The letter that was drafted by Bishop Mary Gray-Reeves is the kind of letter that I wish Roman Catholic bishops would write. I hope the Archbishop of Canterbury has his own epiphany if and when he reads this letter. This speaks very well for the health of the Anglican Communion because, these are the kind of women bishops being consecrated. Truly wonderful and most insightful. An inspiration for those of us who are Roman Catholics and long for women in the priesthood and episcopate. We know it will happen eventually but this type of bishop sets a healthy tone for the future of women in all branches of Anglican, Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions. By the way, it does not diminish the great roles women are playing in other Christian communions such as Lutheran and Methodist. They have their shinning stars as well. Anglicans are leading the way and others will follow.

Fascinating!

It seems to have been an interesting meeting!!

First of all there is a formal move to throw TEC out of the Communion. Now we are not surprised at the result, but we have to wonder what the outcome might have been if Orombi, Anis and co had not resigned. It seems rather odd to complain about the powerlessness of the Communion Instruments and then to deliberately absent yourself from the only one of these instruments with the power to exclude TEC just before the meeting which debates it.

It seems that these absent Primates have been very badly advised by a whole raft of disgruntled Americans - who have completely lost the plot in their desperate attempt to become bishops and validate themselves in the eyes of the world.

Equally the ACI have been so obsessed with being right while everyone else was plainly wrong that they missed just how easy it was to trump their aces! In the end their painful journey and interminable words has achieved nothing for their constituency and has just made the struggle to find some order in a chaotic mess even more distasteful.

The criticism of the Standing Committee was it seems from todays report thoroughly unwarranted and just a matter of unchallenged "spin" - soon to be put right by a professional press officer ......Hmmmmmm! We are also reminded of just how democratic they all are ...... Hmmmmmmm!!

Then there is Rowan's revelation that the Committee is after all a relic of the past and about to be dumped - but not before even more Primates have been added to its number, and then more relevant Instruments are about to be found.........Hmmmmmmmmmm!!!!

We really are seeing a new scenario developing.

Rule by Primates and Communique - encouraged by Lambeth Conference
Tried - Failed
Outcomes - Meetings manipulated by small group of outsiders who started writing the agenda and outcomes in a nearby hotel room. Ditched by RW

Rule by Joint Standing Committee - Now Standing Committee - Encouraged by last Lambeth Conference
Tried - about to fail!
Outcomes - Irregularities spotted by critics and advocates of failed "rule by Primates" - very big smell - and Williams decides its time to move somewhere NEW!

"A proposal from Dato' Stanley Isaacs that The Episcopal Church be separated from the Communion"

Who?

"led to a discussion in which Committee members acknowledged the anxieties felt in parts of the Communion about sexuality issues."

Oh boy, euphemisms much? To be a fly on that conference room wall!

"Nevertheless, the overwhelming opinion was that separation would inhibit dialogue on this and other issues among Communion Provinces, dioceses and individuals and would therefore be unhelpful. The proposal was not passed, and the group agreed to defer further discussion until progress on Continuing Indaba project had been considered."

Oh, swell: the Standing Committee "deferred" discussion on ***kicking out a founding member of the Anglican Communion***, my church, until another day (kicking us out being currently "unhelpful"). Feelin' da love! {not so much}

Lord have mercy...

The update states: "Canon Kearon also commented on his time at the Anglican Church of Canada's General Synod and noted the way six sessions had been given over to Indaba-style conversations to consider responses to same-sex issues. The resulting document was, he said, well received and welcomed by all perspectives as representing accurately the mind of the Church at this time." Kearan's observation as a generalization is largely accurate, with regard to Canada's General Synod. The outcome is hardly surprising since it is the result of a process that was designed to minimize controversy,and prevent a repeat of General Synod 2007 in which the Canadian bishops narrowly defeated a local option at the diocesan level for the blessing of same sex unions. The Canadian General Synod process described by Kearans was strong on public relations but not so strong on justice and inclusion within the church. I note there is no reference to the fact that seven Canadian dioceses will continue to varying degrees with the blessings of same sex unions. Use of the term "indaba-sytle" by the Canadian General Synod is really window dressing. In actual fact, the process used was a form of well managed old fashioned western bureaucratic group discussion.

I commend Mark Harris's take on this: http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2010/07/five-no-lets-make-it-eight-primates-on.html

I think Canterbury's going to rue the day that "a proposal from Dato' Stanley Isaacs that The Episcopal Church be separated from the Communion" was not ruled *immediately* OUT OF ORDER.

Rod, I can't entirely agree. The fact of the matter is that General Synod de facto endorsed the "local option" - at least to the level of dioceses, if not, arguably, to the level of parishes. In other words, "our side" has effectively won the skirmish in the Anglican Church of Canada.

However, we did so magnanimously (ie, without rubbing the "other sides" noses in it) and without giving the Communion Thought Police the grounds to take action against us.

Effectively, we've given the go-ahead to the blessing of same-sex unions (and de facto equal marriage) while throwing a sop to opponents and snookering the Vanguards of the Hating Class.

Not a bad day's work, I'd say.

Mark Harris is right to fulminate over at Preludium, though I find parts of his argument somewhat naive.

Of course the Standing Committee can discus this motion from one of its members. Had it passed it would have had quite seismic significance. It might have taken a vote by the next ACC to ratify the decision, but there is no question in my mind that this Committee has been created for the this type of decision.What is more the power of this group (then as the Joint SC) was ratified by TEC's own house of bishops when it agreed (or was it begged!)to appear before it in New Orleans. It's interesting to note that the assurances gathered there almost certainly won TEC's attendance at the Lambeth Conference and saved it some further attempts to humiliate it both at that conference and at the subsequent ACC.

Further, as Mark himself points out, we do not have details of the meeting only a sketchy outline so we cannot tell just what surrounded this move. But what we do know is that TEC was well represented. We have no release from ENS telling us that TEC reps walked out or contested the motion and that I suspect is because they were able to accurately predict the outcome.

Most likely it was in the best interests of TEC to get this motion on the table at that time in the light of recent developments, and to see it defeated.

The most significant feature of this report must surely have been Rowan's ruminations on the future governance of the Anglican Communion, expressed like this:
"Archbishop Rowan Williams questioned whether the ACC's committee structure was appropriate for this new century. He said questions needed asking about whether revised Instrument structures were required to better foster the relationship-building parts of the Communion's life, "so when it comes to looking at the complex questions of the Communion we have a better foundation upon which to build."."

We have all watched the agonies of Rowan Williams and the many involved with the Anglican Church Project as they wrestle to achieve their desired outcomes with an organisation that was built for a different time and a different purpose. Each time they try to create an authoritative structure the ideals of the "old order" impregnated into the framework it created keep biting the on the arse.

The failure here was the Lambeth Commission, and I would argue Blessed Tom Wright the principle author of these poor results.

Tom was still brooding over the failure of the Virginia Report to gain any real approval. The Virginia Report offered a heavy structuralist (Anglican Church) answer to the perceived problems of diversity within the Anglican family of churches - It was hierarchically focused. and failed because it did not show proper respect for the conciliar or synodical tradition in Anglican theology and the notion of dispersed authority.

With a loud "I TOLD YOU SO" Tom launched himself into the work of the Lambeth Commission and gave us the same results. These results we see failing, and I think even Tom can see the poor place he has left the Communion with.

I do not think there is really a stomach for the Anglican Church Project, but I also think that there are no robust alternatives and standing still just isn't an option. How Rowan Williams now visualises future developments we do not know, but a good and proper place to start might be a Pan Anglican Congress - not more meetings of bishops alone.

Malcolm, Kearon's report about Canada to the Standing Committee, a report that echoes what National leadership here in Canada is saying,just does not support your claim that Canada has "de facto" endorsed a local diocesan option for same sex blessings. The Anglican church of Canada cannot be allowed to ride on the coat tails of the several prophetic dicoeses that have left the dead to bury the dead. You suggest we have been very foxy in dealing with the Anglican "thought police". I think you are correct in describing motivation i.e., we have chosen the path of least resistance. What we are doing, therefore, is worshiping a god with two faces. Interesting that Canadians are quick to criticize Rowan Williams but reluctant to hold the feet of our own leadership to the same critical fire. What the Canadian Church needs right now are critical voices willing to speak to our National leadership in the mode of "speaking truth to power". What we did at GS was slick and expedient; but there was nothing prophetic or courageous about it.

Rod,

I was a member of GS in Halifax so I went through those discussion groups. We actually only had two sessions that dealt with sexuality issues. The statement that came out was an accurate reflection of where the Canadian church is at this time.

When I first heard the statement - read last thing on the Wednesday night - I was furious. I felt that it had missed what I heard in my group entirely. But on further reflection over the night I realized that it hadn't. What we had discussed was that going the route of legislating in blessings stood a good chance of failure and that it would be more destructive than helpful even if it passed. Although what we finally agreed to was messy and open to interpretation it allowed for all find room to continue together.

To want full inclusion legislated goes back to an authoritative, hierarchal, patriarchal model that often the current understanding of justice does not support. That model is what many of us see as the problem in the Church today. And yet although we speak out, often vehemently, against such a model, we still have the tendency to want to use it for our own ends. What we have is somewhat messy but I do believe it also models a style of leadership that challenges the present model by providing a more positive and life-giving model.

What we have is some space for all to discern what is the just thing to do. In that space is generosity and a recognition that not everything should, nor can it, be black and white and rigid if we want people to learn and grow together in love and inclusion.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

I see a sort of parallel between, on the one hand, the American and Canadian experience on these issues and on the other, the experience of American and Canadian independence from Britain.

The Americans have metaphorically fired a shot at Lexington and acted boldly in the defence of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Canadians have moved incrementally at Charlottetown / Halifax and placed our faith in peace, order and good government.

Even the thoughtful conservatives admit that the statement is de facto permission for the local option, and there is little doubt that, over time, there will be more dioceses that opt to go there, either relatively peacefully or otherwise. And in some of the other dioceses, it gives progressives breathing space until we have (to borrow a phrase from Mssrs Parizeau and Bouchard) the "winning conditions."

It is likely that an up and down vote on a canon at General Synod 2010 would have gone in favour of blessing same sex unions - or maybe even solemnizing same sex marriages (which are, of course, legal here). But the victory would have been Phyrric at several levels, would have created an enraged minority which might well have held sway in a majority of dioceses, and would have opened us to the very British coup d'eglise Cantuar and his homophobic friends have been plotting.

Instead, we have a "statement" which explicitly admits that same sex blessings are happening and will continue to happen in various parts of the country, and implicitly authorizes those dioceses to continue / proceed, while at the same time leaving all but the most irreconcilable reasserters willing to stay in the tent, and offering the Anglican Conquistador Office no stick with which to beat us.

It was, as we Rider fans have been known to say, an ugly win, but an ugly win is still a win.

Anne Marie thanks for your prayers, but your argument does not hold water. You write
“To want full inclusion legislated goes back to an authoritative, hierarchical, patriarchal model that often the current understanding of justice does not support.” This is an attempt to characterize as legalistic the full inclusion of homosexual persons on the same basis heterosexual persons while at the same time characterizing as generous a status quo which denies gay and lesbian people the same pastoral opportunities available to others. It follows a rhetorical pattern deployed by apologists of the most recent General Synod process and resulting statement. If I may borrow a line from elsewhere “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpy said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” Your position also attempts to deploy “legislation” as a loaded term. I don’t think anyone was striving to “legislate” full inclusion in the sense of requiring priests, or bishops, or dioceses, to perform same sex blessings. What was hoped for originally was a resolution from GS endorsing a local option. However, democratic and well functioning bodies can produce good legislation. Legislation is hardly intrinsically “patriarchal or hierarchical” by definition. The GS legislation that put in place an aboriginal bishop in Canada seems a good thing, no?

What is especially galling is the accusation that the demand for full inclusion is somehow “patriarchal and hierarchical.” I’d be interested in reading your analysis in support of this contention. Its men in episcopal orders at various levels in the Communion that are advancing the campaign against full inclusion. The agenda against full inclusion has been conducted in tandem with developing the so-called Anglican Covenant and its sanctions and beefing up the role of Primates’ meetings and in attempts to increase their power in The Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee. What advocates of full inclusion have been striving for are transparent pastoral policies that allow gay and lesbian Christians to stand in the same space on the same terms as their sisters and brothers.

Anne Marie, I think you are correct about at least one thing. I suspect if GS 2010 had been asked to support a local option it may have failed. If it had failed it would have most likely failed in the House of Bishops--a repeat of 2007. But at least such a failure would have been honest and a more accurate reflection of where some constituencies are within the Canadian Church. Instead we have a statement that is largely a form of subterfuge. But maybe less transparency is what is required to keep the Primates and the Standing Committee at bay?

Nice Malcolm, so tough on Communion level authority figures, so genteel an exegesis of quintessential Canadian bureaucracy. We have become so accustomed here to expecting Royal Commissions to define our issues, and for government to fix them, that we have as a result,(outside of Quebec) a very limited populist human and civil rights tradition. However, coming as I do from an area of the country with a long standing and highly purposeful labor tradition, one that was usually in conflict with the family compact values you outline here, I see Canada and the Canadian Church somewhat differently.

Rod,

I think you misunderstood me a little. I didn't mean that wanting full inclusion was patriarchal etc. In that case, I would be considered all those things. What I was trying to explain, and obviously failing miserably, was that often we complain about legalism of others and yet we aren't adverse to using the very thing ourselves. I was trying to suggest that there may be other better ways of going about this.

At our last diocesan synod (2 1/2 years ago) I noticed that the discussion against the passing of a motion supporting the blessing of same-sex marriages had moved out of the theological, scriptural area and into the area of process. We shouldn't bring in blessings because it hadn't gone through the proper process yet. If we had put forward a motion at GS and had it defeated it would mean there was an even smaller chance that this diocese would pass a resolution on supporting blessings. What was done at GS 2010 opens the door to the possibility of blessings that was not open previously.

I do understand that the motion would not have legislated any one individual to do a blessing. But I learned, often through bitter experience, that sometimes we need to take creative and indirect paths in order to move forward. It wasn't easy as chaplain for our local Integrity to come home and say to our member that once again we did not have "official" permission to do blessings. They have waited so long.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

My above thoughts on legislation come not from GS but from a book I read recently - Signs of Emergence by Kester Brewin. In it he speaks of revolution and evolution. He suggests that revolution does not bring deep and lasting change in a healthy manner. Evolution does. What we did at GS opens the door to evolution - to the change becoming more broad and accepted. It is not just about insuring full inclusion in our canons - it is also about a wider acceptance of full inclusion being very much a part of our identity - not just on paper but also in reality.

The ordination of women was passed narrowly in this diocese years ago. I was young (16 or so) but I remember the struggle for full acceptance that our first ordained woman had. To this day we bitterly joke about the glass ceiling for women in this diocese. On paper there is equality. The reality is quite different. I believe that is about to change but it has been 34 years. Using that as an example at a recent Integrity meeting where we discussed focusing less on activism and advocacy, I suggested to the group that having it on paper was not necessarily a lasting mark of moving forward. That once you had it on paper you actually had to fight in the shadows because everyone would point out that there was nothing stopping full inclusion - it was all there written in black and white. The problem is that there wasn't a general acceptance yet because of what was written people could safely pretend that we are inclusive. It might better to have fuller support from the grass roots. It may take longer initially but I am coming to believe that it is a shorter and more efficient route in the long run.

I hope this explains better where I am coming from on this.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Anne Marie thank you for your thoughtful posts. It opens up the conversation. I'm with you in general on several of your points. One can indeed fall victim to adopting the same posture as one's opponents. Putting something on paper, laying down policy is often just the beginning and not the final resolution of an issue. There does indeed remain a glass ceiling for female clergy in the (Canadian) church. Thanks for the Book title, I have made a note to look for a copy.

I'm interested in your perspective that the GS statement creates more breathing room for change. I have to defer to your evaluation about implications for your own context. One of my concerns is that what GS has done will make it more rather than less difficult for a diocese to move on. Outcomes of a decision are a good test of analysis. I began this round by commenting on Kearon's report about Canada to the Standing Committee which essentially repeats the official line from our National Church. There is no positive reference to several dicoeses permitting same sex blessings, no lifting up of their witness therefore to The Standing Committee, no sharing of hopefulness from Canada to gay and lesbian people living with a violation of their human rights in other parts of the Communion. It is all about putting on a good face for The Communion. It is troubling to conclude that you can do progressive things with regard to sexual equality, as long as you "say the right things" in official circles. It doesn't have to be that way. The reports about yesterday's meeting of the Standing Committee and transparency seem to suggest there is room to both talk the talk and walk the walk and still stay at the table.

The Anglican Church of Canada commemorates William Wilberfocre, social reformer, on July 29th. The same commemoration falls on the calendar of TEC and the CofE on July 30th I believe. Wilberforce fought against the slave trade for decades, with abolition in the British "empire" taking place in the dying days of his life. He had to contend with deeply entrenched attitudes supported by good Christians. Abolition prevailed, and only recently the church apologized for its role in maintaining the slave trade. Wilberforce is perhaps a good example, of both the sometimes long evolutionary nature of change and the need for a focused relentless advocacy for change. Wilberforce embodies Anne Marie Milkin's good insight, and hopefully the perspective I'm trying to advocate in a kind of creative tension. I wonder what the forces that rage against full inclusion will make of him on his commemoration?

The Anglican Communion Institute has published a lengthy critique of the new ACC Constitutional arrangements, see
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2010/07/contrasting-futures-for-the-anglican-communion-a-transformed-acc-and-the-anglican-covenant/

Well, Rod, I come from a part of the country where we managed to elect the first socialist government in North America, so I really think my approach is less "family compact" than "pragmatic prairie socialist." (Off topic, but have you ever read John Ralston Saul's idiotic essay where he talks about the origins of Canadian medicare in terms of Baldwin and Lafontaine and never mentions Saskatchewan or Douglas?)

In any event, I agree it would be more satisfying and doubtless more honest for us to thumb our nose at the Anglican Curia Office and the Archbishop of Centralization. I'm just not convinced that it would be particularly productive at this junsture - and might actually shift the debate to the right in many Canadian dioceses.

A de facto win is a de facto win, even if the de jure status permits us to pettifog the primatially powermad.

Malcolm, I get the sense from your posts you are "not amused" with the Communion level leadership. But this is not about "thumbing one's nose" at anybody. I think it is my first responsibility to speak to our own Canadian structures, the decisions of our General Synod, the way in which we may be letting politics qualify our commitment to justice in house. You seem to be very "careful" in that regard. Being overly preoccupied with Communion level structures either as the bad guys, or as the "instruments of Communion" who must be appeased, neither of these approaches ought to be the first priority. What Canada ought to be doing is persevering on the matter of Provincial autonomy. For example, the Standing Committee should have heard from a bold Canada that we have seven or so dioceses that permit same sex blessings, its out witness to other parts of the Communion that are complicit in undermining human rights. The fact that that has not happened, is not really in the first instance on Kearon, its on our leadership.

Some considerations are tactical, Rod. Having General Synod take an up and down vote on equal marriage / same sex blessings would, if passed, be a profound witness.

But if the result were greater internal strife, the profundity of our witness would be compromised and if the result were sonctions from the Communion thought police, our witness might well be effectively silenced.

By proceeding as we have proceeded, we have ensured relatively little strife at home to distract us, and we have ensured that the Communion has a more difficult time writing us off abroad.

All that said, I'd have preferred a different kind of win, but I'll take the win we got.

Now we have the battle to wage against the Covenant over the next three years. We need to organize to ensure a stake is driven through its undead heart.

Any Canadian readers interested in organizing against the Covenant, please contact me via Simple Massing Priest.

Malcolm, you have bought into the line that debate and vote on same sex blessings would have resulted in more internal strife in Canada.That is a bureaucratic phobia. There likely would have been more conflict, but I think our integrity would have been better served, justice better served, had we been willing to face that. You may be comfortable with a strategy of avoidance, but I think it is counter productive. You write about driving a steak through the heart of the Covenant.Tough Talk. I think you better prepare yourself for disappointment. The same social engineering that was deployed by National office to micromanage same sex blessings will likely be deployed to contend with the Covenant. Do you really think the debate on the Covenant is going to be trusted to an up or down vote at GS 2013? Odds are always in favor of the house. Do you really think National Standing Committees and the House of Bishops and the in loco parentis crowd are going to trust GS 2013 with the fate of Canada and the Covenant without putting all the training wheels in place. I would not be prepared to respond to your invitation at simple massing priest unless (to use a football analogy) I see some evidence that you are willing to tackle National Church.

Any given tactic will not be right for every occasion. Sometimes avoidance is the right strategy. Charles Edward insisted on marching into England before consolidating Scotland, and he lost. Parizeau, Bouchard et al are smart enough to see that another referendum without the winning conditions would significantly damage the souvreigniste movement.

Of course, sometimes avoidance is completely the wrong strategy. But it isn't always the wrong stategy.

As to "tackling" the national church re: the Covenant - there is little or no capacity for anyone to tackle them unless we organize. The pro-Covenant forces are already organized. The appeasement party will be organized. There's no pont a handful of us attack on our own without coordination. We too need to organize.

Malcolm, I should perhaps clarify that I have not been using the term "avoidance" in the strategic sense of, for example, General MacArthur's island hoping strategy. I have been using it in the psychological sense i.e., avoiding conflict by not appropriately confronting or being assertive. National seems to be very much in avoidance mode and structural co-dependence these days. We need more open critical conversation in the Canadian Church. Bureaucracies use a lot of argot and buzz words to blunt criticism and stifle public debate i.e. debate is somehow "passionate, heated divisive" while well controlled discussion groups with "norms" and professional conversation minders are "respectful, consensus building etc."
The outcomes of "indaba sytle " conversations are spirit filled while debates on the floor lead to strife and polarization. Its all about control. Church goers are easily taken in by this kind of quasi-pious baloney. It its an uphill battle because churches are so passive-aggressive oriented in the first place. It is instructive to note that progress in the Canadian Church has been made almost entirely at the local level---largely in urban centers that have a visible participating gay and lesbian community. National Standing Committees have done very little to effect actual change. They tend rather to be an impediment to change. Which raises the question about why we need them in the first place?