It's a bit of both, isn't it? A pie in the face and an opportunity. My fear is that Rowan and those who surround and advise him have been eating so much of the bread of anxiety that they do not have the imagination to see either.

"Those in the Global South are committed to a more modern world view"? Only if bibliolatry, bigotry, hierarchial dictatorship and schism are considered 'modern,' can one say that.

"modern" as in an old way of thinking about the world - where people could be controlled - not post modern

I could be mistaken, but nothing in the Oxford Statement from the Gafcon leadership seems a surprise -- it's old news. That meeting was held some time ago, and it seemed odd that there was no statement issued at the time. I had naively assumed they'd just not gotten their act together to issue it. In hindsight I think we can see what they had telegraphed their intent to deliver a pie in Rowan's face.

Gafcon seems to be still invested in the Anglican Communion -- whether that means (1) their true preference is to stay with Canterbury and bend Canterbury to follow its will r.e. TEC/Canada or (2) they stay in connection out of spite is not clear.

Whichever, I suspect Gafcon will not make a clean break from Canterbury any time soon. If nothing else they can hold on to see whether the next ABC is more to their liking. (And on top of this you have the fact that other members of Gafcon are not as rabid -- and the rabid ones need them to in order to feel important.)

To go with the marriage counseling analogy, this bad marriage has no foreseeable end.

The question, I think, is whether Rowan takes the pie in the face as an opportunity to set aside his attempts to hold the communion together and get on with the real business of the church. The communion, for better or wrose, is not coming apart piece by piece not matter what he does -- or whatever he fears.

Rowan, stop eating the bread of anxiety.

All that the Gafcon people proved in the timing of this release is that they are uncouth and manipulative. Rowan Williams has represented their baby, and their response is not a transparent, adult, respectful or even kind reply.

They met in secret behind closed doors and no doubt with some glee plotted to release their little statement when it could most embarrass him. Now I have little truck for the ++ABC's appeasement of these scoundrels, but not even he deserves such classless, rude treatment.

Hopefully well mannered and thoughtful people will build a bridge connecting crude uncouth behavior with crude, uncouth so called Orthodoxy.

I have never seen the point of or need for an Anglican Covenant. We have the Creeds and the baptismal covenant and that appears to me to be enough.

But the point of the Covenant was to unite and that's a good thing. But it is clear that the Covenant will not have that effect. The Covenant is causing division.

So here's my suggestion/hope/prayer: Since the Covenant is not going to do what it was supposed to do and is no longer constructive, why not just drop it and save the time, money and effort and move onto something constructive?

My own preference would be to get the UN General Assembly to do 2 things: (1) end the violence against women and children on a world-wide basis and (2) reverse their decision to allow the execution of GLBT people for no other reason except that they are GLBT.

You may read about latter here:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/un-general-assembly-votes-to-allow-gays-to-be-executed-without-cause/politics/2010/11/20/15449

It all reminds me of our own General Convention 2006 when then PB Frank Griswold literally crammed Resolution B033 down the throats of the Bishops and +Katharine sealed the deal with the Deputies and the "Windsor Bishops" (as they were then calling themselves) couldn't get to the escalators quickly enough to make it to the already-arranged press conference declaring it "too little-too late."

Here's the bottom line: When you have Sole Possession of THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH there is no room for conversation or compromise ... the only deal on the table is capitulation. Take it or leave it.

(PS -- I recommend the later.)

Susan Russell

I think Susan has said it quite clearly in her final paragraph. When there is no willingness to listen/change/grow/move/ they there is little chance of agreement. Add in the fact that there is much political and power wrangling going on as well, and quite frankly it is an awful mess. I still believe that there is hope, but there are more days that I am becoming resigned to an understanding that the Anglican Communion as we have known it, is ending

Many thanks to Lesley Fellows for her perceptive and moving post. (There are many good comments on her blog that are worth reading.) (They aren't ALL good comments, but, hey...) She points out what has been observed before, but perhaps not enough: we are dealing with dysfunctional family dynamics. (+Rowan, you have read Edwin Friedman, haven't you?) But if we all cannot live together, I hope we will consider a trial separation rather than a divorce. I think we would be looking at a generation, not just a few years, but it seems to me that our dispute is not with the people of the GAFCON Churches but with their leaders (their Primates, particularly), and they will not be around for ever. (Neither will ours; so we'll see how that works out, I guess!) As I said the other day on my own blog, "Homophobia, misogyny, and fundamentalism have no long-term future in faithful Christianity, anywhere in the world." In the meantime, let us keep the porch light on, let us continue to issue invitations to meetings and conferences, let us keep them all in the Cycle of Prayer, let us continue to offer assistance with, e.g., water purification projects or whatever may be needed. If there is to be any "walking apart," let it not be us. (Accusing TEC or ACC of "walking apart" doesn't make it true. We haven't broken communion with anyone.) One's decisions are one's own responsibility, not someone else's fault.

Continuing the marriage analogy, is it not a bit late in the marriage to be trying to get the parties to sign onto a prenuptial agreement? That is what I see in the Covenant, a prenuptial, a sign of mistrust and a need to control, but too little and way too late.

And an echo of the Mad Priest, a big thank you to the Revd. Dr. Leslie for your fortitude as a voice of opposition to the Covenant in England, for you surely have now sacrificed any possibility of being a bishop in the CoE.

Those in the Global South are committed to a more modern** worldview and anxious about the way that the church is moving in places like the USA, Canada and even England.

I just wish people wouldn't make generalizations like those. It's patronizing towards us who do not come from places "like the USA, Canada or even England," and it conveniently ignores the fact that many of the main actors of the current Anglican wars are, indeed, from England and North America.

If you really do not want to be called modern, then please stop putting labels on large groups of people.

++Rowan has been desperate to keen the two sides together

Typo, or Freudian Slip? (i.e., we've been hearing Rowan wail for years now! :-X)

JC Fisher

Outstanding post. Thanks, Lesley (and my sympathies re your marriage)

Thanks Luiz - good reminder - tho I believe Lesley Fellows was referring to GAFCON primates mainly not the whole southern hemisphere - but generalizations are always problematic.

I think you are looking for offense that is not there, Luis. I am not aware that your church in Brazil has aligned itself with the Global South. If it has please point me to the information. To most folks commenting here, the Global South and GAFCON are almost synonymous, especially if one looked at their roster of members. A seminarian in the US should by now be familiar with the terms Modern and post-Modern in regard to world views.

The actors in the Anglican wars from North America are not TEC or ACCanada. Those folks are not interested in fighting. They just wish to be respected in their local decisions abut local ministry, as does the IEAB, last I heard.

Hi David. I don't think the writer had this generalization in mind, but that's how it sounds when you use this kind of quote.

As for the North-American actors, yes, many are not affiliated with TEC and the ACC anymore, but some still are, and some more are in England too. The last diocesan synod in South Carolina is a good example of that.

I guess my point is that people really should be more careful before making simplistic statements, because the fabric of the Anglican Communion is much more complex than we think, since synodical systems often reflect a (sometimes slight) majority of views, and almost never an unanimity. There are people on both (I'd say even multiple) sides everywhere.

A bit of a background regarding the South-to-South encounters. It started with the help of a couple Brazilian bishops, and the idea was to replicate in a certain way the Latin American Conference of Catholic Bishops, which meets to discuss about problems related to Latin America. The idea was to have a conference of Anglican bishops from developing countries, to discuss about Mission in that context. In 2005, however, it became essentially polarized and Brazilian bishops were "disinvited" by Archbishop Akinola, who was chairing that meeting. But IEAB never officially left the group.

Still, there are some provinces not exactly aligned with GAFCON which attend the south-to-south encounters.

Also, the term "Global South" is used in the wider Church world in a completely different context. It has more to do with non-developed countries than with anything else.