Bishops Gene and Martyn 'not invited' to Lambeth

All I can say to the poor Bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, who, as we report, will not be invited to Lambeth, is that I know how it feels to be on Canterbury's blacklist. (I was among those 'not invited' to the press briefing this morning. But I can live with that.) It must be particularly hurtful to the liberal catholics who once counted Dr Williams as 'one of them'. Martin Reynolds at LGCM, formerly Rowan's neighbour in Wales, and a gay priest who has registered his civil partnership, is especially angry with his friend. This has not even pleased those on the other side. Anglican Mainstream accused Dr Williams of 'ecclesiastical correctness'.

One senior source said that to single out Robinson was equivalent to arresting the drug user and letting the dealers off scot free. 'What about the consecrating bishops?' he said. 'What about Gregory Venables, and Peter Akinola?  Would Jesus get invited to this meeting, as he was a cause of division? This will turn Gene Robinson into the victim, whereas the quarrel is with The Episcopal Church who consecrated him.'

There is no doubt that Gene Robinson is not invited however, along with any CANA and Amia bishops. In other words, Bishop Martyn Minns is also excluded. Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion, said: "Bishop Robinson has not been issued with an invitation but the Archbishop is exploring inviting him as a guest to the conference so he may well be there.  The Archbishop has vexed over this for a very long time. The Primates in 2005 recognised Bishop Robinson had been duly elected and consecrated according to the canons of The Episcopal Church. But also, for the Archbishop to give full recognition to him at this conference would be to ignore the widespread objections to his ministry in many parts of the communion. That was expressed in the Windsor Report which urged the Archbishop to exercise 'very considerable caution [par 133] in inviting him to the councils of the Church.' So the Archbishop is stuck with a dilemma."

Bishop Robinson himself made clear his 'great disappointment' and described it as 'an affront to the entire Episcopal Church.' Interesting debates taking place as always at StandFirm and Drell's Descants. Kendall Harmon makes an excellent point at TitusOneNine. It no longer holds water for the Archbishop and other 'instruments of unity' to claim they lack power or authority. If this isn't exercising authority, it is difficult to see what is.

George Conger's analysis is as usual excellent. He notes that the Bishop of Harare in Zimbabwe, Nolbert Kunonga, has also not been invited 'pending further consultation'. This decision, at least, is something Dr Williams can be sure is right. To have invited Kunonga, while not inviting some of the bishops at least trying to be faithful to Christianity as they understand it, would have been baffling beyond belief. However, this could be the least of his problems. Nigeria's Peter Akinola hints strongly at a Nigerian boycott of Lambeth. Not inviting Martyn Minns is equivalent to not inviting the entire Nigerian house of bishops, he says.

AnglicanCatholic is not too worried. Don't harrass the ABC for being guided by the mind of the communion, he says. Sources have apparently indicated to him that Martyn Minns is not too distressed by the decision. SJEC finds it odd that the one openly-gay bishop in the Church has not been invited to a conference where homosexuality will be one of the items under discussion. Nothing like being silenced by not being invited, says Silence and Voice, which finds the Anglican Communion becoming more intolerant by the day. No wonder organised religion has become unpopular, says Go Away I'm Reading. Rowan, Rowan, Rowan, what's happened to you, asks Via Sequencia.  But for Big Blue Wave, it is a sign of developing backbone. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, says GadgetVicar. Integrity is 'outraged and appalled'. I bet they never expected Dr Williams to go this far.  I also liked this from LiveJournal: Anglican world in a tizz over who didn't get invited to a party: so.totally.emo.'

I fear Dr Williams has lost some friends with this decision and I pray he knows what he is doing. It seems odd that he has done this so long before the September 30 meeting of TEC bishops. It's probably a last-ditch attempt to keep everything together, but by inviting all the US bishops who consecrated Bishop Robinson it seems possible, as one commentator has noted below, that it might have the opposite effect. Some people are extremely upset. Martin Reynolds said today: “We would respectfully remind the Archbishop of Canterbury of the Dromantine Communiqué where it says: 'The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us.' This is a flagrant example of victimisation that quite clearly intends to diminish Bishop Robinson’s status.”

Martin continues: “If the Archbishop of Canterbury is unable to follow the dictates of the Primates Group, yet alone the dictates of his own conscience, we are in a very unsafe state. We are deeply sorry for the failure of the Communion to live up to its own standards. Bishop Robinson and the diocese he was duly and canonically elected to serve have our full support and we believe they deserve much better. This decision places the vast majority of American bishops along with other through out the world in an embarrassing position. If they accept their Lambeth invitations this might appear to support Bishop Robinson’s victimisation, while if they reject the invitation they will abandon our Communion to the homophobes.”

It is likely Bishop Gene will be invited as a guest however. So I expect he will be there with us in the press office, as I cannot imagine there won't be dozens of publications worldwide not willing to pay generously for his insight into the three weeks of proceedings.

But reading the letter, the line that moved me most was the bit at the end, about the "reply slip" attached to the letter, asking those invited to let Dr Williams know by 31 July this year whether they will be able to attend or not.

This is just so sweet. Like a vicarage tea party, almost.

If only it all were really this simple, and all that anyone had to do to resolve this enormous mess was fill in one of those slips, yes or no. That line alone speaks of an innocence that has seemed lost to the Anglican Communion in its present state. Maybe this nihilistic drive towards self-extinction will continue, or maybe, in those little reply slips, there rests some kind of answer to it all. The original plan was to invite everyone. I wonder what's happened to make them change their mind.

Comments

[Paul Davison]

Do we know that Bishop Robinson is one of these "one or two special cases"?

[Huw Raphael]

Bp Robinson was not singled out: according to the AP , Bp Minns was not invited either.

[john mckillop]

Where are the voices in this church that can challenge the notion that because one doesn't believe in same sex-blessing or marriage makes one a homophobe or insensitive to the inclusion of homosexuals within the church? Both Minns and Robinson shouldn't be invited to this conference as it is both of their extremes that is pulling the vast middle ground from under our feet.

John McKillop
Bratislava

[Michael Ryan]

It remains to be seen if, indeed, the ECUSA Bishops will decide to go. Regardless of their individual replies to Canterbury, their decision due 30 September looms large on whether or not they will even be part of the Anglican Communion by then.

[Martin Reynolds]

Huw is only partly correct.

Bp Robinson is not the only one. Martyn Minns was never on the possibles list - George Carey and the Primates had ruled that type of grouping out many years ago, along with other groups like AMiA.

There seems to be some question over the bishop of Harare and at least one other though. Aparantly the ABC is taking advice from the Primates here.

UK bishops had their tear-off slip this morning, Ruth!

[Chuck Blanchard]

I wonder whether we are missing the real story here. The real issue is not who was not invited. That was sadly predicable. It seems to me that the real story is that all of the Episcopal Church bishops except for Bishop Robinson were invited. As I recall, this was in question just a few months ago.

We already know Nigeria is threatening to boycott if Bishop Minns is not invited. I wonder, however, whether they would attend Lambeth if the Bishops who voted for Bishop Robinson attend. I think not, and I think we will see a Global South alternative as a result.

Hopefully, I am wrong, and Lambeth 2008 can be a reconciliation of sorts. Sadly, however, I don't think that is in the cards.

[Adrian Roberts]

The church seems to be getting itself into a political mess. This is sad. Reasons aside, the structure is antiquated, and based on a society which no longer exists. It's rather like the Estates at the eve of the French Revolution. Failure to modernise years ago has led the CofE to become a kind of museum which has become increasingly irrelevant. Change must be the mantra. Bishop Robinson had huge support and he was elected. The Episcopal Bishops in the US have a mandate from their churches, unlike the English Bishops who are unelected. What is going on seems petty and unfair. Isn't it time English bishops were elected, the church freed from state control, the whole thing brought up to date so that the large cities like Nottingham and Leeds dont have cathedrals in market towns miles away?
Too many people in the church are only just facing up to the 19th century it would seem, rather than the post enlightenment globalised modern age.

[Julia Langdon]

We would hope that with the autumn meeting and TEC's response deadline looming, some of this may be resolved well before Lambeth and our leaders might actually be able to discuss issues that concern those of us who don't give a toss about homosexuals' issues.

I found Robinson's response quite telling. Does he EVER care about anything outside of the homosexual agenda? Does he EVER represent and minister to people who are not homosexuals? He says that if he were absent from Lambeth, the bishops would not be able to hear the homosexual POV. Hahahahahahaha, ahem...

It will be interesting to see if the TEC bishops rally around his cause or if the cheese will stand alone.

[Brian McKinlay]

Dr Williams should simply cancel the Lambeth Conference as an event likely to do more harm than good.

[Bill Sanderson]

I found it interesting that ++Cantuar reserved the right to change the invitation list. The timing seems to be aimed at putting a certain amount of pressure on the Canadian HoB in advance of General Synod and the TEC HoB in advance of the Sept. 30 deadline.

The point was also made on t19 that only active Ordinary, Co-adjutor and Suffragan Bishops have been invited to the last two Lambeth Conferences. +Minns is a missionary Bishop of Nigeria; it is uncertain that he falls into the above categories.

There are 14 months remaining before the opening address by ++Cantuar. Much will change in the interim.

[Marshall Scott]

I took the time to look last night at statements made by Global South Primates as a group ("The Road to Lambeth") or as individuals (Archbishops Akinola and Orombi). In light of those previous statements, they may find it difficult to come, even if Bishop Robinson is not there. There will be too many other "unacceptable" bishops there. It will be interesting to see how they decide.

[Chris Green]

I think we're missing the point if we read this as two bishops not invited, Minns and Robinson, both equally distanced and given victim status.

According to the Anglican Mainstream research TEN bishops have not (yet) been invited:
Robinson Cavalcanti, Bishop of Recife, Brazil, under the primatial authority of the Archbishop of the Southern Cone (Primate: Presiding Bishop Greg Venables)
Dr Nolbert Kunonga, Bishop of Harare, Province of Central Africa (Primate: Archbishop Bernard Malango)
Martyn Minns, Bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America who sits in the Nigerian House of Bishops (Primate: Archbishop Peter Akinola)
Chuck Murphy III, John Rodgers, Alexander Green, Thaddeus Barnum, T.J. Johnson, and Douglas Weiss of the Anglican Mission in America who sit in the Rwandan House of Bishops (Primate Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini)
Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire (Primate: Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori)

Of that list, only one (Gene Robinson) is from the liberal side of the debate. The remaining nine come from, or are authorised by, a swathe of Provinces across Africa AND South America. This would seem to guarantee not merely a boycott by Archbishop Akinola, but be designed to provoke a widespread boycott fom the global south.

One wonders if this is Lambeth's way of guaranteeing that the Conference will not happen, but preferring that others take the decision and the blame.

[Eileen Schilling]

I'm left wondering if Julia has ANY knowledge of +Robinson outside of the fact that he is homosexual?

He is the bishop of an entire DIOCESE afterall, and I'm quite sure that not all living within that Diocese are homosexual.

What do you know of his ministries or pastoral leadership?

He wasn't elected because he was gay - he was elected because his homosexuality was a non-issue for people in New Hampshire - his other qualities determined he was the right man for the job.

[Rev. Bill Pierce]

Welcome (to borrow a character from the movie Network) to the Anglican Church of Howard Shore: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" Many are mad, many are offended, many have opinions about what is right and Christian. Many want to second guess +Rowan, he's sold out or he hasn't. All these opinions are exhausting, including my own. To repent I'm giving up blogs for Pentecost because my own speechifying may be deafing the still small voice of the Spirit . Fare thee well Ruth!

[Julia Langdon]

Eileen,
Are you in the Diocese of NH? No, I'm not aware of any opportunities or ministries that Robinson has undertaken that serve non-homosexual persons. He has been covered widely since his investiture and his travels, speeches, etc. that are covered are always related to homosexuality. In one of such articles, he remarked that while he previously said he didn't want to be the "gay bishop," he now sees that he is the most visible spokesman for that community and will continue in that vein. Further, his remark about being the only Anglican bishop who can speak authentically to homosexuality in the church is laughable but quite demonstrative of the Me-ism he seems to practice.

But this is veering off-topic. Those of us who are not homosexuals yearn for us to move on to other, more pressing issues that face the church and the world today.

[Jennifer]

There is a great difference between a duly and legally consecrated bishop not being invited and a bishop consecrated out of communion on the turf of another bishop not being invited.

Bp. Gene was elected in a canonically correct process that was confirmed by the General Synod of his national Church. Bp. Minns was not. Simply, a foreign Archbishop broke the recognized standards of polity and procedure and, invading the turf of a duly elected bishop, laid his hands on the head of one arbitrarily chosen.

I do hope Williams decides not invite the Bp. of Harare. The man is an obvious criminal who has been protected by those with a vested interest in the continuing welfare of the monstrous Mugabe. Please, your grace, start making some sense. While you're at it, what about the man who consecrated Minns, violating canon law and the ignoring the Windsor report? It seems Akinola doesn't much fancy coming anyways.

[Edward A Janes]

Belatedly I would comment on two items that have appeared in the times within the last few days. Namely the homosexual issue, on which the Bible, which I believe is to guide us all, and, the vicar wanting to modernise his parish church.
In the latter case you do not state how he introduces his new measures, is it by inviting the PCC to hear and discuss or is it dictatorially.
I have also resigned from the Anglican Church because of that [an issue concerning a parish that I've had to delete because of libel laws rg] and the failure of the Archbishop of Canterbury to honour the Lord's Words.
I believe the Anglican Church will continue in decline until it recognises that the congregations are not from the middle ages, they can read and write, the members of clergy recognise that they are there to promote a way of life and to do this they need to set an example, and to reduce pomp and ceremony in the way we are led to believe Jesus did.

[A renegade priest]

Although I am a traditional Anglo Catholic, I find much of this debate sickening for its lack of real humility.

Bishop Robinson may be considered heterodox by some, but he is a canonically elected and consecrated bishop with territorial jurisdiction.

Secondly,he is simply open and honest about his lifestyle in a way that many, including bishops, are not.

Finally let us keep the whole debate in perspective; homosexuality, indeed all sexuality, is for Christians primarily a pastoral issue, and it certainly should not be used as a litmus test for doctrinal'orthodoxy'.

Not having read any of Robinsons sermons, I do not know whether he is a heretic or a 'liberal', but the following quote from him, which I found on http://www.anglocatholicsocialism.org seems pretty orthodox to me

"To raise the issue of homosexuality above the Nicene Creed and belief in the Trinity seems to me to border on idolatry, If this is all about the authority of scripture why haven't people threatened to leave over the church not obeying Christ's commandment to reach out to the poor? A third of the parables and a sixth of Christ's words in the Gospels are about wealth possession, but we don't hear too much about that."

Let's all have some humility and Charity, for Christ's sake! Amen.

Give the guy an invitation.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Julia said: "Those of us who are not homosexuals yearn for us to move on to other, more pressing issues that face the church and the world today."

Malcolm+ observes: I rather suspect that most homosexuals (including the Bishop of New Hampshire) likewise yearn to move on to other issues as well.

The rest of your "evidence" that Gene is all and only about the gay issue is pure rot. Of course the only news coverage he gets is over the gay issue. That's why he's newsworthy at all, in the eyes of the secular press. If he weren't gay, he'd get the same amount of international media coverage as the presumably straight Bishop of Vermont. I don't know that I've ever heard of the Bishop of Vermont, and I rather expect you haven't either.

But I must ask, Julia - do YOU live in (or anywhere near) the diocese of New Hampshire? I suspect that people there will have heard all sorts of things - including in the secular media - about Gene Robinson. In fact, I suspect that the New Hampshire media generally don't even refer to the bishop's sexuality unless it is directly relevant to the subject.

[Julia Langdon]

As a matter of fact, Fr. Malcolm, yes. I lived in the Diocese of NH for 9 years. I moved a few years ago but have heard the angst from friends still there. When I was there, it was no secret whom former Bishop Theuner's heir apparent was. You can see for yourself if you care to search that Robinson's qualifications were no better or worse than any of the other candidates. It was politically orchestrated.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

I've attended the odd electoral synod, and heard about a few others. In most cases, the departing bishop had a favoured successor - though how open that favouritism was is another question. Indeed, I don't think I've ever heard of an electoral synod that didn't have some element of "political orchestration" by some influential person(s) on behalf of one candidate or another. Sometimes it is effective. If it is blatant, it usually fails.

Doubtless "conservatives" in New Hampshire had their own favoured candidate who was the object of their own "political orchestrations."

If Gene Robinson's "qualifications were no better or worse than any of the other candidates," then we must presume that the same complaint could be made about all of the other candidates - except that they did not find quite the same level of favour from the previous bishop. Hardly a crime on Gene's part. I'd say.

Unless you are suggesting that there was tampering with the election of parish delegates, or interference in the counting of ballots, your cry of "politically orchestrated" is actually pretty meaningless.

Are you suggesting that the previous bishop "fixed" the election in some way? That is what you seem to be implying - and it is a very serious charge. Possibly actionable before the courts if it turns out you have no evidence.

I'm quite certain that if there had been the slightest evidence of tampering, it would have been well bandied about the Communion already. Gene has more enemies than most, after all. I mean, how many other bishops-elect have had to wear a bullet-proof vest to their consecration?

But there has been nary a hint that "political orchestration" fixed the outcome in New Hampshire. The clergy and people of the diocese voted and Gene Robinson won. You may not care for the result. C'est la vie.

[Nike Olafimihan]

'but Gene was elected in a canonically ordained process' What about this 'canonically ordained process' being deliberately against the teachings of the Church? Does it legitimise it? Sex has always been an activity that has been regulated by God/Church whatever. Each continent has its issues on sex, and Biblical, particularly NT teachings thereon. In Africa, for example, polygamy is the issue, whilst homosexuality is the issue in the West. Yet, the African Bishops have not defied the church's teachings on it. My grandfather left the Anglican Church because they would not accept him along with his two wives, although he was a sincere Christian who'd married them before his conversion. Yet polygamy is accepted by the law of Nigeria. Archbishop Akinola would no more dream of ordaining a polygamist (and yes, they still exist in the Nigerian Anglican Church, only they are not ordained as priest or Bishops) as he would ordain a Gay one. So why is the hue and cry over his taking the stance the orthodox stance of the church. Why are liberals not taking a stance for polygamists? Leaving aside the question of his partner's gender, this is the first time EVER that a Christian bishop has been in a sexual relationship with someone to whom he is not married. And he has an alcohol problem to boot, which is also clearly against scriptural guidance on qualification of bishops. Would a man living with one woman whilst still married to another, be ordained a Bishop? To which extent should we push the frontiers? is there a RIGHT to have sex? Can humans not be disciplined in that respect out of reverence for Christ, who said, 'Some were made that way, and some become eunuchs for the sake of the Gospel?

[Julia Langdon]

My goodness, what effort you took to impose your conjectures on my thoughts and meaning!

No, I wasn't asserting vote tampering. Perhaps you think that way, but don't attribute it to me. But I must ask -- are you a priest in TEC? Have you lived for any considerable amount of time in the States and participated in church life there?

By "political orchestration," I was referring to the fact that NH's decision was maneuvered into a decision of the whole church. Few can honestly believe that it was mere coincidence for the NH election to have occurred in the timeframe that required the entire GC to consent to the election.

This is what I find most objectionable. If NH wanted him, that's one thing; to force everyone to affirm is quite another. If the goal was simply for NH to have Robinson as their bishop, they could have done this without fanfare and much attention. But, clearly, that wasn't enough -- they wanted to force the church into taking a stand on a much-larger stage.

There is a problem when the activism of a special interest group can control church decision-making. You are obviously happy with this result and perhaps can justify the means in your own mind. But I doubt if you would be singing the same tune if conservative activists accomplished the same thing and imposed a major conservative decision on the church.

TEC hardly exemplifies a democratic process. In a discussion with friends, none of us knew how our parish or diocesan delegates were selected. We certainly weren't presented with a list of candidates and their bios for us to vote. Moreover, delegates aren't instructed to represent their parishes/dioceses. They vote their own minds. This is how it is very possible for representatives of special interest groups to become delegates and vote for their own causes, not as representatives of the people. Until something controversial happens, pewsitters don't really care much about church politics.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Goodness gracious.

Synod delegates are elected at parish meetings. The process is supposed to be open. If it isn't, take action.

As to what they do once they get there - it would be pointless to send delegates if we don't expect them to use their brains. It is all well and good for parishioners or a parish meeting to say "we think thus and so." And a delegate should take that seriously. But a delegate who would sacrifice their own intellect (or the moving of the Spirit) to that barren sort of "representation" is no delegate at all. As that famous conservative, Edmund Burke, informed te electors of Bristol, "I a not a member of Bristol. I am a Memeber of Parliament."

And, of course, there was never a way that V. Gene Robinson could have become the Bishop of New Hampshire without fanfare and without involving the rest of the Church. The Canons of the Episcopal Church require that the election of a bishop be confirmed by other bishops with jurisdiction and by diocesan standing committees.

It beggars belief that the electoral synod in the diocese of New Hampshire could be some sort of organized plot by a "special interest group." Frankly, there's no way this could have been that well organized.

And it beggars belief to sugest that a small handful of "special interests" could have stampeded the clergy and lay delegates into electing Gene Robinson against their will. If you think lay delegates to synod (or even the clergy) are that easily led, then you clearly haven't met many.

The synod elected Gene Robinson because the synod wanted to elect Gene Robinson. Whether that was for good or ill, the suggestion that this was all a policitically manipulated plot by a conspiracy of special interests is simply silly.

And I say that as someone who has never actually voted for a successful candidate at an episcopal election.

At every one of those synods, there were political machinations - by highchurchmen and low, by liberals and conservatives, by various other interests. In general, the machinations of one side were effectively offset by the machinations of the other. And a majority of delegates carried on about their business paying little or no attention to the machinations of the partisans.

Yet I am not prepared to write off any of those elections as invalid due to allegations of manipulation. Instead, I see it as a collection of people of good will (but frequently poor judgement) trying to do what they thought was best for the Church.

And in the end, someone was elected because the delegates elected them.

As to Nike's post - I have not previously heard this allegation that VGR "has an alcohol problem." If true, he will certainly not be the first bishop, nor either the last. The question is rather, what has he done about it.

My usual experience is that open talk about an alcohol problem usually means that the person has taken steps to deal with their alcohol problem.

[(The Rev) Nancy Olmsted]

Where to begin? I am a priest in the US Episcopal Church, newly retired. I was the rector of a parish for 10 years and also served on a Standing Committee of a diocese for four years.

It is a matter of simple fact that a majority of diocesan Standing Committees, acting for TEC between General Conventions, must consent to the election of Bishops. The action of General Convention in approving such an election is no more the action of the whole than that taken by the various Standing Committees in the time between General Conventions. Such an election must also be affirmed by a a majority of the House of Bishops, of course. Either process is a valid way of engaging the whole church in consenting to the election of a bishop.

None of this is new information, nor, I assume, is it news that many people chose not to attend their parish annual meetings and so do not know or indeed care who is elected delegate to their annual diocesan convention. Perhaps the notable exception to this unhappy state of affairs occurs during the parish meeting before the election of a diocesan bishop. Then, indeed, there is some interest in who will be elected to represent the parish at diocesan convention and vote on the next bishop! In that sense, those delegates are probably more "representative" of the people in any given parish than those routinely elected in less exciting years. This is not to be naive, but as one who, as a former attorney, has also observed the secular political process, I think I can say that while politics in the church certainly exist, the process is no worse than average. Give it a rest.

[Neale Adams]

What do you mean, Ruth, that you were 'not invited' to the press conference? Is the AB of C office trying to manipulate the media? I am quite upset if it is.

[Eileen the Episcopalifem]

I live in NJ, Julia, Diocese of NJ.

I have heard +Robinson speak, and I have heard good things about his ministry - he is known to be a good pastor. And, like Christ, he has accepted this burden, even though he might rather have not.

As far as his election and GC, etc., I've found that the grand thing about TEC is that you can be as involved as you'd like to be.

If you aren't involved, and are content to sit in the pews and let others who ARE involved do the work, how can you complain? He was duly elected.

This is the same way, pretty much, that we elect our presidents, as the documents regarding such matters were written by the same men.

At my church, we have a big meeting to elect delegates to convention, and names can be called out on the floor for nomination. If the majority of the church chooses to send a particular person over another, that should reflect the majority will of the church.

If only a minority show up to vote, though and people feel it isn't represenative, then they have allowed an opportunity to be missed.

If people didn't go their church meetings and didn't offer themselves up and assert themselves, how can they complain about the result?

[Jonathan Castro]

Doomed Anglicanism in its death throes!

Jon Castro
www.antichurch.org.uk

[Mike Homfray]

One can only hope so, Jon. As it stands it has no logic, no purpose. Nothing containing conservative evangelical views can be 'good' by default.

[Richard]

WELL DONE ROWAN!

Even as a gay christian, I believe Archbishop Rowan was correct in his actions. What Rowan needs to do is kick TEC out of the Anglican Communion - we hope and pray!