"The goal of ARCIC was to find unity "in which all that we value is respected". People wished to be "united but not absorbed". - Bp. Nazir-Ali -

This statement of Bishop Nazir-Ali to the Newman Society recently contrasts startlingly with his unwillingness to recognise those liberals in the Church of England with whom he as a conservative is not prepared to co-exist.

He said, in the context of Anglican Roman Catholic relationships, that Anglicans would be willing to be "united but not absorbed" with/by the Roman Catholic Church. Can he not see that this is precisely what he needs to accept within the body of his own Church - that Anglican Liberals are content to be "united (with) but not absorbed" by his own conservative colleagues?

In other words, it's alright to be open and welcoming of the possibility of Anglican/Roman solidarity - even though there are still many differences of a theological and ecclesial kind between them; BUT Not for him to be open to the same possibility of keeping the Anglican Communion together on a like basis - of lesser theological differences between the conservative and liberal elements. This seems inconsistent, to say the very least.

The snarkster in me says "Rome's that-a-way, Mike."

The (once-and-future?) ecumenist in me agrees with him---but only to a point that neither he, nor Rome (as currently occupied) would possibly recognize.

The ARCIC concept of the Bishop of Rome as a "locus of unity" has much that is worthy of, at least, *exploration*.

The Gordian Knot is untangling locus-of-unity from *PRIMACY* (read, "the one to whom all SUBMIT")---which I see little evidence of the Vatican surrendering in the forseeable future.

As Nazir-Ali and B16 would have it, it seems more like the odd-bedfellows of Pilate and Herod: becoming Great Friends while LGBTs/women-called-to-orders/non-submissives to Rome and-or ConEvs (inc. "Thinking Anglicans"), are thrown under the bus.

We live in Hope, however: if there's a "John XXIV" (so to speak) in Rome's future, Anglicans-Episcopalians will still be here to talk (regardless of where Nazir-Ali is hanging his hat by then!). Come, Holy Spirit, Come!

What JCF said, oh yeah.

Reading Bishop A in Egypt is informative and interesting. He cannot see that there is any empirical reason why he cannot continue business as usual. With the caveat that business as usual must now include hauling all the western democracices backwards, towards centers of value and violent practice typical of a range of places where the most very traditional Middle Eastern or other global societies no doubt exist today.

Believers in western democracies will, however, not likely be dragged that far back. We cannot maintain traditional negative beliefs about those pesky target gay folks, without undermining our modern best practices appreciations of science in all its forms and applications. We cannot turn our backs on real, live gay people - the people with all those daily life goods we already know, at work, in our extended families, as school classmates, and generally in at least some of our western democracy neighborhoods.

The great error of the covenant is its underlying commitments to No Change, No Matter What.

Neither empirical hypothesis testing, nor educated citizenship in a western democracy can sign such a blank check, not even in global respect for the bad conscience of other traditional believers, and certainly not in God's name. Something may be going on in western democratic citizenship that is sacred, godly, and clearly much fairer to all, no matter what their religion or lack of it, than what is going on in our most traditional forms of conservative Anglican church life. We need look no further for indications than Bishop As strongly urging us to look backwards, to some valorized time before human rights.

Thus a covenant which is primarily about ignoring facts, truth, and change (again about those pesky hot button target gay people?)- such a covenant is truly not worth much, speaking globally as all manner of change proceeds nevertheless. Not worth much even if everybody signs it. We global citizens cannot actually manage change by ignoring it, condemning it categorically, and looking self-righteously and blindly towards some high past when we failed to perceive change.

Rushing to sign off on the covenant before it has been officially sent forward sounds plausible as a cynical power strategy. Yet again a last ditch effort to sidestep everything that we otherwise are called to explore, weigh, and evaluate in any significant change situation. Bishop A simply does not want to know about change, not its precise size or dimensions, nor its empirical or other modern reasons, nor its correctives, nor its celebrations.

But what if, given the newly published science of the past sixty or so years, the theological anthropology earth is not really flat, what then?

Don't bother Bishop A with all that, his traditional mind and heart are already made up. He will do without all that, and incidentally, so will any Egyptian gay folks (and family or friends of such Egyptian gay folks) who sadly might happen to be living in his territories. Modern sciences stand behind our changed views of gays, then, and Bishop A will joust with all that hypothesis tested data at his own considerable peril. Nobody doubts Bishop As believerhood; it is his global fair citizenship which is called into huge question. Perhaps it is a great pity that believerhood is not calling Bishop A into corrected fair and honest global citizenship, global Anglican big tent fashion? Alas. Lord have mercy.