Had our founding fathers waited for the approval of the ABC there would probably have NEVER been an Episcopal Church or a USA for it to BE in. He IS after all the Queen's Bishop - didn't we fight that war a couple of hundred years ago?

The temptation to sin, to make a deal, to keep our place at the table even at the expense of our lgbt brothers and sisters is great - especially when this sin is urged upon us by the ABC. But I think we must answer, respectfully, no, we can not sit at your table if the price is leaving our brothers and sisters out in the cold.

Never the less, I am saddened and not just a little frightened by the current position of TEC. I suspect that on good Friday the disciples wondered why Jesus hadn't make a deal with the "powers" so they could continue walking around with him feeding the hungry, healing the sick, raising the dead, etc. What's ahead for TEC may indeed be a heavy cross to bear - but if the Gospel is true and TEC is walking by the leading of the Holy Spirit there will be an Easter. Alleluia!!

Strong words, Jim, thank you for them. They point the clear truth that our Church considers what we are being asked to do, excluding an entire class just by the fact of inclusion in the class, a sin. This I think has been pretty clear for some time. Both Houses are wrestling with trying to do something that neither would do or believes is appropriate to do, and which they in fact, have not done; but which they are being forced to do from the outside.

I return to the words of the Special Commission. The best that we can be expected to offer towards Windsor, on the one particular resolution shortly before us, is to exercise caution. All the rest, 10 requests from Windsor, have been met by 10 positive resolutions.

No matter what we do, however, the schismatics will see schism everywhere. There is no appeasing them because they do not wish to be appeased.

If we cannot in good conscience single out an entire class of our people in this Church for such treatment, and I do not believe we can, then we should institute a moratorium on all bishop elections and consecrations for a specified time as part of our Windsor response.

Thanks for the editing, Jim. First try was a bit smug for my taste, but I just assumed it was the coffee and the 2 AM thing doing the talking for you.

I think a number of surprises have come out of the convention, not least that it is not the "regret" part of WR that turned into the stumbling block, but the moratorium part, particularly of same gender marriages. I think few expected immediately after GC '03 that that would become such a major part of the controversy.

I am also reminded of something you said below. "One thing I can say, though, after the experience this Convention has put itself through, is that if the Archbishop of Canterbury should issue an immediate response saying the compromise that our Church has worked so hard to achieve isn't good enough for him, it would greatly increase the number of Episcopalians who thought it was no longer worth trying to please him."

But the WR was already the compromise. The ABC has never asked ECUSA to do anything other than accept it or not. It has never been a secret that anything short of acceptance is insufficient. So I would question that your anger is properly directed at Williams when it is the GC that has spent so much time on something it was asked by him not to do.

You also say that "Nor was it encumbent upon those of us who don’t want to embrace the discrimination that the Report commends to point out to those who advocate that discrimination, that their efforts to achieve such discrimination could not pass canonical muster at this convention." I think some pointed this out all along - it was the institutionalists who hoped to blow past it. I suspect the evangelicals figured it was unlikely GC would ever pass a moratorium so questions of enforcement were moot. And as you suggested somewhere else, lack of enforcement would immediately end whatever truce the moratorium would give anyway.

And finally, let me say that while I may disagree with you on many things, you have done a fine job of reporting what is going on around you. Your journalist training has served you well.

"Eeither of those moratorium would have required a change in our canons, and such changes require the assent of two consecutive conventions."

This is the second place I've read this, and it is incorrect. Two consecutive GCs are needed to amend the Constitution or the Book of Common Prayer (Const. Arts. X, XII) but canon amendments only require action by one convention (Canon V.1.1). That said, the issues that needed to be amended to effect the moratoria under discussion were not strictly canonical but extended to the powers of bishops and standing committees set forth in the Constitution and BCP, and so the moratoria were consequently out of order.

I am pleased that as the Deputies consider this new resolve, the PB-elect will address them in their House. They need to hear from her directly. She is going to be the Chief Pastor of our Church and will have to deal with the repercussions of these votes across our entire Church.

Godspeed.