"Perhaps the time has come to say simply: Dear Archbishop Williams, we are siding with our LGBT brothers and sisters. Do what you like..."

Jim, that's dead solid perfect. Personally, I say TEC should stand together on that; we should also refuse to accept a marginalized place in the AC.
Cheryl Mack

It´s time to openly challenge those amongst us who preach difference and hate. It´s time to say to those, who champion discrimination, abuse of LGBT people and from those who deny Heterosexual Women a full place, with full standing as Anglican Christian sat the Body of Christ...we are no longer victims nor cowards and we are also no longer willing to quietly step back while lies, demonizing and marginalizing are openly preached and selectively supported by Scripture by those who would, and do HARM fellow Anglicans. No soap. It´s our turn to Stand Firm and say no to all violations of fellowship and good faith...The Episcopal Church WELCOMES Everyone...that´s not so hard to understand.

"Perhaps the time has come to say simply: Dear Archbishop Williams, we are siding with our LGBT brothers and sisters. Do what you like..."

The question, of course, is who exactly are "we?" Since every statement officially made by the Episcopal Church has declared that "we" are not of one mind on the subject of the appropriate inclusion of gays and lesbians, who then is this rather monolithic sounding "we" referred to in your piece?

To borrow a phrase from the UCC, "The Spirit is still speaking," and we have chosen to listen to her.

Dennis, by "we" in that instance, I mean the Episcopal Church corporately.

Jim raises an important question. Rowan Williams has said there will be consequences. Sanctions are not possible, but a request to voluntarily withdraw from decisions has occurred in the past and may occur again. Soon.

@Dennis asks who is this "we" -- which I find directly echoes the recent discussions on these pages of the headship of The Episcopal Church.

While Dennis may not have intended it this way, for me his question gets to the nuts and bolts question of who/when/how of any response should we have to face Jim's question. What happened last time? Is that process appropriate? If it is, then the question what is _your_ recommendation as to the appropriate response.

I have long advocated holding our position and letting the chips fall where they may. I would prefer we be "sanctioned" by whatever kangaroo process they devise than withdraw. And please remember that not one has yet officially adopted the Covenant so any sort of sanction is way premature.
We should attend meetings to give support to the glbt folks in Provinces where the are grieviously abused, pressing on such provinces to end the abuse and de-criminalize homosexuality. Having taken this position we cannot just quietly accept shunning.
Furthermore the ++ABC needs to be clearly told that if we are dis-invited we will then also be dis-continuing financial support for all administrative functions of the WWAC putting all money into shared mission.

If we are asked to absent ourselves we must attend and let the chips (or chumps) fall where they may. Jesus never missed an opportunity to stand for the righteous cause, and we need to do so by our presence.

It's time we made up our own mind about the Anglican Communion and get on with the business of following Jesus, not worrying about offending some homophobic archbishops.

James Holloway

Its hard to see how reconcilaition can occur when both "sides" consider themselves the wounded party. On one hand The EC see's its self as acting with justice for LGBT persons. On the other hand, some in the Anglican Communion feel they are acting in accordance to and faithful to the "tradition".

In every instance, the case that inclusion of partnered LGBT persons violates "doctrine" has not been made convincingly.

So here we are--they seeing us a cultural imperialists and we seeing them as hidebound to outdated and faulty interpretation of scripture. What to do?

Dear Archbishop Williams,

We have done what we believe God is calling us to do. You must do what you believe God is calling you to do.

We would willingly leave the Anglican Communion, either for a season or permanently, if we could be shown that this is the best way to build our brothers and sisters up in love.

If you ask us consent to a marginalized status within the Communion, we will not consent, for we have done nothing wrong and to consent to injustice is to sin against God and our neighbor. If you seek to impose such a status upon us, we will accept that it is to some extent your prerogative to do so. In other respects, that privilege belongs to the Anglican Consultative Council, acting in accordance with its constitution. We will gladly suffer injustice in order to stay true to the Gospel, but we will never consent to it.

For our part, we will seek the highest degree of communion possible with you and all other Christians, understanding that true communion is the gift of God through Jesus Christ, that the unity that Jesus prayed for is more an eschatological reality than an accomplished fact, and that neither communion nor unity, as Christians define them, is possible without justice and charity for all people.

No exceptions allowed.

In Christ,

The Episcopal Church

We should never voluntarily give up our voice. If RW wishes to go whole hog and remove his recognition of TEC as in Communion with the CoE, fine -- but no more hole and corner business. It is absurd to withdraw when engagement is both the Christ-like and the practical way forward. Apartheid doesn't work.

I think it is clearly time to hold the bullies, starting with Dr. Williams to account. TEC and AC Canada should simply say no. No we won't 'voluntarily' withdraw. If Dr. Williams and his fellows insist on the schism, let them proclaim it. No we won't be sending checks to cover the expenses of the bullies. Consequences flow both ways.

FWIW
jimB
Jim Beyer

For my part, giving up our voice "the last time" was a serious mistake. Like the ill-conceived B033, it was pitched as a way to show our concern and respect for the differing opinions of others and to promote healing and understanding. Both of those actions did neither, and we paid a high price within our own denomination for it as well as indirectly harming our LGBT brothers and sisters in other parts of the Anglican communion who could only look to us to give them a voice that they were not allowed in their own churches.
To agree "not to attend" at this point seems like agreeing not to ride busses any more so we don't offend those who want us in the back. If we have come to be the modern day "sinners and tax collectors" in the Anglican communion, then I would call on those who see us as sinners to sit down at the table with us just as Jesus did.
I believe that there is no logic in having us not attend with full voice and vote. It's like conceding the election before the ballot is cast. We owe it to ourselves and our brothers and sisters in the wider Anglican communion to refuse to be silenced and marginalized. We need to have the courage of our convictions. Certainly, the conservatives have no qualms about expressing their views loudly, aggressively and uncharitably. We need to refuse to be cast as the bad kids caught with our hands in the cookie jar. If we really believe in the rightness of what we have done, then how can we fail to stand by that? If we really do not believe in the rightness of what we have done, then why did the majority of us (by a substantial margin) decide to do it?
Enough of this "disinviting!"

Whatever you focus on in a system grows....and one of the most effective ways to effect change is to create a crisis. So I'd say ignore the ABC's request, should he ask us not to attend. Don't even respond to him but just show up. Not going is dis-empowering ourselves. So go and create a new crisis that we can all focus on -- like Haiti, for example. Our reps can just resolutely ignore anything that comes up about the "sexuality crisis" (refusing to engage drains energy) and consistently return the focus to the crisis in Haiti (and make the crisis bigger and bigger to it gains urgency -- which I believe truly exists so this is not a phony crisis).

Everybody knows everyone else's position on the sexuality issue so there's no sense in repeating the arguments over and over. Sometimes you just have to move on to something else -- and in working on that, the group's energy shifts and eventually the system shifts without anyone having to declare who won/lost, etc.

If you want to stay in community you need to act in common and in a conflict situation like this, we can't agree on what is "in common" on this topic (at least not at this point in history) -- so find something we can do together and focus on that. Sometimes the best way to resolve a conflict is to just refuse to fight AND refuse to walk away.

Ditto, Lynda's recommendation. If a request comes to absent ourselves, ignore it. It requires no action. Move on. No rubbernecking.

I'm reminded of a story that's probably repeated itself time and again. A man and his wife were moving and their priest referred them to a priest in their new city with whom he was friends. They made an appointment with this priest and asked him about joining the parish. He said he would be glad to have them, but some of his parishioners might make them feel so welcome. They were black and the church was white. And yet the sign out front said, The Episcopal Church Welcomes You.

The couple found a truly welcoming parish and remained Episcopalians, active in the councils of the church.

We should never be asked to disinvite ourselves from the councils of the communion just because there are corners of the communion that reject us. But if we are, we can ignore the request _and_ not walk away.

Sometimes you just have to do what is right and leave the rest to God and everybody else. We insist that those leaving TEC embrace the fact that they can't have their cake and eat it too. That's true for us as well. Maybe we should recognize that you don't always get rewarded for being good.

Wot Linda G said. [Mind you, that was what I counseled---from afar---+Gene Robinson do at Lambeth '08 (Show up at all episcopal events, and dare Rowan to have him arrested. +Gene's more gracious than I am! ;-/)]

JC Fisher

Linda Grenz is exactly correct.

"Sometimes the best way to resolve a conflict is to just refuse to fight AND refuse to walk away."

This is precisely what Jesus did when he "set his face toward Jerusalem." Luke 9:51

Bunker Hill
Spearfish, SD

It is far past time we rejected the current Anglican Country Club mentality and went on. TACs current mindset nauseates me in extremis.

I feel like Rosa Parks. I'm too tired to go to the back of the bus again. I think I'll just stay seated at the table with you Mr. Archbishop.

Lowell Grisham
Fayetteville, Arkansas

Threats! Snide remarks and more threats from the deep, now grasping, voice of the ABC ...no Sir, please Sir, punish all you like and then face the demons of your own making (as your acquaintance the Pope has no place to hide from HIS irresponsible/head-strong defensive/wrong behavior).

TRUTH and LOVE are abounding around US and denial, delay, condemnation and pretend won´t relieve YOU of YOUR moral responsibility to embrace the reality of the GOOD NEWS at The Body of Christ...the old way, no matter how balanced/ compromised and fair minded you thought it was is not honest.

Stretching truth by stretching the meaning of Selective Scriptural anti-lgbt verses is not working for you/us or them...you do all of us a disservice when avoiding true wisdom, understanding, justice and self-honesty. Being open minded does not mean that fear, hate, arrogance and ignorance ought be encouraged at The Anglican Communion. Please don´t worry about ¨hurting feelings¨ as LGBT Anglicans are being tormented in Central Africa and Jamaica.

The ¨ball¨ of moral authority is now and has always been in your Lambeth Court. For the sake of all that is decent and holy please start teaching TRUTH and stop being a compromised coward.

Love God and ALL of Gods children at ALL levels of Anglican Communionlife.

START NOW.

I want to reinforce Jeffrey Shy's comment about LGBT people in the rest of the Communion. It's important for the American and Canadian churches to attend Communion meetings and not agree to any request to withdraw. You need to attend for the sake of people beyond the boundaries of North America.

LGBT members of the Church of England plus all those praying for a church which is truly inclusive are the majority, whatever the bishops of Durham, Winchester, ex-Rochester and others say. The same groups of people in Scotland, Ireland, Wales, New Zealand, Australia, etc need you as well. You are further down to road of modelling true, Christ-like inclusion.

LGBT people in Anglican churches across Africa especially, but the whole of the Communion need your voice at the table. And so do those networked into ACNA and the Global South. They are living a false gospel and one day, sonner rather than later, they will be confronted with the need to change and live into a new paradigm.

We who are working and living into the new paradigm need to be confident of our vision and experience of God and model the church we wish to be part of and show others what is possible in the Kingdom of God.

What we seem to have here are two understandings of what Christianity is.

The first is founded on an assumption that Christianity consists of a fixed body of truth described in biblical terms as "the faith that was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3).

The second is founded on a Trinitarian understanding that in order to remain authentically reflective of the ministry of Jesus, Christianity must always seek to follow a Spirit that (in words attributed to him) "will guide [us] into all truth" (John 16:13a).

While the first of these forms tends to resist change, the Trinitarian form embraces it carefully and prayerfully "with signs following".

I for one am proud to be identified with the second of these forms, which is surely that we find expressed, no matter how inadequately, in classic Anglicanism.

Thanks, Colin.

That was my instinct . . . but this Yank likes to hear it confirmed by a fur'ner. ;-)

JC Fisher