I have a strong impression that this may well be the push coming to shove that will launch the official "walking apart" of a portion of the present Communion. I think those actually separating will be fewer than the prime movers of this secession imagine.

I hope you are right, Tobias, but part of me suspects that this was leaked by people close to Gregory Venables to whip his supporters into a righteous tizzy about what a grave injustice this would be. I don't think Venables himself actually wants to "walk" anywhere. He will eventually retire back to England, and he's going to want to be able to go to church when he gets there.

Interesting speculation; and I take it with the usual half teaspoon of salt, considering the source. The estimable Mrs. Gledhill has been misinformed on such issues in the past.

That said, I would note that this is the Joint Standing Committee, most of whose members attended the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans, and most of whom made clear that they couldn't consider it fair to expect performance on the moratoria on consecrating a partnered gay bishop and official blessings of gay couples, and not expect performance on the moratoria on boundary crossings. Venables has gone beyond the Africans, however objectionable the African actions may be. They have established new institutions, inappropriate but without explicitly welcoming and separating diocesan structures from the Episcopal Church. It will be interesting to see whether the Joint Standing Committees ask the Southern Cone to voluntarily withhold their participation, or if something else - anythings else - will be suggested.

Interesting, too, how this would affect any vote to recognize a purported "new province" in the ACC. Absence of the representative from the Southern Cone would be one less vote to recognize - not a big change, but perhaps significant if it's close.

Marshall Scott

[Venables] will eventually retire back to England, and he's going to want to be able to go to church when he gets there.

*LOL*, Jim!

JC Fisher

Punishment seems to set a dangerous precedent in that others may wish subsequently to discipline TEC or the Anglican Church in Canada for consecrating an openly gay bishop living in a same sex relationship or blessing same sex relationships. Taking action against the Southern Cone is unlikely to cause that Province to reverse its actions, making any repercussions appear more vindictive than constructive. Instead of looking to the past, TEC and the Anglican Communion should begin looking to the future: what new forms or structures may be helpful? Any proposed covenant to which the Church of England could not subscribe and which includes disciplinary provisions certainly seems wasteful of time and money, counterproductive, and a distraction from mission.

This development may also explain the topic of Rowan Williams Advent Address now on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8DWu6HfDaA) of waiting and not being rash or moving too fast, but to wait. Who is he speaking to - does he intend to be general or is something on his mind? Did he write this particular message anticipating the upcoming events scheduled during Advent - including the Joint Standing Committee meeting in London. The timing of the release of that video and this meeting is rather interesting.

-Mary Ailes

Readers, do see George Clifford's Daily Episcopalian essay today on the subject:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/episcopal_church/an_alterntive_province_why_not.php

The timing of the release of that video and this meeting is rather interesting.

Oh, absolutely. Imagine: a regularly-scheduled meeting, and a video commemorating the beginning of Advent, at the same time! What else could it be, but Divine Intervention, in the person of His ever-attune servant Rowan?

{sarcasm/Off}

JC Fisher

Oh, and it turns out Ruth was wrong. I'd say "There's a shocker", but I already turned that function off! ;-)