. No similar "sacrifice" was asked of the other side. (Don't point me to the "moratorium" on border crossings...it's hardly the same thing and no one believes it will be abided by anyway.)

@Pat O'Neill:

Well, considering that the actual participants in Lambeth have come away saying how productive they thought it all was, I'd call it presumptuous of you to ridicule their own assessment.

It is also presumptuous to assume that the Spirit only speaks through us and not them.

The moratoria would return us to the status quo of 2002 and give everyone a chance for a breather, and stop the asinine shouting at each other. Talking -- and by that I mean the real dialog as seen at Lambeth, not the screaming at each other in blogs -- is quite productive if you give it a chance.

I ask again: What else do you expect us Anglicans to do? Just give up and call it a day? I hardly think that that is what Jesus would want us to do. His will, not ours.

I see a lot of criticism and gnashing of teeth, but nothing remotely resembling a plausible, constructive alternative.

Walsingham:

I expect Anglicans to do what they have always done in the past--realize that there is more than one way to the Kingdom (though all of them eventually go through Christ) and no one of us (or even any group of us) has the knowledge of the best path. Indeed, the best path for YOU may not be the best path for ME.

That has always served us well...leading to many different autonomous churches, each adapted to the particular needs of its nation and culture, but sharing in a recognition of Christ as God and savior. Everything else was secondary or even tertiary.

I see no reason to change that now, no matter how much some may want to impose THEIR path on the rest of us.

@Pat O'Neill:

'I expect Anglicans to do what they have always done in the past--realize that there is more than one way to the Kingdom...'

You've turned the history of Anglicanism on its head.

The Anglican Communion is relatively young -- it can only be said to have existed at the earliest since the 1860s -- and was by necessity looser in order to get the national churches *that already existed* to join together. Naturally they were jealous of their autonomy and were unwilling to surrender more than they did. Again, the parallels to the Articles of Confederation in America are striking.

Meanwhile, its predecessor -- the Church of England -- was not as tolerant as you portray it. Look at how the Nonconformists, Dissenters and Roman Catholics were treated in England for not going along with the approved line. Henry VIII vigorously attacked anyone who didn't go along with his version of the Church, in some cases murdering them when they failed to comply. Elizabeth was quite happy to have those of a more Dissenter or Catholic mind tortured and killed for the sake of conformity.

Thus the historical argument doesn't hold water, especially because it is clear that today's "live and let live" *isn't working*. We have parishes and entire dioceses trying to leave TEC; we have border crossings left and right; we have local priests willfully flouting their bishops and doing as they please; we have people denying the Creeds and some of the ecumenical councils (both liberals and conservatives). It is the very definition of anarchy. It is clear that we therefore need to find a way to strengthen the common bonds, before it all flies apart. If we fail, we'd leave both GLBT and desperately poor people in Africa and elsewhere in the lurch, by breaking the dialog through which we have at least *some* voice in their affairs. And we would work against the very goal Christ calls us to work towards: unity in faith.

The price that was asked of us at Lambeth is just not that high -- a temporary and voluntary moratorium on two things we didn't do before 2003 anyway: introduce official rites for blessings of gay partnerships and consecrate open gays to the episcopate.

Walsingham

The price that was asked of us at Lambeth goes beyond not blessing same sex relationships and not consecrating gay bishops. You must be aware that openly gay partnered priests are also not acceptable, that many parishes don’t tolerate gay church wardens, children’s workers, PCC members, prayer group leaders.... although there are no rules against them. It’s a question of what anti gay parishes can get away with in the reality of the church climate, not of the letters of Lambeth resolutions.

But let’s accept your premise. The price that was asked of us at Lambeth is not high: but only if there is a real forward now.

In return I expect to see a real change in the way the rest of the Communion engages with this issue.

When someone like Davis Mac-Iyalla is attacked in exile and the Archbishop of Canterbury writes a letter to GAFCON asking them to tone down the rhetoric, because that too can kill, I expect a huge number of bishops in the Communion to support him publicly.

When a gay youth worker is being denied a job by his bishop simply because his bishop does not believe that he will remain celibate, I expect all of the other CoE bishops to point out, loud and clear, that this man had been following CoE guidelines.

When extreme conservative bishops comment that homosexuality doesn’t exist in their countries although they have laws that condemn gays to death simply for existing, or that gays are responsible for arousing God’s wrath who then sends floods over England, or that they are satanic..... I expect the majority of the AC bishops to state, publicly and firmly, that this is entirely unacceptable.

I expect all of them to work patiently but firmly towards making the conservative churches see that there is no acceptable theology for supporting the death penalty for homosexuals.

And I expect them finally to take the Communion’s call for a listening process seriously.
There may well be valid theological grounds for opposing same sex love. There can be none for peddling false “facts”, for demonising people, for lying about them, their lives and their faith, and for excluding them from the conversation.

If all of this begins to happen with immediate effect, then it is indeed acceptable for lgbt people to sacrifice their status for a little longer. I’m not holding my breath, though.

Walsingham:

So the solution is to give in to those who would force their way upon everyone else? Because these moratoria will not be temporary. The next time someone even suggests an openly gay person for bishop, the cry will go up, "What about the moratorium?"...even if the next time is 30 years from now.

How long is long enough to wait for the rest of the world to catch up? Should Lincoln have waited ANOTHER 87 years to free the slaves?

@Erika Baker:

'You must be aware that openly gay partnered priests are also not acceptable...'

I doubt that that will have much effect, frankly. The same way I doubt that gay blessings will come to a screeching halt because no official rites are available. And I don't think anyone is under any illusions about that, either.

'... that many parishes don’t tolerate gay church wardens, children’s workers, PCC members, prayer group leaders...'

That would remain so with or without the moratoria. Red herring.

'It’s a question of what anti gay parishes can get away with in the reality of the church climate, not of the letters of Lambeth resolutions.'

This is just why I get annoyed with those calling loudly for autonomy -- then in the very next breath call for its end in order to impose their idea of correct behavior. If a parish does not want a gay priest or church warden, that is their choice. If you want to impose some sort of order, fine, come out and say so -- and in fact I'm asking to impose at least *some* order just so we *can* ensure a common line on this sort of thing.

'But let’s accept your premise. The price that was asked of us at Lambeth is not high: but only if there is a real forward now. In return I expect to see a real change in the way the rest of the Communion engages with this issue. [...] If all of this begins to happen with immediate effect, then it is indeed acceptable for lgbt people to sacrifice their status for a little longer. I’m not holding my breath, though.'

I expect the same, which is precisely why I'm willing to give it a shot. Put it this way: Suppose TEC goes along with it and the border crossings continue, some Africans continue to openly persecute gays, and so on. Then at least TEC can rightly say it tried to play ball and go the extra mile, and call the bluff of those attacking it. (Ouch, my idiom-fu is awful.)

@Pat O'Neill:

'How long is long enough to wait for the rest of the world to catch up?'

Do you seriously expect TEC doing its own thing and getting kicked out of the Anglican Communion will do a jot to change that?

Meanwhile, staying in the Communion and working within it promises to help all the others who are also within it. It's a much more constructive strategy than just storming off in a huff and refusing to play with the other children anymore.

'Should Lincoln have waited ANOTHER 87 years to free the slaves?'

Lincoln was, in fact, a gradualist and never "freed the slaves". At the 1860 election, his position was to limit, not end, slavery; the Emancipation Proclamation freed *some* of the slaves, and then only in areas the Union had occupied in the South, not in the loyal slave states. He also was a supporter of a group in favor of deporting the freed slaves to Africa, the American Colonization Society -- which is where Liberia came from.

In fact, Lincoln famously wrote the following to Horace Greeley, a pro-abolition editor who attacked Lincoln's "lack of resolve":

'I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to SAVE THE UNION, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.'

Sounds an awful lot like ++Rowan, doesn't it?

Walsingham

"Suppose TEC goes along with it and the border crossings continue, some Africans continue to openly persecute gays, and so on. Then at least TEC can rightly say it tried to play ball and go the extra mile, and call the bluff of those attacking it."

I'm surprised by this comment.
I had understood you to value unity above everything else and therefore to support a moratorium.

Now it looks like you're playing the same game everyone else is playing.
If TEC accepts the moratorium and if Africans and GAFCON continue as they are doing now, and if TEC then says "told you so".... how will that further unity? Or gay inclusion?
All it will do is make the startling injustice of it all more apparent than it already is.

Lincoln changed his mind. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. I suggest you read Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" to discover how Lincoln came to the realization that "gradualism" in the face of a grievous moral wrong was not the answer.

Walsingham

The answer to the question depends on a number of individual answers:
1. Is the inclusion of lgbt people an important aim for me?
2. Is unity a more important goal than the full inclusion of lgbt people?

Depending on how you answer these questions you then have to say:

1. The full inclusion of lgbt people is not an important aim for me, a moratorium is therefore needed to ensure unity.

2. Unity is important but not at the expense of the long term exclusion of lgbt people. That being the case there are three considerations:
a. does a moratorium further the long term inclusion of lgbt people?
b. is it more likely to preserve the status quo in stone, or
c. is it possible that it will be a route to short- to mid term full inclusion?

3. Unity is not as important as following what my church perceives to be the calling of the Holy Spirit. In that case, the only thing that could be gained by a moratorium is the long distance hope that it will aid our lgbt brothers and sisters in those countries in which they are being persecuted.

My own view is firmly that unity is desirable but not as important as following what is perceived to be a true calling from the Holy Spirit. And I don’t believe that a moratorium will do anything other than enshrine the status quo in stone. It will not create genuine unity (no other is worth having), and it will not be used by conservative churches to examine their theology on lgbt issues.

@Pat O'Neill:

I suggest you read the text of the Emancipation Proclamation and get back to me on that. I don't need to read Doris Kearns Goodwin -- I can read what Lincoln himself had to say on it, and judge him by his actions.

Money quote from the Proclamation: "All persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be IN REBELLION against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free..."

Thus he did not "free the slaves" by issuing a proclamation. He freed *some* of them -- and even then it only applied to those areas where the Union was not actually in control (a major point of criticism on the part of abolitionists at the time).

Those in the loyal slave states -- Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri -- remained in bondage until the enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment, which happened after Lincoln died. Even as late as February 1865 -- three months before the end of the war -- he offered to buy the freedom of slaves, rather than merely free them. That was actually done in the slave-holding District of Columbia at that time.

In fact, that quote from Lincoln above was written while Lincoln was writing the Proclamation and was sent shortly before the Proclamation was issued. In fact he drops many hints about the text of the Proclamation in it -- "if I could save the Union by freeing *some* of the slaves, I would do that". And that's exactly what he did.

For Lincoln, the Union *always* came first. Slavery was secondary to it.

Rather like ++Rowan, in fact. :-P

@Erika Baker:

'I'm surprised by this comment.
I had understood you to value unity above everything else and therefore to support a moratorium.'

And I have said nothing to contradict that. If TEC does what is asked of it by the Communion at large (*not* by individual churches) and the Global South churches continue to break the agreement, then they are clearly the ones to blame for the continued strife and whatever agreed-upon mechanisms arise through the Covenant for punishing transgressors would be brought to bear against them, not TEC.

This is precisely why I would like to see a Covenant of some kind with some teeth. I see it as being quite useful in disciplining those who are engaging what I view as a grave heresy: violating jurisdictions and crossing borders, something which has been established as doctrine since at least Chalcedon.

So rather than TEC being afraid of a Covenant, we ought to be cheering it on. It contains the best way to maintain unity while also putting an end to the heresy in our midst -- and going to bat for those being persecuted at the same time. That is, going to bat for orthodoxy *and* GLBT people in the Global South at the same time.

I should thank Pat O'Neill for bringing up Lincoln. The parallels there are striking as well, only not the way he assumed. ;-)

@Erika Baker:

Regarding your second post -- you phrase it thus: "The full inclusion of lgbt people is not an important aim for me, a moratorium is therefore needed to ensure unity." You are establishing a false dichotomy by making it sound like something is either important, or it isn't. That is wrong.

The full inclusion of GLBT people is very important to me, as I have stated repeatedly. But for all that importance, it is still not important as unity, which is of the *utmost* importance.

The Holy Spirit speaks to us through consensus and unity, not in fragmented narrow definitions. That is precisely why we abide by ecumenical councils and not by individual decisions -- such as papal infallibility and supremacy, for a glaring example.

I can't stress it enough: We as Anglicans are of course reformed, but we are also CATHOLIC. That word doesn't just mean we have nice liturgy and dress up in fancy clothes on Sunday. It means we take the beliefs of the universal Church into account and do not lay sole claim to the workings of the Holy Spirit in our own decisions. One part of the Church can't lay sole claim to that Spirit, because the Spirit breathes throughout the *entire* Church.

Walsingham

I suppose what separates us is that I do not believe that unity is of the utmost importance. It is desireable, but no more.

Christianity has survived many splits, and I'm sure God does not mind with diversity, as long as each one of us is genuinely seeking Him. After all, genuine unity means allowing diversity within the church and respecting each other, something that is now impossible to achieve. Forced unity is completely meaningless and not what God requires of us.

I would consider unity to be important enough to consent to a moratorium if I believed the moratorium to have any effect at all.

I believe it will only enshrine the status quo, and all that would become clear is that the Global South will continue to break the rules. They will not concede so sanctions but will walk away, thereby creating the disunity you so dislike. They will more obviously be the villains, but I don't play blame games, it doesn't matter who is perceived to be in the wrong.

Seeing that in the long term nothing further unity and lgbt inclusion at the same time can be accomplished, I do not see why we have to pretend that it would be and continue to play the game any longer.

Walsingham

Apologies for the terrible spelling and grammar in my last post. I wrote it quickly last night before logging off and didn't check it before posting. Apologies!!

@Erika Baker:

No worries, I'm not a grammar Nazi or anything. Much. :-D

The ultimate question is, how do you discern when the Holy Spirit really is talking to us, and what is the purpose of the Church Catholic? Are Anglicans catholic, or not? Those questions are intimately bound up together with one another. They are inseparable.

Naturally I agree with you that local churches should have a high degree of autonomy. I also agree that homosexuality ought to be an issue of local authority, not one that touches central issues of orthodoxy. *However*, the difficulty is that when we stake the claim to the Holy Spirit speaking through us, we make an extraordinary claim that by definition deprives others of making that same claim. The Holy Spirit cannot be self-contradictory.

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit must by definition breathe through the entirety of the Church. It is a non sequitur to say that part of the Holy Church has the Spirit, and part does not. The Church is an organic whole, made up of the body of believers -- *all* of them.

Reduced to simple politics, that's like saying "where there is consensus, there is true belief".

The enormous responsibility and difficulty we face is that Scripture tells us Jesus wants us to unite ourselves in Him, over and over again. If we take action in the name of the Holy Spirit that contradicts that, then we have to ask, is it really the Spirit talking to us, or our own wishes, even if those wishes are well-intended?

So while I agree that the Global South will more than likely continue to break the rules, that does not mean that *we* should break the rules. It means we should enforce them vigorously. If that means the Global South leaves us, so be it -- but they should leave us and not the other way around.

Walsingham

The Holy Spirit does speak to all of us, but a. not everyone hears him right or at the same time, and b. he may well speak differently to people depending on the cultural and actual situation they find themselves in.

Ad a. there has never been a time where the whole church suddenly agreed on a new direction from the Spirit. It's always a case that some hear it first, try to persuade the others, move on in incremental steps.
The ultimate test is whether, in the long term, the rest of the church follows or not. If it doesn't, the discernment of the "progressives" was wrong. If it does, it can be assumed to have been right.
But to wait until the last person in Christendom agrees is not how I see the Spirit to have acted in the last 2 millennia.

Ad b. Is it really inconceivable that the Spirit would guide one nation towards first eradicating huge economic discrepancies that leave them with man made poverty, another towards first ending tribal warfare, while guiding another towards accepting women as equals, and a third towards including gays?

We do not all find ourselves in homogenous circumstances all over the world, so it's possible that not one recipe fits all, but each has their own challenges.

As long as we're all united in Jesus, as you say, there should be no difficulty with that approach.

@Erika Baker:

'The Holy Spirit does speak to all of us, but a. not everyone hears him right or at the same time, and b. he may well speak differently to people depending on the cultural and actual situation they find themselves in.'

There's the rub: How can you be so sure you're hearing the Spirit, and the Global South isn't?

'It's always a case that some hear it first, try to persuade the others, move on in incremental steps.'

I've advocated doing exactly that, take *incremental* steps and wait and see -- and not do anything to intentionally break the bonds that tie us together. Your argument actually works against the idea that TEC shouldn't go along with a temporary moratorium.

Lincoln also was quite incremental. ++Rowan is trying to do the same.

'Is it really inconceivable that the Spirit would guide one nation towards first eradicating huge economic discrepancies that leave them with man made poverty, another towards first ending tribal warfare, while guiding another towards accepting women as equals, and a third towards including gays?'

Is it conceivable that the Spirit wants us to "include" gays, but not at the expense of unity? I certainly think it's not only conceivable, but eminent. For even with a moratorium, we can still include gays just as much as we ever did before 2003 -- which, by the way, is far more than any other church I am aware of has done. TEC is already at the bleeding edge. Why push it further now?

'We do not all find ourselves in homogenous circumstances all over the world, so it's possible that not one recipe fits all, but each has their own challenges. As long as we're all united in Jesus, as you say, there should be no difficulty with that approach.'

That is precisely the problem: We aren't fully united in Jesus any longer, to some extent because of our own actions. The question remains: Why push harder? Why not compromise for a while and see where that leads in the name of greater understanding across boundaries, rather than serve one narrow interest group at the expense of others?

Walsingham

OK, then tell me again, precisely, what this compromise consists of.

TEC (and others) don't consecrate gay bishops and all priests who wish to continue to do so bless same sex relationships but not officially.
While the others do what please?

Walsingham

1 hour after I read your mail it still throws up more questions in me than it answered.

“There's the rub: How can you be so sure you're hearing the Spirit, and the Global South isn't?”

There are two answers to this. The first one is that I cannot be sure. The perceived route will have to be followed in order to see whether it bears fruit or not.
The second one is that it is quite possible that both hear the Spirit. What is right for the West may not yet be right for the Global South.

“I've advocated doing exactly that, take *incremental* steps and wait and see –“

What incremental step are you advocating liberals and TEC should take? I can only hear you advocate that they don’t take any steps but remain where they have been requested to remain. But if they are really following the discernment of the Spirit, how can the truth of that calling be assessed if they don’t follow it but wait for.... for what?

“Is it conceivable that the Spirit wants us to "include" gays, but not at the expense of unity?”

It is conceivable. But I have yet to hear any proposal that will achieve that and that does not merely pay lip services to inclusion. Even you put “include” in inverted commas! (1/2)

(2/2)
“That is precisely the problem: We aren't fully united in Jesus any longer, to some extent because of our own actions.”

The question is what we mean by unity. Simply using the same label and having 650 nice men meet every ten years is not actual unity. The real thing means accepting that we have diversity but that we are all united in Jesus, by our faith not by whether we always perceive the same celestial messages or not.

“rather than serve one narrow interest group at the expense of others?”

I balk a bit as being considered to be a representative of a narrow interest group rather than as a human being as much redeemed by Christ as any other. Calling me a part of a narrow interest group somehow suggests that I am less important because of that.
If you subdivide people long enough every one of us ends up in a narrow interest group. That, in itself, says nothing about the value of our claim to be treated exactly the same as every other human being. This is MY faith too, MY church. It is not up to anyone to relegate me to the margins like a pesky child just because my presence clouds the pretty but false image of a united holy church the majority so loves.

And anyway – I expect the Romans and the Jewish authorities considered Jesus and his disciples to represent a narrow interest group who should really remain quiet rather than upset the status quo and the religious establishment. It was a bad argument then, it’s a bad one now.

I return to the purpose of my earlier question. Unity is only worth having if it’s real unity, not a fake label. I agree that it would be very nice if we could establish it and I agree that it would deserve any amount of compromise. But compromise cuts two ways – what are the others offering that is as genuine and as sacrificial?