It is perhaps too easy to jump to the conclusion that the debacle of yesterday represented a total failure of the liberal leadership of the Anglican Communion. In 20-20 hindsight, they got taken, and they were totally unprepared for it. Those on the Sexuality Sub-Section unanimously agreed to a resolution that was just on the cusp of being acceptable. It represented a reasonable compromise, however. Then, when African voices objected, the Sub-Section went back to the resolution and made it considerably less gay-friendly. This action, too, was apparently unanimous. Now did they do this because they thought this would buy off the Africans? By the time the substitute was submitted, there were already considerably more right-wing alternatives submitted. If the Sub-Section thought that their changes would buy peace, they apparently failed to negotiate this.

Then came the debate. The gay unfriendly substitute was adopted and then began a series of amendments to make it even less friendly. Here the almost complete disorganization of the liberals became even clearer. They had not signed up to speak against the amendments, and, amazingly, they failed to speak even when the Chair called upon folks who had not signed up. Did they think that the conservative tide could be turned without any effort? They already had proof to the contrary.

Only two Americans spoke against the chief amendment, adding, "while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture" Heaven only knows what Bob Ihloff thought he was saying. As I said yesterday, Cathy Roskam's remarks were good but poorly delivered. She did, however, get excellent press coverage. The problem was that her remarks were sound bites and not clear to most listeners. Why didn't she say, for example, that in the U.S., young straights are just as likely to be turned off by anti-gay rhetoric as are gays and lesbians? Instead, she was misinterpreted as suggesting that gays and lesbians were the major potential target for evangelism in the New York suburbs where she serves.

Anyway, Bob and Cathy at least gave it the old college try. No one else even did that. Nor had the liberals planned before hand what to do. They met (which included several not previously in the liberal camp) but they could never agree on anything. I think that the majority of them were totally at sea about the scope of the right-wing organization. Perhaps the American ones thought the House of Deputies would pull the chestnut out of the fire.

I say this analysis is too easy because like any two dimensional analysis of a three dimensional situation, it is necessarily distorted. Also, I have not been in the meetings that were held. Michael was. I will let him write his much more insider's analysis. Indeed, what I have written could have been written by anyone who read our postings this week.

Additional notes. Not only did the Primate of the American Church (I'll have to break myself of that) not do anything to moderate the resolution, he didn't even vote against it in the end -- he abstained!

Richard Holloway, the Primus of Scotland, has been an active campaigner for full inclusion. He called the Archbishop of Canterbury's leadership "pathetic." He also reported that the quite unusual procedure of the Archbishop speaking in favor of the motion just before the final vote was an accident -- his Grace had simply gotten confused and thought the vote had already been taken.

To me, the biggest looser in all of this is the CofE. The newspapers are full of anti-gay headlines:

The Telegraph: Bishops Vote to Condemn Gay Practice The Guardian: Anti-Gay Bishops Crush Liberals The Express: Church Says Emphatic No to Gay Sex Daily Mail: Bishops Defeat Gay Activists The London Times: Liberal Bishops routed in Vote on Homosexuals

The television and radio, as easily predicted, focused on the confrontation between the Nigerian bishop and Richard Kirker. The Anglican Church here looks very bad.

I had several conversations with Kent University students before the vote yesterday. They approached me. I assume all I have spoken to are straight. I got the same story from some of the young media folk I spoke with. Here they view the CofE with real contempt. They feel it is totally out of touch with reality. Its anti-gay stance is a strong indication of that. The previous position of the CofE had been that homosexual sex fell short of the ideal of marriage or celibacy, but lay people should be encouraged to enter committed relationships. Yesterday's resolution went much further -- it said that homosexual activity is incompatible with Scripture.

I will update the post in the future.

Tomorrow, Friday, I am flying home. I will probably type some more on the plane and over the weekend, but I won't be posting anything more until Monday.

• Return to Louie Crew's collection of materials on the Lambeth Conference.
• Louie Crew's Anglican pages.
• Louie Crew's home page.
• Send mail to: lcrew@newark.rutgers.edu

Please sign my guestbook and view it.

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.