Last Wright

(I don't know how much longer I can work variations on this pun.)
The noted New Testament scholar (i.e., person with the right sort of degrees from the right-sounding place who has written several books about NT and environs, some of which have sold almost as well pulp Christly bodice-rippers -- and to much the same folk), N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, has delivered his last address to the Synod of his diocese. As Americans expect in association with "Durham", it is largely bull. He touches (in a generous use of the term) on many topics, only a couple of which are of interest here, circling inevitably around homosexuality and the Anglican Communion.

I begin with his discussion of adiaphora (things that don't make a difference, not communion deal-breakers). He notes, correctly, that the question of ordaining women was discussed across the communion before it occurred and suggests that it was agreed that this was adiaphora (hereinafter "trivia") and then various provinces ordained or did not, as they chose. What happened, of course, is that, while the communion (meaning mainly the bishops) were still taking a generally negative position on the issue, some provinces (indeed, some dioceses within provinces) just went ahead and did it. After the dust settled -- a few congregations here and there leaving, a little rewriting of some rule books, a few provinces getting in a huff -- it was discovered that the communion still held together, that the issue was trivia. The discussion was good groundwork, but the decision that it was trivia was never made as such and came after the fact.

This leads to the consecration of a lesbian in a committed (20-some year -- match that, breeders!) relationship as a Bishop in Los Angeles. This has not been declared trivia, he correctly notes, and flies in the face of the clear NT prohibition against sex outside of marriage between man and woman, he claims. Where to start?

I suppose by noting how clever Tom Durham is here at avoiding all the interesting issues. As noted above, the issue of a declaration of triviality is irrelevant: they just don't happen until the battle is over, if at all. But notice what the issue that is not officially trivial is: sex outside of marriage -- not homosexual sex, objecting to which by name would open one to a charge of homophobia, which is bad pr, especially Durham, apparently. Duh! No one wants to do away with the prohibition against sex outside of marriage (officially -- practical applications are another matter and one needs it around to deal with public scandals and as reason of last resort firing irksome underlings). The issue has not even come up for discussion, which Tom sees as a necessary precursor for action. The same cannot be said, of course, about the real issue: the role of homosexual person in committed relationships in the orders of the church. No one has even suggested that homosexual sex outside of such a relationship should not be regarded as as serious a block to orders as promiscuous heterosexual sex (indeed, practically it is more effective and more used than the more common kind).

Notice, too, that the issue (which is again a real one in the situation) of the equivalency of committed homosexual relationships with marriage between a man and a woman is nicely finessed by building the assumption that marriage is necessarily heterosexual into statement of the issue (petitio principii), which is, again, taken to be whether sex outside marriage is an obstacle to participation in Christian practices. Further, the authoritative prohibition against sex outside of marriage is restricted to the NT, since bringing in the OT would introduce so many special cases as to make a clear prohibition unlikely (and even when we get a clear case, David has probably violated it and been rewarded by God again -- he didn't even get punished for a flagrant bit adultery, though he did lose a child for trying to cover it up by killing the husband. It's always the cover-up that gets the powerful. But the next child of that particular escapade was Solomon.)

And in the NT is is possible to get a number of passages that are against sex outside of marriage, Paul's "If you can't keep it in your chiton, then get married already" being the most obvious (strictly "It is better to marry than to burn" -- whether in Hell or with lust is unclear). But anyone who talks about a clear prohibition in the Bible is someone who has not read the Bible much or very carefully (hence the snarky remarks about "noted NT scholar" above). Consider (from the OT) how the 10 Commandments of the KJV have become much hazier on investigation ("kill" -> "murder", for example). Even such a clear statement as "A divorced man who remarries commits adultery" (from nearly historical Jesus, not from mythical Moses) is immediately suspect, since it implies that a wife has conjugal rights in a marriage, a concept that Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism would get around to introducing later, but was not available to Jesus in 30 CE. But even if it were ever so clear, such a command does not guarantee that the thing prohibited will not be "declared" trivial, as the case of divorce clearly shows. There was some talk about it, then some places started remarrying divorced people, then the rules got changed and lo, the communion remained (I remember a grilling I got for my second marriage, in 1975 -- and the priest who gave it got an even more thorough one from his bishop, and even in 1990, my intended was offered the choice of only spinster or widow -- not her actual, divorcee -- to describe her status. That one was resolved by the suggestion that the parish got to vote on which to apply).

So the jump from "It's in the Book" to "It cannot be changed" doesn't work in fact. So, even if our Tom's strong position, that sex outside of marriage is unequivocally prohibited in the NT and was therefore a block to some roles within the Christian church, were correct. It does not follow that it cannot be "declared" trivial. But, as noted, no one is suggesting that it should be.

A fortiori, the claim that the NT holds certain kinds of sex outside of marriage are a block to some positions in the church or ought not be sanctioned by the church does not mean that they may never become trivia. And it does not mean that these items cannot be discussed and positions acted upon to test the water -- not precluding the outcome that the water stays unperturbed and the issue "declared" trivial. And, of course, someone is suggesting that this should be: homosexual sex within a committed relationship.

To be fair, when the Bible talks about sex outside marriage, it does mean outside heterosexual marriage (although outside an institution very different in most respects from a marriage in the modern world). In Biblical times, there was no official conception of homosexuality and so none of homosexual marriage. Paul does move a bit in the direction the modern notion by talking about people whose erotic attention was turned to members of their own sex, but then he deals with it as an acquired characteristic of "normal" (heterosexual) people (and, moreover, as part of the punishment for -- or general chaotic result of -- sinful society). Classical culture had only two recognized forms of sexual interplay between members of the same sex: pederasty (or "ephebophilia", as participating chicken hawks like to correct us to say), which involved a heterosexual keeping a young person around for sex and maybe (at least officially) for educating, and homosexual prostitution, which involved a heterosexual person going out and buying the temporary sexual services of someone in that business. One cannot use the Bible's failure to speak on the issue of homosexual marriage (or committed relationship) and its relation to other similar phenomena (heterosexual marriage, homosexual promiscuity or "mentoring", heterosexual promiscuity) as evidence that the activity is forbidden (as the promiscuities and the mentoring clearly are). It should be noted that the love that dare not speak its name (indeed, could not, because it didn't have one) surely went in ancient time much as today, either under the mentoring guise or simply by keeping the whole thing well hidden away (we get occasional hints -- and even fairly clear stories -- in the records). Incidentally, Jesus' only recorded contact with this (or a case of regular mentoring) ends with him restoring the mignon without any further comment (you could claim there was no comment because this wasn't such a case, but that is hard to hold reading even the short passage with a sense of what went on back then).

So, the situation that Wright is talking around is this. There is a long tradition in the church that people who are known by the general public to engage in homosexual sex (or are presumed to because they live with someone of the same sex in an intimate way) not be appointed to public positions (ordained ministry and certain sorts of public lay positions) in the church. This is because such sex is outside the only kind of sex in fact (or, indeed, possibly) approved by Scripture. Notice, importantly, that this tradition does not prohibit appointing to such positions people who are homosexuals but not sexually active (that ship sailed before the church was a church and any beep worthy of his stick knows that he can't get by with without his homosexual priests and active parishioners -- gays really like church) . It also does not apply to sexually active homosexuals whose activities are not known outside the cadre, at least if these are in stable relationships (some even become saints!). A parallel tradition is that the church not officially recognize, bless or sanction committed homosexual relationships. This tradition also has an array of exceptions, these, however, being a matter of different times and places, rather than about public knowledge (since, of course, a church blessing or the like would be public in some sense). There is now some discussion about changing these traditions, but no decision has been reached by the communion as a whole. Right now, that is, going against these traditions is officially thought to be a communion buster. A few "rogue provinces" have taken steps that amount to going against these traditions and the dust is now flying.

I want to step back a bit and look again at the notion that discussions are now going on, since Wright seems to think this is important. (Wright is a self-proclaimed strong supporter of women in all orders of ministry, i.e., of women bishops in England now. He does feel, however, that the discussion has not yet reached the point where action can be taken, because it has not yet worked out how the issue can be genuinely trivial , i.e., available to all but forced on none. In practice, this means that no one has come up with a magic salve which will allow any diocese to have a woman bishop and yet allow any extremist (fundy or papist) parish in the diocese to avoid getting lady-cooties from such oversight. In short, he feels C of E should not go ahead until it has found a way for a woman to have the full authority of a bishop and yet not have authority over some parishes within her diocese. One assumes that he would have any discussion on the issue at hand here to continue without action until the parallel self-contradiction is resolved). The discussion so far over the last 40 years, give or take, has been of the form:
A proposes a theological ground that permits the contravention of the tradition and offers some testimony by and about homosexuals, as recommended by the Listening Process
B ignores this and recites a litany consisting of a handful of Bible verses and the claims that it will complicate our life with other churches and with the Muslims. B also claims that there are no such things as homosexuals, or, if there are, there are none in its country/church, or, if there are, they are either foreign or paid agents of some international conspiracy (rather like the leaders of those same churches).
A critically evaluates the passages cited and examines the relevance of other churches and Islam to out church and its mission, showing that these need not prevent the change proposed and adds new arguments for the change and new lgbt testimony.
B ignores this and repeats its litany and denials.
Repeat from step 2.
(I may be unfair to B here a bit, but I haven't found the evidence of serious involvement with A's arguments nor deviation from the litany. Can someone steer me to any of this?)

Clearly this is not going to arrive at a decision on rational grounds -- and, as noted -- such debates never have. So, as usual, various "rogue" provinces, dioceses and parishes have acted in a variety of ways: blessing homosexual commitments, either with informal liturgies fadged up for the occasion or samizdat forms that circulate; openly ordaining open homosexual clergy in various offices and using openly homosexual laity in publicly visible church roles; performing civil union or marriage ceremonies in church where such certifications are civilly available; openly preparing liturgies for such ceremonies and so on. These have been going on for at least forty years, but have become more common in the last decade (it's a new century and homophobia is so 20th century). The crisis seems to have come when some dioceses officially approved liturgies for blessing same sex commitments and when a province actually consecrated a homosexual openly in a committed relationship as a bishop (doing so a second time, nearly a decade later, is the immediate spark for the current kerfuffle).

And, at the moment, the disruption has not subsided, although its character has changed. There seem to be about an equal number of provinces on each side, with again about the same number not yet really heard from. So a declaration that the matter is trivial is not in view (but never was nor will be). On the other hand, the communion is not split yet, although there is a certain amount of being in the same communion but not taking the same communion wandering around. And there is a lot of rearranging going on: parishes are pulling out of dioceses and dioceses out of provinces to join with like-minded folks in distant lands, new organizations are coming into being or old ones receiving new powers in the interest of bringing some coherence to the discussion process as well as finding a way enforce the tradition upon the rogues. Since, in many ways the C of E is the most rogue of the provinces (though not doing many things officially), one group of these organizations is aimed to set up a communion (of the pure) which does not revolve around the ABC and the mother church. The other seems to be more occupied with centralizing more decisio0n making (declaring trivial) power in a the ABC and a collection of other beeps.

In a sense, Wright is right that the discussions have not gone on enough. This is because, as his version of the issue show, the issue has not yet been fully stated. What is needed is to get away from sex and back to marriage. No synod has yet taken up the following propositions, though many have circled around it:

A committed life-long relationship between two people of the same sex is the moral
equivalent of a heterosexual marriage and therefore:
1. being in such a relationship is no bar to any office in the church;
2. the church should urge civil authorities to recognize such relationships and give them all the rights and dutes given to heterosexual marriage;
3. the church should allow the formalization of the legal version of this commitment with the church when then the law allows -- and the blessing of it in any case;
4. the church should develop liturgies, similar to those for marriage (or identical if the civil law permits), for formalizing and blessing such commitments.

In one sense, this declaration would complicate matters, since it makes clear where the issue lies and thus can focus the negative reaction. On the other hand, it also restrict what one has to do to support the position. The need to discuss homosexual sex vanishes, for it is the commitment (and thus the mirroring of God's love for the church and the intra-church love of each for all) that is the distinctive feature to be defended, We do not, after all inquire into the sexual practices within heterosexual marriage, nor mention them in the wedding ceremony. Why bring them up in this parallel case? And most of the arguments now used against this proposal turn around and support it.

Eli Oxen Free

Since I haven't figured out how to talk about Avatar without sounding like a fundy who sees satanism in every mention of Harry Potter, I'd like to say a few words about The Book of Eli.

This is clearly a work designed for some sort of religious (or anti-religious) paranoid audience, but I can't figure out at which end (so it may be a work intended to appeal to both). At the end of the Great War (during which the ozone layer went away briefly and so most folk over thirty have fried retinas) , the conflict was blamed on the Bible (fantasy left) and all copies of it (at least the (N)KJV) were destroyed (right). But some know that the Bible holds the key to the new civilization (right), but think this is because its words have the power to control mankind in a totalitarian state(left).

In to the desolate world thirty years after the war -- a world whose desolation is revealed in the best use ever of a Sphinx cat, as bleak and barren and yet as hope for tomorrow('s lunch) -- come a lone figure walking on a thirty year trek ever westward from Atlanta to a haven and embryonic New World to which a voice directs him and his precious cargo. Although his progress of less than a hundred miles a year seems slow -- even accounting for time spent getting revenge meals for rats and learning the choreography of silhouette cinema knife fights with an Arkansas toothpick punched out to look like an African ceremonial dagger (which he carries Wesley Snipes fashion), he seems driven to complete his task as soon as possible. And he does get the last several years' worth of travel in in this movie (in a car yet).

He is not a White Messiah (that's Avatar); he is Denzel Washington and he is just carrying a message, or even the carrier of a message. He knows the message he carries and that it is the hope of the future, but he (with deep retrospective regrets) cannot complete his journey if he lives by that message: he must destroy all that stand in the way of his mission (I think this is right, but then I see a lot of it on the left, too) nor can he turn aside to help others beside the way (though, happily, the case of this we see gets "rectified" since the perpetrators of the outrage later get in his way as well -- no help to the raped and slaughtered, of course). He can barely turn aside for food and water, so certainly he will not fall to the blandishments of the power mad (left) or of pretty or lonely or even sympathetic women (right?). And when he achieves his goal (gasping his last in the process), it becomes a new book from the revived printing industry, to go along side the Encyclopedia Britanica (missing a few volumes). (just cynical -- so left?)

I'm sure we are meant to find a moral here, as an excuse for the (hardly gratuitous -- it is the point, after all) violence. Preserving the basic text of Christianity is more important that living Christianity? (right) Living Christianity is no longer possible in the dog eat dog world to come?(left) It is noble to be fixated on a task and carry on against all obstacles and temptations, however doing so contradicts one's original motivation? The movie is a flop as a fable or allegory or whatever extra-meaning vehicle you choose. It barely makes it as a slasher flick, except a for a little physical misogyny and the shadow-puppet fights.

And it wastes (in a variety of senses of the word) Michael Gambon and Frances de la Torre.

Aside from the likelihood of its putting most churches out of business, I would like to start a movement to prohibit the use of Christian themes and plots without actually carrying Christ's message. This movie is a good place to start.

The What of What says What?

A quick skim suggests that several members of the "Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion" have declared -- or have been declared for -- that they are not in communion with some members of the Anglican Communion, as commonly or even legally understood. Now, by the logic of "communion," someone not in communion with someone in a communion is not in the communion. That is, there are members of the Committee who are not members of the Anglican Communion. By the logic of "committee of," this committee cannot, therefore, be a committee of the Anglican Communion. A quick glance around shows that the other"Instruments of Union" or whatever suffer from the same problem, except, perhaps, that role presently played by Taffy Bushybrows, whose position on this -- as everything else -- is so nuanced as to be undecipherable.

Consequently, all this kerfuffle is irrelevant. The fact that some groups says it is representing the Anglican Communion in no wise means that it is, especially if it demonstrably is not (see above). So, the appropriate response to all these decrees or whatever is to ignore them, along with the proclamations of the Holy Rollers of Derby et al. To consider giving them a vote of approval or rejection is to give them a legitimacy they do not have.

Let the purple suits (since aniline dyes, so unimpressive) worry about things calling themselves the whatsis of the Anglican Communion. Let us in the communion get on with our thing, cooperating in the work of God's Commonwealth with those whose orders and sacraments are mutually reognized with ours.

Do you believe in miracles?

Being a retired philosophy professor, I have to say "What do you mean by 'miracle'?" If you mean an occasion where God sets aside the laws of nature to bring about an outcome impossible or improbable under those laws at the bidding of some person in deep concern about this outcome, then, no, I don't believe in that. If you mean only that a person praying for an outcome that is improbable or impossible under the known laws of nature brings about that outcome, then I have to go at least to litotes: I don't disbelieve.

The known laws of nature are known to be wrong in at least some of their details, though just where and how has been a matter of dispute for the last century, after a very hopeful beginning in the early 1900s. With a significant part of the universe missing and while chasing a particle that some have said (at least partly seriously) is trying to prevent its own discovery, scientists are coming to a point where they must look for new paradigms for investigation. And many have been offered. I find not incredible one that has not been suggested in scientific circles: that psychic energy (for want of a better term) exists undetected and has effects in the physical world.

I am well aware of the debunking of such a notion: the erroneous reports, incorrect interpretations, conscious and unconscious misdirections, coincidences and what not. But there still seems to be a core of cases that resist explanation from current science and have not been dealt with otherwise because we don't know what else to do. Nor do I have any suggestions what else to do except observe and record carefully and keep an open mind.

So I can imagine a force, springing perhaps from human though, which humans could learn to manipulate to cause effects in the physical world. And one that humans have occasionally actually manipulated, either by accident or by esoteric techniques. The trick in research would be to isolate cases of this sort from those that fall under one or more of the debunking rubrics. Attempts to this so far have been fairly unsuccessful: the best case presented have often been found to be flawed in areas where the researcher had a particular blind spot. But the effort ought to continue.

One hope for improvement is that I do not take this quest as a spiritual one, as a move toward liberation or ascension to a higher plane or absorption into the All, or whatever. Yet it does have a religious base of a sort. If you believe there is a God who laid down natural laws which He will not violate (slipping back into a common mode here) and you allow the possibility of miracles, then you are led to the possibility of (undiscovered) natural laws that explain what appears miraculous given the currently know natural laws.

To clarify one thing, no one (or almost no one and no one we know of) knows how to manipulate this force. If someone happens to hit upon it at one time, lucky for them. If another, in as deep anguish and with as much faith, does not happen to hit on it, bad luck. Not lack of faith or inadequate trying, just not hitting on the right moves, whatever they are (and the successful one appears to be no clearer about that than anyone else -- possibly because they have been pointed in the wrong direction). Something more is required than faith the size of a mustard seed (which, come to look at it, is not all that small a seed after all) and apparently than some rituals, with or without faith. What that more is has yet to be found (or demonstrated not to exist) and we apparently do not know where to look.

This seems very flimsy ground for even just not disbelieving in miracles, but it is a reason which satisfies some sort of rational base, given the postulates of faith.

A Liberal says the Creed

"How can you recite the Creed every week, when you don't believe a word of it?"
Most liberals have been asked that question. And most have replied (if at all) by explaining that they take the words to be understood in some non-literal sense and that they believe the underlying claims. And they do believe some of the words, too.

A stronger response would be to ask how the questioner manages. The question suggests the the asker takes the words of the Creed literally and bearing all the baggage of traditional Christianity, but, in the modern world, even the most profoundly ignorant must have heard enough to have occasional doubts.

"We believe in God the Father Almighty" Big guy, with a white beard and a penis, or stern but loving Being who is always there to help you? The first is blasphemous, the second unlike most fathers we know and demonstrably not true. What is God really like?

"Creator of Heaven and Earth" In six days plus a break, but this specimen, this rock, this.... the more particular reasons to doubt are calmed by inventing special acts of nature, the more doubts arise.

A lot of stuff I don't understand but which must be right since its in the Creed. But what am I really committed to by this? "begotten not made" "of one Being with the Father" "True God from True God"?

"Through him all things were made" But didn't the Father make everything. To be sure, He does say "We" and "Us" a lot while He is doing it, so maybe Jesus was there too. But how "through," For the most part, we don't get a notion of what tools God used, if any; a couple of times He speaks things into existence and one time He seems use His hands to mold a body, but not other person seems to be involved.

"For us and our salvation" Substitutionary redemption makes God a pretty horrible Person, setting things up so that his only Son has to die and excruciating (literally, no less) death to fix a mess that an all-knowing God should have foreseen (come to that, setting things up so that such a minor act of disobedience should have such eternal consequences).

"He came down from Heaven" Does everybody pre-exist in Heaven or is Jesus a special case? And if Jesus is a special case, being God, how can God all fit in one tiny body and who is minding the universal store while Jesus is on Earth (Ahhah! that's why there has to be at least two Persons)? And where is Heaven in a universe without up and down?

"Conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary" Wait, a male child born without a male gene getting in there somehow -- the Holy Spirit can do that: create a male gamete without a male? And Virgin Mary -- my daughter better not try that one on me. Not even if she claims to have seen the Angel Gabriel.

"He rose again on the third day, according to Scripture" Now, I really have trouble with a three- day-dead body getting up and walking around, even without the walking through walls bit and the disappearing and reappearing. (I have trouble with "buried" too -- who would ask for the body of a convicted insurrectionist? And who would give it up to be made a center for further insurrection?)

"He ascended into Heaven" Even if He traveled at the speed of light, He is still in this galaxy, wherever Heaven is.

"I believe in the Holy Spirit" and another load of stuff I don't understand, but that people seem to argue about. But the whole Trinity thing is not terribly clear to begin with.

"the resurrection of the dead" I don't know about that.

Even if the asker does not meet with all some of these questions (and there are others, of course) every time he says the Creed (and listens to what he is saying -- which may be rarely), he surely does some times. But a person who believes what the Creed says, ratherthan the words it uses to say it, can get through the whole thing without a qualm.

Apology

This blog got off on a limited theme, about homosexuality in the Bible (or absence thereof) and marriage equality. I still don't have my mind completely around some of the matters in this area, but the urgency in getting straight (oops!) on these has dissipated in the rush of events. I want to get back (on?) to the central questions here, trying to work out my theology in a satisfying (to me, maybe to someone else) way. So I am scrapping a pile of drafts that went over old material of sex and the Bible and beeps and hypocrisy and the foolishness of GAFCON and the like, to return to issues in my own faith. I welcome, indeed, seek, comments of any sort on these musings. I apologize for presenting them often as finished ideas when they are very tentative and shaky.

The next ABC (come quickly)

Perhaps the next Pope o' Rome will have more trouble than the next ABC repairing his church from the actions of his predecessor, but it'll be a near thing. If, as his recent hagiography implies, Rowan was groomed for the See of Canterbury almost from grammar school, then the groomers must be mightily disappointed or even shamed. If his earlier actions and writings were taken as indications of what he was to do when he reached his fulfillment, then the watchers and readers were sadly disillusioned. If he was thought to be the one to repair the damage done by Peggy Thatcher's dithering revenge on the C of E for its weak support (at best) of Tory bellicosity and mammonolatry, the thinkers got it wrong.

Everything known suggest that Rowan was picked to do a number of fairly specific jobs to drag the C of E into at least the 1990s, if not the 21st century. These tasks included

Getting the chancel prancing Papist and the noisome and noisy Roundheads back into the Elizabethan settlement "Freedom of conscience within uniformity of worship*."

Getting women first and, almost immediately, unclosetted sexual minorities** into full participation in the church: as priests and bishops without restrictions and in all other roles as well.

Restoring the C of E's reputation as a leader in support of human right and the MDG.

Encouraging the North American Anglican communion churches to proceed on their trajectory of inclusion but to do so in a way that would help the C of E to catch up and stimulate some other churches to at least get started on this road.

On these tasks, at least, his score is a perfect zero.

The Papists are either looking to flee cross the Tiber or to build a church within the church, free from some off the usual rules (like subservience to your bishop). The Roundheads want to take over the church and force their uniformity on conscience as well as worship and form an alliance with the Papists (that is some progress, I suppose) to thwart the rest of the reform program. The great middle is largely ignored -- except briefly in General Synod, when it tries to enact the program as much as it can (to be subverted at the next step, with the ABC's covert support).

This last is, of course, about the matter, most openly, of women bishops, where the General synod passed -- over the ABC's pleas to the contrary -- a motion to make women bishops with full rights and duties, objectors to be handled more informally rather than by statute. In perfecting the legislation called for, the committee changed that to giving statutory restrictions on women bishops and statutory extraordinary rights to those who objected. General Synod may well reject this change, but that is, obviously, no guarantee that it will not end up being the final legislation. And the whole process has now been slowed down by at least another year.

At Lambeth, the Communion put on a big display for MDG, led by the C of E and Rowan his own self. Very little of this seems to have been cashed out by C of E, though other provinces, including some much poorer ones, have done quite a bit. Organizations around the C of E, but not part of it in any official way, have also done quite a bit.

The case for human rights is even more bleak. Groups around the church have done what they could; the church -- and Rowan in particular -- has mouthed general platitudes and refused to speak out about particular situations, even when -- maybe even especially when -- they involved churches in the Communion and the actions of their heads. This is back to the matter of sexual minorities, of course, since the most egregious of these non-pronouncements has been about the new, stricter --even lethal -- laws against homosexuality introduced in several African countries with the loud support of the heads of their Anglican churches. Of course, this path was already apparent in the home church with the debishoping of Jeffrey John early in Rowan's tenure and a variety of (generally unsuccessful) moves to prevent the blessing secular same-sex unions or even full wedding style ceremonies. And, in addition, the C of E repeatedly appealed for exemptions from non-discrimination laws for even positions most remote from religious purpose, matching or even beating the RCs. Theological musing and practices as a bishop of lesser standing would not bind the embodiment of the Anglican Communion.

And, since the C of E was not moving forward (or was even going backward a bit) and nothing was happening to jump-start the African churches, the appeal to North American to not get too far ahead had little force. The appeal was made, at least, but it was framed less in terms of not getting too far ahead and more in terms of not doing something totally wrong (maybe sinful, certainly discomforting to some and possibly a liability in some mission fields). Further, the framework of the appeal quickly came to be the framework for a structure new to the Communion (which isn't that old to begin with) which would change the appeal into a command -- never a good approach to the USA and Canada and something foreign to (indeed, against a foundational document of) Anglicanism.

In all of these failures, Rowan has had the opportunity to do the right thing, the thing he was trained up to do and promised to do, by word and deed, in his earlier career (though, to be fair, he did show signs of the power center idea of the ABC from early on). He took none of these opportunities and -- perhaps worse -- undercut those who tried to make what he did look like doing the right thing (++Katherine's appeal for B033 at GC2006 comes to mind).

May the next ABC come soon, while there is still a C of E or an Anglican Communion to serve.

*"uniformity of worship" is a sort of Anglican joke, since, at least in the older churches of the Communion, the official BCP and Hymnal are supplemented by a variety of more or less official improvements, trial usages, local usages, borrowed BCPs from elsewhere (and from elsewhen as well) so that quite possibly no two Anglican services are ever the same. And this doesn't even consider the pomp and circumstance bits that range from Byzantine elaboration to po' chapel minimalism (three hours to 25 minutes, say).

** Well, except for necrophiliacs, bestialists, pederasts and ephebophiles, the promiscuous, sadists, masochists, fetishists and so on. It basically means LGBT and even then probably with some exceptions, varying from place to place. In fairness, when this commitment is working, all are welcome and treated much the same outside considerations for ordination or certain occupations, like Sunday School teachers and choir directors.