The Standiing Commission on Faith Order and Unity? I may have misremebered the exact title. Anyway, it sounds an awful lot like the Vatican outfit that the current Pope used to head, which used to be called The Inquisition.

I guess this report is about what one could expect. I do not think that continued 'gracious restraint,' meaning continued marginalization of glbt Christians, will fly in TEC.

I think it was wise of ++KJS to respond by refering to General Convention, which will very likely reconsider the hasty actions of the last one.

The one fine thing they did was to speak out about Zimbabwe - not that it will restrain the pervasive horror there - but at least they spoke.

Having read through the report, I think there is something in there for everyone, or just about. I don't know that I would call it "balanced," but it does try not to reject anyone out of hand - even the folks of ACNA, for all the difficulties identified for them to develop a "province" (although, once again, recognition of the GLBT community is implicit rather than explicit).

That said, I fear the report will only satisfy Canterbury. There is a distinct lean toward centralization, to be able to "speak with one voice," in a way the Archbishop loves. There is a definition of "communion" as opposed to "federation" that goes beyond where most Anglicans feel we have been in the past (whether for good or ill depends on one's perspective).

This will not please folks with perspectives broader than "hold on at any cost," whether from the progressive or the "orthodox" perspectives. It will keep some people at the table longer (it may even keep the Episcopal Church at the table longer, although that depends as much on the Draft Covenant as on this report); but it won't hold those who want definition and want it *now*. Folks will consider seriously the Pastoral Visitor and Pastoral Council models, including the explicit limits to their authority. They will consider the hopeful statements about the ACC and the ambivalent statements about the Primates' Meetings ("Yeah, it's only advice, but you'd better bloody well pay attention!"). They will consider the suggestions for expanding the influence, if not outright power, of the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. They will consider it all, and then find sufficient reason to do what they were going to do anyway. This will slow the process, which might have some value; but I don't think it will change the outcome.

I can't help thinking that more people will have heard about what's happened in Alexandria from this and a few other decent blogs than will have read through these communiques and statements. The anglican church really is failing to engage with today's culture (with a few notable, and largely unofficial, exceptions).

Can the Church of England in South Africa ( a far larger and more unified denomination than ACNA ) also be inivited to the holding provisional status? They have been out in the cold since 1930.

Personally I don't see how this changes the dynamics of ACNA, FCA, GAFCON, Primates Council or the dynamics of the inclusivists. It's the same centralisation agenda as a solution and it won't work.

"39. The recent advent of the "Anglican Church of North America" (ACNA) changes the context and the balance of any discussion about interventions. Those caught up in the various patterns of intervention are beginning to look to resource their protest and their identity from within an American ecclesial body. This development could bring to an end formal cases of intervention, but give rise to a new and equally intractable problem - parallel jurisdictions based on theological difference ." - WCG Report -

From a very fulsome and comprehensive Report, the WCG has drawn attention at this point in its extensive survey, to the problem of what to do with the application of the ACNA conglomerate to be recognised as a separate Province the the AC.

Surely, with an emphasis on collegiality, which appears at several point in this Report, there can never be any instance of 'parallel jurisdiction' within the life of any diocese or province in the Anglican Communion. Otherwise, we have a reversion to the idea of provincial independence, which would militate against the idea of a centralised strcuture - which appears to be what the WCG is supportive of.

This would be an especial problem with a province existing separately on the basis of theological differences with the rest of the Communion. This would surely bring in a prospect of subsidiarity, which the WCG might want to avoid, in its thrust for unity.

The Windsor Continuation Group report really is worth reading prayerfully in detail.

It formed the major background paper for the Primates' Meeting and remained confidential till published - something worth noting in the age of the Web...

Bishop Clive Handford chaired the Group and deserves the thanks he received.

Most of its recommendations were taken up by the Primates.

Unlike 'Pluralist', who has regularly been vocal against the Covenant, I do think this will work.

Let us continue to pray.

"13. This conversation will include continuing the Listening Process[9], and the "Bible in the Church" Project. It is urgent that we as primates, with the rest of the Communion, directly study the scriptures and explore the subject of human sexuality together in order to help us find a common understanding."

I wonder how many of the Provinces really have a "listening process"? And in how many Provinces is the process simply the Primate saying to the glbt community "You listen to me and shut up -- at the risk of jail time or worse"?
Their response to ACNA, on the other hand, is "Gee, you guys and gals have different agendas, and do we really want parallel provinces?" In other words, ACNA is going to have tough sledding.
The Primates acknowledge there are difficulties ahead, they acknowledge they don't see eye to eye, and they acknowledge frievance and pain felt in many directions. To me, if they did nothing else, they at least are going forward with open eyes. That's a start.