In regard to Nick Knisely's reflections, I admit that I had thought along these lines too, but, beyond full inclusion of the GLBT is women's ordination. I doubt that Benedict will stomach this.

The more Canterbury attempts to lay down the law, the less desirable Communion membership becomes.

Why do we Episcopalians want to stay in the Communion? It looks more and more like institutionalized discrimination.

"Two ways of being Anglican" =?= separate but equal.

Link for Sam Candler's piece is broken - please add the "h" in front of the "ttp". Thanks for all the links, as always!

SS adds: Now fixed!

Could someone explain to me just what would happen if TEC stopped being a full member of the Canterbury-centered "Anglican Communion"? I mean, would our orders suddenly become invalid? Would Jesus cease to be present in our Eucharist? Would all the other Anglicans in the world--even the ones who completely agree with us--stop talking to us and working with us? Would the Church of Sudan cease receiving the various kinds of support we give to them? Would the Church of Sweden decide not to continue our process towards full communion? Would the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America terminate our full-communion agreement? Would we be kicked out of the World Council of Churches?

Forgive me if I'm missing something, but as far as I can tell, the only thing that would happen is that my bishop wouldn't get a trip to Lambeth in 2018, and we might (God, please!) take down the picture of Rowan Williams that presently hangs in our parish office.

If an Anglican Communion falls in the forest, does anybody hear?

The 1948 Lambeth Conference declared the provisionality of the Anglican Communion and anticipated its disappearance, presumably into Church of S India local or national churches, giving to those who lacked it the historic episcopate and other aspects of sacramental and liturgical order if needed..and, of course receiving from other churches the gifts they had to offer.Plans for united churches developed in places like Nigeria, Ghana, Sri Lanka and elsewhere; they came to nothing.Then the Anglican Communion began a process of greater "centraliation" involving an Officer, secretariat, more instruments of communion and now a Covenant.Why did this happen?Was it the Second Vatican Council and the realization rapprochment with Rome might be on the cards? And might not we , 50yrs later, revisit all of this and consider whether it might have been a wrong move?

"the only thing that would happen is that my bishop wouldn't get a trip to Lambeth in 2018, and we might (God, please!) take down the picture of Rowan Williams that presently hangs in our parish office."

More significantly, you would present to the world a good reason to sneer sarcastically "See how these Christians love one another!" You would present a clear example of how committed you are to the idea that we must forgive our brother "not seven times, but seventy times seven." If your need to be independent and confidently take your Dinkies and go to your own sandbox because you can't play with the nasty kids is that important, then go with God, my brother. The thing is, as a Christian, you are called to play with the nasty kids, to let them play with your Dinkies, to all share the one sandbox, and, when they get nasty, to forgive them. Over and over and over and over and over.

William K, I love your question, "What would happen if TEC stopped being a full member of the Canterbury-centered 'Anglican Communion'?" First, Rowan would travel less. Certain prelates would actually have to tend to their own flocks rather than poach from others in hopes of dishonest gain, although we shouldn't forget the time honored practice in Zimbabwe of bishops receiving stolen farms from the incumbent government while the people starve. TEC and The Anglican Church of Canada would have more funds for actual mission, for caring for the poor, for embracing the outcast. TEC And Canada would lose nothing aside from the normal pain one experiences when leaving an abusive but familiar environment. The CofE would benefit as the new entity would provide a home for the haters, oops I mean the calvinist evos. Perhaps then the CofE could actually get on with its mission of good news for the people of Britain.

Ford
"The thing is, as a Christian, you are called to play with the nasty kids, to let them play with your Dinkies, to all share the one sandbox, and, when they get nasty, to forgive them. Over and over and over and over and over."

Yes, but they're not called to become nasty kids themselves. And when the nasty kids tell them that they will be cast out until they become nasty too, they are permitted to reject that option and to move on.
That doesn't mean they hate the nasty kids, that they would want to persecute them or deny them their status as Christian brothers and sisters.

"Yes, but they're not called to become nasty kids themselves."

And Paul also calls us to not put stumbling blocks in the path of those of weaker faith. It is no sin to eat meat but "if eating meat cause my brother to offend, I will eat meat no more". Isn't there a place for that too? And I don't see how repeatedly forgiving those who are nasty to us constitutes becoming nasty ourselves.

Ford
How would TEC leaving the AC and getting on with what it perceives God to ask from it, without hating those who think differently, but determined not to allow them to set the agenda any longer, how would that be a stumbling block to faith for anyone?

You could argue that, having identified a group of people that needs to be helped and included in the body of Christ, you cannot afford to continue to "be nasty" to them by allowing yourself to go against the diserned will of God (!) but instead being bound by the inflexible demands of those who see it differently.

I sometimes think that you only ever look at the potential consequences of TEC, or any national church, or any individual liberal doing something. You rarely seem to consider the consequenes of them NOT doing something.

I would contend that a continued and increasingly homophobic stance by the Anglican Communion is potentially a large stumbling block to faith for the huge majority of people who have no faith and are turned off by our message.

Nick Knisely makes an interesting point about partnered gay relationships among the laity. At least on this side of the Atlantic we're surrounded by reminders that there are actually four orders of ministry, including that of the lay state. If it's unfeasible for partnered gay people to be consecrated bishops (or, as one might read +++Canterbury as saying, ordained priests) then why are we tolerated as lay people?

Again, I raise the question none seem to be able to answer:

Why is the "stumbling" of the traditionalists so much more important than the "stumbling" the traditionalists cause for gays, lesbians, progressives of all stripes?

Frankly, I'm not convinced there is such stumbling on the traditionalists' part.

"You rarely seem to consider the consequenes of them NOT doing something."

What ARE the consequences of not doing anything while continuing to work to change the hearts and minds of people on the other side of the planet whose recent political history have led them to see Westerners as a major source of evil in the world, who are far less free than those Western homosexuals who keep demanding their "rights", whose societies have developed in very different paths than ours has, and who are far more traditional, or who live in minority situations themselves where violence against them is a real possibility, carried out by people who will use our actions as justification for their violence? What are the consequences of holding off in compassion for the weakness of faith that leads these people to actually think that the presence of a gay person in a parish church thousands of miles away from them is such a taint that their immortal souls are in danger? For starters, we would not be having this public debate that, let's be honest, is yet more evidence for people not a part of the Church anyway that they want nothing to do with the Church. Whether or not we bless gay unions isn't going to change that one iota. We also wouldn't be treading on the toes of, and driving away from us, the very people whose hearts and minds we need to change, which is not a very good thing, because how can we hope to change their hearts and minds if we have made them so angry that they won't even listen to us?

As to the conservatives putting stumbling blocks in other people's way, well, they should be taken to task for that. We don't do that by ignoring their concerns, or downplaying them. We don't do that by telling them that we will do what we like and they're just a bunch of bigots. We don't do it by most of the things we're doing now. And we certainly don't do it by claiming that because they are putting stumbling blocks in other people's way, we should do the same thing to them. That's just childish.

Ford Elms said:
For starters, we would not be having this public debate that, let's be honest, is yet more evidence for people not a part of the Church anyway that they want nothing to do with the Church. Whether or not we bless gay unions isn't going to change that one iota.

I would reply:
Actually, the blessing of gay unions can be taken as evidence that The Episcopal Church is yet again succeeding at what Anglicanism does best: Adapting a 2,000-year-old religion to local circumstances and modern understandings.

The Episcopal Church recently has had a magnificent track record in this regard.

The fact that we are having this debate is making it quite obvious -- to a lot of secular people who might lump our Church together with more Bible-thumping sects -- that The Episcopal Church is a welcoming church, and one where you do not have to leave your mind at the door.

Do you realize that in many circles, "Christian" has now become an epithet? Have you considered why that might be the case? Have you given any thought to the possibility that the debate we are having may dispel some negative stereotypes -- stereotypes that a lot of people have about Christianity as a whole?

Ford
I wasn't talking about the church and the poor persecuted conservatives who cannot possibly come to faith until I've accepted that I must not be equal in it.

I was talking about the millions who look at what the church is doing, how it presents itself, what silly battles it thinks are worth fighting, and how he claims that all this is from God.

If that isn't a stumbling block to faith for all those who have left in their millions, I don't know what is.

But, nobody is putting stumbling blocks in their way but them, Ford.

This isn't downplaying their concern, it's just reality. They have countless equally anti-gay churches to choose from, in a wide range of liturgical styles. They could also have stayed, suspended and protected in their pockets of "traditionalism" had they not *chosen* to make a play for absolute authority. The cries of trying to save souls is patently false, as they've repeatedly said they'd be just as happy to see us shut up and/or get out. They could've just stayed - after all, we have stayed for decades, doggedly, even masochistically loyal while they left after one openly-gay bishop and a female PB.

I'm not advocating the childish pov you decry, because their stumbling is simply not real.

I'm ready for you to blast me now about how callous and uncaring and lacking in empathy for the poor "conservatives" I am.

You may be right. Reality's often like that.

They need a different church that supports their worldview - and I'm not at all impressed by the shock/horror at schism, the only sin of which is refusing to recognize the other as serving God in their best way.

"Actually, the blessing of gay unions can be taken as evidence that The Episcopal Church is yet again succeeding at what Anglicanism does best"

Can be, but is it? I hear a lot of sneering "See how these Christians love one another", I don't hear any "Oh, I ought to join that Church because it accepts/condemns homosexuality." I move in circles where "Christian" is an epithet, it hasn't changed. I continually point out to conservatives that their narrowminded legalism is a large part of WHY people think like that. None of them have ever accepted that. So, no, I think this is solidifying stereotypes, not correcting them. The way that we have carried out this debate is a shameful public display of how little we actually manage to follow the Gospel. Besides, this is not about bums in pews, it's about discerning God's will.

"I'm ready for you to blast me now about how callous and uncaring and lacking in empathy for the poor "conservatives" I am."

Why would I? I can be equally callous and uncaring. But it isn't somehow justified because I find it just as easy, perhaps easier, to fall into that sin as you do, and certainly far more easily than Erika does. I'll ask you the same question I ask conservatives who rail against the sinful liberals and dream of a day when the Church is purified of them: at what point does it become acceptible for a Christian to stop loving his neighbour? At what point is it acceptable for you as a Christian to reject people because you find them offensive, wrong, hateful, nasty, scheming, oppressive, false, dissembling, or any other sin you can mention? I agree, and frequently point out to conservatives, that their old saw about "hate the sin, love the sinner" is at best self delusion, if not an outright lie. If we need to accept their beliefs in order to attain salvation, then if they were concerned about our salvation, they'd try to find ways of preaching their message that we could hear, instead of standing in judgement on us spewing lies, propaganda, hatred, and bigotry and trying to force us into abusive "ex-gay" "ministries" that drive some of us to suicide. But does that give us the right to just say that they've had their seventy times seven forgivenesses, and now it's safe to jettison them?