"they will walk apart."

Interesting to see who the judgementalists are versus those who simply don't provoke conflict.

IMNSHO Akinola should grow up or shut up.

The split is certainly on its way, and it will be Akinola and his followers who choose to walk apart from Canterbury.

And Canterbury will be far better for it.

I just wonder how much of the CofE will choose to leave and follow Akinola?

Many of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion are also members of the Commonwealth - ie, they were once a part of the British Empire. Once that Empire started to collapse, many countries were glad to be able to "walk apart" from the "Mother Country". Indeed, they are now encouraged to do so, to be self-governing, self-defining, independent countries. What Akinola is doing/proposing seems to me to be the theological equivalent of the breaking up of the British Empire. If we applaud the independence of the commonwealth countries, should we not also see Akinola's moves to "walk apart" as being a part of the breaking away from the imperialist past? Britain has survived the end of empire, there's no reason to suppose the Church of England will not also survive the break up of the Anglican Communion.

Wrote the American poet, Robert Frost: "The Church is meant to be like a family, the place where, when you have to go there, they have to let you in."

Unfortunately, we are losing this understanding of what the Church is about as an "inclusive community." Today's split in the Anglican Communion is really not about homosexuality, same-gender marriages, the admission of gays and lesbians to the ordained ministry. It is rather about old-fashioned "Puritanism". It is about keeping perceived sinners out of the Church or, at least, excluding them from the sacraments--not only gays and lesbians, transgendered persons, but also those divorced and remarried, and many more, including perhaps in the future bankers who charge interest on loans in violation of OT prohibitions. Sadly, the Gospel of the unconditional love of God is being turned by ++Peter Akinola and his followers into Law, devoid of grace.

Historic Christianity has been there before. As history tells us, the rigorist groups in the end split and divide as they disagree with each other on the "right" interpretation of scripture. As absolutists, they accept no compromise. Their God doesn't seek out the lost. Neither does He save sinners; rather, He relentlessly punishes them. Their God doesn't do the unexpected, nor does He ever change His mind. He is utterly predictable. In short, He is not the God revealed to us in the life and ministry of Jesus!

Oh, Trish, I think we would not only survive but would be in a much better position - I just think that those bishops might need a few lessons in walking on their own two feet after sitting on that fence for so long, and we muct make sure that they don't constantly veer over to the middle of the road, for fear of being knocked down....

"It is about keeping perceived sinners out of the Church"

Actually it is about whether the teaching of Jesus and the rest of the scriptures are accepted any longer in any real sense by parts of the Church, in which the concept of "sin" itself has ceased to operate.

Those who do not accept that there is any such thing as sin are evidently uncomfortable to be in the company of those who continue to think in such categories. Hence the repeated "invitations" to classical Christianity to "leave" the Church and join Peter Akinola or whoever.

In fact the Church does not exist where those who claim membership do not accept the sovereignty of Jesus and his Word.

Contrary to John Henry, God's love is not unconditional in the sense which JH implies: the first requirement for those who wish to receive is it that they should repent and turn their backs on whatever sinful lifestyle was formerly theirs. (see Mark 1.15 for example).

It IS unconditional in that all sins can be repented of and all sinners can enter the kingdom. But not if they want to carry on in sin, whether it is violence, economic exploitation or what the New Testament calls "porneia" - all forms of sexual activity outside Christian marriage.

To sum up, JH, if you think it is possible to enter the kingdom of God without conversion of life, the evidence of the New Testament is utterly against you.

So, without going into the usual tedious liberal vs. conservative arguments, why do we remain in the same denomination?

"including perhaps in the future bankers who charge interest on loans in violation of OT prohibitions"

Well, *that* exclusion I might go for.

(just kidding, just kidding! *g*)

"the evidence of the New Testament is utterly against you."

Thank you for your opinion/interpretation, Alan. However, it still fails to persuade me---nor millions of other S,T&R-formed, Christ-centered Anglicans.

(Millions? Thousands? Dozens? Whatever. It's faith *in* God, not bean-counting of believers, that matters. A faith that, by Christ's invitation, is open to ALL! :-D)

JCF, please explain the acronym 'S,T&R-formed, Christ-centered Anglicans'.

In reply to 'To sum up, JH, if you think it is possible to enter the kingdom of God without conversion of life, the evidence of the New Testament is utterly against you', you said:
'Thank you for your opinion/interpretation, Alan. However, it still fails to persuade me---nor millions of other S,T&R-formed, Christ-centered Anglicans.'

I don't think anyone reading the NT - or ANY Anglican liturgy in the world - could conclude that faith, repentance and amendment of life are not essential parts of the Christian life. This is not a matter of opinion, just simple literacy. Of course, you might weant to argue over the *content of faith and repentance, but that is another question.

As for the fate of the Anglican Communion, since it was, by large, a product of the British Empire (with the addition of the US church), it can pass (as the Empire did) without any fundamental theological principle being lost.

S,T&R - Scripture, Tradition and Reason?

Which scriptures do you have in mind? In my Greek New Testament the kingdom of God is indeed open to all, but only after "metanoia" takes place - repentance and conversion of life.

This implies that there is such a thing as sin, that it has to be rejected by a would-be believer, and remain rejected in the new life which is in Christ.

This is a consistent theme in the New Testament, and it is consistently held and understood in Tradition (which means the modern, present day Christian consensus as well as the historical record).

An example - How reasonable would it be to invite a supporter of the British National Party to join the church, if that person were to be allowed to continue to engage in racist activity after becoming a church member? I take it that you would either bar the BNP supporter from joining, or expect her/him to reject racism permanently?

This is precisely what has to happen in the Christian journey: repentance and changed life in order to enter the kingdom of God. It is the condition of conversion to Christ.

STR is repeated as a slogan by too many people but like most slogans it does not bear careful scrutiny. STR has no basis in any Anglican formulation or authority - it is simply an excuse to employ Reason selectively and idiosyncratically, to the detriment of Scripture and in the face of the wider Christian consensus of the ages and of the present age.

It is not a numbers game - we can agree about that - but I doubt whether more than a small minority of Anglicans place reason above scripture in interpreting their faith.

Alan Marsh says "...all forms of sexual activity outside Christian marriage."

I suggest that the role of the Church is as a place to come in order to come to know the Lord. It, and its hierarchy, are not perfectionist cliques. And I'll outright tell you that the path of Christianity does not mean everyone coming in the door will have a miraculous salvation and instantly be converted into non-smoking non-speeding non-alcoholic happy middle-class puritans; rather, if you acknowledge God's Will is involved, then you should see that it's up to Him to convert people as He will over the course of their lives.

"non-smoking non-speeding non-alcoholic happy middle-class puritans"

That is a very telling phrase. It indicates that you have a rather stereotyped and fixed image of those with whom you think you are disagreeing.

I don't know anything about Dr Akinola's smoking, driving or drinking habits, or whether he is middle-class, (rather an English turn of phrase, do you not agree?) but his church expects new Christians to leave behind certain aspects of their former lifestyle when they are baptized and join the Christian community. And it does not seem to deter people from joining: it is one of the fastest growing churches in the world. Like the Anglican church in Sydney.

Of course Day One in Christ is only the first day, and there is much more to follow in God's providence in the course of our lives as Christians. But (leaving aside the trivia about smoking and teetotallers) would you seriously - and I ask the question in all seriousness - allow someone whose lifestyle was gravely defective to be baptised and to receive holy communion, and to play a full part in the life of the local church? The imaginary BNP organiser, for example?

Or allow someone who insisted on editing the baptism service, to remove the phrases she did not believe in?

e.g. "I turn to Christ"? "

“Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?

“I repent of them.”

Getting back to the subject of this posting:
What do contributors to this site think of the action of the Primate of the Anglican Church of Brazil in *deposing the Bishop of Recife and 32 clergy of that Diocese? This is what lies behind Akinola's action. I have looked on many sites and have found NO COMMENT at all by 'liberals' on this. So come on, J. C. Fisher, Tim Merseymike, John Henry etc: please tell us what you think of this. I read Stephen Bates' piece and he made virtually no reference to these actions.

Mark: inasmuch as I don't believe in other Anglicans interfering in ECUSA's polity, why would *I* presume to interfere in in the AngCh of Brazil's? (I'm sure I could find episcopal decisions with which I disagree, in EVERY Anglican province, but it is certainly not my place---no more but no less than +Akinola's---to go about *excluding* on the basis of these disagreements)

"In my Greek New Testament the kingdom of God is indeed open to all, but only after "metanoia" takes place - repentance and conversion of life."

I'm not going to debate in Greek with you, Alan. But NT scholars who I trust---who inform my own reason and who stand squarely in Christian Tradition---have persuaded me that this "metanoia" can *include* same-sex sexual relations, in the context of a life-committed partnership.

I suspect that this is our basic disagreement: while we both read Scripture, study Tradition, and bring Reason to bear, you have one opinion of "metanoia", and I have another.

It's uncomfortable, to be sure, when two committed Christians cannot be of one mind. However, returning to the topic of this thread, I still don't believe this discordance to be grounds upon which to exclude each other from fellowship within our Anglican Communion.

J.C. Fisher and others who have responded to my earlier statement about the split in the Anglican Communion and about the "neo-Puritan" or "Pure" Anglican Communion centered, not on Canterbury, but on Lagos or Alexandria/Cairo, have raised interesting questions about prevenient grace, God's unconditional love as proclaimed by Jesus [especially in Matthew 18:21-35: Mercy and forgiveness are crucial in human relationships and community life. Christ commanded Peter to forgive seventy times seven. If God commands humans to forgive each other to such an extent, how much more will God then forgive human beings?], and the place of METANOIA in God's scheme of things.

Obviously, these questions cannot be answered in one or two sentences. I for one very much appreciated reading NT Wright's "Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism" (www.durham.anglican.org). Another excellent exposition on "Sin and Grace" is given by Roger Haight, S.J. (Weston School of Theology) in: Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, ed. Francis Schuessler Fiorenza, John P. Gavin [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991]. Fr. Haight gives an overview of Augustinian theology as re-interpreted by Karl Rahner, SJ, Vatican II and the RC-Lutheran consensus statement on "Justification."

Neither Wright nor Haight address the human sexuality issues dividing Anglicans today. From the Northern Hemisphere, non-evangelical point of view, one may see homosexual persons being transformed by prevenient grace in that they are seeking to live in committed covenant relationships. Writing them off as "unrepentant" sinners, as does the Primate of Nigeria et al. exhibits an animus that is definitely not Christian nor faithful to the Gospel tradition. Too, it is contrary to the Lambeth 1998 Resolution, which calls for ongoing dialogue and study.

"From the Northern Hemisphere, non-evangelical point of view, one may see homosexual persons being transformed by prevenient grace . . . "

I would agree with you, John Henry, except that I would say that plenty of evangelicals (like myself) see this grace-in-action, also (although perhaps not capital-E "Evangelicals," as a brand-name for Christian social conservatives: pro-forma anti-gay).

[NB: And many in the *Southern Hemisphere* believe in such grace, as well: or why else is there disagreement about the Brazilians?]

Hello everybody. I am a Roman Catholic (oecumenically-minded) just discovering this site, and enjoying very much the depth and finesse of the debates - so please may I be "let through the door" ? Hope so...

About Dr Akinola : I wonder whether his views about homosexuality are mostly dictated by a thorough study of the Scriptures, exegetic traditions, etc., or by Africans' general revulsion when it comes to same-sex relationships...

Another thought : isn't the idea that provinces of the Anglican Communion might become autonomous because they disagree on this or that a remain of old congregationalism ?