Cynthia McFarlane and Brian Reid, the editors of Anglicans Online have written a glorious reminder of the our true priorities in responding to the struggles within the Anglican Communion. I've quoted some extracts, but please read the whole piece.

Although the subject of all this is the proper way for Anglican churches to relate and respond to gay and lesbian Christians, the looming question is the survival of the Anglican Communion -- if one presumes there is actually de jure such a thing and that it is something more than a mood. That may seem casually and even cruelly lighthearted at this time, but it is not meant to be. For the importance that one places on the fellowship of the provinces and the somewhat peculiarly titled 'Instruments of Unity' will determine, to an extent at least, the way that one responds to the Communiqué.
[. . .] We worry that the survival of the Anglican Communion has become, for many, a pharisaical preoccupation, pulling us away from Gospel imperatives and the two great commandments of Our Lord. The Anglican Communion has always been more a web of love and history and not, till now, a juridical gleam in anyone's eye. Whether it will withstand the storm of Windsor and volleys of communiqués (for surely there will be more to come) is an important consideration, but one that ought never cause us to lose sight of What All This Is About: proclaiming the good news of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When 'vociferousness has exhausted itself', the homeless still need shelter. If the Episcopal Church in the USA becomes separated from the Church of Nigeria, if the Anglican Church of Canada finds itself no longer in the same room with the 'Southern Cone', our Lord still asks us 'Lovest thou me? Then feed my sheep.'
We say this not to diminish the sadness that all of us feel at the deep rifts in a Communion that has been precious and life-giving in so many ways. But we're concerned that we're all focussing so intently on the Anglican Communion's survival that the reason why it exists at all may be forgot in the midst of all the sputtering and fissiparous elements.
'No faith with heretics is not an ecclesiastical rule; it is a natural and inevitable human emotion', Charles Williams wrote in The Descent of the Dove. We saw that last week when it was reported that some primates chose not to take communion with others. Of all that our differences can cause, surely that must be one of the most devastating. [. . .]
Dear friends, we must care, but we must be careful not to fall into despair. We must be attentive, but we must not, in our attention, be distracted from loving God with all our heart and mind and soul.[. . .]
'Fear God, serve the King, and be a good fellow to the rest. ' Elizabeth I wrote to Lord Burghley. Fine advice from a queen whose temperament and wisdom allowed that which we call the Anglican Communion to come into existence. If it ceases to exist in its present form, the qualities that created and sustained it will continue and flourish. Of that we are certain.

I'm happy that the primates of the Anglican communion were able maintain conversation with each other -- no walkouts. But it's sad that, according to some reports, some of the primates refused to participate in communion services with their colleagues and boycotted a service led by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The communiqué does a fair job of squaring the circle, though it would have been a relief to the weary if they could have settled the matter once and for all. Thinking Anglicans and titusoneneine perform a superb service in keeping abreast of all the statements and comments. Some of the press reportage is very helpful, but much of the commentary, especially in The Times is ill-informed and just plain wrong.

From the blizzard of views and comments, I picked out two quotations in a piece "Punishment is for doing what we are all meant to do" by Owen Bowcott, The Guardian, (26 Feb)

"It's not the worst possible outcome," said the Rev Paul Collier, an openly gay vicar who is chaplain at Goldsmiths College, London. "It's at least a temporary withdrawal. It does leave some time for more conversations to take place. It's an issue that needs to be addressed. Over the next three years there's a chance that we may be closer to the position where we can agree to differ. The Anglican church first said in 1978 that there's a need to listen to lesbian and gay Christians. The US church was prepared to respect that . . . so it's a bit of an irony that one of the few churches that has taken the process seriously is being punished for doing what everyone else was supposed to do."
Richard Kirker, general secretary of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, said: "It's neither one thing or the other. There has been no motion of censure and no expulsion. The US and Canadians are being given the opportunity to explain their actions. The reasoning that led to their decision is well known. It's a bit wearisome for them to explain themselves [again] . . . we believe their actions are consistent with the Christian faith. It is extraordinary, the protracted difficulties [involved in] facing something as ordinary, dull and normal as being lesbian or gay. We should be able to move on now."

Exactly so.

This press release from Integrity just about sums up my own response:

24 February 2005
INTEGRITY REPLIES TO COMMUNIQUÉ FROM PRIMATES' MEETING
The members of Integrity were in prayer for the primates of the Anglican Communion this week as they met to discuss the Windsor Report. While there are sections of their closing communiqué which we find problematic, we are pleased that it is less stringent than had been rumored. There is much room within the statement for forward movement.
Integrity is heartened that . . .

• The primates acknowledged that the election and consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson and permission for dioceses to authorize same-sex blessing rites "have proceeded entirely in accordance with [the] constitutional processes and requirements" of the Episcopal Church.
• The primates recognized the Episcopal Church needs time to consider the recommendations of the Windsor Report according to our constitutional processes. Integrity looks forward to participating in additional discussions about the Windsor Report before and during General Convention 2006.
• The primates asked the Anglican Consultative Council to initiate a Communion-wide process for studying human sexuality within the Christian context and listening to the stories of lesbian and gay Anglicans as mandated by Lambeth 1998 and earlier conferences. Sadly, much of the current rancor within the Anglican Communion could have been avoided if dialog had not been stonewalled in the past. Representatives of Integrity recently met in London with the Revd. Canon Gregory K. Cameron, Deputy Secretary General of the Anglican Communion Office, on this issue. We again offer whatever assistance we can in this process.
• The primates encouraged the Anglican Consultative Council to organize a hearing at its upcoming meeting to allow representatives of the Episcopal Church the opportunity to share the thinking behind the recent actions of our province. Integrity welcomes this opportunity and will be glad to participate if so invited.

Nevertheless, Integrity is dismayed that . . .

• The primates asked the Episcopal Church to withdraw its members from the Anglican Consultative Council until the next Lambeth Conference; but we are encouraged that this action is cast as voluntary rather than mandatory. It seems counter-intuitive that a Communion-wide dialog process can be crafted without the participation of delegates from one of the provinces with a large number of openly lesbian and gay members. We urge the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church, which we understand has canonical authority in this matter, to carefully consider the justice and wisdom of granting this request.
• The primates called for a moratorium on same-sex blessings and on the consecration of any bishop living in a same-sex relation. However, we are again encouraged that this is presented as voluntary. Seven dioceses with the United States currently have written policies on same-sex blessings and such blessings occur on a regular basis. It is only a matter of time until another diocese is moved by the Holy Spirit to call another gay or lesbian person to be their bishop.

Meanwhile, other than some rushed and ill-considered decisions in its General Synod, the Anglican Church of Australia, divided within itself, says little -- though individuals have spoken out on both sides of the debate. Nor has any group representing gay and lesbian people within the Australian Church been able to sustain itself.

In Has Anglicanism A Future? A Response to the Windsor Report (LGCM, 2005), Andrew Linzey offers 14 reasons why the Windsor report is wrong. One may not agree with these reasons; but that it is possible reasonably to propose them raises the real possibility that embracing the Report's recommendations may risk entirely misunderstanding the purpose of God and the guidance of the Spirit, as well as departing from the traditional foundations of the Anglican family of faith.
(Prof. Andrew Linzey BD (Lond), AKC, DPS, Phd (Lond), is a member of the Theology Faculty, Oxford University, and Bede Jarrett Senior Research Fellow at Blackfriars Hall. He is also Honorary Professor in Theology at Birmingham University and Special Professor at Saint Xavier University Chicago.)

The Sydney Morning Herald (19 Feb) reports "Aussie Queer Eye a big turn-off for advertisers." Ratings are half what was expected and Channel Ten stands to loose millions. Ratings dopped heavily btween the first eposide and the second. I watched the first half of the first Australian episode, then turned it off. It was an exact-as-possible clone of the American version (even down to the imported gas-guzzler 4WD). No innovation, nothing Australian except brand names (not sure if half of them weren't imported). Result? Dull, dull, dull. The original version works (maybe) in an American setting, especially New York, is at least a tiny bit exotic to a non-US audience, and is sometimes witty. Australians don't mind American shows that are American. But Australian shows need to be vaguely Australian or at least cosmopolitan. The Australian show could have been set anywhere. There was no attempt to showcase its Aussie setting (was it made in Sydney?). The commercialism was much more obvious when one recognised the brands. The dialogue was low on wit. Boring, boring, boring.

The 'Sydney Confidential' column in the Daily Telegraph (owned by a rival media organisation) ran this bitchy comment on 11 Feb:

Queer Eye flops
Oh dear . . . Queer Eye boys fail to capture the imagination.
Channel Ten's Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is gay -- that's gay as in daggy, crap, wrong, a dud. At least so say 'Confidential's' local gay lads. "I can honestly say God was shining on me the day they said I was not right for the show," said one potential Queer Eye. "How absolutely embarrassing. It was like watching a car crash," he said.
So what exactly was it that has the city's queer kids so upset? The fashion tips? The stilted conversations? A touch of jealousy perhaps? "All of it," said 'Confidential' reader Brendan.
"Ah, they had red gerberas on the kitchen bench -- I don't think so," said Matt. "Ty Hencshke is like some sort of children's TV show presenter, Will Fennell I must admit I quite loved, but they just so didn't work together," he said.
It appears Sydney's gay community were laying bets as to how long the series, which rated third in its timeslot in Sydney with 290,000 viewers, will last.

Postscript:: Melbourne's Herald Sun (25 Feb.)(reports that the show has been scrapped.

Wednesday's episode, featuring the make-over of a man dubbed "Haircules" because of thick body air, was a ratings flop. It reached just 229,000 viewers in Melbourne [population 4 million plaus] and was thumped in its timeslot by local drama McLeod's Daughters (427,000). . . . Channel 10 insists remaining episodes will be shown. "We believe Queer Eye did not get the figures it deserved so we will be running the remaining episodes as a series of specials when the American Queer Eye returns," a Ten spokesman said.

Thinking Anglicans is giving superb coverage of the General Synod of the Church of England, which has now accepted a report from its House of Bishops endorsing the recommendations of the Windsor Report. It agreed:

That this Synod
(a) welcome the report from the House (GS 1570) accepting the principles set out in the Windsor Report;
(b) urge the Primates of the Anglican Communion to take action, in the light of the Windsor Report's recommendations, to secure unity within the constraints of truth and charity and to seek reconciliation with the Communion; and
(c) assure the Archbishop of Canterbury of its prayerful support at the forthcoming Primates' Meeting.'

An attempt to insert the following as a new paragraph failed by 209 votes to 140 votes.

in the light of paragraph 3.7.2 of the FOAG response to the Windsor report annexed to GS 1570, which refers to the requirement of Lambeth 1.10 that Anglicans should listen to the experiences of gay and lesbian people, urge the Primates to take practical steps to create a climate of safety within the Churches of the Communion in which lesbian and gay people can speak of their experience and theology without fear of reprisal within those Churches and that will allow voices to be heard across national and provincial boundaries in the Communion, especially in countries where homosexuality is punishable by imprisonment;

In press rports, the Archbishop of Canterbury is quoted as describing split over homosexuality as "agony". "There will be no cost-free outcome from this ... to put it as bluntly as I can, there are no clean breaks in the Body of Christ."

"Part of the cost involved in the repercussions of recent events is that it has weakened, if not destroyed, the sense that we are actually talking the same language within the Anglican Communion. Not having a common language, a common frame of reference, has been one of the casualties of recent events and there is every indication that that is not going to get better in a hurry."

In what The Scotsman describes as "a thinly-veiled reference to the more liberal side of the church", the Archbishop said those who decided to take risks would have to face the consequences. "There are consequences in hurt, misunderstanding, rupture and damage. It does us no good to pretend that the cost is not real."

Despite the overall vote of support, the press reports strong criticism of the Windsor Report. Stuart Emmason, from the Diocese of Manchester, described it as the "ultimate fudge". "It seems to me profoundly un-Anglican," he said. "The whole sorry affair fills me with sadness and, I have to admit, a certain anger." The Bishop of Worcester, Peter Selby, said it was flawed by the fact that it had had no input from the homosexual community. "They did not even get a whisper," he said. "If they are not heard, this issue will never, never be resolved."

In Australian General Synod and the US General Convention meet only three-yearly, for them a proper response to the Windsor Report will take years. Meanwhile, it's up to the Primates.

The Labor Party opposition has introduced a bill into Parliament to force ratification by Australia of the Kyoto Protocol, but the Government has blocked debate on it. Here is the full text, as it sums up what Australia ought to be doing immediately.

The leader writer of The Guardian (15 Feb 05) criticises the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Williams, for apparent reluctance to say anything "about about the things that interest the public or divide his church", and speculates that this is because he is likely to be misunderstood no matter what he says.

In his defence it can be argued that there is nothing that he can say about interesting subjects that won't make things worse for his church. Whatever the Church of England says about the royal marriage will sound sycophantic or pharisaiacal, as those clergymen who have already expressed their views make clear. Whatever he says about gay Christians will make the schism worse.

It is hard to imagine him giving an honest or satisfying answer if he is asked why blessing the love of two adulterers in Windsor strengthens the Church of England and lets one of them become the church's supreme governor, while blessing the love of two gay vicars in Southwark would threaten global schism.

Quite.

In The Times Theo Hobson, author of Against Establishment: an Anglican Polemic, is yet more critical. He argues that the Church of England, always anxious to please, too easily falls into line with the wants of royalty, who no longer must "make sure that their private life was seen to conform to the austere teachings of the Church." Rather, he syas, "the love life of royalty has the power to influence Church teaching." This, "does not look good. It would actually do it a lot of good to split over Charles's remarriage. It would mean that at last the awkward subject of establishment would be properly aired."

The Church of England] desperately needs to interest people in its version of Christianity; but establishment is a major turn-off. Before 2002, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, would have agreed with this analysis. Being Welsh, he had never had to pledge allegiance to the Queen, and he looked upon the establishment of the Church of England with scepticism. In 2000 he said: "I think that the notion of the monarch as supreme governor has outlived its usefulness. I believe increasingly that the Church has to earn the right to be heard by the social world. Establishment is just one of those things that make it slightly harder."

[...] Upon his appointment to Canterbury, he shoved his disestablishing sympathies into the closet. Surely he should reach out to those with similar feelings -- young, confused Anglicans especially -- and tell them it's OK. [...] Instead, he seems to have taken fright at the weakness of the Church. Maybe one cannot afford to be too honest, when Christian values are so precarious in this culture. Maybe an honest discussion of establishment would make the institution look muddled, weak and inward-looking. [...] And there is another reason to keep deferring the disestablishment debate. The argument about homosexual ordination has shown the Church to be a very shaky marriage between the poles of liberal Catholics and conservative Evangelicals. This frail coalition might collapse without establishment. So it is a genuinely dangerous topic in the present climate.

In its piece, The Guardian urges Dr Williams to "Speak up!" I agree. Dr Williams is a brilliant and compassionate person. If he is brave enough, he can do much good.

The Kyoto Protocol comes into effect on 16 February. Australia and the United States are the only major industrialised countries that have refused to join. We produce the world's highest per capita greenhouse emissions. Yet our conservative government persists in arguing that Australia will be damaged by the protocol. This would be a small price to pay to avoid the massive consequences of long term global warming.

In a statement today InclusiveChurch urges that there be a "safe space in which gay Christians can speak."

The Windsor Report has repeated the call for the Anglican Church to listen to the experience of gay men and women made at the last three Lambeth Conferences. If the church is to take this call seriously, it must create a safe environment in which people can talk. In particular, this means that clergy must be able to speak out without fear of losing their job or having other sanctions placed on them. InclusiveChurch calls for a clear and unequivocal moratorium on the disciplining of lesbian and gay clergy who wish to speak honestly about their sexuality.

The Rev'd Dr Giles Fraser, one of the founders of the movement said, "For nearly thirty years, the Lambeth Conference has called for the church to listen to gay and lesbian people. Yet, in many parts of the communion, this process has not begun. In many places those who speak out are attacked and persecuted. The church must make practical moves to enable gay and lesbian people to share their experience of Christ in their lives. Without making a safe space for this to happen, the promises made at Lambeth Conferences, and more recently by the Windsor Report itself, will be seen as hollow." [...]

Michael Hopkins writes that the brokeness of the Anglican Communion flows from a failure to keep undertakings to 'listen' to the stories of gay and lesbian people. The Windsor Report makes no mention of this, he says.

Roses do well in Canberra. Australia's Old Parliament House has had rose gardens since Robert Broinowski began work on them in 1931, using donations from ordinary Australians. The National Capital Authority (James's employer) has restored the Old Parliament House gardens with more than five thousand roses, once again sponsored by private donors. James and I sponsored one in honour of my late mother, June, and were assigned a Lady Mann. It's a hybrid tea rose bred in Australia in 1937, with dark foliage and strongly colored pink blooms. It is a recurrent flowerer with a strong fragrance, growing to about 1.8m. I'm yet to find out who Lady Mann was!

The Lady Mann rose is to be planted in the Rex Hazlewood Rose Garden, located on the Senate side of the building. The garden was designed in 1931 by Sydney rose specialist Rex Hazlewood at the request of the then National Rose Society of New South Wales. The garden is to tell the history of the rose, displaying many old roses. The centre of the garden features roses bred by internationally renowned Australian rose breeder Alister Clark. One of these is the Lady Mann.

(sae hae bok manhi badeseyo)
In Korean, this asks you to receive many blessings at new year, my third new year in as many months - Advent Sunday (church 'new year'), 1 January, and now lunar new year.

Pancakes yesterday to mark Shrove Tuesday were a worthy tradition, though dangerous to the waistline.

Some East Asian Christians have a juggling act to perform this year, as lunar New Year and Ash Wednesday fall on the same day! Ash Wednesday is traditionally an important church festival, yet I've never been to an Ash Wednesday service as most of the local ones are in working hours. The idea of imposition of ashes (the priest uses ash to mark a cross on one's forehead) makes me very uneasy. So I ask myself why. As Jane Redmont writes in a piece in The Witness

Many of us are reluctant to lament in public and to do so with the force of religious language. To do so with specificity, naming the causes of our lament - intimate and personal but more often social, economic, local, regional, planetary, political - is especially difficult. Personal inhibition, perhaps - we are not just numb to others' grief but sometimes to our own. Or perhaps we and our religion are too polite. Or we have bad memories of Christians being offensively public (like the hypocrites of Matthew's Gospel) or of Christians calling for repentance in ways that deny the holiness of the body and of sexual desire.

Yet lament we must.

My parish priest suggests that "rather than giving things up" for Lent, we might "take things on" during Lent; perhaps some particular service to others, or special period of study and prayer. I like the idea.

Meanwhile, as James is originally Korean, I suspect that the New Year festival will win out over Ash Wednesday!

I've declared this site to be tobacco free, but not alchohol free. Yet I've long questioned my Scottishness in heritage, as I've never liked whisky, even Scotch. Maybe this was because I only tasted cheap blended stuff. I've seen the light at last, after a dram or two of Glenfiddich single malt. Even though the popular 12-year-old whisky is affordable at about $50 (Aust.) per bottle, the taste was outstanding. I sipped very slowly! The top-of-the-range 30-year old Glenfiddich may be extraordinary, but at well over $200 Aust. a bottle, I'll have to give it a miss.

The regular mid-week gathering which James and I share with a few church friends was visited this week by Mr Brad Chapman. Brad runs a successful home mortgage and finance company ... but his great desire, motivated by his faith, is to use his time and resources to combat oppression and poverty, in Australia and overseas. He is now studying theology as well as managing his business and in 2004, he was a member of the Leadership and Development team of the Australian Government's National Youth Roundtable. Brad has traveled with the Australian Board of Mission to Papua New Guinea, Northern Australia, and the Diocese of Jerusalem and was on his way to speak at an ABM conference about his experiences of the church in the Middle East.

The Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem extends over Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Israel and is centered on the Cathedral Church of St. George the Martyr in Jerusalem. Thirty-one parishes minister to the needs of their communities and the Diocese supports thirty-four institutions that include hospitals, clinics, kindergartens and schools, vocational training programs, as well as institutions for the deaf, the disabled and the elderly.

This is what Brad wrote in the Australian Board of Missions magazine,Partners (February, 2005). . . .