From the Times article:

"The Church of England is to consider recognising a new conservative church in the US in a move that will place further pressure on the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, as he struggles to keep his fracturing Communion in one piece.

"The General Synod will debate a private member’s motion next month calling for the Church of England to declare itself “in communion” with the Anglican Church in North America, formed in opposition to the pro-gay liberals in the official Anglican body in North America.

"The synod, dominated by evangelicals, could pass the motion by a 50 per cent majority, adding to the pressure on the primates and bishops to recognise the new church."

Well, well, well. And these same evangelicals in the C of E won't recognize TEC as a member of the Communion, per +Tom Wright, even if TEC signs the Anglican Covenant.

"It ain't over till the fat lady stands up and sings," as Casey Stengel used to say. Well, she's on her feet, she's opened the sheet music, and she's just taken a deep breath.

So, fellow American Episcopalians, let's not waste our time trying to remain in relationship with the C of E. They don't want us, and that's that. Let's strengthen our bonds with the Anglican Church of Canada, the ELCA, the Swedish Lutherans, and others.

I find myself somewhat in agreement with Charlotte.

The vote on this resolution is a good test of where the Church of England really stands.

If the Church of England really wishes to align itself with institutionalized misogyny and homophobia, then perhaps TEC is better off outside the Anglican Communion.

The Anglican Communion is becoming more and more a vehicle for oppression.

Re "The synod, dominated by evangelicals, could pass the motion by a 50 per cent majority, adding to the pressure on the primates and bishops to recognise the new church.":

I do find it difficult to believe that the very same body that has been so adamant of late in support of the ordination of women to the episcopate - and ordaining them without placing constraints on their functioning as bishops - would muster a simple majority for ACNA and against TEC.

Would someone from the C of E please clarify whether the synod is in fact "dominated by evangelicals," and if so, is there really a "kingmaker" faction comprised of evangelicals who favor having female bishops but oppose TEC and its infernal homo-loving ways?

Re "So, fellow American Episcopalians, let's not waste our time trying to remain in relationship with the C of E. They don't want us, and that's that. Let's strengthen our bonds with the Anglican Church of Canada, the ELCA, the Swedish Lutherans, and others.":

Until someone can explain to me how GS could both favor unrestricted female episcopacy and oppose TEC, I don't think we should abandon our bonds with the progressives and moderates within the C of E.

On the other hand, we certainly *should* enhance our direct ties with other progressive-to-moderate Anglican jurisdictions (not just Canada but also Scotland and Brazil and Mexico and Aotearoa New Zealand and Southern Africa, et al.), plus the Utrecht Union, plus ELCA and the Church of Sweden and other Nordic Lutheran national churches, and also let's not forget our United Methodist cousins... The fixation on the C of E seems historically understandable but nonetheless a bit chauvinistic, and there are plenty of other episcopal, evangelical, reformed Catholic mission partners we ought also to be walking with...

I apologize for double-posting, but there is something else I wanted to say. I really think we (TEC) should just walk away. We should simply turn our backs on the C of E and the Anglican Communion and walk away. It saddens me to say so, because I have a degree of sentimental attachment to the whole thing. But this relationship we have with the C of E and the Anglican Communion -- which some politely call "dysfunctional" -- is really something much worse.

Let's look at the actual situation, without the sentimental glaze. If I do, I find myself at a loss to name any benefit whatsoever that accrues to TEC through its membership in the Anglican Communion or its connection to the Church of England. I can find no benefit at all that we receive from having these people in our lives.

But they get from us. Oh, do they get from us. What they do is: they drain us of our money, without which they couldn't go on at the material level they enjoy, and they abuse and vilify us. Those are the only two things the Anglican Communion or the Church of England does to/for the American Church. This is not just "dysfunctional." This is abusive and degrading. This is how a pimp treats his ho'.

We just should not stick around for any more of this. Period, end of subject.

Gledhill's spin sounds like its meant to sell newspapers to people with short memories. This is the same synod that rather firmly approved women bishops last year. It seems unlikely it would declare itself in communion with ACNA.

Moreover - and Simon can clarify/correct me - I don't believe that all private members motions make it as far as consideration by the full synod.

I'm not willing to sell the C of E short yet. And certainly not willing to abandon progressives in the C of E.

Interesting articles. Canon Michell's argument is logical, although it has several lapses. First, that with all the proposed changes rejected in the first American Prayer Book, the Eucharistic prayer was still that of the Scottish church, and not the 1662 Prayer Book, demonstrating a separation and independence Canon Michell wishes to question. Second, in its own statements the first Lambeth Conference (and several subsequent Conferences) were clear that Lambeth was not to become a structure of authority to which bishops would submit. Third, the Windsor Report's history of reception of the ordination of women at all (much less to the episcopate) glosses blatantly over continuing differences within the Communion - differences of a sort that conservative provinces have refused to live with in the case of GLBT Anglicans.

Dr. Harding's brief concluding paragraphs seem to offer a rather insipid endorsement of the Covenant. The questions he raises in his description of the content of the Covenant draft itself seem pertinent: this Covenant would only work if all participants saw it the same way, something he himself doubts will happen. If so, why would he endorse, even half-heartedly, an agreement that will have no real meaning?

But at least there's retired Archbishop Tay. He is clear: in essence, "This won't just exclude the Americans, and so isn't anything I could sign or endorse."

Granted, I doubt I would have found these compelling, no matter how well written. But, I wonder how anyone else might find them compelling.

So the Right Reverend Moses Tay likens gay people and their sexual expression to 'dirt' and you can't have dirt in the same Church as the non-dirty. Good to know that. It doesn't matter whether he is for or against (he is against), his opinion is the evidence of how the Anglicanism that some seek to preserve by having the Covenant has lost the ethical argument. Diarmaid McCulloch put it recently - the Christian Church lost the various intellectual arguments, but there was always the ethical argument and what it represented - and it lost that too (he's gay, incidentally).

The answer to Canon Dr. Neal Michell is that the innovation is not minimalist. And in any case, his argument does not work, because now and after a Covenant women bishops and priests recognised in some places are not in others. The Communion is already impaired. Also the Covenant will exclude some non-signatories, include other non-signatories and exclude some signatories from its instruments. In other words, the solution by politburo is also the same back-handed duplicity as now. Duplicity can at least be reduced down locally, and worked upon locally to reduce it.

I think Simple Massing Priest has the grip of the issue.

I hope and pray that Charlotte is premature, although I am not certain that she is.

I am a little puzzled by the school of moral theology to which Archbishop Tay evidently subscribes, according to which it is grievously immoral to ordain a gay person, but to execute one is apparently not worth comment.

Better five years late than never: I have just finished reading Stephen Bates' A Church At War. This does not leave me with positive feelings about the Church of England as a model for Anglicanism (though I concede that the CofE owns the franchise on the name).

Rather like the gathering of gawking onlookers at an automobile wreck, it might be entertaining if the Úber-Evangelicals were to succeed in passing a Synod resolution establishing communion with the "Anglican Church in North America." How long will that last, given that the only thing they have in common is their allergy to gay cooties (and in some cases, to girl cooties)?

So, fellow American Episcopalians and Anglicans, let's not waste our time trying to remain in relationship with the C of E, or Anglican Church of Nigeria or Uganda,or others of that ilk... They don't want us, and that's that. Let's strengthen our bonds with the Episcopal Church of the United States of America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada, and any others that believe in seeing Christ in all people that we meet.

Amen, Charlotte, Amen!

As for me and my (TEC)house, we choose God over the false prophets of CofE evangelicalism.

Episcopalian Yank inquires: if the CofE General Synod were to pass Ms. Ashworth's private motion, and---particularly if coupled w/ an excommunication of TEC---it were enacted by the Bishops, could an officially anti-gay CofE be cruising for a disestablishment? How long is the sparsely-attended CofE mouse supposed to roar, before the Parliamentary lion (representing all those pagans & heathens, some of the queer) has had enough?

Even a quick perusal of Neal Michell's "Is the Anglican Covenant Non-Anglican?" turns up more errors than can be conveniently dealt with.

But surely the most glaring, is the canard that "four dioceses have left TEC." I suppose Michell means those dioceses whose previous bishops were deposed (for abandoning communion, not to mention their episcopal oathes) in the past two years? They are very much still dioceses constitutionally and canonically joined to and with TEC, thank you very much! Indeed, the Episcopalians who have reorganized after the schismatic bishops' departures (regretably, with some clergy and laity) proclaim their extended Easter seasons of rebirth therein! :-D

Shorter Neal Michell:

"Here are three times in the past when member churches of the Anglican Communion agreed not to do what other member churches had asked them not to do. This proves that all member churches are bound to listen to any foreign prelate who happens to have a fit."

His abuse of the Li Tim-Oi example is expecially grievous.

Charlotte. You can be assured that what ever happens there will be many many thousands of CofE people who want nothing to do with homophobic schismatics, will reject such recognition and want to remain in good fellowship with you and TEC.

On a point of order, David - I have noticed before the world-wide too-rosy view of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa.

Once one of the most Anglo-Catholic provinces in the communion - and - under Desmond Tutu's leadership, possessor of a prophetic voice - it is now increasingly besieged from within by Evangelical homophobes - who are steadily assuming control.

And all of this in a country where masses of people vehemently and successfully opposed a simple amendment to the Marriage Act to remove discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation - leaving us with a separate-but-equal (and therefore probably unconstitutional) civil union law.

And in a country where the current President is on record as saying that in his boyhood if you encountered a homosexual you would knock him down.

William

". . it (The Final Covenant Document) implicitly proposes to subjugate those bonds of affection, that is the actual relationships of good will and faithful engagement; with a commitment to a document that appears to focus more on enforcing doctrinal agreement and applying discipline where it is absent." - New Zealand's Response to The Covenant -

This paragraph from the New Zealand response to the revised Covenant Document, here quoted by *Simple Massing Priest* on his web-site, proclaims our N.Z. Church's heartfelt feeling about what seems to be happening to the traditional culture of koinonia which was once the hall-mark of Anglicanism in its Provinces around the world.

The very thought that Canterbury may be about to include ACNA - the product of a foreign invasion of one Province by the machinations of others, anxious to take over - amongst its Covenanted Partners would immediately shatter the prospect of a continuing Anglican Communion - in the more peace-loving, ecumenical sense of those words.

At a meeting I attended in Christchurch, hosted by former Archbishop Paul Reeves, people were clearly questioning the need for a Covenant, which would exercise any sort of disciplinary jurisdiction over Provinces which sought to liberalise the existing culture of ultra-conservatism in the Church. We expressed our solidarity with the Churches of the USA and Canada - in their prophetic stance on gender and sexuality issues.

Do you know what, Charlotte? You never listened to a word I said the last time you made a posting like this. You don't even know how Synod is going to vote regarding ACNA, and you just want to turn your back on the whole CofE. I might point out that while 126 members have signed the ACNA motion, 123 members signed a motion asking for equal pension benefits to be paid to civil partners of deceased clergy. Similar numbers, aren't they? Do you really think those 123 people are likely to support Ashworth's motion.

It's alright for you to say "let's not waste our time trying to remain in relationship with the C of E" and walk away. You're in a church that's largely supportive of LGBT people. The CofE hasn't reached that place yet, but that's not to say it won't ever. Don't delete the CofE from your contact list just yet.

Maybe you should think before alienating TEC's supporters in the CofE.

Also Charlotte, please explain how the CofE is draining TEC of its money.

Among the better ways to make certain that the Episcopal Church consents the election of Mary Glasspool and does not sign on to the Covenant, is for Gregory Cameron to keep running his mouth. He placed a board member of the IRD on the Covenant Design Group. Imagine the outcry if he had placed someone from an organization whose stated purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of another church in the Communion on that body. Indeed, it is precisely the previous behavior of Cameron, Tom Wright, Ephraim Radner and other proponents of the Covenant who have made it difficult for that document to get a fair hearing in the Episcopal Church.

"Gledhill's spin sounds like its meant to sell newspapers to people with short memories. This is the same synod that rather firmly approved women bishops last year. It seems unlikely it would declare itself in communion with ACNA." - John Chilton

I agree with John Chilton's assessment, and I also find Charlotte's reaction somewhat irrational and certainly self-defeating.

For my part, I refuse to give in to the fundamentalists who are trying to take over the Anglican Communion, and if one followed Charlotte's plan, we would just make it easy for that to happen.

Despite my previous bowing to Erika's assessment (on another, but related thread) of relatively disinterested reactions from the majority of the pews of CofE, I react with appreciation of the assessment by Richard Ashby, "You can be assured that what ever happens there will be many many thousands of CofE people who want nothing to do with homophobic schismatics, will reject such recognition and want to remain in good fellowship with you and TEC."

Accordingly, I also concur with John Chilton's final assessment that he is "not willing to abandon progressives in the C of E."

So, let's fight the good fight against the new Puritans, and forget about the tactic of picking up our traditional Anglican Communion ball and running home with it, thereby abandoning our fellow believers.

Nick Lincoln, my understanding is that the Episcopal Church (USA) funds a large proportion of the activities of the Anglican Communion Office and that its subsidies help make the Lambeth Conferences possible.

Because the Lambeth Conference keeps the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England at the center of Anglicanism worldwide, I think I can include both the Anglican Communion (in general) and the Church of England (in particular) in the list of those who benefit from TEC's membership in the Anglican Communion.

From those who benefit, TEC receives -- what, exactly, again? (Besides verbal abuse, interference with our province's decisions, and open abetting of schism in our own church, that is.)

If TEC were a woman in a relationship like this one, she would be told in no uncertain terms to get herself to a safe house and remain there while the law dealt with her abuser.

Since border crossing has become an acceptable practice, I'm hoping that mission work to the UK from TEC might be an up and coming new move. Canterbury needs some competition. After 'lil President George we could use some grammatically correct english over here. Come over here and do church with us.

Threatening schism is just not the Christian way of proceeding; see I Corinthians.

Charlotte, I understand how you feel. At least your safe haven is your Church. In the CofE, LGBT people and those who are supportive are largely at the mercy of the diocesan bishop.

You have absolutely received verbal abuse and interference... from some members of the Communion. I'm not denying that, and I think that the way many Anglicans have responded to TEC's actions is appalling. It is utterly disheartening to watch how the ABC is treating LGBT folk, and even women (now he's hinting his dissatisfaction over women's ordination). Those of us liberals in the CofE are, as you might say, between a rock and a hard place.

I just would hate to see TEC walk away, as you are suggesting. We need TEC's prophetic voice now more than ever. What can be achieved by TEC walking away on its own? More can be achieved by progressive Anglicans working for change from within.

There's a part of me that would just love to go and work for TEC and leave the CofE to its infighting. But this is my home, and the CofE is my home Church. There's still something in the old CofE that's worth hanging on to.

So I put my lot in with Jerry, and John and Richard who've posted on here.

And regarding your woman-in-an-abusive-relationship analogy: what would you do if The Law you reported the abuser to just sat back and let it happen? Or even condoned it? Would you run away and hide? Or would you do something about it?

All the above seem to assume that the C of E must be in communion either with TEC or ACNA. Is there any reason it can't declare itself in communion with both?

Charlotte,

In the US you have Fox News. If as a Brit I took all of my information about the US from Fox news I might get the wrong impression of what was going on on your side of the Atlantic. Please understand that in the UK we also have religious journalists who are just like Fox News, but not quite as balanced. Many of the articles quoted here are polemical not factual.

Simon

If, as according to some quoted above, believe that TEC was insufficiently Anglican from the beginning, I wonder why in the 19th century the CoE and others let themselves be lured to the first Lambeth, which we helped organize.

Funny how some folks suddenly notice such things. Convenient, that.

Jerry
In our previous conversation I had thought you were asking about the reactions to the Covenant of ordinary people in the pews.
Of course, General Synod is a different issue and there's some small hope that they may not vote for it.

"I just would hate to see TEC walk away, as you are suggesting. We need TEC's prophetic voice now more than ever. What can be achieved by TEC walking away on its own? More can be achieved by progressive Anglicans working for change from within." - Nick Lincoln, on Friday -

I absolutely agree with Nick's statement here; of solidarity with TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, on their prophetic stance towards the LGBT community in the Church and the World.

My belief is that there are many within the Church of England who, if they were able, would embrace your open and honest acceptance of women and gays into the ministry of their Church. At the moment, the odds seem to be stacked against you - in those parts of the Communion where such freedoms are denied. However, if you read some of the responses given by some progressive Provinces of the Communion (for instance, like mine in New Zealand) you will find that there is a ground-swell of opinion against the proscriptive nature of the proposed Covenant, section 4, which seeks to over-rule the traditional koinonia and trust of the Communion Partners.

I still hold in mind the words of the Antiphon for Holy Thursday: "Where Charity and Love are - there is GOD". Stay with us, please, for God's sake, and for the sake of the Gospel!

Charlotte: I think you have got the measure of the CofE. They have no courage. The liberals within it should have made it clear that they were backing and support TEC and their stance and if necessary , would split the entirely worthless and redundant, institutionally homophobic Anglican Communion.

But the problem is, as the responses here show, they are too wedded to the institution and the nostalgic idea of a Communion to do the right thing

They are compromisers with no courage and no backbone.

Put it like this. You leave - and watch how many have the courage to follow you? There could be a great movement to disestablish the institutional church and split from the conservatives for good. But they won't do it, Charlotte. They haven't the courage.

"And regarding your woman-in-an-abusive-relationship analogy: what would you do if The Law you reported the abuser to just sat back and let it happen? Or even condoned it? Would you run away and hide? Or would you do something about it?" - Posted by Nick Lincoln

Only my commitment to (Gospel-inspired) nonviolence prevents me from saying "See re 'Good-bye, Earl'" (The Dixie Chicks)

;-/

You say, Merseymike that we are too wedded to the institution. The thing is, being the Established Church of England, we have a unique, national vocation to serve the entire country. This was a crucial part in my own vocation within God's Church, and I don't want to lose that. That doesn't mean I don't have courage, and I find the implication offensive.

Some of the comments made on here are so very selfish. You're not interested in supporting your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and you just want to walk away because the CofE isn't moving fast enough for you. I think that's sad.

So far the latest rounds of consideration for this new covenant have been interesting to over-hear, to say the least in a misleadingly mild manner.

Gledhill continues her typical habits of partisanist media manipulation, hardly to be compared with good old neutral-fair journalism as traditionally practised? She is clearly playing an old Eric Berne transactional human relations game, called: Let's You And Him Fight. Be advised.

The strategic and progressive CoE dilemmas heighten and just keep coming. The most basic dilemma is, Will a progressively tilted western parliamentary democracy allows its single established church to be (A) homophobic in regulation-doctrine (DADT) while still yet closeted-secretive as to its queer folks as well as to its progressive believers? Plus (B) can such an established church allow outright international control, period? Plus (C) what is the truth of unity-communion if large, heavy-handed campaign groups like the conservative evangelicals and the most polarized anglo-catholics use generous big tent occasions of communion to vilify, condemn, and spin doctor the key, frank lies about all others to which they are so fondly prone?

Yes, I am theoretically still my parents' son; but when I take into passing account that I am truly not welcome, honestly, at the family gatherings - why go? Would not my travel monies, effort, time be better spent on outreach, mission, and maintenance of church life, right at home as well as with beloved global partners?

Frankly, signing the covenant doesn't look like it will change all that much for the better in any disputed or hot button global Anglican sector. If we take covenant as a means of punishing and cleaning house in favor of strictly closed-conservative Anglican believers; it will only barely begin to go the distance. If we take it as Haller's view suggests, An aspirational poetry that can be shaped by participations ...then what? Clearly the realignment plan is to either force a conservative conformity on our global communion, or sow discord, damage, and schism if domination cannot quite be achieved. We are deluded to think otherwise, till IRD realignment types shift their lobbying?

Be certain above all that God will surprise us as things unravel and polarize further. Between the comments of Haller, Diemel, Gunn, and others ... a lot of good light is shining bright. Thanks goodness, thank God.

Nick Lincoln, my understanding is that, in an abusive relationship, the abuse follows a cyclical pattern known as the "cycle of violence," while the level and intensity of the abuse tends to worsen over time, and often becomes fatal to the abused.

Abused persons may be co-dependent, believing that somehow, through their suffering, or by doing things that will please the abuser, they can change the abuser into a loving person again. Because the "cycle of violence" includes phases when the abuser is repentant and sorrowful for the abuse, the abused person can be fooled into thinking that the abuser really is sorry and will never do it again. This is not true.

The recommendation to all abused persons is: get out, and get to a safe place, if you possibly can. Leave the surroundings in which abuse is happening, and leave your abuser. If the law is on the abuser's side, still there are safe havens open, and a person suffering abuse should get to one of them.

That's exactly what I think the Episcopal Church should do. Leave the Anglican Communion, and get to a safe, non-abusive place. Rebuild relationships with non-abusive churches such as the ELCA. Be strong; don't go back to the Anglican Communion, because it will only abuse us again.

When +Tom Wright announced that the Episcopal Church will not be able to continue as a member of the Communion even if it does sign the Covenant, it was as if he told the whole street he had pledged himself to give TEC a right battering every Saturday night, regardless of whatever TEC did or didn't do, just to keep it in line. And he does. And there's no reason why we should stand for this.

So, let's leave and get ourselves to a safe place, OK?

Erika

Thanks, and yes, you are correct in the overall subject of the original dialogue.

But here, and I have re-read what I posted, we were talking about whether or not TEC should care about that part of the general pew-sitters of the CofE who would care, versus most of whom apparently would not give a rat's patootie about what happens in the Anglican Communion beyond the realm of England, per your astute assessment.

As Richard Ashby put it, "...many many thousands of CofE people...want nothing to do with homophobic schismatics...." If Richard is correct, and I trust that his instincts are also good, that would mean that such a part of the CofE will not be inclined to be part of a Central African-led cabal, and will be inclined to remain very much in communion with TEC and ACofC, regardless of what General Synod may do (or not).

What you said about the vast majority of CofE pew-sitters, and what Richard said about a very large minority of CofE pew-sitters, are not necessarily in conflict.

I hope that this is more clear than the reference I made to our previous dialogue.

It goes back to something I said some months ago (I'm surprised that I can recall this, so I would not expect anyone else to recall it either) that Archbishop Williams may be risking a split in the CofE itself, as my own experience in English churches during business trips and vacations did not lead me to believe that a Communion dominated by fundamentalists, neo-Puritans, and the so-called Global South, would be acceptable to many (I probably said "most," at that time) CofE parishioners.

I accept your assessment that the body of folk who would actually care may be a minority.

But, General Synod can only act officially; it cannot dictate the hearts and minds of English Anglicans, and it is that part of the body faithful, which would "reject a rejection" of TEC and ACofC, which TEC should care about, and not abandon.

"All the above seem to assume that the C of E must be in communion either with TEC or ACNA. Is there any reason it can't declare itself in communion with both?" - Rick Allen

You can't have it both ways; either there is a recognition of the integrity of each national church and its boundaries within the Anglican Communion, or we are likely to see more splinters all over the globe.

I have a feeling that if General Synod were to approve a document which had the effect of terminating the relationship with TEC, and if enough provinces around the world were to affirm the Covenant, that we will see a Reformed Church of England develop, and affiliate itself with TEC, and ACC, and those other provinces which will refuse to allow the segregation of TEC and ACC.

Why should anyone sit still and allow the duplicity of "ACNA" as a province of the Anglican Communion? It will not be without grave cost for Archbishop Williams, will it?

"My belief is that there are many within the Church of England who, if they were able, would embrace your open and honest acceptance of women and gays into the ministry of their Church"

"...if they were able..."

I don't understand this - do you mean lay people? Clergy?

Why would they be UNable to simply voice support? Given the institutional hypocricy of the C of E, I guess I understand that gay clergy might feel unable to give public support - but surely not gay and straight lay people, and surely not straight clergy.

What gives?

I'm still with Charlotte.

If you want to come with us, then come with us. If you are too frightened to leave CofE and seek a communion with TEC, then stay.

But stop telling *us* we have to change *your* church. If you can't do it, we can't.

I think that there is very little chance that TEC will, on our own, leave the Anglican Communion. I recall hearing one of our seminary theologians saying that only TEC decides who we are in communion with. That is why we have not threatened to break communion with Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, the Southern Cone, etc. It seems wrong to us to theaten to break communion. TEC values the communion for the opportunities it provides for mission and ministry. Even now, we support hospitals, schools, and local churches in provinces that declare they are not in communion with us. They share with us the stories of their lives, the obstacles that they have to overcome, the Jesus whom they love, and the joys they experience. The need to share the Good News and participate with others in healing our broken world far outweighs these venal church political games.

That is why it is becoming so disheartening to hear anything more from RW, Sentamu, Tay, Cameron, Wright, etc. They seem to be mesmerized by personal visions of evangelical takeovers, Romanesque transformation of the communion, and most silly of all "biblical orthodoxy". What kind of "orthodoxy" can one extract out of a library of books spanning centuries of politics, religious movements, exotic personalities, and enough illicit sex to send a CofE bishop round the bend? For centuries rabbis have replied to the question about when the world will come to an end with this response, "When all possible interpretations of every scriptural text have been found." The scriptures are a wealth of profound spiritual wisdom that, in the eye of the beholder, can reveal the person of Jesus. Mother Maria Skoptsova once said, "We Orthodox do not place our faith in a book, or in laws. We believe in a Person."

Epiphany is the season of Light, the dawning of the Light in the darkness of our world, and the revealing of Light in the darkness of our hearts. Perhaps we cannot all together fall on our knees before the Light of the world. Perhaps we cannot agree together what will expand the reign of the Light in our world. For me, my work will include standing with LGBT persons, their families, and those who love them against any form of oppression, including ecclesiastical, that the powers and principalities of this world would use to dehumanize them. I know that this is anathema to perhaps most of the people in the Anglican Communion. This won't stop the people of my Church from helping those who disagree with us to build a school or a hospital.

If TEC declines to subscribe to the "final" form of the Covenant, who knows what the consequences will be? One thing that I am sure of is that TEC will not walk away from the Anglican Communion. Does that make us weak? Not at all. We do not belong to the world, with its value of the strong conquering the weak. Like you, we belong to the Light of the world who has overcome darkness with the love and compassion of God.

Karen, as a cradle C.of E. Christian, presently a priest of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa/New Zealand, I applaud most heartily your generous take on the relationship of your Church, TEC, with the rest of the Anglican Communion. I, too, feel that the present tensions will pass, and there is no need for panic.

What would not be helpful at this time would be a classic 'failure of nerve' within the progressive partners of the Communion to wait upon the very best resolution that can be brought about in the circumstances.

Only the Devil is in a great hurry to carry out his plans (see GAFCON, ACNA, etc.) Surely, we who stand in the Faith of our Mothers and Fathers have more stickability than to opt out 'before the fat lady sings'? As you have so well said, Epiphany is a time in the Church to wait upon the further revelation of God's Love for God's human children - expecting the release of more and more people from the burdens they carry.

Women and LGBT persons are of infinite value to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is a Truth that can no longer be denied, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

I second karen mcqueen's comments.

The Episcopal Church hasn't broken communion with any other church, nor should it. Primates broke communion with our church when they refused Table Fellowship with us (the only kind that really matters).

This whole "crisis" is bishop driven. The "bond's of affection" may not be there among the mitered heads, but they remain strong among the laity and lower clergy of the various churches, even with those of Central Africa, as Scott Gunn pointed out in his recent essay.

If the membership of the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion's days are numbered, then let our antagonists call the bouncer and throw us out. Why should we walk out and hand over the store? Why should we make it easy for those who hate us?

There was an Episcopal Church long before there was an Anglican Communion. There will be an Episcopal Church long after the Anglican Communion.

Just to let Charlotte know that I've been today to the requiem mass of a priest, presided over by a suffragan bishop, where during the tribute and at various other points during the service explicit mention was made of the love and support the departed had received from his (male) partner.

Reform hasn't won YET!

I can quite well understand the frustration by many North American Anglicans to be quit of this dysfunctional Communion and its feckless Archbishop.

But there are several reasons why we should not walk away.

* We are called to love these people. We cannot walk away.

* We are a prophetic voice for justice and an inspiration to those in other churches in the Communion. We cannot walk away.

* We are called to stand in solidarity with the oppressed LGBTQ in those so-called Global South churches where their bishops want them dead. We cannot walk away.

It is worth noting that, at the birth of Anglicanism, it was Rome, not Canterbury which committed the act of schism. I'll be double damned if I will let the homophobes force me to commit the sin they strive to have committed. If they want schism, let them declare it. Let them do it and let them be responsible. Let them carry me to the door and toss me into the street. I cannot - I WILL not - walk away.

Since each church in the Communion is autocephalous, each is free to enter into Communion with whoever they wish. It is not binding on other churches in the Communion.

The Anglican Church of Canada is in communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada. Technically, the rest of you are not.

The Episcopal Church is in communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Technically, the rest of us are not.

The Church of England is in communion with the Porvoo churches. Technically (most of) the rest of us are not.

If the Church of England chooses to be in communion with the hodge-podge province whose unity is founded in contempt, that is the business of the Church of England, and has no effect on anyone else.

Malcolm. You have expressed the feelings of many others of us within the Provinces of the Anglican Communion. "We are one bread one Body, for we all partake of the One Bread" - this is the hallmark of our Unity in Christ - not faux organisations like ACNA or GAFCON.

David Rowett wrote, "Just to let Charlotte know that I've been today to the requiem mass of a priest, presided over by a suffragan bishop, where during the tribute and at various other points during the service explicit mention was made of the love and support the departed had received from his (male) partner."

Said priest was a kind, caring servant of God and of his parish and people. Ed, rest in peace and rise to glory!

To Charlotte and those who agree with her:

It is also worth highlighting the fact that gay clergy in the Church of England are not under the protection of employment law. For a gay clergyperson to come out to their bishop is a brave thing to do, considering that bishop has the power to withdraw their license and take away their livelihood.

Charlotte, I think your comments are born from an ignorance of the way things work in the Church of England. Members of TEC are always asking the rest of the Communion to understand that they have a different ecclesial polity to other provinces. Well, you need to understand that gay clergy are in vulnerable position over here.

Also, to Mark Brunson, what a selfish thing to say! In fact, what you've said is quite removed from the Gospel. First of all, you're creating division by emphasizing "your" church and "our" church. Also, we're not asking you to change us - as I said earlier, change needs to come from within. But that doesn't mean we don't need support from our friends.

And given that Jesus said: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends", how exactly are you following the Gospel by selfishly abandoning your friends in the Church of England and other provinces to the bigotry of others?

Nick
Without wishing to minimise the difficulties you highlight, that is an oversimplification of the current UK legal situation.
There are many aspects of employment law which do already apply to clergy, and this will significantly increase under Common Tenure due to start quite soon.
But even in respect of the laws against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, the exemption is not total. The famous Regulation 7(3) only exempts from certain specific forms of *direct discrimination* and does not apply at all to any form of *indirect discrimination* or to *harassment*.
The current discussion in Parliament about adding a definition of the purposes of organised religion to the law should not be allowed to mask the *relatively narrow* scope of the law as it already exists.
More detail here
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/003944.html

Nick Lincoln, I'm not sure I really know where to start with my own response to your posts.

First of all, why do you assume that only gay priests care about gay priests? It's as if you assume no one cares about gay and lesbian Christians except other gay and lesbian Christians. That's not true. Quite a bit of support for full inclusion in the US comes from people who are themselves heterosexual, but who have a son, daughter, brother, or sister who is gay.

Others have had dear friends who were gay and cannot abide hearing the gay-bashing pulpit rhetoric some dish out. Martha Nussbaum wrote that her support of gay rights dates back to her early days in the academy; gay men were a great deal of help to her in getting and keeping her feet in the university system, and she wanted to pay back the favor. I can say the same for myself: there are two or three gay men in the world without whom I might never have accomplished what I have. I don't want to betray them by conniving at or even accepting the Anglican slide into Gay-Bashing Nasty Church.

Is it so different in the UK? I find that hard to believe.

Second, even if you were in the kind of position that won't allow you to say a word in favor of gay rights on penalty of losing your job, still, there's much being said against TEC that is misleading, slanted, or down(w)right lies. False stories are spread about us all over the UK by our evo opponents. That's how they hope to get General Synod to recognize ACNA, then break communion with us. Is it so impossible to counter the false rumors and slanders with the truth? Or will that also get you fired? How much of a fearmongering miserable mess is the Church of England these days, if that is the case!

What we most need in the Church of England at this moment are people who willing to tell other Anglicans the truth about who we in TEC are and what we really do. I do say some have done so, but they are few. The rest hide in some dark corner, crossing their fingers and silently hoping we get away with it (whatever "it" is) but they do nothing to support us, while our opponents do all they can to have us removed from the Communion.

They are about to succeed, which is why I say we in TEC should stop obsessing about their rotten behavior and move on to better things. But now if a few more of you might actually stand up and do something, we might be able to stay. But only if YOU do something. Not us, not TEC. YOU.

For Nick Lincoln, as I posted on the 8th and the 9th, I did not agree with Charlotte and do not intend to walk away and allow the neo-Puritans to take over the Anglican Communion; I agree that we, in TEC, owe this determination to -- as Richard Ashby put it -- the many, many thousands in the CofE who do not want to see TEC, or ACofC, excluded.

On the other hand, in her 12:03 am GMT response to you, Charlotte makes an excellent point.

It is indeed time for you and your compatriots to cease your perceived acquiesence to the neo-Puritan controlled Covenant process, and for you to correct the libels against TEC whenever they are uttered by either the liars, or the abysmally ignorant, of the CofE.

Moreover, I certainly agree with Charlotte that this has nothing to do with gays speaking equitably and truthfully. This is not a "gay supporting gay" issue; from my reading, it sounds as if Charlotte is not gay, and neither am I, and many others posting from the USA are also not gay. You don't even need a family member to be gay, nor even a best friend to be gay, to realize that this is an issue of human rights and if basic human rights are not Christian, what is?

It has, I think, long been established that we are not speaking favorably about bed-hopping relationships, be they straight or gay, but committed and monogamous relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Ironically, my first example of such a relationship was in one of my aperiodic business trips to London, some twenty-five or so years ago, where I worshiped at a parish church near Edgware Road and Marylebone Road, and noted that the vicar was clearly in a relationship with the music director, of many years, and that was apparently not a problem for the parishioners, of which I noted a number of young families as well as pensioners.

Nobody is asking anyone in CofE to come out of the closet, nor to risk their positions, but simply to speak boldly, and honestly, and perhaps even prophetically. At least you and others should not allow lies to be set forth as if they were a newly revealed Epistle.

Truth matters, and courage, all around, is what is needed at this time.

The problem here, Charlotte, is that you are doing to the Church of England what the far right propagandists do to the Episcopal Church. You are setting up a straw man that bears limited relations with reality. Because several leaders of the Church of England suffer from rectal-cranial colocation (ie, their heads are up their asses) it does not follow that everyone in every pulpit and every pew agrees with them. The American and Canadian churches have defenders by the score in the CofE. You are writing as though these people do not exist. That is both unfair and misleading.

Okay, I'm happy to accept that there are some fair points here. Simon, what you say about Common Tenure is right, and I'm glad that clergy will be offered more protection as a result. One instance I was thinking of where clergy are in a vulnerable position are in Durham diocese: Tom Wright wrote after the Civil PArtnerships bill:

"Like most bishops, I have not up to now thought it my business to ask such questions of the clergy in my care. But if clergy decide to enter a Civil Partnership they are thereby putting me in a new situation in which my own integrity as diocesan bishop, and my collegial position within the House of Bishops, strongly suggest that I should follow the process thus recommended. This would not (as is sometimes suggested) be ‘intrusive’ or ‘invasive’, but the proper exercise of pastoral oversight"

"I shall be very sorry if members of the clergy, by holding ‘services of blessing’ or near equivalent, force me to make disciplinary enquiries."

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_AdClerumDec05.htm

Charlotte, I only made the point about gay clergy because that's my own personal point of view. But you are absolutely right that other people have a duty to speak out. Many groups such as Changing Attitude and Inclusive Church are speaking out, but I agree that there needs to be a lot more, paarticularly from people in the pews. It would also be nice if some of our liberal bishops spoke out more - that's a work in progress!

As I said in my previous post, change needs to come from within, so I do agree that we in the CofE need to be doing something about it. I have only been upset with your posts so far because of your wish to abandon your friends and allies in the CofE. Only we can make a stand in our own part of the Church but that doesn't mean we can do without the support and inspiration of TEC.

Just to underline that Common Tenure does not apply to clergy across the board in the UK - it may help some C of E clergy, but doesn't help non-Anglicans anywhere or anyone outside England.

Thanks for responding, Nick. Let me come back to the crux of the matter.

TEC is in the process of being expelled from the Anglican Communion. It is virtually certain, at this point, that it will be expelled. The reason is that few to none of its supporters have done anything effective to stop the expulsion from happening.

So it doesn't matter, Nick Lincoln, whether TEC wants to stay or wants to go. It is being expelled, whether it wants to go or not.

My comments simply ask members of TEC to get used to the new state of affairs. We cannot stop our expulsion from the Anglican Communion. Trying to stay in only wastes our time and energy. Instead, we should focus on building ecumenical relations with ELCA and other like-minded mainline protestant churches.

For what it's worth, I think TEC should sign the Anglican Covenant, but it won't make a bit of difference whether we do or not. As soon as we sign it, proceedings will be started to expel us; but as soon as we make it clear we won't sign it, proceedings would be started to expel us. So the same thing will happen, either way.

As soon as the proceedings to expel us have begun, we should put all our contributions to the Anglican Communion into escrow. Then, like Catherine of Aragon, we should refuse to come into the court. By participating in our trial, we would give the proceedings an air of legitimacy they have no right to have.

When the inevitable decision is made to expel us from the Anglican Communion, we will be well advanced on building our links with other protestant churches, and we will use our escrowed funds for real mission-related purposes.

“So it doesn't matter, Nick Lincoln, whether TEC wants to stay or wants to go. It is being expelled, whether it wants to go or not.”-- Charlotte

Charlotte, I understand that this is your opinion, and I can respect that. But most people I know of in TEC do not believe that this is a foregone conclusion. Far more likely than an “expulsion”, in my opinion, would be a fragmentation of the current Anglican Communion--including a realignment of forces within national churches. The CofE will be just as affected in this process as TEC. Whether that would result in a actual split in England is an open question, but I can certainly see parishes, priests and even bishops ignoring Canterbury’s breaking of communion with TEC. English Churchmen/women can be quite good in ignoring authority when they want to! Don’t sell our progressive English sisters and brothers short! They too have a proud history of resisting archepiscopal and evangelical bullying!

Kurt Hill
Brooklyn USA

"For what it's worth, I think TEC should sign the Anglican Covenant, but it won't make a bit of difference whether we do or not. As soon as we sign it, proceedings will be started to expel us; but as soon as we make it clear we won't sign it, proceedings would be started to expel us. So the same thing will happen, either way." - Charlotte

Charlotte, I can just imagine David Virtue - the host of the so-called 'Virtue-on-line' blog - rubbing his chapped hands at your capitulation to the expectatinos of GAFCON and ACNA on this issue.

TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada have every right to demand justice in the competing claims of Provinces of the Global South and the more enlightened Western Provinces to represent the true spirit of Anglicanism in today's world.

To simply counsel further Schism, will be to play into the hands of those conservatives who would be only too glad for ACNA to be included in a new Covenantal relationship with Church of England neo-Protestants. Whatever may be the outcome of the Covenant, this will not be the end of local Anglicanism - which will thrive in different contexts in different parts of the world - as it has done up until now. Don't collude with the schismatics who have already left the Anglican Communion for their own rarified atomosphere of militant self-righteousness - not a Gospel ethic

Hi Kurt. Honestly, I don't think we are that far apart. I'd agree that there will be C of E "parishes, priests, even bishops" willing to retain informal and even formal contacts with TEC after its expulsion from the Communion. I don't doubt that there are others in other provinces who would be willing to maintain some degree of Communion with us. Perhaps there will be even be an entire province or two , Good, then, let's nurture those bonds of affection, along with our contacts with the ELCA, the Lutheran Church of Sweden, and others like them.

What I don't think we should do is waste another moment of our time worrying about our position within the Anglican Communion itself. We're out. I really do think that. One way or another, we are out, so let's just accept that fact and be friends with those who will accept us as friends.