Exaggeration be the friend of obfuscation.

Thank you! ;-D I fear my friends are about to rebel at the very thought of the word "obfuscation", I've used it so often in reference to all of this "kerfuffle"! [Thank you, Bishop Tutu for bringing *that* word into my life!]

Juicily ironic, given the vote today by the Northern Province of the Moravian Church

Jonathan Greiser

[referencing, http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_123037_ENG_HTM.htm - eds.]

It's all more of the "top down" attitude. Real ecumenism works from the ground up, and at the basis of churches capable of making real decisions. There is no global Anglican body that can engage in a decision-making process -- only jaw-exercise.

Meanwhile, the C of E gets uppity re the Church of Sweden -- threatening one of the very few real ecumenical agreements in their own court, while TEC is moving forward in dialogue and decisions on many fronts. Call it the "gap" if you will. And mind it!

He just means that there are more problems with the Italians (well, Germans) and the Orthodox (note capitals, though without works, too), who are more than usually twitchy about sex right now.

Ecumenism with either the Orthodox or Rome, beyond polite courtesies, cooperation on social programs, and "Oh you believe that too? Cool!" is a fool's game. Reunion with either will come only on their terms, and in full conformity with their canons and doctrines, or not at all, and even then, with one to the exclusion of the other. Women, gays, and Latitudinarianism are all too deeply entrenched in our common life for Rome and Constantinople to embrace us into their bosoms. Why can't we live with that?
Meanwhile, let's go to Scandinavia ready to talk and hug and drank coffee and have church and sign a few papers. Ready...go!

I think this statement "at the point of collapse" testifies to the real anxiety that has infected both Canon Kearon and Archbishop Williams. Instead of resisting it and acting on principle, they have yielded. And they have managed to convince themselves that they have done so on principle.

Our challenge is to respond with grace and on principle. I'm very glad for our Presiding Bishop's graceful leadership.

I'm also grateful for the President of the House of Deputies and the other members of Executive Council. Refusing to allow for a closed meeting was a real act of leadership too. Closed doors only play into the kinds of unacceptable games that the leaders of the Communion seem all too willing to play.

Let me say this too, while I'm thinking about it. The "Anglican Communion" has got to go. Now before y'all get up in arms about this, hear me out.
The Church of Sweden is the same religion as the ECUSA. The Church of Nigeria really isn't. Though EC shares a common history with Nigeria, we now share a common faith with Sweden. But because Sweden came to the same place as we did with a different history and from a somewhat different confessional place, then they might be "in full communion" but will never be In The Communion; whereas Nigeria has impaired communion with us but are still In The Communion?

Drop "Anglican" as an adjective that refers to any sort of present reality of communion or formal ecclesial definition or affiliation. Anglican as a point of historical or theological reference, or in the sense of an Anglican Rite, or what have you, is so very useful, but as a ecclesiastical fence it seems to lose its usefulness. EC, Sweden, Mar Thoma, Old Catholic, we've all come to where we are from different places. But we're all in the same place now. Do you have to adhere to the 39 Articles to be EC? Or the Augsburg Confession to fully be a Swedish churchman? Or know the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic to join a Mar Thoma Church? No. I would say the EC is ahead of the game on this. We can all be Episcopalians together, from whatever background or using whatever Rite, because that term does not set a confessional limit or ecclesial fence based on confessional, ethnic or liturgical history.

My language is only that of brainstorming and a stream of thought, not with the precision of theological and ecclesiological documents and studies and papers. But I hope y'all understand what I'm trying to say.

Long question, put shortly? What is the Anglican communion as a unit doing with an ecumenical committee? I suppose (though I don't know why) that being in the communion means that the orders of a church are recognized as valid by all other churches in the communion (though this seems iffy at the moment) and that clergy persons from any AC church can perform appropriate functions in any other, given usually perfunctory licensing, and that any per bottom from one can take the juice and cookies at any other's rail. But outside the communion, these things seem to be bilateral. Porvoo (?) is between CoE and the Scandamnavian national churches (Lutran), not between them and AC (else why would we be thinking to hook up with C of Sweden?) and our connection with the Old Catholics doesn't carry over to CoE. Apparently the northerns have gotten into some sort of communion of their own that does function as a unit in these matters, at least with CoE. Apparently most TEC connections so far (and contemplated) are within the US, with a few international ones. Maybe we should get some bilaterals where possible within the AC, just in case.

BTW, what happened at the last "Standing Committee of the Anglican communion" to make it so horrible for our Kenny?

Speaking of Communion, what does "impaired communion" mean? I gather that the Church of Nigeria (AC) is impaired communion with TEC, but where in the list above (or some other list) is the line? Don't recognize our orders as valid? Don't allow our clergy to function in their bailiwick or do so only after some careful scrutiny? Won't partake of our nip 'n' sip? Won't let us partake of theirs? Won't get into any joint ventures with us? Actually, we know that last is involved. Beyond that, I am only sure that their Primate won't take communion when ours presides (or maybe even partakes). But even that is unclear: is it her personally? or her per female? or her per approver/consecrater of +Gene and +Mary? or anybody who approved/consecrated or was ordained etc. by some who...? And are the orders here involved invalid? I assume we are still viewing CN(AC) as before.

I think this statement "at the point of collapse" testifies to the real anxiety that has infected both Canon Kearon and Archbishop Williams. Instead of resisting it and acting on principle, they have yielded.

Bill Carroll, exactly. Think about it. If, going all the way back to when the ABC asked his friend, Jeffery John, to stand down from his appointment as Bishop of Reading, the archbishop had acted on principle instead of out of anxiety and continued on that path, isn't it possible that the AC might be in less of a mess today?

June Butler

As I already commented on an earlier post about the Executive Council meeting with Canon Kearon, I very strongly believe in a formal relationship with the Church of Sweden and likely eventually the other Scandinavian churches that are following after them shortly. As I already mentioned, the Swedish Primate, Anders Wejryd studied in the US and speaks fluent English. Having heard him speak only a week ago about the issues that we share, I cannot help but think that he would be interested. Bishop Hanson of the ELCA would be a great intermediary for this as well, as he is currently the head of the Lutheran World Federation. We even have former Lutheran Bishops (such as C. Franklin Brookhart of Montana who was recently removed from the Anglican-Methodist dialogue) who might be invaluable in discussions. How do we start? Is there someone in New York in charge of such things, or does it have to come as a resolution at GC?