Per the Reuters article, "Episcopal bishops meeting privately in Texas have rejected demands from the world's Anglicans that they provide an alternate leader for conservatives who oppose ordaining gays."

The HoB didn't reject providing alternative leadership for conservatives, they just rejected the ABC and Primate's version of such a vehicle and the kind of oversight the conservatives were holding out for. I believe the bishops were right to do so.

As for the ABC's response, I'm not surprised. He's making the same kind of mistakes George III did ---

Dear Rowan,

Just what part of no don't you understand?

I was very surprised by the overwhelmingly positive reaction from all quarters. Everyone is tired of the wishy washy statements and a clear statement of principle and purpose gets respect from all sides.

Except from Rowan WIlliams who must be deep in denial by this point.

Obviously he and the Global South think we are just going to lick their boots and roll over. Doesn't sound like it to me from what the HOB said today.

I'm not surprised that ++Rowan is surprised. His perception has been a bit cloudy for a while now.

Ruidh, I don't think Rowan was expressing disappointment with the fact that the HOB statement is clear--which is the quality that gets it "respect from all sides." Rather, he was expressing disappointment with the actual content of their statement, which pulls the ground out from under moderate conservatives (such as I like to think I am) who have been trying to persuade our more radical friends that the PV plan is a way forward that can keep us all at least formally connected to TEC. That job of persuasion is all but impossible now.

It reads out of something like a program designed to generate random negative comments.

Does anyone else find the remark about an INITIAL response just a bit patronizing?

Dan,

I'm not convinced the PV plan is completely dead in the water yet. It might be revived in an alternative form that better fits with the polity of the Episcopal Church (i.e., the one ++KJS initially proposed.)

Ultimately, though, it appears to me that the bishops have made it clear that decision will not be up to them, but to General Convention or Executive Council.

Dan,

What would be missing from the primatial vicar plan that we proposed before the primates tacked on the bits about the pastoral council? Would it help to relieve anxiety if the presiding bishop named the pv in advance?

To Richard Helmer and Bill Carroll: I appreciate the spirit in which your suggestions are offered. I don't doubt the sincerity of those on the "progressive" wing of the church who are interested in finding a way to keep some semblance of institutional unity among the current players. But it appears that the one thing that makes the Primates' PV scheme palatable to alienated conservatives is also the very thing that makes it unacceptable--for putative reasons of "polity"--to those holding most of the cards. This is to say, any plan under which the Primatial Vicar is appointed by or reports to the Presiding Bishop is a non-starter. That may not be the way things *should* be, but it is manifestly the way things *are.*

It's really a simple matter of math. If you don't have the votes, you can't run the show. Trying to get Rowan and the primates to do it for you doesn't work either because none of them get to vote. They don't live here.

I might be reading too much into the tone, but I get the feeling that the invitation to visit the U.S. House of Bishops may be declined.

Dan, perhaps you can enlighten us. Several months after the initial request for alternative primatial oversight, I am still baffled about what these people want. Unless I am mistaken, the Presiding Bishop has no authority other than as a Bishop, and exercises no oversight. What would a Primatial Vicar do except act as a symbol of something? And if a symbol, of what?

Paul - This is precisely Bishop Howe's point in his letter to the Central Florida Diocese. It's worth reading. It's for this reason that he asked for the face to face with the ABC. Maybe when the ABC hears who first proposed the request and why, he'll show up.

Dan,

I hate to add to the deluge of questions. But, I'm curious, if we'd gone along with the Primatial Vicar scheme but decided to marry same-sex couples and appoint openly gay bishops in the rest of the church, how would you have felt?

I really liked this post at Santa Ignora (http://orderofsantaignora.wordpress.com):

And now, an open letter to the ABC.

Dear Archbishop Rowan Williams:
This gesture on behalf of TEC by our bishops was more of a ‘pointing to the point in our constitutions and canons where it says “you can’t do that, sillyheads” ‘ than the ‘two middle fingers and a stuck out tongue along with the pelvic thrusts that will drive you insaaaaane‘ you seem to think it is.

Reach around behind yourself, get a firm grip, and yank that stick out of your butt.

In Christian Love,
Mary Sue, Laywoman

To Richard Lyon:
I'm really feelin' the love here, dude. Your "do the math" reminder is a nice little end zone dance. I hope it makes you feel good, because that is really the extent of its usefulness. If it is your goal to have a church that is purged of any and all who might challenge your point of view, you're making all the right moves. Keep it up.

To Paul Martin:
Wouldn't you agree that symbolism is sometimes even more important than substance? Why have some churches in my diocese already spent money making new signs, with "Anglican" replacing "Episcopal"? Purely for symbolic reasons. Rightly or wrongly, since her election, Katharine has said and done things that make her a lightning rod. In a political sense, she's like Hillary Clinton: her supporters are very, very positive about her, but her detractors are more than routinely negative about her. For most conservatives, she's radioactive--it's risky to even be linked with her in anybody's mind or imagination. Hence, the need for some "alternative" arrangement.

To Weiwen:
There are few pieces of information less relevant than how I *feel* about anything. But if I'm correctly intuiting where you're heading with this question, you're asking whether I think the Primates' PV scheme would have provided sufficient insulation for conservative Episcopalians that the rest of the church would have been freer to pursue a vision in accord with their ideals in an unimpeded fashion. Do I have this right? If so, it's an imaginative idea, but only about five years too late. There may have been a time when something like that could have gotten some traction, but that time is long gone. Please hear me: I'm speaking pragmatically, not ideally. Whether such an idea actually has merit is beside the point.

Paul - I think the symbol the Primates had was - you are "in" TEC but not "under" TEC. However, I think the Bishops, including Howe (who is a WB), are saying such symbolism is not possible. (1) Because you must be in and under TEC - not under others from outside TEC; and (2) the "oversight" provided by the PB in our polity is very limited and the PV scheme actually expands the "oversight" that is provided by the PB. So, it is doubly problematic. However, the PB has made it clear that she can and will delegate the oversight she does provide under our current polity to an alternate. The question is why isn't that symbolism enough. The answer is because the problem isn't the PB oversight. It's being being "under" the TEC and all we can say is, if you don't want to be under the TEC, you don't want to be in the TEC. And that's not a problem TEC can fix.

Those of you who have trouble signing on using hte typepad comment system may take some pleasure in knowing that I was unable to sign on from home last night. So I am late in thanking Fr. Dan Martins for his comments. I also want to say that anybody who gives Dan a hard time will have to answer to me. (That never works for me as a parent, but I thought I would try it on an adult assemblage just for kicks.)

Dan, rather than have you respond to a barage of questions, I want to offer you the chance to spell out something that you think would work. I will post it as an entry and encourage comments. And I will moderate the comments so that the conversation doesn't deteriorate. Let me know if you have time for that sort of exchange. I know from experience that it can eat up your day and keep you from getting anything else done, so if you don't want to do this, obviously I understand.

Let me know.