Interesting. Hope to read the book soon.

Morgan's response is interesting as well, but his comments don't really clarify a major misunderstanding of the Windsor Report: the commission's members were not tasked with addressing questions of human sexuality, but with addressing how Anglicans can maintain the highest possible degree of communion.

Both positive and negative reactions to the Report have missed this highly significant point. Does anyone know if the book addresses that?

"...remarkable in that its seventeen members from across the whole Communion, and from widely different backgrounds and theological viewpoints"

I presume that he means widely different *liberal* viewpoints! and I already in this short piece see the usual liberal asumptions that non-liberals are "shallow" not "cogent" and don't include the "finst minds".. and that liberals are nore "inclusive" because of who/what they include and reject, compared to other groups... ZZzzzz!

Dave, he's talking about the seventeen authors/signatories of the Windsor Report, among whom were many non-liberals.

Dooh! Now I'm jumping to conclusions! Sorry. The rest of the coments stand though.

I'd add that if the ABps summary is a reasonable then the book is stating a lot of obvious stuff: eg that "sexual sins are not the only sins and are not even the main sins according to scripture", that "we are talking about real persons with real feelings", and "that theology has to be open to the possibility of encountering God’s revelation of truth in new and novel ways" (though conservatives would argue, not contradictory revelations!!)

If these are supposed to be novel concepts that somehow refute the beliefs of other theologians (who presumably don't "know what they are talking about") I will be yawning right the way through... just more revisionist assertions of the non-relevance of scriptural passages, narrowing of the focus onto "grace" in all human relationships, hints that opponents are driven purely by homophobia, and guilt projection about "human rights violations" and "oppression". If, on the other hand, it addresses other people's concerns on this subject in a reasonable way that respects other views, and the teachings found in Scripture, I'll be looking forward to something helpful.

It is so sad that 'reasserters'/ traditionalists are so focused on sex -- sexual sins, especially the sins of homosexuals. There are other, more serious sins adversely affecting people's lives. In the U.S. most 'reasserters' are not even appalled at the inhumane treatment of U.S. detainees at Gitmo, Cuba, by the 'godly' Bush Administration. In violation of U.S. laws, the Muslim detainees are being tortured (what else is "sleep deprevation" while being interrogated?) and detained without having been charged of any crime or being allowed to be represented by legal counsel. The prisoners will be detained for the duration of the U.S. war against terrorism, which may go on for many more years to come. The U.S. Administration's misconduct incites more and more prospective Muslim extremists to commit acts of terrorism. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are indeed the most effective recruiters for Usama bin Laden.

'Reasserters' are not willing to hold the godly 'Pro-Life' Administration accountable. That is collusion in crimes against humanity, which are inherently sinful. Has the Primate and Metropolitan of All Nigeria, Dr. Peter Akinola, spoken out against the goings on at Gitmo? Not to my knowledge. Dare he offend his U.S. 'reasserter' handlers?

I don't see why Archbishop Akinola must speak out against the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. If every religious leader had to make public statements on every atrocity, miscarriage of justice, or human rights violation, they'd never have time to do anything else!

I think Archbishop Akinola spends way too much time talking about sexuality and planning ways to take his church away from Canterbury. But he and other Nigerian clergy do address other issues in their national life: see the Onitsha 2005 Message to the Nation, where sexuality concerns come second to last, right before a message of sympathy to the US on Hurricane Katrina and to the UK on the London bombings.

http://www.anglican-nig.org/primate's_mssg2dnation.htm

Let's be fair here-- many liberals who decry all this focusing on sex/sexuality are themselves talking about it an awful lot. And many conservatives, for all their discussion of sex/sexuality, are also managing to talk about a range of issues.

"Let's be fair here-- many liberals who decry all this focusing on sex/sexuality are themselves talking about it an awful lot."

Anna, when LGBTs get their *equal rights* from the State, and (Anglican LGBTs) get their *equal claims to the sacraments of the Church*, I GUARANTEE YOU that you'll *never* have to hear about "sex/sexuality" from us ever again! :-p

[i.e. the sound you hear is my screaming in pain from---when I try to respond to the Lord's call---the *doors that reactionaries keep slamming in my face*. Cause-and-effect, much?]

Dear JCF, It's not about equality or rights, it's about sinfulness and righteousness. This is Christianity, not the United Nations!

Following Christ means dying to self in many ways, not just sexually. We ALL have to *deny* our rights if we want to "take up our crosses". I have to deny myself in many ways, including sexually. So why shouldn't you too!

After all, sexuality is neither the greatest sin nor the greatest fullfilment (in my theology at least).

JC, I didn't say liberals shouldn't spend a great deal of time talking about sex and sexuality. I was pointing out that everyone seems to be talking about sex and sexuality a great deal.

Liberals shouldn't point fingers at conservatives and tell them to cut it out when, in reality, we're focusing on it just as much, if from different perspectives. There's a plank in everyone's eye these days, including yours and mine.

no, Dave, it is about equality and rights. Respect for persons and respect for the essential humanity of individuals.

Central to liberal Christianity - we don't go for all that depraved and utterly sinful stuff...and you are asking all gay and lesbian people to permananently 'deny' a part of them,in my view an integral and created part of them, whereas you are not expecting this of all heterosexuals

That is discriminatory and unacceptable, and your only justification is a literalistic interpretation of the opinions of some of the biblical authors, who wouldn't have had any understanding of sexual orientation in any case.

Merseymike wrote "Respect for persons and respect for the essential humanity of individuals... Central to liberal Christianity - we don't go for all that depraved and utterly sinful stuff..."

Dear Merseymike, Neither do I. I think that we are all made in the image of God, but that that image is marred in all of us to some extent, in various ways. Sexually it could be lust, abusive attitudes, perverted desires, etc etc.. Homosexuality is hardly the only "marred" sexual desire (and this is hardly just *my* "literalistic" interpretation!)

I can respect someone even when I see the "marred" part of who they are; we don't have to be perfect to be worthy of respect.. or we would despise everyone, including ourselves!!! I really do hope you will come to see that some day.

Only that part of me is not 'marred', Dave. Its the part of me which gives me much joy, pleasure and comfort, through my relationship.

Until you appreciate and accept that, there will always be a barrier. I'm afraid I don't do 'conditional' acceptance, which is why I don't do your idea of God.

Dear Merseymike, that is of course where we disagree. I think that man and woman were "made" for each other - to form an permanent chaste relationship which includes (along with the complementary strengths, aptitudes and perceptions) a sexual element - to both deepen their relationship (if not done selfishly) and to procreate the human race. Physically, emotionally and pyschologically, male and female are complementary.. they form a unit comprising both halves of the human race and link generationally into society.

Devoted sexual relationships between two people of the same sex can't fullfil the role intended for men & women, as don't "temporary" relationships, multiple relationships, perverted behaviours etc etc. All these are "marred" forms of the intended order; I know that some gay men really feel it, and wish that they could change... *some* do change, some choose to live congruently with the created order - even though they find men more attractive than women, some really feel more congruent remaining as a single person.

I suppose we'll never agree; in which case if we want to obey Christs command to love everyone (even our enemies) we'll both have to offer each other conditional love and acceptance !?