Comments: Thursday morning press coverage

Excellent Giles Faser. He says it how I see it. It is a relief to be validated. His analysis is telling.

Interesting comments from the public too.

Posted by L Roberts at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 8:57am BST

Giles Fraser is right......and it is not a surprise that the ABC has put "unity" so high on his agenda with a price being paid by his old liberal friends.

I have been saying on TA for weeks that if you look at his record in the last 4 years, he was (like with J John, TWR and Tanzania) always going to pressure TEC to give in to him just sufficient to try and keep the AC together. Colin Coward and some others have said I was going to be displeased with the ABC's results.......and I am in that he has made a fudge but look at the cost he is placing on the "liberal" agenda (no more VGRs, no ssbs authorised) - I suggest the ABC has been true to form in the last 4 years and, once again, has not delivered what some of his old liberal friends hoped for but has worked to keep conservatives in the AC by constraining the "liberal" agenda of some.

As I have also said on TA many times before, if it was RIGHT for TEC(USA) to go ahead with VGR and if it is RIGHT to go ahead with ssbs - then the TEC HOB should not be coerced by the ABC. They should do what is right, do it openly, do it honestly - stand by VGR and your consciences TEC(HOB)! There is honour in doing that.

There may be AC consequences but you should still do what is right. If the boot were on the other foot and I was facing an AC which did authorise ssbs or a VGR in the CofE, I would certainly say what I thought and take the consequences (even if that meant leaving)...rather than making some dirty compromise which involves not doing what one believes to be right. What do you value - truth or your club membership in the AC??

"Institutional liberals" in the TEC(HOB) have let down people like LGCM and Changing Attitude - no question that these "radical" bishops have put institutions above what most of them claim to believe is true, as Giles Fraser says.

Posted by NP at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 9:17am BST

I for one am sick of the whole thing. ECUSA has done what the liberals always do. Perhaps we should have anticipated it. As usual they have settled for a quiet life and tried to ameliorate their actions with fine words about valuing the contribution gay and lesbian people make to the life of the church. Well, they can't have it both ways. Either we are full members of the church and thus eligible for all the offices of leadership as discerened by the Holy Spirit or we are not. Since they have decided, along with the conservative opponents that we are not then there is no place for gay men and lesbains anywhere in the church. At the moment I cannot consider myself a Christian after this. I have stopped giving any money, if they want my tallents as an organist they can pay me the going rate and I shall stop taking communion. No matter how friendly and welcoming a congregation they are all coniving in an organisiation which denies me my full humanity. I will no longer prop up a corrupt institution. May be I will calm down later. Thank God there are men like Giles Fraser from the inside who will articulate my anger but they are lone voices and no one listens.

Posted by Richard Ashby at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 10:58am BST

I don't generally get so visceral WRT Giles Fraser, but really:

"the church has once again purchased its togetherness by excluding the outsider. "

this is a bit over the top. I mean, I appreciate that straight people are on our side and all, but I will go to Mass on Sunday like always, I will receive at the same altar rail as I have for the past 7 years. I really am not all that excluded. I can't be a bishop? God isn't calling me there anyway. I can't get married? What does my being married have to do with my redemption or my citizenship in the Kingdom? Sorry, this might be an annoyance to some, but really, is this necessary:

"the struggle for the full inclusion of lesbian and gay people in the life of the church is a frontline battle in the war against global religious fascism."

It's pretty "Rah, Rah, Ho for the war!" but come on! This is just hystrionic.
On another note, I heard +Scriven on CBC radio last PM. He admitted he doesn't know how many "orthodox" there are, but he "rather suspects" there are more than anyone knows! Overall, he sounded a very sinister wolf in sheep's clothing. If I didn't know the politics, I might have been seduced by the faux gentleness.

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 11:19am BST

Thank you, Ford. The HoB did just exactly what I expected it to do, and I am glad that it did. I too will be taking the Eucharist this Sunday and every other Sunday at my Episcopal church. I left TEC right after I was confirmed in it because of Lambeth '98. I know the price I paid spiritually for doing so. I'm back and I'm staying because the full inclusion of gay people in the church cannot happen if we are not there every day making our witness to Christ's love.

Posted by Susan in Georgia at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 1:16pm BST

Giles Fraser is being rather hyperbolic. The bishops are providing the requisite supply of FUDGE for this occasion, and have made clear that their compromise is only a provisional tactic.

Yes, it is a front-line battle against religious fascism, but maybe splitting the Anglican communion in a childish game of mutual condemnation is a less effective way of fighting this battle than the policy of patient reasonableness that the bishops have adopted?

Also they should develop a rich positive discourse about gayness and gay relationships rather than rely on ill-thought-out gestures. Then they might make the same gestures with more confidence and authority. Lack of a fully worked out gay-friendly theology leaves the bishops defenceless against fundamentalist assaults and threats of schism. In that situation shilly-shallying may be better than fighting dogmatism with dogmatism.

Compromise is a virtue of Anglicanism, but of course it always brings the risk of being dishonourably compromised. I think Fraser is right that many of the bishops have an uneasy conscience right now. The whole squabble will end in a morose and murky armistice.

Posted by Fr Joseph O'Leary at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 1:43pm BST

'I for one am sick of the whole thing. ECUSA has done what the liberals always do. Perhaps we should have anticipated it. As usual they have settled for a quiet life and tried to ameliorate their actions with fine words about valuing the contribution gay and lesbian people make to the life of the church. Well, they can't have it both ways. Either we are full members of the church and thus eligible for all the offices of leadership as discerened by the Holy Spirit or we are not.' (Richard Ashby)

Yes the liberals always do this. I too am heartily sickened of it.

Posted by L Roberts at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 1:45pm BST

"the church has once again purchased its togetherness by excluding the outsider. "

Giles Fraser has it right. Spot on.

Posted by L Roberts at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 1:47pm BST

As I see it, the bishops of The Episcopal Church have extended the position they are in now. It is all a bit shabby, but far from being the final position. The Archbishop of Canterbury did virtually nothing, and he is being thrown a fish. At this point TEC has chosen some skillful manouvres. Once the schismatics run off, it will be harder for the rest of the Communion to moan about progressive inclusion from TEC, indeed there may be a stronger balance in favour once the schismatics cause their upset. There is a little bit more waiting to do.

Posted by Pluralist at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 2:19pm BST

I'm personally far more interested in the (for once) clear statement against the very extreme homophobia in the Anglican Communion and in the world - a statement that have have been made a long, long time ago. The leaders of the Anglican Communion - and every other Christian church in the world - should have immediately censured Peter Akinola for his actions in attempting to put the weight of the Church behind the imprisonment of innocent gay people in Nigeria. Instead, he continues on his merry way.

THAT is where all this energy should have been focused in the first place. How absurd that instead we're talking about "gay Bishops" in the United States. I don't disagree with the consecration of Gene Robinson, because it forced Anglicans and others to finally pay attention to this issue and to gay people's lives. But ever since, TEC has been on the defensive and unable (or unwilling) to address the real issues: violent homophobic hatred in the world, encouraged in part by the Church's erroneous readings of Scripture. (BTW, this is, sadly, simply a repeat of past behavior; take a look at the Church's history in re: the treatment of Jewish people and it all seems drearily familiar. Somehow, nobody ever calls on the Church itself to repent, though; amazing, isn't it?)

So even though this statement contradicts itself in several places, I'm quite satisfied that it at last addresses a real and very important problem. IOW, it makes progress by stepping backwards, to get at the more crucial issue; that's an OK thing to do. Going forward, we need to seriously hold these bishop's - and all the rest of them, worldwide - feet to the fire on this, and continue to protest the wildly irrational hatred against homosexuals in the world. This is always excused in the name of "religious faith," and it's long, long past time for this to end.

Posted by bls at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 2:28pm BST

I truly felt I was putting a noose around my neck saying that, so your support is very much appreciated.

Fr. Joseph,

"nobody ever calls on the Church itself to repent"

I do. It's not only me. More of us should. She has a lot of which to repent. I call the Church an icon of the Kingdom of God. Well, after the Revolution in Russia, there were some icons found buried in the mud, some made into mangers for cattle, sone thrown into outhouses. Perhaps the Church is like that, smeared with the dirt of Her past sins. We need to call for repentance for those, so the icon can be taken out of the outhouse into which it has been thrown, or rather threw itself, and cleaned up.

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 2:40pm BST

The short way of putting it is that TEC's HoB described the current position until the next General Convention -- if the bishops pretended to overturn a decision of General Convention that I agreed with, I would be extremely upset, so how can I be be offended at their acknowledgment of the authority of the House of Deputies?

Posted by Prior Aelred at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 3:19pm BST

Dr Fraser may be accused by some of immoderate language, but he is telling a truth. Dr. Williams may be given understanding that he finds himself in a very difficult position, but he is denying a truth. Before his elevation to the episcopate Dr Williams was quite prepared to hold bishops to account for their requirement that others pay the price of keeping the Church of England & the Anglican Communion together. Then he recognised that unity without integrity is nothing worth. Now . . . I shudder to think what he recognises. I don't recognise the priest and theologian I once respected. I pray for him that he may recover what he has squandered.

Posted by Anglicanus at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 3:54pm BST


I have been waiting a bit for the dust to settle, but my reading is about the same as yours and a variety of others (though I disagree in terms of who to label as schismatics). This is the usual smoke and mirrors approach that the HOB and TEC have become expert in taking. There is really nothing here that TEC/HOB has not said in the past, and it will probably make virtually no difference in terms of how TEC conducts itself (absent perhaps a brief period of "watchful waiting").


See above. If anything, this is merely a figleaf for Rowan (and a variety of others--including some erstwhile "conservatives" in the AC), who will try to use it to the fullest. Sorry, NP--I still see the ABC as a Chamberlain, not a Churchill. However, it is a very clever move by TEC, who will ride it as far and as hard as it can.


You and some others who have commented on this point are right: Fraser's histrionics are ludicrous.


Posted by Steven at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 3:55pm BST

Speaking as an older retired priest who has served both in England and America, I would like to say how very tired I am of the shrill self-righteous egocentricity of sloppy-thinking liberal churchmen, narrow evangelicals, aggressively self-pitying gay activists and all the assorted other me-first Anglican opportunists who seem to care nothing for their church unless they are at the head of the serving line.

From my slightly contrarian point of view, it appears that gay Anglicans have been welcomed for many years in all the orders of our clergy, without much question at the communion rail and have had much less exclusion and finger-pointing than would have been the case in other less diverse Christian denominations. But now, nothing less than Total Equality, gay marriage etc. will do, otherwise the rest of us are 'homophobic.' What a lot of old bunny.

The 'rest of us' have gay friends and acquaintances, gay relatives, gay pastors, and you name it. We live with that for the most part quite equably. But there is another, much more serious agenda which is being advanced, I am afraid, and that has little to do with what is Christian or to the betterment of our Christian communion with other Anglican churches. It is also centered about the false notion that somehow 'studies have shown' that 'gayness' is genetic. No reliable studies have shown this.

Whatever gayness is, we will have to live with it in the Christian church, but we do not have to call it 'the same as' what the rest of us are. And you folks who are a part of us by family and faith and friendship must understand that. We are all Outsiders on this world in which we are called to be incarnated Christian souls in but not of this world. jw

Posted by Harold J. Wilson at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 5:51pm BST

The last few days I have been re-reading Stephen Bates's A Church at War: Anglicans and Homosexuality (2004/5). I came across a statement by the South African Archbp Ndungane after the 2003 GC, which is very pertinent to the situation today:

"Some kind of hypocrisy is going on in the church. Gene Robinson and Jeffrey John have been open and honest about their private lives. It is no secret that they are gay clergy and there are gay bishops and the institutional church seems to be turning a blind eye when we should be encouraging honesty. If Gene Robinson had kept quiet there would have been no issue.

I know people who are gay and lesbian who are African. The issue of orientation knows no culture and my fellow bishops are in denial, they have an ostrich mentality on this subject. Our church must learn how to live together as a diverse community. That's what should be on the agenda, not seeking to cast stones or talking about schism" (pp.244-245).

Posted by John Henry at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 6:14pm BST

It seems as though neither my fellow-travellers (supporters of full inclusion of GLBT persons in the life of the church) nor our conservative opponents really understand the role of bishops in the Episcopal Church. Our bishops function in relationship with the other orders of ministry in TEC, lay, priests, and deacons. They do not make decisions about the life of the church independently. We say, "our bishops teach the world what the church believes; they do not teach the church what to believe." In TEC, the whole church, through General Convention decides what we believe (other than the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, which is settled). The conservatives want our bishops to repudiate several past General Conventions and repent and reverse the admittedly limited inclusion of GLBT persons in our church. Our bishops cannot do this without repudiating their very identity as bishops in TEC, alway functioning in relationship to General Convention. The progressives would love for our bishops to tell the conservatives where to get off and declare, once and for all, the full inclusion of GLBT persons in TEC. My point is that our bishops can't do that either. They are constrained by their role in TEC to articulate the decisions made by both houses together in General Convention,in the best and most irenic way possible in this situation. But dear fellow travellers, be of good cheer. Stay tuned for General Convention 2009. I believe that the delegates will be standing on their chairs to make the changes that we so ardently desire.

Posted by revkarenm at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 6:19pm BST

They can't even agree on womens are they orthodox or heterodox?

The REFORMED EPISCOPALIANS denounce the sacrifice of the Mass, real presence and baptismal regeneration ...whilst alal these are sacred to Forward in Faith....what a mish mash.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 6:36pm BST

NP, thank you for telling me that "institutional liberals" in the TEC(HOB) have let down people like LGCM and Changing Attitude.

I'm not sure what kind of a person an institutional liberal is, but I don't feel let down by pro-gay TEC bishops or CofE bishops. Other LGBT Anglicans and members of Changing Attitude will disagree with me.

I object to the way in which you and other conservatives write my script for me and know what I am going to be pleased and displeased with.

I am going to be pleased if some conservatives who have abandoned Anglican polity in the USA and elsewhere decide to abandon the Communion, screaming and shouting as they leave. It will make the commitment made by the Primates and bishops to the listening process much easier to fulfil and will help the church continue on its journey, not just in the USA or England, but in every Province, towards the full inclusion of LGBT people.

Am I the only person reading NPs comments to note a degree of revisionism in his statements compared with what he was predicting 2 months ago?

Posted by Colin Coward at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 6:44pm BST

As we consider, reflect, respond - maybe we should be wary of falling unwittingly into the framework traps the conservative realignment often sets for us, which depend on our failing to notice what is happening in these silent and unacknowledged conservative narrative strategies.

Black/White, Either/Or, Good/Bad, Up/Down, In/Out

- these implicitly limited, split, two-sides-only frames - are very often the sole or preferred way that the realignment believers are framing so many of our differences, including our hot button conflict issues.

There is nothing funnier, nor sadder actually, than constantly observing how the conservative realignment pundits and posters reject and criticize people, even when those people are trying in some way - often from inside another, alternative framework - to get something of the very points that the conservatives are saying are so important.

So, All/Nothing. That is the conservative realignment way.

Of course the rest of us will always fall short of that standard, since it is simply realignment conformity and the undue submission of varied, careful, nuanced Anglican conscience to these very limited frames for categorizing and describing what is so controversial among us.

When I find I have momentarily caught a case of the realignment flu, I sneeze vigorously and reach for a tissue, while I let my mind open up to all the rest - often a rather large intellectual and empirical domain - that these realignment frames so love to define away, as immaterial and ireelevant, right from the start.

Faced with the sly, skewed conservative categorical framework choices, thrown down like medieval gauntlets in so many Primates Meeting documents - I think the HoB conversation held up rather well, considering.

Of course these remarks make very little sense, if we are exclusively forced to read them via nothing but conservative Either/Or pushes and shoves. How clear now, that the human rights of queer folks so little register among these conservative categories, except as distant after thoughts when something really bloody happens and we get news of it.

These latest HoB remarks were agreed, pretty much among bishops rather divided among themselves as to various hot button issues and views. This is at least a model of how to do something in Anglican church life besides tell the world that you cannot come to the Lord's Table together in common prayer because something is controversial.

The favorite realignment frame I forgot to list? Crime/Punishment.

Posted by drdanfee at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 7:37pm BST

Anyone notice this from the Pittsburgh Schismatic?

"Most of the Common Cause meeting is closed to the public because, Duncan said, "We need to speak the truth to one another. We need to do some hard thinking and hard talking. The future of Anglicanism in North America is at stake.""

Tripe. The meeting is closed to the public because that is how schemers hide their agendas.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 9:01pm BST

"It is also centered about the false notion that somehow 'studies have shown' that 'gayness' is genetic. No reliable studies have shown this."

No studies have found a 'gay gene,' and likely research won't find one 'trigger' gene - my understanding is that as scientists learn more and more about genetic processes, they are finding not a lot of 'trigger' genes, but complexes of genes, hormones, and other complicating factors in process.

What studies continue to demonstrate is that sexual orientatation is innate, and is relatively set, at a fairly young age. It is evidently a lot like handedness, which is innate, and has genetic componants, but for which there are no discrete 'right' and 'left' genes. Animal studies also find same sex orientation and bahvior in a number of animals and birds. These fellow creatures do not choose their orientation any more than humans.

You can foece a left-handed person to write with the right hand - schools here in the US used to do this - but you don't get a right-handed person. You get a left-handed person who writes awkwardly with the right hand.

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 10:01pm BST

I found NPO's comments quite amusing, simply because he is so totally out of step with his conservative friends.

Almost to a man they are furious and say they are not satisfied with TEC's stance. They have made it clear enough that they intend to depart.

That being said, an Anglican Communion without them may be a lot more prepared to handle diversity and accept different opinions on non-essentials.

Posted by Merseymike at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 10:37pm BST

My possible response to this, as a gay man, is to resign from the Episcopal Church and simply be a baptized Christian. I don't have to volunteer to be a member of a Church which has decided that I have a disorder which excludes me from two of the sacraments. I will probably continue to go to my church because I have friends there, who support me over against the explicit written doctrines of their church.

I think it might be good to spend a little while like a fox without a hole or a bird without a nest. I need to see where the full inclusion I was promised at my baptism takes me.

Posted by James at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 10:42pm BST


God bless you. It will be strong souls like you that will help heal this millenia of injustice. Just like there were souls prepared to fight against Black Noir legislation, apartheid and for women to vote and married women to be able to work and leave abusive husbands.

Fraser's paper is is the voice of conscience for those who have felt betrayed. Go back and read the Old Testament. Look at Ezekiel - his attention seeking strategies could be seen as downright weird. Daniel and Joseph, who were confined because they refused to be compromised. The book of Jeremiah for the attempts to bribe off, discredit, intimidate or blunt an annointed prophet. Fraser has remained a polished arrow, and he has thrown an arrow directly into the heart of the many headed beast.

For those of you who don't think TEC strategy is "that bad" because things aren't that bad in the USA. Ask what the reality is for GLBTs and their sympathisers in Nigeria, Iran and other parts of the world. What do you think of the cover being pulled down on the TEC light of hope that they had been clinging to for the last few years?

Ask yourselves what women who come from abuse think? This one thinks that if they roll back the reform, then they will re-institutionalise autocratic repression of women, reinstate attempts to reform or genocide indigenous souls (ask Australia’s indigenous community leaders about recent losses of trust and dignity).

You are for the ending of the yokes of repression, or you are for reinstating tyranny. You are for giving individuals rights and responsibilities, or you are for enslavement and commodification.

I hope this is only a short term strategy by TEC to extend dialogue.

The zeal of the Lord is still committed to Micah 4:7 to 5:5. The Lord will again gather the lame; assemble the exiles and those God had brought to grief. Horns of iron and hoofs of bronze will break to pieces many nations and their ill-gotten gains and wealth are devoted to the Lord of all the earth. Israel will be no longer be abandoned when she who is in labor gives birth and God's children return to join the Israelites. We will live securely for God's greatness will reach to the ends of the earth and God will be our peace.

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 11:06pm BST


Thank you for your words, and thank you for your honorable life of service.


Careful now, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It seems to me that we just finished having a "closed to the public" meeting of the HOB. I'd hate to have to think that this was because they were "schemers" seeking to "hide their agendas".


Posted by Steven at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 11:17pm BST

James: I don't attend church either at the moment, but things remain still better in TEC than the CofE and better in either than in most of the Anglican world.

No excuse of course.

Posted by Merseymike at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 12:08am BST

It is one thing to have parts of a meeting in camera, and quite enough to have virtually the whole of it so.

Why, the House of Bishops even let poor "oppressed" conservatives like Baby Blue and Matt Kennedy blog live from the meeting.

I wonder if Susan Russell would have been allowed into the room for this aggregation of schismatics, let alone have been allowed to blog an approximate transcript to the world.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 12:32am BST

_Am I the only person reading NPs comments to note a degree of revisionism in his statements compared with what he was predicting 2 months ago?_

No you are not. NP said that the Archbishop of Canterbury would, as he has in the past, follow the dictates of the bigger number, so that he would not lose the Nigerians, for example. He rolled off the list of meetings and decisions. Over and again I have said, look at what is being said, particularly from the Time interview onward, and crucial was the keeping people talking and invitations to Lambeth. NP said there would be an about-turn.

There was not and is not. Rowan Williams has said there is no ultimatum. He called the boundary crossers "illicit" and showed that he regards TEC as fully Anglican. He put the solution finding to others.

Now NP is trying to suggest that TEC has done the job for the Archbishop instead, but also wishes that TEC was clearer as to its real views. This is indeed revisionism.

What TEC has done is what was likely. It has played the game, gone as far as it can with the inevitable shabbiness of this institutional approach to religion, but it is a transitory pause.

Let's be blunt - Giles Fraser is right, but the core of Anglican practice is many people who read out creeds (like myself) who regard them as historical, cultural, pointers about a package but not a definition of individual belief. From that point on there is, inevitably, a kind of duplicity. It is the messy world of doublespeak. So it is also the messy world of negotiating through to get a new position achieved. This is what TEC is trying to do, while being associated with others. Now it is up to those who cannot do the messy compromises to go off and do their own thing, if this is what they so want.

Posted by Pluralist at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 12:43am BST

Don't those Buddhist monks mowed down by the Burmese tyrants send a message to the cagy, shabby clergy of the Christian churches?

Posted by Fr Joseph O'Leary at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 3:14am BST

I'm just doing some history work on Liberal Catholics at the moment and in one obscure area hit upon a phrase that illustrates what the Archbishop of Canterbury may have meant when he called the boundary crossing bishops "illicit".

_Bishop Ulric Vernon Herford, known as Mar Jacobus, Regionary Bishop of Mercia and Middlesex. Herford was consecrated to the episcopacy in 1902 by Mar Basilius (Luis Mariano Soares) of the Syro-Chaldean Church in India, which broke away from the Holy See in the 1860s. Herford was a wandering bishop quite apart from Rome, so Summer’s orders were therefore "valid but illicit", according to the Roman Catholic theology of orders.

Interesting I thought.

Posted by Pluralist at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 3:15am BST

Colin - in the last few weeks, you have been telling me that I was going to be very disappointed! I am NOT very disappointed that your old mate Rowan has forced TEC HOB to agree not to give the AC another VGR problem and not to authorise ssbs............. I know TEC HOB does not mean to keep to its plegges and is "playing the long game" as it has not managed to persuade many in the AC so far but I see little honour in their position. I think Giles Fraser's assessment is honest and less concerned with church politics than standing up for what one believes to be true when compared with those who agree to what they think is wrong in order for longer-term political goals in the church. The CofE has people with that kind of "integrity" too, of course.

Pluralist & Colin -

1) we have not had a reply from the ABC to the TEC HOB response - have we?

2) we have not had a reply from the Primates to the TEC HOB response - have we?

So, wait and see if TEC HOB's words fool many.
I think you will find that a lot of people can see through statements which ar designed to say one thing but allow the opposite to occur.

Posted by NP at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 8:38am BST

Cynthia Gilliat wrote: "You get a left-handed person who writes awkwardly..."

Which is why this is awkward. Making people do things does not work.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 9:26am BST

Well, NP, we’re not likely to have a response from the Primates because they are not going to meet prior to Lambeth. If the Primates were truly unified in their opposition to the Episcopal Church, as you and others imagine in your fantasy, there would have been an immediate and positive response from the other Primates and from the ABC to the Nigerian request that a meeting be held to assess the TEC response. It won’t happen because neither the ABC nor the majority of Primates see the need for a meeting.

I doubt that there will be a reply from the ABC either. A response will be issued by the Anglican Communion office on behalf of the standing committee of the Anglican Consultative Council, who were present at the HOB meeting and are the only people able to issue an assessment.

You are not observing carefully how the ABC and the ACC have very carefully prepared for the HOB meeting, NP.

If you think the ABC and the Primates are going to issue a reply, what do you think they are going to say? No, TEC, you have repented. You haven’t complied with Dar es Salaam expectations, you are very naughty and you can’t come to Lambeth.

I don’t think so, NP.

Posted by Colin Coward at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 9:28am BST

Yeah, Colin.... Tanzania was not issued by ALL the Primates? I imagined that?

Now we have TEC's response and you claim to be happy with it!
You have not been telling me in the last few weeks that TEC HOB was going to agree to no further VGRs and no authorisation of SSBs and that this was good and right.....have you??? No, you said I would be very disappointed....but Rowan has actually got TEC to put their principles to one side in order to try and placate “conservatives”……and you claim to be happy with that!

I know you desperately do not want there to be a Primates meeting as it will not work in favour of your agenda in the CofE/AC..............but if you think that the Primates ask TEC questions (Tanzania) and TEC replies but then NOTHING happens until Lambeth, that is wishful thinking.

It is merely common-sense that the Primates meet and make consider the response that TEC have made to their questions. It is only polite ....... but it is, of course, more important than that. Anyway, the ABC met ++Akinola last week and I suspect the next Primates meeting was mentioned.

I know you don't want a Primates meeting and you can accept TEC HOB letting down your agenda in the short term (to stay in the AC, influencing from within)........but not many are fooled by people like Bruno saying they do not authorise when everyone knows they permit ssbs etc. Maybe you are too used to the old CofE where people could get away with saying one thing and doing another....but it just ain't good enough for ordained people to be duplicitous like that…..hard to see the “integrity” in that view. I see much more integrity in what people like LGCM and Giles Fraser have said…..they are less concerned with politics and more concerned with what they believe to be right.

To answer your question, we will certainly see a Primates meeting or an AC split will come even sooner than we all expect....and that meeting will say that TEC HOB has not given a full or truthful response (as Dr Radner, +Salmon, +Duncan in TEC say)

Posted by NP at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 10:17am BST

Ford and Cheryl, Thank you for your kind comments.

I wish all of you would pay closer attention to revkarenm's comments about the role of bishops in TEC. This is why I am not screaming about betrayal. Yes, acceptance of gays is not consistent across TEC congregations, and I wish it were. In my own congregation there has been controversy about gay laypeople serving at the altar and there is no way at this point that openly gay people could be ordained in this diocese. However, this is the American South, where we still have racially motivated church burnings, demonstrations against racial injustice in Mississippi, where most towns do not have shelters for battered women, where we still have the highest murder rates and highest impositions of the death penalty in the US. Fifty years ago, the South was a real if unacknowledged political tyranny with regular acts of terrorism.

Yes, it is hard as a gay person to be so close and yet so far from full acceptance in TEC, but at least I belong to a church that is trying. The bishops support full civil rights for LGBTs, oppose violence against them -- they are on record as doing this, this is the official position of our church. We have consecrated an openly gay bishop who was CALLED BY HIS OWN DIOCESE because it recognized the godliness of his life. We do have gay priests and lay readers, not everywhere, but in lots of places.

Yes, it's not enough, but the promise is there and our General Conventions have been doing their best to fulfill it. TEC keeps trying for reconciliation because it is trying to weld us into what we should all be together -- the people of God. So, pace Giles Fraser, I'm not getting out my handkerchief. It's much easier to have integrity as an individual; so much more difficult as an institution but TEC is trying -- much harder than those trash her from both sides of the issue. I am proud to be an Episcopalian.

Posted by Susan in Georgia at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 10:44am BST

Giles articulates the dangers of global religious fascism. The question is, how to prevent it spreading. Keeping the North American churches in will certainly keep the AC moderate, and the ABC knows this. The HOB respond to the struggle against the aggressor by turning the other cheek -a Gospel imperative, surely. By incorporating the exact wording of the Dar Es Salaam communique and B033, they've deflated the arguments against them. Not giving an inch more or an inch less on the presenting issue, but emphasising the need to keep talking. There can be no negative response from the rest of the Communion without it looking disproportionate.

So this is a holding response to keep TEC in the dialogue until at least next GC of 2009. ABC will have no option but to keep to his word and find a way of including Gene Robinson at Lambeth, and his colleagues will still be coming.

The ball is back in the court of the rest of the Communion to honour its commitment to the listening process and unequivocally support civil rights for gays, not something we heard about in Windsor or any of the communiques.

Posted by Hugh of Lincoln at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 11:45am BST

I hate to give extra attention to NP - except to note that if (s)he did not exist (s)he would have to be invented. What a useful foil! When I read the conservative blogs they are repetitive and essentially boring (though strident) unless a liberal is there to spark the discussion up a bit. Thank you NP for providint that spark here although it often borders on the ludicrous - especially when you "shape shift" or conventently change the subject - that is a less than admirable quality.

Posted by ettu at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 12:07pm BST

Anopther thing for me, Susan, is that I don't really see why I have to cut myself off from God because the person sitting next to me doesn't like me and doesn't want me included in Church life. Seriously, that's on his soul, not mine. God doesn't cut me off, has never cut me off, even when I cut Him off. Granted, living together in harmony is an important part of our being Christians, but it is only one part of our relationship with God. I did that "get all fussed up over the injustices of the Church" thing for 18 years. What did it get me? Nothing. God didn't abandon me, and in the end, I came back because I needed that spiruitual aspect of my life. Cutting onesself off from God because He loves bigotted homophobes as much as He loves us and allows them to try excluding us seems rather like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. What other sins is He accepting of in others? We all have them, even if we don't think being gay is one of them.

And, Fr. Wilson, I agree to an extent with your first two paragraphs, then you go and say: "Whatever gayness is, we will have to live with it". Poor you! I had no idea my presence in a pew was such a crucifixion for you! Next time I'm at Mass, I'll be a good little Anglican and sit in the back so you don't have to actually see me. See, the listening process ought to have informed you enough that you should know not to go saying things like that.

Posted by Ford Elms at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 12:48pm BST

"The bishops support full civil rights for LGBTs"

I give them full marks for saying so.

I hope to see them doing so by filing amicus briefs in suits seeking equal rights, and by speaking out when state legislatures pass bills and propose amendments to state constitutions barring gays from civil marriage and, in my own state, domestic partnerships. I did not hear them when that amendment came up for ratification by voters.

Posted by Cynthia at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 1:52pm BST

Fr Joseph

I don't know if they are been mowed down, but they do need our prayers and support. When Tutu came to Perth, West Australia in the 1980s, I took lots of notes and it became the front page article of the socialist paper and was picked up by the mainstream press. That wasn't a reflection of neither my nor Tutu's prowess, but of God's circumstances contriving to heal the seemingly insurmountable.

You see, at that time Malcolm Fraser happened to be Australia's Prime Minister, and he had strong ties back to Oxford and thus a personal interest in finding ways to heal Apartheid.

Tutu's speech and paradigms offered a non-violent resolution to Apartheid and it took off like wildfire, and it had the Prime Minister's affections...

Similarly with many of the world's hotspots today, healing can happen, but we need to be open to the possibilities and allow God's Will to be done. Alliances and friendships can forge in unexpected ways. It is in Burma's best interest to heal this problem. Buddhists, by their very theology, actually tend to be more gentle than Christians, so it is that government's interests to look at the issues and appease the Buddhists.

The Burmese governing authorities will benefit by healing breaches and resolving conflicts within their communities. The Buddhists monks will benefit by seeing the Abrahamic God recognising the need to heal problems for all the peoples of all the nations. Christians (and Jews and Muslims) will benefit from recognising that God is concerned about the wellbeing of ALL humanity, from the least to the greatest, the purest to the most corrupt, the most gentle to the most cruel.

None of us can escape being in this reality, but we can make a difference to how beneficially it is manifested. That is called unconditional love: when you help the Burmese government, the Buddhist monks, and Christian missionaries; irregardless of whether you will personally benefit.

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 2:13pm BST

Yes, NP, there probably will be an AC split. Your mates in Nigeria and Kenya are going to walk away.

But are you going with them, NP?

Posted by Merseymike at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 2:16pm BST

NP wrote "Yeah, Colin.... Tanzania was not issued by ALL the Primates? I imagined that?"

Yes actually. It was clear from the reports at the time that it was a vexed meeting. With an accusatory camp in one side room seeking ways and means to throw accusations and ultimatums at others, and hijacking the agenda to push their barrow.

There were also later claims that some documents that were claimed to be signed by some parties were refuted by those parties as not having been seen or edited and issued without their full knowledge and consent.

Nasty shot. Undoes the good work you had done earlier this week.

Colin might personally annoy you, but at least be professional in how you treat him. Otherwise your prejudices simply lead you discrediting yourself.

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 2:19pm BST


I've saved the best until last.

Some other political postings needed attention before I could attend to your personal needs.

It is a delight to have you on this forum. You are personally a joy to myself as you articulate first-hand what I have been saying hypothetically exists for some time.

There was another thread a few weeks ago where one nasty poster commented that we were talking about hearsay from circumstances that did not apply to ourselves. My retort at the time was that I was talking from personal experience, and that I don't think I am that far removed from myself...

That said, be warned, some of us will affirm you, and others will seek to "break" you. If you have the strength and wish to continue to contribute, some will welcome you with open arms. God knows, souls like yourself need them. But, we can not protect you from cruel postings. If you do not have the strength to endure taunting, ridicule and hyperbole, then only post commensurate with what you can cope with.

In saying that, one of my personal motivators is a "turbo charge" factor. I know that I did not contrive my circumstances, and I trust that God would not have put me in them if I could not "add value" to the discussions. One of the things that really motivates me is knowing that if they are prepared to be so rude and aggressive to myself, how would a weaker soul cope?

I choose to take the blows on the chin, and allow them to manifest their viciousness. As they throw their punches and taunts, the world looks on with disgust. They see the same dynamics that took Christ to the Cross, and coming from "Christians" at that.

It leads to forgiveness for Jews and others, and hope for outcastes that God's concern is for all of Creation's beings, and not just those sanctioned by a cruel corrupt priesthood.

Plus the bible repeatedly promises us that tyrannical priesthoods are stripped of honor and rank in God's eyes.

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 2:28pm BST

James, if you are waiting for the perfect Church, you will be waiting until "he comes again in Glory". We need your witness here and now IN the Church. That goes, frankly for all. We can only be fully the Body of Christ on earth - together - in prayer and love.

Posted by Davis d'Ambly at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 2:31pm BST

Cheryl - it is not "nasty" to ask someone if ALL the Primates issued a it???

Posted by NP at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 4:59pm BST

Colin Coward posted: "Am I the only person reading NPs comments to note a degree of revisionism in his statements compared with what he was predicting 2 months ago?"

No, Colin, this is a pattern that I have been noting for some time. Whenever NP has been caught by a revelation of some truth that disproved what he/she had been previously contending, NP used subterfuges to go on to some other (hoped for) distortion of logic about events in the Anglican Communion by which the neo-Calvinists intended to separate TEC and ACC from the non-"Global South" Provinces.

Divide and conquer.

NP reminds me of George W Bush, and his minions, who would generate new reasons for the Iraq invasion and war, anytime that the previous reasons given were proved false.

I believe that NP understands the threat to the neo-Calvinists that firsthand Anglican Communion witness of the increasing integration of gays and lesbians in TEC, ACC, and several other non-"Global South" Provinces, will mean for their ultimate acceptance in most of the Anglican Communion.

Segregating TEC, and ideally also ACC, had to be the first objective for the Akinolaite boosters, hence the shifting positions to somehow exclude TEC.

Posted by Jerry Hannon at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 5:21pm BST

There is a value to preserving the Anglican Communion which should not be missed. Being in communion with various illiberal forces certainly has affected what TEC is doing. But it seems likely that the influence goes both ways, and, if even for only "political" reasons, the stances and actions taken by illiberal Anglicans (for instance, church leaders in Africa) have likely been moderated by their interactions (struggles) with TEC. Achieving unity (or at least trying to) by making gay Episcopalians pay the price for that unity sounds very cold. And the price certainly seems too high when one thinks of the unity as being simply matters of being part of some organization of churches with some huge membership, or not hurting the feelings of illiberal archbishops, etc. And the price may still be too high when all the relevant values are taken into account. But it is worth keeping in mind the important potential value the communion may have for gays (& their supporters) in very illberal Anglican churches and in regions where such churches are very influential.

Posted by Keith at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 5:24pm BST

"Cheryl - it is not "nasty" to ask someone if ALL the Primates issued a it???"

No, but it shows how naive you are, and how unwilling you are to see reality.

Posted by Ford Elms at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 7:16pm BST

NP asked: "Cheryl - it is not "nasty" to ask someone if ALL the Primates issued a it???"

Well, NP... We do not actually know that since these communiqué are not signed.

(contrary to what some claims)

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 8:22pm BST

oh no...... now I am supposed to be like Dubya! Brilliant argument.......

Since some say what you "enjoy" about me coming round here to remind you of agreed Anglican positions, statements and, yes, even the scriptures......may I say I am quite amused by people pretending that it is a good outcome for the agenda of Changing Attitude et al for the ABC to "persuade" TEC HOB not to authorise ssbs and agree not to give us another VGR. Reminds me of all the fun some have pretending that TWR and Tanzania did not really happen or have no power......but then I see AGAIN the ABC forcing liberals to give ground and TEC making concessions.......

Posted by NP at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 8:58pm BST

NP, you are gloriously at one with the minority of Primates who like to think they are orthodox Anglicans and represent the majority. I do enjoy reading and replying to your fantasies, which I shouldn’t.

Yes NP, you imagined that all the Primates were united in supporting the Dar es Salaam statement. I was there, I talked with many of them, and I have talked with others since.

Yes, NP, I’m happy with TEC’s response. It opens the way to Lambeth and forces the conservatives to swallow humble pie and turn up, or for the umpteenth time issue dire predictions about splits, and fail to walk themselves. It has happened so many times now, and I am feeling very confident about the future of a traditional, orthodox, ultimately gay-affirming Communion with or without them.

No NC, if you read back all my posts, I have not been telling in the last few weeks that TEC HOB was going to agree to no further VGRs and no authorisation of SSBs and that this was good and right.

No, NP, I do not desperately not want there to be a Primates meeting.

Yes, NP, the ABC met ++Akinola last week and ++Akinola told the ABC he wanted a Primates meeting and the ABC said no.

No, NP, you do not know I don’t want a Primates meeting.

No NP, I don’t feel that TEC HOB have let down my agenda.

No, NP, I am not too used to the old CofE where people could get away with saying one thing and doing another - I am an ordained member of the CofE and it is still the same old divided institution and I love it.

No, NP, ordained lesbian and gay people are not duplicitous but have deep integrity.

I’m so glad that you see greater integrity in what people like LGCM and Giles Fraser have said.

I am also concerned with what I believe to be right, NP, based on my faithful reading of the Gospels.

And thanks, NP, for offering us another certainty - a Primates meeting or an AC split. It will be an AC split, NP, and it will be the conservative extremists who leave. Will you be leaving with them?

Now please, can I ask you once again to read carefully what I write and stop, please, putting words into my mouth that I have not uttered.

Posted by Colin Coward at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 9:46pm BST

Cheryl, referring to the Dar es Salaam meeting, said: "There were also later claims that some documents that were claimed to be signed by some parties were refuted by those parties as not having been seen or edited and issued without their full knowledge and consent."

To be fair, Cheryl, that was not Dar es Salaam. All the Primates signed and all of them knew what they were signing.

You are thinking of a different meeting where the bully Akinola rammed through his hatemongering. On that other occasion (and i believe on one or two other occasions as well) he then lied about who had signed.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 10:22pm BST

I understand Malcolm, that there has been no signing on any occasion, either Kigali and the other "global south" ones, or by the sea in Kenya, in short; that "signing" is merely a media/blog shorthand for agreeing, which has been abused by certain parties, and freequently so.

Please tell me if this understanding is mistaken?

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 8:25am BST


I will remind you that you have said we will not get a Primates meeting when the date is announced (but then you will, no doubt, "revise" what you said and claim you always thought one would would be called and it is a good thing!).

As for integrity, if someone works for an organisation which explicity asks certain employees to keep to certain standards of behaviour and if some of those employees simply ignore some of those requirements behind the back of their employer (ie be less than honest with their employer about their actions contradicting the said explicit requirements), you think that is a position with "integrity"???

Giles Fraser and LGCM have shown more integrity in their responses to the ABC getting TEC HOB to at least say it is slowing down its walk away from agreed, biblical Anglican agreements when compared to those who are happy to "play the long game", sacrificing principles short-term to try to keep the revisionist TEC HOB in the AC and subvert it from within - at least LGCM and GF are placing more weight on what they believe to be right rather than on political strategies within the AC.

Posted by NP at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 11:17am BST

Why do we engage the troll? Maybe just because it's fun, if frustrating for Simon at times. There's not much point in trying to demolish NP's fantasy. Perhaps the statement that most obviously reveals his political naivete is:

"see AGAIN the ABC forcing liberals to give ground"

The political intricacies of this elude him, just as those as Dromantine, Windsor, and Dar es Salaam elude him. If he responds at all to this it will be to mock what he thinks is my belief that these events are meaningless. What you and I are both actually saying here will not register. The fantasy is of the true Christians being persecuted by the evil Liberals. He hasn't actually done it yet, but I keep waiting for him to slip up and make the distinction I have heard other Consevos make, between "liberals" and "Christians", since the underpinning of the fantasy is that one can't be both. Liberals are enemies of the Gospel. Now, he has pretty much said so, with his continued references to people in TEC having no faith and believing in nothing, but it serves the purposes of the fantasy to claim that if one does not treat the Bible as absolute in the way that the conservatives define this, than one does not believe it at all. Even historical fact is no barrier to this. Persecution myths are one of the most powerful driving forces in our society on both sides, society only validating those who are victims fighting their persecution. We can all easily fall into the trap, so perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on him for something we all, at least me, can be guilty of. But, my! 'Tis some hard!

Posted by Ford Elms at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 1:18pm BST

"if someone works for an organisation which explicity asks certain employees to keep to certain standards of behaviour"

What an incredibly worldly understanding of the Church! I don't know about anyone else, but I am not a member of Christianity, Inc. So, the Church is an "organization" that has "employees", NP? I don't expect you to recognize what a sell out to the world this attitude is, which is what makes it all the funnier.

Posted by Ford Elms at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 2:14pm BST

Colin Coward on Friday, 28 September 2007 at 9:46pm BST --

Thanks for this -- we seem to be on the same page (or gazing in to the same crystal ball).

I have been perplexed at the reaction of many on this side of the pond to the HoB basically saying that they had to abide by the decisions of General Convention & am happy to see that your interpretation jibes with my own!

Posted by Prior Aelred at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 2:38pm BST

You’re right, I know you’re right - can you help me kick the addiction? Is there a place for NPanon? I may need a 12 step programme.

Not only does he tell the TA world what I’ve said when I haven’t, he’s now telling the TA world what I won’t retract when the ABC calls a Primates meeting. I live in the real world, NP. You are welcome to remind me of what I said if a Primates meeting is announced and I will agree with you that I was mistaken. I think that would count as acting with integrity.

Why do I bother to engage with someone who is so partisan and sets up false polarities? Because he represents for me all those bishops and individuals in the Communion whose whole stance is based on false polarities and an illusion of what is right and wrong in Christian terms.

I fear you are correct, Ford; NP thinks I am not a Christian and uses pejorative terms about people like me - revisionist - because I am a gay man who believes that LGBT people can live in holy, loving, sexually intimate relationships, and that these relationships are blessed by God and should be blessed by the Church.

Posted by Colin Coward at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 3:22pm BST

We could start a group! "My name is Ford and I am addicted to amking the same arguments over and voer to someone who won't hear."

AAS to integrity, apparently integrity means bending the rules in secret while publically condemning other for the same thing.

Posted by Ford Elms at Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 5:16pm BST

Ford - I am hurt you call me a "troll".
I do not aim to be a troll but since TA has "Anglicans" in its title, I come here to remind people of what the bible says and what Anglicans have agreed eg Lambeth 1.10 (even though some would like to pretend it never happened or has no force)

Ford - as for "worldly" comments re employees etc, pls note the context is someone taking the church to an EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL with the help of a secular campaigning organisation. Anyway, even if you stay on your high horse and do not want to think of people who work for the church as employees, that still does not make it ok for people to just ignore the church's requirements for them, using dishonest "don't ask, don't tell policies", does it?? (even if others are hypocrites too, that is no justification before you play that card.... again)

Colin - you can pretend I am part of a crazy minority in order to dismiss me but you will have noticed old Rowan presiding over Dromantine, TWR, Tanzania and now extracting some compromises from TEC you wonder why he is not simply pushing his personal liberal beliefs? Could it be that you are out of step with most of the CofE / AC?

Simon - if I am a TA troll in your view, pls tell me to get lost and I will

Posted by NP at Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 12:31am BST

re: signing

Certainly when the barroom brawl which was Dar es Salaam was over, our Primate (Canada) spoke about having made an offer to the Presiding Bishop that if she chose not to sign, he would refuse alongside her. He used the term sign.

I have presumed it was literal. It could have been a shorthand for signing off on (ie, agreeing to) rather than physical signature.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 9:03am BST

"using dishonest "don't ask, don't tell policies""

NP, Can you name a time in the history of the Church, at least since AD313, when the Church did NOT follow a "don't ask, don't tell" policy about something or other? What about all the stuff that goes against the Gospel yet was and is done to secure peace with the world? You act as if this is some sort of modern thing.

Posted by Ford Elms at Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 12:28pm BST

"I have presumed it was literal. It could have been a shorthand for signing off on (ie, agreeing to) rather than physical signature."

Interesting though, that no one seems to know.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 7:13pm BST

Ford - I always agree with you that we are all and, just like everyone else in history, hypocrites....but this is still no excuse for "institutionalised hypocrisy".

Let our yes be yes and our no be no.
Let us be open and honest.

I cannot believe you respect the Brunoesque stance of saying "I do not authorise ssbs" in order to agree technically when all the time permitting ssbs - this is not a stance I would expect Ford Elms to take!

Posted by NP at Monday, 1 October 2007 at 7:43am BST

Its quite possible to allow something to happen on pastoral grounds without providing official sanction or official liturgy.

Personally, I think that they should simply go ahead and do them and stuff the Communion, but clearly they listened to the ABC and want to help hold it together.

But clearly, they are not going to change their values and principles. Neither will the conservatives.

Posted by Merseymike at Monday, 1 October 2007 at 10:31am BST

Mersey - I agree with you - they should have stated their principles and stuck to them.....especially given that few believe they mean what they say re ssbs and restraint with the next VGR is very unlikely to come from TEC HOB.....

Posted by NP at Monday, 1 October 2007 at 4:32pm BST

But the ABC aske3d them to compromise, and they have done. he asked you to compromise too. Its the only way the AC can stay together.

I don;t think the AC should stay together. Do you? Its only with mutual agreement that a civilised split could take place. Otherwise, it looks like a conservative breakaway is on the cards.

Posted by Merseymike at Monday, 1 October 2007 at 10:33pm BST

I agree with you, Merseymike - it is better if everyone is honest about what they believe and intend to do even if that leads to a split..... if the alternative is that people are less than honest and hide what they do in order to create fake "unity"

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 2 October 2007 at 11:10am BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.