The photo in the Church Times of Rowan Williams, Orombi, and Bob Duncan celebrating side by side was quite enough to make me ill.

It was the proverbial picture worth a thousand words, all of them bad.

One point about the Ashworth news article: it specifically notes that

"The Province of Central Africa is listed as a signatory to the Primates’ document, which is declared to have been “agreed upon by the primates and the representatives of primates who were not able to attend”. It was confirmed on Wednesday, however, that Central Africa had not signed."

Michael Doe's piece is helpful.

Though it does rather fill one with foreboding.

The picture of Williams and Duncan together,says that Church Order is disregarded by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he has no problem undermining it himself.

On reflection, this does indicate that there can be no effective 'anglican magisterium' and no effective 'Anglican Communion Covenant.'

In the chaos, I guess, we are all, effectively given carte blanch by the Archbishop of Canterbury to do our own thing -whatever that may be -

full inclusivity, open ministry, gay marriages, mission, evangel-ism, lay ministries,'lay presidency', Sea of Faith, and so on -- we can
all take our pick now.

The picture means that the archbishop of Canterbury has no regard for Church Order in TEC and the various Churches of the Anglican Communion'. It also means there will be no effective Anglican Covenant and no effective 'anglican magisterium'.

We are all now freed thereby, to do our own thing.

I shall feel no compunction about it at all.

And wearing a tippet for communion at that, Roger. Oh, and I want to raise my hand as if to say, "pick me Jesus, I've got all the ANSWERS!"

I am glad they all enjoyed a 5 course banquet w/full orchestra playing hymns, as well as their generous tea breaks.

Questions: who are TEC's "fellow travelers?" Would these be the provinces that don't demonize glbt people? If so, hail fellow travelers!

"The photo [of Christians worshipping together despite their disagreements] was quite enough to make me ill."

Well done Roger. You are an inspiration.

Ashworth's article is very interesting. Despite the tensions around the issues of sexuality, it is extremely important for Churches outside of Africa to remain in solidarity with Africa--and to do in tangible ways.

It ought not be sooo all tide-up-and-tidy for Henry Orombi after attempting one his more aggressive and pompous outcasting hatchet-jobs at the Anglican Communion in Africa... very sadly, even tragically Bishop Henry hasn´t figured out that ¨being right¨ in his own mind is hardly worth tormenting and demonizing millions of African LGBTI Christians/others... his hate campaign is fizzeling no matter how hard he tries to keep up the false imagine of spiritual integrity...it´s not fakeable, it´s simply remains dangerous and desperate.

I think it is a great picture - I am glad he was there.

The letter from Southern and Central Africa speaks of the pain and trouble the two consecrations have caused. Is there anywhere an exposition of the sources of these? Is it a cultural problem, a problem dealing with Muslims, or something more? In any case specifics would be welcome.

Ian Arch, mocking the comment by Roger regarding the photo of Williams/Orombi/Duncan (and others, but those three most prominently), wrote: "Well done Roger. You are an inspiration."

Mr. Arch chooses to ignore the basic concern about Rowan Williams' somewhat consistent failures to speak truth to the power of the arch-conservative elements of the Anglican Communion, particularly when so many of them are poachers and schismatics.

To simply mock Roger for leaving open that narrow aspect of collegiality -- yet absent balance and decency and truth -- is to simply take a very cheap shot at his rather succinct point.

I hope the African church does send missionaries to the US. I hope they evangelize me, so I can explain to them how I was born gay and how I'm currently looking for a lifelong, monogamous relationship which is blessed by God. I hope they evangelize lots and lots of Episcopal churches and see how same-sex couples and GLBT singles are enhancing the life of the Church. I would love to have the African missionaries hear the Gospel preached from our pulpits. And then take that experience with them when they report about us to their home churches.

"Well done Roger. You are an inspiration." What's an inspiration is seeing Rowan "worship together" but put roadblocks up for +Schori and +Robinson _to prevent Christians worshiping together_. That's the real inspiration Ian.

Get it right. That's the first step to recovery.

One could accept Rowan Williams' participation as typical, generous, open-minded big tent Anglican stuff - getting down with the holier-than-thou holy-roller-ish (oh so USA Bible Belt-ish) Anglican right wing at the conference, if only RW were not so peevish as to carefully exclude and demonize bishops like VGR and MG in favor of rubbing shoulders with Duncan?

The whole business is not so holy and so neat as these spin doctored press releases would have us conclude. And for goodness sakes, what makes a leading rightwing spin doctor like Martyn Minns so informative that he gets his own spotlight to further polish all his favorite poisoned apples for mandatory Anglican consumption?

A pox on all their houses? These Sodomites have utterly no hospitality nor welcome, none whatsoever: If you do good unto those who are already rightwing insiders, what good are you? Even the most tyrannical cruel dictators behave so.

It is still not mainly about sex, but clearly, about who gets to punish whom?

Ah yes, the Living Church? I must agree: The communion would be better served by fewer meetings of the Primates. I must sadly and strongly disagree: The Anglican Covenant remains the best laboratory for the reshaping of Anglicanism ...

My candidate for best laboratory to reshape Anglicanism? Obviously: ... exactly the organic-dynamic multiple networks of relationship which the Living Church notices, but cannot see is among our most vivid and precious Anglican treasures, let alone a source of hope, of change for all the Anglican global betters? ...

>> "The photo [of Christians worshipping together despite their disagreements] was quite enough to make me ill."

Well done Roger. You are an inspiration. <<

Ian Arch, I am glad to see from this comment that you too surely have object whenever Orombi, other Global South primates and bishops, etc., refuse, due to disagreements, to share the Eucharist with fellow Christians such as primates of TEC and its "fellow travelers," or LGBT Christians in their own Global South lands, or to open up worship services during Lambeth to Bishop Gene Robinson (who was in the vicinity) rather than asking him to stay away.

Such consistency of principle on your part, of which I have no doubt, is itself an inspiration.

Hey Cynthia! Randall: 1988 Nashotah House. Don't fret the Anglican Communion thing. Artificial and voluntary associations don't require conformity. Fight the Good Fight babe.

Randall

"I don't know half as many of you half as well as I should like. I don't like half as many of you half as well as you deserve."

Orombi et al claim that they are on the one true way, and that anyone who disagrees with them is a heretic deviating from the unbroken traditions of the church; in this context I was struck by April DeConick's blog entry yesterday, discussing the ways in which people try to use claims to T/tradition:

'I am not ready to give up the concept of the T/tradition. In fact, I find it necessary to maintain in order to do justice to historical memory. There are Traditions with a capital "T" that become normative and then norm. There are traditions with a little "t" that are not necessarily normative, or the property of the dominant communities that are norming. These traditions are often forgotten or lost or so marginalized that they become invisible to our histories. Yet they were there. Along the way, people began selecting some of these traditions as 'worthy' to remember while others not so much, even up to the modern day. These particular traditions become known as legitimate "sources" to reconstruct our past, while the others are ignored or framed as unimportant.'

http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/2010/09/mellon-seminar-reflection-1-what-are.html

I think she's got Orombi et al bang to rights...

""The photo [of Christians worshipping together despite their disagreements] was quite enough to make me ill." Well done Roger. You are an inspiration." - Posted by Ian Arch

Betcha you would have been "inspired", Ian, by Pilate and Herod working together "despite their disagreements", too. Nuthin' like a crucifixion for making new friends!

{sarcasm/Off}

Having just survived a 7.4 Richter Scale massive earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, I have come to realise that 'theology in context' is the only way to come to terms with what is going on in the Communion. When one's very life is at stake, one can see more clearly what really matters - and for me, the fact that the ABC 'appears' to be flirting with Robbie Duncan and the Global South is not earth-shaking. All it means is that Archbishop Rowan was faced with a fait accompli - organised by Bishops Orombi, Kolini, Earnest, and the rest of the G.S. consortium, to embarrass Rowan and the Anglican Communion Office. What really matters is: the practical outcome of CANA 2 - in terms of what the conservatives in the Communion will actually do about reforming their resistance to change. Let's all hope that the saner voices of South and Central Africa prevail.

Tomorrow's Introit has these words: "Blessed are those who have put their trust in the Lord". This morning I had no other recourse than to trust in God, and at tomorrow's Mass I shall thank God for continued deliverance from the forces of malignity. Deo Gratias!

Glad to hear you're safe, Fr. Ron. Deo gratias indeed!

OK Jerry, you are right. It was a cheap shot at Roger. That was the price he offered with his comment.
And of course I agree with David. When some of the primates refused to share communion it signified that we were no longer really the Anglican communion and was a profoundly sad day. And yes, any communion table which denies Christ to those who seek him (whether LGBT, Ugandan or both) is a travesty of Christ's love.
But, I simply cannot see how rhetoric which seeks to vilify and separate (so often seen on this site and its conservative mirrors) is of any profit. Rowan may not be perfect, but I think he is to be honoured for not taking sides or presuming his own correctness, and for seeking instead to remain present to all in the hope of reconciliation.

>> And of course I agree with David. > But, I simply cannot see how rhetoric which seeks to vilify and separate (so often seen on this site and its conservative mirrors) is of any profit. Rowan may not be perfect, but I think he is to be honoured for not taking sides or presuming his own correctness, and for seeking instead to remain present to all in the hope of reconciliation. <<

Where I must take issue with this is in your setting up at least one false moral equivalence, and imo two such false moral equivalences.

Arguably, to characterize this site as merely a liberal/progressive "mirror" of T:19, VoL, etc. is to do an injustice to TA.

But the clearcut false moral equivalence is to claim that Abp. Rowan's actions toward each side have been at all even-handed and demonstrate his "not taking sides or presuming his own correctness."

That assertion will ring true only when you can show us another picture of ++Rowan raising his arms and closing his eyes in fervent prayer at a Eucharist -- this time, in the immediate company of +Gene Robinson, +Mary Glasspool, ++Katharine, and ++Fred.

"Rowan may not be perfect, but I think he is to be honoured for not taking sides or presuming his own correctness, and for seeking instead to remain present to all in the hope of reconciliation."

Not taking sides? Shunning +Gene and repeated conversations with Dunkin'? Petty harassment of ++Katharine? Spending a year with the Jesuits in DC writing his book and never, to my knowledge, setting foot in a TEC church, then presuming to lecture us? Feh!

Ian Arch, that's a solid and thoughtful comment. I want to take issue, though, with one part of it:

"I think he is to be honoured for not taking sides or presuming his own correctness, and for seeking instead to remain present to all in the hope of reconciliation."

Actually, no, I don't think he is to be honored for that. God remains present to all until all final hope of reconciliation has been extinguished. But Rowan is not God, he's Archbishop, and his job is a rather different one. His task is to lead the Communion.

He isn't doing it. He's behaving like an inexperienced teacher, letting the bullies run roughshod over the class, hoping they will become model students if he's nice to them and placates them and lets them have their way. What happens is that the rights of the rest are trampled on, the classes become about nothing but the bullies and their disruptions, and the other students lose respect and interest in education altogether.

I can only speak for myself (obviously) but I do sense that in the US Episcopal Church at large there are many who have lost all respect for Anglicans and Anglicanism. I think many of us would be quite content to loosen the ties to Canterbury and focus instead on our domestic missions.

Be that as it may, I think the way forward for the Episcopal Church is to grow closer to those churches, like the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, who are really our neighbors, and with whom we have real, not imaginary ties. If you want to know why I think that -- look at the Church Times photo of Archbishop Williams joyfully con-celebrating with those who wish us ill.

"Rowan may not be perfect, but I think he is to be honoured for not taking sides or presuming his own correctness, and for seeking instead to remain present to all in the hope of reconciliation."

Ian, I'm guessing that you are in the CofE. To most people I've talked to in ECUSA, it is clear that in practice he *has* taken sides. Gay and lesbian bishops spur him into instant action, while border crossings go unacknowledged (at least since the last Lambeth Conference). During his stay in the States he never once darkened the door of an Episcopal church, AFAIK. His presences with us does not seem to be aimed at reconciliation at all.

Ah, Ian, but Abp. Williams does take sides.
He snubs the bishop of New Hampshire. He formally and loudly expresses regret that the Diocese of Los Angeles, through routine and regular procedures, elected women as bishops, then he dances with the Africans.
Now, if he wants to express solidarity with the church in Africa, if he wants to celebrate the vibrancy of the church there, go for it.
But he does so at the same time he feels he can snub provinces in the US and Canada, and he is virtually silent on African treatment of GLBT people (supported by Anglican churches there), as well as African diocese poaching.
Abp. Williams is not being a neutral observer or arbiter.

The other question is whether Rowan SHOULD be neutral. In a battle for human rights and against oppression in the name of God, how can it be commendable to sit on the fence?

Ian, next time you have something to say, use your own words rather than attempt to twist mine.

Here is another short statement from me:

Rowan Williams supports bigotry.

It is that simple. By not speaking out against the extreme homophobia projected by the Ugandan and Nigerian churches onto the rest of the communion, he supports and facilitates their work. What are we as Christians if we don't stand up and oppose this hatred?

And what communion is so important to be in if this is how it manifests itself?

I find it bizarre, given the evidence, that anyone could claim that Rowan Williams is 'not taking sides or presuming his own correctness'; about the only explanation I can come up with, courtesy of the link to Paul Davies' article on the multiverse, is that Ian Arch has arrived from the wrong trouser leg of time...

"Rowan may not be perfect, but I think he is to be honoured for not taking sides..." - Ian Arch

Thanks for your note, Ian, but I simply cannot agree with your contention.

If Archbishop Williams was being evenhanded, then he would be criticizing all sides of the TEC&ACC/Central_African dispute, but he has not done that.

He has been quick as the proverbial bunny to jump all over TEC when a diocese selects (in accordance with church canons), and the national church confirms, a monogomous homosexual person as a bishop, but he looks the other way when it comes to the boundry crossing by the Nigerians and Ugandana and Rwandans.

++Rowan has also been complicit, by neglect or intent, with the TEC schismatics which then makes life for a member of the Anglican Communion so much more difficult than it should be. An even handed approach would be to avoid any public appearances with those who are schismatics, like Duncan, or those who are the result of border-crossing poaching, like Minns, yet he has not taken those appropriate cautious steps.

So, if ++Rowan strengthens that spine, and becomes the even-handed religious leader that you incorrectly portray him to be, then I would be happy to agree with you.

"The presence of Archbishop Robert Duncan and other bishops of the Anglican Church in North America is significant. It suggests that at least some African provinces will continue to recognize and seek relationships outside what used to be the regarded as the boundaries of Anglicanism."

- John Martin 'Living Church' -

Well, John Martin is certainly correct in his assumption here: that Robert Duncan and ACNA are actually 'outside what used to be regarded as the boundaries of Anglicanism'. This is why it is so confusing for Duncan and his cronies to call themselves the 'Anglican Church in North America'. As far as TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada are concerned (and many other Anglicans like myself), ACNA could not be further from traditional Anglicanism if it tried - and it really IS TRYING.

For the Conservative Provinces of Africa, who have ordained their own bishops to 'take over' Anglicanism in North America, to expect to be able to gain a footing in N.A. by this sort of subterfuge, they will have to convince the rest of us that this is what the rest of the Communion really wants. I think they are barking up the wrong tree.

"By not speaking out against the extreme homophobia projected by the Ugandan and Nigerian churches onto the rest of the communion, he supports and facilitates their work. What are we as Christians if we don't stand up and oppose this hatred?"

We Lutherans call this kind of situation "in statu confessionis" and see it of the utmost importance to speak truth to Power, precisely in such moments in Time.

Charlotte...Lambeth 1948 seems to have assumed there would be a loosening of ties and a focussing on more domestic ecumenism as newly independent Anglican provinces went down the Church of South India route, or something similar. But it didnt happen and instead the impetus was towards a world wide "Communion" ,though the ecclesiological basis was pretty shaky ( I suppose that is the ecclesial deficit that is talked about by RC's)and we are reaping the result now. Ecumenical endeavour at the supra-national level seems to have done all it can, and certainly from ARCIC's point of view hasnt achieved anything like what was hoped. But the bi-laterals with RC's/Orthodox/Lutherans and Reformed have achieved a remarkable consensus on many issues e.g. the eucharist and liturgical reform has also been significant in bringing traditions together. Yet at a supra-national level there hasnt been much "reception". Now the Communion is fractured ( and like Humpty Dumpty ,i cant see it being put together again), it makes more sense to use this consensus to facilitate that reception by trying to bring Churches together at the national level.I cant really see the Covenant achieving very much if it ever happens and Abp Duncan is surely living in a fools paradise if he thinks the Church of England is ever going to sign up to a confessional Anglicanism along the lines of the Jerusalem Declaration.

"Rowan Williams supports bigotry." -- Roger at 8:33pm

Well said, Roger. And oh, how true and sad.

Wow! I didn't realise just how unpopular ++Rowan is round here.

"Ian, I'm guessing that you are in the CofE. To most people I've talked to in ECUSA, it is clear that in practice he *has* taken sides."

Yes Bill I am. What intrigues me is that conservatives I've spoken to and read would also say he has taken sides, but not with them either. From the comments above, perhaps you're right and he is more unpopular here. (For the record I still think he hasn't taken sides, though I would question his even handedness - he has been rather quiet on the border crossings.)

What would you have Rowan do though? What sort of communion should we become? Now perhaps I'm wrong, but I didn't think Anglicanism (or the C of E) had a central magisterium or authority. On both sides though people feel betrayed that Rowan has not taken on these roles which I never thought that he had. I guess that's why we're moving towards a covenant. Without something like that as a 'constitution' a precedent of Canterbury exercising disciplinary authority would look Papal at best and despotic at worst - and certainly not Anglican.

What would I have Rowan do? How about denouncing those provinces who do not pay anyattention to the rest of 1.10 from 1998 or 9, who do not listen to their glbt brothers and sisters in Christ and instead continue to blindly condemn them as cancerous aliens within their midst?
And, yes, how about denouncing diocese poaching -- border crossings?
He has no real power. Most provinces say they want it that way. But he has a voice. He freely uses it against liberal churches. Because he knows we won't bite back? Why not against the anti-gay demagoguers within the church of which he is head? Why not against the border-crossers?

>> Without something like that as a 'constitution' a precedent of Canterbury exercising disciplinary authority would look Papal at best and despotic at worst - and certainly not Anglican. <<

Implicit in this statement, Ian, is an assumption that "disciplinary authority" is in fact needed.

It is not.

Except, of course, in the view of those who would -- for fear of gay taint -- transform Anglicanism into a global "Church," with an enforced confessional standard, depriving national/regional member churches of their autocephaly and discarding that time-honored Anglican principle. ("The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England...")

"What would you have Rowan do though?"

Clearly he does not have the authority to issue rulings and ukases [is that the plural?] But he can make statements when prejudice is about to become deadly [Uganda]. Surely he can choose more wisely whom he hangs out with. He can choose whom he is polite to and whom he avoids. His cultivation of people like Minns and Dunkin' sends a partisan message. His rudeness to +Gene and ++Katharine does also.

'What would you have Rowan do though?'

Well, for a start he could devote some of his energy to deciding whether he really wants to be an Anglican at all; from where I am sitting that is increasingly in doubt.

He seems to be more and more drawn to extremist views; when he isn't cosying up to the bigoted homophobes masquerading as ACNA, he's delivering rapturous sermons on the amazingly martyred status of the Carthusian martyrs. I won't repeat my comments at:

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/004541.html

but this latest demonstration simply reinforces what I said then...

Ian has touched on a raw nerve.

While (after Jeffrey) I no longer have confidence in the Archbishop of Canterbury to protect my status as a Priest in good standing and (after Dar es Salaam) have no confidence in his willingness or ability to defend my family from those who would do us evil, it is foolish to call him names.

In ecclesiastical terms The Archbishop of Canterbury has been trying to keep everyone at the same table, he decided before Dromantine that gay people were the necessary sacrifice - but the Anathema he put in place at that meeting has become a symbol of HIS failure and also the failure of the Instruments of Unity/Communion - I fear he and the Anglican enterprise become an increasing irrelevance and that is so bitter when considered alongside all our hopes for a church under his leadership.

But calling him names is silly ........ My wise old Nan used to say " Just ignore them luv ...."

Martin Reynolds said: "But calling him names is silly."

No, it is not silly. It is simply a demand that he live up to the exigencies of his times, of his office, and of the Anglican tradition.

Or -- failing his willingness to do this -- that he resign.

@Martin Reynolds: "In ecclesiastical terms The Archbishop of Canterbury has been trying to keep everyone at the same table, he decided before Dromantine that gay people were the necessary sacrifice."

But Robert Duncan, Martyn Minns et. al. were not, in fact, demanding the sacrifice of gay people. They were demanding control of the US Episcopal Church. They have no interest at all in keeping the Episcopal Church under its present leadership at the table and will immediately reject any solution that does not further their coup d'eglise.

Gay people have been (it hurts to say this) only the pretext. The desired end was (originally) that Canterbury remove the present leadership and put Anderson, Duncan, Minns et. al. in their place.

When it was brought home to them that Canterbury did not have the power to do that, they left the Episcopal Church, set up various other entities (CANA, ACNA, and so on) and are now demanding that the Communion expel the Episcopal Church and put their churches in its place. The Ridley Covenant Draft of the Covenant was intended to be a means to this end. So was the last CAPA meeting, and Dar Es Salaam, and the motion in the C of E General Synod to recognize ACNA... that is a partial list.

++Rowan's failure to appreciate the real motives of this group has been the cause of all his other failures.

What would I have Rowan do? The right thing.

I could speculate forever why he doesn't, what underlying agenda he is, if it exists, why he doesn't lead by example, utilizing the reverence the Communion holds for the office of the ABC. He has the bully pulpit, as we say in the US, but he does not use it.

I've long given up expecting any positive political action from him, but I really didn't expect him to show up at a conference where a morally reprehensible point of view is presented as policy and he says nothing.

Thank you all for your responses. I serve as a priest in a community which contains very divergent theological views, and have found in ++Rowan inspiration for how I might approach that. It is sometimes, for me, a painful way to minister but, I think, the right way. The alternative would be to alienate some of those I serve. When I read,

"As most clergy stood to clap at speeches critical of homosexuality, Archbishop Williams and two aides, who sat in the front row, were the only ones who remained seated,"

I see his pain. But, your comments challenge me. Is his silence enough?

I think we are agreed that we're not after a centralised communion. We don't want to change Anglicanism in the way that, for example, ++?Duncan does and make it confessional. So what then is ++Rowan's role in our disagreements? The very clear frustrations voiced above suggest that what many want is for him to give stronger voice to their side of the disagreement. More generally, perhaps that is to keep us in fruitful engagement - to keep us in active communion, or as Matin said, to keep us at the table. After Dar and Dromantine we are simply no longer all there. So what now?

The agenda and business of the African bishops' conference show that we have fare more in common than in difference. Is it worth holding on to this? Scientific evidence strongly suggests that homosexuality is a fact. When the evidence becomes overwhelming conservative theologies will have to adapt, as they did to evolution. Is it worth waiting for this? I don't think the charge given to ++Rowan at his enthronement or the expectations of his office allow him any choice other than to try that waiting game. It's painful for all of us - for those denied the Church's blessing on their relationships, for the church denied the full ministry of those who happen to be gay or female, for those gay bishops in the C of E who cannot publicly acknowledge their sexuality and for those in East Africa whose wellbeing is threatened by their association with 'the gay church'.

For me personally the question remains how to best promote the spiritual growth of those I serve. The challenge some of you present to me is to judge when silence is right, and when it's not enough.

Sorry for the long post.

Charlotte sums it up very well.

Ian, silence equals death, in case you've not heard the popular lament of the LGBT community that took this saying from the holocaust of WWII.

Why would ++Williams even attend a service by 1). a primate that refused to share communion at a past summit, and 2). a disgraced and _former_ cleric that is officially not a part of the Anglican Communion, let alone involved in questionable dealings with both his former denomination and present cult?

Another old saying. Actions speak louder than words.

"When the evidence becomes overwhelming conservative theologies will have to adapt, as they did to evolution."

I don't know what the evolution situation is in England, but here in the States we have a large, monied, and vocal minority who object very strongly to evolution. These battles are mostly fought at a local level, where elected school boards make decisions about text books for the schools. In some states - Kansas and texas come to mind - a state elected school board makes decisions for the whole state.

Ian, would only that Rowan had simply maintained silence. Would only he had been evenhanded in his approach.

Instead, what sanctions he has made have been heavily unbalanced towards one side. His appointments to commissions and committees have excluded one point of view while heavily favouring the other. Progressive voices are effectively frozen out, while reactionaries are pretty much given free reign.

Not standing up and applauding hate speech is all very good, I suppose. But so far, it appears that's the only sop he's give the progressives in several years. It took him weeks to come out with a mealy mouthed reservation about Uganda's "Kill the Gays" bill, while he randomly (and seemingly without authority) started punting Americans from Communion wide committees and commissions.

Less balanced I'd say than baffling.

@Fr. Ian Arch, two things:

One: Clearly, this is not painful for "all of us," as even your list testifies. It's painful only for gay people, who are scapegoated everywhere except North America. Elsewhere, the Anglican Communion is glad enough to scapegoat gay people, in the (wrongful) belief that gay people are too beaten down by mistreatment to object.

I suppose it is authentically Christian to inflict pain only on those who can't fight back? Because if God loved them, they would have had more worldly power and been able to resist successfully? So if they lack worldly power, it is because God hates them? Can't follow the theological reasoning here, sorry.

Two: as I said in my earlier post, this is not really about homosexuality. Teh gayz are the pretext for a North American coup d'eglise.

That is why we never get anywhere. That is why, no matter how much pain and scapegoating the rest of the Communion is willing to inflict on gay people, and under ++Rowan it has been willing to inflict quite a bit, it will never be enough. Only turning control of the US Episcopal Church over to Martyn Minns, Robert Duncan, et. al. will end the conflict. It's got to do with the size of our pension fund and our other investments, Fr. Arch. It's not about teh gayz.

The naivite of ++Rowan on this point has caused catastrophic damage already and is likely to go on doing so. Separating from the Anglican Communion would have important consequences in US property law; that is probably the only reason we are still even trying to stay in. I think, however, that it would be better to choose a date and time and get the pain over with. Better that than endlessly suffering the misery of involvement with the Anglican Communion.

Actually, Charlotte, I don't think separating from the Communion would have any implication for the Episcopal Church under US property laws. The Episcopal Church is not and was never a creature of the Communion.

It would be like saying that Arlen Spector would lose his home because he left the Republican Party.

Ian,
You speak like a Western Christian who believes it’s all about waiting for same sex blessings or having openly gay priests.
But it’s also about people still committing suicide because of the bile they face when they come out as gay. About pretty lesbian girls being told by their priests that their stalker is a sign of God to repent. About evangelists in training who clench their fists at a video clip showing a civil partnership ceremony muttering that they’d love to smash their effing faces in – and no-one in the room challenges them…
These are real examples of stories I have heard since I have been group contact for Changing Attitude in my diocese.

And then there’s Africa, where people fear for their lives when they are discovered, where Davis MacIyalla had to live in exile until he found safety in Britain, where a church backed parliament tried to introduce the death penalty for gay people who simply meet up in public.

Is it really possible to condone all this, not to set signals, not to protest, not to stand on the side of the victims?

It does not appear to be possible to oppose homosexuality in the same way one opposes tax fraud. It is usually accompanied by lies about gay people, by persecution, real hatred.

Can there really be a single shred of doubt which side one has to take? Can there really be balance?

'When the evidence becomes overwhelming conservative theologies will have to adapt, as they did to evolution.'

That is total nonsense; here in England we have Reform who are hard-core Creationists. Their hatred for Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is not only because she is a woman, and thus in their view is not even fitted to lead a bible study group if men are present, but also because she was a marine biologist doing post-doctoral research. She was, and is, fully committed to the science of evolution as a way of understanding ourselves and the world around us; total anathema to people who sign the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy each year.

For an English clergyman you seem to be remarkably ignorant of the facts on the ground here...

Adding to Cynthia's last post: And the people financially backing the schismatics of ACNA, et al, are the same ones, generally, backing the anti-evolutionists in the US.

"That is total nonsense; here in England we have Reform who are hard-core Creationists."

Judging from posts and comments at SF, it appears that this is a trait Reform and ACNA et al. share.

Charlotte
“It's painful only for gay people, who are scapegoated everywhere except North America.”

I would say this is a too restrictive view that only looks at the church itself and not the role it has to play in society and the influence it has or its responsibility as an advocate for the weak.
Because when you take that into account, then North America is one of the less pleasant places to be gay in the Western Hemisphere. You just need to look at Prop 8, at the appalling way domestic partnership agreements are disregarded by doctors and other professionals, at the States that don't have any legislation to stabilise gay relationships etc.

From a practical point of view, England is all in all a pretty good place to be gay, as are many other European countries.

I will have to Google the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womenhood!!! When on earth did that appear?? and who generated it? I fear if GAFCON hears about it ,it will be added to the new canon....Kuala Lumpa Jerusalem declaration...I used to think I belonged to a tradition that prided itself in holding to a minimum of essential doctrine....Icabod!

Perry:

A history of the Danvers Statement, and its text, can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danvers_Statement

And for those interested, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is here:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

And, just in case anyone wishes to pretend that Reform is not really an extremist organisation, you can find the statement that:

'The Council and Trustees each year sign the Reform Covenant, the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.'

at:

http://www.reform.org.uk/pages/trustees.php

'What would you have Rowan do though?'

Well, one major thing I'd have him do is state quite clearly that he's Archbishop of Canterbury - and absolutely no place else on Earth.

State clearly that, if you just can't work it out for yourselves, then you can go off and sulk in your own sandbox until you grow up. Then, I'd have him write 500 times - "I am not the Pope of Anglicanism."

Martin Reynolds:

Would your Mum have told you to ignore them if they were trying to throw you out of your house, or turn your friends and co-workers against you?

I will agree that name-calling is silly:

Their actions call for direct, decisive and muscular action, not words.