What makes The Episcopal Church so "Special" in the Archbishop's eyes?

Well, its official. The Archbishop proposed, the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion disposed.

The ABC proposed that,
"while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces – provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) – should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members."

Now just for the record, the General Convention adopted the following, drawn from resolution D025 at the 2009 Convention:
"...Resolved, That the 76th General Convention ... come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships "characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God" (2000-D039); and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, and that God's call to the ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church; ..."

Dear friends, let's be clear: There was nothing in D025 that "breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion." D025 did change policy: from that point on it would be the policy of this church that the call to ordained office by any member would be treated in the same way - by exploration with them of their call, by examination of the level of their spiritual, moral and intellectual lives, and by submission to the ecclesiastical processes required for affirmation by the church that their call was met by the Church's own call to ordain them in their vocation. More importantly the call of any person to ordained ministry would be understood as a matter of discernment, an engagement with a mystery.

The change in policy was not intended to "breach any of the moratoria," it was intended to affirm the dignity of the sense of call that is felt by faithful Christians when they are challenged by God working in them to vocation in holy orders.

But no matter. That is not what the ABC and the Secretary General seem to believe. The Secretary General took up the ABC's proposal and acted:

"Last Thursday I sent letters to members of the Inter Anglican ecumenical dialogues who are from the Episcopal Church informing them that their membership of these dialogues has been discontinued. ...

I have also written to the person from the Episcopal Church who is a member of the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO), withdrawing that person’s membership and inviting her to serve as a Consultant to that body."

Well, this settles the matter of who does the axing... The ABC proposes, the Secretary General disposes. These are all agencies of the Anglican Consultative Council and it is of course the SG's job to remove members from office. He is the one who decides that he ABC's proposal is in order.

So much for the process and its results. Two white guys in London make the decisions.

The Secretary General then wants further information about whether or not Canada has any official change in policies that run counter to the Moratoria, and whether or not there is reason to believe the Southern Cone continues interventions in the life of The Episcopal Church.

I guess he'd like to get the Anglican Church of Canada off the hook by deciding that the Diocese of New Westminster is a rogue diocese, and I guess he'd like to ignore Rwanda all together and if possible the Southern Cone as well.

But here is the question:

What makes The Episcopal Church so "special"? Canada and England ordain gay clergy and no doubt have gay bishops. Many dioceses in Canada and England as well as in the United States make pastoral provision for blessing same sex unions, whether formally or informally. And who really thinks that there is insufficient reason to exclude persons appointed from Canada and England. And what of all those incursions? Who really believes they are over?

This is nuts. What is going on that The Episcopal Church is especially chosen for action?

It's not about gay and lesbian persons - if so why not Canada and England? It's not about infractions or incursions in dioceses not one's own, if so why not Rwanda (in particular) and the usual suspects?

What is it about? Maybe it is about women.

Before the three moratoria there was the unwritten moratorium on splitting over the ordination of women. It was decided by non-decision (also thought of as a "reception" process) that women could be in one province ordained to all orders, in another to some and in others not at all. Since license was required for women to celebrate or practice in their orders, women would simply be frozen out of consideration in places where they were not accepted. This is known in the Anglican world has having your cake and eating it too - or keeping the women at home.

That moratorium was only broken by making a bishop of The Episcopal Church the Primate of that Church. The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church is a woman, and that means that at some meetings of the world body SHE stands as equal with men in orders. Her election broke the reception process.

And I believe that is what deep down and under it all is still reducing the Communion to drivel.

And if only The Episcopal Church is being singled out for exclusion, and if the reason for that is some policy decision that actually results specifically in decision against a moratorium, then this is it. This is our real sin. We put a women in the highest councils of the Communion.

Our policy of electing a Presiding Bishop from a pool of candidates that did not automatically exclude women from consideration or election, and the result - namely the end of the policy of keeping the women at home - must be in stirring around in the mix somewhere.

Well, TEC didn't exercise gracious restraint in not electing a woman to serve on a level where it was not yet agreed that women could be. We elected her. Our Presiding Bishop is a woman and unless there is some way that Primates who do not ordain women can come to grips with that there will be endless repeats of the snubs, ecclesastically diplomatic but horrid theological absences from the communion table.

There may still be major issues about sexuality in the Communion, and we may have to admit that our ways are not their ways, etc, but friends, it is high time we be clear that the matter of gender is done.

It is time for the moratoria of gracious restraint that allows for a communion in which some members in holy orders are not recognized or able to be licensed, considered for positions or otherwise respected in their orders, by virtue of their gender, to be over.

Then we might say, Dear Archbishop, thank your for your note. You will not be surprised to know that while we hold you personally in high regard, we wonder in amazement that you only spoke of a proposal and the Secretary General took the proposal as an order and hacked away. Either you were not strong enough to demand resignation yourself or were simply avoiding the reality of dismissing hard working and faithful Christians from work they loved. You were either dishonest or into avoidance.

We wonder why?


  1. There are far, far more non-celibate gay clergy in the Church of England than there are divorced / remarried clergy.

    But I don't think you are right on the women thing, Mark. I think it is due solely to a chip Williams has on his shoulder. It is due to him being Welsh and an academic. He is trying to prove he's as good as any Englishman. But, because, he is the Archbishop of Canterbury he can hardly attack the English. So he attacks the province of a nation that he sees as being as arrogant and brash as the English. It's macho posturing. The reason he protects the African provinces is because he sees them as being past victims of the English, as well.

    They say if you ask a person from one of the Celtic nations which football team they will be supporting at the World Cup he will answer, "Anybody but the English." Williams' support of the unsupportable is just his take on this old hatred.

    The irony is, of course, that Americans have similar feelings about the English as the Welsh do.

  2. Well, Mark, first and foremost, I'm not shocked that the letter came from Kearon. Rowan managed to delegate. Perhaps he's been somewhat embarrassed when he and Canon Kearon seemed not to be on the same page, and he's decided to make sure Kearon appears as committed to these decisions as he is.

    As for why us: well, once again I think this hangs on that word, "formally." His reference for this isn't General Convention. I believe he understands how we come to decisions, but he doesn't care. His vision of catholicity centers authority in bishops, and only what bishops do matters. So, as long as the bishops had a "gentleman's agreement" (for I can hardly imagine most of the women went along), no GLBT persons would be confirmed if elected to the episcopate, a la B033. When a majority of bishops confirmed the election of Bishop Glasspool, the House had, in his mind at least, acted as formally as if they had done so in assembly instead of by letter. Let the poor, deluded laity and "lesser" clergy have their tantrums, for, he believes, the bishops should be there to keep a lid on. Only, ours didn't.

    Also, I think we do breach that major tenet of polite society: we refuse to pretend that nothing's changed. As you say, other provinces (Canada and England, certainly; but also probably in others) elect gay bishops; but they have the good grace to pretend, to remain closeted, and not upset the neighbors. We insist on being ourselves even when company has come. Of course, we see that as a matter of integrity....

  3. He sent letters.

    So what?

    We'll do what we intended to do in any case.

    Don't grieve. All that's happened is that the gangrenous flesh of the Anglican "communion" has been cut away. It's the flow of things.

    Life will continue.

  4. Finally got it did ye?

    See Real Anglicans November 19, 2008.

  5. The change in policy was not intended to "breach any of the moratoria," it was intended to affirm the dignity of the sense of call that is felt by faithful Christians when they are challenged by God working in them to vocation in holy orders.

    I think that TEC needs to stop throwing up its hands in this sort of way and say "We didn't mean to do this!" and act shocked that the resolution you quote had the effect of breaching the moritorium on the election and consecration of non-celibate GLBT bishops. I don't think one single person who voted for that resolution had any doubts that, sooner or later (and probably sooner) a GLBT candidate would be elected and, if elected, their election consented to by the very majority of bishops who voted for the resolution. To say that it is simply a theological statement is somewhat akin to my 7-year old saying, after dropping a toy on a hard surface from a great height--"I didn't mean to break it!"

    It does no one any favors to act like a child caught and say "We didn't mean to do it!" We did mean to allow the breaking of the moratorium, it's been broken, and I don't hear anyone apologizing for it. Let's move on, take the consequences, and go forward. But let us NOT pretend to be surprised that resolutions beget actions and that actions have consequences.

  6. Well of course it isn't the gay thing or the woman thing or the Welsh thing. I have it on good authority its about football. We call the wrong sport football and Rowan and the Queen, huge football fans mind you, simply huge -- well they are seething at American hubris for calling football soccer and some bastardized form of rugby, football. They both absolutely hate American football vestments (uniforms) too. Yeah, that's what is really going on.

  7. I appreciate the personal and cultural issues that Jonathan is pointing to that color the motivations that spark the ABC's reaction. +++Rowan is in a very difficult position: his own true arena of authority, the Church of England is equally restive... and he has not demonstrated Gospel leadership, except to retrench and retreat.

    But, it is telling that the letter from Canon Kearon came the SAME DAY as ++Katharine's. I'm certain that she, being the careful person we have seen her to be, informed +++Rowan of her letter before she released it, giving Lambeth time to pull the trigger on the Pentecost "proposal."

    He cannot be told what to do by a WOMAN!

    Further, it is telling that the separatist bishops "held in there" until ++Katharine was elected and THEN they began their departure. If a bishop refuses to ordain women, how can he be expected to respect the leadership of a female Primate?

    Note the refusal of certain of the separatists to recognize her orders by referring to her as "Mrs. Schori," as though her only valid identity is through her husband -- negating even her own academic accomplishments.

    As a gay man, I have been very painfully aware of the misogany behind all of the issues besetting us. Fear of the feminine in oneself is a powerful motivator for fighting the equality of women or the wholeness of gay men who are always assumed to be "effeminate."

    As ++Katharine pointed out in another of her pastorals: "Whenever a messenger from God (angel) appears in Scripture, the first message is, 'Do not be afraid.'"

    (BTW the verification word is "gitilln." Time to plant and get ready for the harvest, I guess!)


  8. Jesus Christ, lord and savior, remember your words: forgive them, they know not what they do.

    p.s. hear my prayer.

  9. oh, it's simpler than that....the ABC sacrifices his principles in order to preserve institutional unity (which he, mistakenly, thinks is his job) and does not like it if others (TEC or GAFCON, it matters not which) do not do the same....... TEC has wasted 7 years (and millions of dollars) trying to stay in his club......really not sure why, given the cost in terms of integrity.

  10. How about the game the English have long since mastered: Play one off against the other? Like, to Canada: 'TEC is trying to murder the Anglican Communion. Are you really going to join up with them?'

    And, has the ABC actually forgotten what the English Reformation was all about in the first place? The English Church didn't like the Bishop of Rome telling them what to do. Americans fought two wars to address the issue of foreign control. Why is the ABC having a problem with that now?

    YES! That's it! They never forgave us for the Revolution.

    John Edmonds

  11. Fred Schwartz... glad to hear from you. Well, I get many things, sometimes they are clear, sometimes they fade into obscurity. And often I am remembering insights held up by others long ago. Thanks for the reminder.

  12. John Edmonds has proved by his own bitter words how effective the policy of divide and conquer can be.

    That's the great sadness of all this. The ABC has found the Achilles' heal of American liberals, their bigotry against the English (that really does appear to be born from one heck of an inferiority complex which, given the artistic and philosophical contribution of so many Americans to the world's culture, is completely misplaced) and he keeps kicking it. And every time Williams puts the boot in the American left replies with predictable xenophobia.

    Even Mark's post falls into the same trap. Mark attempts to pigeon hole the oppressed by focusing on feminist issues. It is this insistence of the left for different groups and individuals to claim particular suffering for their own particular cause that has led to the situation where, after centuries of revolution, we are all still easily kicked around by the powerful.

    Stop whinging about who is at fault and fight back with the gospel of inclusiveness. Stop wasting energy on proving others' wrong and start proving why you are right. Stop being a bunch of martyrs and aim for sainthood, in stead!

  13. >>>And, has the ABC actually forgotten what the English Reformation was all about in the first place?

    Given the embarrassing way that Rowan fawns over the Pope, and the way in which he has spent his archepiscopacy trying to transform the AC into a sort of junior varsity Rome, my guess is that he is not a big fan of the English Reformation.

    Maybe someday Rowan will pope and put us out of his misery.

  14. I have long thought that until we have settled the 'issue' of women's full equality, we will not be able to advance with any other equality when related to gender or sexuality.

  15. Me first, me first! Caminante?

    We will never learn and THEY know it.

  16. dr.primrose8/6/10 1:06 PM

    American "bigotry against the English." I'm afraid it's actually much more insulting than that. Except for a lot of Episcopal clergy and some active Episcopal lay people, Americans don't ever think about the English at all.

    (For example, except for the British folk in my parish, no one had any knowledge or concern whatsoever about the recent British election. It had about the same level of knowledge or concern as provincial elections in Mongolia.)

  17. I don't think you are right but there is some support for what you say in Rowan Williams' discourteous reaction at the moment that Bishop Schori was elected Presiding Bishop. He said:

    "Her election will undoubtedly have an impact on the collegial life of the Anglican Primates; and it also brings into focus some continuing issues in several of our ecumenical dialogues."

    I read this at the time as meaning: we have a problem with the election of a woman here.

    Full text is at http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_76200_ENG_HTM.htm

  18. "What is it about? Maybe it is about women."

    This is more true than many realize. The Anglican Communion aside--the actual votes to split dioceses from the church came NOT immediately after the conscration of Bishop Robinson but rather after the selection of Bishop Jefferts Schori as the Presiding Bishop.

    I have said before that in some ways it is shame that the Robinson election came before the PB election: the opponents of WO use Robinson as a fig leaf to claim the split is unrelated to WO.

    (And--I would argue--a lot of the anti-SSM sentiment is driven by sexism as well. The enemy is not same-sex marriage but rather egalitarian marriage. If you can have two men or two women, then "the man is in charge" is clearly not an essential part of the relationship.)

  19. "Stop whinging about who is at fault and fight back with the gospel of inclusiveness. Stop wasting energy on proving others' wrong and start proving why you are right. Stop being a bunch of martyrs and aim for sainthood, in stead!"

    I have to say Jonathan/MadPriest, you sometimes rise to the level of true prophet and this is one of them. I want to emblazen this on every surface I can, so I won't forget these words. Thank you.

  20. Mark, I have long been sympathetic to the injustice done to the GBLT community, but as a priest of the church I am in the 80% of Episcopalians who are not willing to "die in the ditch" over this single issue. I consider Lambeth 1.11 from 1998 (nuclear weapons) infinitely more important than Lambeth 1.10, for example.

    10 percent of Episcopalians want to turn the clock back to the 1950s (the Duncanites). Your 10% consider this a "justice" issue, one that demands a prophetic stance by the church. The majority of the Anglican Communion wishes both extremes would knock it off and stop holding the church hostage. An even bigger majority of Episcopalians don't know who Rowan Williams is, have not heard of the Windsor Report, and just want to worship on Sunday.

    The only people who are going to be upset by this latest cowardly act by the ABC are people like yourself who are strongly involved in church governance and this specific issue, and the people who are getting kicked to the curb from these Anglican Communion committees.

    Your shock at the ABC's action surprises me. Did you think TEC could keep thumbing its nose and essentially daring the ABC to do something? He's called your bluff.

    TEC should walk away from the Anglican Communion--it's toxic, poisoned. Form a confederation with the Anglican Church in Canada and go about your business. Have the guts to act stand by your convictions and drop the ball and chain of trying to do this "dance" with Rowan Williams and the rest of the Communion that does not share your vision of justice.

    But for God's sake, can we move on and start dealing with some bigger issues (Lambeth 1.11, nuclear weapons, for example)?

  21. I really think, Anonymous, you're overestimating the number of people who think the Anglican Communion is any more important than belonging to, say, a book club.

    They're not likely to sacrifice people they know and care about for something trivial - and the Anglican Communion is, whether you agree or not, trivial. They won't see the ire of those who invoke some ancient superstition of "unity" as an excuse to rage and storm off in the same way -- those will simply be soreheads.

    You may have 80% of bishops who feel that way, but bishops can be blocked or even replaced in TEC.

  22. Stop whinging about who is at fault and fight back with the gospel of inclusiveness. Stop wasting energy on proving others' wrong and start proving why you are right. Stop being a bunch of martyrs and aim for sainthood, in stead!

    MadPriest, I understand that you think those of us in TEC should stop whinging and stop being martyrs. For the rest, so far as I can see, we seem to be doing just as you suggest, proclaiming the Gospel of inclusiveness, but, apparently, you disagree. Specifically, in what ways are we missing the mark? What should we be doing to prove that we are right? How should we proclaim the Gospel of inclusiveness in ways that we are not doing now? Specifics, please.

  23. It's a matter of attitude and also tactics, Mimi. As Jim Naughton stated recently, the attacks on TEC are irrelevant. Your gospel of inclusiveness is righteous and stands on its own. Therefore, you do not have to destroy or even argue with opposing ideologies.

    Many of you have been tempted into feeling sorry for yourselves. Many of you have been tempted into anger and directing your anger in the most illogical and bigoted directions. But, such reactions are not only a waste of energy, they are exactly what the enemy is trying to tempt you into. The enemy distracts and divides to conquer.

    Specifically, I would simply reiterate what I have said before. Go into all the world with your gospel. Follow St Paul's example of always emphasising the goodness of your gospel rather than the badness of what you aim to replace.

    Think positive. Speak positive. Act positive.

    Remember, the enemy's doctrine is about what you can't do. Inclusiveness is about what can be done. It is, as I said at the beginning, all about attitude.

  24. Lots of things make the Episcopal Church special, but especially those things it claims about itself:
    1. despite the fact that from 1607 to the revolution, it was the Church of England and the SPG that brought forth anglicanism in the New World, the expediency of Seabury (the Tory and Church of England ordained Loyalist) being consecrated in Aberdeen means: with TEC the Communion was borne;
    2. by the PB's account, TEC's specialness consists of a rival world Communion, and she is on a whistle stop to see about support from Canada, Scotland and New Zealand -- a special Communion in which England and the ABC are colonial power mongers;
    3. TEC has led the way with Gay and Lesbian Bishops and have proudly and publicly stated its specialness for so doing -- even giving the Holy Spirit credit for the special endowment of knowledge she and few others in the anglican family share;
    4. TEC gets a special role, too, because, as so many point out, it gives a lot of money and keeps the Communion alive, so it claims, by these special gifts.
    I genuinely don't understand why there is any question at all about TEC being special. It is american specialness in churchly form.
    The danger now will be the 'ugly american abroad' overload. Does Scotland really believe, having played no role in the New World from 1607 until the late 18th century, it is the progenitor of a Communion? That may be a fragile and awkward overreach...
    Jim in SC

  25. To Anonymous:

    I join you in wishing that that churches of the world, ours included, would stand up noisily and constantly on the subject of nuclear weaponry and the wanton destruction of Creation in so many other daily ways, but I wonder whether you aren't a bit too hastily dismissing these gender and preference issues as *not worth dying in the ditch for.* I would argue that they are part and parcel of the larger issues of accepting and affirming the sacredness of Creation, that we do need to assert and defend the full humanity of all humans in order to understand why it's not okay to blow them up. I'm not generally in favor or either/or scenarios, but either we are all fully and equally human and therefore worthy of survival, or we're not. The current expressions of our belief--in the assertion that variations in human sexuality are simply that and not occasions of sin--is the latest step in the general progress away from treating humans who don't look or practice as we do as "other" and therefore disposable. This is not a small issue or a side issue or and issue not worth fighting over. It is a core issue, a deep issue, and, while it may not be _your_ issue (and yours is certainly one worth the ditch), it is a worthy issue. I don't even know whether I am capable of "dying" in any ditch--I may not have that sort of backbone--but it is one I'd be happy to climb into the ditch for should it come to that, I hope.

    pax, Devon

  26. Mark, thank you for voicing this opinion. I have long believed that the flash point for the anger at TEC was not the "gay issue," but the installment of our deeply spiritual, insightful, feeling, restrainted, forceful and brilliant Presiding Bishop, who in her very person proves why women should be ordained and why they should be elevated to episcopate. When they look at the leadership of our admirable ++Jefferts Schori, The Archbishop of Canterbury and the bigots he seems to align himself with should realize that every person -- female, gay, straight ... and even male -- have many wonderful gifts to offer to us, The Anglican Communion, the world and God.

    Richard Falk

  27. "deeply spiritual, insightful, feeling, restrainted, forceful and brilliant Presiding Bishop"

    She may be the best we've got. But if you really feel that about her...

    a) you don't know her.
    b) you are going to end up very disappointed.

  28. Mad Priest--thank you for your caution, though I suspect we agree about very little. KJS is a scientist, with no knowledge of the humanities and no intuition regarding theology. She is analytical/cold (with all that is good about that); I suspect she is very proud; she has been given a job for which she is not formally qualified, and so is angered at challenge; she may have been constrained in the past because she has had no challenger, so we will now see the new PB; she is indeed forceful, and will redouble that, now that she is crowded; I suspect she has zero experience with the ascetic life that leads genuinely to spiritual depth, hence her present showdown with RDW who, if nothing else, is a man of deep prayer and exhaustive reading in the spiritual life. Schori spent her years studying undersea creatures without vertebrae, or some such thing, and then, a former Roman Catholic, decided to do something else. So it is. But with that kind of training comes some serious lack of years hearing souls in grief and learning to be a priest and maybe even, God being kind, becoming a deeply spiritual person. Sadly she has been thrust into a huge battle, given decisions made by her predecessor. She will probably have to listen more to legal experts than she might have thought. Time for spiritual growth will be, almost of necessity, limited, given the new project she has apparently set for herself. Let us indeed pray for KJS. James in SC.

  29. On two occasions, I've met Bishop Katharine. She was warm, friendly, and quite approachable. I noted no pride, only a quiet dignity and an air of peace about her. True, my encounters with the PB were brief, but I came away from them with quite positive feelings.

  30. James in SC,

    MadPriest is certainly correct to observe that ++Shori is still a human being. It is precisely that characteristic at the heart of our current controversy. We are all God’s children and God loves us all. It is our understanding of God’s love that distracts us from what I think the Spirits calls us to do, namely “Feed my sheep.”

    By your reckoning, the Apostles were also unqualified for their position. They were thrust into a position thoroughly inconsistent with their training and experience and had to do the best they could under the circumstances. I think they did alright.

    And we will be alright too. As we stumble, trip, and occasionally stagger, we can rely only on the promise of God’s love, salvation in Jesus, and the power of the Holy Spirit.

    St Augustine did not spend his early years in prayer. But I don’t think that matters now. I have learned through Scripture, that the place where you start is less important than the intended destination.

    I don’t know what the Spirit says to ++Shori. For that matter, I don’t necessarily understand what the Sprit says to me. But I do believe that she listens. The Prophet Elijah heard God in the sound of shear silence. But I don’t think that is the only way God is heard. I am not prepared to put limits on how God chooses to act or even IF God will choose to act.

    I am encouraged and sustained in John 14:1-3. I hope to be led because I know the Way. If I don’t start with a map, I may just find my way to my Father’s house.

    I think the most important thing ++Shori told us in her recent letter to +++Williams is that Pentecost is not a once and done event. It is ongoing, even today. I hope we understand more of what we hear and to know more of the truth we couldn’t bear then. I hope we are taught everything, and reminded of what Jesus taught us. It’s “…world without end,” Not world without change.


  31. Yeah. Like she'd rough up a sweet, little, grey haired, old lady - when there were photographers around :-)

  32. I have a friend who says, "God doesn't call those who are equipped. God equips those who are called." We are all learners in the Christian life.

  33. Whew, +South Africa has certainly given the PB an earful at the USPG conference. I'd like to have been there to see the reaction. The British broadsheets will be all over this. JinSC.

  34. Yes, Makgobo has shown his true conservative colors today as he drags Anglicans in the church of Southern Africa a number of steps backward from his two predecessors!

    He has lost my respect and is no longer a voice that has much of interest for me to hear. He will have GLBT folks in Africa standing in a crucified place as he meekly adds his voice to the ones who hate.


OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.