Another mother nearby had a litany of reasons why the series was good for girls. “Twilight helps girls realize they don’t need to settle for anything less than what they really want,” she began. “It teaches them to keep high standards. That there are guys that will treat them with respect. Girls today need to learn this, and they can learn it from this series.”

When asked about the fact that there were almost no boys present at the event, this group of women said that they knew boys who had started to read the series because they realized that “to get the girls, they need to figure out Edward.”

As clergy and parents and even a few teachers struggle to make a case for abstinence among the young, it may seem strange and unexpected that Ms. Meyer has served up one of the most compelling and effective arguments for abstinence in mainstream American culture — through a teen vampire romance. It may also be that she is trying to stay true to her faith’s teachings on sex even within her fiction. Regardless, Ms. Meyer has somehow made not having sex seem like the sexiest decision two people can make and has conveyed this effectively to her teenage audience.

Some of her young fans are hoping for a sex scene in “Breaking Dawn,” however. As one girl told me: “I’m looking forward to Bella and Edward getting married so they can have sex.” What a novel idea.

Read it all

One reason why senior Catholic clerics view a possible schism with dismay is personal and emotional. As the Second Vatican Council’s decree on ecumenicism noted, the Anglican Communion occupies a “special place” in relation to the Catholic church. In the 44 years since then, many Catholics have invested time, effort and prayer in trying to reunite with the Church of England, and there have been moments when they dared to hope it was possible. Good friendships and working relationships have been formed along the way (one is between Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of Westminster, Cormac Murphy-O’Connor). No one likes to hear a row in a friend’s house.

But there are other, less sentimental reasons why the Catholic hierarchy dreads a split. In particular, the acceptance into the Catholic church of large numbers of married Anglican clerics would make it harder for the Vatican to hold its already shaky line on priestly celibacy. Since 1980, when rules were drawn up for the reception of Anglican clerics (some of whom were unhappy at the prospect of women priests in their Communion), more than 80 have taken the leap worldwide. Most are married. Catherine Pepinster, the editor of a liberal Catholic weekly, the Tablet, says that in Britain most Catholics feel that these priests “bring something beneficial to their ministry. They understand people’s married lives, and that is appreciated.”

Read it all.

Dr [Alastair] Redfern said the topic of homosexuality came up a number of times during the conference and that it was decided more discussion was needed before any decisions were made.

But the conference had not changed his views.

He said: “The American church has consecrated as a bishop its first practising homosexual.

“I think it’s wrong and it’s wrong in the view of most of the people at the conference.

“We expect the highest standards of people in this position.”

The bishop said this did not mean he and his fellow bishops were condemnatory of homosexuality.

He said: “Just as we say to any unmarried person that you should get married before you have sex, we say the same to homosexuals.

“The teaching of our church is that sexual activity belongs in marriage between men and women, and I hold by that.”

Read it all.

Please try to guess the top 10 before you read the article.

What’s needed to under-write the Covenant is the further implementation of what’s known as the Windsor Process. Again there was much endorsement of the process, along with some anxiety about commitment to it. Crucially, there was support for three moratoria:

* consecration of people in same-sex relationships
* blessings of same-sex unions
* cross-border incursions by bishops.

Without these it will be very hard to move forward. Secondly there will be a Pastoral Forum which can come into action quickly in a situation of dispute, and thirdly the four Instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates’ Meeting) will need to have their roles and relationships clarified to avoid the confusions and distrust of recent years.

What now?

Of course there are real concerns. Mine centre on whether the Gafcon bishops and leaders will be prepared to engage with the re-affirmed Covenant and Windsor processes, and whether the American church will hold to the moratoria. It was a huge impoverishment that the Gafcon bishops weren’t all with us (though 80 were). We need all of us to be exercising gracious restraint and committing ourselves to affection, trust and goodwill towards each other and in particular to the Archbishop of Canterbury. But such ‘affection, trust and goodwill’ are surely at the heart of any Christlike living. How can we not offer such gifts to each other?

This was a remarkable experience for all of your bishops. We were fully engaged and much inspired.

Read it all.

And, entering the debate over Archbishop Alan Harper’s comment that if science can prove homosexuality to be “natural” then the Church may need to reconsider its approach to the issue, Bishop [Harold] Miller explained why he disagreed.

“If you say that because you are born with a certain inclination then it is God-given and you should be free to follow that through in your life, it doesn’t make any logical sense whatever,” he said.

“You would then have to say that there are many different inclinations with which people are born ”” even if it is true that this is an inherent thing ”” and which people spend their lifetime trying to subdue.
“The fact that you are born with it doesn’t make any moral judgement on the inclination. People fight to subdue inherently bad tempers, depressive streaks or lots of sexual inclinations. Some inclinations are good, some are not good and some are mixed.”

Bishop Miller warned that changing positions on homosexuality would open up other areas of debate, some of which may be even more divisive.
“I stood at the front gate of a Cathedral in America last month and read a notice saying ‘Anybody going on the LGBT parade come to the Cathedral first and have your relationship blessed by the bishop’.

“There’s no doubt about it ”” it’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered for a start ”” so the thing has widened already and you have to ask: what does it mean for someone who’s born bisexual to follow their inclination or inclinations?”

Read the whole interview and there is an additional article about the interview here.

The problems for Dr Williams have come as he plays the role of leader of the Anglican communion. Those holding a minority view, still less mavericks, will always struggle in such a pivotal roles, as he himself will surely know.

Since taking over as archbishop, he has followed a studiously orthodox path when it comes to same-sex partnerships, along with much else. He feels he is obliged to explain the Church’s teaching on subjects, even if they may conflict a little with his own. A difficult position to be in ”“ the stakes are very high indeed, with the threat of an irrevocable schism ever present ”“ and one that we would do well to appreciate a little better.

If he has been unlucky in some of the battles he has had to fight, he has hardly been helped by fellow liberals: the North American churches’ decisions to push ahead with blessing same-sex unions has merely made the position more difficult for Lambeth Palace.

Read it all.

(ENS) Addressing the development of a proposed Anglican covenant that would outline basic beliefs, [Presiding Bishop Katharine] Jefferts Schori said, “there was great willingness to think about a a covenant that spoke positively about what we do share as members of the communion. There was really no interest in producing a covenant that defined who could be excluded.”

A committee called the covenant design group will meet this fall to consider the comments from the bishops and possibly produce another draft that will then be made public and presented to the international Anglican Consultative Council in May. “The ACC will make a decision about what to do next, whether to send it back for further revision, reject it or send on to the provinces for consideration,” said Jefferts Schori.

[Bishop Mark] Sisk said one bishop in his group talked about how important it is for families to have standards, “but I said that you stick together, even if you disagree.”

When asked how Lambeth affects the status of gay and lesbian church members, Jefferts Schori said, “we were very clear for an overwhelming majority of the bishops of this church that the well being and adequate and appropriate pastoral care of gay and lesbian members of the church is a significant mission issue for us. We have been having conversations and debate for more than 40 years. Even though other parts of the communion may not understand that, we have been working at this for a long time. Our conversations are not going to end.”

Read it all.

The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Design Group, as they planned Lambeth 2008, made the decision that this time around, the Conference would not deal with any resolutions. Archbishop Rowan made it clear that Lambeth I.10 remains the mind of the Communion on the subject of human sexuality and would not be re-visited in 2008; nor, in the process, would we take up any other subjects in a legislative mode. We would instead have a season of “fasting” in which we listen to each other, take counsel, pray and reflect together, but avoid any definitive actions that would further exacerbate the conflict that has engulfed the Anglican Communion particularly since the actions of the Episcopal Church’s General Convention in 2003. The decision to “fast” from resolutions was a controversial one, but in the end I’m convinced that it was wise, prudent, and courageous.

That means that “Lambeth Indaba” isn’t an authoritative teaching document; it doesn’t intend to be. Rather, it is a report of our conversations, a snapshot of the bishops in the midst of a long and ultimately productive time together. The document seeks to be faithful to the Gospel, faithful to the Indaba process, faithful to the bishops and their context, and faithful to the Communion (pp. 7-8). It goes on to describe conversations on mission and evangelism, the environment, ecumenism, relations with world religions, Anglican bishops and Anglican identity, human sexuality, the Bible, the Anglican Covenant, and the Windsor process. Necessarily, the document contains contradictory material. After all, it simply reports what we said to one another; and since we sometimes (often!) didn’t agree, “Lambeth Indaba” allows us a glimpse at the theological and pastoral diversity that characterizes the Anglican Communion. Don’t read the document looking for an authoritative pronouncement. You won’t find it; and I think it’s safe to say that this Lambeth Conference probably couldn’t have found a consensus on some of the difficult matters that continue to divide us. Yet, as I mentioned at the beginning of these reflections, the search for unity in the midst of significant conflict was a kind of subtext that permeated the whole Conference, from start to finish; you’ll find echoes of that yearning throughout “Lambeth Indaba”. I encourage you to download the document and to read it prayerfully and carefully, and in that way to pray with and for the bishops who spend nearly three weeks in Canterbury.

I should add a bittersweet footnote to the preceding paragraph. We weren’t all there. Four provinces (Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, and Kenya) declined the Archbishop’s invitation to come to Lambeth (though in the end several Kenyan bishops did attend); several Australian and British bishops were also missing, as were a couple of Americans. Those who chose to say away did so in large part to protest the presence of the Episcopal Church, and in part as well because they disapproved of Lambeth’s non-legislative format. Many, though not all, of these bishops had attended a meeting in Jerusalem entitled “Global Anglican Futures Conference” at the end of June, though some bishops were present both at Lambeth and at GAFCON. (Note the GAFCON website.) The absence of so many Christian friends from the Lambeth Conference was a grievous loss indeed. We needed their strong voices. The Conference was less robustly representative because of their absence.

Archbishop Rowan’s concluding presidential address summarized our time together and gave what I believe to be an authoritative interpretation of the Lambeth Conference and its long-term effects.

Read it all.

Although the Reflections document is merely a report of our discussions (Lambeth has no legislative authority), many of its comments related to human sexuality are bound to gain attention in the coming months. The American Church realizes that our policy of inclusion is not shared by the majority. The document reflects that fact. Even though I had hoped that the Communion could accept the American Church’s actions, I was disappointed that this was not the case. Bishop Gene Robinson’s exclusion was personally difficult for me, and I supported him the best I could by attending an off- campus Eucharist with him. Most (but not all) of the 38 constituent provinces still feel that there is need for a covenant agreement which would contain some kind of discipline for those provinces that proceed with the consecration of openly gay or lesbian bishops, or who offer blessings of same gender unions. Both the meaning of these passages, and the disciplinary implications are still unclear, but I don’t think it would be an overstatement to say that many of us in the American Church feel caught between our love for the Communion and our conviction that in the church there can be no outsiders. The result, as someone half jokingly remarked, is that “the Anglican Communion welcomes everyone, except a few, and the Americans, who welcome everyone.” So this tension will continue.

For my part, I intend to do three things. The first is to nurture the friendships I made with my colleagues from around the world. I am sure my prayer-group members (which included one very vocal critic of the American Church) and I will be friends for life, for we pledged to pray daily for each another. Second, our mission partnerships need to be strengthened. I hope to build on our relationship with Western Mexico and Dar es Salaam, and both will be present at our Convention in October. Third, the clergy and I will be discussing the pastoral implications of the Reflections document at our clericus meetings this fall and how we as one Diocese can best respond to it.

Read it all.

It does not lay out a timeline or suggest a new way forward to unifying the Anglican Communion around the mainstream Christian consensus on issues of human sexuality. Instead, it offers general support for ongoing initiatives that were first suggested in the 2004 Windsor Report and subsequent meetings of the primates of the Anglican Communion, such as the Anglican Communion Covenant and the proposed moratoria on same sex blessings, the election of bishops in same-sex relationships, and bishops taking foreign parishes and dioceses into their churches.

The indaba document also expresses general support for the creation of the latest in a long line of committees and commissions intended to offer some relief to faithful Anglicans who have been forced into conflict or have had to leave their dioceses or national churches. This latest effort, called the “Pastoral Forum,” has no clear timeline, authority, budget, or membership.

A number of Network bishops attended the Lambeth Conference. Writing after the conference concluded, Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina stated, “I had come to speak a word of hope and perhaps to intervene on behalf of our beloved, but in the last resolve the family refused the long needed measures.”

Read it all.

In his farewell, Williams pleaded with Lambeth ’08 participants to have “a season of gracious restraint” over the months that it will take to prepare, negotiate and circulate the Anglican Covenant. He beseeched liberals not to ordain gays and lesbians to the priesthood, elect them as bishops or allow priests to officiate at same-sex, partnership ceremonies. He asked conservatives threatening to walk out not to leave.

In University City, [the Rev. Brooke] Myers expects that most priests will follow what their bishops ask about holding same-sex consecration ceremonies during the moratorium season. Most would ask permission and not follow the more audacious “do it, then ask forgiveness” mode, he said — although the hiatus already has been breeched in Massachusetts and California.

Late Monday, a weary Bishop Wayne Smith returned to St. Louis, with high praise for his fellow bishops and “the near absence of poisonous statements, the tendency away from grandstanding, the fact that no one stormed out in protest.”

Still, Smith, the bishop of the Missouri Diocese and its 14,000 Episcopalians from central Missouri to the Mississippi River, does not see a clear solution to heal the fissure. “The shape of any Anglican Covenant, from what I can see, remains an open question.”

Read it all.

Ok, suppose you had to write what you think happened Lambeth 2008 in 20 words or less, written as a headline. What would you say?

Mine is: Rowan Williams tries really hard himself; but is it too little too late for the Anglican Communion?

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (Orthodox) was simply outstanding. ”˜If one member of the body suffers, all suffer’, he began, referring to 1 Corinthians 12.16. ”˜Your questions are our questions’. He continued by noting that there are two questions he would be asked on his return from Lambeth (I wonder will they be the same two in Down and Dromore for me?)

* Did the bishops at Lambeth clearly proclaim Jesus Christ as the only Saviour of the world?
* Did they clearly uphold Christian teaching on marriage and the family?

On the first, from the Indaba reflections, he is clear we pass the test, but on the second, he felt there was a degree of ambiguity. Have we fully affirmed Lambeth 1.10, he asked? His speech finished with a clear comment that our answers on these questions would have a decisive impact on future ecumenical dialogue with the orthodox churches, and that truth matters more than outward unity. I wanted to say ”˜Amen’!

The second ecumenical speaker was Professor Ian Torrance, representing the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, who was also most helpful in his comments. He noted that some people were living with the notion that the Anglican Communion might ”˜self-correct’, which he said he did not believe. A quiet and reserved man, he had given himself to a great deal of listening, and said ”˜I could feel the anxiety’. His speech ended with a quote from St Cyprian about bishops (great to have a Presbyterian telling us what bishops should be!), ”˜The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each bishop for the whole.’ The message couldn’t be clearer.

Read it all.

Is it still possible to be a liberal Anglican? Not in the old way. Liberal Anglicans have to follow Williams onto the high wire, to some extent. By staying within an institution that has taken an anti-liberal turn, they collude in his act. In other words, liberal Anglicans have been Rowanised. They buy his long-range hope for reform that the church as a whole can accept.

Why has this happened? Why hasn’t a tougher liberal Anglicanism emerged that says that the truth of liberalism must not be sacrificed to “unity”? If Christian unity is so important (it would say), then surely the break with Rome was a mistake ”“ surely Anglicans should repent of it right now. Isn’t this version of Christianity one that tries to incorporate liberal principles? Why is such liberal Christian rhetoric more or less absent among Anglican clergy?

The answer, as I see it, is that institutional religion is not very compatible with liberalism, at the end of the day. It is addicted to some degree of authoritarianism, legalism. The Church of England concealed this, for centuries ”“ thanks to its cultural establishment it was a fairly liberal Christian institution. But that era’s over. It now follows the logic of Roman Catholicism ”“ liberalism is a threat to unity.

Read it all.

IN THE end it held together, but only just. The 650-odd bishops who attended the once-a-decade Lambeth conference went home with open schism between the liberal and conservative wings of the worldwide Anglican Communion averted. A split may prove no more than postponed, as the agreed mechanisms for making minds meet are oh-so-slowly put in place (see article). But at least the unedifying spectacle of comrades in Christ tearing strips off each other over gay sex will vanish from the headlines for a bit.

Does it matter if Anglicans fall out? Most churches are riven by tensions: it is not so long ago that the Roman Catholic Opus Dei glared at liberation theologists, and Moscow’s Orthodox still squabble like mad with Constantinople’s. But Anglicans lack the glue that binds those churches together: the power of the pope to impose discipline on straying Catholics; the body of undisputed theology that unites Orthodox believers even when they quarrel. Anglicanism works through relationships, a sense of belonging to a family with a shared inheritance. That now has waned. Despite the apparent reprieve, this year’s Lambeth conference could well be the last of its kind.

As a secular newspaper that supports gay marriage and believes in a firm line between church and state, we can hardly claim to be a neutral observer in this. Yet trying to look at the Communion from an Anglican perspective (or that of most of them), two things stand out. First, schism might not be a bad thing. And disestablishment would be a very good thing.

Read it all.

The third principle that I am working with is that there will be little further change on the international front and little prospect for pulling back together the various shards of the Communion while Rowan Williams still occupies the see of Canterbury. Please note carefully that I’m not blaming him for this conference or for other failures of the Communion as a whole — I don’t really believe that the blame lies on merely one person.

Nor do I necessarily know that a new occupant of the see of Canterbury would be able to pull the shards back together again.

Nor do I believe that the see of Canterbury is “irrelevant” or “unimportant.”

I merely say, as a statement of belief, that while Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Communion will essentially be in a “holding pattern” of increasing fragmentation and distancing among various groups. The trust that has been lost and continues to be lost prevents renewed closeness and connection as a whole within the Anglican Communion. It is sad, and I don’t like it. But it is what it is, and we need to understand and accept that as reality and work within that reality, or move on and join another denomination. That applies, actually, to those Primates and bishops of the Anglican Communion as well who are associated with GAFCON.

The fact is that no action has occurred that will cause the Anglican Communion to step back from the brink of fragmentation. There have been words — but no action as of yet — and I see nothing that causes me to believe that this time Rowan Williams will do the hard things necessary to call the Anglican Communion back.

The thing to do is to make the best of how things are now and work within how things are now, doing the small things well within our parishes and dioceses, while waiting for a turn of the tide and winds on the international front, if that turn is to come. If that turn never comes, then the Anglican Communion will continue to whirl apart — the center not only did not hold but it will continue not to hold. And thus, the Anglican Communion will continue to further fragment until all but the bare bones of the structure remain.

Of course, if that is to happen, we certainly will not have been hindered or damaged by doing the small things with great love and attentiveness. It will simply be done while in the midst of living out the consequences of the lack of discipline within the Anglican Communion.

Read it all.

BY ITS own unusual lights, the Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops was a great success. Its self-imposed task was to avoid any nasty rows between 650 purple-clad gentlemen (and a few purple-clad ladies) who hold widely diverging views on issues which they see as matters of principle, not detail. And a “surprising level of sheer willingness to stay together” was finally reported, on August 3rd, by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury””after nearly three weeks of well-choreographed confraternity in which participants took no votes and made no firm decisions. (Such a luxury would hardly be possible for a body like, say, the International Telecommunication Union, where success is judged by earthly yardsticks.)

Still, the Anglican leader’s own standing as a mediator, doing his best to hold together the almost irreconcilable, rose as a result of the gathering. And in a very Anglican way, the thorny issues facing the church were artfully concealed by euphemism and arcane procedures that will unfold over several years. Minds were distracted from trickier subjects by a hyper-inclusive march against poverty.

Read it all.

2. The call from the Archbishop of Canterbury for a Primates Meeting in 2009. This will determine where the wider communion is and how broadly support for the Instruments remains. We hope all Primates will be present and that the work of the Communion will continue in these challenging days. If there is to be a Faith and Order committee of some description, as suggested, the input of the Primates into this important initiative is critical.
3. The endorsement from the Archbishop of Canterbury of the Covenant Process, Lambeth 1.10, Communion Partners, and a Pastoral Forum. In several public statements he clarified considerably his own view on the teaching of the church in the area of human sexuality, and was clearer about the consequence of pressing forward with departures from that teaching. In our view, this indicates a realism about the probability of Bishops and Dioceses moving forward with same-sex blessings in a more concerted manner. Already we are seeing news reports to that effect.
4. We welcome the call for moratoria and the timing of these, as this places the matter firmly before the Communion as a totality.

Read it all.

President Bush has issued a blunt condemnation of Beijing’s repression of its people on the eve of the Olympics, just as three American Christians were arrested for protesting for religious freedom in Tiananmen Square.

With the eyes of the world on China and heads of state from around the globe flying in for the opening ceremony tomorrow, Mr Bush used some of his toughest language yet to press China to improve its record on human rights.

Speaking in Bangkok, he said: “America stands in firm opposition to China’s detention of political dissidents and human rights advocates and religious activists. We press for openness and justice ”“ not to impose our beliefs but to allow the Chinese people to express theirs.”

Read it all.

The Rev. Paul Earl Sheppard had recently become the senior pastor of a suburban church in California when a group of parishioners came to him with a disturbing personal question.

They were worried because the racial makeup of their small church was changing. They warned Sheppard that the church’s newest members would try to seize control because members of their race were inherently aggressive. What was he was going to do if more of “them” tried to join their church?

“One man asked me if I was prepared for a hostile takeover,” says Sheppard, pastor of Abundant Life Christian Fellowship in Mountain View, California.

Read it all–a painful but important subject.

There is a very troubling spread in the Times today (see the inside piece here)concerning some letters exchanged between ABC Rowan Williams and a Dr. Pitt. This is a tactical move to say the least by some who really seem to not understand the nature of the Church. It’s not the ‘old news’ of the ABC’s views of late that is troubling (not sure what the motive for putting this out now is all about) but the views of the press and the culture that demands the Church to get into line with something completely contrary to its own worldview. We find such comments by some who comment here such as John Realis when he writes,

Newspaper article after newspaper article upbraids C of E Anglicanism for not being liberal enough, for not being more in line with the positive values of British society, among which rejection of grievous past discrimination against homosexuals and joyful acceptance of civil partnerships – otherwise known as marriages – are the most exemplary – and by no means confined to ‘the chattering classes’. Try to get a grip on reality – not self-seeking fantasy.

This only goes to show how much this secularised culture is in the dark about the ways of faithful Catholic Christianity that is counter-cultural to such false ideologies and philosophies that shape a distorted secularised worldview.

Read it all.

As the world has become more global so has the Church. It often does not do us well to try to have relationship in this instantaneous communicative world we live in. One can nary have a fleeting thought before it is posted on the World Wide Web, and this does not help our conversations. I am sure the web is humming already. What we had this last three weeks is real conversation, the face-to-face kind, where memos and e-mails cannot hide the incarnated being right before your eyes. There is no delete button or hiding behind the computer screen here. And there is nothing that can substitute for the experience of the primitive ancient church practice and reality of gathering around the Scripture in a small group, under a tree or around a table.

That is not to say that all the conversations during this time have been chummy, as they might say here in England. No; they were direct, even strident at times, but at least we were in the room together. We had to deal with each other. And on this last day, as we shared our hopes and dreams before we left, especially with those in our Indaba and Bible study groups, we realized we had put ourselves in the hand of God, and with Jesus as our guide, the vast majority had been solidified in one thing even if not changed as far as position or theological stripe: we value each other and we value this communion, even more deeply than when we arrived. Tears were shed, smiles were shared, vows were made to pray for one another and to share and talk, even when the rough times come, and we know they will.

I give great credit to the Archbishop of Canterbury in proposing and following through with an agenda and way of being at this conference that was centered on relationships, not legislation. As he said in one of his speeches, “For those of you who are unhappy or wish to criticize this approach, let me ask you: Have the old ways really been all that effective?” He has a very good point. I know many of you are divided as to trusting him or not. I can only tell you he is human, too; he has his strong desires and he is in a most difficult place. In all Christian charity, for now, I intend to trust the current process and work with our Presiding Bishop and our House of Bishops in working with the communion.

Read it all.

If only more members of the Anglican Communion displayed as much humility as Rowan Williams, who signs himself endearingly in one of these letters as “an averagely muddled bishop”. And if only Dr Williams could display just a little less humility in his job of leading the Church, the current stand-off in the Communion might have more chance of being resolved.

Until now, Anglicans knew Dr Williams, in his personal views, to be a liberal on the matter of gay relationships, but the evidence rested only on a rather oblique argument, set out in an essay nearly 20 years ago. These letters, however, make a much stronger and clearer case for Christians to be accepting of homosexuality, since they challenge the very scriptural basis of the Biblical prohibitions on gay sex. Dr Williams concludes that passages describing homosexuality as sinful are referring to promiscuous homosexuality by heterosexuals, rather than committed relationships between two people who are gay by nature.

This is a respectable point for an eminent theologian to argue, and it is a great pity that he has not been brave enough to argue it as Archbishop of Canterbury. Instead he has, if anything, sided with the conservatives. “I find myself personally in a difficult situation,” he admits in the letter, “between the pressures of the clear majority view in my Church [and] my own theological convictions.”

Read it all.

A month ago, the world’s Anglican bishops flew off to London, hoping to do something to keep the world’s third largest Christian family from falling apart over the ordination of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire.

But as the bishops return to their dioceses around the world, the plight of the Episcopal Church, and its parent Anglican Communion, remains as muddled as ever. With conservatives contending that the denomination is moving toward schism and liberals arguing that the denomination is stabilizing, the path forward is unclear.

Bishop M. Thomas Shaw, head of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, said in an interview upon his return from London that he will continue to ordain gay clergy, which he called “pastorally important.”

He also said that local priests will continue to bless same-sex marriages, although Shaw said that those priests are doing so on their own and that “I haven’t authorized anybody to do anything.”

As for whether he would follow up on his earlier intention to push for ending the moratorium on gay bishops and allowing church recognition of same-sex marriage when the Episcopal Church meets at its General Convention next year, Shaw said he would now wait until he meets with all the American bishops next month to decide how he will proceed.

Read it all.

The Jets, once the team of one of football’s most charismatic quarterbacks, now have another one. They acquired Brett Favre from the Green Bay Packers in a deal late Wednesday night that the Jets hope will ignite excitement for a team that struggles to remain in the headlines in the same city with the Giants and struggles for competitiveness in the same division as the New England Patriots.

“We just felt this was an opportunity to go get somebody of Brett’s stature and what he’s accomplished,” said Jets General Manager Mike Tannenbaum.

The terms of the trade were not announced, although it was believed to be for a fourth-round pick that, depending on Favre’s performance and the team’s results, could increase in value, all the way up to a first-round selection. The trade was first reported Wednesday night by FoxSports.com.

Quarterback Chad Pennington, a former first round draft pick, is loved and respected in the Jets’ locker room, but Tannenbaum said early Thursday morning that the Jets will part ways with him now that Favre is on board.

“It’s a bittersweet moment for us,” Tannenbaum said. “I have all the respect in the world for Chad as a person and as a player. He gave his heart and soul to this organization for a long, long time.”

What a national soap opera this became. Watching ESPN’s sportscenter turned into as the Brett Favre saga turns. Read it all.

When Marisa Miller married David Wolfson last year, the couple added a statement to their vows that they both passionately believe in the right of all people to marry regardless of sexual orientation.

With gay friends making up about 20 percent of guests and two openly gay religious clergymen officiating, it seemed appropriate to note they felt “somewhat out of step with society’s views on marriage.”

“I thought it was really, really beautiful and very healing,” said the Rev. Nate Walker, who presided with Rabbi Frank Tamburello. “It brought tears to my eyes, thinking that I am legally entitled to marry this wonderful couple but I am not entitled to have the same joy in my own life.”

Such statements have become more common at heterosexual weddings. But not all gay guests appreciate the gesture. Pattrice Jones, a lesbian author, compares straight couples’ efforts at solidarity to a white person joining a whites-only country club and making a quick statement of support for blacks who are excluded.

“Just don’t join the club, it’s that simple,” Jones said.

After a wedding last year in which a straight couple read a statement of solidarity with gay couples, Jones said her “gay friends rang to tell me about it. They were horrified and really annoyed.” Jones did not attend the wedding, but “we all felt it was so wrong to grab all the benefits that marriage gives you and just make a little statement to calm your guilt.”

Read it all.

I will take comments on this submitted by email only to at KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com.

Asked about Orombi’s statements, Nzimbi told Ecumenical News International, “I don’t want to comment on that but what I know is the Anglican Communion surrounds the see of Canterbury, and the Canterbury see is respected by all of us, and we would like the Anglican Communion to continue.”

He said, “The archbishop of Canterbury should continue calling [the] Lambeth [Conference] but let us go back to what it used to be.” This was understood to mean that there should be a common understanding that homosexuality is sinful and homosexuals should not be in positions of leadership in the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Nzimbi said Anglican leaders who took part in a gathering in June in Jerusalem of the Global Anglican Future Conference, or GAFCON as it is known, will meet shortly to map a way forward after the Lambeth Conference. GAFCON is widely seen as having been an “alternative” Lambeth Conference that brought together opponents of openly gay bishops and same-sex blessings.

The Kenyan archbishop took issue with remarks by Robinson, according to whom leaders such as Nzimbi are calling for the exclusion from the Anglican Communion of those churches that support the greater inclusion of gay and lesbian people.

Nzimbi said the current problem within the Anglican Communion was not based on who should stay or go, but on compliance to the word of God.

“When you obey the Scriptures you repent of your sins. What is … bringing problems is the interpretation of the Scriptures,” he said. “If we all obey the Scriptures, and what they tell us, I know that inner oneness will make us have the outer form of the Anglican Communion that which we want.”

Read it all

From here:

An article appeared in Tuesday’s Philadelphia Bulletin regarding the sentencing of Bishop Bennison. That article is inaccurate. The pre-sentencing process has not yet been completed, and the Trial Court has not yet imposed a sentence on Bishop Bennison.

There seems little chance that all Canadian Anglican clergy will honor the moratorium on blessing same-sex unions requested by the worldwide Anglican communion.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, leader of the global Anglican church, warned on Sunday that the 80-million-member church would be “in grave peril” if the U.S. and Canadian branches did not agree to moratoriums on same-sex blessings and on the ordination of gay bishops.

But the head of the Canadian church, Archbishop Fred Hiltz, told Reuters in a phone interview on Wednesday it would be especially tough for Bishop Michael Ingham of the British Columbia diocese of New Westminster to halt the homosexual blessings altogether.

Read the whole article.