correction:

Come back, Tom Wright, all is forgiven! Bp Duncan is far worse. He sends an inflammatory, dualistic, demogagic manifesto to his groupies, firming up their apocalyptic righteousness, and leaving the subtext (the war against gays) to their binarized imagination.

Archbishop Duncan speaks of TEC as having "revolutionary tastes," and I believe this is a misconception – there is nothing revolutionary in re-evaluating the system of beliefs that has developed for two millennia. Rather, we are taking the opportunity to say, "Perhaps we made a mistake; let's correct it."

He also speaks of Frost’s “road less traveled by” as if it is the Anglican Church who represents it, but I ask him this: is it the Episcopal Church, which by moving to accept and ordain any sinful man or woman who is called to ministry, that is walking the road less traveled? Or is it the rest of Christianity-at-large, who refuses these men and especially women and has done so for so many, many years? The evidence is clear – refusing a man because of a single kind of sin (if sin it be) is the more common scenario.

I say the road less traveled, in this situation, is that path leading to a full embrace of God’s many and diverse children, and allowing them to love and serve in what capacity they are called to – call it revolutionary if you will, but it is right.

Very odd headline. While formerly a bishop in the Episcopal Church, Duncan was deposed last year at the end of the long process that deposition requires, including an 88-35 vote in the House of Bishops to remove him from office.

By what strange process has Thinking Anglicans elevated him to the title of "Archbishop"? I could have a few friends name me Archbishop of Cloudcuckooland, but I wouldn't expect Thinking Anglicans to consider me a peer of Rowan WIlliams.

In the first sentence, one subject/verb agreement error and the use of "behaviors," a barbaric usage borrowed from edu-speak [the language of US schools of education]; why read further?

What will Dunkin's next self-aggrandizing title be?

Metropolitan of All North America?

Pope of the Whole Flat Earth?

Once again, Duncan reveals the true nature of his "faith"...it relies on calling that of all others inadequate. It is not enough to simply say "we disagree" with TEC; it must be said that TEC represents Babylon as opposed to Jerusalem.

"...and confusing received understandings of Scriptural truth, not least concerning the necessity of individual salvation in Christ Jesus."

Any clue as to whether he's referring to something at GC here, or is this simply the same old "ECUSA is no longer a Christian Church" boilerplate?

Former bishop Bobby Duncan has surely demonstrated the depths of his contempt for the world-wide Anglican Communion in his latest diatribe addressed to the Communion at large. To rate meetings of The Episcopal Church at Anaheim and the schismatic maunderings of the pretend new province of ACNA in Bedford Texas as comparable, respectively to meetings in the cities of Babylon and Jerusalem, is to completely misconstrue the real situation.

In choosing Babylon aa one of the cities representing one of the locations of unholy dialogue, he surely mistook the gathering as representative of TEC instead of ACNA (although, with Bobby himself leading the meeting, it may have been more akin to monologue than dialogue).

The 'Jerusalem' connotation should surely have been attributed to what went on at Anhaeim, where different parts of TEC actually did engage in true dialogue, where the majority were able to make a mature judgement on the current sexuality questions vexing the Church at this time.

It really is time that the majority of the Primates of the Anglican Communion debunked the huff and puff of this renegade primate-in-waiting whose invective against the Communion is at odds with his supposed 'orthodox anglicanism'. TEC is still part of the Communion, and rightly so. Whereas Duncan and his acolytes have already separated out from this part of the Body of Christ. Is there any better proof of their schismatic intention. It really reminds me of the question asked of the recalcitrant disciple: *Feeling the absence of God?*. Guess who moved!'

Terrible concepts but powerful writing.. He may have a future as a political speechwriter. Obama watch out!

I do not understand what relevance Mr. Robert Duncan, a defrocked (former) TEC bishop (ironically and pathetically promoting himself as "archbishop") has to "Thinking Anglicans" or to the General Convention of the Church and Communion he abandoned. Since the 1960s (in the USA) there have been scores of small, continuing Anglican groups headed by episcopi vagantes and deposed, disaffected, former TEC clergy. And there appears to be a laughable relationship between the loftiness of their clerical titles and the small numerical size of the schismatic groups they claim to represent. I don't believe Thinking Anglicans is the appropriate forum for all of these eccentric fringe groups (outside of the Anglican Communion) to offer any critique of the Episcopal Church. Will you be posting "encyclicals" and "pastoral letters" from the "archbishops, popes, primates, and metropolitans" in charge of The Episcopal Missionary Church, the Anglican Catholic Church, The Southern Episcopal Church, The Orthodox Anglican Church, and other continuing Anglican groups, too?

This si the first timeI have noticed our sin being 'revisionist anthropology' and think that is really the heart of the matter. I believe that what we have done is akin to revising our anthropology to suggest that black people are full human beings and women are not chattels. So GLBT people are not perversions of God's intention. Acknowledging that the issue is anthropological gets us beyond accusations of our being unfalthful to scripture and tradition.

BillyD

I think the reference to personal salvation in Christ relates to the Presiding Bishop's opening news conference in which she referred to such as the "great western heresy".

Michael,

I'm not trying to be provocative, but please remember that Duncan and the Anglican Church in North America have the unwavering support of the largest and fastest growing provinces in the Anglican Communion (Nigeria,Uganda,Rwanda, etc...) He also is in league with several former Episcopal Bishops and their dioceses- Iker, Akerman & Schofield and has the "ear" of many individuals in the TEC as well. I would not be depending on a replay of those earlier groups experience with dissent. Those groups had limited support in the TEC (no Bishops)and no international support at all. I hate to say this, but Duncan, the ACNA and the Primates of Global South represent a "real" and significant change in the future of the Anglican Communion. That change will have to be faced, not minimized or summarily dismissed.
Pax,
Edward

Oh my. Is that angry torrent of hatred towards a fellow Christian the special gift of the city of Anaheim. TEC has exchanged "turn the other cheek" for "see you in court sucker". By theIr fruits . . .?

Not exactly bubbling with originality and imagination when it comes to metaphor, is he? Duncan, like Frost (has he even read the whole of this short poem?) has taken the road "less traveled".

ettu - I find his writing rather poor, actually. He really ought to have flogged his historic/literary cities first, THEN brought out the punch by claiming equal symbolic status for Bedford and Anaheim (two cities with names that do not exactly ring with deep power). That's how you carry a reader/audience along - grab them with things they already know and believe in, and then tell them that what you're selling is of the same ilk.

As for his self-claimed status as an archbishop, didn't you read his sign-off? He's writing humbly. He says so himself, and self-assertion is always the best method of discerning humility. And claiming to be an archbishop is a VERY humble thing to do.

Of course, he's dead-on about being a sinner.

The title: 'Archbishop writes to the Communion' and I thought, and I bet many thought, Ooh Rowan Williams has decided to respond. Aha, but no, it's not Mr Beard but Mr Eyebrows.

There is a movement afoot in the Church of England, supported by leading Evangelicals, including +Tom Wright, +Pete Broadbent, and +Graham Kings, to recognize an additional North American province of the Anglican Communion. If this movement succeeds, ACNA and its archbishop (who would be Robert Duncan) would be invited to Lambeth along with TEC and ACoC.

I am wondering whether this letter makes it more or less probable that ACNA will be so recognized. Perhaps the letter should be read out to the Church of England Synod next year, when it meets to consider the motion to recognize ACNA. In any case, I think it is a good idea to give it very wide publicity in English Church circles. They should know what they will be voting for.

I am also wondering whether ACNA could accept equal status with TEC in the Anglican Communion, given that TEC is Babylon in ACNA's eyes. Surely the only acceptable outcome, in ACNA's eyes, will be the ejection of TEC and ACoC from the Communion? The co-recognition of ACNA with TEC and ACoC would be a means to that end, not an end in itself. Thus voting to recognize ACNA in an attempt to buy peace in the Communion would not work.

Bob Duncan claims to write "humbly and as a sinner," but his tone is obsequious; his attitude, condescending; his argument, fallacious; and his stance, judgmental. Precious little humility here!

No wonder the House of Bishops was glad to see the last of him.

Apparently Duncan thinks Christianity started with Luther and Calvin. Hint: the clue's in its name. There's nothing in catholic theology, as espoused in a publicized statement by +KJS, that denies individual salvation - just some of us think the nature of salvation is far larger than this self-centred short-sighted "reformed" approach!

Perhaps he would care to say why his crowd of dissenters have provoked litigation, since one of the few things I think I'd agree with him on is that Paul slags off recourse to law-of-the-land.

Folks, even though ++Robert Duncan was deposed from the TEC House of Bishops, that does not make him a lay person. Deposition deprives the right of an individual to exercise their gifts within the jurisdiction of the church body. However, it does not invalidate their consecration as a bishop.

Given that some of the churches in the Anglican Communion have broken relationship with TEC, those churches are not constrained to recongize TEC's deposition of Duncan. As a matter of church polity, once a bishop, always a bishop.

Duncan has been elevated as an Archbishop in ANCA. It is a matter of respect and courtesy to address him as such. It's similiar to male clergy who object to female clergy like TEC Presiding Bishop Katherine Jeffers-Schiori refusing to acknowledge her as Bishp and Primus of TEC.

"I think the reference to personal salvation in Christ relates to the Presiding Bishop's opening news conference in which she referred to such as the "great western heresy"."

Except that's not really what she said. What she said was well within the orthodox view that we are saved as members of the Church. it's not just "Jesus and me."

“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I
took the road less traveled by. That has made all the difference.” For Anglican Christians, for
the Instruments of Unity (Communion), for interdependent Provinces, for ordinary believers,
there is a choice to be made.' Bob Duncan.

I can't believe my eyes ! Seeing bob Duncan commend the Road less Travelled to the Anglican Communion is amazing -- I never thought he would ever commend same-sex relationships (the road definitely less travelled) to the AC. But I was wrong and am delighted !

I don't really think people need to choose though --DO stick to, and be led by your heart, (informed by your own sexual orientation).

We never expected everyone to turn gay - honest !

Abp. Duncan quotes Robert Frost as follows:
“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I
took the road less traveled by. That has made all the difference.”

This is all caterwhompus. The poem actually begins:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth...

"The Road Not Taken" may be found in its entirety at:
http://www.americanpoems.com/poets/robertfrost/12074

Why bring this up? First, I admit, I write in defense of a fine poem that has been mangled by this extremely public misquoting. But also - I think that the practice of quoting what one thinks something says, rather than checking and getting it right, is lazy and disingenuous, the act of a mind overconfident in its assumptions. It's a small point, but worth making.

As for the two-cities theme - I've always felt like my home parish is the one in first-century Antioch. Open the doors wider, wider, wider - and, can we let up on the legalism, please?

ACNA is not a Church so how can it have an archbishop ?

Comparing Bedford, Texas to Jerusalem and Anaheim, California to Babylon? References to Dickens and Frost? These might work well enough in a sermon preached in a little church like mine, but not in an epistle sent by a mighty "archbishop" to the entire Anglican Communion. The document is most definitely lacking in gravitas.
OFW+

I have met Bob Duncan and the one thing I promise you is that he is a gentle, caring and very decent man. He is one of those rare people who exude 'niceness'. And that is from somebody who does not share his theology or views.

I think most of the posts on here do him a grave misjustice and show a rather unpleasant desire to project onto him the negative views they feel about Evangelical Christianity.

I think it is safe to say that Bp. Duncan has a very well-worn copy of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations close by.

John Floyd asks: "Is that angry torrent of hatred towards a fellow Christian the special gift of the city of Anaheim"?

No, rather, it appears to be a special gift of the town of Bedford, Texas. See "Archbishop" Duncan's letter likening TEC to Babylon (see, Whore of) and identifying it as a religion other than Christianity. It certainly looks like a "torrent of hatred" to me.

Yes, some of us in TEC may respond intemperately to Duncan's denunciations. But, we actually DO regard him as "a fellow Christian," which is why his deunciations hurt so much, whereas Duncan has decided we aren't Christians at all.

I begin to see the wisdom in the mad priest's solution that the TEC should suggest to the AC that ACNA should be allowed provincial status with its own primate. They could no longer claim the banner of victimhood and we (TEC) might be able to get on with our mission and stop focusing on these folks. If in the long run, the AC felt more kinship with ACNA - well, then why would we want to stay?

Bob Duncan claims to write "humbly and as a sinner," but his tone is obsequious; his attitude, condescending; his argument, fallacious; and his stance, judgmental. Precious little humility here!

No wonder the House of Bishops was glad to see the last of him.

Can I query the oft-quoted assumption about the "largest and fastest growing Provinces in the Anglican Communion" on two fronts. First, having worked in Africa, I have to say that Anglican membership there was hard to ascertain in some parts, and tended to be grossly over- or under-estimated. ACNA/FCA types also like to count the African Anglican numbers as if they are all "real Christians" unlike the Anglicans of England. This is also a gross over-simplification of the significance of religious allegiance as shown by church-going, for instance.

Secondly, I want to question the generalisation about fast-going Anglican churches uniformly across the continent. Uganda, for instance, has had very large Anglican and Roman Catholic churches for generations, with a relatively small minority of other Christians and Muslims. It would be hard to see precisely where all this church growth is going to come from. In fact, if some of the church growth predictions in Africa were to be believed, there will be more Christians than people on the continent by 2020! FCA/ACNA rhetoric is credulous about African Christianity and sceptical about Western Christianity.

I'm sorry to have to correct Pamela Grenfell Smith, but she is wrong to accuse Duncan of misquoting. He gets his quote more or less right; it's just that he's quoting the last lines of the poem, not the first, so I'm rather afraid that she's guilty of exactly that of which she accuses him. The other bad thing is that he's innocent of her charge. Pity.
For the rest of it, I agree with her last paragraph, and have no time for the oleaginous Duncan at all.

"I think most of the posts on here do him a."

I confess to significant issues with Evangelical Christianity. But can you really read this piece and claim that responses to it from the very people he insults constitutes

"grave misjustice and show a rather unpleasant desire to project onto him the negative views they feel about Evangelical Christianity"?

Seriously? I have always been fascinated by the ability of the conservatives to paint themselves out as martyrs valiantly standing against the World for the Truth. If any conservatives can actually read this piece by +Duncan and then think that angry responses from those he attacks and maligns are unexpected or uncalled for, well, I make no wonder they think they are oppressed! Honestly. Conservatives get to be as nasty, hateful, and generally rude as they like, and anyone who responds negatively to that is somehow being bad to the one being rude? You can't be serious! This would explain why every time I have read an example of some conservative parish being "oppressed" by their evil liberal bishop, it always looks like a situation where they are finally receiving the just rewards of their provocative behaviour. They don't really understand how haughty dismissive behaviour would be seen as in any way inappropriate. Is this typical conservative thought, the idea that conservatives can be as insulting as they want with no consequences? What is it based on?

"...Duncan and the Anglican Church in North America have the unwavering support of the largest and fastest growing provinces in the Anglican Communion (Nigeria,Uganda,Rwanda, etc...)"

As it seems I must always continue to point out:

ACNA has the "unwavering support" of the leaders--appointed, not elected--of those provinces. We have absolutely no idea what the majority of the congregants of those provinces support or do not support. I suspect most of them haven't a clue as to what this is all about, being far more concerned with local issues such as feeding the poor, caring for the sick, etc.

Ever so humble, Mr Nickleby...Uriah Heep a la Robert Duncan.

He can call himself Archbishop or whatever he wants. There are all kinds of bishops and archbishops, not to mention deacons and elders, among the hundreds of Protestant denominations here in the US. Even the Mormons use the term Bishop. The question is whether he really is an Anglican and whether his small group will survive. As many have said, there is no lack of evangelical churches, anti-women, anti-gay in America, and whether he can win adherents from them remains to be seen. He is going into a very competitive market, which includes the mega-churches with an "entertainment" syle of sanctuary and worship: auditoriums with cup-holders!

Surely, in keeping with the similarly ill-tempered and eventually off-the-rails and sure-of-his-own-mind as mind-of-God Tertullian, it should have been Jerusalem and Athens, not Babylon, if one wishes to contrast faith and secular humanism. Babylon is a city too far, even for the heated rhetoric of Duncan.

Jeremy & Pat,

Those poor primitive Africans - can't count, do not appreciate the real issues, and should sit quietly on the sidelines while we determine the future of the communion. Colonialism is over. Both of you should re-read your post. Everything in my post are facts, not speculation. I'm not trying to win an argument. I was responding to Michael's attempt to equate Duncan with earlier schismatic episcopal groups - which I pointed out the limitations of that argument.

Pax,
Edward

Who is Rowan listening to? Tom & Bob... or Gene & Katie?

What amazes me here is that Duncan refuses to even acknowledge those who signed the Anaheim letter is asking that they be written off with the rest. Is this the kind of tolerance ACNA offers? How do the Communion Partners view this and has ACNA simply decided that they too are not orthodox enough for the Communion and the choice to be made?

Ed T

I too have met Bob Duncan and he's nice if he thinks you love him! I am a vestry member at one of the parishes who stayed with the legitimate diocese of Pittsburgh. We had a meeting with dear Bob when we were in the process of searching for a new rector. He was well aware of where we stood and that we pulled our endowment funds from the diocesan pool and placed with our own investors.
When we met with him he wasn't so nice, kind and loving. He was a mean, nasty, pompous egomaniac.
He even made the remark, knowing full well it would antagonize us, that he was our rector (since we did not have one at the time) and then laughed as sinister as a laugh as you could imagine. Please don't be fooled.

As for Bob's latest ramblings, I can't imagine TEC or the ACofC taking kindly to admission of the ACNA. I wonder how this would play out since Her Majesty is still the sovereign of Canada. At least ++Hiltz is a loyal subject unlike Bob Duncan. Just curious if that would ever have anything to do with recognition?

Toby Forward writes:
"I'm sorry to have to correct Pamela Grenfell Smith..."
Feel free! Everyone else does!
Although I did indeed read the whole poem through before commenting, I didn't perceive that Abp. Duncan was quoting the last few lines.

Why didn't I perceive that? Perhaps John Floyd is right and I was just plain feeling spiteful this morning. I believe that I usually manage to be more irenic, but sometimes even I - saintly litterateur that I am - get fed up with ACNA.

re: Bedford, TX

It has long been a sore point with me that the Cathedral of the Episcopal Diocese of Ft Worth should ever have been built not in the titular city of Ft Worth but in the suburb of Bedford.

As an aside, I would add I've got family and friends from the area (mostly from Arlington). Bedford is one of the suburbs nearest Dallas/Ft Worth airport, and the three suburbs of Euless, Hurst and Bedford are often combined in street maps and phone directories. The old joke used to run that the maps should actually bear the legend "Useless, Worse, and Bedford."

(But then again... Nazareth...)

"Those poor primitive Africans - can't count, do not appreciate the real issues, and should sit quietly on the sidelines while we determine the future of the communion. Colonialism is over. Both of you should re-read your post. Everything in my post are facts, not speculation."

EdwardC, I call *BS*.

What Jeremy & Pat are suggesting is that we DO LISTEN to African Anglicans---in their *entirety* (and including LGBT Africans). Not merely their unelected Prince Bishops. (Speaking of colonialism.)

[And playing the Race Card is sooooo 90s. Fail.]

Edward ,

Your response is pathetic. I am not assuming a neo-colonial attitude - or a racist one about African congregation counting - but frankly, no one, not me, or you or anyone in DR Congo has too much of a clue about exactly how many Anglicans there are in, say, The Kasais or Upper Shaba, for the simple reason that it is well nigh impossible to travel there and find out. So the numbers are just guesses. Add to that the fact that I have met more congreations than that in the Anglican church there that only possess a single prayer book for the whole church and very few Bibles or hymn books, and who are led by a valiant evangelist and who are visited by a priest once in a blue moon, and you have to ask questions about the depth of their understanding of what being an Anglican Christian means. Keeping of registers and making accurate returns to the diocese is not the first thing on their minds. That is no disrespect to them or their commitment/participation, but simply an acknowldegment of how things are. My first query remains a perfectly valid one.

As does the second - spreading a myth about unbridled church growth uniformly across the continent is not helpful or true. The picture is much more diverse and patchy. Why is this not what is acknowldeged?

Your post is indeed founded on some wild speculations that get bigged up by the people in whose interest it is to do so. Bandying about your post-colonialist guilt will not make asking the questions I am posing irrelevant: it is just a rather unattractive way of trying to shut people up. Grow up.

JEREMY & jcf
Was Michael's original point reexamined? That is all I was responding to. The facts used might not be verifiable (how many proposed facts are), but they were used to respond to one comment- not to provoke, but to respond to a dismissive attitude about Duncan - that in the end most certainly will not serve the Communion. Again whether you support the FCA/ACNA (Duncan)or not, the point being made was that I don't think this is going to be some repeat of an earlier schism. I "fear" that we are going to witness a radical realignment of the Anglican Communion. In the future, I'll watch my "BS' and that growing up thing I'll keep working on.

Pax,
Edward

Edward:

What JCF and Jeremy said. I am always amazed that those in the West who support Akinola et al take at face value their statements as to the numbers in their parishes and dioceses, and the idea that all those African Anglicans are of one mind about an issue that, frankly, is probably far from the forefront of their thoughts.

"It has long been a sore point with me that the Cathedral of the Episcopal Diocese of Ft Worth should ever have been built not in the titular city of Ft Worth but in the suburb of Bedford."

Well, the first (pro)-cathedral was All Saints', Ft. Worth. After All Saints' decided it didn't want the honor any more, the bishop relocated his cathedra to St. Vincent's.

Oddly, there website describes St. Vincent's as "A Church in the Province of the Southern Cone. A Cathedral associated with the Anglican Church in North America." Is there a reluctance of the entities that preceded ACNA to lessen their grip of their North American holdings?

"more congreations than that in the Anglican church there that only possess a single prayer book for the whole church and very few Bibles or hymn books, and who are led by a valiant evangelist and who are visited by a priest once in a blue moon, and you have to ask questions about the depth of their understanding of what being an Anglican Christian means."

Sounds very much like the Anglocan Church in the rural part of Newfoundland where I grew up. We had a 16 point parish that had no road at all till 1962. The priest visited each congregation by boat, being gone for weeks at a time. Lay readers (?valiant Evangelists?)"kept church" in his absence. All the denominations were the same, so one went to whatever church had a minister this week, if one did, otherwise you went to your own. And in a population where a significant number, decreasing as you come forward in time, were at best barely literate. I can tell you exactly the kind of Anglican commitment that develops in that situation, since I grew up in it. That is NOT, contrary to what the offended descendants of the colonized and the guilt ridden descendants of the colonizers would have you believe, something that only occurs among those whose skins are not white and have had the great misfortune to have come under the sway of the "genetically oppressive white man".

Colonialism might well be over, but its effects are certainly still with us. They inform the behaviour of the citizens of those former colonies, and that of the descendants of those who colonized them. Neither poitically correct kowtowing to the "poor victims of our evil ancestors" nor dismissal of the issues as relics of a bygone era does any good whatsoever, the latter is just a luxury unwisely used by those who reject the assumed guilt the politically correct try to force on them. It is possible, and admirable, to do the latter without dismissing the very real issues facing people in parts of the former Empire. I'm like you, I have little time for political correctness that, essentially, dehumanizes the very people it is intended to "respect" and that revels in assuming guilt for every perceived ancestral sin. But there ARE actually quite a number of positions one could occupy between those two extremes.

"It has long been a sore point with me that the Cathedral of the Episcopal Diocese of Ft Worth should ever have been built not in the titular city of Ft Worth but in the suburb of Bedford."

OH! So THAT's what the reference to Bedford TX is all about. I kept wondering if the Second Coming had occured there, but had been overshadowed in the media by Michael Jackson's funeral.

On the issue of realignment, well, yes, this is and has always been the agenda. A reading of the Chapman Memo, the Alison Barfoot Memo and the Global South Secret Memo and, under Duncan's leadership, the Westfield's Response document are very clear and the "smoking guns" of the Calvary Pittsburg case. For those who have any doubt left, please look to the exhibits (attachments) in the filings. The office is the Protonotary of Allegheny County Case No. GD-03-020941. In them the strategy and tactics are laid out. Duncan's latest letter is simply the end of the process. The intent was always to replace TEC in the communion with a new church, led by Duncan. How ironic that it took a civil action, and the "discovery" process of that litigation for the true intent, strategy and tactics to be revealed.
Duncan's protests of bad treatment, and we never intended to leave or whatever, in the face of these secret documents, only revealed because he was forced by the US court system to reveal them, are staggering.

Like most of the commentators here, I regard Duncan's clarion call as malicious. But it is important to recognise that it is also dangerous. For it speaks to (one part of) the breasts of otherwise virtuous Anglicans. It is therefore essential that 'liberals' (who, of course, come in all shapes and sizes) should keep publicly disputing the polarising claims of 'two roads', 'two different religions', 'you gotta choose', etc. etc. That is, if you are 'liberal' and value the continuance of the Anglican Communion, the C of E, TEC, et al. If you are 'liberal' and value yourself above all, then of course these things mean nothing and you don't have to play any such games. But that, I suggest, is extremely narcissistic and selfish.

Dr. Christian Troll has noted an open letter to Duncan from the Presiding Bishop of the Missionary Episcopal Church, which roundly critizes Duncan for (1) having women priests, (2) having divorced and remarried priests, (3) appropriating the title of "Archbishop," (4) stealing the name of "Anglican Church in North America," and (5) engaging in property litigation. The letter may be found at http://www.emchome.org/article.php?id=203.

The part on property litigation is particuarly interesting:

"I have written about avoiding property disputes since the 1980s. I wrote that as long as the local bishop or Standing Committee of The Episcopal Church or 815 Second Avenue had even one local person to unlock the doors, faithful people would have to see the suffering and exile they felt as an opportunity to show that the Faith was no more about buildings than it was in the days of the Arian heresy. The Christian Challenge magazine published an article called "The Bishops and their buildings" which made clear my position that we should not even press claims or change locks, but should welcome a time of pilgrimage, unfettered by fixing roofs and paying insurance. If God willed it we would be able to build new buildings, and as what we believed was an apostate church collapsed, the bishops might beg us to buy some of the buildings. What a hypocrite I might seem to sit quietly with those who have, in the view of many courts, simply attempted to steal the buildings. The appeal to a law based in the time of the War Between the States, or the American Civil War, to settle church disputes seems to me very ironic if not shameful."

"That is all I was responding to."

Then putting words in people's mouths ("Those poor primitive Africans")---quite the OPPOSITE of what they said OR meant---is a less-than-persuasive way of so doing, EdwardC.

The faith, dignity or intelligence of African Anglicans is NOT at issue here---only whether their *actual concerns* are truly represented by their bishops (and moreso, Primates), IS.

JCF

The responses to my " original Statement" came across just like I said (africans are sidelined). Unless my impressions of those responses do not matter. Re-read them. Context is everything. And you don't have to go to africa to get an impression of their Bishops. There are large numbers of west africans in our parish, and the impression given is their former Bishops are loved and trusted - particularly Akinola by the Nigerians. However, maybe their impressions don't matter either. Moreover, as Anglicans, our communion is led by Bishops. They are the representatives of the people. Of course, there will be some slippage between the two. Nonetheless, we are not congregationalist. While the communion has democratic elements, it is not a democracy - for the same reason the U.S is not one. They don't work - because everything can't be put to a vote..

"While the communion has democratic elements, it is not a democracy - for the same reason the U.S is not one. They don't work - because everything can't be put to a vote."

While the United States is not a direct democracy, it is indeed a democracy - it's a representative democracy.