I wonder if Peter Jenson (in Australia) has any clear idea about how TEC is organised; what it means to have diocesan canons; how this church emerged and developed from its colonial roots; how the Bishop of South Carolina is defending his actions and the logic of why that is so, given our diocesan structures; what it means for Dallas and CFL and W-LA and others to organise and adopt the covenant; what legal work is going on the turn back the tide in TX, SC, CA, VA; what it means actively to work to hold the line in their dioceses (calling it ‘patience’ seems almost pejorative in the light of PB/Beers) and what it means to speak of a ‘middle group’ (I’d call that group ‘diversity hopeful liberals’ as against the PB/Bruno type ‘all the way down liberals’)? Sometimes one wonders where people like Jensen get their information. I can’t imagine the Bishop of SC or CFL or Dallas or W-LA publishing a public statement presuming to advise or exhort those in Australia about the best way forward. I also seriously wonder if he knows enough about what forms resistance can take within the structures of TEC—witness the unfolding drama in SC.

For Heaven’s sake Dr. Seitz please give the Archbishop some credit.  He knows very well the structure of TEC and what it means to have diocesan canons.  He is also, I am sure, well aware of what is happening in South Carolina.  That he doesn’t see the solution to our Communion problem the same way as you does not make him ignorant nor does it cause him to shrink back from challenging those “forms of resistance” with another, perhaps better, option.

Committment to inside strategy produces a peculiar form of blindness, even in the glaring light of the glass pool reflection of EcUSA/TEc’s actions.

That someone not so blinded can see clearly and state the obvious - “It is now absolutely clear to all that the national Church itself has formally committed itself to a pattern of life which is contrary to Scripture. The election of Bishop Robinson in 2003 was not an aberration to be corrected in due course. It was a true indication of the heart of the Church and the direction of its affairs” - is NOT dependent upon polity, surely.

#2 I know Peter Jensen and it is precisely for this reason that I find his rermarks disappointing. And no, I do not believe he has a grasp of the reality of the situation for conservatives and judge his remarks ill-timed and uninformed.

Two things need to be made clear. First, that they are unambiguously opposed to a development which sanctifies sin and which is an abrogation of the word of the living God. Second, that they will take sufficient action to distance themselves from those who have chosen to walk in the path of disobedience.

ABp Jensen is advocating precisely what Bp Lawrence is doing and what Howe, Lillibridge, etc. are NOT doing. We have seen Windsor bishops whittled down to Camp Allen bishops to Camp Allen II bishops to Communion Partner bishops and now there is one: the +Mark Lawrence bishops.

I am relieved to learn from a private source that Peter Jenson was not referring to the CP Bishops, including those named in #5 above. His remarks were obviously interpreted in this way.