This group of articles has to be one of the more telling reflections on Lambeth 08. It is good to see someone stating the truth: that the perceived problems of the Anglican Communion cannot be addressed by resolutions, which are a blunt instrument, nor by loosely structured conversations, especially if these come nearly at the end of a 2-week gathering. It is also interesting to reflect that the cowboy bishops hammering away on polity seem to have less than a secure grasp on the concept of synodical governance.
There is one other observation that I think worth stating that hasn't been in any of the commentary so far. It is interesting that the first Lambeth Conference was brought about by the Colenso affair, which was all about Africa. The Canadian bishops threw a tantrum over approaches to enculturing the Gospel in Natal: nearly 150 years later, the tables have been turned. Perhaps this is where the (maddeningly obscure) anti-/post-colonial critique from Orombi and others emanates from. It certainly seems ironic...

Two take-aways from the CT Leader:

"Thus the weight given to the group’s resurrection of mora­toriums as the solution to gay consecrations, same-sex blessings, and territorial incursions seems disproportionate. The Episcopal Church in the United States will be uneasy with the request, especially as it is open-ended. When would such a moratorium end? When half the Communion embraces a more tolerant atti­tude? When Muslims in North Africa stop taunting Christians with belonging to a “gay Church”?"

Exactamente. The moratoria to be imposed upon Naughty North America, as conceived by Rowan (basically), have no better chance of ever ENDING, than does Bush's ill-conceived "War on Terror." They're based upon **externals**---having nothing to do w/ Scripture, Tradition and Reason, I might add---upon which the Church can have no real control.

"As it is, the burden falls on the bishops to be the story as they return to their dioceses. St Paul’s message to the Corinthians, appointed for the Transfiguration, is apposite: “Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men . . . written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God” (2 Corinthians 3.2,3). The task requires courage and a good memory. ... Those who prayed for the Lambeth Conference should take heart, since their prayers seem to have been answered; but the prayers will need to continue in earnest if the delicate hope nurtured in the personal encounters in Canterbury is to survive"

Indeed. Lord, hear our prayer!

What is so encouraging about the CT leader is to be reminded of the sort of important forewards of yore in Crockford's Clerical Directory (prior to Gary Bennet's suicide). Intelligent and challenging critique.
Graham Kings and +Durham and Fulcrum may well have the ABC in their pocket - and have had since he followed their advice re Jeffrey John, but they do live rather in a fantasy world. Though admirable in trying to sort the mess out. Graham was excited about 'history in the making'. Yet it looks like a lot of what he thought Lambeth achieved (ie following the Fulcrum agenda and sugested remedy) has little authority or status and will end as 'history in the dustbin'. What everyone needs is a reality check - and a reminder that Anglicans are a fellowship ('in communion' or 'not in communion' now) and will never be a Church.

Pat Ashworth: "The Rt Revd Marc Andrus, Bishop of California, where the state has legalised same-sex partnerships"

No, "same-sex partnerships" are what the UK has.

California, by decision of its Supreme Court, has opened civil ***MARRIAGE*** to same-sex couples---on the same basis, using the same forms as opposite-sex couples.

This reality---one civil marriage law, for all couples---is now a part of the CONTEXTUALIZATION of the Gospel in California (and Massachusetts. And New York. And...???). Understanding this reality, in the term "marriage", isn't nitpicking (IMO). It's vital.

Maria assumpta est !

Enjoy !

Yes, and now we need a true MARRIAGE of minds ...

... and hearts !

Well said JCF

'Bishops in their own words'

Many examples here seem to indicate that it's not particularly 'The Americans' that are demanding cultural sensitivity; the whole pitiful aspect of anyone stating that where they are from, they are 'a little king' with the implication that their apparently untouchable culture should remain a guiding principle shows to me that much of what passes for the call to 'orthodoxy' is almost the mercenary wielding of the Bible in order to shore up failing social hierarchies; Uganda for example is an example of a country struggling with the idea of democracy, and of which, bizarrely, it is said that there are native cultural examples of homosexual lifestyles, i.e., pre-dating colonization (see: Honour in African History
Series: African Studies (No. 107)John Iliffe University of Cambridge, p.172).

There is a heady admixture here of historical Christian missionary work disrupting 'traditional' ways of living, and an identification of convert martyrdom with persecution at the hands of a native aristocracy that included 'active homosexuals' but which was , in fact, resisting the encroachment of the British.

No wonder the Ugandans are disconcerted by the mores of the 'mother country', and why there is so much heat where the unpicking of what is truly historically indigenous may lead to the unravelling of present cultures of power.

If 'The Americans' were saying, 'Gosh, we would want the rest of the Communion to consider the intricacies and cultural nuances of the Boston Massacre, and we want you to interpret the Word of God accordingly', I could understand better the Ugandan position. As it is, I have to ask the pointed question - for how much longer do we have to mire ourselves in the imponderables of local allegiances and sensibilities?

Let the dead bury their dead.

Thing is, that these circular arguments continue, and will continue , because there is no agreement and there is no possibility of any agreement

1."The Bishop of Massachusetts, the Rt Revd Thomas Shaw SSJE, has said that he will continue to ordain gay clergy, a ministry he described as “pastorally important”.

2."The Primate of Canada, the Most Revd Fred Hiltz, has acknowledged that a retrospective moratorium on the blessing of same-sex relationships in the diocese of New Westminster would be very hard for its Bishop, the Rt Revd Michael Ingham.

3. "Bishop Donald Harvey of the Anglican Network in Canada, now part of the Southern Cone, has termed cross-border intervention as “an administrative matter” not on a par with the other two moratoriums. He was not present at the Conference, but has let it be known:

“Archbishop Greg Venables tells us he was not able to partake in the Lord’s Table — the sacrament we often call ‘Communion’ — during his entire time at Lambeth.”

These 3 paragraphs from today's Church Times tell us a great deal about the extent of diversity existing in the Anglican Communion - between the Provinces, which each has its own governance, mission and polity.

Tom Shaw, SSJE, a Religious and a Diocesan Bishop was inmpressive at the Lambeth Conference for his determination to continue conversations with an African Bishop, who has problems with Bishop Tom's view on the ordination and blessing of gays relationships. As a Bishop on TEC, Bishop Tom has a duty to pastor his own flock in the best way he can, and in accordance with his own conscience.

Bishop Tom shared Communion with his fellow bishops - of whatever theological persuasion.
(Same-sex unions are legal in Massachusets).

Greg Venables, Primate of the Southern Cone, was unwilling, for his own reasons, to share at the Eucharistic Table with fellow Bishops, some of whom he regards as acting improperly in their own dioceses on the issue of the ordination and blessing of same-sex relationships.
(Are same-sex unions legal in his home-patch? maybe not. In which case he may be wise to conform to his own cultural setting)

Both Bishops would claim they are following the call of the Holy Spirit to minister in their own dioceses; according to their conscience, and in the social context in which they are 'Church'.

But why should one of them insist that he must take responsibility for shepherding sheep from another Province of the Church - simply because he cannot agree with the pastoral leadership of the local Bishops there?

Each Province is the 'Local Church', legally responsible, under God, for mission in its own area. Then surely the right thing to do is trust that God is working through each Provincial and Diocesan Synod, in ways that are called for in that particular place and culture?

The Church Times leader neglects to state that the Pastoral Forum will be set up and become operative before any Covenant, and this is the first of decisions that come from the Conference and connected bodies. This has to be declared of no legitimacy.

“Archbishop Greg Venables tells us he was not able to partake in the Lord’s Table — the sacrament we often call ‘Communion’ — during his entire time at Lambeth.”

How, then, is he said to be "in Communion" with the Archbishop of Canterbury, or anyone else in the AC?

This attitude towards the Holy Communion - that it is somehow spoiled by the presence (or even the presiding) of those one believes to be unrepentant sinners - astounds me, and seems not to reflect Anglicanism at its best. I am not a fan of Presiding Bishop Venables, but I hope that I would unhesitatingly receive the Eucharist from his hand. For me to do otherwise would be an insult to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, rather than to Bishop Venables or his views.

"When Muslims in North Africa stop taunting Christians with belonging to a “gay Church”?""

I want to have someone cite such an actual taunt from a Muslim in an African country as reported by an independent source, i.e., NOT an African Anglican, NOT English or American fellow-travelers, NOT the Moonie-owned Washington Times, UPI, nor Fox News - but AP, Reuters, Human Rights Watch, NY Times, BBC, - you know - NOT an interested party.

The GafConrers and the Minns and others keep saying that African Muslims taunt and abuse Christian Africans because of +Gene or gay blessings or marriages.

Find me a realiable disinterested source that documents this and quotes/cites an actual African Muslim refering to Canadian Church, TEC and/or +Gene.

"Muslims in North Africa stop taunting Christians with belonging to a “gay Church”"

Not to mention, that verbal "taunting" isn't really the issue to begin with (I mean, Muslims could "taunt" Christians ala "You believe in 3 gods!" Not true, of course, but that's a common accusation).

No, THE ISSUE is VIOLENCE: ironic, because that's something about which LGBTs, being similarly victimized, could be their best, most empathetic allies.

If the (largely African) victims of anti-Christian violence want to CHALLENGE North Americans, then challenge us to help them---everyone!---FIND AN END TO VIOLENCE.

Focus on the cause of "taunting" is to strain at gnats and swallow a camel!

Lord have mercy...

BillyD, it never ceases to amaze--and amuse--me to see such a collection of Donatists, Gnostics, and Montanists running around calling themselves "orthodox."

"Muslims in North Africa stop taunting Christians with belonging to a “gay Church”"

"Blessed are you when folk shall revile you and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in Heaven!"