The church is not a legal entity.  Though he obviously doesn’t realize it, once the writer starts talking in those terms to explain why ECUSA can do whatever it wants, he’s lost the argument - except in terms of a modern, secular, “rights” obsession frame of view.  But that’s what ECUSA is all about, anyway, so I guess this is to be expected.

Phil (#1) is completely right of course.

But I have a question.  Has any Anglican leader, conservative or liberal, TEC or not, written a piece in the last month arguing that what the ABC is doing is wrong because it is essentially encouraging more duplicity?  It’s likely that somebody has and I have just missed it.  (Been hard for me to follow everything recently.)

Because as I think about it, when is the last time that the ABC really went to bat for the traditionalist cause, urging all TEC bishops to vote a certain way.  Why, it was at GC 2006 over B003.  There was no question that no kind of Windsor Compliance was going to pass then.  But then in the last hours the ABC agitated, he got KJS to agitate for it, and eventually a very lame gesture was barely passed, which manifestly did NOT represent the mind of TEC.

In short, he said: “please PLEASE say anything that will deceive the Communion for a few more years about your intentions.”  And with great reluctance, through clenched teeth and and out of fear of not getting to go to more tea parties at Lambeth, an ambiguous lame statement was passed.

Can anyone really say that TEC traditionalists need that kind of help again?  Do we really need another year or two of lying?  Can we honestly deny that what would have been much better for everyone is if TEC had thoughtfully and gently and UNAMBIGUOUSLY sat down in 2006 and stated that they completely rejected all terms of the Windsor Report—that gay weddings were already going on in TEC parishes, more were going to happen, more gay bishops would no doubt be elected in the coming few years, and frankly didn’t regret doing any of that?

So what I think the ABC does need to be doing is urging an end to deception.  He should urge that all bishops and standing committees vote in a way that honestly reflects their views on the fitness of Mary G to be a bishop.

The real shame of course is the unwillingness of the AC to show TEC the door.  If TEC does not want to be in the AC that’s fine, but this is another example of TEC wanting to be in the AC while telling the AC to mind its own business.

Poor recollection of the bombastic HOB letter, 2007.  They really waved the flag there in New Orleans for Female Parental Unit, the symbolic cloth representation of the USA, and encrusted baked apple bits with sugar and spice and everything relative.  This guy can’t hold a candle to the HOB Declaration Of Non-interdependence, Non-mutuality, Non-subsidiarity, Non-mutual submission and Non-collegiality. 

He does however clearly demonstrate the ugly American mindset is alive and well in the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC.

The article’s author wants to remain part of the AC but also tell the AC
to keep its nose out of TEC business. This is having one’s cake and
eating it, too.