Absolutely...and (for a change) we need the Scottish church, New Zealand, parts of Australia, Japan, Brazil, South Africa, and other "friends" of TEC to stand up with and for us on this! We do not desire a "clean break." Just some respect.

Louie Crew has made the same argument, and it sounds good; but I don't buy it anymore. What makes the difference in outcomes for African LGBT people is not the actions TEC and ACofC take on their behalf, but the criticism of major institutions like the State Department, the UN and the Foreign Office on behalf of, say, the two Malawians arrested for having a traditional engagement party, and in opposition to Uganda's proposed "kill the Gays" law.

Secular LGBTs (as well as we few religious ones) get to Hillary Clinton et al. Within our religious structures we have no influence whatever on outcomes for oppressed peoples - except that whatever TEC and Integrity are AGAINST, African churches and governments are FOR.

It's faulty analysis to conflate our future relationship with the Anglican Communion with outcomes for African Gay people. We have no good influence there, these are separate issues.

Episcopalians should stop funding these Instruments of Oppression.

I tend to agree with you, Josh, but for one thing -- have we consulted African gay people? What would they call betrayal on our part?

Further, it seems to me that Anglican Scottist is saying no more fudging. And that leaves two options: making a clean break, or "take our stand explicitly with them, come what may." The later does NOT imply TEC should continue funding the instruments.

Your excerpts cut directly to the contentious chase, but I thought the heart of the original post was a very generous and interesting spin on the ABC's basic motivation:

"Williams, it seems to me, will never turn his back on the Global South contingent, regardless of its leadership. He is something of a liberation theologian whose primary loyalty, in theological terms, is to the people of the Global South: marginalized, exploited, crucified. I wager he would like to have TEC demonstrate the same kind of loyalty, a loyalty willing to tolerate extremely costly sacrifice in the name of solidarity with the poor."

It's a very different take on the ABC, who is usually described in blogland in terms of the weakness of his knees or the centrality of his commitment in institutional unity. I'd like to believe it's true, even if we can't/won't/shouldn't make the sacrifice he'd like us to make.

But we have to be very careful; the clean break that could be easy for us to contemplate might well betray our GLBT comrades in the Global South. We should take our stand explicitly with them, come what may--and that may mean enduring humiliations from Williams et al....The Cross calls for no less.

I don't like the idea, (Who likes humiliation or taking up the cross?), but I believe that Anglican Scotist's words are worthy of serious consideration.

We also should think hard as to whether TEC's funds could be better spent than funding the meetings.

June Butler