Whether or not we choose to accede to the Archbishop's "proposal," we need voices like this, not only from "inclusive church," but to join Arcbishop Fred Hiltz and the Anglican Church of Canada in opposing this action. Where are Scotland, Wales, Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Japan, and other "friends" on this?

I am very grateful for this letter, and wonder what can be do to facilitate relationships between gay-friendly churches in the UK and the US.

One can make a case either way, I suppose, but the real question is what course of action advances the kingdom of God? Participating at a reduced level in Instruments of Unity (because we're not "union" enough), or declining to participate in Instruments of Oppression?

Which course of action makes our point more clearly? Going along with Rowan & Co., or getting off his little merry-go-round so we can have church wherever we find ourselves?

I know this, Episcopalians are less and less inclined to keep buying tickets for a ride to nowhere. The Way actually leads someplace.

It's time we got off this tilt-a-whirl.

An observation: The assumption underlying of this letter is that the ABC does not have the authority to command members of The Episcopal Church not to participate as full members on committees to which they have been appointed, elected, or have a place by title. The advice is to stay at the table and not capitulate.

Enough is enough. We settled this issue in 1776 and 1789. For the past seven years we have "played nice" with the archbishop and various Anglican entities. It is time for the Episcopal Church to stop funding ALL Anglican Communion offices and redirect those funds to other ministries that build the church.

[Hi, Michael. Welcome. Looks like you are a first time commenter. In the future, please your full name at the end of your post. That's a requirement for comment approval. Thanks. -eds.]

What does "consultant status" mean in the letters to the TEC members of the commissions? Does that mean they still attend - just have a lowered status?

Ann: My guess is speak only when asked. No vote.

Sometimes consultant means, tell the client what they want to hear so the client can tell others that's what the consultant recommended. That kinda fits, too.

Concerning "relationships" it is evident that the Canadians, The Scottish Church, and others in the UK want to signal to the ABC and the wider communion that they are not going along with his exclusion campaign.

See TA's report on the PB's itinerary on her current visit to the UK,

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/004412.html

I don't agree with this at all. I applaud Archbishop Rowan for calling out our Church on this. Yes, God love all, but He doesn't want His children to lead sinful lives. It's time that those in our Church get away from this issue and focus on what is important, spreading the good news of Jesus. This is breaking the Church apart! Can't anyone see that? God welcomes all in His Church,but expect to be challenged and renewed in Him, not your own will. I and many others are sick of this.

"This is breaking the Church apart! Can't anyone see that?"

No; the sin of homophobia, and the ways of bibliolatry -- putting a written text ahead of the Gospel of the *true* Word of God, the Logos, Jesus -- is what is breaking the Communion (which is not itself a "Church") apart.

Btw, for anyone who is on Facebook and is interested in discussing the ABC's papal-like power grabs or staying abreast of news on it, join the page called "The Archbishop of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction in this Realm . . .":

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/pages/The-Archbishop-of-Canterbury-hath-no-jurisdiction-in-this-Realm-/122318231136761

Hi David, there is no such thing as the "sin of homophobia". Homophobia is the "fear" of gays. Just because the majority of people believe that those living unrepentant sinful lives have no business in a collar, much less a miter..doesn't mean they are homophobic. That "sin of homophobia" red herring touted by Susan Russell and the like does not fly.

Hi Richard - By your logic, racism too is not a "sin."

What you may miss is that failure to love one's neighbor as oneself - whether through racism, sexism, or heterosexism - is indeed a sin. And yes, those "-isms" are largely rooted in fear of The Other.

And it is often a sin accompanied by the bearing of false witness, as in so many of the canards bandied about by the "love the sinner, hate the sin" crowd when it comes to trotting out what they think they know about LGBT lives, sexualities, partnerships, etc.

If you want to get technical about it David, it really isn't a "sin" per-se. Misguided and stupid yes, but it has nothing to do with fear. Bishops are supposed to represent unity. What fruit has came from having Robinson and Glasspool elected into the episcopate? Yeah it made the left jump for joy, but really what has it done besides drive people away from the Church?? I don't see thousands and thousands of LGBT flowing in do you? I believe it was a mistake, the both of them to be in miters and I refuse to take communion from either of them. For the good of the church, unless those homosexuals are celibate, they should humbly remove themselves from ordained ministry.

I and many others are sick of this. Posted by Richard Jackson

Sick of what? Of "respecting the dignity of every human being"---including those human beings that God made LGBT---as in your baptismal covenant?

Asked and answered, at repeated GCs for decades now, R Jackson. Unless you have the votes declaring that God is doing something, well, ungodly different, time to Move On!

JC Fisher

"Respecting the dignity of every human being" doesn't mean turning a blind eye to sin. I respect your right for you to be who you want to be with, but those partnered LGBT are still sinning, and I'm not going to call evil good and good evil. I'll remain where I am,praying for our Church to return to God. Thank you.

And we will pray for you Richard and others who believe like you do on this issue.

Eric Sinkula