Quick Comments on Rowan Williams’ Actions Regarding Clergy Consultation Eucharist

Forgot to add—you really can’t be too cynical about Anglican bishops.

You’re just not able to.

Wow, thank you Sarah Hey! I just am not very good at the biting my tongue thing. You say it all so well!

Craven.

Yes, you, Archbishop Williams. You are a craven man. You show a duplicity and shallowness of character I would never tolerate in myself or my child. What a shame that the leader of the Anglican church wallows in it.

The Rt Rev. Dr Richard Chartres, The Bishop of London:
Written answer from London Diocesan Synod November 22.

Question: Is there any truth to the stories that there is to be a meeting at St Peters Eaton Square for Lesbian and Gay Clergy, later this month and that the Archbishop of Canterbury will be attending or presiding at such an event.

Answer from Bishop of London.  I understand that no such meeting will take place at St Peter Eaton Square

from here

I won’t say anything more that that I am shocked.

Pageantmaster—I’m not shocked.

It was my first thought when I posted those comments by the Bishop of London several days ago.

Sarah, you are entirely correct.  But is it possible that perhaps Rowan had painted himself into a corner where he had to do this?  That is, his agreement to do this was predicated on his belief that the American bishops would finesse this thing and that everything would be papered over?  Also, is it possible that for him to have credibility in ultimately distancing himself from 815 and the non-Windsor bishops, he felt he had to show his bona fides as a listening sort of guy, who is only acting in his responsibilities as head of the Communion, to preserve unity?  I realize this is pie-in-the-sky optimism, but perhaps it’s not fair to extrapolate this into an assumption he’ll support the American bishops.  His silence with respect to Archbishop Venables and the Candian situation is just as telling, is it not?  (None of this, of course, changes the truth about his deceitful, cowardly, and disgraceful behavior.)

Sarah - you said that that was the sort of dishonest behaviour you would expect from TEC bishops.  I said that we would not expect it of a CofE bishop.

It looks as though I was very wrong.

Later in the piece, Ruth speculates:

“I believe this all indicates that Rowan might at last be starting to reclaim his liberal roots. A source tells me that Gene Robinson is definitely coming to Lambeth, accompanied by his partner Mark. Gene will be doing a seminar. He and Mark will have been ‘married’ in a civil ceremony a few days earlier, on the symbolic 4 July. Lambeth will thus be their ‘honeymoon’. Rowan wants to keep sexuality as much off the agenda as he can at Lambeth, to avoid a repetition of 1998. He is trying to make it as prayerful as possible. But I don’t rate his chances much, given the joyful presence of the honeymooners. Lambeth is looking as if it will be wonderful for the media. Even in the unlikely event that we’ll be invited to any seminars, we won’t actually have to attend them. We will be free to make mischief on the highways and byways of Kent University, like we did last time. And the time before that.

I’ve not been looking forward to Lambeth. But it is looking up. I’m starting to get into the spirit of the thing. Thank you, Mark and Gene. And congratulations.”

If Ruth’s speculation comes to pass, Lambeth may have a certain taxonomy of attendees and press coverage, but - to paraphrase Milan Kundera - The Church is Elsewhere

Like Sarah, I am not shocked.  The awkward syntax of +Chartres’ statement implied that the meeting would take place elsewhere.  Although not shocked, I am appalled.  This is not the standard of truthfulness to which we are entitled from our bishops.

Engaging in the Listening Process is celebrating Holy Communion?
It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
(And “Holy” and “Communion”)

I noted the syntax but did not believe that +Chartres would be so economical with the truth

Pageantmaster,
I am sorry for you. I know how it feels to be disappointed and even shocked when religious people you were counting on to operate according to well understood moral standards betray your expectations.

We’ve been pretty lucky and blessed with our bishops and archbishops here Deja Vu and they are still on balance pretty wonderful.
That is why I am shocked.

Shocked by the Bishop of London; not shocked by the ABC ‘listening’; but shocked by the holding of a Communion service at this sensitive time when it is guaranteed to aggravate the situation.

Sarah, you are right.  The actions of RW are deceitful, cowardly and disgraceful.  This man is a fraud, has been a fraud, and will continue to be a fraud.  Why any conservative ever put any faith in him is beyond me.  Nothing could be clearer that the AC is torn beyond mending and Lambeth is unneccessary to the future health of Anglican Christianity.

again…

Rowan wants to keep sexuality as much off the agenda as he can at Lambeth, to avoid a repetition of 1998. He is trying to make it as prayerful as possible. But I don’t rate his chances much, given the joyful presence of the honeymooners. Lambeth is looking as if it will be wonderful for the media. Even in the unlikely event that we’ll be invited to any seminars, we won’t actually have to attend them. We will be free to make mischief on the highways and byways of Kent University, like we did last time. And the time before that.

I’ve not been looking forward to Lambeth. But it is looking up. I’m starting to get into the spirit of the thing. Thank you, Mark and Gene. And congratulations.

And one wonders why the flock is in confusion…and OBTW, of course you were right Sarah. From this little corner, that writing was all over the wall. Unfortunately, it appears we can all now bet on Rowan to stick his finger to the wind and follow culture. He’ll be in glory, especially at the seminar hosted and taught by his favorite son, Gene.

Okay, back into my box.

I think this one action should prompt evangelicals in the C of E to stop all donations to the church.  They need to let it be known in dramatic fashion that this disgusting and dishonest display is not worthy of one pence from their alms bags.

Careful, please, everyone, I urge you.  Even Martyn Minns attended an Integrity Eucharist in 2001 during the Diocese of Virginia’s own “listening process” (which of course still ended up at a Level Five conflict).  In many ways, England is still far behind TEC.  Martyn was invited to celebrate the Eucharist by Integrity Virginia (but he ended up just preaching instead) and you can read more about his visit here: http://www.integrityusa.org/voice/2002/WinterSpring2002.pdf

bb

bb: Did Martyn Minns engage in such dishonesty about his meeting?  Did he go when it was sure to exascerbate a Communion-wide schism?  Was he obliged to be a focus of unity for the world’s Anglicans?  This is very, very different.

Why are we trying so desperately hard to remain in communion with a man who is deceitful, cowardly, and disgraceful?

The Bishop of London has apparently taken lessons from TEC——he has learned to dodge the issue by making a statement that is factual while being untruthfu.  Congratulations, bishop.  Maybe you can start writing reports for the JSC.  You know how to speaked with forked tongue.

BB, it’s interesting that you make the comparison with Martyn’s visit to an Integrity gathering in 2001.  I remember that and I wrote him at the time to applaud his taking that step.  The sermon he preached was awesome. 

I too think this is a different case.  There is the fact that this is the Abp. of Canterbury, not just a parish priest, no matter how notorious a priest!   Also the deception that was practiced about this event is shocking to me.  I have had a lot of respect for the Bp. of London and ++Rowan Williams as men of integrity, even if I may have been frustrated by various statements or perceived inaction, etc.  But to stoop to this kind of trickery is a very serious breach of integrity (letting your yes be yes and your no be no.  The statement about no eucharist planning to be celebrated (at the original location) was factually true, but 100% deceitful in its intent).  Sad sad sad.

And yes, the timing and context matters.  2001 was a different time and different place.  Rowan has just thrown another bunch of dynamite on the powder keg.  Kaboom.

Yet, BB, I’ll note two differences. First is that Martyn Minns did not hide this fact or give a ‘slight of hand’ answer to the press. Second is his message was “God’s love changed me” and about transformation power of the Gospel, his open intention was to preach the Gospel to whomever would listen, including those in Integrity Virginia. There are some who could argue that Martyn Minns violated 1 Cor 5:11, (that this is equally as wrong)—I’d say that is a valid argument, meaning I’ve recently argued for the absolute need for Scripture to be the guide of Christian ethics, but it’s no less maddening than using the secular theories (right, justice, utility).

Sarah’s point was more of the deception than of communion with clerics professing things contrary to the Bible. If it’s proven that the bishop did know of the location and gave an answer which would obfuscate the truth in such a way that ordinary people would think one thing when the opposite is true, than we move into ‘false witness’ or ‘lying tongue’ which Scripture also has some pretty direct warnings about us doing. I’ve been let down by many on both sides on this one (I think polity become a cancer that’s hard to kill as kudzu sometimes), so emphasize Pageantmaster’s disappointment.

I long for a day where “yes” is “yes” and “no” is “no,” sadly in London is appears only technically to be so at the moment.

Oh, and BB, even as you note, Martyn was invited to celebrate the Eucharist, but instead chose to “just preach.”  Rowan celebrated the Eucharist, knowingly offering Communion to those who could be characterized as being notoriously sinful by their public stance on GLBT issues and their publicly proclaimed lifestyle.

I would have had little to no problem with Rowan going to preach.  In a liturgical church the symbolism of the liturgy is huge, and thus ++Rowan’s celebrating the Eucharist at this gathering is momentous, I’m afraid in terms of what it says about his beliefs and doctrine.

Well, well, isn’t Dr. Williams having a fine week?  First he fails his responsibility to preach Christ, even gently, to a Muslim magazine, and now he celebrates the Eucharist for a group of people who are, as he well knows, in violation of the Lambeth standard.  According to Gledhill, the Archbishop is doing his best to see that Lambeth 2008 is NOT a council of bishops but merely a circus, or as Akinola has termed it, a jamboree.  Couldn’t have these pesky conservatives making more statements, could we?

Gledhill has updated her post with the following addition:

In a speech on ecumenism in Rome last Friday, translated from German for me by Chris Gillibrand, Cardinal Walter Kasper spoke of the irrevocable divisions emerging from Anglicanism’s present crisis.

The Cardinal said: ‘While we in old matters of controversy we try to overcome old divisions, presently in ethical questions new divisions open up. This applies in particular to the protection of life, to marriage and the family, and issues of human sexuality. The joint public testimony is thereby weakened or impossible. The internal crisis for the churches is most evident in the Anglican community, but not only there.’

Nothing illustrates this better than this secret Eucharist. There can surely be no hope of joint public testimony between Anglicans and Catholics when the leader of the Anglicans cannot testify publicly himself.

Kasper also said: ‘In Protestant theology, there is after the Luther Renaissance and the word of God theology Karl Barth from the early years of the theological dialogue, a return to the concerns of liberal theology. The result is often a softening of the Trinitarian and Christological foundation, previously held in common. What we describe as a common heritage, should be understood as the glaciers in the Alps which are here and there melting.’

And as to Gene Robinson being invited to give a seminar, if true, this is just throwing gasoline on the flames of the Communion.  Kaboom, indeed.

As I recall, it was a risk for him to go.  It was not widely publicized.  He reached out to the Integrity Community with the love of Christ and to preach the Gospel and there were sincere and respectful relationships built at that time.  This continued through the process of writing the Diocese of Virginia Reconciliation Report and all that work finally did lead to the protocol. 

and seem to me to be more of a political statement than a true outreach to those who are seeking more of Jesus.  At the same time, we probably should be wise when responding to stories like these and to pray before we even appear to condemn others we do not know.  What would lead clergy to are wallow in their victimhood to have such an exclusive gathering?  That there are those who feel the need to be exclusive from all the rest of us sinners is sad, but how do we reach out in love in this very policized-charged environment? 

It seems impossible - to reach out in love to those who are desperate for the love of Christ while at the same time there are those who are politicizing the actions, including celebrating the Eucharist which becomes a political action.  Bishop Minns tried to bridge the chasm six years ago and perhaps Rowan Williams will learn the hard way as well.  Or perhaps he won’t.  But I would caution us against condenming those whose hearts are known only to God. 

bb

What we thought were foundations of solid rock are merely glaciers melting.

There is also an article on the Times site by Ruth Gledhill:
http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2970772.ece

Least said, soonest mended.

To the list of deceitful, cowardly, disgraceful, and craven, I would add:

Calculated. And I mean that in the Machiavelian, scheming way of triangulating one’s actions for tactical advantage without much concern for principles, or even truth. This is the latest in a string of errors the ABC has committed in recent weeks. 

Now let’s contemplate the implications of the ABC’s recent actions. He has tacked “left” by blasting the United States as the Source of All Evil in the World; he has met, secretly, with the open homosexuals in the C of E. Both actions will please the ABC’s left flank. So does he next tack “right” on TEC?

I want the ABC to do what is right because it is right, not because he has calculated that it is expedient to do so. I guess that it is hopelessly naive to expect such behavior, especially from bishops. By the way, remind me why we have bishops….

This would be acceptable if it were not secret from the rest of the communion.

Call me crazy but I suspect the message that Martyn Minns delivered to Integrity was somewhat different than the one delivered in this instance.

For quite awhile we have asked for clarity and we have been getting it on a daily basis.  But if +Robinson shows up at Lambeth as suggested above, newly “married” with his same sex partner this will be the mother of all clarity.  I can not believe that the whole Communion will not implode or explode (take your pick) regardless of who does or does not attend.  I imagine this might be the last straw for many…...another graphic “in your face” experience, i.e. standing arm in arm with the bishop and his “bride”.  Then we can get onto the business we are supposed to be about with our fellow followers of Jesus Christ in whatever orthodox groupings that evolve…..and any fence sitters can clearly take their pick.

So with all this in mind it will be even more interesting to watch the run up to Lambeth.

Call me crazy but I suspect the message that Martyn Minns delivered to Integrity was somewhat different than the one delivered in this instance.

I’m sorry Matt, but Brad has has already requested that one. You’ll have to pick another or add an alphanumeric character at the end, such as “crazy2,” but I’m not sure the system will allow you both to be called “crazy.”

Well, to me the fact that this meeting was so secretive and hushed-up is rather encouraging.  If the revisionists conceal their doings from us, it strongly suggests that they are beginning to fear us.  They’re not quite as cocky as they were.

BB, when you say:
“It seems impossible - to reach out in love to those who are desperate for the love of Christ” you are correct.

IMHO, it is impossible for as we reach out with the love of Christ and His message and His call to repentence.  We are all sinners and in peril of our souls if we do not repent and engage in a metanoya.  However, we are told that there are certain groups who do not need to repent and who are somehow immune from sin. 

We are told instead, that we need to seek and find them where they are, to love and fully include them and then, to leave them in their sinful state with no call to repent.  That is so full of cognitive dissonance as to make our efforts still born.

That is what is imossible.  For us to live the Great Commission, we are called to preach the Gospel and that calls on us all, to repent from our sin and to preach repentence from sin, to all. To do anything less than this, is to fail in our own call to faith in Christ and His message.

This is however, exactly what the revisionists in the AC ask of us.

Odd that this hits on the one day that I’m researching Phillip Pullman and the “Dark Materials” Trilogy and stumble upon this comment in Wikipedia:

However, Pullman has found support from other Christians, most notably Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. These groups and individuals contend that Pullman’s negative portrayal of the “Church” in His Dark Materials amounts to an attack on dogmatism and the use of religion to oppress, not on Christianity itself. Dr. Williams has gone so far as to propose that His Dark Materials be taught as part of religious education in schools.

So, we must teach in schools the writings of a man who has professed a life’s ambition to “undo the Christian Fantasy”?  And our beloved Dr. Williams thinks this is a good plan.

Sad.

KTF!...mrb

Oh, boy, can’t wait to see what goodies are in the Advent letter.

Small-minded bigots hide behind pseudonyms on a blog, and want to call Williams a coward? How ridiculous. I thought this was a “no-whining, no-freakout zone”?

Heaven forbid a bishop celebrate the Eucharist with his priests in a private setting. I doubt of many of you are pastors or priests in the Church of God, but of those who are, I seriously doubt you invite news media and/or protesters to any meetings you want to be ‘pastoral’ in any way. The angry, spiteful language in these comments and in Sarah’s speaks poorly for the Christian formation of those speaking.

Nope, Kyle—just cowardly actions.  ; > )

Pretty expected behavior, actually. And certainly not angering—good gracious!

On evaluating Rowan’s behavior:

There is a story in the Desert fathers. . . .

“O Lord, you do not need you to take care of us any more, as we can take your place and judge others”

And I heard one once about a RC priest, who ministering to a man on the gallows who blasphemed up to the last moment, said afterward that this man is surely damned.  When, long after, the priest was being considerd for canonization, and this incident was uncovered, the process stopped, as his comment was not orthodox.

You have no idea if the actions of Rowan were sinful or craven.

I like the newly Orthodox man who said,
Lord Jesus Christ,have mercy on me a sinner.”

If teaching a homosexual person that salvation entails no sexual relationships for him

    is to considered a loving act of kindness
    and out of love for God,

then the love of it must be evident to the world. Yes to the world. Else no one will be conviced except those who already despise homosexuality ON OTHER GROUNDS.

Let’s leave God something to do in this situation, please.

Mark Miller

Of course, the act of providing a eucharist to gay people is not cowardly . . . and if Kyle has read the post above, then he already knows that that was not what was cowardly, deceitful, and disgraceful in the ABC’s actions.

Small-minded bigots hide behind pseudonyms on a blog, and want to call Williams a coward?

I suppose that Kyle Potter is supposed to mean something to me, it might to your mother, but sorry, you’re still merely a set of ASCII characters to me! I am only able to judge if the logic behind this set of sentence has logic to them and dialog with the logic, everything else (your non-verbal, any impressive heredity) is lost in translation, so it really does not matter to me if you’re “Kyle” or “Crazy2,” merely a unique handle to say, “oh yeah, this guy, he’s the one who throws out ad hominem post which do not seem to make much of a point.” (or oh yeah, the dyslexic guy with all the spelling and grammatical errors, who posts too much )

However, you maybe correct that we may not have any CoG pastors on this blog, of either of the Anderson or Cleveland variety.

Speaking of +VGR, his presence at Lambeth to lead a “seminar” has about it the suggestion of a “listening process” event.  I suspect he will be there as a gay person, not as an Anglican bishop.  We’ve seen this strategy before from Rowan Williams.  Think back to Dar es Salaam and Bps. Duncan, MacPherson, and Epting.  They were there to be heard, but not as members of the body.  And that status was not immediately (intentionally I suspect) obvious.

Deceitful.
Cowardly.
Disgraceful.

To tell ya’ll the truth, I feel nothing.  The action simply fails to evoke anything - anger, shame, pity, pride, amusement, what-have-you, from yours-truly. 

Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD. Jer 23:24

God can, and will, glorify Himself through this man’s failings.

One wonders what we may hear and when from ++Venables, ++Gomez, ++Orombi, ++Akinola, and other orthodox, et al on this.  One also wonders how much longer a Canterbury-led world-wide Anglican Communion has in this world…

Perhaps I misunderstood the post Sarah previously pointed to - it looked like the Bishop of London was saying something potentially dodgy, but that Williams himself had made no statement. I do enjoy the freakout comments that giddily imagine this to be a “final straw” for the communion. Either the A/C is a bloody strong camel, or it just doesn’t work that way. Sarah, I shouldn’t have read the comments on the thread as midrash on your original post - but I still wonder if RoWill did anything dishonest.

And so our boy Hosea knows I wasn’t referencing some pentecostalist sect, I’ll make sure my signature line makes it in… but I thought everyone knew me already? Haha

Kyle D Potter
Vindicated: Resourcing Kentucky’s Anglo-Catholic Renewal

(from GG:)

You are a craven man. You show a duplicity and shallowness of character I would never tolerate in myself or my child.

So, Greg, why don’t you let it all out and tell us how you really feel?

...back in the Briar Patch,

Well I think the location was changed and privacy enforced to prevent those rampant pro-homosexual groups like ACT OUT or ACT UP from invading the space and taking over the event by explaining how demeaning it was that homosexuals should be held to standards of heterosexual behavior like marriage and fidelity and mutual committment et alia.  Probably a wise decision.  Wouldn’t want the real homosexual agenda publicized too broadly amongst the weak-minded who think that the problem is their unrecognized status amongst the churchy types and all we need is to give them a chance to demonstrate their overwhelming choice of monogamy.

On the other hand, maybe they were afraid certain high-profile disgusting American anti-homosexual groups or thier ilk amongst the Islamic community of Britain would fly over and picket their meeting.  Hard to imagine the CoE Evangelical contingent wasting their time with picketing.  Withholding funds is soooo much more effective.  The latitudinarians could have cared less.  And the agnostic clergy even less than that.

It couldn’t really be planned to cause the vast majority of the Anglican Communion not to know about it.  Doesn’t MI5 have better things to do in the Middle East than help support this sort of chicanery by the Archbishop of All England and titular head of the former Anglican Communion, now Anglican Fragmentation?

Really.

Dr. Williams has gone so far as to propose that His Dark Materials be taught as part of religious education in schools.

I can remember how disappointed I was when I first heard that.  Looking back, though, it isn’t at all surprising.  The Archdruid is a liberal, always has been, always will be.  Being a liberal Christian means putting your politics ahead of your Lord, to the point of fraternizing with the Church’s traditional enemies: atheists, Stalinists, leftist intellectuals.  Williams is no exception to this rule.  He’s just had to be slightly more… circumspect… due to his elevated and exposed position.

Okay, okay Mr. 64.74.96.241, but you left yourself open for that one     64.74.96.241 & I just couldn’t resist (FYI—just because you gave me your IP address, apologies, but I still do not know you ).

From George Conger today:

Writing to the members of the Anglican Consultative Council on Nov 22, Dr Williams said, “taking the responses of the ACC members and Primates together…a significant number concluded that the JSC assessment of The Episcopal Church’s declarations had been over-generous and that the statements did not meet the concerns of the Primates as expressed in Dar es Salaam.”

He added, “there is at the moment a small majority in favour of accepting the JSC assessment of the New Orleans statement. However, with a few exceptions, those who do not accept the assessment have interpreted the New Orleans statement as a quite radical rebuff to the rest of the Communion.”

 
http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=1248

Thus speaks the <s>Oracle at Delphi</s> Archbishop of Canterbury.  I’m so confused by this man and what he says and what he does.

Despite what we may think about the ABC, those of us who value communion with Canterbury are reminded that we are not as worried about who sits in the throne as the throne itself.  Much like Roman Catholics and the Pope.

Jason Miller - Anyone - Why should we value communion with Canterbury based on ++ABC’s direction? (Liberal direction hardly changes—- how do you put all those ‘liberties’ back in the box?)

Dave—I would say it is a question of communion with an historic See.  It is our link with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Otherwise we’re just another denomination.

Jason, I agree.

Would not the ‘Historic See’ really be Rome?
If we look at branches, then the 1st. off would be the Eastern Orthodox Churches, then other Metropolitans etc… But as far as Apostalic secession, that has been established, and if a “See” connection is wanted what about another Anglican center or Archbishop such as in the GS? Why is ++ABC necessary?

DaveB in VT wrote:

Would not the ‘Historic See’ really be Rome?...if a “See” connection is wanted what about another Anglican center or Archbishop such as in the GS? Why is ++ABC necessary?

Not for Anglicans, IMO. Swimming the Tiber is an option only for those who believe Roman Catholic teaching about Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conception & so on.

I will ask a counter-question: does dissatisfaction with the current ABC justify breaking up the Anglican Communion? That is what gathering around “another Anglican center or archbishop” boils down to.

Okay, I’m having some really serious problems here seeing why I hsould remain Anglican. The CofE, not just ECUSA, appears to be, so to speak, going to hell in a handbasket as the old saying goes.

“Why should we value communion with Canterbury based on ++ABC’s direction?”  We don’t base it on this ++ABC’s direction but on the apostolic succession which has come to us through this particular See.  (Canterbury’s associations with the saints and martyrs should not be forgotten, either.)  Think of all the unworthy and even illegitimate Popes (of course there have been as many as three claimants at one time), yet the See of Rome remains what it is.  We Anglicans today can remember that the unworthiness of the minister does not negate the essential worth of the sacraments and the Gospel.  But still, this long and beautiful and Grace-full faith tradition may in fact be guttering out in many places or at least approaching a major fork in the road.

Please do not think I’m gloating, but the thought occurred to me when we were still with ECUSA that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a druid and that definition is something he embraced to this end.

You are all in my prayers. We did not go to Rome because we could not embrace its dogma in all areas. We prayed and God answered with Orthodoxy. It may not be the answer for everyone, but on this Friday, I would point to an Orthodox blogsite reflection on the Cross of Christ: http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/friday-the-day-of-the-cross/

I am still in utter amazement that people pull the ecclesiology argument out every single time over the See of Canterbury.  Such arguments are meaningless in light of Cardinal Walter Kasper’s comments.  Is this not obvious?!

If the argument is that we should never split over matters of doctrine, then we should still be with Rome and Rome should still be united with the Orthodox.  If on the other hand, there are some matters which justify divisions such as the Great Schism and the Reformation, then it is clearly possible that such justification exists now in this crisis.  We can certainly argue over whether or not this specific matter warrants division, however we cannot claim that unity trumps doctrine as long as there are doctrines that keep the Anglican Church from being in unity with Rome.  We cannot claim blind allegiance for the sake of ecclesiology without being total hypocrites with regard to Rome and Constantinople.

Appealing to the ecclesiology argument only works as long as you are working toward reunification with Rome and Constantinople just as hard as you are trying to work for Anglican unity.

I really like the wisdom of Bishop Elect Mark Lawrence who made it clear that he would work as hard to stay in TEC as TEC worked to stay in the AC.  (Paraphrase)  I think we can also expand that reasoning and say that we should work just as hard to be members of the Anglican Communion as the Anglican Communion is working to be members of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.

Unfortunately, Rowan’s actions clearly show that he does not care about unity with Rome, unity within the Anglican Communion, or even unity in his own CoE.  His actions demonstrate he only cares for his liberal agenda.

Those of you who are working for unity in the Anglican Communion might get better results by chastising Rowan’s actions as schismatic rather than pulling out the bogus “unity trumps doctrine” argument.  That argument just does not fly.

Thank you posters and particularly Spencer -
My point has been made.

In commenting on the recent papal encyclical SPE SALVI, I say:

Here there is vibrant Faith which engages the modern world and proclaims eternal Truth with authority as nowhere else in Christendom. To be sure, one can find this person with vibrant faith, that person who engages modern though and then yet another who speaks with authority; however, to have all three witnesses united in one person is crucial for the ongoing health of the Church.

Do folks here think those witnesses do not need to be combined in one person? Can any ecclesial body be effectively led without that unity of leadership?  This is not meant to be a rhetorical question: when Luther, Calvin or Wesley were alive, there was that unity in their respective structures. However, does not Anglican ecclesiology (of any type) assert that such unity of leadership is unnecessary?

Dr Stroud speculates that perhaps

... the location was changed and privacy enforced to prevent those rampant pro-homosexual groups like ACT OUT or ACT UP from invading the space and taking over the event by explaining how demeaning it was that homosexuals should be held to standards of heterosexual behavior like marriage and fidelity and mutual committment et alia.  Probably a wise decision.  Wouldn’t want the real homosexual agenda publicized too broadly amongst the weak-minded who think that the problem is their unrecognized status amongst the churchy types and all we need is to give them a chance to demonstrate their overwhelming choice of monogamy.

Surely a good possibility.  On the other hand, following Mrs. Gledhill’s link to the “interesting” <a >Changing Attitude paper</a>, we find that perhaps their choice of monogamy is not quite so overwhelming after all:

There is often an implicit assumption in using the words ‘faithfulness’ and ‘commitment’ in this discussion that we are always talking about sexual relationships persisting over a long period of time. And of course time provides the vital conditions for development, change and growth. To be committed is to take things seriously. It is to say ‘Tomorrow I will be here as well as today, which means that we have time. Time for facing up to the reality of each other. I am not going to run away (from you or myself).’ However, the biblical theme is primarily about the overwhelming demand to remain faithful to our covenantal relationship with God through the Spirit (which, as the gospels warn, may challenge conventional family obligations) Thus while it is clear to us as LGBTs when we survey the gay scene, and indeed much of contemporary social life, that casual sex can often be addictive and destructive, we think it is important to remain open to the possibility that brief and loving sexual engagement between mature adults in special circumstances can be occasions of grace. Risky, but then as Paul Tillich said ‘A Christian is safest taking risks!’  [p. 10, emphasis added]

... A problem with the word ‘friendship’ is that it has been understood mostly to exclude specifically sexual relationships, (e.g. “just good friends” and “She’s not just my wife: she’s my best friend!”). We would argue that it is precisely this compartmentalisation of sex that our culture needs to adapt in favour of greater integration of our capacities for desire, tenderness and passion into the full range of our relating.  [p. 12]

I cannot personally believe that ++Rowan, however wooly, mystical, and academic his theology may be, cannot see through the absurdity of this ludicrously self-serving God-talk defense of the promiscuous gay lifestyle (where’s that Liturgy for the Blessing of One-Night Stands, again?). 

On the other hand, it’s apparently only a 2004 formalized restatement of the ethic being promoted by <a >Father Robinson</a> more than a decade earlier…  By all means, let’s encourage our teeny-boppers to more fully “integrate their capacities for desire, tenderness and passion into the full range of their relating.”

Going back a bit one of the real problems with this whole issue is to divorce the problem for the Church of whether it has authority to bless certain physical relationships, from the individuals struggling with their own identity and place within the church.  We run the risk of making them feel unwelcome and I think that would be very wrong.  Better to keep speculation about these good folk out of it I suggest as we really don’t know.  The issues however need to be explored.

I think the shennanigans surrounding how this was held may well not have done the Church or this group any favours.  When it finally came out, so to speak, it was through the lens of the Times, hardly ideal from Lambeth’s point of view.  I would wonder about the wisdom of holding it right now, but what do I know.

Prayers for the Communion and Archbishop Rowan at this time.

Pageantmaster,
Please read the link Craig Goodrich provides to the report. Although Craig calls it the “Changing Attitude paper” it is titled “Sexual Ethics: A Report of the Lesbian and Gay Clergy Consultation Working Group”. I bolded Clergy Consultation because this is the group we are talking.

Sorry Deja Vu - I was musing more generally rather than directing it to anything specific of Craig’s or indeed these groups.  I was thinking of the individuals who attended and how sad that it was felt that such cloak and dagger operation was necessary.

I suppose that one of the issues here is that we have seen how when in the US Integrity appears to have become in effect the levers of power within TEC, to the extent that one hears of the doings of the Executive Council through Integrity releases first and the HOBD also seems to be run by a pressure group, there is real concern about the activities of similar groups here.  We have also seen how these levers have persecuted conservative believers with an extraordinary viciousness in the US.

It is the individuals who bear the brunt of this on both sides.

DV—I go along with Pageantmaster to a large extent here.  If one looks at, for example, TEC’s GC, and compares the typical diocesan deputies to the average congregant, it’s striking how much more ideological and activist the deputies tend to be.  This is pretty much true in any group, and like Pageantmaster I’d certainly hesitate to paint all members of the Consultation with the same brush, and in their position it’s understandable that they would seek any sort of confidential support they could find.

On the other hand, I have rather a mixed reaction to Pageantmaster’s thought “how sad that it was felt that such a cloak and dagger operation was necessary.”  These are, after all, clergymen in a Church which has always taught that homosexual activity is gravely sinful, and apparently these gentlemen are not among those struggling to remain chaste in spite of overwhelming temptation. 

It is one thing to enjoy one’s sins unrepentantly in secret while publicly promoting the teaching of the Church—this is simple hypocrisy, which is not (as the “progressives” seem to believe) the ultimate sin, but is rather “the tribute that vice pays to virtue”, and Christian doctrine—which has survived two millennia of clerical and bureaucratic hypocrisy of every possible sort—is safe.  It is quite another to maintain that what you’re doing isn’t really sinful, and to produce a barrage of <a >sophistries</a> to support the heresy.  So the “cloak and dagger” character of this affair may be seen as a concession to the doctrine of the Church—and, Lord knows, those have been few enough in Anglicanism over the last decade or so.

Deja Vu-
I am not sure that the “Lesbian and Gay Clergy Consultation Working Group” of Changing Attitudes” is at all the same thing as the Consultation that +Rowan met with.  I may be incorrect, but I think these are two separate entities.  Perhaps PM or someone else “on the ground” in the C of E could enlighten us.  For myself, when I say that I try to be a man of integrity, I do not mean that I wish to be a man of Integrity.

I don’t know how these groups are related, if at all.  Others may be able to shed some light.

The Lesbian and Gay Clergy Consultation is the full name of the group referred to as “Clergy Consultation” by Ruth Gledhill.
Here is the link that she provides in her article for the group:
http://www.clergyconsultation.co.uk/index.htm
Notice that at the top of the webpage it calls itself “Clergy Consultation” but in the first paragraph refers to itself as, in italics,  <i>the Lesbian and Gay Clergy Consultation <i>.

Deja Vu-
I think my point is that the Changing Attitudes (which if I understand is the UK version of Integrity) Working Group on .....” is indeed working on changing the attitudes of some members of “Lesbian and Gay Clergy Consultation” which strikes me, from what I have read so far, to be a somewhat more reasonable group of people. 
However, I do not have enough information to make a true assessment. I am just lead to think that if this group was a subset of Changing Attitudes, Ms. Glenhill’s article would have made that crystal clear.  From what I see, I do not believe that Changing Attitudes speaks for “Consultation”, but I will admit that I have no factual evidence to back that up.

OK,
The Convenor of the Lesbian and Gay Clergy Consultation from 1994 to 1997, Colin Coward, is now the Director of Changing Attitude. He was at the Eucharist and here is the Press Release he wrote about it on the Changing Attitude website:
http://changingattitude.org.uk/news/newsitem.asp?id=333
Notice he says

Some reactions to yesterday’s meeting fail to acknowledge the reality that at every Eucharist, Christians may well be receiving communion in the company of faithfully partnered lesbian and gay Anglicans. The priest presiding at the Eucharist may well be a partnered lesbian or gay man. We were not and are not invisible to our chief pastor, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

When he says married or partnered, do you really think he means opposite sex as implied in the phrasing of the article by Glendhill:

Many consultation members are married, one with six children, and are faithful to their partners. The organisation helps them cope with staying faithful to what they regard as a Christian lifestyle while dealing with a sexuality that sometimes does not emerge until later in life. Some members but by no means all are ‘out’ as openly gay but it is not difficult to understand why, in today’s Church, most prefer to remain ‘in’.

Want to know more about Colin Coward? Here is a bit on the BBC radio website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/saturdaylive/2006/12/gay_priest_colin_coward.html

When he first became a priest, sexuality wasn’t seen as a problem and so long as you were discreet, being gay and being sexually active was not an issue. After 3 years Colin got a parish of his own and was quite open about his sexuality.
Following the 1997 Lambeth Conference Colin began to encounter opponents.