The Archbishop states that "there are Anglicans who have a strong conscientious objection to infant baptism. Their views deserve attention, respect and careful study, they should be engaged in serious dialogue – but it would be eccentric to place such people in a position where their view was implicitly acknowledged as one of a range of equally acceptable convictions, all of which could be taken as representatively Anglican."

In stating this, his argument is that as Anglicans opposed to infant baptism cannot be taken as holding a "representatively Anglican" view, so also those arguing for equality for gay people in the church likewise cannot be regarded as representatively Anglican. However, his analogy is not accurate: the Church of England's own documents (e.g. More Issuues in Human Sexuality) clearly acknowledge that the C of E is not of one mind on the gay issue, and its bishops, in both their public pronouncements (especially when they approach retirement) and their widely-divergent treatment of their gay employees diocese by diocese, also clealy show that they are not of one mind of the issue.

So there is not a representatively Anglican view of the gay issue at all in the C of E: only a range of views. If the 25 million English people who call themselves members of the Church of England were actually asked their views of the gay issue, is there any doubt that they would come up with an answer even more liberal than that of the Episcopal Church?

A society or organization is measured not by the wealth of its wealthiest members, but by how badly it mistreats the least well-off of its members. (This is not an original quote.)

This sentiment applies at two levels. Individually, a species that divides against a subset of itself (say, LGBT people) will not stand. For this reason, the moratoria are wrong and I don't blame TEC for forging ahead with the Gospel message of real inclusion. It is unjust to restrict (in this case) LGBT folks' standing while progress proceeds at the pace of the slowest[0].

At multi-Province level, it also applies: in booting TEC out from Communion-level ecumenical talks, --Rowan has set up a a subset within the Communion, a faction that he thinks constitutes "the norm", or "those qualified to talk to others". I find this failure to grasp the idea of unity really quite illogical to the point of being offensive.
Just to set the record straight, unity is not puritanism, nor is it factiousness; it is accepting "all these are all the people we've got" and moving forward together, both affirming diversity and allowing some of one's own to actually *practice* that diversity. Anything less is insufficient.

The only interesting thing I find is that the criteria also exclude churches on the grounds of cross-Province incursion. That, fortunately, rules-out Nigeria. I'm not optimistic that this side of it will be enforced. All we ever hear is "naughty TEC, bad TEC"; very little reprobation for anyone else. I would be a lot more interested if --Rowan woke up and realised that the moment Nigeria rewrote their constitution to avoid `communion with the See of Canterbury' was the moment when *they* chose to walk apart.

[0] And what really pains me is that the so-called "thinking person's denomination" is so stuck up in traditional*ism*. I have a foot in other circles, where the voice of conservatism is much more removed and the whole much more Progressive as a result.

Mark Harris has listed some people whose position may be affected by this proposal.

http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2010/05/who-is-on-standing-commission-on-unity.html

I would add that the list of provinces affected by the inclusion of the cross-border intervention moratorium might be:

Rwanda
Nigeria
Kenya
Uganda
Southern Cone

While this is perhaps tangential to the main thrust of the letter and where most criticism will come from on here, I am ,to say the least, bemused that on the one hand the Archbishop asks "how we move to a more coherent Anglican Identity" and yet says those who have a conscientious objection to Infant Baptism are to be accorded attention, respect etc....When i was a Director of Ordinands I occasionally encountered a potential ordinand who told me he would not, if ordained, baptize infants. I pointed out that I could not send them to a selection conference if that was the case and I'm glad to say my bishop agreed.I have often wondered what happened to the role of examining chaplain?Perhaps their effective revival might help foster anglican identity amongst the newly ordained. That supposed "heretic" Bishop David Jenkins refused to ordain a deacon ,priest because he denied infant baptism, I believe.One wonders why the Baptist denomination has been separate from us so long given that they might be described simply as not representatively Anglican.I wonder how Bunyan would have felt about such a designation. Perhaps they can now come aboard the Anglican Communion with consultant status.It seems a curious example to take.Why not Lay Celebration instead? Might the Diocese of Sydney take on consultant status?? There's a thought!

Let's not forget Uganda! They have been one of the most active in grabbing up U.S. real estate.

Perhaps, to safeguard the life of the communion, it's time to invite the Archbishop to step down.

Yes, my error, Uganda added to earlier list.

Orthodites are claiming that the subsaharan churches all stopped the border crossing, with the exception of Rwanda, when they released their lot in North America to the ACNA. So they argue that this should not affect the representatives from their churches, namely; Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda.

The AMiA is still a part of the Anglican church in Rwanda and the Orthodite units associated with the Southern Cone have a foot in two boats, ACNA and the Southern Cone, so perhaps their reps will be asked to move away from the table and to seats in the back of the room along with TEC.

Well there you have it. The ABC is not an Anglican.

This whole letter reeks of uniformity of thinking, practice, and understanding. One cannot get much less Anglican than that.

How much influence did Tony Blair, the Closet Roman, have in the selection of this man as the ABC?

And what about Southeast Asia which participated in the consecration of the AMIA bishops?

"How we move to a more coherent Anglican identity" sounds like code word for "Magisterium" which is a Roman Catholic model and the Roman Catholic model is having tremendous difficulties because of the right wing slant of the last and present pope. I hope Rowan is NOT trying to institute an Anglican Magisterium type of "Anglican identity" because it will face the same problems that the Roman model face. Rowan is confusing me.

To the border-crossing Anglicans, (re self-imposed down-stepping): "After you, Gaston."

Is this an Anglican fudge? No one is kicked out, and the invaders from Africa and Southern Cone receive the same punishment as we ECUSA do. It also keeps "Archbishop" Duncan in his place.

I think that the US and Canada will still have their own good relationships with the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, based on common mission and much collegiality.

If it comes to nothing more than this, it is probably a fair enough deal.

I'd like to know how bothered the various members and provinces affected by this will be?

Are they to be eventually excluded or simply relegated to "consultant status"?

I guess the ABC has had to eventually bow to pressure to "do something" - but to what extent does this measure have the teeth to actually wound any of those who have broken the moritoria?
How far will it pacify those conservatives who want drastic action against TEC? Will those who have been pressing for TEC to be disciplined feel aggrieved that conservatives will also be included in that reprimand?

I don't know the answers, anyone got any ideas or opinions?

Another deeply disappointing, although not surprising, statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Anglican unity and identity will not be found by pushing aside those who disagree with the official line. I fear this will more deeply divide our communion.

Who has authority to appoint (or unappoint) the members of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order? And who does it speak for?

Perry Butler (Friday) has mentioned another specific category of possible divergence from the traditions of Anglicanism - that of Lay Celebration at the Eucharist. This is definitely on the agenda of at least one of the Global South Prelates - Secretary Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney, Australia. Will this fact outlaw the Sydney Diocese from the Councils of the Church?

One wonders whether this is of the same adiaphoric order as Infant Baptism, Divorce and re-Marriage, and the Ordination of Women and Gays. If so, then we need a much clearer identification of what is, and what is not - Adiaphora, and therefore dispensible in any sort of covenantal relationship

Whatever the conditions of 'belonging', it would seem that there are always going to be differences of emphasis on one particular aspect of mission or other within the Anglican Communion. To single out the LGBT community for special sanctions seems rather punitive, to say the very least.

As has already been mentioned on this thread, many other Provinces than TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada are going to suffer the deprivation of any right to represent the Communion in ecumenical and 'faith and order' talks - each of the African and South American Provinces that have invaded the territory of other provinces, for instance. This would seem to leave only those who are left to make up the proposed Covenant.

Thinking of the sanctions against TEC and the A.C.of C., there would seem to be little to be lost in holding back from ecumenical talks with, for instance, the Roman Catholics - they don't recognise Anglican Orders anyway. Nor is there any sign that they might do in the near future. And as for other Churches - there are always those which are actually moving out in mission to women and gays in their own constituent bodies. They will not hesitate to welcome TEC and the A.C.of C.

Faith and Order meetings? TEC and the A.C.of C. have already moved far beyond the exclusivity of Lambeth 1:10. Why would they resile from their current Gospel initiatives in order to appease the punitive homophobia of Malawi, Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda? The Christian Gospel demands much more.

I was completely unaware that there was such an animal as the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order.

This including the 'other side' is one means to scupper the whole thing - you can't exclude one without excluding the other. It forces more talk, makes it all more unlikely.

In my imaginary parallel approach my cartoon character says:

I have decided to punishes both of you. This will no doubts of course satisfy no one. It will mean not just involving the intervention of shy lenswhing DEC but shilenshing the bi-shitle riders too.

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2010/05/gottle-o-gear-pentecost-message.html

Worse than a Magisterium, it's a British Imperium. At least in Rome, the Bishop of Rome can be from Bavaria, or Poland, or France. How soon do you expect someone other than a British citizen to be Archbishop of Canterbury?

Mark Brunson has a good point.

It's when a Westminster-appointed prelate claims powers he never had, in order to enforce an "Anglican identity" that never existed, that what is really going on becomes apparent: a British power grab.

I attend a TEC church in the LA Diocese. The anger and spiteful sarcasm in the emails above is consistent with the anger locally. The Archbishop's letter seemed to me extraordinarily reasonable and measured bearing in mind TEc's history since Windsor. There many TEC attendees who do not see being a Christian as requiring them to support gay marriage, which is not the same as respecting gay rights. Until we actually start to discuss the issue of sex, free sex, adultery, pornography, broken marriages, parental obligations to children, divorce, as well as the homosexual matters, gay, lesbian, bi, trans, and what constitutes a sin, the liberal TEC members will continue this type of proclamation. It seems to me that being a Christian is letting Christ live in me and it would be wonderful if the Anglican Communion enables me to do this rather than listen to liberal dogma.

On the UK news today (Saturday) it says RW has said the Americans will have to leave a Committee that decides on Doctrine' !

It sounded like the news-writer was struggling to make some (any!) kind of sense of it !

For RW to urge greater coherence is amazing -- he hardly models it himself.

When will the C of E's own gay bishops come out of their closet of shame ?

I am amazed anyone wants to be 'in communion' with the C of E with all its duplicity, hypocrasy and double-dealing from the highest levels to the 'lowest' ?

I am glad to be gay, glad to have been ordained and glad Mervyn Stockwood and the Southwark authorities were happy to have (one more) gay minister in their midst.

But over 30 years later I would have expected openness to have spread out - not to have contracted.

Shame on the bishops and shame of the synods

"support gay marriage, which is not the same as respecting gay rights"

That's just WRONG, Michael. Full-stop.

You don't have to "attend" (interesting word choice: w/o *membership* in a parish?) a marriage---ANY marriage---if you don't want to.

But to DENY marriage (and no substitute will do, thank you!) between two people of the same sex (two who are gay), and then say you can still support "gay rights" is an OXYMORON.

Mutually-exclusive. Can't do it.

[We now return this thread to the discussion of the ABC, who holds (juggles) the same oxymoron as does Michael.]

Michael, how does any of this prevent you from "letting Christ live in [you]"?

I must welcome what Michael (29 May, 3:49 PM BST) said. I think it's sad that inclusiveness in liberal circles does not extend to those who disagree with their conception of marriage, family, and human rights. The decision affects churches across the Communion, both liberal and conservative, and I think can be attributed to only one thing: our failure to be humble enough to understand that we might actually be proven wrong on the other side of eternity.

I attend a church physically located in S California: in St Paul's words, I am a living stone, that is a member of the Body of Christ in whom I live and move and have my being, at least I try to do that. I respect the gay members of this physical church and from time to time, we discuss this sex issue without anger. As an Anglican I believe in the great three, Scripture, Tradition and Reason. When JCF argues that it is impossible to support gay rights without supporting gay marriage, I must respectfully disagree. On more reflection, judging from the anger on this board, I would have thought those writing here would be only too glad to be separated from Canterbury. Your opponents on the right, whom I'm not wild about either, ventilate a similar strain of anger - it is remarkable to see such anger among Christians, especially Anglican ones!

"When JCF argues that it is impossible to support gay rights without supporting gay marriage, I must respectfully disagree."

But the issue ISN'T "support", Michael (as in that which is requested of the congregation: BCP, p.425, "Will all of you witnessing these promises do all in your power to ***uphold these two persons*** in their marriage?" NB: it says "these two persons" IN the '79! On that point, no revision necessary! :-D)

No, the issue is whether a tyrannical majority would DENY marriage to a minority on the basis of something like "We think God told us that what you think God told you, is wrong. WE have the Truth, YOU are deceived. We're not just refusing to *attend* your wedding (w/ those congregational "uphold" vows)---we're CANCELLING it."

Does that attitude---when you unpack it---really sound "respectful", Michael? In the face of having the church (AND courthouse, too often) doors slammed in our faces, isn't a righteous "Let My People Go!" ANGER then *appropriate*?

In the immortal words of C.S. Lewis, "Aslan is not a tame lion!" Neither are those made in his image (so to speak ;-/), when their Imago Dei is VIOLATED.

>> "[I]t would be eccentric
>> to place such people in a
>> position where their view
>> was implicitly
>> acknowledged as one of a
>> range of equally
>> acceptable convictions,
>> all of which could be
>> taken as representatively
>> Anglican."

It is perfectly reasonable to remove someone from a position of speaking on behalf of the Communion about the specifics of contentious adiaphora.

It is another thing entirely to prevent someone from acting on behalf of the communion when (a) their work on behalf of the communion is unrelated to
contentious adiaphora, or (b) they do not, in fact espouse an insufficiently "representatively Anglican" view -- whether personally or on behalf of the
Communion.

‘If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?’