kendall,

did you mean murmur? mumur is not a word.

The ACC group will love it.

I expect that it will not fly with orthodox Primates.

Yes, Kendall, they have hushed their clarion cry for justice.  Tsk.

But the essential message is quite the same as what has been said before.  This does not represent any actual change in direction for TEC, and if I am not mistaken, real change is the bottom line of what was being asked for by the Primates.

It will be particularly interesting to see what Archbp Rowan makes of this—will we have to wait until he comes out of his sabbatical to find out?

As somone said on Stand Firm: Common Cause, here we come.

Whatever organizational outcome results, I suspect we have seen the high water mark of of theological liberalism in American Anglicanism.

It means ‘NO’.

#1, thanks for the correction.  I am multitasking and failing.

You need to parse this out.

What did TEC give up (realistically speaking)?
1. Any fudging on B-033 until 2009.  But note that they can still use B-033 as a weapon against the orthodox.
2. Officially approved SSB liturgies.

That is all that TEC gave up.

What did TEC not give up?
1. Rescinding B-033 at GC 2009.
2. Permitting SSB’s using existing or ad hoc liturgies not officially authorized.  In other words, Bishop X can say “I authorize you to do SSB’s, I just don’t authorize the specific liturgy you use.”
3. Any sort of meaningful AEO for orthodox dioceses or parishes.

I really don’t see how this can be interpreted in any way other then a sound rejection of the requests made in the Dar Es Salaam Communique.

Kendall, I rather liked “mumur.”  I think it’s a dandy word for a quietly uttered rumor, or perhaps one that’s not quite understandable—as in, “There’s a mumur that the bishops know that the best this can do is keep them in the club until the next Lambeth Conference.”

If ++KJS can call off the anguished cries for full inclusion of GLBTs as bishops until GC09 then she gets the invite to Lambeth tea, +Robinson fully participating, with plenty of room caused by the empty seats of Global South bishops and (newly former) TEC bishops whose conscience won’t bear going along with the farce.  And ++KJS had the colossal gall to call everyone to meet at the foot of the cross of Jesus who she clearly sees as optional!  I noticed that questions at the press conference were cut off shortly after her pathetic non-answer to the reporter’s question: “Just what have you sacrificed?”

The Anglican Communion is dead!  Long live the (new) Anglican Communion!

I think this will be enough for the ABC, which is all that we revisionists need to get by.  As for the GS, I hope that they choose to live with this.  However, this should keep TEC the true Anglican province in the US.

I’m reaching for the duck tape to wrap around my head before it explodes—these guys give me a headache telling the larger Communion essentially that they will still be coming over for dinner at Canterbury, but they refuse to bring the wine and salad they were asked to contribute…yet they will be bringing their little ill-mannered friend they were asked to leave at home…

Of course it will be enough for +++Rowan Williams, who practically begged for this tray of Anglican fudge from the tried and true recipe.  At least now his reappraiser clergy won’t revolt and the US$ will keep on flowing to COE, at least until the endowments run dry from funding empty TEC buildings.

And…by the way…don’t any you Communion bishops even think about coming over to our house—we don’t want you stopping by for any reason…

Your can wrap the cow manure in a pretty ribbon and spray it with whipped cream but it is still s—t.

I think our blessed Lord is going to give TEC just what it wants. If TEC wants to drink this cup of iniquity, then God will make them drink it all the way to the bottom, to the last bitter drop. It starts out tasting sweet but it will be a bitter drink by the time they hit the dregs.

Usually, I don’t doublepost, but I feel strongly about this one.
Hope you don’t mind, if so, the elves are free to deal with it:

Posted in our group:
Having been glued to SF and T19 all day, and waiting for the least bit of news, I’ve had some time to think.. There is no question that some Bishops defend SSB’s under the heading of “Pastoral care for Lesbians and Gays”.  And of course, now there is at least a suggestion that if they are going to continue (the clergy) doing them, for “heavens sake” not in PUBLIC.

Lets see how that works out for other sins:

Alcoholism: If you do drink, don’t drink in public.

Gluttony:  Overeat if you want, but NOT in public

Wife-beating:  For goodness sake, NOT in public, and make sure she
doesn’t go public either. Be careful if you beat the kids, they’ll
probably tell.

Stealing:  Only from friends and family who will not go public.

Lying:  Remember to keep your stories straight.  Be careful in
choosing a confessor, be sure you can trust him.

Murder:  DO not get caught.

I know, there are many, many more, but what a good deal for some folk.
No repentance, no trying to do better, no fighting the battles against
evil after all, God love you just the way you are????

Just be sure and don’t do your “thing” in PUBLIC..

Blessings,
gloria

Anyone besides me wondering why none of the Windsor Bishops stood up and opposed this?

I think it’s a good result!  Even if they would have taken Gene Robinson out and burned him at the stake, I’m sure many folks would still be unhappy.  No glbt is going to get approved consents to be Bishop - won’t happen for a while.  One may well be nominated, but not going to get the consents.  That “should” appeal to the ABC.  However, if we listen to +Orombi, the Archbishop and Canterbury really don’t even matter anymore.

“Is the leadership of the Episcopal Church going to be honest about what they really believe and are doing or will they hide behind an institutional and verbal smokescreen?”

I don’t think you can look for “honesty” in this sense in a corporate statement. After all, even the revered DES statement turns out to be full of wiggle room—as well it might, given that it had to be agreed to by people who basically disagree on lots of things.

In the same way, the HoB is not of one mind. There are bishops who would gladly agree to everything in DES, there are “Windsor Bishops”, there are bishops who wouldn’t agree to anything in DES. “The leadership of the Episcopal Church” is all over the map, just as the Primates of the AC are.

To call for “honesty” in a statement that has to be agreed to by people all along the spectrum is itself rhetorical and basically disingenuous.

Like the DES statement, this is finely tuned to be something everyone can agree to, and probably reflects the actual deep thinking of precisely nobody. Isn’t that always the case with a statement of a body of people?

A wise man once said, “Make your early evaluations tentatively. ‘It seems to be saying that,’ ‘what I hear the statement saying is,’ are the kinds of things I would prefer to hear.”

Oh, well!

Mark the many people wont be happy line is a diversion and a non sequitur. first, this is not about many people it is about Dr. Williams and the primates.  Second, no one wants what you claim to say they want to happen to occur.

What frauds.
Real flower boys and girls of the sixties would never consider going across town in a bus with Rosa Parks seated in the back; but, they are ready for the Buckingham Palace Tea Party (even asking about costs, subsidies, etc) while VGR’s place is up for grabs.  They hope VGR will be there somehow—carrying the luggage? Shining the shoes?  Pouring the tea?  Reals flower boys and girls of the sixties would be organizing the bus boycott.  Racism! Classism!  Justice!  Bishop Doss, call your office…ooo…sorry….you don’t have one.
What frauds.

Mark in #18, I disagree.  At one point the draft has this language in it: some same sex blessings occur in some dioceses.  That is a way of being corporately honest.  It is doable.  It was not done here.

One question for re-asserters: How could TEC bishops assure the Primates that SSBs are not happening, unless the bishops commit to presenting any priest who does one? And unless other bishops commit to presenting any bishop who fails to present priests for doing so?

Can we do better than the present statement without setting up a inquisitorial process to discipline loads of clergy in the most liberal dioceses?

Today is my 59th birthday. I returned home from a nice dinner to read this. It’s a good thing I didn’t overeat and brought home half of the food, otherwise - I may be nauseous, but NOT surprised.

I just caught something reading jamesw in 6: When Bishops allow ssbs but don’t authorize the liturgy, all manner of union liturgies can go on. If this is really how it is, the bishops have abdicated oversight in one of the most difficult areas of moral decision facing the Anglican Communion.

It is interesting that the GLBT organization is called “Integrity.”  I agree with Kendall—integrity is what is lost here.  The HOB hasn’t budged an inch, won’t do what the Primates requested, but won’t come out and say so.  And on the other side, if the African Primates accept this, they will lose their own integrity and the trust of their churches.  ++Anis testified movingly at the meeting about the damage caused already in his Province by TEC’s actions.

Lord have mercy on us all.

Of course it is designed to be read anyway one wishes…it will be interesting to see what the press makes of it…a seeming 11th hour compromise that is really an affirmation of the status quo.

It appears to me that the labels have undergone a major transposition. Those who used to call themselves reasserters hinged their hope on a reappraisal by the good bishops. It did not happened.  Rather, Bishops reasserted their positions that were in place prior to the gatherin’ in the Big Easy.

“Mark in #18, I disagree.  At one point the draft has this language in it: some same sex blessings occur in some dioceses.  That is a way of being corporately honest.  It is doable.  It was not done here.”

Ok, Kendall, I’ll grant that. They could have been more forthcoming about “fact on the ground”. But, why did the DES statement put it in terms of “public rites”? Because that is what the Primates could agree on—that was the mind of the body, even if it was not the mind of most (or perhaps any) of the individuals. I can’t really fault the HoB for replying in the terms they were given—they do, after all, want to remain in communion with most of the Primates, and most (but not all) of the Primates want to remain in communion with them (which is why they offered the “public rites” language in the first place).

No mark they did not do what they said you did.  That is why they specifically used the language of local pastoral provision.

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=17915

Jim Workman,

You are dead on.  It is the inability of TEC to discipline that has caused us to get where we are, and the liturgy of the church is no different.  Under this plan, priests in the diocese can continue to do whatever they want, as long as the Bishop does not have to sanction the “rite” as an official “rite.”

I remember, just before the split, when Bishop Howard came to St. John’s in Tallahassee and told us, in effect, that the bishops asked what’s the bare minimum that each bishop could take back to his people.  I just have to wonder if that is what happened here.  I would image that some in the HoB are thinking - we did just enough to satisfy the letter of the DES requirements, and the revisionists will be happy because they can go on with their blessings, as long as the bishops don’t have to officially sanction the rite.

This is consequentialism at its best.  Rather that sit down and look at the issue and doing what is right morally, the House seems to be looking to minimize the effects of what they have done without actually deciding they are wrong - they are focused on what they think are the consequences.  History tells us that this is not the proper way to react to a situation, and I think that history will not look kindly on the moment that we are currently in.

“No mark they did not do what they said you did. “

(You’re right—it was the Windsor report that introduced the “public rites” language, footnoted by DES). Sorry.

Does anyone remember the article about manipulation of the ABC that was published in the C of E Newspaper about a month ago?  It can be found on Stand Firm here

And Truth Unites gave a great link to the Delphi Process delphi.

Bishop Ackerman was right in his observations highlighted in the comments on the old thread.  And, for a quick rundown on what Delphi is all about, try this from Wikipedia:

“Sociologists discovered that the averaged opinion of a mass of equally expert or equally ignorant observers is quite a bit more reliable a predictor than the opinion of a single randomly-chosen one of the observers.”

Brian from T19:  I wouldn’t be so quick to make that judgment.  The fact of the matter is that the primates will not be satisfied with this.  TEC has effectively stated that SSB’s will continue and that there will be no relief at all for conservative parishes and dioceses.

If Rowan accepts this with no further action, it is pretty clear that the larger group of GS primates (probably including Gomez) will back continued intervention in TEC.  The law suits and litigation will continue.  No, if Rowan accept this without further action, he will have cut out from under him any credibility he might have had.

There are many options open to Rowan between doing nothing and declaring that TEC has “walked apart.”  As Dr. Seitz has said, the real show is not what happens in NOLA, but rather what takes place afterwards.  The real questions now include:

1. Will the CA bishops issue a minority report?  Not likely it seems.
2. How will the ACN bishops respond?
3. How will the fed-conn ACN bishops respond?
4. How will the ABC poll the primates?
5. Will there now be a Primates meeting to respond?
6. Will this affect the Lambeth invites?

I hope that this means that SSBs will be relegated to private pastoral response and not public rites. It may not.

“Just what have you sacrificed?”
The presiding bishop’s response to this question indicated that the leaders of TEC don’t know what the word “sacrifice” means. I am left to wonder why a church that bills itself, again and again, as prophetic will not boldly own its own “prophecy.” Too great a sacrifice? The prophecy not sufficient in itself?

This is a clear “no” and the Primates will treat it as such.  And I don’t know that we really care what the ABC says.  He gave the TEC a pass two days ago.  The interventions will continue and TEC can’t stop them.

Initial Comment on the House of Bishops Statement from New Orleans

On a first reading, this statement is very significant and seems to go further and be more encouraging than many conservatives thought to be likely. The Presiding Bishop, and others who have worked hard with her from various traditions, deserve thanks for gathering support for an almost unanimous statement.

Moratorium on Consecration of people living in same sex unions. It clarifies the surprising last minute resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 by saying:

The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.

This seems to make The Episcopal Church compliant with The Windsor Report concerning a moratorium on the consecrations of people living in same-sex unions.

Blessing of Same-Sex Unions . The pledge on ‘not authorising any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action’ is important and welcome. However it still seems to allow space for private, unofficial pastoral services of blessing, in a minority of dioceses - this is implied in the statement that the majority of bishops ‘do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions’. It also interestingly adds ‘...or until General Convention takes further action’, which stresses the autonomy of TEC polity.

Episcopal Visitors. The pastoral scheme proposed by the Primates’ Meeting at Dar es Salaam is not accepted but in its place the Presiding Bishop’s Episcopal Visitors scheme is suggested with further consultation in the Communion. Nothing official has been announced about this scheme, but it is understood to include about eight bishops. The statement refers to The Windsor Report: ‘We believe this plan is consistent with and analogous to Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) as affirmed by the Windsor Report (paragraph 152). This may well work, but we shall have to see.

Trans-Communion Consecrations. The Archbishop of Canterbury stated that he preferred a local solution to the need to provide Episcopal Pastoral Oversight in the USA - an implied contrast to the recent consecrations of Americans in African provinces to serve in the USA. The House of Bishops are in accord with the Archbishop’s statement - and express their feelings more forthrightly.

Listening Process. It is good to see that the statement encourages further conversations in this process.

Lambeth Conference. The Bishops hope that the Bishop of New Hampshire will be given a full invitation, but note the change in wording from, ‘the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to explore a way for him to participate’ to ‘It is our fervent hope that a way can be found for his full participation.’ It seems to me more likely that he may be invited for a particular session rather than have a full invitation, but we shall see.

Protection against violence towards Gay and Lesbian People. This strong statement, echoing similar ones from the Primates’ Communique, is to be welcomed.

The Windsor Report and the Covenant Process. There is a very significant sentence in the paragraph headed ‘Incursions by Uninvited Bishops’, which should not be overlooked and which reads:

As we continue to commit ourselves to honor both the spirit and the content of the Windsor Report ...’.

This is very important, even if, interestingly, the Covenant process was not mentioned at all…

So, in all, rather a refreshing and surprising end to the House of Bishops meeting. Sadly, it is unlikely to stop between three and five dioceses attempting to split off from The Episcopal Church in the near future, and to come under the jurisdiction of an African province. But encouragingly, it may well satisfy the majority of the Primates, and lead to larger-than-many-expected Lambeth Conference.

Canon Harmon - While I think you’re right to bemoan the seeming loss of nerve by the House of Bishops, I cannot help being hopeful (mindful that hope is not optimism), even after reading the document over twice.  Frankly, my first reaction is relief, tinged with great sadness.  The loss of my friend Jeffrey Steenson as a bishop in our church is a heavy, heavy blow.  Still, the specific clarifications requested by the Primates at Dar es Salaam (with the worrisome albeit unsurprising caveat that the next General Convention may upend everything) appear to these eyes to have been made.  I cannot help hoping that defending the refusal to change the definition of marriage to accommodate same-sex couples will aid in convincing some of our bishops that such a refusal does no harm at all to persons afflicted with homosexuality.  I would expect our reappraiser friends to feel that it is their cause which is being set back, however much the bishops may praise it with their lips.  The bishops’ hearts are obviously elsewhere.  And that I find very hopeful.  Same-sex blessings will still have to take place without the public imprimature so desperately sought by the homosexual movement - indeed I expect at any moment to start hearing the term “in the closet” to refer to the unofficial status of such rites.  How long will these folks continue to wait around for what remains continually “inevitable” but never seems to come to fruition?  The bishops have to defend this action.  If justice delayed is indeed justice denied, how long before the movement’s sympathizers among the episcopate realize that in conceding to the Primates’ demands, they have not in the least thwarted justice, that they have not delayed it, that justice has nothing to do with retaining the traditional definition of marriage?  They may well be bears of very little brain, but how long before the rightness of this action, and not just its expediancy, begins to dawn on at least some of them?

#36 Brother Michael observes that the interventions will continue.
I am curious about the phrases regarding communion-wide consultation, specifically: we recognize a useful role for communion-wide consultation with respect to the pastoral needs of those seeking alternative oversight, as well as the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons in this and other provinces.
So, if incursions continue within the United States, will there not also be a justification for incursions on the part of TEC into other provinces to be responsive to the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons?

If Rowan accepts this with no further action, it is pretty clear that the larger group of GS primates (probably including Gomez) will back continued intervention in TEC.  The law suits and litigation will continue.  No, if Rowan accept this without further action, he will have cut out from under him any credibility he might have had.

The bottom line is that this will be good enough for ++Rowan.  I’m not saying that the GS will be happy.  Certainly Nigeria will start its own church.  But the GS burned its bridges with ++Rowan a long time ago.  Whatever happens with the GS, TEC will remain in communion with Canterbury which, by definition, makes us Anglican.  Everyone else can do what they want, but now they will know that Canterbury and TEC are aligned and they have no hope of changing that.  In order to be consistent, the invaders would have to invade the CofE and that just shows that they are staying around for the name and not the principles they claim to believe.

I don’t believe the primates will find this acceptable. I DO believe that Chicago will soon have a lesbian bishop, and TEC will wring their collective hands, saying the PEOPLE chose and we can’t do a thing about it.

TEC will remain in communion with Canterbury which, by definition, makes us Anglican

Definitions do change….

Nick asks in #22,

Can we do better than the present statement without setting up a inquisitorial process ...

If the bishops simply said, “We will tell our clergy that SSBs are not authorized under any circumstances,” no inquisitorial process would be required.  A bishop may break his word to his fellows in the House, a priest may ignore an instruction from his bishop, these are both internal matters in the HoB and the diocese.  As to the Communion, remember what +Durham wrote just before GC06:

... there are questions already raised about whether a decision of General Convention would be able to bind those parts of ECUSA that have already stated their determination to press ahead in the direction already taken. But the Anglican principle of taking people to be in reality what they profess to be, until there is clear evidence to the contrary, must be observed.

I guess I’m not seeing the dishonesty that some others are seeing here.  The statement is pretty clear that

1.  General convention has not adopted an official rite for same-sex blessings.
2.  All of the bishops pledge to refrain from authorizing official rites for same sex-blessings within their own dioceses.
3.  Some, but not all, have gone further and will refuse to allow such blessings to take place within their dioceses.

This seems to be both clear and an honest statement of the facts on the ground within the Episcopal Church.  No fudge.

Of course, many people here—-and many of the Primates!—-won’t regard this as adequate (since they don’t think that the distinction between “official rites” and “allowed pastoral responses” carries all that much weight).  But there’s a big difference between being inadequate and being dishonest or unclear.  On the latter fronts, this statement looks pretty good.

Graham King posted “Listening Process. It is good to see that the statement encourages further conversations in this process”
Unfortunately the only ones that are required to listen are the reappraisers (orthodox) while the revisionists (liberals) continue to expound their views and refuse to listen at all to anyone other than themselves. I am tired of hearing we must listen.

Brian from T19:  You might be right that Rowan will break his word, ignore the primates, and lose the majority of the Anglican Communion.  But I think he won’t.

Nor do I think he will declare TEC out of communion with him (but then again, I never thought he would do so immediately).  Clearly his response will depend in large part on what Gomez, Venables, Annis and perhaps Aspinall say to him.

I think that what will happen is that the slow path of TEC’s disengagement from the Anglican Communion will continue.  Rowan Williams will put his finger to the wind to determine how the “moderate conservative” primates feel and then he will either take a big step down the path of TEC’s disengagement or a small one.  But it will be a step in that direction.

In all seriousness, I believe the word Kendall was looking for was “mummer” a person who wears a mask or fantastic costume while merrymaking.  From the looks of things, that pretty much sums up all that happened at the HOB meeting.  Also I would not expect a minority report from the Windsor Bishops; they have been clear about where they stand.  Why should they waste time ane energy replying to the HOB’s clap-trap?

TEC will remain in communion with Canterbury which, by definition, makes us Anglican

Definitions do change….

Sherri, seriously, how can the definition of Anglican change?  How is that possible?

I think that what will happen is that the slow path of TEC’s disengagement from the Anglican Communion will continue.  Rowan Williams will put his finger to the wind to determine how the “moderate conservative” primates feel and then he will either take a big step down the path of TEC’s disengagement or a small one.  But it will be a step in that direction.

But James, what is the incentive for the “moderate conservative” or conservative to continue on the path to TEC’s disengagement?  From all indications, the ABC has no intentions to disengage quickly.  Even if we agree he did, quick to him would most likely be 10 years (Lambeth 2018).  So how can the “true believers” hold on for that long?  There is no end in sight.

FWIW, here’s the post I made on my own blog about this.

I cannot understand how Graham Kings (#37) can be so sanguine about this statement.  It is clear that the Communiqué language of stopping the ‘local provision’ finds no place in the HoB statement, and their admission that several dioceses do—and will continue to—tolerate as much is nothing short of walking a part from the Communion.  In fact, they seem to imply they are biding their time until GC ‘09 to repeal B033 and get on with endorsing SSB rites (that is certainly Integrity’s plan and we all know that what Integrity wants, Integrity gets because “it’s a justice issue”). 

All that alone constitutes great grounds for concern, does it not?  How can that be so easily accepted by the primates and the basis for a “larger-than-many-expected Lambeth Conference”?  On my reading, this statement ramps up the pressure on the ABC to do something on behalf of the primates, because it is clear that TEC will only comply so far with Communion-wide teaching.

#44
The HoB knew the Primates were asking specifically about “allowed pastoral responses.”  They knew the primates were not asking about “official rites.”

They gave an answer that concerned “official rites.”

What reason for doing this could there be, other than intentional obfuscation?

FWIW, I’ve got more comment here.

Brian:  What is the incentives for both the ABC and the moderate conservative primates to act?

1. For the ABC, does he want his legacy to be that he lost the majority of the Anglican Communion on his watch?
2. For both ABC and primates, American arrogance.
3. For both ABC and primates, today it is SSB’s, in 2009 it will be non-celibate homosexual bishops.  After that it will be _____________ (fill in the blank).  I am quite sure Rowan Williams knows that as the conservative ballast keeps fleeing TEC and the nutjobs keep moving up in positions of power, TEC will not stop here.
4. For both ABC and primates, in light of #3, if they do not act now, when TEC has blatantly “dissed” them, then why would they think that TEC, Nigeria or Uganda ever take them seriously again?

JamesW in #54 is quite right—if ECUSA isn’t disciplined in a meaningful way purely for its duplicity, the Communion is fatally wounded, since it would have demonstrated that not only are Lambeth resolutions meaningless, a Province need not even meet minimal standards of honorable behavior to keep its membership.

++Anis and ++Aspinall both repeatedly emphasized honesty, trust, and honor in their remarks; I doubt that that was coincidence.

Anyone who claims this is automatically enough for the ABC is just being foolish. He was very accepting at the press conference for a reason. No ultimatum, growing realization of TEC polity and position on baptismal Covenant, etc. He wanted TEC to clearly state their position or recant and they did neither. They just threw this back in his lap and I’m sure that is the last thing he wanted. I think this is RW’s biggest frustration with this process. The GS may aggravate him but at least everyone knows where they stand. TEC just look like hypocrites.
What’s the point of keeping hypocrites at the table even if you agree with them? No one will trust them.

As +Aspinall asked the HOB…“How are we supposed to trust your word?????”

Let’s cut to the chase here.  The whole episcopal consecration/ssb thing is like sleight-of-hand.  What we reasserters really wanted but did not say in understandable language is no, I say again, NO ordination, consecration or licensing of any non-celibate person to any order of ministry whatsosever: bishop, priest, deacon, lay eucharistic visitor, lay eucharistic minister, lector or intercessor.  The language does not forbid SSBs; it speaks of “public rites”, when it should prohibit any and all forms of SSBs, to include “individual pastoral care.”  Let your yes be yes, your no be no.  I realize that Anglicans in general prefer ambiguity, unlike some of us who grew up in other denominations, but so long as we wallow in waffling, dithering ambiguity we will be a shrinking denomination and eventually a dying sect, on the order of a debating society.  If we haven’t the courage of our convictions to stand up and practice a muscular Christianity, then we deserve what we get.

James

1. He doesn’t have a choice.  Either TEC goes or the GS goes.  Whtehr it is a majority or minority, the split is still a significant diminishing on his watch.
2. How does letting TEC slowly disengage stem American arrogance.  In fact, it would inflate it.
3. Your assumption here is that ++Rowan (or any of the other first world church leaders for that matter) disagree with TEC’s theology.  We know that they don’t.  ++Rowan has as much as admitted that he is going against personal beliefs because he sees his role as upholding communion teaching.  To assume that the ABC agrees theologically with the non-First World Primates is a misunderstanding.
4. Again, you are assuming that the ABC’s theology is in disagreement with TEC’s AND that he cares about Nigeria’s opinion of him.

++Rowan leads by inaction.  He sees inaction as much less offensive than action.  So he would see it as an action taken by the GS to remove itself from the AC rather than something they were forced to do as a result of TEC.  He may be incorrect, but this has been the pattern of his “leadership.”  He told TEC there was no deadline!  Who’s side do you think he is on?

Craig and Rocks

You’re right about duplicity and the HoB is not being completely honest.  Where I think you are wrong is that the ABC cares about duplicity.  He has shown again and again that his leadership style is appeasement.  He is much more concerned with the niceties than with the honesty issue.  This is why he is much more a Chamberlain than a Churchhill and why he will appease TEC and lose a large portion of the AC.

#52

I think there are are two answers to that question (and that those answers were playing different roles in different bishop’s individual deliberations).

1.  The primates asked them to say something about single-sex blessings.  They weren’t in a position to issue a common statement about “allowed pastoral responses” (since it’s not something that they can all agree on).  But they wanted to say something in common to show their good faith in the discussion.  Since they could agree to refrain from “official rites”—-and, let’s be clear, some of the liberal bishops will view that in itself as a *big* concession—-they thought it was worth saying.

2.  I think that many of the bishops believe that the primates themselves are divided about these issues.  Certainly the GS bishops want a moratorium on *any* same-sex blessings and not just on “officially authorized rites.”  But I’d guess that many primates (Wales, Canada, etc.) would be be quite happy with a simple moratorium on “official rites” and wouldn’t demand a prohibition on more-private forms of blessing.  Given this, there’s a real point in saying something to satisfy those latter bishops, even if you know that it won’t also be enough to satisfy members of the GS.

Let me emphasize, here, that if *all* that the bishops had said was “no officially authorized rites” while just crossing their fingers and hoping that no one would notice the difference between “officially authorized rites” and “allowed pastoral responses,” then I’d agree that there’s something pretty fudgy about the statement.  But as their statement actually reads, the distinction between these two things is right there in the text, along with an admission that only some (well, the majority) are willing to sign onto a moratorium on the latter.

An analogy may be helpful here.  Suppose you ask me to spend a week helping you fix up your house. If I say “sure, I’ll help you” while thinking “what I really mean is that I’ll spend an afternoon helping you fix your car, but I won’t have anything to do with your house” then I’m being fudgy and dishonest.  If I just say, “I’ll help with the car but not with the house,” then I’m not being fudgy (though I may not be giving you the answer you want). 

Of course, in the case at hand, you’re asking not asking a single person for help, but a whole group, and so their response turns out to be a little more complicated—-roughly,  “well, we can all spend an afternoon helping you with the car, but only some of us can put a week into the house.”  Again, this may not be the answer you’re hoping to hear, but it’s perfectly honest and straightforward.

Kendall, you think TEC believes something coherent?  Hm.  This is an intellectual challenge. 

Look, i don’t know about you, but people in my area are reading Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.  Until you tell me what you’d say to them, the bishop’s letter is a pretty good document for Christians to make for other Christians.  At least we’re speaking this language.  In my world, where I engage non-believers actively, talking about how the bible hates homosexuals just indicates poor education, lunacy and a deep seated anger, if not sexual repression.

Brian you could be right but I doubt you will see RW happy about this or trumpeting it. At most he will shake his head and bemoan the lack of clarity and then consult the Primates and announce since there is such confusion the only answer is for everyone to come to Lambeth and discuss this.  Which means it’s picking up the pieces time.

John Wilkins [#61], that’s the most disappointing thing about The Current Disputes: We’re spending disgraceful quantities of time, talent, and treasure on fighting amongst ourselves, instead of on reaching out to non-believers and doubters.

John Wilkins,
Please, we are trying to have a constructive conversation here.

To return to a more fruitful discussion: Kendall, mumur is a word to keep, and I think the definition is correct.
  However, murmur backwards is rumrum, also a good word, defined as a whispered assent to an untenable or unsavory proposition,e.g., “a rumrum has been heard suggesting that the ABC will invite VGR.”  LM

Graham Kings,

May I please have some of what you’ve been smoking?

Rocks,

Sorry… 

Thje problem is,#61, that no one here or in the Anglican world, ever looks outside at the real world.
To be an Anglican apparently means that one is inward facing at all times, like a small town with only gossip to sustain itself. The notion that we should look beyond our own ingroup at the real world is heresy, and you will be damned or sent to New Jersey, whichever is worst.

  I suggested to th elves that they post the times article on the new program tht allows members to talk for free as long as their every word be eaves-dropped on, such that when keyed words occur in a conversation, specific advertising pops up on the screen. This SHOULD be horrifying, the next step in conditionening the Ideal Consumer. Twenty years ago, the notion of legal commercial voyeurism would have created a storm. Now, Brave New World being upon us, no one, especially Anglicanism, bothers to pay the least attention. The technological world is stripping the individual naked of his privacy, and T19 can’t even begin to listen, but repeats itself, without profit, over and over. See all the chatter above. The real world is bearing down on us like a freight train, and we hve yet to look at the track.  Larry

Brian:

Actually, I am well aware where Rowan Williams theology is.  I would not say it is in line with the TEC (I have heard those who know Rowan say he thinks American TEC liberals are flakey), but nor is it in line with the GS.

Nor is this a case of all of TEC vs. all of the GS “leaving” the Communion.  The GS will not leave the “Anglican Communion” per se.  They will recognize it as being defacto the Anglican Federation and they will treat it as such.  There will be no discipline or ordered unity in the Anglican Federation.  The GS will undertake 2 initiatives:

1. They will continue working to build a political group within the Anglican Federation to return it to being the Anglican Communion once again.
2. They will create a replacement Province in North America.

The GS will ignore Rowan Williams for all intents and purposes but they will not leave the Anglican Communion.  Rowan Williams will have no moral authority whatsoever.  This is what I mean by Rowan losing the GS.

On the flip side, Rowan can respond to TEC very differently.  He can withdraw Lambeth invitations from any bishop who does not comply with Dar.  By that I mean, if there is any bishop who permits SSB’s and who does not generously permit TEC’s DEPO plan, that bishop would have his or her invitation withdrawn.  He can appoint a Pastoral Council to oversee all of this.

Will he?  I don’t know.  I agree that Rowan’s past behavior indicates that he likes to follow the path of least resistance.  The question as I see it now is what will the path of least resistance be for him?  And that neither you nor I know.

Greg,
No sweat…;) Jokes I can take any time.
It’s the obtuse statements that get me.

...to honor both the SPIRIT and the content of the Windsor Report…
Can anyone seriously believe that there is an intent to honor the spirit, when it’s hotly debated whether this even complies with the letter?

TEC acts like a little boy who is told not to cross a line. When scolded for putting his toe across the line, he replies, “But I (my body) didn’t cross the line, only my toe.”

The only thing encouraging today is the surprising number of reappraisers who also lament the disingenuous or even outright dishonest (ala Bruno) response. Now that TEC has broken the cookie jar, we will have to see where the pieces fall and how many can bwe put back together.

Did the Camp Allen bishops who didn’t leave for Pittsburgh pass the Latimer and Ridley test? Is this the “hard work” that Seitz-ACI has been talking about, to collude with the likes of Bruno to create this compromise of principles? Is there going to be a minority report? Who cares? The vote apparently was unanimous save one. No one even asked for a roll call vote. Dissenting reports are written by those who do not vote with the majority.

What cowardice. I feel sorry for those who have put their trust in those who have proven themselves not worthy, Brad Drell in MacPherson’s Western Louisiana and Kendall Harmon in Stanton’s South Carolina, etc.

Ahh, but this is despair. How about the opening of the Common Cause meeting? Did anyone see the gathering of truly Christian leaders focused on proclaiming the good news?

Bill said “...to honor both the SPIRIT and the content of the Windsor Report…
Can anyone seriously believe that there is an intent to honor the spirit, when it’s hotly debated whether this even complies with the letter?”

I think these “spirit of the WR” arguments are just wrong. The WR, like all the Primates’ statements, was written by people who wanted to say and accomplish different things. The reason there’s “wiggle room” in these documents is not that a bunch of incompetent writers couldn’t express what they meant, and so they accidentally left the way open for a bunch of cagey American lawyerly bishops to exploit the situation. They were carefully and competently written to say only what everybody could agree to, including people who wanted to invite TEC to remain in the conversation if TEC was willing to demonstrate it wanted to remain in the conversation.

If the spirit of the Primates were identical to the spirit of ++Peter Akinola, all of these documents would have been very different. But it’s not. The Primates as a body (including liberals and conservatives) were saying, “can you come at least this far?” and the HoB as a body (including liberals and conservatives) has said, “we can in good faith come this far.”

Nobody knows, for example, what will happen if Chicago elects a lesbian bishop (many think they know, but my guess is many of the bishops in the HoB don’t know what they’d do). For now, they’ve reaffirmed what was said at GC06. Jenkins and Chane both think it’s honest, which strikes me as a pretty good indication.

The Primates as a body (including liberals and conservatives) were saying, “can you come at least this far?” and the HoB as a body (including liberals and conservatives) has said, “we can in good faith come this far.”

And this HoB statement is clear and convincing evidence that never the twain shall meet.

John W (#61):

... talking about how the bible hates homosexuals just indicates poor education, lunacy and a deep seated anger, if not sexual repression.

And in my world, where I’m talking to believers and non-believers, most of whom have at least some rudimentary knowledge of elementary Christian teaching, for someone to say “the bible hates homosexuals”, failing to make both the distinction between inclination and activity and the distinction between sinner and sin, is simply ludicrous, particularly after nearly a decade of discussion in which both of these points have been talked to death.

But then, as you might guess, few of these folks are Terribly Modern Intellectual Episcopalians.

Faithful and Committed #39: “So, if incursions continue within the United States, will there not also be a justification for incursions on the part of TEC into other provinces to be responsive to the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons?”
I agree. The time has come.

Craig - that’s the problem.  I’m dealing with people who aren’t Christians, and know nothing about scripture and also believe that it teaches hatred of gay people.  That is what the Zeitgiest says Christians teach. 

Few people outside the church think the sinner/sin dichotomy is useful or true.  You are what you do.

John W #77—

Few people outside the church think the sinner/sin dichotomy is useful or true.  You are what you do.

Well, I would rather have thought that if that’s true, then all it means is that we have some evangelism to do, surprise surprise.  Few people outside the church think God is triune, either, or indeed agree with many of the basic factual claims of Christianity. 

But if “you are what you do”, then how is any sort of forgiveness—even in the casual secular sense—possible, since it would imply a (simply dreadful) rejection of someone’s “real self”?  How to explain all the pop psychology self-help books, since to change your behavior would be to deny your own “real self”?  Even the classical pagan philosophers realized that one’s values and ideals are an integral part of the personality, regardless of how well one lives up to them.

It hardly comes as a shock that the Zeitgeist is deeply confused.  Isn’t it our calling, though, to help straighten it out, one soul at a time?