If we pass some of the proposed revisions to Title IV of the Canons, it may make it easier for a bishop to do what some have already done in removing the lay leadership of a parish. But who are we kidding? Do we really think people are going to stay around for this--and pay for it?

Why was no prior meeting held with Vestry and parishioners to explain the bishop’s concerns? Why was no meeting held with the priest? Why does the stated cause for the inhibition – “abandonment of communion” – seem to have nothing to do (and in any case to have been formulated months before the actual actions just taken) with the actual explanations given by the bishop and his staff?

These centres are not slinging negative slogans at each other but are working hard at trying to find a lasting peace with justice. They are taking seriously the new opportunities that arise with Israel's disengagement from Gaza and part of the West Bank in a matter of days. It is these Israelis and Palestinians that we should support. Those who are taking real risks for peace.

Many of the CT parishes I visited confirmed my worst expectations. The Sunday after the young gay man Matthew Shepard was murdered, the rector at one parish I was visiting declared from the pulpit that Lambeth 98 was an "abomination," and tried to imply that the Lambeth bishops were somehow responsible for that vicious act.