TEC put on notice

As we reported in The Times today in a story updated for later editions, there has been a surprising, late-night development from Tanzania. I had speculated that the softness so far towards TEC augured a tough line in the Covenant and Communique, but even I did not expect anything quite so hard-line.

The US Episcopal Church has been given seven months to change its ways or face being kicked out of the Anglican Communion. In an unexpectedly hard-hitting set of recommendations, Primates of the Anglican Communion demanded an "unequivocal common covenant" under which dioceses in The Episcopal Church agree not to authorise same-sex blessings. They also demanded that no more gay men or women in active relationships with a person of the same sex be consecrated bishop. The recommendations are so severe in demanding proper repentance and a turning back from  The Episcopal Church that even arch-conservative Peter Akinola of Nigeria was prepared to sign up. Bishop Jefferts Schori also signed it, but there will be many in The Episcopal Church who will be angry at what they see as a sell-out of their liberal ideals. Reuters carried a report during the night. Early reaction is appearing on StandFirm. Thinking Anglicans is keeping up to date.

The Primates further demanded that The Episcopal Church cease the costly litigations it has begun against traditionalist parishes seeking to leave the oversight of a liberal bishop.They  pledged to set up a new Pastoral Council that will take responsibility for securing traditional oversight for those who cannot accept the ministry of  their bishop or of Bishop Jefferts Schori, a liberal on other doctrinal issues besides human sexuality.

In a key passage, the communique states: "At the heart of our tensions is the belief that The Episcopal Church has departed from the standard of teaching on human sexuality accepted by the Communion in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 [which set a Biblical standard on the issue] by consenting to the episcopal election of a candidate living in a committed same-sex relationship, and by permitting Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions.  The episcopal ministry of a person living in a same-sex relationship is not acceptable to the majority of the Communion."

The bishops of the Episcopal Church have been given until September 30 to respond. If they refuse to comply, action is certain to be taken to suspend in some way the province's membership of the central councils of the Communion. It would be doubly embarrassing for the province given that their Primate, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, was also elected onto the Standing Committee of the Primates, a highly-prestigious seat which places her at the right hand of the Archbishop of Canterbury and at the centre of the structures of power in the Anglican  Church.

The communique says: "If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and theAnglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion."

Earlier yesterday, it appeared as though The Episcopal Church would escape discipline.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, told a press conference in Dar es Salaam: "There are two factors we need to take seriously. The response of the episcopal church represents a willingness to engage with the Communion and the cost of doing so. How does the communion best engage with that willingness and desire to remain with the Communion?"

He said a settlement had to be worked out in the US. "If in good consciences the assurances cannot be given it has to affect their relationship with the organs of Communion."

The entire document and attached schedule can be read online at the Anglican Communion's website.

Comments

[Tom Wetzel]

Tom Allen--

Amen, amen! An excellent assessment of the jam I feel myself caught in as well!

[Tom Allen]

Reading the fairly predictable comments (liberal and conservative) with the usual abuse of Rowan Williams which illustrates that there is nothing really new.

Several other issues which emerge from Tanzania however gone without mention.

1. In addition to quoted clause on inhibiting the consecration of gay bishops because there is no common mind, Windsor was also unequivocal as have been the subsequent shared statements of the Primates that there should be no persecution or unjust treatment of gay people. Perhaps the Communique should have mentioned monitoring the attitude of the Nigerian Church and its Bishops to the anti-gay legislation which is being proposed in the country see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6362505.stm

On the liberal side what I miss in any acknoweldgemnet that the ECUSA freely entered into the Windsor agreement and then proceeded to breach it.

Can I add that I would accept any gay person within any role within the Church (and know personally gay individuals who are or have been priest deacons and bishops within the Church of England) and would freely offer a same-sex blessing.

The fact that I don't offer the latter is clearly becuase I would do that as priest of a Church which has not yet accepted that rite within the Church.

So I find myself caught between concern for the clearly homophobic tendencies of some Primates, and the tendency of others to agree something when they meet on behalf of their Church and then simply go home and do the opposite.

Would Christ not be concerned about both.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Pastor Buechler said:

"The second issue then becomes what was the purpose of Christ's coming. According to the revisionists like Bishop S. of the ECUSA, Christ came to make us into little dieties. This is gnosticism, not the Scriptural witness."

Manifestly, Pastor Buechler has little or no interest in discussing the theology of the question. Like many of the "conservatives," Pastor Buechler is more interested in petty personal attacks, ad hominem arguments and gross misrepresentations of the opposing point of view.

As I said above - and as was noted in a recent article from Canada (url not readily to hand), the disgusting tactics of the conservatives do more to advance the liberal position than anything the liberals have said or done.

[Martin]

"After all, Jeffrey John was a celibate - but still too gay to be a bishop"

He was in a relationship. He claimed this relationship was celibate, but he was still in a relationship, and clearly consecrating bishops who are in gay relationships is risky.

[robert buechler]

Fr. French wrote: "Indeed, let us examine the theology of the question. "

Very well. Lets!

The issues are essentially two. First, is homosexual sex and other forms of sexual expression outside the male/female paradigm sinful(and here we must think of the order of creation...Genesis 2 affirmed by our Lord in Matthew 19 as prescriptive and proscriptive of human sexuality).

The answer according to Scripture would be a resounding yes. (See the Scriptures I have mentioned before. They are not all there is on the subject, but they represent the united witness of Scripture).

Now Fr. French has acknowledged that homosexual sin is more than likely sinful (perhaps only for the sake of argument, but lets go with this for the present).

The second issue then becomes what was the purpose of Christ's coming. According to the revisionists like Bishop S. of the ECUSA, Christ came to make us into little dieties. This is gnosticism, not the Scriptural witness.

According to Scripture, Jesus came to save sinners, all kinds of sinners. He did not come to condone sinful behavior, but to rescue the lost and set them right again by his word and work (inclusive of the cross).

Now if Jesus' ministry is to save sinners, then one must consider the purpose of the Church. The church has been sent into the world to proclaim forgiveness of sins in his name; through Word and Sacrament.

It follows that if the Church has been sent to save sinners, it does not act for the purpose of condoning sin or having a blind eye towards it, but actively seeking out the lost and calling them to repentance in Christ Jesus and the new life he offers. That new life does not mean blessing sin, but by the power of the Holy Spirit working within, bringing people more and more into the obedience that was and is in Christ Jesus (his humanity).

Therefore, one must come to the conclusion that the position of the ECUSA and some dioceses in Canada, and much of the leadership of the ELCA and Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada is contrary to the Scriptural witness with regards to sin; to the mission of Jesus Christ; and to the mission of the Church.

Those are the theological underpinnings of the orthodox understanding of things. To go away from these things is no small matter because it mean denying the authority of Christ directly. That is apostacy. So the Primates are right in calling the ECUSA to account and repentance.

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starkweather,ND

[Fr. Malcolm French]

In fact, I'm quite conflicted on the substance of the issue - viz. what should the Church's take be on homosexual relationships. I'm certainly no advocate that the Church begin authorizing blessings for same sex unions, and I'd be content with expecting celibacy from all unmarried clergy.

But that isn't really where the conservatives are, is it? After all, Jeffrey John was a celibate - but still too gay to be a bishop.

What I have questioned here is the hypocrisy of the conservatives demanding that the liberals adhere to every jot and tittle of both Lambeth 1998 1:10 and the Windsor Report while declaring themselves free to ignore the bits they don't care for.

And I have also questioned the false and frankly idolatrous way in which this one issue has been given disproportional prominence over all other issues. At the very least it is an unbalanced approach to scripture. In fact, it strikes me as a positively pathological approach to scripture.

It is not the liberals picking and choosing what texts to take as authoritive.

And I've also questioned the uncharitability with which the question has been approached. Certainly there is guilt enough to go around on that score, and both liberals and conservatives have spewed vitriol in the course of the discussion. But at no point have I seen or heard leading liberals plotting to silence the voices of conservatives. At no point have I seen or heard leading liberals creating structures for schism. At no point have I seen or heard leading liberals plotting to exclude dissenting views from meetings. At no point have I seen or heard leading liberals deny the existence of those who disagree. I have seen and heard all of these things from the conservatives, and indeed from many of the leading voices on the conservative side.

By there fruits shall we know them. And the fruit of this debate has been such that the conservatives' conduct has almost persuaded me to the other side.

Indeed, let us examine the theology of the question. But that approach requires an open mind, not a line in the sand.

[Andrew]

I have a great deal of sympathy for those Anglican Christians who wish to be 'inclusive' of homosexuals (or anyone else for that matter). But I haven't seen a great deal of theology from them on this blog.

There are conservatives, who say 'we don't want x because we can't find it in scripture' (And for sola scripturists at least their method is consistent, whether or not you agree with its conclusions).

Then there are liberals, who say 'we want x because those who don't want it are "hateful and hypocritical" (Fr French), or "bigots" with "closed minds"' (Revd Semes). When you are hurt, angry and frustrated, making ad hominem attacks may seem the only option. But it doesn't honestly seem to advance their cause.

If an organised group of Christians is to move forward, it needs the theology - the agreed theology - to do so.

[robert buechler]

Fr. French writes: "But homosexuality is such a burning issue with the Lord that it didn't even make it to the "top ten."

Well, that is an issue early Judaism and Christianity would contest with you very much.

The commandment concerning adultery has been understood to include all sexual activity (including homosexual sex) which violates the husband/wife...male/female...reservation of sex. One need only look at the Rabbinical writings, Philo, as well as Christian writings to find that this is so.

What that means is that even when homosexual sex is not "explicitly" mentioned in a text condemning sexual immorality, it is implied (along with prostitution, incest, etc.)

Of course if you insist that homosexual sex must be explicitly cited, then what do you do with incest? It did not "explicitly" make it into the top ten either, but it too has been understood to fall under the ban of the sixth commandment. Are we to assume then that those who oppose incestuous relationships are somehow hateful and misreading the Scriptures? That would seem to fly in the face of the facts.

Finally, when the Lord says that unrepentant sexually immoral behavior will leave someone out of the kingdom, it would seem that most Christians concerned with not blessing this kind of behavior are actually motivated by love of neighbor, not hate.

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starkweather,ND

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Sex matters. Absolutely.

But homosexuality is such a burning issue with the Lord that it didn't even make it to the "top ten."

I conclude, therefore, that homosexuality, even if sinful, is less important than honouring one's father and mother; less important than keeping the sabbath; less important than refraining from gossip.

So why does this tangential issue get all the ink?

I have a theory.

All of us have sinned. I'll admit right up front that I haven't always honoured my father and my mother as well as I might have. On occasion, I have coveted my neighbour's possessions (though not specifically his ox, ass, manservant or maidservant). I've been paid interest. I've even taken the name of the Lord my God in vain.

But what if I could find some sin that I, personally, have not committed? And what if I could hold out that sin as being particularly vile - even worse than all the others?

Well, then I could get all righteous about those things I have not done - and I can have license to wink at those sins of which I know in my heart I am convicted.

So, because I've never (let's pick something nice and obscure, shall we) planted two different crops in the same field, I can gat all huffy about what a terrible and dreadful thing that is.

So I may be a fornicator and idolator and even a murderer - but at least I never did THAT.

This debate isn't about orthodoxy. It's about hate and hypocrisy.

[robert buechler]

Fr. French wrote: " And however one cuts it, the vast majority woulod prefer the Church turn her attention to something that actually matters."

That is more than likely true in the Anglican and ELC of Canda. However, that shows a lack of biblical and evangelical awareness on their part.

How is it possible that they can read 1Cor.9ff and not think that issues of sexuality matter very much to the Lord. I quote in part from 1Cor.9ff "Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor the idolater, nor the adulterer, nor the male prostitute, nor the homosexual offender, nor the greedy, nor the drunkard...shall inherit the kingdom of God." We can find Saint Paul making this point again in Galatians, as well as other texts (not to mention Jesus himself in the book of Revelations, chapter 2 and Chapter 22 in particular).

Issues of sex matter, as well as issues of greed, drunkenness, etc. The question is whether or not the Church of England, the ECUSA, the ELCA, and other so called "main line" denominations have the courage to live and teach according to the Word of God; and the imagination to help people engaged in sin to find redemption in Christ.

That some church goers in Canada, the US, and Western/Eastern Europe don't get it isn't because the issues at hand aren't essential. They are. The problem is that much of the "leadership" and many of the denominations have become the image of the world, and have abandoned the image of Christ.

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starkweather, ND

[Martin]

"Enough of the snivelling about biblical morality too, it is about as relevant as the morality of the Iliad and The Odyssey as far as I'm concerned."

Good grief. Are you really a reverend?

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Nike Olafimhan makes a number of valid points about the cultural diversity of Anglicanism. Certainly an inclusive attitutde towards gays and lesbians in more commonly a feature of western rather than two-thirds world thinking.

However, it is important to remember that the so-called Global South is not the one-opinioned juggernaut that the Primate of Nigeria would have us believe. The Primate of Southern Africa, for example, has quite clearly rejected the views of his colleagues elsewhere on the continent.

Frankly, if the two-thirds world were half as united on the question as certain of the Primates seem to suggest, then why is it necessary for the Primate of Nigeria to be campaigning actively in support of legislation which makes advocating on behalf of homosexuals a crime? (Note, homosexual acts are already criminalized in Nigeria. The new legislation Dr. Akinola supports would effectively make it illegal to express the view that homosexual acts should not be criminal offences.)

I don't care to project an opinion on what the average parishioner believes, particularly in those Global South Churches where it is the clergy and in particular the bishops who exercise all the conciliar and synodical authority.

My read of Canadian Anglicans is that many are quite happy with a more inclusive approach, many are deucedly unhappy, many are uncertain, and many could care less. And however one cuts it, the vast majority woulod prefer the Church turn her attention to something that actually matters.

[robert buechler]

Nike quoted a liberal blog which stated, in part, the following: " The real people, the people who have a say in this matter - African and Asian Christians have not even heard the first thing the progressives want to say."

Actually, they have heard what the revisionists have said. They have simply rejected it.

We need to be clear. Those who reject the direction which is being plotted by the ECUSA leadership and other revisionist leadership within the larger church are not ignorant of the arguments being made for moving on to a "brave new world."

Instead, the orthodox recognize that the movement towards the blessing of same sex unions, the abandonment of the Scriptures and confessional witnesses of the church (and lets not forget that the ECUSA rejected certain teachings from the 39 articles in 2003...namely that what Jesus says in Scripture is binding on Christian consciences)is an abandonment of the Scriptural/apostolic witness upon which the church is founded.

The orthodox are about biblical/confessional foundations because to reject these is to reject the Lordship and Person of Jesus himself. The revisionists want people to cling to a Jesus of their own making...a gnostic Jesus...a Jesus without apostolic witness and without both a law and gospel.

This rejection of the revisionist agenda shows not the ignorance of the masses, but rather their wisdom. To embrace the revisionist agenda is to embrace a different faith altogether than the one handed down by the apostles in Holy Scripture.

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starweather,ND

[Nike Olafimihan]

Quoted from another blog:

The liberal position derives from contemporary culture. But the Anglican Communion is culturally diverse, so it is not enough to say that Western society is moving in a particular direction so the Church both in and outside the West should move in that direction. It not enough to use the latest trends in Western society as a yardstick for Christian progress when large swathes of the Anglican Communion are deeply suspicious of Western society (and rightly so).It does not help (as many readers of the Guardian are fond of), to tar three-quarters of the Anglican Communion as being "homophobic", "intolerant" or "dumb". It makes for great soundbites, but it solves no problems.
At the heart of this problem is a theological divide. Evangelicals and Progressives interpret scripture differently. To the progressives it "seems obvious" that full inclusion of gays is the work of the Spirit, while to the Evangelicals it "seem obvious" that gay priests and gay marriage are taboo.
It does not help to dismiss the evangelicals are being crazy dimwits - they are a rapidly growing part of the Communion.
The average Anglican is a poor, illiterate woman from Africa. Such people are not going to be convinced of the rightness of "full inclusion of gays" by some abstract, sophisticated work by Marcus Borg or Rowan Williams. They need to be convinced from the pages of scripture and/or the practical ministry of like-minded believers.
Evangelical Anglican missionaries are working (as I write) all over Africa, interpreting scripture and providing practical witness to millions. On the other hand, the progressives are holding BBC, ITV and Channel 4 captivated.
The views of African Bishops reflect the theological views of the average parishioner. The views of the parishioner reflect the views of the missionaries - and the missionaries are evangelicals.
Change is not going to occur simply because Oxford Theologians think it should. It will not occur simply because we are smart enough to debate Dawkins. It will occur if the progressives learn how to evangelise. People would have an opportunity to see another point of view, which can be accepted or rejected.
The progressives can get the whole readership of The Guardian, Le Monde, BBC, New York Times, Washington Post etc on their side, but that makes no difference (most of these people don't go to Church in any case). The real people, the people who have a say in this matter - African and Asian Christians have not even heard the first thing the progressives want to say.

[Stephen Marsden]

The problem with Robert Semes' position is that it seems as if he is being just as fundamentalist as those he seeks to criticise.

As an priest, he can afford the luxury of declaring that justice trumps unity; but for bishops, whose raison d’être includes being a focus of unity, it's a deal more problematical.

[plotinodutraborges]

Jesus ofered anew life here and afterwards,His gift highest...to reach It was given a way: the holy bible.Maybe hard,dificult,weird or even awful for somebody...but is too wonderful to whom enjoy this peace.We shall live each word of love given for Jesus ,"to love our next like myself"and so that we loves the sinner but the sin NOT.We must to be simples, humbles like The master otherwise the prolixe seems to deviate people to an eternal war into the hell.Homosexualism don`t belong to the cristian faith if it is so unadequate go after your fate.

[The Rev. Robert Semes]

So sorry I caused such a stink for some rather closed mind blokes by my comments, but I stick by my point that JUSTICE trumps unity as far as the Anglican Communion goes. I side with a number of bishops I know in TEC who are now saying that they "can't go there" with regard to this egregious position of the primates. Oppression in the cause of unity is no virtue! Enough of the snivelling about biblical morality too, it is about as relevant as the morality of the Iliad and The Odyssey as far as I'm concerned. Maybe critical thinking is too much for many of the fundamentalists writing in on this post.

[Martin]

"Martin is within his rights to criticise, but you would want to have a particularly cruel streak to kick a man when he is so obviously down"

The man uses the prefix of "reverend": I do not know his reason for doing so, but I had rather assumed he was an Episcopalian minister.

Yet despite his use of this prefix, he goes so far as to advocate the abandonment of Christianity if it should not happen to endorse his particular liberal agenda.

He is thus explicitly putting the liberal agenda above the Christian faith he claims to profess.

For someone who is styled "reverend", I find this extraordinary.

[Juliet]

Hallo, Fr Malcolm - it's Juliet, but almost everyone calls me Julie.
Cheers.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

JULIET (I'm not sure if it's a derivative of Juliette or if it's Julie T.) has given us all an example to be reckoned with.

God's call for repentence is for all of us, not just some of us.

[Frank Schnittger]

Andrew - you are right - my remark was over the top, and I apologise, but am I to take it from your selective outrage that it is ok to say "the Rev. Robert Semes might have sounded like an embittered and rather unpleasant old queen"?

One is a very direct derogatory reference to a person’s sexuality, the other a rather too strong metaphor about what all the crowing at Schori's humiliation sounds like.

I think Stephen Marsden's very reasoned response demonstrates that he understands that if you dish it out, you also have to be prepared to accept some strong language in return.

Much of what Rev. Robert Semes said is emotional and tendentious, and Martin is within his rights to criticise, but you would want to have a particularly cruel streak to kick a man when he is so obviously down. That is how it appeared to me. I would like to think I would come to the aid of anyone in a similar situation

[Juliet]

Ah, such innocence. :-)

[Juliet]

Well, I was thinking of asking Ruth to remove my comment to Alex, not because it wasn't heartfelt, but because I wouldn't allow anyone to post that on my blog so it wasn't good manners for me to post it on anyone else's blog. I see Ruth, you have taken it out now, but apologies for disrespecting your blogging environment anyway - I shouldn't have posted it but it served my sense of humour well.

Fr Malcolm - I am not a conservative, I am a liberal and a supporter of
virtually every gay right there is. I was, for several years, on Louie Crew's e.mail list - I sometimes read his Anglican Pages, indeed he even published some of his poems on a previous website which I ran. However, I am not a supporter of anyone who disrespects the ABC as 'Alex' who declares himself 'surrounded by imbeciles' so readily does (see his e.mail addresss).

It's appalling that insults against the Archbishop are so readily made and published, both here and at Anglicans On-line - and how cowardly is the person who posts them - no proper e.mail address, probably not a real name, either.

I could say that the F is actually 'fly' as some like to say, but actually, it wasn't.

This is so not a good start to Lent. Sorry anyone who may have been offended, but so was I.

Sincerely,
Julie

(rg writes: Julie, I had no idea what it meant and still don't. Another commentator suggested it merited removal however...)

[robert buechler]

I am glad that the orthodox have called the ECUSA to repentance. This may be the beginning of redemption. However I am pessimistic that any "turn around" will happen with the ECUSA. The grounding of the orthodox is biblical. The grounding of the revisionists is gnosticism (see Bishop S.'s comments in USA Today). I do not see that great chasm closing anytime soon. The final dissolution is only a matter of time if it does not close.

As for the Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA, she has proved that when you stand for "everything" you can only stand for "nothing." She could not, in the last analysis, even stand for her convictions (as wrong as I believe them to be). There is a lesson in this.

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starkweather,ND

[Tom Jackson]

If there is one message that is being reinforced by the developments in this issue it is for us to trust in God.

It may be pedantic and frustrating but the Anglican Communion is essentially robust and powerful. By it's very nature, if anyone group of people try to manipulate and distort fundamental doctrine in order to accommodate their behaviour, it will eventually fail. That is why the Church has survived so long.

In today's world, many of go our own way with no guiding principles except those we feel comfortable with or which demand little of us. We answer to no-one for our behaviour because - as the liberals are so fond of telling us - no-one should tell us what to do or what to believe.

Through God's Grace we have witnessed a dynamic example of the manner in which even a poorly organised and administered group of His people can slowly wake up to the threat on their doorstep and start to take effective action.

Taken as a whole, the Anglican Communion consists of people who respond to Christ's teaching. They may appear docile, over-tolerant and falling over backwards to compromise - and, of course, there are many individuals who continue to exhibit these characteristics.

But as a Communion, as a body of people drawn together by the same faith and beliefs, once stirred, they emerge as a force to be reckoned with. Such a wide consensus across what are basically differing groups of Christians is almost certain to ensure the Communion as a body does not stray to far from the path Christ trod.

That is what individuals like Katherine Schori and groups such as the Episcopal Church have come up against. Now they either step back onto the path or encapsulate themselves in a cult-like breakaway movement built on the surrounding quicksand. I hope they choose to walk with the rest of us.

[Stuart]

I think, Frank Schnittger might be right in predicting that the Anglican world will get smaller as a result of recent decisions ; it deserves to ; and it will benefit thereby. If there is one thing we have learned from this 'debate' it is that, the more tolerance and understanding one shows to minority unorthodox opinion and practices, the more the politically motivated extreme wing of it will exploit the opportunity to legitimise their behaviour. These extremists do not wish for unity within the Church ; they thrive on conflict and discord ; fighting for their 'rights' is meat and drink to them. What they want is purely and simply power.

[Indy Joe.]

While preparing to sleep, I was stunned this evening to read a web account of the Anglican Communion's demand of The Episcopal Church to cease same-sex blessings by September. I had expected an announcement utilizing inclusive and somewhat vague language. This announcment, however, was stark. And it is wrong, certainly not the language of my faith.

Until this controversy, I was unaware that my Midwestern U.S. diocese was all that different in attitude from others in the U.S., U.K, and other Anglican areas. Indeed, had I known that the offerings I made as a child for African missions were going to support bishops who would today call me -- a 44 year old cradle Episcopalian who happens to be gay -- "satanic" and encourage my imprisonment where torture occurs, it is more than possible that I would be entirely unchurched today, rather than just a continual questioner.

I, like most Episcopalians I believe, have viewed the Anglican Communion as a pleasant historical association of individual churches. Indeed, that is what it was. From time to time it would use its collective voice to oppose wars, discrimination, and periodically call for the observance of the Golden Rule. It also assisted with scholarly research and ecumenical issues. That was its task. It did not determine matters of faith for the member Churches, nor for individual parishioners.

I sympathize with the Archbishop of Canterbury. As the largest bloc of Anglicans now resides in various conservative African countries, and as many of their bishops are stridently non-inclusive, a "choice" inevitably needed to be made. I admit that I honestly thought that the Communion would somehow find a way to stand for what is right and not what was politically expedient, even if couched in rather vague language. Instead, it has not only decided to literally sacrifice a group of people to appease a difficult bishop but has embarked on a mission to make the Anglican Communion yet another top-down Church to rival that of Rome.

As it happens, a break with the Communion will probably assist The Episcopal Church in the U.S. While it is not a pleasant thought to consider that the Episcopal Church will initially lose an estimated 80-100,000 conservative parishioners from its 2.2 million membership, it will certainly help the Church to be more focused and appeal to those seeking such a refuge.

From my perspective, it will be the Communion that will have trouble in 5-15 years. The much-noted American Arrogance in me considers that the Church of England and other "Western" branches who value Reason will eventually come to conclusions similar to The Episcopal Church. Consequently, this debate will continue for quite some time, alienating and angering many while wasting resources. Harsh words from both "sides" grow tiresome and veil the joy of what we have been given.

My purpose in writing this note is merely to let you know how those of us who are not overly involved in church politics on this side of the Atlantic actually feel about this issue.

Joe in Indianapolis, US

[Alice C. Linsley]

There is great wisdom when bishops meet in council. Now may The Episcopal Church leadership respond quickly and decisively. Schori has a challenge ahead when she attempts to convince the gay activists who manipulate the church that they have to stop same sex blessings and ordinations of non-celibate homosexuals. I don't see that happening. TEC will be cut off, like the dead branch that it is.

[Robert Burns]

Nothing new here in Primates' actions or comments on them. And please let's not worry about who signed and why. Haven't we learned that signatures (especially that of a TEC PB) mean nothing at all?

We again race up to getting something real done and stop short--calling again for more time to form committees (whatever you wish to call them) and issue reports and clarify views and actions, and meet again to do it over one more time. Same old same old in TEC and unfortunately in the worldwide communion.

ABC wobbles but won't fall down. TEC PB calls for a "middle way" but
refuses to change her views (so whose views must be changed to get to a middle?). And how are we to take the Primates seriously when they come to the meeting threatening to boycott over PB (only a few actually stand tall by refusing to disgrace their views by coming to the Table with her) but end by electing her to the seats of the mighty?

Just glance around at the churches
in every country that are growing with God's blessings. And that does
not include TEC. And we all know that human sexuality is just the tip of the iceberg.

The PB will soon move to the Presbyterian changes from "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" to "Mother, Child, and Womb." But it will be a local option, of course (though it is scary to think of the extreme edges if this is a PB "middle way"). ABC will offer another cup of tea. The Primates will make
loud threats, but only threats.
Bishops, clergy, and laity who
continue to straddle the fence deserve what comes to them.

[Willard Tice]

I am confused by the difference in tone of your story above and the one you post the next day. The results seem to be as different as daylight from dark. In the 20th of Feb article, you seem to think things have gone very well for TEC. In this one it is full of despair. Did that much change overnight?

(rg writes: yes.)

[Arthur Keith]

As an former member of the Episcopal Church in the USA I fully belief that they will either ignore this new deadline or try to give as little as they absolutely have to to satisfy their critics. The leadership in the Episcopal Church does not have a theological agenda, they have a sociological and political agenda. That is not the same. I hope they prove me wrong in September but I seriously doubt it.

[E Barnes]

Many traditionalists in the USA are more concerned with their church's breaches in Church Order (by consecrating women as bishops) than they are over matters of human sexuality. So how can they be expected to accept as their substitute primate someone whose appointment has been influenced by the woman Presiding Bishop, and who exercises only such authority as she will permit, as her deputy? We have laboured under this in England with the PEV system. Where diocesan bishops have behaved generously, the system has just about worked. Where they have refused to appoint so much as a rural dean who disagrees with them, the task has been much harder. With a woman bishop, it would be impossible, since they are themselves the problem and cannot be expected to provide the solution. A free province is the only answer for traditionalists when there are women whom the rest of the church believes are bishops.
The Dar es Salaam communique is a disappointing fudge.

[Jenny Waley]

The problem is one where human sexuality is only a small part of the issue. The issue is whether or not, as Christians, we accept Christ as the ONLY means of salvation. We are all sinners and fall short, but by God's grace we are called to him. Unless the church places the teachings of Christ and the model of his life by accepting his authority in all things, not only those dealing with human sexuality, it is doomed.

Christ did not say to the woman caught in adultery, its OK, continue as you are, he called for change as well as forgiveness. "Go and sin no more." (John 8 NASB)

We have bishops and other clergy that do not believe in the authority of Christ as the only path to salvation. Here is the root of our turmoil, our cancer. We must excise that in order to move forward...together, in Christ.

I am praying for this. With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God." (Matthew 19:26 NASB)

[David Booker]

I don't care what side of the debate you sit on, can you really look back through the increasing bitter tone of these comments without feeling ashamed?
God help us!

[Andrew]

"like a guffawing teenager looking on at a gang rape..."

Of all the insults and verbal abuses to emerge from this painful process, this has got to be quite the most abhorrent.

You're entitled to your opinion, Frank, but shame on you for the manner in which you express it.

Ruth, are you really moderating?

[Tom Wetzel]

I hope the question I am about to ask is not taken in a mean-spirited way. Rather I am asking it in order to understand where we can go to move forward as a Communion. Simply put, I am confused by some of the criticism noted here.

What exactly did one believe when one became (or remained) Anglican/Episcopalian if one a) is ready to reject the Bible whole cloth; b) rejects the authority of bishops as the work of the Holy Spirit; and c) says there is no need for TEC to continue in the Anglican Communion? I mean, it is the *Episcopal* Church for a reason: we believed (I thought) that the apostolic teaching office is embodied in the office of bishop, and we believed that our apostolic succession tied directly to Canterbury. Furthermore, as a Communion, we believed that our churches voluntarily work together to discern the work of the Spirit and only grow in faith through their common bond and common work. We must listen to the Communion voluntarily, or else we prove that the Roman answer is the only way to manage a world church.

I will be the first to say that the Global South has been developing a highly fundamentalist view of Scripture that is not Anglican in its approach, but in all fairness, there no longer is in TEC a meaningful and coherent approach to Scripture. "To Set Our Hope on Christ" (TEC's response to the Windsor Report) was a mess in terms of biblical interpretation and reflects just how incoherent our approach to Scripture has become.

I do think there is a meaningful and authentic interpretation of both Scripture and the apostolic tradition that fully embraces gays and lesbians in the Church. I do not think TEC has developed that response, and the longer we pretend that such a response does not matter, the more we allow the Global South to dominate this discussion.

And most sadly of all, if TEC does choose to walk apart, it will fall to the absolute margins of American culture. The Global South is the growing part of the Communion; TEC is shrinking, and for many Americans, TEC is just liberal Protestantism with smells and bells and a whole lot of rich white folks. We may no longer be the Republican Party at prayer, but we are still seen as a bunch of rich WASPs at martini time.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Two things.

First, it is more than a trifle hypocritical to slam one of the liberal respondents on this thread for a lack of magnanimity and charity when a previous liberal poster had been asked "WDYFOAD?" In case you are in any confusion, the WDY stands for "Why don't you" and the AD at the end for "and die." I'm sure you can figure out the FO in the middle for yourself.

This, of course, reflects the same conservative hypocrisy so very evident in the communique itself.

- The conservatives demand that the liberals conform to certain aspects of the Lambeth 1998 resolution (affirming the traditional teaching on gay relationships) while feeling free to ignore other parts of it themselves (the call for a listening process).

- The conservatives demand that the liberals conform to certain parts of the Windsor Report (a ban on same sex unions and the ordination of non-celibate gays) while again feeling free to ignore other parts of it themselves (an end to interference in the internal afairs in other provinces).

- The conservatives now demand, it seems, that the liberals conduct themselves with magnanimity and charity, all the while turning a blind eye (if not actually themselves engaging in) the most vile and bilious hatemongering.

All of this over an issue which, however hysterical the conservatives may choose to be, is tangential at best.

Jesus is doubtless still weeping.

[Sidney]

Hear, hear Mr. Marsden.

Apparently, when one's Talmud gets in the way of one's tallywacker, it is the Talmud that gets cut off.

I guess the Gospel really reads, "Better that you enter Gehenna sexually sated than demonstrate sacrificial self-control and enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

[Martin]

"the Rev. Robert Semes might have sounded like "embittered and rather unpleasant old queen"."

Well he certainly didn't sound as though he gave a damn about doctrine. To have someone who styles themselves "reverend" suggesting that people should abandon Christianity in the name of gay rights is quite staggering. I wonder what sort of "reverend" he is?

[Stephen Marsden]

No, of course no one ‘wins’, as you put it, Frank. And most of the time, as a simple papalist Anglican, I want to say ‘a plague on both your houses’. But consider the facts, as opposed to the right-on rhetoric.

Every ten years, the bishops of the Anglican Communion meet and agree something or other. And then the bishops of TEC go home and ignore what has been agreed. That is their right as the polity of TEC makes quite clear. But they really shouldn’t be surprised when it pisses everyone else off. The Communion at large warned what would happen if VGR was consecrated and ECUSA as she then was told us to mind our own effing business. That was also their right but, again, they really shouldn’t be surprised that the rest of us are vexed.

Over the past months, most of the Primates have struggled to try and find a way out of the shit into which both extremes in this argument have dropped us. I’m sorry if you take exception to my characterisation of Semes’ rant – but do you honestly believe that phrases like ‘They can go swallow that Bible of theirs whole’ or ‘better yet, leave bigoted Christianity and religion altogether’ actually assist this debate? Do you think that the suggestion that ‘the Church should also bless unions and weddings that occur in places where they are legal, e.g., Masschusetts, Vermont, and New Jersey; Canada, Spain, South Africa, the Netherlands, Belgium, and the UK’ is a useful contribution to getting us out of this mess?

And if you think Schori will resign even if the HoB tell her to go forth and multiply, then you ain’t got the measure of that lady.

I don’t know if last night’s effort will succeed or not. It may well not. But condemning it out of hand is no way to progress the issue. A bit more prayer, and a lot less bollocks might, though.

[Frank Schnittger]

Thank you Stephen Marsden, for implying that the Rev. Robert Semes might have sounded like "embittered and rather unpleasant old queen".

You show all the magnanimity and Christian charity that we have come to associate with this "debate", and, indeed, with large sections of the Anglican Church.

If you think anyone wins after this fiasco, you are very much mistaken. TEC won't change its mind; Schori will probably resign; and the Anglican world will continue to get smaller and smaller.

You sound like a guffawing teenager looking on at a gang rape, but I’m sure you would look the other way at the seminal moment.

[J Pearce]

"Many thanks to the Rev Robert Semes for such a thoughtful, considered contribution to this debate. He could so easily have fallen into the trap of sounding like a embittered and rather unpleasant old queen."

As opposed to soundling like a curmudgeonly, miserabilist, misanthropic peddler of soul crushing Orthodoxy, one presumes?

[pendennis88]

While the communique falls short of what the orthodox had hoped, it is difficult to see how TEC can agree to its recommendations. First, with respect to what the American bishops are requested to do, while there may be many bishops who would like to sign on and then look for loopholes, those may now be outnumbered by bishops who think words matter and will never sign on, and orthodox bishops who will not agree unless there is some real discipline for those who then do not follow what they just promised. I don't know that anyone can count votes right now, but I don't think anyone can assume that the rigorous TEC compliance called for by the communique would pass among the bishops.

As to the pastoral council, while prior suggestions by TEC left all power in the American primate's hands (and even those could not be implemented), there are now checks on that from the Windsor bishops and a stated requirement to negotiate with the global south primates over the CANA and AMiA churches (legitimizing the current cross-border interventions, notably). Thus, things may be at an impasse unless and until TEC grants true protection to the orthodox - which seems likely to include the ability to become a separate province should TEC choose to "walk apart". It is difficult to see TEC granting such protection at the same time it seems increasingly committed to walking apart. Rather, it is easy to imagine any attempted TEC response to the orthodox dissolving into internal acrimony.

It would thus seem that this largely helps the orthodox. It seems increasingly surprising that Schori agreed to it.

[Vermonter]

The reason the Episcopal Church in the United States, New England as well, is losing members lie squarely at the door of Bishops Jefferts Schori and V. Gene Robinson. Their "grandstanding" is killing the Episcopal Church and it is a miracle that the Anglican Communion did not take an even tougher stance.

These two "people" of the cloth had better look at that themselves in the mirror and ask if they are serving their faith or some narrow agenda

All of this should not be read as "homophobic" and exclusionary, but as a reaffirmation of Christian teachings not to mention the Talmud and Koran. We, as Christians, are urged to hate the sin, but love the sinner. I fail to see how loving the sinner includes elevating gays and lesbians to postions of authority in any church contrary to its doctrine.

Certainly, we protect and defend everyone and, here in Vermont, have Civil Unions to ensure gay couples have the same rights as others. Marriage and faith, however, are other matters and best left up to each denomination.

I fully agree with JL above. It is heartening to see some "spine" emerging from the Anglican Communion in general and the Archbishop of Canterbury, in particular.

[JL]

This is a wonderful development. I am not Anglican, but as a Christian, I had already written off the CoE as unbiblical murky collection of liberal views promoted under the Christian banner for convenience.

It is great to see that there are some who are still committed to defining 'sin' as 'sin'.

Now, we need to continue working on other types of sins- greed, hate, etc.

[JS Shank]

The Episcopal Church cannot afford to walk apart. They are losing members left and right. Remember when Gene Robinson said they would gain members due to his election? It has backfired. I would imagine that the gay and lesbians will come out on the loosing side. The ABC has said that all along....

[A. G.ackard]

for many of us in the USA it is not

about gays. Its about changes in
doctrine and liturgy which are
unacceptable. Take the time to see
what the revisionists have done.

[Andy Bowdler]

At last the TEC are shown that, at least whilst a major debate continues as to the validity of same-sex relationships, both theologically and beyond - they need to refrain from trying to create the answer by default.

I would hope that the church will now be allowed to get on with what it is meant to be doing, sharing the Good News of Jesus' offer of salvation to the world, rather than being tied up in this relatively minor issue.

[Alex L.]

The Archbishop of Canterbury - as spineless as a stickleback but almost twice as smart - once again caves to the threats of the Anglican Taliban. Praise the Lord! What a crushing betrayal of ECUSA, and of tolerant Anglicans everywhere.

[James Macpherson]

While above is noted that, "The Primates further demanded that The Episcopal Church cease the costly litigations it has begun against traditionalist parishes seeking to leave the oversight of a liberal bishop," the context is this:

The Key Recommendations of the Primates include....

On property disputes

The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations.