I agree that we have to make a choice, and for me the choice is clear. We don't need until September.

Our parish is committed to full inclusion of lgbt people, and we have taken the most inclusive stance we can short of outright disobedience of the bishop (who is relatively liberal, actually), but every time there's another story in the newspaper about the Anglican Communion fighting over homosexuality, we are sent two steps back in our effort to evangelize to the unchurched in our liberal college town.

We'd be better off without the albatross of the Anglican Communion.

I'm tired of doublespeak and riding fences. Let's have the courage to stand behind our conviction that full inclusion, and nothing short of it, is what is called for in the Gospel.
Furthermore, I'm horrified that we would consider compromising with a church that has been in the process of supporting, nay, sponsoring, criminalization of homosexuals.

If I'm still allowed to post here. I think we ought to tell the Communion that as much as it pains us to go it alone, we have more important work to do in the world than wasting our time, talent, and treasure arguing over whether someone's sexual orientation qualifies them for membership in the church. We should go ahead with what we perceive the mission of the church here in this country to be and what it is around the world as well. TEC will still have friends even if we leave the Communion for a time and in time they may decide they need us as much as we would like to be needed by them. We live in a sinful and broken world and even with the cultural and generational changes that have happened in our lifetimes we can still make a difference in many people's lives if we start doing evangelism in a more effective and personal way - a way that shows people we're the real deal when it comes to the true meaning of the Gospel and not the characature of Christianity so many people see it as. ++KJS is in a tough spot and I know what she would like to do is admirable but as MLK said, justice delayed is justice denied and discrimination is discrimination in spite of some people's ability to pull a few phrases out of the Bible and reduce the true meaning of Christianity to only be about something related one's genitals, how sad. I'm not gay and don't know anyone who is but I can see how wrong the church has been on a number of issues, not just homosexuality and think it needs to engage in some close self-examination of it's own heart and soul.

I think there is a sizeable dose of hubris in the notion that our "seat at the table" in the communion is of such overriding importance that it takes precedence over our mission within our own boundaries.

While thinking about the state of our relationship with the AC churches, I noticed with interest the report in The Living Church concerning the critique our PB received at the Primates Meeting over our name change from ECUSA to TEC:

"Staking out a claim to be “The Episcopal Church” of the Anglican Communion, when there were also Episcopal churches in Scotland, Brazil, the Philippines, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Rwanda, Sudan and Spain, was not well received, one centrist primate said. It was an “extraordinarily parochial” move...."

Who knew? More importantly, who even thought to ask?

What our leadership characterizes as the urgent need to "remain in conversation" in order to influence the trajectory of the AC, from another perspective will just look like the old colonial mindset, the unreflective assumption that we know what's best, and that everyone else needs our advice. Can we truly say they're wrong?

This simply doesn't play well any more. Churches that are interested in being "in conversation" with us will be, whether we are members of the AC or not. Those who are not interested, will not. I no longer think it is helpful to anyone to have the AC and TEC expending so much energy, and generating so much press coverage, over the question of our right to sit at that contentious table.

There is much in our Anglican heritage that is precious to me: the liturgical tradition, the intellectual freedom, decentralized authority, the famous three-legged stool. I do not advocate giving up our institutional ties to that tradition lightly. I have come to realize, however, that many others who appeal to the Anglican tradition have a very different view of what that means. Shall we spend all our energy in arguing over whose Anglicanism is the correct one?

I would rather our church devoted itself to its unique mission and ministry at home. Let the fruits of that work speak for themselves to any who care to listen.

Should TEC be more interested in evangelizing the people in the countries where TEC exists, or in the parts of the Communion that are upset with TEC? I haven't seen Bishop Schori's webcast yet, but the comments about it suggest she wants to promote a conversation that will maintain a relationship so we can evangelize the rest of the Communion ... it's a big mountain to climb, but I suspect she thinks it's better than a formal schism that could last for centuries.

Just a quick personal note. We buried my father on Monday from a very conservative Catholic church in a small Midwestern farm town. My sister has not been "out" in my parents' community. At the visitation, her partner was introduced as her friend, but at the funeral she sat with the family, and she received a rose from the coffin spray along with the rest of the family. I suspect these gestures spoke at high volume to the people in that community, but no one objected, including the lady who stopped talking to her son 15 years ago when he contracted AIDS.

My point is that the most important evangelization is person by person and family by family. TEC can support this evangelization formally, but it's not going to stop, even if we follow Bishop Katherine and "fast" for a time to maintain some semblance of unity so we can keep a dialogue with the rest of the Communion.

I would love for my sister to have the opportunity of receiving a blessing should she decide to formalize her relationship with her partner, but we'll be able to find someone to do it informally if it can't be done formally. The comity in my urban TEC parish is not going to change, no matter what happens at the international level. Having said all this, though, I can tell you my move into TEC from the Catholic church in 2006 was in part motivated by what one source calls the "radical acceptance" being practiced by TEC.

The whole fallacy in the "conversation" is that we will be talking to ourselves anyway. Conversation takes two. We have more to say in the cultures of TEC than to Africa where a friend of mine is on a Peace Corps placement. She writes that the village sees no point in learning to read - maybe for boys but certainly not for girls.

Considering that we have been making a big deal about how important decisions in TEC are made by the bishops, clergy and laity in General Convention, how can we give the decision whether to comply (and stay in) or not comply (and be out) solely to the HoB? It is a violation of our polity.

At a minimum, it needs to be reserved for the next General Convention and the bishops need to do whatever is necessary to fufill GC resolution A159.

"Reaffirmed the commitment of the Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and desire to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and asked, as an expression of interdependence, the Presiding offices of both Houses to work with the Anglican Communion to explore ways by which there might be inter-Anglican consultation and participation on standing commissions of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church (A159)." http://www.episcopalchurch.org/75383_76451_ENG_HTM.htm

Regardless of what direction it wants to move in (expend energy to stay, or expend it to go), TEC should stand firmly by its own structures and polity. I'm not versed in these matters, but the fall deadline for response to the Primates appears to assume that TEC will cut every procedural corner and then some to throw itself on the mercy of the Communion. First statement in reply to the ultimatum (and that's what it is) is, no, TEC won't abide by that. Second statement, in due and good time, is the response to the ultimatum itself. I personally hope for a firm answer of "no," but the PB seems to want to avoid that. Jim is right about the strategy dilemma; but the first problem is to address the seemingly impossible situation the ultimatum puts TEC in. And the answer to that should be that TEC will respect its decision-making processes, which is to say that the Church will respect those who have to live with the decisions. If that's interpreted by the Akinolytes as a rebuke or refusal of their demands, so be it.

Doug Simonsen wrote:

"There is much in our Anglican heritage that is precious to me: the liturgical tradition, the intellectual freedom, decentralized authority, the famous three-legged stool. I do not advocate giving up our institutional ties to that tradition lightly. I have come to realize, however, that many others who appeal to the Anglican tradition have a very different view of what that means."

That's exactly the problem. When I first attended church in my soon-to-be Network diocese, I was struck by the way that it was, in some undefinable but very clear way, "not Anglican." The same seems true of certain of the "Global South" churches in the Communion.

These diocese and churches are unwilling to tolerate us. They are demanding that we become like them. I think that would be tantamount to giving up our authentic Anglican heritage.

Should we do that as the price of remaining in a nominally Anglican Communion that is in the process of losing all recognizably Anglican identity? I don't think so.

Domestically, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Assemblies of God have planted many churches. Should we give up our Anglican identity to become more like one or more of these denominations? Will that help or hinder our evangelization?

Again, the question answers itself. We attract converts who want what the Anglican tradition has to offer them. We ought to keep our tradition intact, even if it comes at the price of a split with a Communion that is Anglican in name only.

And while I'm at the keyboard, I'd like to just mention how offended I was at this pronouncement in ++KJS's address yesterday:

"The impatience we are now experiencing is an idol, a false hope that is unwilling to wait on God for clarity, an idol that fails to hope and expect that the Spirit will lead us into all truth."

I am quite reconciled to the need to wait for the gradual revealing of God's will. The duty of accountability owed by leadership to members is something completely different.

We are engaged in a crucial debate over our response to a document signed by our presiding bishop. In that context, I believe it is entirely reasonable and appropriate to ask for clarity about (1) how the PB understands the "requests" made in the Primates' Communique, (2) why in the world she ever signed the damned thing, (3) how she hopes TEC will respond, and (4) why.

This is clarity that only ++KJS can provide, not God.

To label me an idolator because I'm impatient with her failure to be more forthcoming on these issues is inappropriate and unworthy. It's not nice to call people names.

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that this is fundamentally a human rights issue. This is not just about keeping the Anglican communion together. The principal proponent of the position that we must renounce full inclusion of LGBTs in our church is also the principal proponent of legislation that would criminalize gay advocacy and association in Nigeria. This is not a nice little conversation about inclusion. We're talking about someone who desires to persecute gays even to the point of arrest, torture and death. This is not an Anglican tea party.

This is very much like Neville Chamberlain at Munich. Are we going to placate Akinola to avoid a breach of the communion? The ABP has been playing Chamberlain's part very well. Unfortunately, our PB is also playing along at this point.

There are defining moments in human and ecclesial history that speak volumes about who (and whose) we are and what we believe. This is such a moment. We have failed the test in the past. Our church did not stand against African slavery in the nineteenth century but, in some quarters, provided a "biblical" rationale for its continuation. We should now be leading the charge to respect the dignity of EVERY human being, not standing by, complicit, while gays are persecuted, waiting for society at large to drag us kicking and screaming into a more just future.

I am a cradle Episcopalian, straight white male, who wants to be proud of my church in its uncomprising proclamation of the gospel--to set the captives free, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. I don't know what I will do if we fail this test. WWJD?

Can a two-legged stool even stand?

Meaning...

Current chainsaw assaults on the "reason leg" - demands for global uniformity on second-tier issues, the misguided notion that God somehow despises diversity - suggest problems ahead for all...unless contested effectively.

The TEC should decide what they stand for and be firm and confident about it. Trying to please everyone has put the church in a very defensive and ineffective position . The people that oppose you will not be converted by indecisive policies (and may use your hesitation to undermine your legal authority). Neither will people looking for a spiritual home and finding such confusion and anguish be drawn to TEC. Who is looking for a spiritual family that can't decide who is truly welcome in it? The church will not grow under these conditions. Lead by example and the church will attract those looking for that inclusiveness wherever they may be. TEC could be a beacon to the world.

I've been a lurker on this blog for months, but Jim's question has finally compelled me to contribute. I have been ordained for 37 years, and in spite of a distinguished career in the church, for 37 years have had to endure these constant conversations about the role of gay men and women in the church. In seminary in the late 60s, I'd hoped that the conversation would run its course, and we could all get on with our ministries. Now I'm on the eve of retiring, and the conversation simply gets more abusive. It makes me so depressed to imagine how much energy has been spent arguing this point, when it could have been spent meeting the ministry needs that surround us constantly.

I too believe we should split from the AC. The one argument that has prevented me from saying that more resolutely in Miroslav Volf's argument that at Creation, God separated things but also bound them together. Now I must disagree with Volf, as much as I admire his work, pointing out that sometimes, being "bound together", however divine the plan, can deteriorate into abuse.

I'm not sure those are the only choices. I think we might meaningfully do some brainstorming of responses, and offer that as a service to our bishops. Tobias Haller has made his "Modest Proposal" at his site. I've made some suggestions at mine. I think that would be a reasonable, appropriate, and potentially useful step for us to take.

I think that we need to take a principled stand of inclusion for all GLBT people at all levels of our church. It is the morally correct response for us as Episcopalians. We need to speak the truth to powers that be, and let the chips fall where they may. There is no point in enabling the interference of any bishops of other provinces in our church, particularly in such a regressive offense against basic human rights.

I suspect that we have more support around the Anglican world that we realize, and that power represented by the Global Primates is of a much more limited nature than they think. The problem has been, in my opinion, that no one has stood up to them and told them they are wrong.

We need affirm what we truly stand for; if we don't, we stand for nothing.

I've been deluding myself in thinking the folks outside TEC don't understand our polity but I think they understand it very well and with some help from within our own ranks are using it against us right now by trying to get the HOB to respond to a demand they cannot speak to, hoping they will take the bait and see how much more division they can create amongst us, you know, divide and conquer. We ought to politely decline and let them know that we cannot 'offically' answer them until the whole church meets in '09.

I think Jim's analysis is very helpful and would continue to advocate very strongly for the second option. I believe Michael Hopkins spoke of "evangelical suicide" in a recent piece. Moral arguments for respecting the dignity of every human being, sound pastoral care, our own integrity, and the mission of the Church in North America all point us in the direction of saying a firm "no" to the primates and to the proposed covenant.

They have a saying in Brazil which is germain to this "consensus" that we're supposed to wait for: The consensus will come on St. Never's Day, in the afternoon. We'll all surely be dead by then. Option #2 is, therefore, the only sane one.

My first reaction to the ultimatum was quite simply, how in the world am I going to be able to invite people to my parish when the humanity of gay people is once again treated as debatable? We actually do the very un-Episcopal action of flyering on the streets around our church to let folks know that worship and Christian fellowship is available to them in our little place. Some come. Some find something they were seeking.

This nonsense makes this work very much more difficult, if we can find the stomach to do it at all. Gays are not in question in the secular lives of the urban Americans we encounter. If gays are objects of contention in our church, we can forget evangelizing in many places, especially among anyone under 35.

To revdoc:

I just felt I should tell you that the debate has not been entirely destructive. The rector at our church (I'm a layperson) has made the point that there's something to be said for the fact that these debates have turned the attention of a number of Episcopalians, as well as those of other denominations, to some important questions, including, "what do we believe?" "how do we decide what we believe?" and "how should I as a Christian interact with those with whom I disagree?" There are any number of Episcopalians who approach the church as a social outlet, and fail to hear its call for a deeper examination of our lives and faith. This debate has encouraged many to hear and respond to that call who might not have otherwise.

On a more practical note, I'm wondering how many people have started with blogs and then discovered other resources on the web. Blogs introduced me to the Mission St. Clare website and the daily meditations from Episcopal Divinity School. As a result, I can now keep up with the lectionary quite easily, and have a mini-sermon to augment the "At Close of Day" devotional. And so, quite by accident, I devised this year's Lenten discipline for myself.

Good things, both big and little, will come out of this.

While my thoughts in context of this discussion are not fleshed out fully,

The issue, it seems to me, does not concern human sexuality--I doubt that AB Akinola would know a homosexual if s(he) sat in his lap--instead, it is one of human authority, specifically the authority of an individual follower "body" of Christ vis a vis that of the ecclesial "body." I'm not certain what theology my view fits with, but, whether I am an Episcopalian, a Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Presbyterian, etc., or a non-churched "pagan," I am the one who determines what of my own authority I shall invest in the church, and how and in what ways I choose to invest it.

My individuality is inseparable from my physical and spiritual being, and my sexuality (distinct from "sexual preference") is inseparable from my physical and spiritual body. Through incarnation, these two are made one by God in Jesus Christ who, we may all attest as Christians, is an authority of one. Declaring myself a follower of Christ, with Jesus I become an authority of one.

I categorically reject the idea that there is such a thing as a sexual preference that attaches itself to my being, or expresses itself in my body.

Therefore, if I choose to call myself a gay man, it is not a matter of declaring my sexual preference. In fact, the reason I came to awareness of my being gay was not the person who I found myself in bed with (or wanted to be) but how I responded to life, including my life in, through and with Christ, and to God.

I am not the individual that is caricatured in Leviticus or Paul or elsewhere in the Bible, and my choosing who what how where when I relate to another human being (not sheep, goats or pickup trucks, btw) is nobody's business.

I am angry that, for example, Bishop Robinson must choose to be a Gay Bishop, when he did not seek to become one nor was he elected to be one. He was called and elected to be Bishop, period.

I've not made this very clear, I'm afraid, but my heart tells me that the dilemma TEC is facing is as much one of my (our) own making as anybody elses. If there is no specific issue or instance of conduct or manner to disqualify Gene Robinson (or another gay man, lesbian, bisexual man or woman, transgendered person, from being elected Bishop by the canons of TEC and "the people consenting" what is the problem? That he chooses to live his life with a man he loves? What is that a matter of? Is it a matter of what "other people" are saying. Let them say it.

I have let myself be defined by others, lgbts have tacitly consented to definitions and characterizations of themselves they did not authorize. We are authorized by God through Jesus Christ to be who and as we are, and that says no authority within or outside the church can characterize--"idolize"--or condemn us. Really!

"And I think the numbers of people willing to get out of bed on a Sunday morning to attend a Church that defines its charism as "facilitating the conversation" are probably rather small."

What has happened to the call for conversation?
Has patience run out now that the objective is fading? Would there not be other reasons for going to church?

Divorce is painful. I'm one of those serious "Anglophile Americans." Going to church when I'm over in England to visit family sites in Huddersfield or sightseeing in London, I feel at home in whenever I worship int The Church of England. Of course I do! I'm an Anglican!

The thought of separating from the Anglican Communion is painful. And what TEC and the AC is going through is not different from the conflicts leading to divorce.

But even though divorce creates pain on both sides, at the end of the divorce process comes a time of growth. The formation of a new spirit, a new outlook on our circumstances, new opportunities.

If The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion decides to go our separate ways, some of the positive things which immediately come to mind are TEC's ability to contribute more money to the U.N. Millenium Fund, more money for missionary work and evangelism, more money for homeless programs, for social justice and outreach.

And last, but not least, the divorce would give TEC the opportunity to do the ministry God has called us to do. In fact, he's even tried to slap us up side the head to get our attention and do what he has tried to bring forth: an open,loving,welcoming Episcopal Church where ALL of God's children are welcome. A church which celebrates diversity,love,social justice and repect for everyone.

Hmmm...maybe a divorce wouldn't be a bad thing after all!

Regards,
Gordon
www.cafepress.com/fartotheleft

I like Henry's vivid Neville Chamberlain parallel. But I wonder if it fits well.

What if the example was the US policy of engagement with China? Trade has its economic benefits to both sides, but it also may have an effect on China's human rights policies. The US government believes it will have a good effect. Meanwhile the Chinese government presumably believes the policy allows it to delay human rights reforms.

Those who disagree with the US approach often argue that it creates the impression that the US cares more about the economic benefit than the human rights benefit. US policymakers argue that the greatest gain in human rights in China can be gained through trade -- with the inevitable transmission of ideas and desire for political freedom that occurs when countries trade.