Simon writes:
"Footnote: the Church of England Newspaper has published this report, written earlier in the week, which most oddly refers to the bishop repeatedly as Mr Gladwin."

Hmm, and it does the same to "Mr Harries". I've seen this done before, even to Roman Catholic bishops, in the secular press. I also remember one of the RC papers referring many years ago to "Mr Runcie", presumably wishing to adhere loyally to the teaching of Pope Leo XIII.

But then, now that Lambeth doctorates are gone, how should the CEN refer to prelates who don't have a real doctorate? "Father" must be out on churchmanship grounds, and old-fashioned souls may reject "Bishop Surname" as a nasty transatlantic neologism. (Conversely, I got in terrible trouble on a largely American forum where I referred, perfectly politely as I believed, to "Dr Spong".)

What rattles my cage, in the light of the Church Times' Catholic history, is its habit of referring to priests that it knows are addressed as "Father" as "Mr", even when, as in the case of Dr Kirk, an alternative acceptable title is available which would allow them to avoid the F-word.

"Mr" is quite correct in respect of Bishop Gladwin. He has not been awarded an earned doctorate. And bishops have not been awarded Lambeth DDs upon appointment since at least the time of Geoffrey Fisher.

Honorary doctorates, which are proliferating in some quarters, do not entitle the recipient to the title of Doctor, but are nevertheless widely abused.

No names.

"the resolution of the 1998 Lambeth Conference that pledged the Church to strictly biblical, conservative stance."

Ah, the Infamous Gledhill Spin!

Which is more execrable?

That she spins an *advisory resolution* (like ALL of them at Lambeth) as "pledging the Church"?

Or that she spins Lambeth 1.10's (truly) conservative hate-mongering, as "strictly biblical"?

[It's a close call, but I'll go w/ the second as the WORSE of the two. >:-/]

As evidenced above, makes perfect sense that +Chelmsford blames "the Father of Lies" . . .

May I reiterate (and add to) my questions, which clearly belong here rather than in the previous thread?

I see from the report of John Gladwin's news conference that he clearly implies he doesn't agree with the views of Changing Attitude: "I was not asked to endorse the views of Changing Attitude when I became a patron."

(http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2006/06/gladwin_i_blame.html)

Did Changing Attitude realize this when they accepted his Patronage? Do other patrons also take this position? Which of their patrons are in fact known to endorse the views of Changing Attitude?

I found the Fulcrum analysis piece quite helpful, especially this section:

"The basis for any such declarations of broken or impaired communion therefore appears to be the two-fold belief that:

1. the bishop does not personally believe I.10 is true and
2. the bishop is supporting the 'listening process' in such a way that he seeks to persuade the wider church that I.10 is not true.

If that is the basis then it needs to be clearly stated as such and a rationale given as to why declaring communion to be impaired or broken is a proportionate response to this situation. Clearly such a view extends the grounds for impairment way beyond that which has arisen in ECUSA and New Westminster and would, if applied, inevitably result in much more widespread problems in both the Communion and the Church of England."

In reading "T19" (which I do when I think my blood pressure is up to it) and some traditionalist posters here and elsewhere, I do get the impression that, in the minds of many in the "reasserter" camp, it is now unChristian to disagree with the assertions of Lambeth 1.10 or to advocate any re-examination of the issues, whether in light of the "listening process" or for any other reason. I am very uncomfortable with this.

Not so much because I myself disagree with the assertions of Lambeth 1.10 (although I do) as because I do not think this is a good or fruitful way for the church to carry out its discernment of God's will. If I have learned anything from studying either the history of patristic and mediaeval scriptural exegesis or the Bible itself, it is that the Spirit is always sending us back to re-examine our understanding of Scripture and doctrine. The doctrine around the incarnation and the two natures of Christ is a good example. Ostensibly settled after violent disagreements over the course of several church councils, the issues came alive again in the thirteenth century and exercised many theologian. Or the nature of the Eucharist, which was revisited again and again. And all sides on both of these issues thought their point of view was based on the clear -- and only accurate -- reading of Scripture.

We should never say that it is wrong to take another look at a Lambeth resolution. We need to remain open to the Spirit and to the needs of the world with which we have been entrusted.

I know that this is the issue most burning on all your hearts.

The style "Mr" is not at all odd. The first reference to John Gladwin is "the Bishop of Chelmsford". In the second his name is prefaced with "Rt Rev" and in future references he is styled "Mr". This is perfectly in keeping with the conventions for addressing deacons and priests. At no point does a clergyperson cease to be a Mr/Mrs/etc. unless of course they are a doctor or have some other title which takes precedence.

One could argue that strictly speaking those subsequent references to him should have been "the Bishop" or "Bishop Gladwin" but not to do so implies no slight whatsoever.

More information on such diverting and weighty matters can be found at http://www.crockford.org.uk/116

To quote Crockford on the specific point at issue:

"The Bishop of X at the first mention, and the Bishop thereafter. "

No suggestion that Mr is appropriate, and certainly it has not been customary.

Hey it is Friday, again :-)

Having grown up in the American Protestant tradition I was used to ministers simply being addressesed as or referred to as Reverend so-and-so. When I came to the Episcopal Church, I found the levels of "reverendness" confusing but yet strangly fitting in that the usage described a sacramental character of the person as an adjective applied in front of a name - The Reverend Mr. (or Dr. when appropriate) so-and-so. So it seems that if the person's job is what is at issue Crockford's recommendations makes sense. But if we are jsut talking about the person apart from the job, why would he not be the Right Reverend Mr. so-and-so the first time and then simpy Mr. so-and so?

;-P

The point was that the CEN does not follow Crockfords strictly but seems to be following the style for addressing 'ordinary' members of the clergy - who would not be slighted were they referred to merely as Mr/Mrs/whatever. Much better than the hideous "Reverend Smith". Hence they often cite Bishops as "the Rt Rev..." rather than "the bishop of..." which would be the correct Crockfords formula.

Last week John Gladwin held full episcopal status in the report though which further suggests inconsistency rather than rudeness is the determining factor (last week it adhered to Crockfords standards):

http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5821&title=Kenya%20Archbishop%20pulls%20the%20plug%20on%20Bishop%20Gladwins%20visit

Now I just feel too sad for words and will crawl back under my rock.

This sounds rather unconvincing.

If someone agrees to be a patron of an organisation, it is reasonable to assume that they share the basic aims although not necessarily all the detail of the organisation concerned

If John Gladwin isn't in sympathy with those aims, I think it not unreasonableto assume that he would not have agreed to become a patron

Having said that, I certainly know that Bishops may choose to make payments to organisations they may personally not be sympathetic to, because they feel that they contribute in a constructive manner to the debate

But I can't see that extending to agreeing to become their patron!

I think this statement issued after the last Lambeth Conference needs to be re-read in the context of what we are seeing here. For the 189 bishops who signed it see here http://www.lgcm.org.uk/archive/archive2.html
PASTORAL STATEMENT MADE AFTER THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE '98

Episcopal Sponsor of the Pastoral Statement is Rt Rev Ronald Haines(Washington)

Dear sisters and brothers,

The Lambeth Conference has spent nearly three weeks deliberating issues of human sexuality, among many other vital issues facing our worldwide Communion. We have met in a climate of enormous diversity and have attempted both to articulate our views and listen carefully to those of others.

Within the limitations of this Conference, it has not been possible to hear adequately your voices, and we apologize for any sense of rejection that has occurred because of this reality. This letter is a sign of our commitment to listen to you and reflect with you theologically and spiritually on your lives and ministries. It is our deep concern that you not feel abandoned by your Church and that you know of our continued respect and support.

We pledge that we will continue to reflect, pray, and work for your full inclusion in the life of the Church. It is obvious that Communion-wide we are in great disagreement over what full inclusion would mean. We ourselves have varied views and admit, as the report of the Human Sexuality Sub-section of the Conference says, that there is much we do not yet understand. But we believe it is an imperative of the Gospel and our faith that we seek such understanding.

We call on the entire Communion to continue (and in many places, begin) prayerful, respectful conversation on the issue of homosexuality. We must not stop where this Conference has left off. You, our sisters and brothers in Christ, deserve a more thorough hearing than you received over the past three weeks. We will work to make that so.

Mention has been made of Bishop Gladwin's role as preacher at an LGCM service 10 years ago in Southwark Cathedral which drew 2000 people.

There was opposition to this service at the time from the likes of the Christian Institute. It is interesting to read their own account of the happenings then from their own website:

"At every stage of the debate Archbishop Carey and the hierarchy in general, together with the Church of England press office, seemed to be legitimising the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and, if anything, opposing their critics. The final insult came on the evening of 24 November when Dr Carey addressed Great St Mary's Church, Cambridge. Mentioning the Southwark debacle as an aside, he referred to "bullying, loud mouthed controversialists" who "make a mockery of our own faith". While he talked of "pressure groups on both sides" (7), it seemed clear to all his listeners that he had aimed his comments directly at opponents to the service. Replies are no doubt winging their way to Lambeth Palace as this article goes to print."
http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/southw.htm
Just when did these "bullying, loud mouthed contraversialist" who "make a mockery of our own faith" become "Mainstream" Anglicans?

I recall attending a meeting - 10 years ago - of Bishop Penny Jamieson (the first woman diocesan bishop) to the Diocese of Sydney - then a pale shadow of its current manifestation.

Those in favour of women priests addressed Penny as Bishop Jamieson.

Those against addressed her as "Dr Jamieson" - they could not accept her ordination but were willing to accept her education!

Dear Martin, As I remember it, the original 98 1:10 was drawn up by a small sidestream of bishops to be an 'inclusivity' resolution, until the mainstream of bishops were able to have a say and made changes to get it back onto a more Scriptural/Traditional basis.

The subsequent minority statement by some bishops does not override the main resolution; which is as "authoritative" for the Anglican Communion as anything can be in the hierarchical machinery. I think, though, that it's main purpose was clearly not to reassure "LGBT" people that they were loved by God and the church (already in 98 1:10) but to reassert the liberal idea of "full inclusion" (ie same-sex sex is ok).

Perhaps just as pointedly, Martin, when did Dr Carey decide throw in his mitre w/ "pressure groups from" *one* "side"? ;-/

*****

"If someone agrees to be a patron of an organisation, it is reasonable to assume that they share the basic aims although not necessarily all the detail of the organisation concerned"

MM, while I indeed hope that +Chelmsford DOES "share the basic aims" of Changing Attitude, I still assert that, if one views the "patron" role in a *pastoral* light, such agreement would not necessarily be required (but that he not act to impede their basic aims, either)

I can assure everyone here that the CEN never uses the term 'Mr' to refer to bishops. Having been on a week's holiday (and in any case being freelance and less in contact with the daily grind at the newspaper office) I am not aware of any change of the stylesheet. I can only assume that this should be technically referred to as an 'almighty cock-up'.

Has the CEN become the Grauniad of religious titles? I'll get back to you when the office is open on Monday am.

Yours,
Andrew

Dave
Your recollection of Lambeth 98 is remarkably inaccurate. I was actually present, and reported this matter at the time, see
http://justus.anglican.org/newsarchive/lambeth98/sjn14.html
which shows how the text of the resolution was built up from the original proposal. That proposal came from the subsection which had been studying the matter for weeks. A list of the subsection membership, which I cannot put my hand on this moment, would show that it was not a small group.

See also
http://justus.anglican.org/newsarchive/lambeth98/sjn12.html
http://justus.anglican.org/newsarchive/lambeth98/sjn15.html

I think the great dilemma we tend to have nowadays is caught nicely by the ambiguities of Dave's comment, i.e., "The subsequent minority statement by some bishops does not override the main resolution; which is as "authoritative" for the Anglican Communion as anything can be in the hierarchical machinery." One can read this sentence as consistent with the notion that no Lambeth or any other Anglican Communion statement is authoritative beyond its constituencies and its generative contexts and its reception among other believers (if there is any). Different provinces have quite different institutional machineries for making their own authoritative statements, and even then, leeway often leaves provincial room for a minority view or two to continue to exist. Thus formal agreement does not contain/define our Anglican bonds of affection.

Or.

One may read this sentence from something like the preferred conservative frame, suggesting if anything that Lambeth and other Anglican statements which ought to be taken as final authorities (since they are scriptural, when they are scriptural), but of course historic Anglican leeway often gets right in the way of the desirable uniformity and obedience. Thus formal agreement does define what it means to be related in bonds of affection, for affection is based in confessional/doctrinal/cultic uniformities (which are themselves obedience to a complete and final reading of scripture or Apostolic witness).

Ah, leeway. Ah, obedience. Ah, Anglican authority.

For some reasons, an unrelated family story comes to mind. We long ago stopped counting on my father's authority to settle everything, and in some ways that freed up even more room to love him as Dad. He groused. He fussed. He had long been paterfamilias in a more traditionalistic sense. But in the end I think he enjoyed being freed from the isolation and higher realms of paternal authority that his traditional roles had mostly involved. As his children matured, he could become even more of a person himself. What we lost, then, if anything - through the diminishing of his paternal authority, was more than exceeded by what we gained as his fuller personhood and lifelong pilgrimage came into more conscious play in our family life. I guess though this family story is topically unrelated, it reveals more or less what I wish the Anglican Communion could embody in reflection of old fashioned Anglicanism as PEP (Pittsburgh) talks about it. Maybe even something of the extended-family-like differentiations of lay, priests, bishops, archbishops, and so forth. Alas. Perhaps those leeway days are quickly fading as Realignment presses on. We shall hardly have any lack of candidates for paterfamilias, and paterfamilias-in-training, and paterfamlias-wannabes, and on its goes.

Ah, pilgrimage. Ah, Exodus. Ah, resurrection and following Jesus as Risen Lord. I hope, paradoxically, that ECUSA will be able to reach out to the rest of the communion and stay true to its provincial life and best conscience, all at the same time. Not that the paradox would satisfy the realignment campaign; but a clear witness needs to be made in any case. The measure of bewilderment (anguish? outrage?) about what in the world a CoE bishop could be thinking, as a patron of Changing Attitude, reflects the bewilderment of discovering that LGBTQ people are alive and well and thriving as such, among us. Whatever that particular CoE bishop believes, we might all be better if more bishops knew more LGBTQ people, face to face to face to face. Ditto, for all the other orders of the baptized. Maybe.

Dear drdanfee, the trouble is that if you want to be in communion then you have to either agree on all important matters, or be able to agree to disagree. As +Chelmsford and ++Nairobi have found, same-sex sex is not an area where either form of agreement is possible.

Dear Simon, thanks for the links. The reports I read differ from your recollections, but some of it might be an issue of perspective. I don't know who were in the group working on the Human Sexuality theme either, but I do note that ++Ndungane drafted the original reflections and proposed a "third way" (otherwise known as opening a back door) on issues like cohabitation, same-sex partnerships and divorce. And that Kenya was one of the protagonists to roll back to a more conservative resolution.

The original resolution *was* pretty much based on the third way approach. To demonstrate what I mean I've reconstructed the original below:

a) commends to the Church the subsection report on human sexuality;

b) in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that *chastity* is right for those who are not called to marriage.

c) recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;

d) calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn homophobia, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex;

e) cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same-sex unions, nor the ordination of those involved in such unions;

f) requests the Primates and the ACC to establish a means of monitoring the work done on the subject of human sexuality in the Communion and to share statements and resources among us.

The liberal fudge (third way) is created because *chastity* could mean sexual faithfulness, clause C could be read as encouraging churches to help homosexuals develop mon-married forms of sexual partnership, and "homophobia" could be read to mean any resistance to "full inclusion"... I would hate to have such a resolution hanging over my conservative head, and I'm not surprised that liberal Bishops reacted so agressively to this being *defeated* !

Dave

Those reports are not "recollections". They were written at the time of the conference, which I attended. You can read the entire set of my reports from this link:
http://justus.anglican.org/newsarchive/lambeth98/

The original resolution is right there, you don't have to reconstruct it.

Dear Simon, Sorry I meant that the analysis of the events in other reports differed from what I took to be your analysis - that the initial proposal came about from an open forum.

I think that your original reports show how various "perceptions" of what happened at Lambeth '98 were possible, depending on your position on homosexuality and your expectations in terms of who sets the agenda in the Communion. I certainly think that it clearly highlights the forces and issues that were at play then... the same ones that are still working themselves out today (even in the events surrounding +Gladwin and ++Nzimbi in the Changing Attitudes / Kenya affair).

Those reports from Lambeth '98 should be compulsory reading for all TA's !

So what is the remaining option(s) - if any - if both agreeing to agree, and agreeing to disagree are simply not possible as forms of ethical and faithful communion among believers? And is this dilemma the reason why Gladwin and Nazimbi are no longer communing on one planet in the same Anglican Communion?

It has been observed that 'a text without a context is a pretext.'

So, as the context of Lambeth 1.10 has been raised, here's what Professor David Ford of Cambridge University, who was at Lambeth, says about it. It's a quote from his March 2005 lecture 'Reading Scriture with Intensity' available at http://www.ptsem.edu/Publications/psb/VXXVIn1/v26n1p22.htm

[QUOTE FROM LECTURE BEGINS] "I was part of a group that organized the opening and closing plenary sessions with a focus on the Bible through drama, video, discussion, and addresses. This later led into my participation, as leader of the Bible studies and theological adviser, in four annual meetings, between 2000 and 2003, of the Archbishops and Presiding Bishops of the Anglican Communion, called Primates' Meetings.

As is well known, during all this time the Communion was engaged in vigorous argument, especially over issues relating to homosexuality; and these in turn were inseparable from deep differences over the interpretation of scripture. This has been one of the most public and long-running disputes in our time over how to read scripture together. I need not remind you that this is not just an Anglican problem: the issues here resonate around the world in many Christian churches and in other religious and non-religious communities. So although I am selecting the tradition that I know best, there are analogous tensions in other churches and traditions.

Within the Anglican Communion, the culmination of the most recent phase was the publication of the Windsor Report by the Lambeth Commission on Communion set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which is now in the process of reception and was discussed last month by the Primates' Meeting. [SEE FOOTNOTE 4 IN THE LECTURE]

What is to be learned regarding reading scripture together from this Anglican experience between Lambeth 1998 and this year? One encouraging result is that it shows it can be done fruitfully; the discouraging thing is how easily this achievement can, at least in the short term, be undermined, ignored, or undone, especially through the activities of well-financed and well-organized interest groups skilled in dealing with the media. The 1998 Lambeth Conference sub-group that spent over two weeks considering human sexuality was made up of over fifty bishops, ranging from Bishop Jack Spong to conservative Nigerians. They began extremely polarized but ended by agreeing on a common statement that was no empty compromise.

[LECTURE FOOTNOTE 5 ADDED]: The ingredients, as observed by a member of the plenary group that I was part of, Dr. Tim Jenkins, a social anthropologist, included shared worship, small group Bible study, thorough preparation by resource people, a commitment to respectful conversation, a really able secretariat of three bishops (who produced a draft proposal each day, circulated it, registered and coped with criticisms and disagreements, and redrafted it overnight), all enabling a process of coming to a common mind. This process was one in which no one was expected to give up a convinced position (especially on the way scripture was to be understood) and so bishops had to allow a certain discretion and integrity to each other, while at the same time they took into account and took responsibility for the effects of their own position on other participants and dioceses, offering to each other an imaginative understanding and compassion. [FOOTNOTE 5 ENDS]

Yet this sub-group report was brushed aside by the highly politicized plenary session that discussed sexuality. In successive Primates' Meetings something similar happened. In each one that I attended, a common life interweaving worship, the study of scripture, serious listening to each other in a spirit of mutual accountability, the sharing of issues from each province, and engaging with a wide range of demanding questions, from canon law and theological education to HIV/AIDS and world poverty, led to unanimous joint statements. Yet surrounding each meeting, and sometimes penetrating the meeting places, were the dedicated lobbyists pressing hard for quick, decisive, and inevitably divisive solutions according to their own clear criteria. And in between meetings the political pressures were sustained, encouraged by some of the Primates, often exerted through the mass media, but also through creating single-issue solidarity across continents.

But it is worth trying to name the sort of scriptural interpretation that went on in that sub-group at Lambeth, in the Primates' Meetings at their best, and probably (though here I do not speak as an eyewitness) in the Commission that produced the Windsor Report. How might we describe this interpretation?" [LECTURE QUOTE ENDS]

The entire lecture at http://www.ptsem.edu/Publications/psb/VXXVIn1/v26n1p22.htm is very well worth reading, as it raises many fruitful points - not just about the gay issue! - for pondering.

drdanfee writes: "So what is the remaining option(s) - if any - if both agreeing to agree, and agreeing to disagree are simply not possible as forms of ethical and faithful communion among believers?"

The important question is: "believers" in what?
Thirty-nine articles? The Bible? An historic institution? Something called "unity" based on a desire not to see very different groups go their own way?

There are Anglican articles and resolutions but even people in leadership positions seem to pick 'n' mix what they want to believe, despite their vows etc.....and that is before we come to the Bible.

There is a great deal of unity in the Anglican church between “believers” in the Bible (in the “Global South” and “the West.” – it is not just Africans!) There is also unity between “liberals” across the world who are “believers” in accepting lots of different views and authorities for those views. The problem is that the Anglican church also has too many “believers” in nothing more than “Anglican fudge” in trying to keep these very different “religions” together.

“Believers” in the Bible and Anglican articles and resolutions etc are wrongly accused of being focused on a particular moral issue when they are in fact, concerned about something much more important: retaining /re-instating the authority of the Bible in the Anglican church. Sadly, a particular group has been the focus of too much attention as a result of the battle between “liberals” and “conservatives” coming to a head – but then, who has been using that group as a pawn?

The real issue is that nobody can give a clear answer to the question: what do Anglican "believers" believe? “Believers” in the Bible and Anglican articles and resolutions have a clear answer….

Nersen--I think the simple answer here is: Jesus. That's who Anglican "belivers" of all parties believe in. Unfortunately, as the Gospels record Jesus tended to deal with clear answers in unconventional ways--even when they were Scripture to begin with.

Turning faith in, obedience to, and worship of God into a laundry list is precisely one of the things that seemed to annoy him most...

Thanks NP for clarifying from your point of view.

I take it then that: (1) Two legs of the historical 3-legged Anglican stool must be lopped off in favor of what sounds like Sola Scriptura? (2) An essential function of all good Christian conscience and effective discernment must serve to absolutely and vigorously condemn anybody who is not already conformed to its standards? (3) Other target groups are soon to come in for just the same/similar (poor) treatment as objects of defamation and controversy as LGBTQ folks so recently have among us? Who? Women? World religion believers? Non-believers? Scientists? (4) If a believer does not pledge to a simple, absolute, final, and conformed singular source of Christian authority, then that believing is just NOT? This seems to me to be just another way of asserting that there is one clear and simple way to read and understand everything important, and that if we cannot find it and pledge to it, then that authority must be false or unimportant after all.

I had sometimes thought that these were implicit points of the Realignment Campaign, but it is good to read them put so succinctly.

The major underlying issue I discern, provisionally, in all of your clarifications is the typical Either/Or issue that I hear so often from people who call themselves conservative or Realignment or evangelical or traditional or orthodox or biblical believers. That is, all of these important issues are framed in terms of a pressing dilemma: There is the conformed conservative etc. way (which is the only right way), and then there are all the other ways (which are acknowledged to be so different as to imperil discernments of their unity at the same time that they are perceived as totally unified in one regard, i.e., they are all wrong.).

Ah. I don’t think any of these important issues - of good conscience, effective Christian discernment, Jesus and other communities of faith, and being able to pledge honest allegiance to our best receptions of our Jesus and other religious authorities – are anything like as Either/Or, Black/White, Good/Bad, True/Untrue as your views define them. In this way, the rush to define things inside over-simplified Either/Or frames, of which only one side or one choice is at all viable because it alone is tagged, biblical – well, my goodness, this habit of thinking so deeply mistakes so much that frankly I am deeply worried. Deeply.

This all comes so very near to bearing false witness against all the believing neighbors that I advise all of us to exercise very great caution, indeed. How can it be that so many alternative believers – that simply everybody who is not just like NP? – has NO believing that counts for anything among us? This claim is so great and so astounding. So final. So absolute. So obviously just in favor of NP as the sole example of real believing. I cannot yet agree that it really defines all the many global neighbors to which it must apply if is the best truth we can manage for now. I cannot yet agree that Jesus leads me to just such an absolute, categorical conclusion. Nor can I agree that these habits of mind are the essence of being a biblical Christian. Nor can I agree that this habit of biblicized over-simplifications is the royal road to thinking about all these many neighbors.

Ah, no thanks, then. Alas. Lord have mercy.

Derek -
what does believing in Jesus mean? The devil “believes in Jesus” because he knows what happened – as James tells us. Jesus Christ himself was not, from his words and actions, an “anything goes” kind of man or God. Faith and actions have to go together to be credible to God – his view (before you say it is mine, see John 14 or James.)

drdanfee –
please read what I said because I referred to belief in the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Bible and not me or my beliefs. I am certainly not the standard for anyone! Quite convinced I am sinner with lots to learn but also convinced that this new religion which ignores the Bible when it is inconvenient and says something like “it is fine to believe and do what you like because God accepts everything as long as others are not harmed“ is man-made, not very attractive to people outside who vote with their feet and, worst of all, is nothing like the words of Christ – so lacks God’s grace and power for salvation.

For all your protests, why is it that the liberal secular media, gives so much more respect to popes and the RC church, with its very unpopular views on certain matters, than the Anglican church - which is, more often than not, just the butt of jokes? The answer is that people are not stupid and in the real world, have no respect for fudge and they can see decades of decline. They realise something is wrong even if many inside the CofE do not open their eyes.

The conflict in the CofE is caused because there have been decades of people put into leadership positions who have been making up their own religion. That is why nobody knows what "Anglicans" believe. That is why so many “liberal” churches are emptying even though they are supposed to be inclusive and attractive – they have no clear message. We cannot even say “Anglicans” believe their own Thirty-Nine Articles, can we?

We cannot even say what an "Anglican" is with any clarity - Griswold or Jensen? Surely not both - please, let's be serious, they are very different and one of them is right and the other wrong because they disagree on fundamentally on the authority of the Bible.

I never understand why a hundred years ago, “liberals” did not set up their own church with "liberal" articles which all agree……it would save a lot of fingers being crossed during ordination services, would it not? Maybe Mr Griswold will be willing to lead such a church soon. I would have more respect for such a "liberal" church than I do for the Anglican fudge-making tradition which just puts off those outside and has little integrity.

"I never understand why a hundred years ago, “liberals” did not set up their own church with "liberal" articles which all agree……"

And I can't understand why you, NP, who evidently share "more respect to popes and the RC church" don't just go *there*.

What you diss as a new "liberal religion" is nothing more nor less than *Anglicanism*, as has been formed and nurtured since Hooker (if not Good Queen Bess!).

Of course, the RCs saw Anglicanism as "new religion" then, too. So again I ask, NP: why don't you join them? You'll then get some of that "liberal secular media respect" (that you crave?), too! ;-/

What is clear is that the two 'sides' will never be able to agree, and the sheer venom between them is increasing.

Although I do not think I have agreed with a word NP has contributed, he is right on one level - there needs to be two separate churches.

There must be a limit to how long this unpleasantness can continue.

JCF,
I am glad that Blair, Brown, Kinnock and Healey did not leave the Labour party when it was being hijacked by "Militant", a parasite destroying the party from the inside, even though they were a group with different aims and beliefs to the core Labour party. Rowan Williams might turn out to be like Neil Kinnock in the Labour party - the man who came from "the left" but had to cut out a small, extreme "left" group that was destroying the party, pursuing its own agenda.

It seems to me that "Anglicanism" is going back to its Biblical roots. It has flirted with "liberalism" but seen the rapidly emptying churches which it cannot afford to keep on subsidising for long while at the same time, even in England, unsophisticated (even "African") beliefs have continued to produce strong growing churches and new Christians - God is clearly growing some churches and letting others die.

Read the 39 articles, read the prayer book, look at what the ABC is doing in restraining Anglicanism's "Militant tendency" and you will understand why I do not leave.

Merseymike, sorry to you and everyone else if you have felt anything I have written contains "venom."

It is not my intention to hurt anyone even if we are engaging in frank exchanges. It is good to say what we think but on the basis that none of us are taking things as venomous, personal attacks.

I have enjoyed getting robust responses from drdanfee and JCF. The interaction is good and appreciated.

NP

Merseymike, sorry to you and everyone else if you have felt anything I have written contains "venom."

It is not my intention to hurt anyone even if we are engaging in frank exchanges. It is good to say what we think but on the basis that none of us are taking things as venomous, personal attacks.

I have enjoyed getting robust responses from drdanfee and JCF. The interaction is good and appreciated.

NP

But I hardly think that liberals could be equated with the Militant tendency!

For a start, liberals have been within the Anglican church since the beginning of the development of liberal theology. They continue to provide a significant part of the leadership of the Church

This could hardly be said about Militant within Labour.

Who do you define as the 'small, extreme left' group? The sort of people who run this board? Anyone who happens to be gay or lesbian or those who support them?

And I see anything but a wish to expel liberals within the Church - surely Rowan Williams desperately wants to keep all on board?

As for the 39 Articles and the Prayer Book, useful historical relics but thats about it.

I do agree that there does need to be a divide but I don't actually see much evidence of this being approached with any speed or enthusiasm - in my view, this is an opportunity missed. We need to move on from Christian traditions to look towards a broader and more expolratory spirituality and this requires a situation where conservatism can continue to exist for the small minority of the population who want that sort of certainty, but not drag down those of us who have moved on a long time ago.

Merseymike

We seem to agree that pretending we are all singing from the same hymnsheet is pointless and damaging to all involved. There would be more integrity in walking apart because you consider The 39 Articles to be a “relic” I consider them to be based on living, Biblical truth.

Who do I think the “liberals” are? The term is not perfect, I know. Well, those who think the The 39 Articles etc be a “relic” probably are “liberals”, in my view. I do not define “liberal” by reference to any moral issue but on the attitude to the authority of the Bible. When the Bible says something and we are clear on how it was intended to be understood and how it was accepted, someone who says that it actually means the opposite is a “liberal” in my view. Typically, “liberals” are people who claim to be Christians but sometimes agree more with The Guardian and contradict what the Bible says – thinking it to be just an ancient book, past its sell-by-date.

You say: "We need to move on from Christian traditions to look towards a broader and more expolratory spirituality and this requires a situation where conservatism can continue to exist for the small minority of the population who want that sort of certainty, but not drag down those of us who have moved on a long time ago."

- So, why are the "conservative" , “charismatic”, “evangelical” churches in England strong and growing, funding themselves and sustaining the centre?
- Yes, the "conservative" position is certainly a minority when you talk about the population as a whole but not many of them are flocking to "liberal" churches, are they?
- Looking at Anglicans, even in the Church of England, the "liberal" position is the minority and not growing or able to sustain itself now or long-term - why?
- Sure, “liberals” have a disproportionate presence in the hierarchy but that is church politics for you.….

I am sure you are right that the ABC wants to keep everyone together... but we have agreed that it is not helping anyone to do so - let alone the clear proclamation of the gospel.

The ABC may find that there is a "liberal" dominated church in the West which expels itself. To be honest, I would respect ECUSA for "walking apart" if it wants to carry on with what it thinks is right and lets its orthodox members make their own arrangements without persecuting them. As a reciprocal arrangement, others who want agree with Griswold et al can join them. Let's have a realignment and have some genuine unity. We can all live in peace and get on with our lives without all the politics.

There are many people outide the organised church who are interested in spirtuality, Nersen- I think the place of the church should be to imaginatively and creatively develop those opportunities in all sorts of ways - moving past orthodox Christianity. I think many have adopted that position. I certainly have and am pleased to be called a liberal in your terms. The conservative church will always attract a small number of people, but in reality it isn't 'growing'. Numbers aren't even being sustained and if you removed immigrants to the Londonn area the picture would be even more depressing. Just because 'liberal churches' are doing worse still isn't a sign of growth or the appeal of copnservatism. personally, I think religious liberals will find little use for 'church' as we now know it in years to come.

I have been calling for a split/realignment for a long while. But I think it will only happen if both sides try and avoid triumphalism and agree to walk apart with some decorum. Unfortunately, that isn't the case at present.