“It’s time,” the Primate said, “for this church of ours to celebrate the things that are holding us together and that continue to hold the Communion together.”

Those things better be the love of Christ and the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints. The things that will continue to hold us together as Christians are the things that have held us together for millenia: the promise of God delivered through his one and only Son; the hope of the world.
If instead we look to the “things that are going on in our lives,” we will dissolve into a secular social club, undifferentiated from the world around us. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Junior Chamber of Commerce, Oddfellows, Millenium Development Goals, Christianity… what’s the difference?

The difference is the centrality of Christ in our lives, and the one true path to God for our eternity.

This is a puzzling statement.  It is really neat that they had such a good time with their spouses and the Lutherans, but what about the elephant in the room?  We learn that the previous bishops’ statement (no public blessings) has the same status it always had, but that sort of invites the question: “And just what status is that?”  One senses that they don’t know either.  Maybe what it means is that Michael Ingham paid no attention to it before and he still doesn’t.

And then there is the bit about getting back to Rowan on the JSC report after their executive council meets in a few weeks time.  Do take all the time you need.  They apparently don’t regard today’s response date as any more of a deadline than Sept. 30.  But +KJS sent around a letter to ECUSA asking for responses in less than two weeks.  Maybe Canada didn’t get the memo.  One would think that they could put a response to a document giving ECUSA a pass on a postcard and get it in on time, but there are things in it that “alarm” them.  Maybe it was the part about “closure” around the terms of the Windsor Report.  Is Canada preparing to declare its independence?

The way I read it, this bit:

“We had a discussion about the April 2007 Statement from the House of Bishops to Members of General Synod and heard from several bishops about how the Statement is being understood. It was agreed that the statement continues to have the same status as it did originally.”

May well mean that they are not going to approve the Ottawa and Montreal SSB resolutions? That’s the way I took it, which would be a good thing.  Who knows though, in the land of bishop-speak?

Feel-good writing like this stirs in me a gray nausea; it is like being lied to and betrayed by a teddy bear. How his jaws must ache after all that smiling! LM

May well mean that they are not going to approve the Ottawa and Montreal SSB resolutions?

No it means that they are going to take no stand on them.

Re the statement “It was agreed that the statement continues to have the same status as it did originally.” They could have made their meaning clearer to those not used to Anglican fudge by adding the phrase “,whatever that is” after the word “originally”. Bishops who believed originally that the defeat of the resolution meant that SSBs are forbidden may continue to hold that belief. Bishops who believed originally that the defeat of the resolution was irrelevant because a diocese has the inherent right to authorize such blessings and doesn’t need GS’s approval may continue to hold that belief.

...support for the Millennium Development Goals…

Of course. 

Splitting the Anglican Communion is no big deal.  But the U.N.—well, that is another matter altogether.

Yep…they got the template from 815 too.  Check.

What’s REALLY holding the Communion together?  Not much!

I think it means “we heard from the Bishops of Ottawa and Montreal about their synod’s decisions asking for the blessing of same sex marriages.  We don’t agree on how to respond and we don’t really know what to do about that.  So we agreed to mouth some platitudes and carry on the status quo for the time being and try to divert people’s attention away from the Elephant in the Living Room.”

You know, my mom’s is Canadian-born and I love my Canadian relatives, but the modern Canadians are, in more than one way, “weak as water.”

the modern Canadians are, in more than one way, “weak as water.”

Maybe so. But we have a bit of discipline. If we’re ‘weak as water’, where does that put the [United States of] Americans?