Is it possible for someone to tell us why a UK Vicar was being appointed as Bishop in Malawi in the first place?

Is this the same as Sandy Millar being a Ugandan Bishop?....

"we need to recognise the depths of suspicion about ECUSA, Canada, and now the Church of England that have brought us to this position. Indeed, we need to voice more clearly between ourselves the stark differences between our different theologies. While I am prepared to defend MCU, I would find it much harder to defend some of the positions taken (for example) by various sections of ECUSA on theology, ethics and pastoral practice."

Amen to that! Personally I wonder what the outcome would have been if Rev Henderson had been confirmed as Bishop of Lake Malawi. Maybe I'm idealistic, but I think that Bishops should be appointed because they will lead their diocese forward in knowing and following Christ and in spreading the gospel to non-Christians.. Not to be nice to benefactors, nor to make political "statements".

Wouldn't Henderson have been constantly under the microscope ? If he had said anything that sounded like moral compromise, wouldn't he have faced rebellion from huge numbers of orthodox clergy and churches in his diocese ? That sort of situation is hardly one I would choose to create in the Church of God.

Christ have mercy !

"But we need to recognise the depths of suspicion about ECUSA, Canada, and now the Church of England that have brought us to this position."

I think the only people who fail to recognise this are those evangelicals who have helped to fan it. There are two things this story demonstrates. the first is that the "Southern" bloc is deeply and viciously homophobic, and demands the same of every bishop. It's not enough not to be gay. You must actively condemn them and within your power persecute them to be thought of as "Orthodox".

The second is that those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind.

You write
"I find it deeply sad that, as someone who would find myself more obviously on the traditionalist side of things, my letters in support of Nick and his orthodoxy were quite simply ignored by those responsible for confirming his election. In stark terms, my references as his bishop and Nick’s own affirmations of faith were not believed."

Does it occur to you that Rowan or Richard Harries could have said the same about Jeffrey John?

What would have been your defence then? That you knew better than the Archbishop of Canterbury? Now you are shocked and distressed to find that in Malawi they think they know better than the Bishop of Willesden, but disloyalty is a two way street. I know this is pretty savage, and perhaps tomorrow I will feel that I should have toned it down. But I suspect that no one else will say these things, and I'd like to hear your defence.

Andrew seems to be in a savage mood of late .... certain "groups" have set his teeth on edge.

But when I read Pete Broadbent's letter earlier I had much the same thoughts as Andrew. The Nazgul and their friends have a great responsibility to bear for all this, they cannot shrug it off so easily.

And how well does Andrew Brown know those whom he routinely pillories in the Church Times?

And, to be frank, I don't believe a word of it!

Nick Henderson is a liberal, and I am sure that he does not agree with the views of Broadbent on sexual ethics - I sincerely hope that no other members of the MCU do either.

The double standards never cease to amaze me! I would suggest that the difference between JJ and NH is that JJ is openly gay, and we all know so-called 'open' evangelicals really do prefer old-style closetedness.

I concur with the opinions of Andrew Brown -- if Bishop Broadbent thought he could rubbish Jeffrey John and not have it come back to haunt him, he is indeed naive -- sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.

And, BTW, Mr. Brown, I find your comment quite restrained and not at all savage.

1. "we need to recognise the depths of suspicion about ECUSA, Canada, and now the Church of England that have brought us to this position."

Depths of suspicion---not seeing Christ in your brother or sister (be they Yank, Canuck or Brit)---BAD: agree completely. It's the cause of the current mess.

2. "Indeed, we need to voice more clearly between ourselves the stark differences between our different theologies"

I must unfortunately concur. Differences between the theology that arises from the "depths of suspicicion" (aka Hell?), and theology that arises out of "Love one another as I have loved you" is stark, alright. The latter is Christian, but the former...?

3. "While I am prepared to defend MCU, I would find it much harder to defend some of the positions taken (for example) by various sections of ECUSA on theology, ethics and pastoral practice."

Huh????

How does 3 follow from 1 and 2? Assuming it is the (democratic) majority of ECUSA which includes the "various sections" to which +Broadbent alludes---since when is ECUSA on trial (needing someone to "defend" it), when it is NOT ECUSA that has theology that [pick a colorful verb] out of "the depths of suspicion"?

I find +PB's logic lacking. :-/

Amen. It is nice to know that some bishops playing the conservative end of the field are not following the "those who are not with us are against us" set of rules.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. There is a difference between Person A, who teaches a revisionist position on homosexuality in the Church, and has published writings which can be adduced to prove that this is his position; and Person B, who teaches what the Church has always taught, and who is being condemned because he is associated with an organisation in which there are revisionists (and where there is no evidence in writing to suggest that he himself holds a revisionist position).

Neither Richard nor Rowan would I think claim that JJ's position on homosexuality was anything other than that of Person A. Nick Henderson's position is clearly that of Person B. There is a difference of nuance and complexity, as I said in the article. But I'm sure it's not too complex for you to have grasped it!

Rowan's position as scholar, bishop of Monmouth and Primate of Wales was that of person A, Pete.

How well I remember the day when a delegation from England arrived here in sleepy Newport and their line-by-line challenge to his public teaching and his refusal to budge on a word, yet alone "repent" or "recant".

Their reaction the next day was to declare him a false teacher etc etc.....

There was not so much talk of nuance in those days. I can't quite remember your public position on his nomination, perhaps you can remind us?

Certainly - I supported him wholeheartedly, and defended him against the headbangers, (see these links, for example -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1123429,00.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_archbishop_20040227.ram )
- precisely because he was prepared to teach and live with the position of the scriptures as historically understood and the teachings of the Church, despite his own personal position.

Pete ; I think you are simply trying, as you always do, to wriggle out of what, again, as ever, is your utterly inconsistent position of someone who is every bit as conservative as those you claim not to be allied with.

There is precisely no evidence that Nicholas Henderson disagrees with the MCU position on these matters,other than that which it suits you to promote on here, as it gets you out of a hole. really, thats all your little missive is about - your own credibility.

Why, for goodness sake, would anyone choose to be general Secretary of an organisation and then go along with your sort of conservative orthodoxy? Which is what you suggest is the case - according to you, the MCU isn't 'really' liberal, its not 'really' in sympathy with ECUSA, oh , and its leading memnbers 'really' agree with the orthodox Christian faith, not liberal theology after all.

Really quite risible, Pete. At least try to be honest and consistent, please.

I am sorry Bp Broadbent but your rejection of Jeffrey and acceptance of Rowan who believe and taught very similarly may be a nuance too far for me.

As far as I remember Jeffrey John offered the same compliance to the House of Bishops' statement on sexuality that Rowan tacitly agreed to observe when he became Primate of All England. All of us expected Rowan’s presence to be a powerful force for development.

Jeffrey was no more a supporter of our views than is Fr Henderson - and we said so of him rather too strongly at the time.

But, as a simple Welsh priest perhaps all these subtleties are just too much for my Celtic spirituality to grasp – the more I see of the Church of England the less I like what I see and the more I pity my former Primate.

"- precisely because he was prepared to teach and live with the position of the scriptures as historically understood and the teachings of the Church, despite his own personal position."

Once again -- if you are prepared to extend that indulgence to Rowan, why not to Jeffrey John? He also was prepared to align his public teaching with the official position. In fact, unlike Rowan, he had made a real, personal sacrifice to bring his behaviour within the bounds of what was taught.

Or don't you believe that he did, despite the assurances of his bishop.

In the end, this story comes down to one perfectly simple point. It's not different when you do it. It just feels different when it's done to you.

"How well does Andrew Brown know those whom he routinely pillories" etc.

I have been watching some of them, on and off, for nineteen years now. It is eighteen years since David Holloway took Clifford Longley and me to lunch and explained his strategy on homosexuality. I spent three weeks watching the Americans and the Africans at the last Lambeth conference. I interviewed a great many bishops there. I was there when Richard Kirker was exorcised. I had my daughter christened by the campest bishop in the Church of England. I spent a week driving round Transylvania with Sandy Millar and a couple of his strapping acolytes.

Quote: -
"we need to recognise the depths of suspicion about ECUSA, Canada, and now the Church of England that have brought us to this position"

I write as one who serves in ECUSA but came from the C of E - I blame ECUSA for the above statement with which I agree. The action of Frank Griswold in signing the Primates' statement in 2003 and then being the chief consecrator of VGR was the final straw in a continuingly arrogant US dismissal of the Anglican Communion's appeals and teachings regarding same sex relationships.

Serving in the US as well as visiting in Kenya it is a matter of profound personal grief that the ECUSA leadership has nearly singlehandedly destroyed the "bonds of affection" that used to exist, and unite us as a Communion. The responses to Windsor and the Primates have been less than encouraging - to the degree that now it seems impossible to envisage anything other than a "walking apart." The official response to Windsor and the Primates will come at our General Convention in June and there is still hope of a miracle. We shall see!

Meanwhile people are being hurt by the standoff as well as the responses that are clearly driven by the polarization. I feel sorry if a good man has been slighted, and Bishop Broadbent's counsel ignored. Maybe after June 2006 we will see some structural realignment that will bring some order out of this chaotic situation. Dare we pray for charity in any such realignment? Charity would allow for the mending of relationships in the future. Charity might help prevent this type of situation being repeated. Charity should also require those of us in the "West" to acknowledge that the "South" is the numerical as well as the growing edge of Anglican Christianity. They deserve to be recognised and respected for their achievements in the Christian Mission. Have we done so well?

Bishop Broadbent, Sir:

The "revisionist position on homosexuality in the Church" is that there IS a position that "the Church has always taught."

There has *never* been a time that the Church directly addressed "homosexuality" in unanimity. For the past century or so (and w/ far more intensity the past 30 years), the Church has been painfully laboring towards a universal Truth.

It's not there yet.

The question is whether these labor pangs will be allowed to bring forth life, or whether the labor will be cut short by killing the birthing one.

This killing is all too *real*, for LGBTs, in many places (from Oxford to Malawi?), and takes the form of other kinds of violence (ending careers, for example). That you can participate in such destruction (as w/ Rev. Jeffrey John), and not have it come back around to hurt those whom you love and admire, is against the "clear teaching" of the Bible! ("Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind" is right :-( )

I guess that the obvious difference is that JJ is gay and has a gay lover (though he assures us that the relationship has been celibate since the 1991 HoB statement). The other difference is that RDW was appointed almost ex-nihilo, had a lot of support (not just from liberals), and the opposition to gay-lib in the CofE was not so broad and well organised as it is nowadays. Plus I think that the prime minister and appointments committee would never have backed down due to opposition from sexual conservatives.

For JJ there was no hiding behind the appointments committee. His appointment could only be defended based on +Oxford's choice, and support from within oxford diocese. But there was a lot of strong senior opposition in Reading and Oxford. (Actually +Oxford was another big loser in all this since, as far as I can see, the error of his episcopal decision was 'corrected' by ++Williams !)

So, Dave. Let me get this clear.

There are currently bishops who totally agree, 100% with Jeffrey John's beliefs on this issue.

You suggest that the fact that he is gay and has a gay partner - not lover, as he does not have sex with him - is the key factor.

So, it is someone's sexual orientation which makes the difference. Isn't it? Or why are those bishops who support same-sex relationships allowed to remain Bishops?

As for Williams 'correcting' anyone, thats an interesting way of describing cowardice.

Pete, You tell us that you "supported Rowan whole-heartedly, and defended him against the headbangers". So who was the Bishop of Willesden who signed the letter denouncing Jeffrey John? There is a nuanced quality to your whole-hearted support that is less than completely reassuring for the recipient.

http://www.oxford.anglican.org/detail.php?id=450

You cannot imagine how this looks from outside!

Oh, I think we can, Goran!

I don't understand how RW et al can believe something in private but publicly hold an entirely different position.

Where is the integrity in that?

One of the grounds for opposing RW's translation to be ABC was that it was unfair to put him in a position where he has to uphold something he does not believe in.

The opposition to JJ was clear - his past practice without repentence disqualifies him from a position of Christian leadership.

I like and respect +Pete, but as a Conservative Evangelical I too think he is missing the point (but from a different perspective). My point is that Bishops should not simply agree to toe the party line, but rather than their personally held beliefs should conform to orthodox belief.

It is not acceptable to be a Christian leader and believe one thing but teach another.

Bishops in particular have a responsibility to refute false teaching. They won't do that if all they agree to do is to toe the party line.

Christian leaders need to set a high standard in both orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

I seem to remember that in 1985 Canon Paul Oestreicher was elected Bishop of Wellington in New Zealand, but the election was not confirmed by the Province owing to his unacceptably liberal theology. I doubt if Nick Henderson would claim to be any less liberal in his theology than Paul Oestreicher, so it seems that Central Africa is not ploughing a new furrow, but simply following an established Anglican precedent.

No, Observer, it had nothing at all to do with his theology.

Paul Osterreicher is both an Anglican and a Quaker. It was not within the rules to have a Bishop who was also a member of the Religious Society of friends. Paul did not wish to abandon this affiliation, so turned down the Bishopric.

So, Martinluther, what you are really saying is that you don't want any liberals within the CofE, because liberal Christians do not accept conservative orthodoxy.

I agree with you about integrity, but the obvious response is that the CofE does include liberals and so their views are going to be reflected amongst the leadership of the denomination.

As Pete knows I took a different line from him on Jeffrey John. For me it was sufficient that JJ had, since the Issues statement of 1991, lived celibately, and that (as with Rowan) he would uphold the position of the church.

It's silly to suggest that every bishop must personally espouse the current position on every issue. That would be a recipe for paralysis (or at best you'ld have to appoint a totally fresh set of bishops every time there was a change). The customary oaths and declarations cover what a bishop (or other office holder) must believe. We take them seriously and are not minded to offer additional declarations to whatever special interest group may be most vocal at some specific point of time.

The issue with JJ was not simply what he had taught but what he had done. Specifically whether, in the light of Issues, it was necessary for a bishop not simply to have desisted from sexual activity but to evidence some sign of repentence for what had gone before.

Neither Nick H nor Rowan is in that position. Thus, whilst I might disagree with Pete's line (in that one instance), I don't think he is being inconsistent.

But that still differentiates between people with exactly the same opinion according to their sexual orientation....

Dear Merseymike,

that is a symptom of his liberal theology. (I gather he is now Quaker Chaplain to the University of Sussex).

The problem for many of us with JJ was not his domestic arrangements, which he asserted were in conformity with "Issues", but his teaching, in particular his advocacy of gay "marriage" which so far as I recollect he did not offer to withdraw - on the contrary he was a founder member of Affirming Catholicism, which published his tract and promotes his views.

All of us are sinners, but it does not entitle those chosen as bishops to promote false teaching.

Rowan Williams by contrast with JJ has publicly committed himself to the Church's teaching, rather than his previously published views.

Surely Bishop Pete is trying to push a boulder uphill here? If the names and organisations are changed round for a moment here, does he seriously believe that anyone would accept his assurances that the chairman of, say, Reform does not share the views of that body? That John Broadhurst is privately a liberal at odds with the official line of Forward in Faith?

Is it any surprise that a former chairman of MCU is thought to subscribe to the views of that organisation?

re: "I don't understand how RW et al can believe something in private but publicly hold an entirely different position.
Where is the integrity in that?"

Perhaps in the same way that St. Paul personally believed that there was nothing morally wrong with eating meat that had been sacrificed to imaginary gods, but supported publicly refraining from eating such meat when it might cause confusion and distract people from what was really important: faith in Jesus Christ.

But, Alan, there are many other bishops who believe exactly the same as Jeffrey John.

And I think integrity is rather more important than teaching something which you do not believe. I call that hypocrisy. Rowan Williams has so little credibility left because of this sort of approach.

So, the only reason JJ was hounded out of the job for which he had been chosen is clear. Homophobia.

"All of us are sinners, but it does not entitle those chosen as bishops to promote false teaching."

Alan, the ill-conceived "Issues" might (at the time it was published) have been the *majority* teaching: it doesn't mean it was the true one (nor, conversely, does dissenting from it means that one promotes "false teaching").

Why oh why do you "reasserters" make objective judgments, AS IF they were the "Mind of God"? We ***ALL***---though studying S,T&R---are just seeing "through a glass darkly" now. *None of us* can claim to definitively know that someone else's discernment of the Will of God is "false"---and we shouldn't pronounce it so.

Lord have mercy!

David Walker wrote: “The issue with JJ was not simply what he had taught but what he had done. Specifically whether, in the light of Issues, it was necessary for a bishop not simply to have desisted from sexual activity but to evidence some sign of repentance for what had gone before.
Neither Nick H nor Rowan is in that position.”

Alan Marsh wrote: “The problem for many of us with JJ was not his domestic arrangements, which he asserted were in conformity with "Issues", but his teaching, in particular his advocacy of gay "marriage" which so far as I recollect he did not offer to withdraw – on the contrary he was a founder member of Affirming Catholicism, which published his tract and promotes his views.”

Now, this is severely contradictory. Either there is o n e position held by the Church on homosexuality – or there isn’t one.

As you might have guessed my position is that being gay has never been an issue outside of 12th century European Scholasticism, 16th century Genevan Calvinism and now late 20th century American Calvinism.

And that this is Neo-Platonism and social politics, not Christianity and Bible.

But it seems to me that you have to make up your minds: either “lifestyle” or views, either orientation or debauchery, either mandated celibacy or particular calling of the Holy Spirit, either the unofficial teaching of Lambeth 1998 I.10 or Christian Freedom, either private association or the Church, either "membership" or the Company of the Faithful, either the Creeds and Canons or Nastiness and Anarchy.

Bishop Pete's comments, and his genuinely Anglican support of Nicholas Henderson, raise, once again, the highly disturbing issue of the way in which the "Global South" and their allies (whoever and wherever these may currently be!) seem to lack committment to such traditional and orthodox Christian values as truth and a genuinely loving concern for one's neighbour.

This attempted divorce of holiness from ethics is clearly non-Christian, whatever views one has on the globally marginal issue of homosexuality and the Church. Some examples of the latest manifestations of this are the astonishing antics surrounding the infamous Global South letter, along with Archbishop Malango's extreme keenness to attack Nicholas Henderson and extreme hostility to defending the Anglicans of Harare Diocese against Bishop Kunonga - who is charged amongst many other things with incitement to murder.

As I said in an earlier post, Bishops who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

It is nothing other than tragic - for Anglicanism and the wider Church - that the genuinely African Anglicanism which gave us Archbishop John Sentamu, Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane and Archbishop Desmond Tutu (who, let it be noted, have contrasting views on the gay issue but who have all commented that this is NOT the highest priority for the Church) keeps getting marginalised by the high-profile antics of the so-called "Global South."

No, Goran, you jump to your own conclusions. There were as I said many of us prepared to accept JJ's statement that he had conformed in lifestyle to that expected of clergy of the Church of England. It is his views - unchanged still - which are the problem. He is not disqualified by his private life but by his public teaching.

And no, JCF. Your claim that none of us can know anything or believe anything to be true is frankly nonsense. Faith is about beliefs and about truth.

There seem to be a lot of people on this thread who are very sure that they are right - in their observations of others, in their own positions, in their views on organisations - I cannot be so sure, I am just left with the question, "what am I doing in the name of Jesus?" A passage from Henri Nouwen's book, "In the Name of Jesus" has been one I have constantly turned to with the challenges that face the Anglican communion and just asked myself, "am I doing this?" - "Christian leaders cannot simply be persons who have well informed opinions about the burning issues of our time. Their leadership must be rooted in the permanent, intimate relationship with the incarnate word, Jesus, and they need to find there the source for their words, advice, and guidance." I do not think we can find unity or peace together as Christ's body until we demonstrate a bit more humility and grace.

Dear Alan March,

You just jumped (back) to your own conclusions.

In my post I pointed out to you, that your conclusions are contrary to those of David Walker.

The one says "what he has done", the other "his teaching".

You cannot have both.

JCF-
Thoroughgoing relativism is self-contradictory. Our degrees of knowledge of various things vary enormously, from certainty to utter doubt. There are, in principle, millions of things we can be certain about (not necessarily including the things we have just been discussing). As I always say: third-rate is to claim to know everything; second-rate is to claim to know nothing; first-rate is to be involved in the project of distinguishing between different degrees on the broad spectrum of certainty/uncertainty.

Only Jeffrey John emerged from the “Reading Fiasco” with his honour intact and with any claim for respect.

David Walker’s analysis leaves me cold. That pernicious and dubious piece of paper “Issues” lost any shred of credibility in the wake of what happened to Jeffrey. The English bench now cower behind a policy that has been thoroughly discredited.

Surely David Walker is not suggesting “repentance” on the lines of the erstwhile Bishop of Durham? How crass that would be.

Bizarrely, Jeffrey’s consecration might have given Issues a modicum of respectability. It was, I remember, our deepest fear at the time. That he had so amended his life in the wake of this “teaching” to espouse celibacy was a powerful example of obedience and testimony of repentance that we did not wish to see modelled for other lesbian and gay clerical partnerships.

When he was forced to step down, I was personally devastated for Jeffrey, while at the same time all could now see how the duplicity of the Church of England was laid bare and had brought down upon itself the judgment it so patently deserved.

Of course, I do not believe for a moment that Jeffrey was denied consecration because of any failure to adequately repent.

There were two killer blows. Firstly there was the rebellion of some middle management in the diocese of Oxford (this is not the place to go into their motives) and secondly there was the international rumpus.

The letter from the nine diocesans, Bishop Broadbent and others was the oxygen this international protest needed. If the English bishops had held ranks and supported Rowan’s decision I have no doubt that Jeffrey would be bishop of Reading today. I am sure that history will recall this first successful challenge to Rowan’s leadership of the Anglican Church as the catalyst for much that has followed. Shame on you all!

Even the pressures from Pakistan and others on Canterbury assuring him that “people would die” if this consecration went ahead may well still have been resisted had his own bishops been publicly supportive and his staff been wiser.

Bishop Walker sees a consistency in Bishop Broadbent’s public pronouncements which I and many others fail to see, this is part of our present difficulties with each other. I am prepared to go on listening and learning, I am glad he is willing to be tested and questioned in a forum like this. I too find myself debating the issues and sharing my experience, a gay priest with a growing and extended family, in many public forums – it is all to the good.

Goran, I was not speaking for Bishop Walker, but you chose to juxtapose his views with mine. The view that what a candidate teaches is germane to his suitability for ordination as a bishop is perfectly consistent. As is acceptance of a statement that X has chosen to conform his lifestyle to the pattern required by the church of its ministers.

Goran-
You say that 'being gay' has only been an issue among Christians in 3 periods of history. But what is for certain is that anything mentioned in the New Testament will be something that Bible-based Protestants will always have had clear ideas about - given that the New Testament is the most minutely dissected text in history.
More likely is that it has rarely been mentioned because it has rarely been a controversial issue among Christians - until recently.

"*None of us* can claim to definitively know that someone else's discernment of the Will of God is "false"---and we shouldn't pronounce it so." -- JC Fisher

An assertion that a statement is true is an assertion that contradictory statements are false. It would seem that many statements in the liturgy (e.g. 'God is steadfast in love and infinite in mercy'--quoted from memory), and even the 'theology that arises out of "Love one another as I have loved you"', fall under Fisher's censure.

Then, Alan, why are the Bishops who agree with him not also 'disqualified'?

Christopher Shell,

Now, t h a t was an argument from silence ;=)

MM, who are they? If they have published their views, as did JJ, then it is possible to know.

Most make known that their views are at variance with the church's teaching only after appointment, a situation which comes about because of the way in which bishops are appointed both in England and in the USA.

No one (I hope) is suggesting a McCarthy-style investigation into the views of those now in office, but equally the proliferation of leaders who undermine the church's teaching is undesirable and renders their ministry susceptible to the charge of hypocrisy.

Well, theres all those who publicly supported the consecration of JJ, for a start....your guidelines would just about rule out any liberal Christian, Alan. I recognise that is your aim, and I think it underlines the need to split - we will never have the sort of forward looking church I believe to be needed whilst we are weighed down by the burden of the beliefs of conservatives preventing us from making very necessary changes and revisions.

Best to separate and walk apart, but this will only happen if we can agree to do so in a civil manner. Otherwise, this will carry on and on.

"An assertion that a statement is true is an assertion that contradictory statements are false."

Perhaps, Douglas (Alan, Christopher).

However, I don't "assert".

I *trust in God* (and leave all the rest in the Most Capable Hands: including my contradictions, mistakes, shoddy thinking, nonsense---of which I'm sure I have a lot *g*).

I wish all my critics knew the FREEDOM I feel: the freedom to make mistakes, BECAUSE I AM FORGIVEN! Because I am loved *just as I am*! :-D

It is my only reason for being here (either on TA, or on Planet Earth): to make the *Infinitely Loving One* known.

I pray one day you shall.

All this cant about “private thoughts”, “teaching” and “what he did” is unhelpful and once again gives oxygen to those who blight us.

What stood at the heart of the “headbangers” main objection to Rowan was precisely what he did.

In the run-up to his nomination he happily said he was content to ordain gay people in relationship and had done so on at least one occasion. Not a problem here in Wales or Scotland.

At least one National Daily trumpeted this, the next day, as Rowan “ruling himself out” for Canterbury. Indeed it was his actions that most inflamed his opponents, and once again his refusal to “repent” of them after he secured the nomination.

Let’s not try and rewrite this now to suit our own purposes.

Neither Jeffrey nor Fr Henderson deserved the treatment they received, any more than Gene Robinson deserved the appalling isolation suggested by the Windsor Report. They are all victims of what Stephen Bates describes as a “Church at War”, it is now for us to find an honest and faithful way forward.

Mike - yes I think a divorce is needed. How do we go about it? How about those who can affirm the historic creeds (without crossing their fingers) and the doctrinal understanding contained within the BCP and the 39 Articles stay and those who can not leave?

Is that the fairest/most sensible way?

I have no reason to doubt that J.C. Fisher feels the freedom she writes about. However, A's assertion that he feels freedom to make mistakes does not free B to accept A's faulty logic. We serve a Master: and that Master gave us logic as a help in distinguishing what is true from what is not true.

Fisher's latest post: 'I don't "assert".'
Fisher's earlier post: '*None of us* can claim to definitively know that someone else's discernment of the Will of God is "false".'

BTW, in my earlier post I pointed out that the _liturgy_ makes definitive assertions about God's will, and thus, implicitly but no less definitively, claims that contradictory assertions (i.e. what could be 'someone else's discernment of His will') are false.

Martin:

The way forward is clear. We need to faithfully and charitably separate. All of the arguments I have seen on this site to date have accomplished exactly nothing in terms of reconciling opposing viewpoints. There is nothing that can be accomplished--the gap is unbridgeable. All we do is create animousity, when we could be working together charitably to work out terms of separation.

Steven

If the Church is "at war", which is too much of a newspaper headline for my liking, the division is being caused because some within it, who know what the Church has always believed and taught, are seeking to make it conform to their own position, which is ultimately unsustainable in the face of both history, and the wide consensus which exists in the Church today.

People are not "victims" if they choose to provoke conflict in this manner, but participants in an argument which they are losing.

The victim in all of this is the Church itself, whose mission is being severely hindered by the attempt to rewrite the scriptures, or worse to subvert the bible's teaching by relegating it to the arena of private interpretation.

But that is exactly the problem, Alan. You, as a conservative, see things that way, I , as a liberal, would claim exact opposite views.

Steven is right. Separation is the only answer. There IS no possible compromise or point of agreement. We simply create more and more heat and no light

Douglas, if you read me regularly, you'll catch me making a (conventionally) absolute claim about the lack of (definitive) absolutes in almost every post: that just makes me human (and I absolutely *glory* in being made in the Image of God! :-D)

Ergo,
JCF: fallible.
God: *most* gracious!

I am not going to de-camp or allow my Church to be violated or "purified" to satisfy the agenda of others.

I became an Anglican because of its rich diversity. I have worked in Jesus’ Mission alongside people with every label and theological outlook, and I want that to continue with us at the same table.

I realise that this Anglican marriage of theological opposites has often been an abusive relationship. I have witnessed the open contempt and violent verbal attacks that have characterised this Holy alliance all my life. But I have only rarely despaired enough to believe that separation was the answer to our differences.

For a brief moment those who are usually abusing each other have found common cause in abusing us. For them the emergence of a self-confident and self-defining group of lesbian and gay Christians at a time when following Jesus is at a low in the West is no accidental coincidence.

I understand their perspective and while I have some sympathy for their perception of a lack of enthusiasm and zeal amongst “liberals” in leadership, I do not believe their analysis or think their solutions will take our faith forward. The English House of Bishops’ statement on the Windsor Report was in its entirety a rather poor document, but its advocacy (as mentioned in comments above) that LGBT people should continue patiently as objects for this abuse in the cause of Unity is not a goer.

We said from the off the Lambeth Commission would not produce an answer to the current problems – it did an admirable job, there were some first class people doing their best to answer the brief – but it was the wrong tool and it has itself become a cause for division.

While some believe there is no hope for Unity without a greater uniformity, I believe that the result of a split now will be the continued fragmentation of our family as present allies later turn on each other, the culture of abuse will continue its evil work.

For many of us the hope of celebrating our diversity while proclaiming our unity is still an achievable goal, but this needs a radically different approach. It needs us to acknowledge the abuse (at all levels) before we can move forward. with Jesus.

I have, like everyone here, seen the signs of new alliances being forged and postures adopted hat indicate we are quickly moving to schism. I do not believe that this will serve our discipleship of Christ and it will only temporarily relieve the stress we all feel. It is not a solution it is a capitulation to bigotry and it will have terrible consequences.

Hi Goran

'Argument from silence'? I mentioned that the NT is the most minutely dissected text in history. All those hundreds or thousands of pages of commentary on the relevant pages amount to 'silence'?

Hundreds of thousands of pages?

What there is are 6 verses out of 30.000, most of them changed or altered after 1947, plus a couple of others invented after 1955.

But do call that "relevant"!

"I am not going to de-camp or allow my Church to be violated..."

Brilliantly stated, Martin. Schism can NEVER be the answer, when we all share One World, and we're all made in God's Image.

If I, in Alan M's words, "provoke conflict" it is only to call the Church BACK to "what the Church has always believed and taught"---that ***ALL*** are meant to be One in Christ---and not the folly (in some quarters) of calling a *reactionary spasm* ("if you're for [homosexuality], I'm agin' it"] Gospel Truth.

Those who persist in reaction can do what they will---"but as for me and my house" (ECUSA), we will not break communion w/ them. Perhaps it is only our common brokenness---our equal unworthiness---around Christ's Table, which can fully unite us?

JCF, To share in Communion requires sharing in Faith as a prerequisite. If the meaning of the Christian faith is so broadened as to be meaningless, then there can be no Communion. You may not think you have broken Communion, but the effect of changing what used to be held and believed in common, so that your church no longer shares the same faith, is precisely to walk away from Communion, which among other things is a sign of unity among believers.

Goran, I do wish you would study some of the original texts rather than post-1947 translations. Or failing that, read Gagnon on "The Bible and Homosexual Practice", which is a very substantial study of the subject. No doubt you will disagree with it, but hopefully you will see that those whom you disagree with have done their biblical scholarship.

Ian Montgomery said,

"Serving in the US as well as visiting in Kenya it is a matter of profound personal grief that the ECUSA leadership has nearly singlehandedly destroyed the "bonds of affection" that used to exist, and unite us as a Communion. "

The ECUSA leadership??

Perhaps you are not familiar with ECUSA polity. Or with the discernment and election of a New Hampshire bishop.

Unlike in the CoE, bishops in ECUSA are not appointed. They are elected. Elected by the people they then serve in the parishes constituting the diocese. Robinson was selected and duly elected by the people of the entire diocese of New Hampshire, where he has lived and faithfully served for more than 30 years.

There were in fact dozens of other fine candidates who entered the discernment process, that the parishes and committees did not in the end support.

The election was then approved by the entire Church at its triennial convention, since as coincidence would have it, his election came during a prescribed period when the entire convention must approve. When in session, the ECUSA convention is in fact the world's largest legislative body.

Only then was he consecrated.

So you see, this process began at the very bottom. With the people in the pews. Your reliance on one person to pin the blame, or two, or three, is misplaced.

Alan March,

If I point out that the post 1940-ies "Dynamic Equivalence" translations are corrupt, I do this from a thorough reading of the Greek texts.

Nothing else.

And I've been trying to get through Gagnon since this August.

Whatever it is, it's not "scholarship". Every quote is cut to pieces, every reference is distorted.

I will take ages to check it all up.

Alan:

Thank you, your response to JCF was concise and to the point. It sums up the situation nicely.

Martin:

You're going to have to wake up and smell the coffee sooner or later. There is no communion because, as Alan points out, there is no longer a common faith held by the disputants. So, there may remain a communion de jure, but not de facto. The same is true of ECUSA as a denomination and may be true of the COE for all I know. Liberals (revisionists?) and traditionalists (reasserters?) are not serving each other or the cause of Christ by remaining together. However, we could do so by seeking a godly, fair, peaceful and dignified separation.

Steven

Alan ; are you, then, in Communion with the members of the Church of England who would be sympathetic to ECUSA?

Amen to Martin Reynolds' eloquent remarks above.
I had hoped (perhaps vainly) that Anglican Christianity would provide hope for a world now violently riven with sectarian passions; that people who did not agree, even on fundamental issues, could find some way to come together in God's presence and do the healing work that He requires of us all. As I see things now, religion joins the company of ideology, ethinicity, tribe, and race; as another way to divide and sort humanity rather than to join it together in the family God created. The only "solutions" that I've seen in any of these discussions are either a bitter schism with endless fights over properties and titles, or some pretense of unity at the expense of gay and lesbian Christians.
I remember seeing this bit of graffiti in New York in the days that followed the September 11th attacks: "Religion is the PROBLEM! not the answer!" I do not see us working on any good answers to that angry j'accuse.

MM, I am in communion with the Church of England, but I do not expect it to remain united for very much longer. Already I would not worship at a church where the minister was openly gay, since this amounts to a declaration that he/she has repudiated the authority of scripture.

In case you had not noticed, the great majority of Anglicans worldwide are now in some form of impaired communion with ECUSA: and that will also apply to the Church of England very soon unless some very remarkable action is taken by the Bishops. My fingers are crossed but I am not holding my breath.

I think that the split in the ECUSA, and in the Anglican Communion as a whole is a fait accompli. Some, I suppose, will rejoice and sing Hosannas and Te Deums as a victory for the "Faithful Remnant", a liberation from the tyranny of heresiarchs or inquisitors. I see it as a defeat, not of one faction or another, but for the whole Church; a capitulation to despair. So now the Anglican Communion will break apart into warring sects. And I agree with Martin Reynolds when he predicts that those warring sects will eventually break apart into further warring sects. The resulting Anglican churches will become indistinguishable among all the other warring sects, tribes, ideologies, and nationalities of the earth; the very things that we pray that Our Lord will sweep away whenever we say the words "Thy Kingdom Come." In the end, how will we really be any different from all the others preparing for war right now in madrassas, yeshivas, seminaries, and other such places around the world? A broken Anglican Communion will find itself truly conformed to the ways of this world.

Alan Marsh, I don't think it is accurate to say that a majority of Anglicans are in impaired communion. There are some primates in the communion who say they are, but what voice has been given to the people in the pews in these provinces to say this?

None at all or at best very little.

Primates come and go.

Sadly little voice is given to us pew-dwellers. But if it were, the Anglican Communion would be much more conservative than it is now.

In the Church of England, the House of Bishops is actually preventing a proper debate in Synod on the homosexuality issue.

As it happens, Alan, I agree that the CofE is unlikely to remain united, and from the opposite perspective to yourself, I think that will be for the best.

I would not choose to worship in a church where the priest was unsympathetic to gay and lesbian people and their relationships.

I think the sort of action you would like to see taken by the Bishops simply isn't going to happen - the CofE is hardly going to throw out its gay and lesbian parishioners, given its established status.

MM, I don't see how establishment affects this one way or the other. ECUSA is not established.

The question is whether the Church (of England) is finally going to conform itself irrevocably to a secular lifestyle - or is it going to set itself apart from the decadent materialism of modern Britain by taking its stand on what scripture teaches?

Dear RMF,

I am acutely aware of how bishops are made in ECUSA. I have served here for over 30 years. The problem is not with the canonical legality of the New Hampshire election and later consecration, it is with both the advocacy by ++Griswold and the determined agenda of the ECUSA leadership under Griswold in the face of, and in spite of repeated "requests" and warnings not to pursue this agenda and election.

The condescending arrogance of ECUSA leadership and particularly ++Griswold has been stunning to leaders outside the USA, especially in the Global South. This is why Griswold's move from the Primates meeting to the consecration of VGR has made him the poster boy for duplicity in the Anglican Communion. It was the last straw that has now made broken or impaired communion a reality as evidenced by the last meeting of the Primates, and the virtual exclusion of ECUSA from ACC until Lambeth 2008.

This is not a time to be proud to be an Episcopalian, regardless of the "issue." It is time to be repentant over here and to learn again what it takes to be a part of the Anglican Communion. That is what Windsor and the Primates have now spelt out. That is what we await from the General Convention in June of 2006. We shall see if we are to "walk apart" or to return to communion and restore the bonds of affection.

Nor would I worship in a Church where the priest was unsympathetic.

And Alan, you skirt the issue, the question is not whether the communion would be more "conservative" or "liberal," but whether the people would be prepared to state that they are impaired with others based on differences unrelated to worship.

I daresay that these political categories being bandied about to describe the Communion and even infiltrating worship are good tools for dividing and do not contribute to worshipping or doing the Master's work.

These political categories also are good for indicating what all this racket is all about: not Scripture, not Church and Tradition, not Reason, but anti-modern social politics.

I am not skirting the issue, RMF, but trying to offer some kind of response to a rather hypothetical and unhelpful question.

The way things are (not as you posit they might be) is that issues of being "in communion" are decided ecclesially, not individually.

We are not (in the CofE) in communion with a number of churches, for a variety of reasons, their and ours. It is hardly practical to ask church members to decide this.

But on a wide range of issues my sense is that the laity are much more conservative than our bishops and most of the clergy, and one of the reasons why the Church of England is collapsing is that the institution (powerfully dominated by clerics) is far out of touch with the members.

Ian,

I understand your position. But again in your comments you focus on one person and do not acknowledge that the people in the pews are the ones who first endorsed and supported the selection and election.

Is the role of the laity in selecting a bishop just "legality"?

I don't see why you can't condemn the people of the diocese for selecting and supporting +Robinson? They played a central role throughout the entire thing. Why blame just the leadership of the church? It began in the pews.

As far as this being a proud time to be an Episcopalian, I'm sorry you don't feel that it is such a time, but I certainly feel quite proud to be Episcopalian!

As far as the ACC, I think it duplicitous to exclude voting members, and then have a vote on what they should or should not do, and then attempt to make it binding! It is nearly tantamount to a stacked deck. That entire process was fraught with serious questions that I do not believe have much support. I daresay we shall not see a vote or "request" like that again.

Gareth: I think you may be right! I tend to think these categories do nothing to further the Master's work, or Good News. What they do most times is impede it.

I would much rather be part of ECUSA, and if a choice between 'walking apart' or following the bigotry of the so-called Global South, then they should be proud to want to walk apart.

In any case, the CofE is likely to be included in the so-called Global South's churches they wish to walk apart from, given that the decision on civil partnerships is not about to be changed.

Alan,

I don't think it's unhelpful or hypothetical at all. We are talking (1) about the impairment of communion with other provinces of the Anglican Communion, (2) this idea that the laity are more "conservative" and the church would be different if only they could speak.

Both points assume that laity don't have a role in governance or that it is impractical for them to have one. But it's not.

Let's take ECUSA for instance.

We don't need to worry about a hypothetical province or dioceses members suddenly deciding that despite not being in communion with Canterbury, its own members are suddenly in communion with some other body.

Or do we? For isn't this precisely what some dioceses in convention have passed resolutions to the effect of? That they have the authority to do this? And that the bishops will act accordingly?

And haven't entire parishes voiced their opinion by leaving dioceses and hence the Province and hence the Communion?

And haven't the conventions of some ECUSA dioceses likewise stated that despite what ECUSA canons state, their own canons trump?

And hasn't this all been pointed to as widespread evidence of some kind of disaffection with national leadership and the clear divide between bishops and more "conservative" lay people?

So this is not hypothetical at all, it is occurring now, most glaringly in places where a body in convention is acting to contravene the national Church.

But for some reason, voicing a desire to work in the framework of Communion, is as you say, not "ecclesial," and hence, irrelevant?

For in the vast majority of cases, laity are speaking out to support ECUSA and the Communion. In the vast majority of places where an American diocese has spoken through convention—with the exception of electing a bishop, the sole time that laity are able to act publicly in unison on a matter affecting the entire church—it has been to stress the desire for Communion, for fellowship, to state that they remain in fellowship and do not consider themselves impaired, and not the other way around at all.

So you see, this issue of the voice of the people in the pews is not "hypothetical," and not at all certain to give rise to what you term "conservative" positions.

In ECUSA laity have a strong role in governance. And the diocese giving rise to the issue of impairment, New Hampshire, has a long history of taking great strides that have later been incorporated into the church as a whole.

And it is precisely this diocese where the laity play a strong role in governance and where they have a say in decisions you term "ecclesial," decisions like electing a bishop and stating the mind of the diocese in conventions.

So stating that in some provinces of the Communion, the laity may feel one way but so what, because they do not count, is really no answer at all. For how then do we know the true state of things? Or whether the Primate has any credibility behind him? Or whether he is acting in their best interests?

No, we can certainly ask, and we should, whether the people the primate is supposed to help represent and lead, support his positions, even know what his positions are, and have been given a chance to assess and speak on them. In ECUSA we do it all the time. Now in the CoE, the structures for giving laity voice may be quite different, and perhaps you could speak to that.

If anything, the people not having such a role, is perhaps the greatest evidence of the people in a particular province, to make sure that they get it.

So, pardon me if when I hear a primate say that his province, and hence all the souls in it, are in "impaired communion," and those provinces do not give their laity a voice, I consider such statements....curious.

Thanks RMF for replying.

I understand that the electors of NH are responsible for the election. The election however then went on to confirmation and consecration and the whole of ECUSA through the GC 2003 bore that responsibility. That makes the whole community irresponsible in its disregard of the advice and warnings of all the instruments of unity. They warned us of the consequences and we did it anyway. I still maintain that ++ Griswold must bear the ultimate responsibility as he has fostered the agenda that produced the VGR debacle. He personally appeared before the Eames commission and participated in the Primates' statement in the fall of 2003. He then went on to be the chief consecrator in Nov. 2003. The "buck stops" with him.

As to the ACC voting. ECUSA and A of C was "on trial" and at a trial the accused do not get to vote on the jury. To say the vote was invalid because of our not getting to vote does not deal adequately with the gravity of the offence caused by ECUSA and Canada.

So many of the posts on this thread reflect both the de facto division and polarization, and the almost total loss of trust between the factions within the provinces and the divisions of the Communion. I have come to believe sadly that there are two different religions competing within the same ecclesial structure. This being the case the structures will fail.

So often the discourse seems to be either "for" the Global South or "for" whatever the favorite descriptor is for the other side. We may end up in the same place but my process has sought to be "for" Christ and to uphold my vows made at ordination - amongst which was the vow to "be ready with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word." In the mind of some in this thread this may make me a "bigot" or neo-Puritan. On my part this is the passion to be loyal to the Scriptures and the teaching of the Church which compels taking a stand. To follow the new teaching, new religion is a betrayal of these vows.

I find great strength in the support of those in the Global South who are willing to stand with us in resisting the innovations of ECUSA. I still deplore the polarization that results in the situation that began this thread.

We may never be able to heal the present divisions in my lifetime. I see a formal split as inevitable as it is indeed here in practice. Future generations may be able to heal the divisions as they will not have been so hurt and beaten up as we have in this unhappy time. Both sides have suffered. There is an uncommon lack of charity. Having said that I find myself echoing Martin Luther: - "Here I stand etc..." Alternatively I hear the challenge of Joshua to "choose this day whom you will serve." Since I believe that a "divorce" is now inevitable (could a miracle happen at GC 2006?) can we not do it with some charity rather than with suits and name calling?

I have the occasional privilege of working with the Province of Kenya. It is humbling to sit at the feet of these wonderful Christian people and their Godly leaders. ( BTW the people in the pews are strongly and vocally in opposition to the ECUSA innovations). I would invite others to do then same rather than dismissing them. Such relationships would do much to lower the acrimony of the debate and so let us better communicate in spite of our very real differences.

I am still not sure that we "mzungu" should be bishops in Africa!

Ian,

I wonder if it is all as dire as some would say. I think most people and churches are more focused on doing the Master's work of spreading the News. Naturally there are some who feel they cannot do so until they have some kind of "purity."

I trust the Lord to help us sort it all out and I think we will.

I don't understand Goran's comments. No scholar interprets on the basis of any translation: they interpret on the basis of the Greek text.

"JCF, To share in Communion requires sharing in Faith as a prerequisite."

Alan: I would agree . . . to the extent that "Faith" is understood as *trust in the God* who calls us all to the Table.

"If the meaning of the Christian faith is so broadened as to be meaningless, then there can be no Communion."

Are you saying *my Christian faith* is meaningless? (Please tell me I'm misunderstanding you :-( )

"You may not think you have broken Communion, but the effect of changing what used to be held and believed in common, so that your church no longer shares the same faith, is precisely to walk away from Communion, which among other things is a sign of unity among believers."

I'm afraid you are, once again Alan, stating as fact *issues in dispute*. I deny that ECUSA is "changing what used to be held and believed in common" (as there never was any "common" belief regarding persons in committed same-sex relationships in the first place).

I'll state the obvious: we're all in a very *uncomfortable place*---trying to forge a common belief (in a very contentious time, w/ technology which tends to accelerate divisiveness) about something which the Church has never had to face until very recently (although this situation---the Church confronts 'the new'---is one it has dealt with, comparatively successfully, any number of times the past 2000 years. Why not now, I wonder?). Until some kind of consensus is reached (in the same way "Gentiles need not be circumcised" or "One God in Three Persons" were agreed to), then this discomfort will continue, I'm afraid...

... but I'm still not going anywhere, Alan. I was baptized Anglican, and Anglican I shall remain. I sincerely hope and pray that the majority of Anglicans, world-wide, will do likewise! :-)

[*NB to Ian M.: the language of attributed "agenda" is just spin. My agenda---as is that of my Church, ECUSA---is the Kingdom of God that Christ preached, feeds, died/rose for, and rules: nothing more and nothing less.]

Mike -

I'm not sure you've answered my question. Assuming that it is not possible to reconcile our differences how do we split with good grace?

If it on the basis of affirming the historic creeds and a traditional interpretation of scripture.

Schism in a time of crisis as we are now in can lead surely to new spiritual life - look at the Reformation, Methodism etc.

Isn't it time to divide? There could always be a re-marriage at some point in the future, but for now we're heading in totally opposite directions.

Would it not make sense for you to form a new domination rather than force Conservative Catholic, Evangelical and Traditionalists out of the CoE?

I believe that Anglicanism can accommodate a wide spectrum of traditions/understandings, but there is a limit to its breadth.

If you chose to stay it will ultimately be a hollow victory because those that end up staying with you will be totally likeminded.

So how about forming a new domination and being free from the constraints of Anglicanism which you wish to change?

With the best will in the world, that does look like the best way of taking the heat out of the crisis. You can then get on with living out your Christian life - people may be won over.

I wish you well.

Dear RMF,

The issue is not really one of purity, though that is an important facet. The issue is one of salvation. To be saved involves repentance of sin followed by amendment of life in the power of the Holy Spirit. To abolish a category of sin, or to simply excuse it is both hubris and sub-Christian. I liked ++Rowan's emphasis earlier this year that we are all sinners. Ergo we all are in need of redemption and sanctification.

I am repeating others more wise than I, but let me repeat a key issue. Salvation is through the Atonement, not through affirmation and blessing. The ECUSA has in many ways reflected a move away from atonement and forgiveness and focused on affirmation and blessing. When the amazing innovations of Spong et al., went unchallenged, and indeed were often incorporated into day to day Church philosophy then the core values of the Church - its Christian core - moved to a different place. Hegelian centrism moved the center of the Church away from its core beliefs.

The interesting move to restore core doctrinal standards in the Communion is a reflection of this need to have core doctrines rather than simply a BCP that reflects our beliefs. Again several people, wiser than me, have suggested that prayer book revision has facilitated this move in some cases to the extent that what used to be commonly held core doctrines are less evident. The best example of this is the status of the XXXIX Articles. These have different status in different provinces. I should add that I was required to assent to these and so can be seen as coming from an older generation.

The future unity of the Communion is clearly likely to reflect the need for common doctrinal beliefs and not simply a historical tie to Canterbury. It used of course to require both and no one questioned the doctrinal core beliefs until the trigger of the issues surrounding sexuality. This, IMHO, was a fissure that had developed some time ago doctrinally but which had not become evident.

So we are back to the question of purity. I have recently read somje of the emails that have been made public re Malawi. They clearly reflect issues of purity and guilt by association. I want to suggest that this is a sad consequence of the polarization. "Purity" is not the cause, any more than VGR is the cause of the impaired communion and breakdown of the bonds of affection. This has become a conflict between different religions. This is a salvation issue.

Counterlight:

Your argument proves too much. By your reasoning, the protestant reformation must fall, as must every revolutionary movement, anti-colonial movement, etc. Sometimes struggle is necessary. Sometimes separation is necessary.

This is not to say that you are incorrect in expressing your regrets and in predicting further schisms. I foresee the same difficulty--resisting the impulse to keep dividing once the initial division is made. Thus, for this reason as well as for grief in seeing the Body of Christ subdivided yet again, I would not encourage the sad necessity of separation if I did not think it was absolutely necessary.

Steven

JC:

You say--"I deny that ECUSA is "changing what used to be held and believed in common" (as there never was any "common" belief regarding persons in committed same-sex relationships in the first place)."

Sorry JC, this is an absurdity. Sodomy has always been sodomy. If you had asked anyone (Christian or Jew, theologian or layman) 100, 500, 1000, etc. years ago what they believed about such "committed same-sex relationships" they would have said the same thing--sin, perversion and sodomy. You may argue that they were unenlightened and wrong. However, the modern attempt to carve out an exception of the type you outline is just that--a modern attempt to carve out an exception. It is a definite change in what has always been held and believed by the Church, despite the attempts by its purveyors to present it as something else.

So, feel free to argue that it is not sin and sodomy all you want. Some are certainly convinced by such arguments. Maybe you will succeed. But, to argue that the Church never had any common belief about such things is ludicrous.

Steven

Martinluther ; I don't think that either 'side' should be forced out, as I have explained many times.

If there is a separation, it should be just that - an agreement to divide, not one 'side' or another 'leaving', but the creation of two different bodies, both of which will no doubt use the term Anglican.

May I remind Steven, that the word "sodomia" was coined around 1050 by Saint Peter Damian, when talking of (hetero)sexual abstinence and mandatory celibacy for priests and monks.

Which is concupiscientia, the 3rd of the 7 Lethal Sins - in short Luxuria.

Only later (around 1200) was the word "sodomia" understood as referring (mainly) to Ganymedes, the then Parisian male homosexual underground.

The placing of "sodomia" in the Story of Sodom (Genesis 19:5) was made by Dr Johannes Calvinus in the 16th century, by way of his hilarious misrepresentation "to know in the Biblical sense".

There isn't one. Gnwmen; "to know", means to know and sungenwmetha autois means; to say hello to them. Clothes on.

Only the aorist imperfect egnw- m a y be an euphemism for sexual activities, and then - apparently - only "heterosexual" ones.

Which, whenever, is - of course - inferred by the context, said context occuring 9 times in the OT and 1 in the NT.

Goran:

Yawn. Your scholarly discourse on the meaning of words proves nothing and avoids the point of my post, which you are evidently unable to dispute. It mattereth not what terminology was used for the sin involved--it was still considered sin.

Steven

Merseymike:

I agree. Everybody should seek to be even-handed and do this thing neatly and fairly--no "forcing out" of the opposition. And, both sides will probably still use the term "Anglican" to describe themselves even though they may dispute the use of the term "Anglican" by the other. However, the overall goal should be a process that is done in a way that allows outsiders to say "see how they love each other" even in dispute and separation. It's gonna be a strain for all involved, but we owe this much at least to the reputation of Christ and Christianity (even if for no other reason).

Steven

Steven,

The point being?

Ah, Eternal Truths as per Gnosticism.

Well, then we are in too lofty regions for me ;=)

Thanks for the Irenic move to discussion of division rather than leaving. There is a divorce on the horizon - if it is not in fact already happening. Charity has so far been lacking because so much seems to focus on control of property and blame casting about who is hurting whom. We are all hurt, bruised and unlikely ever to agree on the "issue."

The reconciliation meeting this last week seems to have found some way forward. I was part of one of these some time ago in Indiana. It was good to be able to continue the relationships even though clearly divided, to be willing to part company acknowledging that there was massive hurt (for which we were repentant,) better to go separate ways as doctrinally and ecclesially there was no way to move on together.

Ian/Mike

I think there is a change of mood. All the arguments on both sides have been rehearsed and have been gone through countless times. Listening to one another - yes. Keeping channels of communication open - yes. Both I think that there are two very different brands of Christianity being offered to those without Christ.

It's all very well Mike saying that the answer is two new English Anglican denominations with the old CoE being closed down, but I see no sign whatsoever of that happening.

The reality is that one brand will take over and the other will leave to form a new domination. Which way will it go? I honestly don't know.

Perhaps the fairest way is as Mike says for there to be two completely new denominations and then churches vote on which demoninaton they wish to be part of.

At present we seem to be in the end game of a long potentially bitter divorce.

May God give us great wisdom.