Sigh. I feel about this exactly as I did about the letter sent to the Rev. Dr. Grieb . . . the ABC proposes, and the SG disposes?

Maybe this was answered last time, but--where is it written? When did we agree to this set up?

And if it isn't written, if we haven't agreed to this, aren't we digging our own grave when we roll over and allow the power grabs to continue?

The Communion is not a Church; the SG is not the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; and +Rowan is not our pope. At least, not yet.

Jason Cox

Alyson survives on a technicality. The Canadian General Synod has taken no action which could bee deemed a breech of the moratoria, therefore Alyson stays put.

Well, it's some sense of even-handedness, even if awfully late. I agree that focussing on what was in the Windsor Report is arbitrary (and so reference to Southern Cone, cited in the Report by name, and not Nigeria or Uganda whose worse excesses occurred after), but it's clear. (Of course, Rwanda and Southeast Asia were actually earlier with their creation of AMiA.)

Jason, the Windsor Report is Canterbury's source of authority for all of this. We've all railed about that, since it seems to be a source of authority only for Canterbury, and for those who wish to use it as a lever against the Episcopal Church; but you can't call Williams inconsistent on that. We haven't all agreed on this. However, we have agreed on Canterbury; and so while the current incumbent resorts to Windsor we have to at least take it seriously.

Marshall Scott

Those in italics have received notice from Kearon. Those in bold are from provinces that plainly state that they are engaged in inter-provincial interventions in the U.S., but have not been put on notice by Kearon. Why? Kearon is making a distinction between the Southern Cone, and Nigeria and Uganda where none exists. The distinction, however, is no more arbitrary than the action itself. Where does Kearon's authority to remove members come from?

SPOT ON!

JC Fisher

Re Malcolm's comment on Canada and a technicality, let's be honest about this.As a Canadian I find the position of my church rather hypocritical. Blessings of same gender partnerships, including blessings of same gender civil marriages are authorized in several Canadian dioceses. The non-decision of our last General synod in 2010 is being spun in a particular way to keep prelates off shore as happy as possible.

There are 3 times as many men as women on the list.

I don't disagree with Rod'd observation about the dishonesty of it all.

But let us consider why Rowan and the Anglocentric Communion bureaucracy take shelter in the dishonest technicality. Even Rowan would have a hard time dealing with the disconnect of removing every member of the Church of England from those same committees.

If honesty came into it, then, in addition to Grieb (TEC) and Zavala (Southern Cone), he would also need to sanction:

* Asaju (Nigeria - border crossings)
* Avis (CofE - blessings)
* Barnett-Cowan (Canada - blessings)
* Gibaut (John is a Canadian - blessings)
* Gregory (West Indies - Primate participated in consecration of border crossers)
* Kalengyo (Uganda - border crossings)
* Methuen (CofE - blessings)
* Oliver (CofE - blessings)

And suddenly fully half of the committee, including the chair and the WCC rep are reduced to observer / consultant status.

No, Rowan can't do honesty or his paper-bag barricade will be breached and the whole world will see that the emperor has no integrity.

Malcolm is quite right, of course.

Yesterday I commented over at MadPriest's site:

Let me see now. The Episcopal Church (that is, the one that is mostly although not exclusively in the United States) is reduced to consultant status because we will not exterminate the gay cooties. The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone is reduced to consultant status because they will not quit poaching from their neighbors. The Anglican Church of Canada will no doubt be reduced to consultant status because they refuse to exterminate the gay cooties but, being Canadians, are too nice to say so. The Anglican Church of Australia will no doubt be reduced to consultant status because they will not exterminate the Diocese of Sydney. The Anglican Church of Mexico will no doubt be reduced to consultant status when it is discovered that the text of the Anglican Covenant that they endorsed actually had been translated "¿No podemos llevarnos bien?" And the Church of England will be reduced to consultant status when the Queen actually reads the Anglican Covenant and says, "We are not amused" (which is Queenly for "It ain't gonna happen"). So that at the next meeting of the Anglican Poobahs it turns out that everyone there is just a consultant and no one is actually a member.

I think I like this outcome.

All of this begs a question that I didn't think I'd ever ask. Is being part of the Anglican Communion worth all the pain and hassle and name calling and setting of moratoria and breaking of moratoria etc etc etc etc. When do we say this thing is completely broken, it can't be fixed, so let us go our separate ways. Oh, but who gets to be the "Anglican Church" here in Canada? What do we do about border crossing then? What if we find another "issue" on which be can't agree, do we split again? Okay, let's be congregationalists!! We'll make our own rules! How long til we split again? I read a lot of negativity, a lot of bashing of those who try to fix things because they are hopelessly misguided, or hopelessly devoted to the other side. It's Friday, it's been a long week! Here's a simple solution that I know won't work, but why not suggest it. It comes in two parts. First, let us enact a moratoria requiring us all to be constructive. Second, let us enact a moratoria requiring us all to play nice! How long til we break these - my guess would be timed in seconds. Most interestingly - who will we blame?

Thanks for your post Malcolm. You end with, "No, Rowan can't do honesty or his paper-bag barricade will be breached and the whole world will see that the emperor has no integrity." Have you considered articulating some of your palpable frustration in the direction of our own Canadian church? You seem reluctant to lend a critical voice to our own National structures. Surely one's first responsibility in advocating for justice and inclusion is to offer a critical appraisal within one's own Church? Let's focus on naming clearly and than working openly to changing the hypocritical stance on sexuality within the Canadian church. The best chance we have at making changes in the Communion is being a more vocal loyal opposition, a more vocal advocate for justice within on the Canadian scene. You might start by being less accepting of and apologetic for the decision of GS 2010.

Well Rod, I'm not quite sure what exactly you want me to do - other than condemn the resolution from the last General Synod which I do not find as damaging or destructive as you apparently do.

I am blogging against the Covenant, talking to people about the Covenant and currently working with a group of people to coordinate our efforts. You are more than welcome to join - just let me know your contact info.

But in the mean time, England is the first field of engagement and Canada's next General Synod is nearly three years away.

Malcolm, Why is England the first field of engagement? But I think you are correct when you say we differ on our respective understandings of the statement from Canada's GS 2010. The process used to develop the statement signals potentially serious implications for synodical government in a church that is becoming increasingly hierarchical.

England is first in part because of chronology. While there are skirmishes to be faought in Canada over the next while, there is no meeting of the General Synod for nearly three years, unlike England.

But more importantly, I believe England is the keystone, the lynchpin, the tipping point. If the Covenant is defeated in England, the whole project simply becomes too absurd to continue.

As to the Canadian GS resolution, I don't disagree that there are problems about the stagemanaging of an issue. However, I think we should also know when to charge and when to keep the poweder dry. Progressives in the Anglican Church of Canada can take a leaf from Lucien Bouchard wrt "winning conditions."

There may be "cathartic value" in tipping at Rowan Williams,but that is so much easier, and less risky in some regards, than tackling governance issues at home. It is indeed three years until the next GS in Canada. I wonder if it is enough time to get the Canadian church out from under colonial lag?

It isn't about the "cathartic value" of tipping Williams. It's about killing the Covenant stone dead. Defeat in England ends the whole pathetic project.

On the other matter, I suspect that a moderately framed inclusive resolution could have been narrowly passed at the last General Synod - and that it would have been a phyrric victory, comparable to a 50.1% "Oui" victory in a Quebec referendum. Time is on the side of the progressives, Rod. "Winning conditions" are inevitable, though we need to deal with a concerted backlash. We disagree on tactics.

Malcolm French+

I'm suspect this back and forth about the Canadian scene is not very riveting to other readers. I'll make my last post under this article. (1) I don't think a moderately worded resolution on a local option was guaranteed passage at the General Synod last June. Its my contention that avoiding open debate of an inclusive resolution was carefully planned because once gain the Canadian House of Bishops would perhaps become the spoiler. If I am correct in this, then GS 2010 has very serious consequences for the future of Canadian General Synods, including 2013, the Covenant debate, at "winning conditions" as you call them. My advice, forget England and focus on getting a transparent GS process in place for 2013 in Canada. Its the only winning condition that will count. (2)Tactics are not the only thing we disagree on. We also appear to differ in our respective critical appraisals of GS structure here at home.