As I commented elsewhere, this is a very disappointing response from an allegedly moderate evangelical bishop of the C of E. The situation calls for decisive action, not delay. As a “fulcrum” exponent, he could have used his leverage to advance orthodoxy in North American Anglicanism. He has chosen not to do so and has therefore, in my view, lost much of his credibility as an Anglican leader.

The word “bold” and Graham Kings should not occur in the same sentence. Why does Bishop Kings tie everything to the election and consecration of Ms Glasspool. There were three moratoria called for: 1) no new homosexual bishops, 2) No SSUB’s, 3) No cross border interventions.

How many dioceses are now proceeding with officially sanctioned SSUB’s? Massachusetts, Connecticut, LA, Western Missouri, Arizona, Maine, Bethlehem, Newark, New York, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Spokane, Southern Ohio, Washington, Colorado, Northern California, Oregon, New Hampshire (performed by Gene, himself),...(see here for a list as of last November).

Yet, Bishop Kings seeks to delay the CoE proposal about recognition of the ACNA till after the Glasspool consecration. This is just diversionary delay. Rowan would be proud.

I am not sure what cessation of cross border interventions actually means. Does it mean that the ACNA should close shop? (I am sure that PB Schori agrees with this.) Does it mean that the ACNA should renounce ties with provinces that helped give it birth? Should clergy of the ACNA sever their ties with foreign provinces. I think that most people - other than PB Schori - think that a bishop of one province can serve in another province or in the case of the ACNA, an extra communion structure without having to renounce one’s orders.

Add North Carolina to your list, robroy #2.

Formal recognition of the new province would greatly accelerate the shedding of supervision by offshore provinces.  If that is what is wanted, recognition is the way to accomplish it.

The global south primates will, I suspect, rightly take the failure to pass the resolution to be in communion with the ACNA, most of whose bishops are bishops in their provinces, and many of whose clergy are clergy in their provinces, as a vote of the CoE to be out of communion with them as well.

This is, of course, exactly what TEC wishes Synod to do.  Effectively kick out Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Southern Cone and all the rest of the troublemakers.  Egypt too, now.  And so the communion devolves into two parts, with a whimper, not a bang.

So if the communion resolution does not pass, likely, by the time Glasspool is approved and the global south primates meet, Kings’, Williams’ and Schori’s vision of an exclusive UK-TEC communion sans evangelicals, anglo-catholics and the global south will be well on the way.

Katherine (#3), to be honest, I got tired of writing. I am fairly sure that it would be easier at this point to list the dioceses that are notproceeding with officially sanctioned SSUB’s. Yet Graham Kings simply ignores this.

Graham Kings said this?
“Kings’, Williams’ and Schori’s vision of an exclusive UK-TEC communion sans evangelicals, anglo-catholics and the global south will be well on the way.”
BTW, +Rowan’s address is now appearing on line.

Submitted to the Fulcrum site, but I think these folks are probably busy with Synod business, as it seems to be delayed in posting:

Dear Graham,

I read with interest your interview with the Church of England Newspaper.  For your consideration and that of Fulcrum readers, especially Synod members:

1.  The Church of England is in communion with those churches as determined by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (see Canons, p 208).  The resolution before the Synod is therefore appropriate, while the amended resolution is not.  The resolution states the desire to be in communion, which would leave it to the Archbishops to decide.  The amended resolution asks the Archbishops to report to Synod, which is inappropriate given the decision making process.

2.  The Church of England is in communion with member churches of the Anglican Communion, but also with other categories of churches, such as Extra-Provincial Dioceses (eg, Bermuda), United Churches incorporating former Anglican churches (eg, South India), Churches signing the Porvoo Declaration, and Old Catholic Churches of the Union of Utrecht.  The resolution before the Synod thus does not imply membership in the Anglican Communion, but an affirmation of common theology.  Synod members might ask if they share the same theology as the Anglican Church of North America, which affirms the doctrinal basis of the Church of England (Articles of Religion, BCP and Ordinal), noting that the Episcopal Church views these as historical documents with no authority in matters of doctrine. 

3.  The Church of England is in communion with Churches which have overlapping jurisdictions with both Church of England and Episcopal Church dioceses (for instance, in Germany, there are parishes of the Church of England, of the Convocation of the Episcopal Churches in Europe, and the Old Catholics).  Also, some Extra-Provincial churches are under the authority of other metropolitans, such as the Episcopal Church of Cuba, whose Metropolitan authority consists of the Archbishop of Canada, of the West Indies and the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.  Special circumstances of Gospel need helped pave a way for special consideration of being in communion.  The Gospel need of Anglican ministers in Canada and the States should result in positive encouragement rather than a “we will wait and see if you survive” posture.

4.  Your stance is that the Covenant is the only path to follow.  I suggest that wisdom and prudence may dictate that a parallel course should be followed, that of encouraging the ministry of Anglicans with whom Synod members share the same theology.   As the Episcopal Church weakens and hemorrhages members, while the ACNA grows through proclamation of the Gospel, can we not envisage a day when the member province of the Anglican Communion (TEC) and the extra-provincial member church (ACNA) become a united church?  This would seem to be Paul’s hope in Romans 9-11, that those who reject the truth that is their heritage would be jealous because of the Gospel growth of the new upstarts.  This has at least as much biblical warrant as a course which does little to encourage the ministry of the Gospel but merely indicates the circumstanceswhen one church will be bid farewell by the others.

5.  I note that your only statement about the beliefs of the dominant majority in the Episcopal Church is that they are unAnglican (as regards sexuality).  The Episcopal Church stated that these matters do not touch on core doctrine (in the trial of Bishop Richter), and it moves forward with the decisions of General Convention in continued disobedience to scripture and the pleas of the Anglican Communion.  I am ignorant of what hints among the Episcopal Church bishops and the Presiding Bishop indicate they will begin to turn from their stated course of action.  Or on what basis you predict the Primates will not welcome the Presiding Bishop into their midst beyond 2011.  The track record is this:  at Lambeth/Primates’ Meetings/ACC, declare fidelity to the Communion, then at General Convention and in practice, do the exact opposite. 

Graham and Synod members, will you please consider that the ACNA is not asking anyone to turn their backs on those who have chosen to remain in the Episcopal Church.  In fact, here in my own context in Manhattan, I initiated fellowship opportunities for Episcopal and Anglican clergy, and we have jointly sponsored a  ministry conference attended by Episcopal and Anglican clergy.  The Episcopal clergy find diocesan events so alienating and dispiriting that these prove to be a balm to them.  We support them in their witness, will you not support us in ours?

In Christ’s service,
Clifford Swartz
ordained in York Diocese, serving in the USA
(http://www.christchurchnyc.com)

#6 - I believe I mispoke.  It certainly is Schori’s vision.  It is a vision apparently acceptable to Williams.  It is the foreseeable consequence of King’s position as expressed here, whether he wishes it to be or not.

“then it is difficult to see how she could, with integrity, still be a member of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion”

Hasn’t stopped her in the past - why would it now?

I ask the following question, and I would appreciate a straight and truthful answer from someone in authority in the Church of England:

Why would your House of Bishops refuse to acknowledge faithful Anglican Christians who have separated from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada for reasons of faith and morals as a province of the Communion?

Clifford Swartz at #7,

Thank you for a brilliant summary which should be required reading for anyone considering +Kings’ position.

It is difficult to see what sort of clarity or leadership +Kings brings to this current crisis. English evangelicals would be better served by other leaders…