There was an article in last week’s Church Times by Colin Slee which has already appeared on two other websites, Why the Kigali declaration is wrong. A response to it was already made by Archbishop Yong Ping Chung, the retired Archbishop of South East Asia, and published by Anglican Mainstream. This exchange is further discussed by Jim Naughton, who notes that:
AM, a British-based group, received $12,000 in funding last year from the American Anglican Council. (That’s according to the AAC’s IRS Form 990 for 2005.) So, an organization sustained in part by conservative American donors is downplaying the influence of conservative American donors.
This updates the information reported earlier about British use of such money.
Turning to the Panel report, this has provoked a number of further responses.
One from LGCM is reproduced here below the fold. Update It is now also available here.
Another from Mark Harris says that Archbishop Gomez Should Step Down.
And, though written slightly earlier, this speech by Katie Sherrod is well worth reading.
Statement from the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement 14th October 2006
The publication of the Panel of Reference report on the diocese of New Westminster  is a significant moment in the ongoing Anglican civil war.
Only now are the full implications of the Windsor Report being tested within the world-wide Church. In our view most commentators have ignored the significance of paragraph 146 of the Windsor Report and all that it implies when it says on human sexuality:
“it has to be recognised that debate on this issue cannot be closed whilst sincerely but radically different positions continue to be held across the Communion.” .
There is no definitive Anglican position on human sexuality at this time and this means that those who are reconciled to homosexual inclusion and those who are not both have a legitimate place within the Anglican family of Churches.
For the debate to move forward adequate provision has to be made for those minorities (on both sides) who do not agree with the local consensus. These provisions have to be meaningful, but they have to be agreed on locally and within the existing or expanded structures of each local church.
Those bishops and primates who have interfered in this legitimate process in Canada (and elsewhere) have in fact impeded reconciliation and the proper furtherance of the debate; it is hardly surprising that Archbishops Drexel Gomez and Gregory Venables should now be complaining loudly at the decisions of the panel .
The diocese of New Westminster on the other hand welcomes the decision of the Panel of Reference having cooperated fully in its deliberations  as does the leader of the Anglican Church in Canada .
This report from the Panel of Reference also challenges the vision and aspirations of the Global South group of Anglican Churches as laid out in the Kigali Communiqué . We are led to believe that this Communiqué represented a compromise for those Anglican Primates who see lesbian and gay people as “evil” and a “perversion of human dignity”  and who are promoting laws  that would criminalise even those who wish to have a genuine debate .
In the context of this uneasy compromise within the Global South and taking into consideration the responses of Gomez and Venables to the findings of the Panel of Reference, it seems likely that more extreme agenda advocated by the Primate of Nigeria and others will once again come to the surface. It is clear that those Anglican leaders do not agree that the debate on human sexuality “cannot be closed” – they are determined that no such debate should take place in their own countries and no one who holds a different view should be allowed into their episcopate 
What is more they are willing to destroy the Anglican Communion to ensure this.