I rather think it's time we have a look at the other 14 resolutions of Lambeth 1998!

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/lambeth/1/sect1rpt.html

A work of clarity and insight -- wonderful! May it be widely read, pondered, and appreciated. JNW

It is indeed well worth the read & extensive study & reflection -- I was most impressed.

Maybve Sydney's suggestions of a looser relationship in the Communion is really the only way to avoid a split (although I honestly think it is too late for that)

It is loose.

I was struck by his reference to the Nigerian author who spoke of a culture of literalism and materialism there, which made literature unimportant and how-to books on Christianity and material success very popular.
This is one of the most helpful and thorough discussions of this issue that I have read.
Judith

Three bits struck me from this wonderful piece (+Morgan's erroneous "references to homosexuality in scripture" notwithstanding)

1. "Bishop Colenso, who was the cause of the calling of the first Lambeth Conference, was so partly because of his view that eternal punishment in hell was untenable. Few people would now want to disagree with him or see this as a communion breaking matter."

Few Anglicans disagree with universal salvation? I can only HOPE! :-)

...and the resolution of the above Lambeth-initiating fracas:

"It is also interesting to note that when the first Lambeth Conference was called in 1867 by Archbishop Longley it was for “Brotherly Counsel and encouragement”, not to pass prescriptive pronouncements and Longley refused to exclude or condemn Colenso for his views and Lambeth took no disciplinary action against him."

2. "Or as another writer puts it “What is homosexual practice? Is it to have sex or could it be just to delight in the company of another? What is the significance of expressing affection, or nurturing a relationship? Practice could be defined as any relationship which gives expression to an orientation and any act which fosters such a relationship”. If homosexual orientation of itself is not regarded as sinful, then should any expression of that orientation in a relationship of itself be regarded as sinful? In other words what precisely is the definition of practice?"

I don't know whom +Morgan is quoting . . . but they ARE *key questions* (questions of the sort I never hear the, um, "primatial majority" viewpoint addressing---to busy rushing on w/ a contemptuous "Oh you know bloody well what that 'practice' is!"---and/or graphic descriptions of but one *possible* aspect of an *infinite array* of "practices")

Finally, if I may be so bold as to offer an interpretation of

3. "If one looks at the 1998 resolution against this background it is obvious that it is a much harsher resolution than those passed in 1978 and 1988 . . . Whereas the contraception resolutions have become more permissive with time and resolutions on marriage have been expressed positively and not negatively, the opposite has been the case with resolutions on homosexuality."

If one considers the "Reason" part of S,T&R, there is the "sensus fidelium" aspect. In the case of contraception, there is the incontrovertible fact that "the faithful" have voted on contraception, and the vast majority have said YES (either for themselves, or haven't expressed any opposition to others doing so). Inarguably, the question of whether or not to use contraception is one that has faced *most* Anglicans (even assuming we're talking strictly married-in-the-church couples).

Ergo, even if a few "Humanae Vitae" types among Anglicans *wanted* to raise a stink about contraception, there's that fact of the *majority* they would have to deal with.

. . . and then there's us: LGBTs.

We were a minority in 1978.
We were a minority in 1988.
We were a minority in 1998.
We will be a minority in 2008, too.

For those Anglicans looking to "draw a line in the sand", in an array of (modern) "anti-modern" controversies, we queers make the *perfect foils*.

We will *never* be an "everybody's doing it" majority as with contraception (or even a "What if?" like remarriage after divorce). We don't "hold up [at least!] half the sky", as do women (re their ordination). We're not even an eye-of-the-beholder type-split between old and new prayerbooks.

No, we're perpetually a *small minority*. We can be kicked around---and those leading the footwork are counting on the majority to either join in, or stand on the sidelines.

. . . and all we queers have, is an Anglican tradition of calming down, coming to our senses, and---Scripturally, Traditionally, Reasonably---*living and letting live.*

[Oh, and a Loving God: we queers have *Whom made us*, too! :-D]

Judith,

That is very interesting - since I've been in Malaysia, which also tends toward a literalist approach to scripture, the bookshops here are also brimming with 'how-to' books on Christianity and material success.

(Automated, electronically-operated, massaging armchairs are also extremely popular, but I'm not sure that means anything in relation to literalism.)

Dear JCF, God loves you!! But that doesn't mean he "made you gay/queer" or approves of your homosexual desires; though He can forgive you.

Unlike contraception and divorce (in limited circumstances) and even women leaders (!), homosexuality is essentially sinful... According to ALL allusions to it in Bible it sits squarely is within the category of sinful sexual desires.

Fortunately, I am happy to report, God loves sinners like you and me!!