Would I be quite alone in being utterly weary and tired to my bones of the homosexual agenda.?

My position, should it be of any worth whatsoever, is that homosexuals are entirely welcome alongside me in church, as fellow congregants and sinners. But I do not understand how a person in an openly active sexual relationship, but not married, can accept a role as an ordained minister within the Anglican Church. It is fairly basic that in Anglicanism we require at least minimum standards of behaviour from those seeking ordination. Of sexually active ordinands, we require, as a minimum, that they be married. Marriage in the Anglican Church is between a man and a woman. In this church, a man cannot be married to a man.

The greater society however is quite able to recognise such a 'marriage', (without the scare quotes even). So we might ask why the homosexual community is so adamant that it must be entitled to that which the historically, faithfully accepted Scriptural rules of the Anglican Church forbid ?  Could it be that Christianity, and Anglicanism in particular, (for the purposes of this note), is/are seen as a last remaining morally (perhaps) critical retraint upon that behaviour, which is after all not natural to the generality of the human condition.

Were I to be a man who had been married to a woman, fathered children with her, left her, divorced her, set up in a sexually active relationship with another person to whom I was not married, nor could be, how would you rate my chances of ordination to the diaconate, far less consecration as a bishop?

Blessings abound, nevertheless.

Chris Baker

Durham UK

Alright ! I give in; what am I missing ?

The programmed process of episcopal interaction at Lambeth is called 'Indaba'.

Every Bishop gets to be heard within his/her group.

We are informed that Lambeth will not produce resolutions.

Respectfully, may I suggest that this is about as cockeyed as it can get. i.e..
Indaba (in the Zulu and Xhosa culture) is called to consider a particular and specific matter. And, having identified the areas of agreement and disagreement, to find an acceptable compromise which allows for a resolution to take the matter forward.

The idea of a group of purple clergy in a sort of group therapy session , being 'facilitated', handed topic after topic to be passed around the table for everyone to have a nibble at, is umm....interesting, but it ain't Indaba.

Indaba is called to resolve a specific, usually serious problem, and, by definition has a 'published', single-item agenda. Indaba concludes when the whole gathering rises as one to say "this is our resolution : this is what we will now do".

Unresolved Indaba is where we all gather at the Cross, find out that nobody's got a hammer, so we all go back home again, leaving at least three major players wondering what the dickens that was all about.

I welcome any enlightenment, even be it incendiary.

Chris Baker
Durham UK

"Chris Baker? who he?"  "No idea - never 'eard of 'im....probably nobody."

Hi, Good morning,
A humble pew-sitter here, (well, an organist actually, but you get my meaning).
I have this morning spent just thirty minutes going through various blogs of the 'Orthodox' and conservative persuasions within Anglicanism. And I have here a list of words and phrases extracted from those blogs, all written during the last seven days.

Fence-straddling.
Vapid.
Evasive.
Puffed-up.
(spiritually) blind.
Hissy fit.
Idiot captain (of C.of E.)
Irrelevent
Betraying the Communion.
Shifty touchiness.
Fat-cat bishop.
Grovelling (for favour).
++Ruin.
Discountable (senior cleric of the  C.of E.).
Ranting.
Fulminating.
Dweeb ....... don't really know what one of these is, but it sounds rude..
Apostate
Wallowing in heresy.
Sign-up (to JD) or stand aside.

This has been one third of the full list.

All of these terms are used in referring to one or other of just three people - namely, Bishop Tom W, Archbishop Rowan and Archbishop John S.

I feel that the proponents of Gafcon(ism), FoCA  and the like, may have just a smidgeon of a problem with presentation here.
Or, frankly, any movement subscribing to the Christian ethic, which indulges itself in this graceless, gratuitously insulting manner of address, really does have a long way to go in the hunt for hearts and minds to its cause.

Chris Baker, Durham UK