+Graham,

Moving past the obvious kinds of responses one might be tempted to make (which could include "nuts', but not in reference to a shopping list), it is difficult to see what this Californian response is trying to achieve.

In the midst of a great Communion debate, the urgent need - if it is to be resolved - is for Anglicans in the middle ground to declare their minds, so that a clear majority prevails (one way or the other). I fail to see how this kind of language, to say nothing of this kind of logic, will persuade people to shift their convictions in a progressive direction. At best this is a rhetorical strategy which shows progressive Episcopalians what a great supporter they have in Andrus. He has wasted an opportunity. Sadly, he has also maligned the ABC.

Hi Tony,

My response to your question has already been given in an earlier comment by me in this thread. "A reinvigorated Anglicanism, over time, should evolve the Anglican Communion, its member churches, their dioceses, and the parishes within them back towards the centre of Anglicanism." No need for storm troopers, jackboots, or other paraphanalia of state control. If Anglicans do not want reinvigoration, let alone finding a collective will to move back to the centre of our faith and practice, then that is the way things will be. My prediction, if that is the case, is that there will be no Communion. There might just be a C of E because, funnily enough, a certain amount of 'state control' ensures that the C of E does not split ... just the occasional splintering off (Free Church of England; some 20 or so independent Anglican churches currently, I am told; etc)! So, no, nothing new here from me. Best regards, Peter

Hi Tony

I am finding this thread a little strange. I mention a couple of images and suddenly we have got to Hitler. I mention the possibility that conservative evangelicals might be unreasonable relative to other Anglicans and you suggest the logic means you are being asked whether conservos are going to hell. No such logic at work here; nor I think in Art's comments. Rather, a very simple question: are there limits to Anglican diversity? I think there should be. You appear not to. Leave it there? Leave Hitler and hell out of the answer? I hope so!

Hi Tony,

Forget the imagery if it takes you straight to Hitler! Sounds like you are happy with a church in which clerics (such as myself) may refuse to baptise infants of believers, offer masses for the dead, call on pagan spirits for help, and deny the divinity of Christ while affirming Jeffrey John's teaching and TEC's actions. More or less the Anglican Communion we have. Nothing is broken (except for unreasonable conservatives) so nothing (much) needs fixing.

Perhaps! Or not!!

Hi Tony

One man's 'limits to diversity' could be another man's "intolerance", true!

But there is healthy intolerance in the life of any organism or organisation: healthy bodies do not tolerate germs; shopkeepers do not tolerate shoplifters; winning teams do not tolerate a string of losses. I do not think it unhealthy for Anglican churches to be intolerant of tendencies within them to (say) become Baptist or Roman Catholic. (That is not to say being Baptist or Roman Catholic is not a good thing; just to say that accurate descriptors ought to be given of church distinctives). The fact that these tendencies are often tolerated does not mean that, in the long-term, that is a healthy thing to do.

You ask about local church situations, many of which have arisen because of weak episcopal leadership with a muddled view of what it means to be Anglican. I would not advocate wholesale immediate change, with ejections, expulsions, and excommunications. But I would, and do advocate for a reinvigorated Anglicanism for the 21st century, beginning with the Covenant as a starting point for a renewed definition of being Anglican - a broad one incidentally, but may be not as broad as that experienced in the late twentieth century. A reinvigorated Anglicanism, over time, should evolve the Anglican Communion, its member churches, their dioceses, and the parishes within them back towards the centre of Anglicanism. In other words Oxford Anglicans or 'Anglicans' can rest easy today but look forward to change over time.

On a slightly different aspect of covenant reflection: I personally find in my neck of the Anglican woods, that a fair amount of "intolerance" / "limits to diversity" exists in hidden ways. We tolerate various extremes and excesses of protestant, pentecostal, or papal fervour and flavour in our parishes ... but we pass their leaders by on the other side when it comes to choosing our bishops, or key committee chairs, etc. Unspoken presuppositions govern various choices made about our life, centrifugally constrained towards an unwritten definition of 'the centre'. From a distance I see similar things in the C of E. One argument I have for the Covenant is that it would place a transparent, written definition of the centre of Anglicanism in our hands, and replace the unwritten, hidden covenant that governs a lot of what happens!

Hi Tony,

You operate according to a very broad band of tolerance! 

Speaking personally, I am interested in an Anglicanism that is broad but knows its limits.

And limits would apply to the left, to the right, to the north and to the south!

Defining what those limits are is tricky - partly because we have not bothered to define them before.

But I think the Covenant would be a start; perhaps Dave and Art could be its administrators :)

Hi Tony

I leave +Gloucester to one side.

I think I understand all you say about Oxford Anglican (or not) life and haranguing and not wanting to expel or demote anyone.

But I am left with a question: when you say, "Believe me: where I live in Oxford plenty goes on under the name of Anglican that I find repugnant to my understanding of the faith and order of the CoE, but I don't want anybody ejected or relegated to a second 'tier'." I wonder how long you, or any other Anglican can tolerate that which is "repugnant" ... is there no point when Anglicans can red flag something as "unAnglican" and receive a resounding chorus of approval, whether from their national church or the international Communion, "Yes, unAnglican."

Otherwise it seems we are somewhat doomed to tolerate the intolerable, to endure all kinds of things deemed Anglican which would not be so if subject to reasonable examination.

Even worse, there may be no way to silence the haranguers!!

Hi Tony

Is the Covenant "punitive" or simply defining boundedness to Communion life? The bit I am missing from those who charge it to be "punitive" is whether the Communion can continue a meaningful existence if member churches act with "impunity"? What is your solution to actions which a majority of the Communion believe go against the grain of being Anglican in Communion with Anglicans?

If (perchance) your response is that the Communion is a fellowship of autonomous churches (these days this is a kind of standard anti-Covenant line), would we be more honest if we dropped the word "Communion"?

You will not find any argument from this NZer about the article!

I do not think Covenant supporters in our church are very confident the Covenant will be agreed to in two years time by our General Synod. But it is possible. It would be helpful if another province or five signed up. England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland? Perhaps Scotland and Wales are wishful thinking!?