So when are they going to set up their Global South Communion - because there's little there which I would want to affiliate myself with, its largely the sort of stuff I positively rejected when I recognised the deficiencies of evangelical Christianity some 21 years ago!

"A Third Trumpet from the South..." It's a tad pompous, isn't it?

May I suggest a little addition to this communique?

40a or 41a: But the rightous ones will turn a blind eye whilst the 'revisionists' in the Nigerian church are unjustly imprisoned, beaten, starved and then charged for the privilage. Because, they deserve it. Halleluiah. More tea, Bishop?

It's also posted on EVN, here http://everyvoice.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2106&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

I don't want to say too much, on first blush.
. . . except to note how the communique' suffers from certain *ocular problems* (see re "log/speck" Matt.7:3-5): to wit, "The Current Crisis provoked by North American Intransigence"

I'm sure it will prove very convincing to the "like-minded".
To faithful *Anglicans*? Not so much. :-/

From a first reading the key paragraph is #22.
The Anglican Covenant as rooted in the Windsor Report is to be redrafted and they "commit ourselves as full partners in the process of its formulation."

The Communique, no doubt, has much to commend it, but on the perennial question of human sexuality offers only the usual tired assertions:

21. Scripture demands, and Christian history has traditionally held, that the standard of life, belief, doctrine, and conduct is the Holy Scripture.

Agreed.

29. The unscriptural innovations of North American and some western provinces on issues of human sexuality undermine the basic message of redemption and the power of the Cross to transform lives. . . .

Rather, it could be said, the provinces in question have upheld scriptural standards and exemplified the message of the gospel by insisting that God excludes no one who acknowledges Jesus Christ as Lord.

These departures are a symptom of a deeper problem, which is the diminution of the authority of Holy Scripture. The leaders of these provinces disregard the plain teaching of Scripture . . .

It is simply an assertion, not a cogent argument, to say that American and some western provinces have disregarded "the plain teaching of Scripture." At least as far as homosexuality is concerned, there is no "plain teaching of Scripture". Else why would the present disputes be so difficult and some many complex exegetical arguments be used, on both sides of the debate?

. . . and reject the traditional interpretation of tenets in the historical Creeds.

I don't believe the creeds say anything about sexuality, or Scripture either, for that matter.

Weakness and Power are the ways of the World, not Christian virtues. Meekness and Charity would qualify, however…

I think the heart of the problem is here.

Quote: “the witness of errant principles of faith and practice which in many parts of our Communion have adversely affected our efforts to take the Gospel to those in need of God’s redeeming and saving love”

Lets take it a part:
“the witness of errant principles”. “Principles” are found in Heathen Philosophy and in 2nd Millennium Academic, that is Neo-Platonist Theology, from scholasticism onwards.

This should be a warning to all. The “principles” of one are not necessary to the Salvation of another. Not to be required of anybody.

“faith and practice”. Are combined in certain theologies, particularly in Calvinism. Not Church. Not necessary to Salvation. Not to be required of anybody.

“have adversely affected our efforts to take the Gospel to those in need”. This is because many of the mission Bibles used are paraphrases of the TEV, which in itself is a “Dynamic Equivalence” paraphrase, not a faithful and meticulous translation of the Biblical texts.

This in its turn make the mission Bibles consonant with certain low church/calvinist teaching, but not with the Tradition and teaching of other parts of the Anglican Communion. So the accosted person, knowing this, may simply say: you don’t do what you teach… There is a very interesting article to this effect by an Anglican Bishop in Kenya, somewhere on Virtueonline.

The remedy is to remedy the mission Bibles.

“redeeming and saving”. Now, this is the Transformation of the 17th century Arminians, dear to all 20th century Calvinism. In fact the direct cause of much missioning. Not Church. Not necessary to Salvation. Not to be required of anybody.

To be One Holy and Catholic Church requires the acknowledgement that there legitimately are various and different Traditions and Theologies around.

Quote: “16. The Catholic faith is the universal faith that was “once for all” entrusted to the apostles and handed down subsequently from generation to generation (Jude 3). Therefore every proposed innovation must be measured against the plumb line of Scripture and the historic teaching of the Church.”

It’s a little disconcerting to find a reference in full earnest to Heathen scripture in a Church protocol. The letter of Jude is a late 2nd century Alexandrian composition, based on an earlier Philosophic/Gnosticistic writ. The 2nd chapter of 2 Peter is based on the same Heathen writ. The original itself is preserved.

Also the text does NOT say “once for all”. This is found in a great many late 20th century “translations” fabricated to underpin anti-modern social- and not least sexual political teachings post 1960. But, again, “once for all” is not in the text.

But do they view the Church of England as part of that 'redrafting', or will we be given the same treatment as USA and Canada?

Trying to impose that sort of theology on those who do not believe it will not work.

Quote from 26. “We are grateful that the Archbishop of Canterbury publicly recognized the Anglican Communion Network in the USA and the Anglican Network in Canada as faithful members of the Anglican Communion.”

Is this true? Quotation, anybody?

I don't think that's a very controversial statement as these groups both consist of conservatives operating from WITHIN the Anglican churches in those countries, whereas other so-called Anglican groups ie AMiA have left the Anglican church and are thus not 'faithful Anglicans' as they no longer look towards Canterbury.

Simply more blowing of their OWN horn on ears that are growing increasingly deaf to the noisy yet subtle underlying off-key message of discrimination, bigotry and hate.

Goran, please allow this native English speaker and would-be Bible student to answer some of your assertions about the Global South statement.
1. The meaning of 'principles' is perfectly clear to us and has nothing to do with 'Heathen philosophy'; it simply means basic ideas or approaches. Don't make difficulties for yourself where they don't exist.
2. 'Faith and practice' simply means doctrine and ethics, which go together 'like love and marriage'. Blessed Martin Luther said precisely the same thing: justification by faith must be accompanied by the fruit of righteous living (WA 45, p. 702).
3. Generally speaking, the leading bishops of African Anglican churches are better educated than those in North America and Britain: more of them have earned British doctorates, particularly in biblical studies under the auspices of the Oxford Center for Mission Studies, than do bishops of the North Atlantic. To think they are dependent on paraphrases of the TEV put into local languages is a bit patronizing.
4. So, have you excised the Letter of Jude from your Bible? Your interesting view of the date and character of this writing is certainly not shared by Professor Richard Bauckham (Jude, 2 Peter, pp. 13-16) or even John Robinson (Redating the NT, 1976).
5. The rendering of 'hapax' as 'once and for all' (that is, once and not again) is not an innovation of 'many late 20th century “translations” fabricated to underpin anti-modern social- and not least sexual political teachings post 1960'. It's in the RSV (1946) and accurately conveys the way that word is used in Jude 3 and especially in Hebrews (cf. 6.4; 9.26, 28; 10.2). It's the translation given by Abbott-Smith (Greek Manual Lexicon of the NT, 1936), as well as Bauckham.
Having been involved in Bible translation work, I have my criticisms of 'dynamic equivalence' and the TEV too, but that is not the issue here. One has to be sensitive to how the target language (here, contemporary English) actually works.
Mark

What Merseymike says is spot-on. Rowan Williams is not out of communion with any Anglican bishop (though Gene's position grows more interesting) and he would have no trouble recognising anyone within the communion no matter what they have done to each other. What he did NOT say was that he recognised these bishops and their network as the only legitimate Anglican presence in the US.
As my Primate said recently when confirming that Gene would be welcome to preach and preside at the eucharist in his diocese: "I am not out of communion with anyone!"

"Not out of Communion" and "publicly recognise" don't seem to be the same thing.

Has there been a recognition - and if so, what does it look like?

Martin Reynolds is quite correct to focus on paragraph 22. The GS will want a major hand in the "formulation" of the Covenant -- and if it doesn't go their way, as they have said, they will have no part of it.
By the way, the third trumpet was the one that brought Wormwood to the earth, and much bitterness.

Does this site accept Thinking Anglicans who are also conservative, traditional, classic in their theology?

My real question is: why have the leaders of the Episcopal Church pushed the issue of homosexuality so strongly? Reason tells me that issues of sexuality are deeply emotional and involve strongly held opinions. Reason also tells me that the issues regarding human sexuality are not clearly resolved, but rather are still a matter of honest study and debate.

So why would a group of leaders take a position on this unresolved issue that forces the Episcopal Church into a winners and losers confrontation? This is not a matter of core doctrine. Why elevate it?

Is holding on to this position so important that it is worth breaking up the Canturburian Anglican Communion? Is this really an issue of do-or-die?

It is clear that intelligent people can come to opposite conclusions on this issue. But it is not one that either side will back down on.

So, maybe it is good riddance to the Anglican Evangelicals.

Can those who remain truly say that they put all their trust and faith in Jesus Christ?

"Notwithstanding these difficult circumstances, several parts of our Communion in the Global South are witnessing the transforming power of the Gospel and the growth of the Church. The urgency of reaching vast multitudes in our nations for Christ is pressing at our door and the fields are ready for harvest"...

Bravo. Well said. The gates of hell shall not prevail over the Church of God. (Not even the revisionist tendencies)!!!!

Tsk, tsk, David in Wisconsin. You ask difficult questions that liberal theologs and their kin don't like to have to answer.

Steven

P.S.-There are conservatives lurking here and there at "Thinking Anglicans"--we're even allowed to speak most of the time--which makes me think better of liberals in general and Simon in particular. /s

David in Wisconsin, I would answer that the leadership of the Episcopal Church did NOT push this issue. The resolution on same-sex blessings was a compromise worked out by a team with divergent views, which did NOT move towards authorization of any rites, but merely recognized that some people, who performed such rites locally, were doing this within the context of the church in good faith. The approval of Bishop Robinson was not BECAUSE of his sexuality, but in SPITE of it, in light of his many excellent qualities as a leader and pastor.
It is the overwhelming conservative *reaction* to these rather modest assertions (that gay people who find their relationships blessed, and who find some liturgical expression for that, are within the body of the faithful still; and that a gay bishop is not wholly unacceptable to serve), that has raised the ruckus. The conservative side has elevated this to a matter of core doctrine, and only they are talking in terms of kicking people out of the communion, and already branded them as apostates or heretics.
In response to your last question, I won't speak for anyone else, but "my hope is fixed on nothing less than Jesus and his faithfulness."

"So, maybe it is good riddance to the Anglican Evangelicals." --David in Wisconsin

Yes, let's hope so. That the evangelicals were even involved in Anglicanism in the 18th and 19th centuries has much more to do with the fact that the CofE is/was a state church, and had to accommodate them somehow. Calvinism is incompatable with Catholicism. It always has been, always will be. That conflict led to a Civil War in England, and to the flushing of the worst of the Calvin-lovers after the Restoration in the 1660s. Calvinism was thereby weakened, but a stake was really not driven through its heart. We have another opportunity to do so now.

In the United States, the American evangelicals mostly became Baptists and Methodists. Even today, most of those who call themselves evangelicals in the USA (except for the right-wing evango-fundies) are really low-church latitudinarians. Some are "snakebelly low" all-but-Unitarians. So the job has been pretty well accomplished on this side of the pond. Now, it's up to you Europeans to sharpen your stakes.

In the United States, the American evangelicals mostly became Baptists and Methodists. Even today, most of those who call themselves evangelicals in the USA (except for the right-wing evango-fundies) are really low-church latitudinarians. Some are "snakebelly low" all-but-Unitarians. So the job has been pretty well accomplished on this side of the pond. Now, it's up to you Europeans to sharpen your stakes.

By that, I meant to say, that in the American Church, "most of those who call themselves evangelicals..."etc.

"So, maybe it is good riddance to the Anglican Evangelicals." --David in Wisconsin
Yes, let's hope so. " --Kurt

Can a true liberal not see the shocking irony of comments such as this?

I wonder if anyone can really see a single thing in this Communique which supports the idea that Anglicanism will be shot of Evangelicals? Anglicanism *is* Evangelical!

What I find troubling in the GS Communique is statements about ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada having departed from the "historic creeds." Where is the evidence for such irresponsible and unconscionable rhetoric? Where do the "historic creeds" address matters of human sexuality? Matters of human sexuality have, historically, never been matters of faith, but matters of church discipline.

There is always pluriformity in matters of discipline - e.g., the question of divorce and remarriage. The Eastern Orthodox recognize the "spiritual death" of a marriage and, consequently, permit remarriage after divorce as long as divorcees are penitent. Rome finds canonical grounds for annulment of a previous marriage. Historically, within the Anglican Communion, there have been various approaches depending on how "pastorally" each province wished to handle the matter.

What bothers me about the GS communiques and proclamations is the many false accusations that are being levelled at the new "pariahs" or "outcasts" of the Anglican Communion, ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada. (The C of E hasn't reached "pariah" status yet despite the bishops' policy with regard to the CPA!)

Are the GS bishops really faithful to the intent of Scripture as long as they "bear false witness against their neighbor(s)" in Christ?

Funny how we seem to have overlooked all the other issues raised in the communique. Of course, if we were proposing to discuss issues related to civil violence and the health of people in the GS we might be accused of yet another draft of neo-colonialism by the good bishops. Or of being rabid neo-socialists bent on bringing down the drugs and armaments companies that seem to develop such a lucrative share price due to some of the other issues discussed by the bishops of the GS. Both of these might give us a more generous (even uncomfortably wide) space for focussing on Jesus. Salvation does not depend on one's views on the conjunction of organs and orifices. My highly Calvinistic sunday school teachers tended to point to the parable of the good samaritan as an index of how to behave towards one's neighbour - funny how it is the 'orthodox' or 'righteous' figures in this parable are the very ones who shy away from the duties of faith. They probably blamed the poor guy for walking into the den of thieves at the *wrong* time. Sound familiar?

It all depends whether these conservatives choose to remain Anglican, Neil. But if they do, they must realise that Anglicanism is also liberal and catholic, as well as evangelical, and that there are many Anglicans who are not evangelical.

Personally, I don't think its likely to withstand for much longer. There isn't enough holding the diverse groups together.

FWIW, Neil, I disassociate my liberal self from Kurt's comments.

However---

You have to *understand* the tremendous levels of spiritual VIOLENCE (and sometimes physical violence, as well) that has been perpetrated *by those calling themselves "Evangelicals"*, to those who differ with them (especially, but not exclusively, LGBTs).

I love "Evangelicals" (whose religion, ironically, seems to consist entirely of BAD News). I even love Fundamentalists (noting how many of the former are really the latter, but deny the tainted title).

... but the theology of many Evangelicals (including Evangelical Anglicans) is not something I can recognize at all. It seems to have little or nothing to do w/ the Christ of the Bible (and Tradition, and Reason), and far more to do w/ these believers' *projected fears*. To the extent that these Evangelicals are trying to limit my ability to find an Anglican altar at which I (unworthily) can be fed the Body & Blood of Our Lord, I hope that their *theology* is cast out: good riddance!

Herr Koch-Swahne, I hate to be nitpicky, but how would you translate "apax" in Jude 3?

Merseymike, you raise an interesting question that crops us constantly in my own study of the 'Anglican phenomenon', which is the relation of the catholic to the reformed (though actually, it's not unique to Anglicanism, it's in Lutheranism too, and even among Presbyterians). It seems to me that catholics and evangelicals have their own tensions, but they deal with these by focussing on the creedal and christological core they have in common. And Rowan Williams in his address to the GS bishops has reminded us again that 'catholicity' of the church is first of all about the 'wholeness' of faith (rather than, say, a general sacramentality of the world or even about its precise order - for church order is not de fide). But if you evacuate the biblical center of faith, you can have the form or shell but not the substance and core. This is what I fear has happened in the Church of Sweden. 'Liberal' is not one of the four marks of the Church.

Thanks JCF.
I do beg to differ with LGBTs. But I not only disassociate myself (and I think probably all true evangelicals) from violence (if is done in the name of evangelicalism it is false) - I condemn that violence.

Evangelical theology simply wants to be true to what the Bible really says: that sin is real and is highly offensive to a holy God – all sin, sexual sin of all shades and varieties being no lesser or greater than any other sin. It is so unacceptable to God that He is provoked to judge it. That seems to me the inescapable testimony of Scripture. I hope you are not dismissing that as “spiritual violence”? It is plainly divine justice. But that same sin is so unacceptable to God that He was led to ask His own Son willingly to die for it. I hope you are not dismissing that as “spiritual violence” either? It is plainly divine love. That is the amazing evangel itself!

If the church were to cast that out, it would be casting out the very heart of Christianity for without it there is no gospel. Perhaps you agree with that? Of course the evangel is only good news if the sinner repents of the sin that made the good news necessary.

The native English speaker Mr Beaton, who has “been involved in Bible translation work”, but is not found on Google, wrote: “The meaning of 'principles' is perfectly clear to us and has nothing to do with 'Heathen philosophy'; it simply means basic ideas or approaches. Don't make difficulties for yourself where they don't exist.”

Most kind. I think we have a distorter on our hands. Now, the text said “the witness of errant principles”. And I repeat what I wrote: The “principles” of one are not necessary to the Salvation of another.

Not to be required of anybody.

Point 2 “faith and practice”. By saying “justification by faith must be accompanied by the fruit of righteous living” (WA 45, p. 702) Dr Martin Luther most certainly did not mean “precisely the same thing” as Dr Johannes Calvinus.

To the Church “practice” is a consequence of Faith; not particular "deeds", not requirements, not qualification.

Point 5 “once” means “once”. There is no need to elaborate – especially for doctrinarian reasons ;=) And incidentally, as Jude and Hebrews are 2nd century, they both talk of what happened “once” – in the 1st century.

Mr Beaton ended: “Having been involved in Bible translation work, I have my criticisms of 'dynamic equivalence' and the TEV too, but that is not the issue here. One has to be sensitive to how the target language (here, contemporary English) actually works.”

To me this is precisely the Error of late 20th century exegetics. Doctrinarian “clarity” and target language “sensitivity” (the Swedish 1981 is horrible) are the fastest routes away from the text. Translation is not explaining.

"Personally, I don't think its likely to withstand for much longer. There isn't enough holding the diverse groups together."--Merseymike

Agreed. One only has to take a look at what the super-evangelical Jensenites in Sydney are doing to incorporate non-Anglican Church of Australia evangelicals into their "club"--and to partake of their dole. They are obviously working overtime to form One Big Happy Family of Australian Bible-thumpers. It's time to encourage them all to leave us in peace. Let's drive a final stake into the heart of Calvinism; at least as far as Anglicanism is concerned. Let the neo-Puritans form their own communion.

"So, maybe it is good riddance to the Anglican Evangelicals." --David in Wisconsin
Yes, let's hope so. " --Kurt
"Can a true liberal not see the shocking irony of comments such as this?" --Neil

True liberals seem to regularly say that one thing wrong with conservatives is that they want to purify the church of liberal christians (which I don't think is true)... But then none of the liberal commentators on TA raise objections when someone suggests purging the church of conservatives !!

Back to the redefinition of "tolerance" I presume. It used to mean "how one responds to things/people one disagrees with / disapproves of", rather than "approving of things liberals approve of" !

Apax may be ambiguous - I am not enough of a Greek scholar to diatinguish between "once" and "once for all". The translators, who know far more about this than I, are split.

Perhaps more to the point, though... how would you translate "pistis"?

"that sin is real and is highly offensive to a holy God" –Neil

Quite frankly, Neil, I think that Calvinism is highly offensive to a Holy God.

Another yahoo? And that's for me?

"Faith" is "faith". Simple as that.

No need for any fancy footwork...

Goran, a little patience, please. I didn't say a word about Calvin, who seems to upset you (and other posters) mightily, because you often refer to him and to Calvinism in hostile tones. I simply referred to NT scholars Professor Bauckham and to George Abbott-Smith in response to your opinions about Jude and 'hapax' (which I consider eccentric). You ignored this and simply restated your beliefs. Are they wrong, Goran?
Where did you get the idea that Jude is a second century Heathen writing? And have you excised it from your Bible?
Mark (a native English speaker who can forgive many errors out of Sweden, even Abba)

Oh dear Kurt, call it what you want I guess.
But I'm afraid what I wrote is straight forward Anglicanism, fully supported by the Bible and the Anglican formularies.

As a priest in the Episcopal Church, I certainly grieve over all of this. I have read the "Third Trumpet," and ++Rowan's address, and they don't seem to be coming from the same event.

I'm not surprised at the comment about Network bishops and congregations. They remain in the Anglican Communion because they remain in communion with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, and with Bishop Griswold as Presiding Bishop. They have expressed themselves, but they haven't broken that tie (although it's tenuous. They have failed to attend meetings of the House of Bishops.)

But let's temper this language about "leaving the Church." If some refuse to share at the table with me be because they find me too liberal, they may leave my institution (parish, diocese, ECUSA). That doesn't mean they've left the Church, i.e., the Body of Christ. They may even allege (I assert they allege it inaccurately, if not falsely) that I am not in the Body. I must continue to see them as members of the Body, siblings for whom Christ died. I will grieve it they leave me - I live and work close to Christ Church, Overland Park, Kansas, and I grieve over that - but I will not consider them apostate, or beyond God's grace. That is a mystery that is greater than I.

Dave wrote: "Back to the redefinition of "tolerance" I presume. It used to mean "how one responds to things/people one disagrees with / disapproves of", rather than "approving of things liberals approve of" !"

This issue is often stated in the manner Dave has above, as if it exposes some profound conundrum for "liberals."

What in fact is occurring is a logical fallacy - the Straw Man argument. "The straw man is, in short, a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, created by you for the express purpose of being knocked down." http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000658.php

Here, a conservative states that liberals are not tolerant of intolerance (the misrepresentation of "tolerance"), therefor we fail the test of tolerance (where the straw man is knocked down).

To accuse me, for example, of being intolerant because I won't tolerate the actions of, say, the Klan or Fred Phelps' anti-gay crusade, is another example of this.

Dave:

You hit the nail on the head! However, I will put in a good word for a few. J.C. Fisher actually seems to understand that the word "inclusiveness" means "inclusiveness"--which is not to say that I agree with her on anything else. Still, she keeps the phrase "tolerant liberal" from being a complete oxymoron. As for the rest--what did you expect? The most amiable are folks like Merseymike who have analyzed the situation and realize that a split is not only inevitable, but desirable. (We are obviously on opposite sides, but I respect his honesty and practical approach to the issues). The worst attitudes seem to be found amoung a rather large group of thwarted and resentful liberal types. My assumption is that they are having trouble getting used to the fact that their hand finally got called on this one--I suppose they expected another cakewalk. Anyhow, your posts have been spot-on in terms of the issues and the liberal response. Thanks.

Steven

"I live and work close to Christ Church, Overland Park, Kansas, and I grieve over that - but I will not consider them apostate, or beyond God's grace. That is a mystery that is greater than I."--Marshall

Good for you, Marshall. I don't think that Calvinists are beyond God's grace either. If they want to tip-toe through the TULIPs, that's fine with me. As long as they don’t try and impose their Puritan beliefs on the rest of us, I don’t have any problem with them. I can simply avoid them. Fortunately, there are relatively few of them in American Anglicanism; they have many more “boats” to fish from here than in the UK, so they gravitate to those denominations. Thank God.

Trouble is, historically, time and time again the Puritans try to impose their small-minded Calvinist belief system upon the rest of us. Sometimes with bloody consequences, e.g., the English Civil War, the hanging of Quakers on Boston Common, the persecution of Bishop Onderdonk, etc. Calvinism, in my opinion, has been Anglicanism’s ball-and-chain for 450 years. If nothing else, perhaps we can use this “crisis” to free ourselves from it for good. Let the neo-Puritans set up their own communion. If Akinola wants to be a Puritan pope, that’s fine with me.

Thank you, Marshall, for your calm and reasoned response. Over the past weeks, I have been personally angered and hurt by much of what I have read online and in the press. Maybe it would be better if we all just shutup for a period of time and tried to love each other. I was in England a few weeks ago and attended the Eucharist many times. Nobody ever asked for my credentials! Nobody ever asked what "side" I was on. Instead, every place, I was warmly welcomed and invited to humbly receive the Blessed Sacrament along with all the other "sorts and conditions" present. Perhaps God, once again, will take care of all this for us.

Mark Beaton wrote: “I didn't say a word about Calvin, who seems to upset you (and other posters) mightily, because you often refer to him and to Calvinism in hostile tones.”

Now, I was merely pointing to the difference between Drs Martin and Johannes, manifested as early as in the Marburg meeting of 1529, where Landgrave Phillip the Gorgeous tried to enforce Zwinglian Supper.

As you know, not even Dr Calvin approved of that one, being of one mind with Dr Phillipp Melanchtthon on the Eucharist ;=)

But I do believe in stating the facts – especially when incommodious.

And yes, you may consider my opinion on Jude verse 3 “eccentric”. Beautiful native English word.

Professor Bauckham of Saint Andrews? No, I haven’t encountered his book on Jude - but Waco, Texas sounds interesting ;=)

Same goes for Professor (?) Abbott-Smith. We use Pater Zerwick and Sister Grosvenor. I personally go for Père Chantraine as well.

And I tend to compare a l l available lexica; Greek-Latin, Greek-Italian, Greek-French, Greek-German and so on. But generally I’m somewhat wary of the Greek-English, as they seem prone to dogmatic in-breading.

Mr Beaton wrote: “Where did you get the idea that Jude is a second century Heathen writing?”

University. Not English speaking. Not native.

And no, sorry, I don’t excise anything.

Kurt:

For what it's worth, I agree with you about puritanism. It may come as a surprise to you that the orthodox do not necessarily consider themselves to be "puritans". I personally consider the via media broad enough to include some "puritan" (i.e., reformed) concepts (as do the historic formularies) as well as some "papist" concepts (as do the historic formularies). This doesn't mean that I am comfortable with the extreme proto-puritan fringe and the extreme proto-papist fringe. However, this has always been a source of tension in Anglicanism. I don't expect it to go away.

Steven

Well, Steven, that's good to know. We have a point of agreement on Calvinism. And I don't have much use for Romanists--"papists"--either.

It may come as a surprise to you that many of us orthodox Anglicans support women priests and gay bishops. You see, we consider ourselves orthodox as well.

Cheers!

Goran, yes, I am quite familiar with the details of the Marburg disputation, but that stuff is quite 'obiter dicta' (native Latin expression) here.
The 'beautiful native English' (latinate actually, 16th C.) word 'eccentric' here is an example of what I believe the native English call 'understatement' or 'euphemism'.

I do encourage you to get a copy of Professor Bauckham's commentary on Jude. Native Scandinavian biblical studies in your universities are 'interesting' but still rather parochial and hung up on the Tubingen school, along with atheist methodologies in OT (Ahlstrom etc). I recommend the Free Faculty at Aarhus.

I take you at your word when you say 'But I do believe in stating the facts – especially when incommodious.' But on another thread someone said you had only partly quoted the statement by the RC bishop of Stockholm, which was actually very critical of your church. Incommodious?
Mark

Kurt:

On the "orthodox" question, I have heard that many liberals consider themselves orthodox, so I'm not too surprised on that. I probably should have stuck with the usual conservative/liberal or traditionalist/liberal labels--less chance of confusion. Also, at this point, I'm for avoiding unnecessary jibes. There's no chance for agreement on anything but the terms of separation, but it will be a better witness to our faith if we can avoid unnecessary provocation in describing each other--I'll continue to work on this myself.

On the rest of it--shrug. Old news is no news as the saying goes.

Steven

"There's no chance for agreement on anything but the terms of separation, but it will be a better witness to our faith if we can avoid unnecessary provocation in describing each other--I'll continue to work on this myself."--Steven

Agreed.

Dear English speaking, native, Calvinist but not wholly Anglican, somewhat condescending Mr Beaton, much into Bible translations, but not found in Google, wrote:

"Native Scandinavian biblical studies in your universities are 'interesting' but still rather parochial and hung up on the Tubingen school, along with atheist methodologies in OT (Ahlstrom etc). I recommend the Free Faculty at Aarhus."

Now, I have said before, that I don't know where you get your informations from. And I told you to be wary. Parochial, certainly, but Tübingen NO. And as to Ahlström, I know of one Olof Åhlström who printed musick in the 1790ies...

There seems to be some kind of distortion here of the Dynamic Equivalence type: dogmatic irrelevancies being added to in the process...

Once again, Mr Beaton, do be careful about your sources.

On the meaning and usage of the Greek word APAX, I refer those disputing the generally accepted translation ("once", "once for all") to A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich (Chicago: UCP, 1957), p.80. You'll find textual references from Homer through the Gk. Fathers.

Dear Messrs Beaton and Koch-Swahne:

You guys are a perfect example of a principle I have been promoting for some time: discussion of the underlying issues does not advance towards any type of accommodation or agreement, only towards greater enmity and incivility. This is not a judgment on the relative merits of your arguments, your positions, who did what first, or the right of either of you to be angry at your opponent. I will withhold comment on those points. I merely reflect on a principle that I think should be recognized.

Steven

Goran, Gosta Ahlstrom was OT professor latterly at Chicago. I erred when I referred to 'the Tubingen school'; I meant an abiding affection for Bultmann, Kasemann etc in some circles. But I'll always be grateful for the scholarship of Gerhardsson, Riesenfeld and Gaertner.
Mark

"As a priest in the Episcopal Church, I certainly grieve over all of this. I have read the "Third Trumpet," and ++Rowan's address, and they don't seem to be coming from the same event." -- Marshall

I have reason to believe ++Rowan was a guest at the event. While he gave an address on the theme, I do not think the 'Trumpet' must reflect all his views.

Perhaps the churches of the so-called Global South should be given "guest" status in the Anglican Communion.

Simeon wrote: "To accuse me, for example, of being intolerant because I won't tolerate the actions of, say, the Klan or Fred Phelps' anti-gay crusade, is... [an example of a straw man arguement]"

Dear Simeon, What I said was that tolerance is how you respond to things you don't agree with / approve of. The trouble is that "tolerance" to many liberals has been redefined to just mean "liberal", hence actually LOOSING the concept of real tolerance, and making it possible to "not tolerate intolerance" (ie all non-liberals). This would be laughable, if it weren't so serious. It reminds me too much of "doublespeak" communist propaganda of the type exemplified in Orwell's Animal Farm: "All animals are equal... but some are more equal than others (ie *we* are)".

Like Steven I've noticed that more and more thinking liberals are now realising this and no longer claiming superior "tolerance".. just that they are right! Which is at least more amenable to debate (at last) !

Dave:

Good point. I have also noticed an improvement in this area--i.e., a new willingness of liberals to recognize the irony implicit in their claims of "tolerance" given their extremely set and inflexible views on numerous issues. In truth, all of us are tolerant of those things that don't infringe on our most fundamental beliefs and standards and intolerant of those that do. Hence, my insistence that every person of principle is a fundamentalist in one way or another--all that differs is the nature of the "fundamentals" they adhere to. A recognition of these facts at least leads to more reasoned discourse. (And, perhaps, less name calling).

Steven

I think there's a difference between tough liberals and soggy liberals.

Tough liberals do not tolerate intolerance. We recognise that to be inclusive in terms of accepting others does not permit exclusive and discriminatory theologies to be practiced. We recognise that homphobia, for example, is wrong - and we wish to create a church where this will be the agreed wisdom.

Soggies, on the other hand, wring their hands, and hope that everyone will be nice to each other and agree.

Merseymike:

It would help if liberals et al. came up with a clearer term than "homophobia"--which is a strange coined term at best. I've known folks with phobias and folks that were homosexual. However, to the best of my knowledge, I've never known anyone that had a phobia of homosexuals. So, if your inclusive church excludes homophobics you won't really be excluding much of anybody.

In any case, it seems strange to tack a word that is inapplicable by definition onto everyone that opposes homosexual behavior. "Antihomosexualists" wouldn't work as it implies being against individuals instead of behaviors. The same is true of "antisodomites". Probably "antisodomy-ites" comes closest. (Still, I can't see that any phobias are involved). Anyhow, I think you should more closely define your ideal church as one that excludes "antisodomyites". That is, at least, a clearer statement of the exclusion you intend to put in place in the new more inclusive church planned.

Steven

P.S.-I agree with your distinction between tough and soggies. /s

Why not use the term "homosexualist" on the same basis as the term "racist"?

Simon:

RE: "Why not use the term "homosexualist" on the same basis as the term "racist"?"

For the same reason I've already stated: "homosexualist" in the way you use it implies a rejection of people rather than behaviors. In addition, it is quite unclear on its face--a homosexualist could just as easily be someone involved in homosexual sex, or someone who is a particular lover of homosexuals (a homosexualphile?). No, for clarity sake, the exclusion and the label needs to focus on people that reject homosexual sex acts. I know of no particular term for such acts other than sodomy--thus, I came up with the term "antisodomyites". Antisodomites would be incorrect as it implies a rejection of people rather than acts--that "y" is very important.

However, if there is another specific term for homosexual sex acts besides "sodomy" it could probably also be used. I'm not particulary set on the term, its just that I don't know of any other specific and concise terminology for the actions in question. If you have something else that is not overly general, it might also fit. Antihomosexualsex-ite is a bit more vanilla, but does seem a bit cumbersome.

Overall, I'm just interested in making sure that the basis for "excluding" people and viewpoints in the NEW "inclusive" church is accurately stated . . . just nitpicky I guess.

Steven

Merseymike said "Tough liberals do not tolerate intolerance."

Dear Merseymike, I don't think you can have understood what we were saying. "Not tolerating" something IS THE SAME AS "intolerance". So you are no more "tolerant" than I am, probably less so ! What you should say is "Tough liberals will not tolerate non-liberals".

No Steven, you are just trying to make people say things they don't mean...

The word "homosexualist" (stupid as it is) is already in use for other purposes.

Heterosexism and heterosexist are appropriate terms, indicating what's on the table.

Normative social politics.

Homophobia, in terms of its modern use, simply means 'anti-gay'. I consider anything which does not regard gay people and their relationships as morally equivalent to straight people and their relationships anti-gay. Hence, evangelical abd traditionalist Christiannity is inherently homophobic, which is why it requires revision.

Goran:

I didn't suggest "homosexualist" it was Simon's suggestion -- I find it deficient. As noted, the term "antisodomyite" would be the most accurate to use in defining who is excluded from the new inclusive church. However, "heterosexist" may not be too bad as an alternative -- recognizing the fact that the mention of "sodomy" raises hackles among liberals. Heterosexist is still too broad from my standpoint as it may be interpreted to include an aversion to people rather than behaviors. Still, it is something of an improvement on the grossly inaccurate "homophobe". And, probably the best that can be hoped for from the new "inclusive" church planned.

Steven
(Who, as an antisodomyite (heterosexist?), is destined to be excluded from the new "inclusive" church of tolerant liberalism--something he finds marvelously ironic.)

Dear Merseymike, I regard "homophobia" as an offensive term of abuse! It is a simple political word play to suggest that anyone who has moral views on homosexuality is irrational, hating or fearful.

Steven is right that we are not against homosexuals, just same-sex sex. So to be accurate you have to use antisodomyist..

Would you call someone who opposed the morality of some african custom a racist bigot, or anyone who criticised Islam a Islamophobe ?

But why, Stephen? You wish to exclude people, so how can those who wish to exclude be part of a church with an inclusive theology?

Its a bit like a nazi being a member of an anti-racist group.

Dear Dave,

The obvious trouble with homophobia, islamophobia and racism is that they are frowned upon ;=)

So they tend to clothe themeselves in more respectable attire...

Such as "moral" views for others.

Homophobia simply means anti-gay, Dave. And I regard any view which doesn't afford equal parity of moral worth to gay relationships as anti-gay. Thus, your theology is inherently and irredeemably homophobic. You do not believe in gay and lesbian equality. Simple as that.

I would also point out that gay sex isn't just about one specific sex act, which many heterosexuals also partake in!

Merseymike:

I don't wish to exclude anyone--the question has to do with particular behaviors. As a point of interest, I come from a family where alcoholism has been a recurring problem. I love my family and my alcoholic family members--I don't condone their alcoholism, I try to rescue them from it.

In this case, it is my position that scripture forbids sex outside of marriage between male and female. There's no point in us trying to argue this issue--I've reviewed (and/or been repeatedly subjected to) the liberal arguments on the subject and found them deficient. You have, likewise, for whatever reason, found them convincing. (And, I've found nothing productive comes from further discussions on the point between liberals and conservatives on this site or elsewhere--no light, only heat.) Thus, it is inevitable and probably beneficial that liberals and conservatives go their separate ways--ergo, separate churches.

Your new church will exclude my viewpoint--though not my person. And, mine will undoubtedly exclude your viewpoint, but not my person. There is symmetry here, but no bragging rights for "inclusivity"--both sides are announcing certain theological positions to be "excluded" and, to that extent at least, excluding those that hold those positions. From that standpoint I find it ironic that either would try to claim to be more "inclusive". That's not intended as an insult, merely an observation.

Steven

P.S.-The implied comparison with NAZIs was a bit over the top--I don't think anything I've posted here should subject me to that level of condemnation. /s

Merseymiem wrote: "Homophobia simply means anti-gay, Dave."

Dear Mike, if conservatives started calling you a "pervert", and then reassured you that it had been redefined to just mean anyone who isn't a monogamous heterosexual, I suspect that you would still be a little upset !

You need another term if you want to show respect for people like me..

Göran wrote: "The obvious trouble with homophobia, islamophobia and racism is that they are frowned upon ;=) So they tend to clothe themeselves in more respectable attire..."

Dear Göran, I suppose that you approve completely and unreservedly with Islam and all it's teachings and practices (as understood by most Moslems from the Koran and Hadith etc) ?

You seem to be trying to fit people into a binary moral system all the time - we are either "Nice" and "Nasty" ! You should consider more carefully the long *spectrum* of negative human responses - on which there is considerable distance between "phobia" and "disapproval" or "disagreement".

Dear Dave. This is precisely what I said.

There is a long, a very long distance, indeed, along a continuum from partiality over approval to disapproval to phobia.

A long *spectrum* of human responses rangeing from the not quite reasonable over the reasonable to the distinctly un-reasonable ;=)

Your contention that I "approve completely and ureseevedly with Islam and all its teaching and practices (as understood by most Moslems from the Koran and Hadith etc)" is precisely this pro or con, black or white, nice or nasty, antagonistic "moral" system, that is unable to distinguish the un-reasonable from the reasonable.

So no, I don't ;=)

Dave ; no, I don't. I use the term as it is used in common parlance. Just as the term gay is used in common parlance, even though most conservative Christians still say 'homosexual'.

Merseymike:

Well, it doesn't sound like we'll ever agree on proper terms for each other (witness the dispute over who are the "revisionists"). And, I think that part of the reason for this is a need for some to make the label applied to their opponents a pejorative even at the risk of sacrificing accuracy. Well, so be it--if there is no chance of reaching agreement I'd rather talk about something where there is a chance for agreement.

Steven

Dear Göran, at least we agree on our deinition of terms.. which gives us a chance to debate!

Dear Merseymike, please see Göran's last posting; maybe I am not explaining myself well, but you will hear what he is saying..