+Jon Bruno (DioLA) has given this the response it deserves:

"As we approach the nativity of Christ, we need to remember the admonition of the angels to the shepherds: “Be not afraid.”

The Episcopal Church, a member of the Anglican Communion, for more than the past 30 years has been working on gradual, full incorporation of gay and lesbian people. We have worked to be people of gracious restraint for all these years and have now come to a place in our lives that is normal evolutionary change which compels us to move from tolerance to full inclusion.

As with racial and cultural divides, we can look to the great words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who calls us not to fall prey to the insidious drug of gradualism. Indeed, as he said in his speech titled “I Have a Dream”: “This is no time…to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism…. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.”

We must move forward and respect the dignity of all human beings which is called for in our Baptismal Covenant and canons.

The Diocese of Los Angeles has acted in good faith and is moving forward in supporting the full inclusion and full humanity of all people in the Church. Thus, we celebrate the elections of Diane Jardine Bruce and Mary Douglas Glasspool as our next Bishops Suffragan called to share in the work of a strong episcopal team serving this Diocese and all of God’s people."

The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Bishop Diocesan

http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/2009/12/bishop-jon-brunos-response-to-anglican.html

Well okay, now we have the Anglican Covenant.

What a mixed pudding.

Right off, we have to decode if/when we can, teasing out the typical Anglican fudge strands (this strand can be variously interpreted in different ways, and all are allowed, indeed encouraged to do so for the Anglican Time Being), teasing out the Small Tent strands (centralizing of power in the Standing Committee of the ACC, policing and punishment procedures in the notorious section 4, the careful wording about how to read scripture which helps collapse global big tents by repositioning most progressive Anglican reading manners as outside the covenanted track one mix, and ditto, for how bishops trump lay people worldwide no matter what, a further Small Tent collapse and consolidation), and teasing out the remaining Big Tent strands (restating the Chicago Lambeth Quad basically, and lots of valorizations of mutual submission in fudge of the differences between such mutuality in our current communion of national churches, and the new fangeld communion where you can be brought up on charges).

Similarly, decode Rowan Williams' gloss by all means. He does not want to be Chief of Police; but Police Chief he is doomed to become, de facto if not de jure. Any undergrad student can safely predict that (A) this will trend towards homogenizing global Anglican differences, mainly in low controversy directions of Same Same. Only differences perceived as SAFE can be tolerated under the new covenant.

If progressive churches sign up to track one, one of the first orders of business must be to lodge formal complaints with the Standing Committee about (A) the border crossings, (B) the antigay fear-mongering and human rights abuses, and (C) the absconding from the Lambeth 1.10 1998 listening processes.

As a potential Anglican first tracker I realize that being a progressive believer will be a loyal dissent, opposition sort of life. The first complaints filed will set a leadership tone, just as filing suits and countersuits in civil court.

As a possible Anglican second tracker, I might look forward to finally being free of the whole rightwing religious complaint game; but of course never really free from it, since conservative leaders-believers with Dominionist-theocratic tilts deeply resent anybody being allowed to go any other believer way besides a rightwing one.

The big, vivid asterisk to the entire New Covenant is: No queer folks allowed, Please. Thank you. God thanks you

I wish that they gave the actual vote. As I recall, and someone correct me please, there are at least two members of TEC on this Standing Committee, including the Presiding Bishop herself.

Lets have the vote on this resolution published broken down by national/regional church.

Has the Covenant been passed yet?

I remember the 1970s election campaign when Cyril Smith arrived at a little airport and was told he couldn't arrive as he had, and his reply was, "Tell them to go and get stuffed."

That's the suitable reply to the Standing Committee. It is acting outside any jurisdiction, already.

The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Bishop Diocesan

Bishop Bruno has said it all.

Meanwhile The Archbishop of Canterbury and his Group of ¨Steering¨ Committelike people have nothing to say about the GENOCIDE planned for Uganda, Nigeria (already active in Jamaica however not legal..yet). I think it is quite easy to determine the direction one would wish to follow when aspiring to Love God and Love thy neighbor (not kill thy neighbor, not jail thy neighbor, not persecute thy neighbor, not outcast thy neighbor, not two-track thy neighbor and certainly not EXCLUDE thy neighbor at all levels of religious life at the Body of Christ).

Bishop Bruno offers the Gift of love for us all to see.

Peace be with you

May we have a SHOW of HANDS? I also, like Daveed, want to know who voted for this creeping measure of despotism at The Anglican Communion.

Dear Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion members:

Too bad that you did not have time in your, no doubt, intensive deliberations to issue a statement about the support of the bishops of the Anglican Church of Uganda, Rwanda, and Nigeria for pending lesislation in their countries that would further criminalize, imprison, and execute LGBT persons. But, then, I imagine that a few words of hope for LGBT Christians, whose lives have been made unbearable by the actions of Churches in the Communion, would have been too costly for the "unity of the Anglican Communion".

Let's be perfectly clear: THERE IS NO GRACIOUS RESTRAINT when you set out to imprison or kill us and our brothers and sisters. Period.

Part of the essential work of all Christians is to read the signs of the times, i.e. to discern what God is calling us to do at this precise time for the sake of the reign of God. The times now call for a direct statement and intensive efforts by the offices of the Anglican Communion to stop the pogrom against LGBT persons in nations with large and influential Anglican Churches.

You cannot build a "communion" on the basis of rank injustice. You cannot build a "communion" on the backs of the most vulnerable among us. You cannot expect that we will ever forget your silent complicity with this tide of violence and hatred. In the face of life-threatening injustice and ecclesiastical support for violence, your silence strips from you all moral authority. That you are deaf to this is unbelievable. That you do not realize you are doing incalculable harm to the "communion" you seek to foster is difficult for the rest of us to comprehend. Because we know that "the emperor has no clothes", yet continues to strut around in pretended gravitas.

As for my bishop, +Jon Bruno, we love you in this diocese. You have been a true leader for the Gospel of Jesus, working daily for the poor, the homeless, immigrants, persons with HIV/AIDS, children and youth, peoples of color, and LGBT persons in this diocese, ever advancing the reign of God in the incredibly complex diversity of Los Angeles. Many of your clergy and lay persons remember your work as a rector during the height of the AIDS epidemic, when most clergy had little to say and less to do for their sick and dying brothers and sisters. You were different. You went into the clinics to talk to those who were afraid to come to church. You went from room to room in the AIDS wards and Hospice, ministering the pure love of God to persons whose families and churches had turned their backs on them. You touched my friends and held them as they died in your arms. You were, and are no "fair-weather friend". Your words are a balm of hope and healing at this most difficult time for LGBT persons in the Anglican Communion.

As you often say, +Jon, "know who you are, and most importantly whose you are, and by whom you are beloved."

Remember the ¨leave¨ Bishop Rowan Williams took and worked on a book in Washington D.C./Georgetown a few Summers ago? I suddenly wonder if Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury spent time with members of the ¨Family¨...I´m wondering if +Rowan joined those who wander the mansion grounds in near Washington D.C...is Lord Carey of Clifton another one of their regular invitees?

So! Will this require that the Primates of those Provinces which have established rogue dioceses within the territory of TEC and Canada now be requested to withdraw from their illicit invasion of these two 'Western' Provinces of the Communion?
I frankly cannot see this happening. So how can the Standing Committee of the Communion possibly expect TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada to resile from their intention to provide appopriate pastoral responses to LGBT ordination candidates and same-sex partnerships within their separate jurisdictions?

If this is the prelude to the imposition of an 'Anglican Covenant', then obviously there can be no going back on what has already become the provincial policy of the individual Church bodies concerned. Is would seem that the problem is a contextual one - where different cultural under-standings are a barrier to further cooperation.

This is alomost like trying to put a stop to the process of the Reformation. The point is: what was the purpose of the first Reformation, and is this present action by the Standing Committee an attempt to stem the tide of prophetic action in the Churches of the West?

Cross border intervention pre-dated the election of Gene Robinson. So why is it listed third of three?

The US has operated gracious restraint for past 6 years. The response to them has been anything but gracious.

It's no good shutting the stable door after the horse has left.

I never thought I would say this, but perhaps it's time to leave the Anglican Communion, and cultivate our relationships with Methodists, Lutherans, and Moravians, here and abroad, who are committed to an inclusive church.

No Anglican Covenant!

The US and Canadian churches are independent of the rest of the Communion. That independence should not be compromised, especially when issues of Gospel principle -- and *baptismal* covenant -- are at stake.

No novel arrangement that would convert the Anglican family of churches into something it has never been before -- an organization controlled from the top down.

No curia, no star chamber, no inquisition.

No Anglican Covenant!

"Cross border intervention pre-dated the election of Gene Robinson. So why is it listed third of three?"

Because the Powers That Be never, ever had any real intention of disciplining those responsible, but felt a need for something to balance their TEC-bashing.

John posted: "I never thought I would say this, but perhaps it's time to leave the Anglican Communion, and cultivate our relationships with Methodists, Lutherans, and Moravians, here and abroad, who are committed to an inclusive church."

No, I'm sorry John, but we aren't leaving the Anglican Communion (however it comes to be defined).

Instead, the Anglican Communion will be splitting into (A) Traditional Anglican Communion (broad church, respectful of other beliefs, reformationist, inclusive) and (B) Isolationist Anglican Communion (think the mindset of "Global South" plus Rowan Williams and part of the Church of England).

I believe that the Traditional Anglican Communion will include almost all of the "Global North" (as an identifiable name, why not?) plus South Africa, and Brazil, and Mexico, and New Zealand, and most of Australia.

Part of the Chruch of England, yet to be determined, will transition to the Traditional Anglican Communion. Indeed, I believe that a majority will ultimately see the challenge, understand the impact of Rowan Williams' actions, and failures to act (think Uganda), and, as English men and women have historically done, reject cowardice and contrivance when forced to make a decision.

Naturally we will remain brothers and sisters of Lutherans, Methodists, and Moravians, and some others, but TEC and ACC will remain Anglicans, as they have been known for centuries and not as some are trying to redefine.

From Episcopal Cafe:

¨I am also going to assume that I may never learn otherwise because I have been told that the Central Committee members agree not to speak about what happens at their meetings. So any time you see the phrase Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, remember that this body, which will soon be making essential decisions about the life of the Communion operates in secret.¨

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/anglican_communion/question_of_the_day_what_are_t.html#more

So there you have it brothers and sisters at the Body of Christ...the new ¨Steering Central Committee¨ (who recently elevated themselves to Anglican Standing Committee status)...intends to let blood flow in Africa and Jamaica and ignore major deceiving (deception they agree with as you can see), manipulate ¨their will¨ upon US which they have decided is Gods ¨will¨ and the mindless followers/clergy and laity who are somewhat innocent (or plain stupid) immoral accomplices, of the Anglican Communion best agree, or else.

We live in a Anglican Communion that allows Provincial Archbishop/Bishop Despots to rule unchecked and from the seat of their pants. They make judgements based on little ¨listening¨ or ¨learning¨ and almost no genuine understanding of the Bible or any Godly ¨expertise¨...I can see they are not competant from their very first back-stabbing, behind the scenes, communique.

Archbishop Rowan, resign today and ¨steer¨ your herd of anonymous committee of cowards away from us...irresponsible and unaccountable henchmen/women are dangerous at The Anglican Communion where immediate life and death issues are a REALITY we must face without delay...spite and the ramrodding of +Rowans ¨way¨ won´t SAVE LIVES no matter how overly thought out your punishment for TEC and ACCanada may be...use common sense please and keep the heck away from me...you are a silly, pompus and extremely dangerous lot.

'No novel arrangement that would convert the Anglican family of churches into something it has never been before -- an organization controlled from the top down.' (jeremy)

Yes, I realise that I am such a traditionalist there's no way I'm prepeared to accept this 'covenant' and its threatned new deal.

The anti-gay animus is itself an innovation, unkown in the anglican parishes and institutions I've been moving in for the last 59 years.

The bishop who ordained me in the 70s was himself gay and known as such in the diocese, my own gayness was seen as totally unremarkable.

The only thing was one had to avoid 'scandal' in one's dealings beyond the church, as the world beyond the church was markedly homophobic.

"I never thought I would say this, but perhaps it's time to leave the Anglican Communion, and cultivate our relationships with Methodists, Lutherans, and Moravians, here and abroad, who are committed to an inclusive church." -- John

A year ago, I was in favor of a Covenant! Now I too think the best thing for TEC to do is to leave this so-called Communion behind, and follow John's suggestion.

Dear +Rowan, perhaps it´s time to take a roll call on your much elevated Anglican Communion Central Steering Committee list, actually they are not in Communion with oneanother...better write them up:

¨A quick skim suggests that several members of the "Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion" have declared -- or have been declared for -- that they are not in communion with some members of the Anglican Communion, as commonly or even legally understood. Now, by the logic of "communion," someone not in communion with someone in a communion is not in the communion. That is, there are members of the Committee who are not members of the Anglican Communion. By the logic of "committee of," this committee cannot, therefore, be a committee of the Anglican Communion.¨ -

http://fharrystowe.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-of-what-says-what.html

Please allow me to share some thoughts on (Communion) (The Ecumenical Movement) and (John 17: 20-21) from the perspective of a North Carolina Moravian. I found this thread through a Google alert for articles and blogs relating to “Moravian Episcopal Full Communion”. I must confess that I had no idea what these terms meant to the historic or contemporary church.

As a Layman in the Moravian Church taking a first time - fresh look at this subject I pray you will find something in what I have to say that will add to this conversation.

I think For Moravians the mention of “Full Communion” instantly invokes a singular reference to a simple and beautiful service of commitment to be one through the sharing of the Body of Christ.

I have been quite intrigued by views of “full communion” by the Anglican – Catholic – World Council Of Churches- and their members who we as Moravians are considered charter members.

I found it critical to any understanding of the contemporary appeal of the Modern Ecumenical Movement’s call to “full communion” to distill out biblical imperatives and the need for Contemporary Society to have a collective voice in Social Justice legislation.

A careful reading of the record of Jesus Prayer to God in the 17 chapter of John reveals to the apostles present and to us today that the Lord will form a visible union of those who are in communion with Him. I find that Modern Ecumenists choose to take that biblical account as a mandate for man to create – monitor- dissolve those unions. I find this particularly surprising, as promoters of the Modern Ecumenical Movement have used these verses for over 100 years. Could this error really have been embraced for over a century?

So is the objective of the Modern Ecumenical Movement to be solely a bigger voice to Secular legislators and lawmakers to support Social Justice agendas, as opposed to Biblical Ecumenism that informs us as apostles that those who are in a saving relationship with Christ will be in communion by the Grace of God?

Do we as Christians lose our perspective on the “High Priestly prayer” by the distraction of deciding who is in and out of communion? I would think we would gladly leave that to the Lord.

I rest assured that the Lord has not excluded anyone from His communion but there will be many who will not choose to be in His Communion.

Much more could be said but a study group that I have been involved with has already elaborated in great detail on this subject. If you would like to read more or comment visit our web site at www.Moravians.org/wordpress

May we find our true communion in the Lord.

Lee

Thanks L, the Anglican habit used to be that we left the sorting of Anglican sheep and goats to God, while we continued in common prayer all around the planet with whomsoever will. If common prayer was bit tent stuff, service and mission were even bigger tents in some places.

Now, its' gotten all opposite, turned right around. The new hot Anglican game is called, Who's In And Who's Out. Even those of us who do not wish to play this game are ruled out so loudly and meanly and so often called dirt and danger that we end up addressing our alleged outsider status. Something fishy in all that, along with lots of happenstance bullying?

A lot of Anglican and other folks still hope that somehow this game is a passing developmental stage, like getting into USA Middle School and suddenly trying to find out who the popular and cool kids are so that you can immediately attach yourself to the saved/safe. Meanwhile, squabbly Anglican groups loudly suggest that they each are so pure and holy in themselves that they would hardly ever want to belong to any global church of big tent Anglican believers that was so heretical as to want to include them without turning over the global car keys completely.

The most judicious guess so far is that twelve year olds so desperate to be Pure Church Insiders should not be given all the keys to the kingdom.

Very interesting Lee. Thank you for your post and for this url www.Moravians.org/wordpress

with good wishes

Re John's comments. Perhaps we need to re-visit the 1948 Lambeth Conference resolutions which spoke of the provisionality of the Anglican Communion and looked to its disappearance.It clearly envisaged the growth of Churches on the Church of South India model with Anglicans joining others and bringing with them particular gifts, especially perhaps aspects of liturgy and sacramental order for example the historic episcopate.Yet within ten years the mood seems to have changed and a move towards centralisation occurred.Was this reinforced by Roman catholic ecumenism and the decision that Rome should dialogue with the Anglican Communion as a whole ? And did Rome assume the AC was a more coherent ecclesiological animal thanin fact it was.....perhaps 50 years on its time for a re-visit and a re-think

".....perhaps 50 years on its time for a re-visit and a re-think" - Perry Butler -

Indeed, Perry, this would seem to be the pragmatic interpetation of what is actually happening at this time in the world-wide Communion. The Church of South India came about precisely because of the needs of its own context.
It would seem that the needs of the different contexts of parts of the Communion - especially those of the West and the Global South - demand a different kind of Church from that of the Roman 'one-size-fits-all' magisterial model.

Those of us who exist outside of the moralisitic Global South/Gafcon/ACNA theological stream, need to be allowed to flourish in our own prophetic, inclusive culture of the Gospel in our different 21st century contexts - a reality which no disciplinary Covenant would either encourage or allow to happen.