Probably a lot more than 99 percent. Fortunately or unfortunately, the vast majority of people I know are oblivious, and I live and work in a university community of highly news-conscious people. When I've made any reference to the TEC-Anglican situation, I've gotten blank stares.

Might be a good thing. What we do is what we do regardless of the reaction and perception from "outside."

This news just in, too, from ENS:

[Archbishop of Canterbury] Rowan "Williams will travel to...Angola, where he will ... see at first hand...human rights work being undertaken in conjunction with the church. He will meet government and non-governmental leaders as well as those working to encourage better human rights..."

He's concerned about human rights, is he?

Where is the Archbishop's concern for imminent human rights violations against GLBT people in Nigeria, supported and led by Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola?

Where is Dr. Williams's own public statement of opposition to this forthcoming human rights violation? Or does intra-Communion diplomacy take priority over basic human rights?

Where are the admonitions of the Anglican Communion's now-famous "Instruments of Communion" to Archbishop Akinola to repent of his involvement in human rights violations and unconditionally oppose oppression, degredation and humiliation in all forms?

This is gradually becoming sickening...

As I have said elsewhere, I don't think she actually said what those headlines are suggesting she said. The problem is, she might as well have said it.

Allen (morningsider)

If we're really going to take our pulse by the headline writers and the opinions of the person in the street, then let's not forget what our reputation is with headline writers and people in the street to begin with: we are a face of gay friendly christianity. All those headline writers and people in the street (and members of all the other churches in the Anglican Communion) would be astonished to learn we don't have a liturgy for same sex blessings, for example. We are neither as good as they think, nor are we in any danger of doing anything as bad as they are presently suggesting. That's the nature of what headline writers are selling and what people in the street are buying.

This is where I agree with ++KJS's call for lower anxiety (and I know I'm in the minority here). We sometimes talk as if we secretly believed that the liberals have put one over on the moderates in TEC, and we're afraid it'll all come undone. Actually, I believe GC has pretty much implemented the will of the church (it was New Hampshire that elected +VGR, for heaven sake -- not eastern Massachusetts or northern California), and the HoB as a whole will have no desire to actually do what the more conservative primates want us to do. There is some danger they may try doing something disingenuous, in an analogous manner to B033, to stall for some more time. But I am confident that at the end of the day the headline writers and people in the street will be in no doubt about where TEC stands.

Peace,

Mark.