It seems that +Tengatenga's home was robbed while he was at ACC:

"Armed robbers raided the official residence of Anglican Church Bishop, Rt Rev James Tengatenga at Namiwawa in Blantyre going away with computers and cash."
http://www.nyasatimes.com/national/3429.html

They entered through the door even though there were three guards posted?! His wife and child were in the house at the time and were confronted by the men, but are OK.

Prayers go out to the bishop; a nasty experience, especially when your family are involved and you're not there with them.

I hope we will soon hear the last of the concerns about the Rev. Ashey. Surely even he can see the impossibility of asking someone to participate in voting to maintain moratoria who is himself prima facie evidence of violation of any moratorium of provincial border crossings. Or he does indeed, and is only angry because it was caught before Mr. Ashey could also become prima facie evidence of de facto recognition of ACNA by the ACC.

For all the screaming, the Pluralist's description of how Resolutions A and B and C were considered and amended (or, in the case of C, not) certainly makes sense. Resolutions get amended and substituted quite frequently, and amending B to convert it to C is quite plausible. Was it really that simple, and that misunderstood? Well, that's quite plausible, too.

That really was a most incoherent Presidential address, really poor for Rowan Williams. I assume he is worn out by it all, and rather lost for something to say that's useful.

I have a different version:

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/05/presidential-address-acc.html

Fair, clear procedural rules are probably always helpful to the extent that all know and follow them.

(My best guess is that Orombi knew just what he was doing, or his advisors knew. Now we are supposed to feel confused by the attempts to cover up, using unwritten rules of good will in Anglican Peace Time to put soft sheepskin on his boundary violator wolf? It's Uganda as ACNA acting like conservative realignment agents are the only real Anglicans, again.)

That said, we can hardly avoid a lot of mess because (A) the issues are messy to start with, plus (B) the ways the issues get spin doctored in competing presuppositional vs methodological frames makes the mess, messier, plus (C) various figures, leaders, or players in the realignment campaigns and the realignment resistance campaigns are tempted to exploit dimensions of messiness in order to find at least passing or temporary leverage.

As regards (A): Our empirical knowledge is shifting so dramatically, thanks not least to rising visions of what fairness or equality or democracy demands of us, and thanks not least to the New Biology which most often is studiously being dissed or ignored by the traditionalisits who reassert that, still, our revelation views of human nature and of nature are as flat as they ever were, indeed. Part of A is simply that traditionalists have not dealt well or even very honestly with the innate open-endedness of science, most definitely including the science now going on in the New Biology. They respond, most regularly, by spinning the open-endedness and any unknowns still being researched (or yet to be researched) into nothing but mess. Then the diamond hard verities of some (covertly revised) traditionalist view get offered up in contrast, all certain, allegedly unchanged, allegedly eternal among all believers in all times, all places.

Factor A alone could generate enough confusion, we'd hardly feel we needed more. And more we shall have as Factors B and C come into play.

Marshall Scott,
Your plea for common sense for Uganda not to put members of their clergy resident in the US up as ACC members would be the stronger if TEC had not put forward a consecrator of Bp Robinson.

"For some gays and lesbians, Christian credibility has been shattered by a sense of rejection and scapegoating. They cannot commend the Christianity they love and believe in because they are caught up in a community where scapegoating and rejection is ingrained."
- Abp. Rowan Williams, in his presidential address to ACC14. -

In this answer to a question about who was bearing the most pain in the present stand-off in the Communion, the ABC gives a clear statement about one of the pain-bearing parties - the LGBT sector. In comparing this with the perceived pain of those who felt they were being betrayed by the very presence of LGBTs within the Church, the ABC intimated that both causes of the pain had to be addressed. In this he is right.

One has to analyse which of the pain-bearers is behaving in a more Christ-like way, and I truly believe that those who bear a stigma placed upon them by the Church, have more right to complain than those who actually want to maintain the stigma.

When we look at the other 'pain-bearers' we can recognise them as would-be upholders of their own perception of what is required of a righteous person. This reminds me of the Pharisee in the Temple who extols before God his own perception of righteousness, while putting the LBGT person outside of the boundary of what he sees as 'True Church' behaviour. This needs to be addressed by the Church before justice can be seen to have been done by LGBTs who love and belong to Church.

The expression of LGBT sexuality is subject to the very same rules as that of a heterosexual person, which ought to observe a Christian and loving respect for one's partner, with regard to the need for a proper commitment in relationship appropriate to their place in society and Church.

For people unable to express a loving sexual relationship with others of the opposite gender, same-gender sexual activity may be the only way available to them to express the love which is
natural to their specific orientation. To say that this way of loving is outside of God's provision for them, is to deny their inclusion into the category of bearers of God's image and likeness - the commonality of all humanity.

Another way to cope with all of this is to remain celibate, like Cardinal Newman. But then not all of us are called to that life-style.

Dear Pluralist,

You do seem to spend a awful lot of time on your completely obfuscating and worrying analysis of Anglican goings-on at your beautifully decorated web-site. However, it does offer a little light relief to those of us who occasionally do get rather tired of all the seriousness with which the re-asserters are attempting to scuttle our beloved Anglican Communion.

However, a word of warning, Pluralist, there are those of us within the Communion who quite admire our hard-pressed ABC - even when he appears to be saying something inconsequential. As he himself has implied, there are sometimes hidden diamonds in seemingly moribund entrails. And at least, ACC14 did keep the wolves at bay - they are in fact still baying down at the ACI.

John Sandeman, on May 4th Sarah Hey, posting at T19 on the Philip Ashley credentials controversy, stated "the Anglican Communion doesn’t seat people who aren’t members of the Anglican Communion for its bodies, even if certain clergy or laity are members of a *province* of the Anglican Communion ..... And you can’t be a member of the Anglican Communion if you’re a member of a province while serving in the geographic territory of another province without that province’s permission. Just as with bishops of the ACNA, so with clergy of the ACNA. And so with laity of the ACNA."

In a subsequent post, responding to a comment by Ephraim Radner, she adds, of the Ashley business, "It’s simply spoiling for a controversy. And trying to go for a precedent on the ACNA’s part."

I don't see how it can be put more clearly than this.

"..... they are in fact still baying down at the ACI." And no-one is paying the slightest attention. Let dogs delight .....

John/Obadiah, you know my respect for you. I'll concede the point somewhat, but Bishop Roskam did participate in Bishop Robinson's consecration *before* the moratorium on consecrating further partnered gay bishops had been requested. Mr. Ashey, on the other hand, changed his allegiances *after* the moratorium on boundary crossings had been requested. Certainly, Archbishop Orombi's action was after. And, noting Lapinbizarre's earlier post, the ploy for de facto recognition was quite apparent on all sides.

I'll also concede that it's a technicality. I can't say that, had another partnered gay priest been elected bishop and received consents, Bishop Roskam wouldn't have participated in the consecration. On the other hand, technicality or not, it is the case that the Episcopal Church, and Bishop Roskam within it, have met functionally the request for a moratorium.

Marshall, I hope you read my tone as one of disappointment and regret concerning Bp Roskam at the ACC. Not anger, not "gotcha". It would have been better if both churches/provinces had avoided contentious representatives. I suspect you agree.