Of course they re-advocated that position - I don't want 'unity' with Akinola and Co. I'm certainly not in 'communion' with then in any meaningful sense. What I believe and what they believe are almost entirely different.

It seems we must prepare for a different kind of Communion. I wonder if the "friendship" that the ABC was fondly proposing has even a tiny chance of characterizing the new structures. I feel sorry for the ABC. If he supports the larger communion and lets them expel the North Americans he can only maintain the fiction that the C of E has not also changed its teaching on homosexuality by clinging to thin shreds of hypocrisy as priests and their partners register for civil unions mysteriously officially celibate. How long will it be before the Global South Inquisition overtakes him too?

Exactly, dmitri.

Perhaps it will wake up CofE liberals and make them realise that their future is outside the funamentalist-dominated, pre-modern 'Communion'.

I have thought that for a long time, but have been vilified by many for openly calling for a split.

"I don't want 'unity' with Akinola and Co."..."What I believe and what they believe are almost entirely different."

Mike, you have been invited in another thread to state precisely what you believe, and the theological underpinning behind it, and as far as I am aware you did not respond.

Though I believe that the scriptures do not condone homosexuality, in a sincere attempt to understand ECUSA's point of view I have read, and am still digesting, the presentations made yesterday. It would be wrong to dismiss an argument unread.

Equally, I would hope that those who endorse the ECUSA stance should be prepared to acknowledge that these "conservatives" who you so evidently despise do equally sincerely believe that their stance is according to the will of God, and that they would also seek to understand where they are coming from.

I have come to recognise that the majority who subscribe (or at least who write in) are from the liberal camp, and though I sometimes profoundly disagree with some comments, I nevertheless respect these people and believe that they too sincerely believe that God is saying to them something very different.

But what depresses me is the pausity of argument from a theological point of view. Too often the much maligned conservatives have been treated to derisive terms such as trogladye, out of touch, old fasioned or - even more hurtfully - as either homphobic or decidedly unfriendly towards homosexuals. These are all easily delivered assumptions made by people who don't actually know the person they deride. It's all so simplistic; in fact one may be forgiven for thinking that some categorise others into two - either homosexual or homophobic - when in fact they are neither. Personal name-calling or saying "I don't agree" does not really further debate at all - all it does is hurt people.

One document - and be warned it is a long one! - does set out to argue the case from a conservative point of view, without getting involved in any cheap swipes at others. No-one has referred to it on this site, but it is worth reading. It can be found at
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/pdf/truehearing.pdf

I fully recognise that there are people on both sides of this issue that feel passionately about what they believe. I'd just make a plea that we examine arguments, not get at personalities.

"Ignore" is once again being used to mean "disagree with". This abuse of language is very demeaning. It is one that Rowan Williams is guilty of himself, in fact.

The Windsor Report says: "We particularly request a contribution from the Episcopal Church (USA) which explains, from within the sources of authority that we as Anglicans have received in scripture, the apostolic tradition and reasoned reflection, how a person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible to lead the flock of Christ. As we see it, such a reasoned response, following up the work of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA), and taken with recent work undertaken by the Church of England[94] and other provinces of the Communion, will have an important contribution to make to the ongoing discussion." I do not see the demands made by Akinola requested here.

Robert ; I think the basic problem is that whilst I understand your point of view, the fundamental difference is about what we think about, how we approach, and the authority we give to the Bible.

I have talked about that a number of times. There are any number of theological discussions about the topic available, but what we think about them depends primarily on what we believe about the Bible. So, all of those discussions are valid on their own terms, but invalid according to the underlying assumptions of those who differ.

Thats why I do think, unlike many other liberals who will try to look for consensus, that there are two very different approaches which are unlikely to be bridged.

So Akinola & Co. continue to completely stonewall the process. Anyone surprised ? They want a victory totally on their terms, even if it's a Pyrrhic victory...

I agree with MM and (horrors ;) Dr. Shell above. It's time to split before the damage is any worse. And if ++Rowan decides to stick with the "traditionalists," he'd better learn to watch his back. There'll be a (figurative) dagger in his back from the Global South all too soon.

Robert: I congratulate you on accepting the good faith of those with whom you disagree and I, for one, do also. There are two questions: the issue of human sexuality and the issue of diversity of belief and practice on that (and other issues) within the communion. Whilst it is probably right that a consensus on the sexuality issue is presently beyond our reach, I do think that it is worth the different viewpoints continuing to talk to each other and to debate, because this should increase respect for each other's views even in the absence of agreement. That in turn should reduce the damage to our communion as much as possible, which is in itself something which I strongly wish. I am glad that you come onto a website which is not in tune with your views - I do the same on other sites - I think it is healthy and humbling to accept and engage with alternative points of view. I am shocked by the invective and hatred which is found on some of these sites and wonder whether there is not a new category of "internet Christian" which is encouraged by the medium to be less respectful, less courteous, less tolerant than people might be in face to face interaction, and to huddle with like minded people and take sides, instead of seeking fellowship and engaging with all those with whom we form a community. But all of us on the internet may fall into that error; not just those on one side or other of the argument. The document you link to is interesting, but it is not entirely free of what you describe as "cheap swipes at others": e.g. on page 30 the heading "The Emperor's Clothes: unmasking ECUSA's God" seems to me a long way away from the careful, respectful tone of the ECUSA presentation yesterday.

At last people are starting to seethis is the only sensible conclusion. Now, we have to make sure that the organisations aho represent our viewpoint start to hear what we are saying.

Unity at any cost is no unity at all.

Thanks jak for your comments. I would not defend every word of ANY document; I doubt whether one could see any article that is totally devoid of slants one way or the other, and if there were, we'd probably all regard it as sterile!

Leaving aside the title you mention, did you study the content there? The Rev. Dr. Philip Turner was pointing to what he felt was a dearth of theology in much that is preached, and if he is right, then the title is not as bizarre as appears on the surface. (I have read more than one sermon on the Net which says no more that "We must be nice to each other" - implying that this is what being a Christian is all about.)

However, whether or not one agrees with the article, it does set out in detail the arguments, many of which we have seen here, and argues from a Biblical point of view.

The plea that I was making is that we offer arguments, rather than concentrate on demeaning people. Yes, it is true that in some (but not all) of the forums, it gets personal, and I too have been stunned by the extravagant comments made by a few hotheads who write into Virtue. I was expressing the hope that we do not descend to name-calling here.

Mike may be right - possibly we are witnessing the birth of a realignment - but it was the quote from his posting that made me feel that we should refrain from commenting in a derogatory way about people. Akinola may not be everybody's cup of tea on this web-site, but I presume that even the most liberal would accept that he is a Christian and that to deride the prospect of unity with him is not, surely, what Jesus expects from us.

But I probably feel much the same about unity with Akinola as you feel about unity with Jack Spong, Robert! What is the unity really based on? Sure, all of us are Christians, but do we share much more than a name?

I think that the way 'theology' is, as a diccipline, provides us with most of the problem - theology needs a good dose of sociology and less relisnce on what eancient books might or might not say.

There's the sociologist in you speaking, Mike !

But Christianity is a religion, centred on God, not people (or at least NT/traditional Christianity is). As discussed before, I think that the real issue is our assumptions.. therefore the argument about Christian Ethics isn't so much about ethics as about christianity.

We are not just disagreeing about how Christians should / shouldn't live, but about WHAT CHRISTIANITY IS. Somewhat more fatal if we don't sort it out !

Oh, certainly, Dave. I'm a libera;/progressive/revisioniost Christian, neither conservative nor traditionalist.

What you believe and what I believe are miles apart, but both are currently within the CofE.

I don't think that is sustainable, long-term, hence my belief in a split both within the CofE and the dissolving of the Communion.

So I guess this means that +Akinola & Co. do NOT "set *their* hope on Christ"?

I am seriously wondering what this so-called "Communion" (Anglican? Hardly) is worth. :-(

[NB- ECUSA's Christ: Second Person of the Trinity---who was begotten, incarnate, taught, healed, suffered, died, rose again, and reigns eternally. (Because I anticipate our Gospel Faith will be disputed & dismissed, also {sigh})]

Robert: I commend you on your stance and wish you well with your reading (Hope In Christ). I think we 're only hurting one another with all this. I just transferred from my old parish of 38 yrs. They voted to join the AAC and did so without any knowledge of the vast majority of the parish knowing. I do feel sad that the disagreement is over homosexuality. I have taught gay students and work with gay colleagues and can say I love them just the way they are. I can't help but believe that many of the things said against them makes Jesus shudder. I wish we'd all end the bitter fight and end the hate and just walke apart. I fear that the property battles and the displaced folks on either side will be most painful. I would like to see the light at the end of the tunnel, an end to the forum for continuing a charade that doesn't really exist. Maybe on day we can walk again in mutual affection. It's worth praying for!

Lord help us not to lose sight of you. To love you first and above all else, and to love our neigbours as ourselves. To hate sin and strive not to condone it but to overcome it. To wish and pray that all who are called by your name live the way you would live. To place our need for perfection above our human and fleshly desires, and finally by our lives to draw many to you in heaven and not to the broad way that ends in destruction . Amen.