Seems clear to me: the reporter wrote the story, it was cut down by the subeditor - note that it includes (unattributed) quotations found in full in the main story - and the report then flicked it on to Virtue.

Either that or it's a "repraiser' hoax.

Akinola & Gomez have been taking this line for years: the only odd point is that they're (technically) willing to keep the ABC as a figurehead of the communion, even though the ABC itself is suspended.

Which is guess is fine, but it means no more eucharist services at communion meetings...

Yet another sure sign that Akinola is planning a breakaway Communion.

This will, I think, mean a split in the CofE. FiF are likely to be off to Rome, and Reform/Mainstream are on their way to Akinola's party.

Then the rest of us can return to full, unbroken Communion with the USA and Canada, and look towards a much happier church.

It could be an edition thing ... the story was run as published in the first edition, and then subbed down to what we now see in later ones. If so, an interesting insight into the subbing process -- a sub who knows nothing abut anglicanism would not at all see why it mattered that a nigerian should say such silly things.

or it could be pure black propaganda

The Sunday Times did contact me on Friday. I sent them the information they asked for. I did ask what story they were running, as reactions to the Bishops' Statement was old news, but they would just say they were gathering comments. I had the feeling that they were using the statistics we provided them (again!) as a feed to get responses from others.
I can only imagine the material that was given to these Primates to get the achieved reaction.
That said, we have to bear in mind the interview Archbishop Malango gave to David Virtue at the ACC meeting and what happened afterwards.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1430164/posts

In this interview Malango says conservative Anglicans will split and it will happen later in the year. I understand that the “minders” at Nottingham made Malango apologise to Rowan at the meeting and we were told that Mr Virtue was not to be believed and that Malango’s English was none too good. Perhaps we will see the same reaction here.
There are differing views amongst conservatives as to how the Anglican Communion should be constituted – the CAPAC covenant makes that clear – but it is getting harder to imagine the Church of England playing a part in the sort of Church we see promoted by either Venables and Gomez in the Americas and Akinola and Malango in Africa. The control mechanisms seem to have passed out of the hands of Lambeth and the ACO and their ability to play “catch-up” and regain the initiative may have passed.

In the tried and true parlance, are you saying this is a media beat up?

OK, for what it's worth, I have talked to Chris Morgan. The story is genuine. How it got onto the net is not clear, but it is what he and the bylined author had done with their three interviews. The quotes are real, but the story was simply squeezed out of the paper on Saturday by other news.

Thank you, Andrew Brown, for confirming the story.

The Communion as we know it would seem to be finished. I don't see how it can hold together in anything like its present form.

That saddens me enormously. Much as it will be a relief to have done with the posturing, positioning, arguments of who did what to whom, and who did it first, I think we will all be impoverished by this split.

I wish Christians had answers to the problem of how human beings can live together despite radical differences in culture and outlook. But we seem to be as clueless as the rest of humanity.

Christopher, we can live together in the world as live and let live. But Christians in submission to Jesus and His way revealed to us in the Bible cannot walk together with those who have chosen to walk apart. And it is the revisionists who have changed, who have chosen to walk apart following the way of the world.
2 Corinthians 6:15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?

Independent confirmation will not be coming quickly. Archbishop Gomez has just started a 3 week vacation. Archbishop Akinola is away until after August 8.

Milton,

That's really quite a silly comment. This disagreement is not between Christ and Belial, as you assert, or between believers and unbelievers. It is a disagreement between professing Christians over how best to interpret and apply Holy Scripture. To suggest that those who in good conscience disagree with your interpretation of Scripture are "Belial" is completely irresponsible and is the very attitude that has produced 18,000+ fragments of the Christian Church that can't even get along with one another.

We as a Christian community need to get over this kind of nonsense. It's really depressing.

I would have preferred confirmation on this story from someone of George Conger's stature and background.

Tip of the Hat to Roland, who wrote: "This disagreement is not between Christ and Belial, as you assert, or between believers and unbelievers. It is a disagreement between professing Christians over how best to interpret and apply Holy Scripture."

If the self-assertive (and sadly mistaken) Primates of the Global South get their way and expel ECUSA, the Anglican Church in Canada and the CofE from the Anglican Communion and its instruments of unity, what next? Will the Global South Roman Catholic primates expel Pope Benedict XVI when they read, and misunderstand or misrepresent, his most nuanced and theological astute collection of essays, Joseph Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and the World of Religions (2003), which seriously engages the major world religions? Is he going to be the +William Swing of the Roman Communion in the eyes of his less theologically astute destractors, who in a simplistic way interpret the Fourth Gospel's saying that only Christ is the way, the truth and the life?

What next?

Well, Roland, here's another silly comment for you regarding scriptural interpretation.

2 Timothy 4:1-4 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.

what Akinola is asking for –that the Church of England be disciplined- must have some kind of actual, tangible consequences, as his previous claims of such nature have had in regards to ECUSA and Canada.

If the C of E has done what Akinola affirms it has, then he should declare the Province of Nigeria in impaired communion with the C of E. Pronto. He did it before with ECUSA and Canada, for all too similar reasons as the he’s now demanding the suspension of the English church for.

So we will soon read that Akinola has declined to share any kind of meeting or worship with Rowan or any other C of E representative or prelate (unless it´s around the Primates tables, where he will apparently take his qualm for yet another one-issue centered meeting, which will be the more interesting to find out about), because unity of doctrine comes before unity of worship. He did it before with ECUSA and Canada, for all too similar reasons as the ones he’s now demanding the suspension of the English church for.

You may think there´s a lot to debate about England having done what it has, but believe me, England won’t undo what they have just done.

So Akinola will get even more pissed off and impaired communion will soon lead to a broken communion status. Akinola is sure to do that, because.. well, yes Gloria, he did it before with ECUSA and Canada, for all too similar reasons as the ones he’s now demanding the suspension of the English church for.

And, not being in communion with the C of E means not being in communion with its primatial see, Canterbury.

And not being in communion with the see of Canterbury is the one thing that would lead a present Anglican province with membership of the Anglican Communion to stop being one.

Of course, you will start seeing such as the elementary result of Akinola´s outburst once you understand that the C of E has made a decision, and that Akinola has responded in a very uncivilized, obtuse, fanatical, fundamentalist way, and the more than predictable outcome of such words is, indeed, the one honourable thing to do left for Akinola and Co. Which is, exactly, what he has done before in regards to ECUSA and Canada, for all too similar reasons as the ones he’s now demanding the suspension of the English church for.

Unless he is, as someone has suggested recently and as I also believe him to be, a bullying opportunist. But, then again, there goes my charity wind.

You may want to go on arguing how naughty –or not- the English have been in this or that particular regards. But communion with the see of Canterbury remains the one and only sure sign of membership in the Anglican Communion. That is why Akinola and Co. must speak up their minds, fill in the blanks they have enthusiastically filled in before in regards to Canada and ECUSA, eventually declare broken communion with the C of E and LEAVE.

The USA ultra-con spearheads should have better taught Akinola the meaning of “precedent”. And he´s now got, not one, but two precedents (Canada and ECUSA) that make the outcome of his present hysteria all the more predictable. I wish he would hurry up.

Who are the ones walking out? Does it matter? The walking out from the Communion of its presently most conservative provinces seems like a sure thing to happen, so why not to muse over what the rest of this charade will look like?

This is one of the most commented pieces of news I´ve seen posted in this website. No wonder, because pretty much everybody with eyes to see and brains to think realises the magnitude of what has happened. If the news sources used are not into deceiving us, if Akinola bothered to check his Webster´s before saying what he said, if no American conservative minder had the chance or desire to correct Akinola´s faaaar off the mark remarks, then the big split has already started and none has even issued invitations.

What is to come? Before I have been suggesting that the province of Nigeria has been called out from the Anglican Communion by her primate himself, so right now there´s a missing province from the 37-lists we used to deal with. Who will follow suit? Let´s see – Uganda, West Indies, Kenya, Southern Cone, Tanzania, Congo, Southeast Asia, Rwanda, Burundi, Central Africa, Pakistan, Sudan, West Africa…

Am I the only one thinking that, most of these provinces have mantained a bit more than nominal membership in the Communion, as their participation has reduced itself to, if anything, to pretty much whining, judging, blackmailing, back-stabbing and utter hypocrisy when the tables get really turned? (see reference to Orombi excusing himself to Rowan over his similarly off the mark statements about Alexandria as the New Jerusalem or something to similar effect).

What´s the problem over cutting these provinces loose? None, if it is their will to do so.

When a primate, who has made such holier-than-thou demands to his colleagues to be really, really mature, self-conscious, honest, etc etc, does not stop to even take a look at the present English legislation (which includes both an established status for the Church of England AND legally accorded rights to people participating in homosexual relationships as well as legally accorded duties to, for example, their employers) then his province is caught in a nuts-wagon ride that can only lead in one direction: abandonment of communion.

Because the other “orthodox” primates are, more than probably and as we speak, doing exactly what Akinola should have done in the first place –bothering to read the English legislation in regards to civil partnerships AND the resulting pastoral letter issued by the Church of England- it´s not all too certain to say who will follow suit, at least in the same way Akinola has acted.

That´s why he needs the September meeting. In that context, homosexual relationships will be “uncovered” to their most graphic –and, sometimes, erroneously presented- details, anger will be kept high, holy wrath will be fed by similar methods as the ones used here to obliterate the truth for the sake of moral disgust and Drexel Gomez will dance a polka, after telling his global south comrades about the huge success of his Pan-American Council of (2) Anglican Provinces. (No, Recife is not a province, sorry).

Can the remaining member provinces live with this? Of course they can, but it will surely hurt.

It will hurt because the Anglican Communion´s global witnessing of the reconciling work of God in Christ through the Spirit requires global witnesses, and with the departure of the global south provinces, entire regions of the planet are left, Anglican-wise, to the delusion and grandeur obsessions of people like Akinola, Orombi, Gomez and Co.

It will hurt because, very much grounded in that Anglican vision of catholicity and universality of the Gospel, it´s been the Anglican willingness to move forward and up what has given us such gifts as the leadership of (and the local witness they represent) of the Robin Eames, Desmond Tutu, Michael Peers and Edmond Browning of this age and other great figures of our past.

It will hurt because the Anglican Cycle of Prayer will shrink substantially, therefore depriving the Communion from an organized, common practice of prayer for countries, peoples and churches that have been, are and will be going through stuff that is much worse than a free dive into the Niagara Falls.

It will hurt because events like the Third Conference on Afro-Anglicanism, recently and successfully celebrated in (horror!) Toronto, Canada, would lose a valuable presence of Anglicans who bring to the faith the unique human gifts that the African peoples and history store and live out in their daily struggle for dignity and development, their culture, stories, genius and beauty.

It will hurt because the Anglican Communion will lose much needed backup in its denunciation of hunger, poverty, under-development, corruption, economical injustice and racial discrimination.

It will hurt because, while these well-fed, better paid and ego-inflated prelates find alternate sources to finance the lives-saving projects that have been set and financed, until now, by generous donations and gifts from churches in the West –no, sorry, the Network´s Fund is a joke-, thousands and thousands are going to die, get sick, grow illiterate and remain unemployed, unmotivated or with their refugee status still ignored by the world around.

There are so many more reasons why it will hurt if Akinola´s manic drives are to be followed, with any quality, by the rest of the “global south” primates of similar persuasions as his. But one thing is for sure: if the news reports are not false, if Akinola had a dictionary handy at the time of reading whatever it was he read that launched him into declaring Nigeria´s walking out from the Anglican Communion, if this is what it sure looks to be, then the Anglican Communion, as we know it –a world-wide, still world-wide federation of autonomous, inter-dependant ecclesiastical provinces that, if anything, share communion with the See of Canterbury- will go on. Hurt, but onwards.

And the walkaways? Well, we´ve seen them before. As someone around here predicted, Akinola´s followers will soon find out what it means to make alliances with a nutcase.

Also, their letterheads will be much longer. But I suspect people like Akinola tend to enjoy long letterheads. They go well with large egos.

Evidently large egos go well with large posts too. ;)

Telodi, I wonder if your scenario makes it sound as though the loss of these conservative provinces would be a trivial thing? The reality is that it would be a very, very significant thing. It is not inconceivable that there would be more people pledging allegiance to Anglican doctrine who are outside of the current communion "structure" than in it.

And you only seem to envisage whole provinces having to choose? I wonder if the "greater" damage may come from the forced choices within provinces where Dioceses, congregations and individuals make tough choices.

Neil,

"Evidently"? Where does the evidence come from? Unlucky me, I need so many words to say certain things. You obviously do better than that.

The thing with the dioceses... the ECUSA bishops from both sides of the divide that gathered in LA should have a good proposal for an even better way to conduct such business. It would take synods, and not only bishops, to do that, though. And the one ECUSA diocese who seems to be close to that kind of decision is Fort Worth -they always were, actually-. Beyond that, the evidence is that pretty much everybody is, one, trying to make sense of what the heck has Akinola done and, second, wondering what is it they really believe is at present the right right to do.

I don't think the most conservative provinces are a trivial thing: the logic some of their primates seem to follow is a trivial thing alright. Would you care to read again, nowhistanding my "evidently" large ego?

Well, I'm at least relieved to find, Simon, that I had not passed on false info to you! :-) (Was *not* looking forward to having to deny a "JCF-contrived campaign of lies" *g*)

As to the subject itself? What else can one say but "Lord have mercy!"? :-(

Trivial? no - their loss would be greatly beneficial, for it would mean an Anglican Communion whicvh could return to a thinking, non-fundamentalist Anglican position, rather than the one that the so-called Global South are trying to drag us down owing to their sheer numbers. Turning us into a communion which has nothing to do with Anglicanism as I understand it.

Of course, it means that the conservative evangelicals in this country won't be Anglican or part of the Church of England any more. They won't like that. No more status, just another protestant denomination - but then, they only stay with us to gain that status in any case. Personally, I have felt for a long time that the CofE would be a far kinder place without them, and I hope they will be happy in the reformed protestant Church of Akinola (shall we call them the NotAnglicans?)

IT's quite clear what Akinola has done: he and Venables and Gomez and Orombi - according to their reported and confirmed statements, have applied the same sanction to the CoE and Williams as they have to Griswold and Hutchinson.

That is: they are in impaired/broken communion, they will not eat in the same room as Williams, and unless the CoE repents at the next opportunity, they are gone for good.

Of course everyone is commenting - this is the most substantial statement so far on the whole anglican realigment. Of course, if you believe in a large worldwide communion this is a terrible day. Of course, if you believe that the gospel declares homosexuality is an abomination, like Sandy Millar (who is now presumably out of communion with Williams and Chartres, and takes HTB at the Alpha churches out with him & Giddings & co go too), then it is a beautiful, wonderful day.

But it is a significant day whichever side you are on: it is the day the communion finally fell apart.

"The reality is that it would be a very, very significant thing."

Hardly!

It has become "evident" that it would mean essentially nothing at all.

IOW, IMHO, telodi is spot on in the above comments.

YMMV

Tim Stewart says, "It has become "evident" that it would mean essentially nothing at all". The departure of the largest Province, some 17,000,000 adherents who actually go to Church on any given Sunday, means "nothing at all". The arrogance is breathtaking!

Thanks to these posters whose honesty is refreshing. The split that is coming is "essentially nothing at all", " a beautiful day" and "beneficial".

Very informative.

You seem to be making some massive and very optimistic (for liberals) presumptions on how things are going to work out.

Eg "Of course, it means that the conservative evangelicals in this country won't be Anglican or part of the Church of England any more."

You clearly have no understanding of evangelicals. They are concerned with Christ and His gospel and His status, not in the slightest bit bothered with their own status.
The (premature) "victory" cries of the liberals here suggest they might just be slightly more concerned with status than anyone else.

Victory? What victory? The communion broken beyond repair; the "liberals" excommunicated by the vast mass of Anglicans; ecumenical partners from Rome to the Baptists to the Lutherans severing relationships as fast as they can; not to mention the Western Anglican churches ripping themselves to shreds --- if this is a liberal victory I hope I never see a defeat.

I'm afraid that I find myself going into "plague of both your houses" mode. Having always been happy to consider myself quite extreme on the traditional catholic-evangelical spectrum (at the catholic end), I suddenly feel a rush of via media coming on. I am no enthusiast either for Akinolaite queer-bashing or for ecclesiastical marriage of same-sex couples.

The bishops' statement could maybe have been handled better (though I can't immediately make any useful suggestion about HOW), but it struck me as a pretty obvious attempt to navigate between the C of E's doctrinal position and the restrictions imposed by establishment. It has clearly not been construed in this way elsewhere in the Anglican Communion.

I feel desperately sorry for His Grace the Archbishop. It seems that some in the Anglican Communion have done their damnedest to ensure that he began his ministry as a busted flush. Give the man a chance!

I totally agree with Merseymike. We would be far better off as a Communion without the Akinolaites. We will still have the Tutus and other modern Anglo-Catholics in Africa in communion with us.

Neil,

Evangelicals "are concerned with Christ and His gospel and His status, not in the slightest bit bothered with their own status"?? Let's reword that slightly to make it more accurate:

Evangelicals are concerned with Christ and His gospel, but mostly in the narrowest sense of the gospel as they see it with no ability to concede that their limited human understanding might be wrong about anything; little ability to get along with anyone who does not agree in every detail with their interpretation; little use for anyone who does not subscribe to their militant, confrontational presentation of their faith; and little ability to see God at work in anyone who isn't part of their club.

It's a good thing they weren't around when our Lord walked this earth or they would have conspired with conservative politicians to crucify Him for heresy, or for not dressing right, or healing people on the Sabbath, or not following the purity codes, or for hanging out with disreputable people....oh, come to think of it, I guess they were around at that time. Hmmm...

"They are concerned with Christ and His gospel and His status, not in the slightest bit bothered with their own status."

Would that this was true of any side in the current dispute, but I certainly haven't seen it made manifest.

Kurt, I think you're hasty in assuming that African churches would ally with England in a final, irrevocable split. There are people in Africa who love the Church of England (including senior Nigerian clergy) but if forced to choose between a country and an archbishop far away (and a former colonial power at that) or a leader of their own in their own country, they may not go the way you think.

From a rather uninformed lay person... Why can't Akinola be "defrocked"? He is clearly unwilling or mentally incapable of working with anyone, surely he has broken the communion, and he needs to pay for that sin. Get someone there who is willing to work through this in some sort of responsible manner.

What a tragic situation! And one that seems to bring out the worst in all sides, as several others have already observed.

I was unable to reach Thinking Anglicans yesterday and this morning, but could reach the Anglican Church of Canada website, where I found an immensely reassuring report on the Afro-Anglican Conference that's been meeting in Toronto. It includes the text of their eirenical final statement, the Toronto Accord: ().
It shows, among other things, that Anglicans in Africa are no more all of one mind than we are in North America, which I think is important for us all to keep in mind. And it models for us all a far better way forward than the present cycle of finger-pointing and back-turning.

Alas, this afternoon my web problems cleared up and I was able to get the news about Archbp Akinola....

God help us all!

Abigail

That's a good point Abigail.
But I am constantly assured by many people who know the country and Church that on matters of human sexuality Peter Akinola is something of a moderate in comparison to other Nigerian Anglican leaders.

Yes, Abigail, I agree entirely.

There's too much plain politicking in all this, and a great many lies have been told all 'round.

I can't see why *anyone* would proclaim victory here, in any of the factions involved. At most, one could say that this ugly split is the only possibility left--but isn't it a sad and bitter when the moment arrives?

We have done a big thing badly, and we all bear the weight of that; individually, we may have tried to be constuctive, but as a whole, the Anglican Communion has not acquitted itself well.

So conservatives get a 'pure' church with a self-pitying foundation myth (and believe me, after they've done with the liberals, they'll go after one another). Liberals are sidelined into a smaller group of churches that don't have the vital connections to the developing world that helped keep them grounded in a broader vision of what the church is about.

That's no one's triumph in my book.

Alan Harrison, you are making the same mistake as Akinola in using the word 'marriage', although, thankfully, I don't think your mistake will cause any schisms.

I've been running this through in my head for the past several days and have decided that we have moved from the passionately tragic into some kind of darkly comic ecclesial bizarro world. Really - can one have an ANGLICAN Communion without the Church of ENGLAND?????

Just so everyone knows where I sand: I'm unhappy with the course the ECUSA took at GC2003, but I'm not going anywhere, and I implore all parties to stay and struggle on together - sharing one another's sufferings (I think I read that somewhere).

I think anyone who has read any of Rowan Williams academic work probably understands that he has advocated for full inclusion of gays and lesbians. Over the past 2 years, I've wondered why he hasn't spoken up. I've wondered why he hasn't publicly engaged in theological discourse over this issue with his usual erudition. Well, the establishment church now finds itself in the middle of a society that will provide civil status and protection to homosexual couples, and the church needs to find a way to reconcile itself to that society. I'm at a loss as to how they might do so, but I do think the option they have come up with is naive and wishy-washy.

Or is it???? Rowan had to know how this would go down.

Rowan to Peter, "Whatcha gonna do now?" (imagine that question posed much more eloquently and with a Welsh accent, rather than the firehouse Southern vernacular above)

I'm suddenly convinced - and I truly hadn't been until being beset upon by bizarro world - that this split was a foregone conclusion. (how about that for naive) All the talk from the ultra-conservative side about holiness of life and Scriptural admonition, about purity and not being yolked with the sexually immoral has been little more than rhetoric to froth up the masses for just this kind of power play. I mean really; this can't be about sexual morality or about trying to influence the prevailing culture about sexual morality. Look at all the sexual sin that the Church is functionally silent on: pornography, abuse, commercialization, the trade of children for sexual exploitation, and the not-so-subtle use of sex in marketing. All of these are things that we know run afoul of the Gospel, but we choose this to split over this rather than try to do what we can to show the world what healthy and holy sexuality can be.

And the tragedy for me is that real people (lay and ordained) with whom I agree on the homosexuality issue are being led away by influential people with designs on power. So many sincere, loving, generous, faithful people hang in the balance here.

Akinola works Duncan and Iker into a lather. They work clergy in their dioceses into a lather (and run out the ones who disagree). The clergy whip the people into a lather. ALL THE WHILE, what is being played/preyed upon are the sincere and deep convictions of many who are just trying to be faithful - people who are being told that being faithful means thinking one way. Per Milton's citation of 2Tim 4, all this strikes this strikes me as a strange inversion of the situation of which Timothy is being warned. Rather than the people "having itching ears" gathering teachers of their own liking, we have teachers (who only hear and preach one side of the gospel) cajoling and threatening the people into not listening to anyone else.

Or to spin it out another way - If I am a homophobe or if I live in a culture that has no exposure to homosexual couples that strive to be faithful, the easy thing for me to do is to gather for myself teachers who will endorse my prejudices rather than challenge them. That's a spin that some of my more liberal friends may toss out, and while I may disagree with them about the path the Church should take regarding homosexuals, they have an argument at least on 2Tim 4.

I apologize for the rant, but I've been listening from the sidelines for months now and felt the need to jump into the fray. Michael+

Dear MerseyMike: I suppose understand your glee at the thought of a schism helping you to be rid at last of the "fundamentalists" (i.e., the people who believe the things in the Bible that you call "fairy tales"). And what a bonus if, thanks to Akinola's tone and timing, you get the C of E and ABC on your side of the split! But when you are at last able to make the ECUSA into the thing you desire, without hindrance by conservatives, what will it look like?--same-sex blessings for sure, an overwhelmingly female priesthood and episcopate, allowance for New Age druid liturgies, no-holds-barred doctrinal innovation and "diversity"?

You surely see that, statistically speaking, liberal Episcopalianism is dwindling (like liberal Protestantism generally). How will the liberalizing changes that you thrill to foresee affect The Dwindling? Do you really think that these sorts of things, which have been repelling people from liberal churches, will all of a sudden become magnetic? No, they will drive out the grown-ups in droves.

Liberalism is a parasite on the host of the Christian Faith. Liberalism cannot thrive on its own. It requires the dull, stolid trunk of good old-fashioned Gospel-preaching churches and Bible-believing parishioners, from which it derives much of its energy. Without a "fundamentalism" to react against, Bishop Spong has nothing of interest to say to anybody. Evidently, the people he persuades stop coming to church.

So congratulations: You're about to become the managers of a large number of beautiful empty buildings. You're quite rich, so you'll be able to keep it up for a while.

Breathe, everybody: breathe.

*God* is still working God's Purpose out . . . even if we Anglicans, collectively, can't tell which way is up. (in ALL our sinfulness: there's not a righteous person on *any* "side" :-( )

God's Shalom, y'all!

J. C. Fisher, why do you resort to awkward expressions like 'God is working God's purpose out'? The practice of Jesus, the Bible writers and Christian tradition is to use the pronouns he/him/his wrt God. Why don't you follow our Lord's usage? That's what Anglicans should do.

Michael: I hear your cri de coeur.You say the Chruch (which church, BTW?) has been 'functionally silent' on all kinds of sexual sin. I don't agree - but I would say further that Ecusa has been complicit in some of the sins you mention - it's a church that follows culture, instead of making it. But as for the homosexual issue: ask yourself who created this issue in the church, who promoted it down the decades - and who ignored the clear admonitions of ALL the Anglican instruments of unity about Robinson?
To avert to our discussion elsewhere, a few bishops molded in the TESM tradition might have averted the state we're in. If Ecusa wants to be a national sect in America, so be it. But you can't say there was no warning.

Matt accused me thus:
"Alan Harrison, you are making the same mistake as Akinola in using the word 'marriage'"

Not sure what Matt means. I'm trying to "guide my words with discretion". I have no objection whatever to civil partnerships, and indeed I see cogent reasons why states should legislate for relationships other than holy matrimony, if for no higher reason than regulating what should happen regarding property in the event of death or separation.

What is certainly happening in Britain at the moment is that some people (including, if I remember correctly, some contributors to Thinking Anglicans) are construing civil partnership as marriage. The term "marriage" is in fact used in broadly analogous legislation in some countries.

I see no consensus in the Church (capital used advisedly and not referring to two provinces in an anomalous situation!) for same-sex marriage or the blessing of same-sex relationships. The church must, in effect, change its mind about the sinfulness of such relationships before it can bless them.

DGus ; I am a member of the CofE, based in the UK.

I would say to you that 93% of people in the UK have no real link with Church at all, but many have an interest in spirituality more generally.

It is certainly different in the US, but here, conservative christianity repels the vast majority of the population. It just doesn't reflect the approach preferred by British and European people. Thus, I do think that a liberal church will be able to reach those people - or at least have a better chance to - though not in the 'Sunday morning church' fashion. I think thats gone for good.

But the CofE position is illogical to start with, Alan. It has a policy which effectively accepts that laity can be communicant members of the Church, and in gay relationships, but not the clergy. It doesn't explain or justify this particularly effectively.

The position of conservatives such as Anglican Mainstream and Reform is that gay people in relationships should not be allowed to be communicant members. I don't think that is feasible, or likely to gain majority support - and as society becomes less and less fazed about gay issues, this will be ever more the case.

The position of reformers is that the church does need to change - but as a third or more of clergy support change in any case, trying to enforce this regulation will be something of a non-starter. I am having a civil partnership next year ( which, legally, is gay marriage - lets be honest about this! That's one thing the conservatives did recognise, that this is gay civil marriage given a different name). If I wanted a blessing, there are any number of priests I could approach who would do it for me. Personally, I'm not sure that I wish my relationship to be blessed by an intrinsically institutionally homophobic organisation - I'll wait for the split, and for the Church of England to catch up somewhere along the line - hopefully within my lifetime.

telodi wrote: "It will hurt because the Anglican Cycle of Prayer will shrink substantially..."

True, but there's always another, perhaps brighter, side of the coin. Think of how our mission field will expand :) If they are not part of the AC, then there's no conflict with the CoE, ECUSA, etc... sending in missionaries to bring the Good News.

And after a time under "Pope Peter I of Alexandria," I bet *plenty* of them will be receptive :)-

I think you are mistaken, Anna. While there may be some South Africans who will side with Akinola, I think the bulk will side with TransAtlantic civilization.

David Huff makes an excellent point in his comments. While, in America at least, there are plenty of fundie sects already, so the growth potential is limited for them. In places like Nigeria, however, at least the urban intellectual classes are probably ready for the more modern Anglicanism which liberalism represents. Don't be surprised if some Nigerian bishops break with Akinola and his rural base on this.

I am reminded of the parable of the prince's wedding feast (Mt. 22). You can opt out of the feast, but there are consequences. Peter Akinola and friends may make light of the King's invitation, but I don't want to witness the teeth-gnashing that will follow. The sin of schism is a great one, as the history of Christendom attests. It is greater than any sin of the flesh and surely grieves the Holy Spirit. Millstones anyone?

I'm surprised that civil partnership is thought of as being 'gay marriage by another name', by anglicans. Conservative polititians and churchpeople might do so, or at least enjoy how it rankles the reactionaries.

I am passionately for complete secular/legal equality between adult couples that choose to commit to a partnership indefinately (most hope 'forever', I romantically think). But for heterosexual people of faith, they tend to think of 'marriage' as being more than just a secular/legal commitment with economic benefits. A lot more, I would say. Something deeply spiritual? Whilst both terms (marriage as in 'holy matrimony' and civil partnership)can refer to the same relationship, they can each refer to relationships that cannot be described by the other term. They, therefore, have different meanings.

Whilst being for civil partnerships, as a gay man, I do not want 'gay marriage'. I want 'marriage' or 'holy matrimony' to stay between a man and a woman who may or may not be able to procreate and 'become one flesh'. For me something unique happens in spiritual terms between a man and a woman when they produce a child and the context for that, ideally, is in a particular socio-religious construct called 'marriage'. I'm not saying it's wrong outside of marriage, just that that is the ideal.

So, I'm FOR secular civil partnerships and AGAINST 'holy matrimony' between same-sex couples, I am probably FOR some form of blessing instead. I don't want to tell others how to live - this is just how I feel personally. I would not prevent gay people being wed by a vicar for example, even though I don't think it makes much sense.

I don't think it is fair to disallow this stance by the obliteration of such distinctions in the use of terminology, a stance with which I know there are other gay Christians who agree.

I don't want kids, I don't want 'marriage', I just want equality before the law and mercy and grace from my God.

Akinola showed himself (as a man in his important position) to be either a buffoon or a very wicked manipulator in his reference to the current situation in Britain as being about marriage and sex and demanding it be explained. There are important distinctions between marriage and civil partnerships.

MOST gay people of faith who are in a commited partnership, I would say have no interest in aping the heterosexual model, they just, in terms of the church anyway, want their attempt at commitment, monogomy, faithfulness, mutual support recognised, blessed and supported by their church family for what it is, not what it might be similar to.

Personally, I currently find the idea of either a CofE blessing or marriage distressing because it calls to mind the extent of revulsion there is in the church for people like me and my partner and it justs make me feel, well if all these Christian people feel such disgust and antipathy, maybe, maybe God does too.

So, basically, for me, you can keep your marriages and your blessings and stick them up your fundamentals. But don't touch the secular, legal civil partnerships. mwah. x

I come here after a while away, amazed at the co-opting by the revisionists. This is no longer a safe place for traditionalists to discuss their fears, it now seems to be a gathering of radical revisionists. Not to worry, ECUSA has shrunk from 3 million to 2 million, and will soon shrink to 1 million or less as the people realize what is going on. After that the melt-down will accellerate and poof! no more ECUSA. (Well, maybe they'll apply for a place in one of the Gay churches to preserve their identity.)And then all this tacky discussion won't matter. And the rest of us will be Romans, Lutherans, Orthodox or whatever. RIP ECUSA.

When I wish someone "shalom" (and urge us all, including myself, to breathe), and then am excoriated for my choice of God-language . . .

. . . I am rather reminded that Jesus was accused of "using Beelzebub to cast out Beelzebub."

Only *God* gives peace, Martin: whether referred to as He, She or It (not the topic of this thread: I am happy to get into this elsewhere), if peace be granted, then you'll know it's coming from the God of Peace.

Peace be with us all! :-)

[NB to MM: "Thus, I do think that a liberal church will be able to reach those people - or at least have a better chance to - though not in the 'Sunday morning church' fashion. I think thats gone for good."

I happen to believe there's "life in the old gal yet" (Can't think of a better way to begin a Sunday morning: with the Bread of Life). Though perhaps you mean something else?]

Michael+, from your post:
"All the talk from the ultra-conservative side about holiness of life and Scriptural admonition, about purity and not being yolked with the sexually immoral has been little more than rhetoric to froth up the masses for just this kind of power play. I mean really; this can't be about sexual morality or about trying to influence the prevailing culture about sexual morality. Look at all the sexual sin that the Church is functionally silent on: pornography, abuse, commercialization, the trade of children for sexual exploitation, and the not-so-subtle use of sex in marketing. All of these are things that we know run afoul of the Gospel, but we choose this to split over this rather than try to do what we can to show the world what healthy and holy sexuality can be."

That's quite a list, and of course, all of these are sexual sins rampant in our degraded culture. But even the Episcopal or the Anglican Church of Canada have not (as yet) lobbied for "full inclusion" of those who practice them in the church, nor has it consecrated any of them as rebels-with-a-cause bishops. If that changes, you can fully expect conservatives to decry them as strongly as they have clergy openly involved in gay relationships. It is not an obsession with homosexuality that is responsible for not publically decrying every type of sin in the secular world. It is the battering ram at the door of the church and the unceasing propaganda within for calling evil (willful practice of sin, in this case having gay sex, not merely having same-sex attractions given up to God for Him to transform) good and good evil. As for my quote from 2 Timothy, one's take/spin on it comes largely from how one determines what "sound doctrine" is. The traditional method is to take the WHOLE Scripture into account as ONE book, written with the hand of men as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, who does not contradict Himself over the ages. The Bible can only be properly understood when one places oneself into submission and obedience to that Holy Spirit and asks Him to reveal Himself to us in the word, which "is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword,... able to reveal the thoughts and intentions of the human heart"

J. C. Fisher writes;
"Only *God* gives peace, Martin: whether referred to as He, She or It (not the topic of this thread: I am happy to get into this elsewhere), if peace be granted, then you'll know it's coming from the God of Peace."
JCF, anyone who refers to *God* as 'She' or 'It' isn't referring to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ but a deity of his own imagination. Christians have no authority to speak of God other than as their Lord does. How Hindus, Gnostics and others choose to speak is none of my business. I was referring to the periphrastic use of 'God's peace' instead of the natural 'his piece' (Heb. sh'lomo; Gk ten eirenen autou), which seems to serve no other purpose than to avoid saying 'his'. The awkward avoidance of biblically sanctioned language for God raises questions in the reader's mind: do those who employ this usage think the biblical language is wrong or inadequate? If so, they are profoundly at odds with the historic Anglican usage.

Milton: I must agree with what you say. Michael misses the point in seeking to avert the discussion to other sexual sins in western society - yet I am not sanguine that Ecusa is united against these sins. Who protested when Spong started writing for an online porno publication? Or is this an indication that noone takes him seriously as a Christian writer, since he has jettisoned most of the Nicene Creed? The most serious issue for me is the extent to which Ecusa leaders support abortion, which is a great evil against the unborn child, as well as contributing to the sexual and emotional abuse of teenage girls in particular.
The latter part of your second paragraph is simply the classical Anglican doctrine of Scripture as this is taught in the 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP. The problem, of course, is that few leaders and teachers in Ecusa actually hold to this view of the Bible. Notwithstanding, it can be demonstrated without much dificulty that it is the view of the OT at least that was held by Jesus - John Wenham's little book 'Christ and the Bible' (1972) makes this case quite succinctly and I haven't seen it refuted yet. The view of the Bible taught in some Ecusa seminaries where extreme feminist and gay liberationist views are regnant is very heterodox and anti-traditional, leading to all kinds of strange results.

Deacon Tim writes: 'The sin of schism is a great one, as the history of Christendom attests. It is greater than any sin of the flesh and surely grieves the Holy Spirit. Millstones anyone?'
Tim, where to begin?
1. How do you know that 'the sin of schism ... is greater than any sin of the flesh'? Please cite biblical and conciliar evidence of this claim. I find nothing in the Bible saying this but await your elucidation.
2. Be careful who you are calling a schismatic. Any Anglican making this charge is walking on egg shells. (Hint: think of Henry VIII.)
3. If a Communion has, let us say for argument's sake, four 'Instruments of Unity' and one branch disagrees with the unanimous voice of these four 'instruments' over one of its decisions which has international repercussions, such that this decision is agreed to have 'torn the fabric of the communion', who might be called the 'schismatic'? Remember the cry of the mother at the parade ground: 'Look, they're all out of step except my son John (Frank, Gene, whatever..)'
4. Do you really believe all that stuff about millstones and hell? The context of course is about 'causing any one of these little ones to sin' (no 'schism' here, just skandalon). Actually I believe this stuff, but I thought you self-described 'moderates' (the new term for liberals, n'est-ce pas? Just who are the 'extreme' on your left in Ecusa?) were really universalists who had abolished the lake of fire. Sorry if I have misunderstood you, but could you confirm this is indeed your belief, and in particular that you think those who break away from Ecusa or Canterbury are going to hell?
Thank you!

Here is another response:

http://www.reform.org.uk/press/press.html

Matt ; yes, I think I largely agree. The divorce rate being as it is - and I mean amongst Christians - marriage itself needs a good looking at, I'd say. I agree about a blessing. I have been offered one by a number of priests, but we have declined, because we honestly don't want a subterfuge blessing not recognised by a homophobic organisation, and we don't need to to experience God's blessings!

JCF ; I think you need to realise just what a minority sport churchgoing is over here in the UK. We are talking 5-6% max. Its a bit different in the USA - though I've just been to Canada and its more and more like Europe in its churchgoing patterns.

I'm intrigued that Reform's statement only talked about the clergy - how odd for a protestant group who believe so firmly in the priesthood of all believers....

Martin Hambrook, don't you remember Joan of Arc's words at the stake? The priest charged with excommunicating her attempted to separate her from the Church Triumphant as well as the Church Militant. "Not from the Church Triumphant," replied St. Joan. "That is beyond thy power."

I should think it would be beyond the power of any of us, on this list or elsewhere, to specify who precisely in the Anglican Communion will be going to Hell. But the sin of schism is a grave sin, and it behooves each of us to examine our own consciences, in fear and trembling, regarding it.

Mike is generally right about Canada and I defer to his knowledge of Europe, which chimes in with what I've heard and read. Basically, Europe is a dying post-Christian society in the process of being Islamicized, to judge by birth rates and immigration rates. Right now one in three births in France is to Muslims, while the birth rate in Spain and Italy is about 1.5 per woman - well below the replacement level of 2.1. Parts of Islamicizing Europe will not be all that safe for gays in 20-30 years, in fact it's getting that way in Amsterdam now. The future of Christianity will be Africa, the Americas and China, along with Korea and the Philippines.

Charlotte: other than Shaw's amusing play, no, none of Joan's words are familiar to me. I believe she is the patron saint of le Front National, by the way. I would put the same questions to you, though, that I put to Deacon Tim: 1. Do you really believe anyone will go to hell? In 30 years I have never met a liberal who seriously does believe this, but maybe you are exceptions? Don't you believe in a God of love?
2. How on earth could an *Anglican (and an Ecusan to boot) admonish others about *schism when he/she has broken away from Western Catholicism and furthermore is in fundamental dispute with the Four Instruments of Unity for the Anglican Communion? I am genuinely interested in your answer - please elucidate. Thank you.

Re the Reform statement: If a congregation can be caused 'grave and immediate scandal' by 'presumptions' 'at least in the public mind', then I would 'presume' they were a congregation of hysterical nincompoops. I don't think that particular argument helps their case.

matt: 'hysterical nincompoops' is no way to talk about your fellow Christians. Show the charity and respect that is owed to you.

Dear Martin,

I expect my friends (who love and respect me) to tell me when I'm being too precious to 'get over myself'.

That is love (charity) for me and respect for my ability to accept when it is pointed out that I have been a bit of a silly ninny.

Sometimes you have to just say, 'ok I respect your standpoint and many of your arguments, but that one is just plain ridiculous.'

I honestly believe every word of my previous statement. I'm sincerely amazed that grown-ups are trying this on. Look at each word, follow it closely. It is not meant to be offensive (I would never use such terms if I meant to cause offense, I mean, come on), I'm simply making an observation. They are taking presumptions as cause to EXCOMMUNICATE someone. Think about that for one tiny moment. Do you think that is remotely a basis for excommunication? Really? Do you not think it incredible that someone should?

It is fair for me to say that I PRESUME (I am not saying anyone is) that anyone who is going to take such decisions on the basis of PRESUMPTIONS is behaving like an hysterical nincompoop. There really are no nicer words to accurately describe it. I tried quite hard.

It is like saying 'I found this fruit on a pear tree - I presume it is a pear'.

Any congregation that is so intent on being scandalised, needs to 'get over itself'.

What is the surprise here? It is not as though things listed as sins in the NT got approved by Christians every day. Anger? Lying? Covetousness? Murder? Adultery? One can therefore see why (in terms of following or not following the NT) this is a significant moment. Who could have sincerely expected orthodox Christians to have any other response?
And 'response' is just what it is. The orthodox camp is not the proactive one here - it is merely reacting against the inaccurate (possibly, simply historically uninformed)portrayal of unchristian mores as Christian. Perhaps 'reacting' is too strong a word: it is merely pointing out that this is what is happening.

Matt: First, I recognize you experience same-sex attraction and don't agree with the Church's teaching on homosexuality. Second, you must know that everyone considers 'civil partnerships' to be 'gay marriage'. That is not controversial. Third, Anglican clergy are forbidden to have homosexual relationships. So if a priest contracts a CP to a man he is sexually attracted to and moves that partner into the vicarage, what do you honestly think everyone will 'presume'? If I had lived with my wife before marriage (I didn't), how would that have appeared? Christians should not put temptation in their own way (what Catholics call 'the occasions of sin'), and priests especially have to serve as an example of godly living.
Anglicanism is in a great crisis over homosexuality and could well disintegrate because of it. Do you want to push the issue and force the demise of the Communion?

Matt, you wrote:
"I expect my friends (who love and respect me) to tell me when I'm being too precious to 'get over myself'.

That is love (charity) for me and respect for my ability to accept when it is pointed out that I have been a bit of a silly ninny."

Then you will not object when in Christian love and concern for your eternal soul orthodox people point out to you what Scripture says results from willful, habitual, unrepented sin of ANY kind, including acting upon same-sex attraction. If any temptation is turned over to the Lord (including same-sex attraction) for Him to transform according to His will, then it is not sin. The choice is there for each of us.

I think the demise of an institutionally homophobic communion would be infinitely preferable to the continuation of the current unreformed set-up.

Realignment holds enormous promise for those of us who want an accepting and inclusive church.

Martin, I think the problem of hell is a serious one with which we Christians (conservative liberal, or "moderate") must wrestle. If Jesus really was offered as a sacrifice for our sins and not ours only, but the sins of the whole world, what does that mean? How do we reconcile that with the scriptural warnings and the return of Jesus to judge the living and the dead? If "one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all," does that mean what it says? The doctrine of Hell is not too clear for me. It's there, I believe it, but I don't know what it means. I do know this: those who (on the left or the right) stumble the little ones, will face a judgement that I do not wish to face, whatever it is. Please don't assume that my "moderation" or "liberalism" equates with a denial of scripture. As an Anglican, I want to have a faith formed on scripture, and interpreted by tradition and reason. There are people to the left of us moderates, that's why we're moderates. Meet your first moderate who believes in hell.

Your point about schism and Anglicanism is a good one. The Reformers, of course, said it was the Roman Church that was schismatic, not them. And the Romans blamed the Eastern Church, who blamed the Arians who blamed the Trinitarians who blamed the Ebionites who blamed the Jews who blamed Jesus who died for them and us all. Whoever is to blame in the current mess (and there is blame aplenty to go around) must consider the possibility that they may be wrong. That goes for me and for you. And if it's me, well, it won't be the first time.

Milton: I knew someone would say that. Actually, I don't mind in the slightest. I respect your view on that, I believed it myself for a long while. I'm interested to know what you mean by 'for Him to transform according to His will' I spent years of my life abstaining and praying and repenting and denying and punishing and hating and 'turning it over to the Lord' but during that time my 'temptations' were transformed not a bit. Now it makes me think of Ecclesiates 7:13, 'Consider the work of God; who can make straight what he has made crooked?' (NRSV)

Martin: First, Yes, I experience same-sex attraction (and I don't see why that is relevant to my objection to the PRESUMPTION clause of the Reform statement, I've already said I respect the sensible arguments the 'traditional' side have) but actually I'm not sure whether I don't agree with the Church's teaching on homosexuality - depends on what you mean by 'the Church's teaching'. I guess you probably mean official statement kind of stuff as opposed to groups or individuals who represent a number of different kinds of 'teaching' within the anglican church (which I had thought was one of its greatest strengths). Well, I certainly don't agree on the latest statement but I'm not so clear on other statements because in light of the last it doesn't really seem like 'teaching', it seems more like politics and fudgement to me - I don't feel that obliged to take my moral guidance from such things. It may surprise you to know that I'm really not that dogmatic on the issue of homosexuality, I don't feel equipped or qualified to say absolutely what is right or what is wrong anymore, so I just keep the commandments that Jesus highlighted and hope that God will have mercy on my sinful soul and guide my conscience by his Holy Spirit and lead me to become and do what he wants me to be and do in his own sweet time and way. The 'Church's Teaching', is not something I pay that much attention to beyond the true fundamentals.
Second, I KNOW, that NOT everyone considers civil-partnership to be gay marriage. I myself know that there are significant differences and I know others that feel the same - this may be inconvenient to you, but if you want to approach discussion in a truthful way, you have to acknowledge that a good proportion of people view them as different things. You simply declaring it 'not controversial' does not make it go away. It is very controversial to me that people keep denying the truth that they are different things - it says to me that people must have a lower regard for marriage than I thought.
Third, again, you use that word 'everyone'. I would not presume such a thing. It may come as a surprise to you to learn that there are a significant minority of gay couples that just don't have sex. Most mature gay people and those who mix well with them accept this as a fact that platonic gay partnerships are a part of the gay 'spectrum' of 'lifestyles'. They live and possibly sleep together and, often for reasons unrelated to religion, just don't get sexual. It's not the be all and end all for some people. They enjoy the intimacy, companionship, support and love, etc but are just not that INTO the sex bit. Really. I imagine it is the case for some heterosexuals too. So it is about PRESUMPTION, which is soley what my objection is about in my 'Re Reform' post. Presumption cannot be grounds to excommunicate someone. Can't you see it's only a short step, if any, from a Salem-type witch hunt? The principles are not that different if at all. I find it deeply chilling that Reform should be advocating excommunication based on presumption. That is my point.

I don't want to force any issue. I rarely go to church anymore because I live in Malaysia in which the churches are exclusively 'traditional' to say the least. I've become what so many gay christian malaysians I know have become (I can only speak of the chinese malaysians due to malays being bound by law to be muslim and the indians mostly being hindu), an outcast. Some of them lose their faith, some of them keep and practice it, most, in my experience, push it to the background and just get on with their lives with a silent, tiny hope that the God that they cannot stop believing in will have mercy on them and accept them come the end. They never know the assurance, the love, the warmth, the acceptance, the grace, the freedom, the joy of God anymore. It's for the one's who put their penises in the right place at the right time. That's what it comes down to. Excluding people from the love of God and from the love of the Church because they put (or are even just PRESUMED to put) their penises in the wrong place at the wrong time. If THAT is what you say church teaching is about then, yes, I think I disagree with it. I think God is bigger than that. I think he is more concerned with the heart than the penis. And how many hearts are hurting because of that 'traditional' teaching. Even if I was straight, knowing what I do now, (because I'm queer) I would rather align myself with those poor buggers than the righteous 'Presumptionists' (as which I shall henceforth regard the 'Reform' organisation)

I tend to follow the 'do unto others as you would be done by' approach and I could never find it in myself to say to someone who is not professing a call to celibacy that they should not enjoy sexual intimacy with other people for the rest of their life (knowing that so many gay men are never going to be remotely inclined to have sex with women no matter how many drugs, electric shocks, exorcisms, repentance, prayer, fasting, therapy, denial, chastisement, rejection they are put through- so there is no 'choice' beyond homosex or abstinence), especially if I was enjoying all the sexual intimacy and love that is available in a heterosexual marriage. So, if the church teaching is to say, 'no sex unless it's in heterosexual marriage or God will send you to hell and we won't want you to share our friendship and love (communion)', I would then say, yes, I do NOT agree with such a thing. If that would be the test of being an anglican then I would say, I'm not an anglican, and if it were the test of being a Christian, then I would say I'm not a Christian. But it isn't either. So I am both.

I wonder how long the church (universal) would have lasted had it taught 'two and a half occasions of sexual intercourse for the purposes of procreation (i'm being generous here, because you have to reproduce the species) per heterosexual married couple only, per lifetime, or you can't be Christian anymore. Try wondering that yourself for a moment. It's fun.

Sorry to take up so much space, I only wanted to highlight the presumption problem in reform's statement.

Deacon Tim: thanks for your reply. My interest in this discussion has been in getting a handle on what the recent designation 'moderate' means, how it differs from 'liberal' and whether it is sustainable in the long term or is a staging post. Human reason as the determining factor in theological discourse doesn't stay still; what seems 'reasonable' in one age may be discounted in another - you will know Dean Inge's quip about marrying the spirit of the age, or the pun about ism's becoming was'ms. I like to think of myself as a liberal conservative - which is to say I try to be skeptical about my doubts and trust the Bible as the voice of the Holy Spirit.

You raise questions about the meaning of the Atonement and its relationship to universalism. The best succinct treatment I know on the first matter is a 9000 word essay by Robert Munday(?), 'The Biblical Doctrine of the Atonement' in Faculty Writings in www.tesm.edu . On the meaning of 'all' in Paul's writings we must of course consult commentaries on Romans and 1 Corinthians. Evangelicals will also agree there is much about hell they don't understand; the main issue in recent years has been over annihilationism. Kendall Harmon did his doctorate on 19th century views of hell.
Kind regards.

Martin H., I am familiar with the current debate in evangelicalism around annihilationism/conditionalism/inclusivism/exclusivism. It is a debate that goes back at least to Origen. (Edward Fudge's "The Fire That Consumes" is my personal favorite.) I did my master's thesis on Paul's use of "panta" so I am familiar with that as well. My point is that the theological stripes of moderates/liberals are as varied as those of conservatives/evangelicals.

Is "moderate" just the lower end of the slippery slope towards liberalism? Maybe. But for the better part of two decades, it's where I find myself. It's why I made the conscious choice to become an Episcopalian. (I'm not sure if I am an Anglican anymore, given the current situation.) In any case, I consider the eucharistic feast the great theological equalizer: anyone who will gather with me to take the sacred meal is my brother or sister.

My perspective is a bit weird: after growing up in a fringe cult, I wandered a long time in the spiritual desert and only came to faith again through the work of the great Anglican liberal, John A.T. Robinson. When I read "Honest To God" back in the 80's, I felt the Spirit's tug back towards Jesus and his cross. I can't quite buy the certainty of evangelicalism, but I find Jack Spong annoying as well. (He's only be a reverse fundamentalist anyway!)

Our disagreements over homosexuality demand an intellectual and theological rigor, sadly missing from most of the discussion around the subject, including many of the comments I read here. Solving the problem does not mean simply breathing in the zeitgeist, nor does it mean simply quoting scripture. Prayer and mutual respect might be good places to start.

Matt, you wrote:
"I'm interested to know what you mean by 'for Him to transform according to His will' I spent years of my life abstaining and praying and repenting and denying and punishing and hating and 'turning it over to the Lord' but during that time my 'temptations' were transformed not a bit."

Abstaining and praying and repenting are necessary but not sufficient. Certainly some warped presentations of Christianity are big on denying and punishing and hating, which are only destructive. Even St. Paul despaired of triumphing over his temptations (he confesses coveteousness) on his own. "The good I would do, that I do not do; and the evil I would not do, that is the very thing I do. Who will free me from the body of this death?" Like Paul, each of us has to declare spiritual bankruptcy of our own goodness and strength and let Jesus foreclose, as it were, on our bankrupt and condemned property. When we do, He is free to do His amazing work, remaking us from the inside out in His image and spirit. The best way I know of to cut through the clutter of competing claims and voices and isms and ideologies is to go directly to the Source. Think of it as a scientific experiment, to detect the presence and nature of God.

Every day for two weeks, at a time and place where you can have undisturbed quiet and privacy for, say, a half hour, do this: Call on the God who is truly the Lord, who is powerful enough to drive off any rivals or impostors and who has loved you before He made the first speck of dust, to show you two things. First, to show Himself to you as He truly is. Second, to show you to yourself as He truly sees you. If you really want to know what He wants to show you, with no limits placed on Him, He WILL answer, meeting you at the point of your need. You are in my prayers, Matt, and I pray He fills you with His peace that passes all understanding and the freedom from whatever bondages (known and unknown to you) that tie you down. (Mine was pornography until He showed me just how that looked to Him and He took the use of and desire for it from Me overnight, filling that empty place with He Himself!)