I'm not sure why the comparison with divorce is being made. 'Divorce' is a swearword and not to be uttered if one can help it. In no sense would the main two 'sides' (to put it crudely) have ever chosen to marry one another in the first place. The situation is more akin to waking up, finding there is an intruder in the house, and making sure that the intruder leaves the house.

Colin Slee mentions 'true scholarship', which happnes to conclude, he says, in line with his own preferred ideology.

What does he mean by 'true'; and how come no such 'true' scholarship has emanated from any recognised NT scholars?

I don't see how the Archbishop's thoughtful survey of the problems could be called the work of a humanist mole. It holds more reproach to Akinola than to Robinson. And it compares the ECUSA rather than the conservatives with prophetic martyrs ready to take risks -- but warning them to "count the cost". This is what I posted in Brown's combox: On annual visits to Oxford I still hear the Archbishop spoken of very warmly by his gay or at least gay-friendly friends; though some clerical ones express unease about how his stance may be evolving in a conservative direction. He may have alienated Peter Tatchell etc., but I think most people would say that his stance is not at all anti-gay, but simply expresses patience with the vast majority of Anglicans who are not yet ready for openly gay bishops etc. The point is that there is grave tension between two causes, both of which might be considered sacred: the advancement of glbt people within the churches and the unity of Anglicanism (and of Christianity -- there is an ecumenical dimension to this). An Archbishop can hardly decide to dump the latter cause for the former, especially when he is bound by consultation with other Anglican leaders. I just hope that the Anglican Communion remains a place of open discussion, such as we direly lack in the Roman Catholic Church. Only through infinite patience and forgiveness and a trust in rational argument and Spirit-led reading of Scripture can the truth about the disputed questions and the corresponding right practice come to the fore.

In his 'reflections' Dr Williams has yet to make clear why the issue of homosexuality should be THE issue that causes disruption. Is there a more 'biblically based' arguement against it that there is over the admission of women to Holy Orders? Is the position adopted by most Provinces/Dioceses of the Anglican Communion on divorce and re-marriage any less open to criticism from those whose 'biblically based' theology brings them into conflict with others in the Anglican Church over homosexuality?

When His Grace is good enough to explain this, then I think we will have been given the benefit of his intellectual ability. Following on from that we should then be able to grapple with his 'reflections' in the correct context.

Anglicanus is essentially right. The (rather shallow) tendency to cultural conformity, even in the churches, is no more re active homosexuality than re divorce.

The two are, of course, part of the same 1960s unitary package. Sin is a unity; and sin breeds further sin. Change a culture and its worldview and you get their souls thrown in. It is a short step from something being presented as normal/legal to its (however ridiculously) being perceived as ok. A high proportion of the population, believe it or not, often fail to distinguish between the two (normal on the one hand, and ok on the other hand).

One difference between the two, however, is that in the case of divorce (unlike active homosexuality) there can easily, in theory and sometimes in practice, be one innocent party, who ought not to have to suffer as the result of another's sin. This is something not touched on in the surviving brief words of Jesus and Paul.

"I'm not sure why the comparison with divorce is being made. 'Divorce' is a swearword and not to be uttered if one can help it. In no sense would the main two 'sides' (to put it crudely) have ever chosen to marry one another in the first place. The situation is more akin to waking up, finding there is an intruder in the house, and making sure that the intruder leaves the house."

Come now, Dr. Shell... Waking up next to an "intruder"? This simply adds more heat than light.

Your metaphor is wholly inappropriate, and untrue as well; liberals are no stranger in the house, and indeed, their name is on the deed too, every bit as much as the conservatives' is, and liberals have been dwelling in that house for many a year, and sleeping next to you, and breaking bread with you. Any (sincere) failure by conservatives to recognize this speaks more, perhaps, to the onset of Alzheimer's, than it does to the liberals' being "intruders" in the shared family home.

No, we have indeed been married to each other lo these many years, albeit in a match originally made by our parents for us. But we knew each other, grew up with each other, and while we knew we had different interests and personalities, still, we largely liked each other, and got on well enough, and for many years our marriage "worked," albeit it had its rocky days. There was love there, but not of the romance-novel sort.

But then, you see, the liberal spouse, she started hanging out with a more diverse group of friends, and she started taking classes again and thinking differently from her spouse, though it was a natural enough evolution for her. And likewise, her conservative husband took to hanging with his buddies, a group not to her own liking, and his politics and reading habits grew rigid and entrenched on the right, even as her own wandered leftward.

No, good Doctor, she is no intruder in that bed, and she is still inclined to try to talk it out and hold it together for the sake of the children -- but he insists she now submit to his headship, and drop her new friends and causes, and make sure dinner is on the table promptly at 6 p.m., else he will divorce her, and (he threatens) will take the house and the kids as well.

Really, now... "Intruder"?!

A very nice analogy Ms Kwong. I've been married 32 years and it rings true. Fortunately my wife and I decided to take the same classes.

Hmmm. To me that anecdotal analogy should end:

"Then she first began having clandestine affairs with strangers. Her husband turned a blind eye, in the interests of harmony. Then she demanded an open marriage. He let it happen. But when she demanded that he join in her amatory activities in order to broaden his mind and overturn his prejudices, he felt he had to call it a day."

As far as the orthodox are concerned, liberals are "whoring after false gods." A solidly biblical viewpoint, surely? The orthodox think they were far too tolerant for too long--so tolerant, in fact, that the institution was snatched out from under them. For who can deny that their positions are substantially the undisputed positions of the church for centuries back?

If one wishes to try new things and challenge the status quo, there is never a guarantee either that the experiment will succeed or that other will accept the results. It's true in cooking as in theology.

Sarah Dylan Breuer has a reflection on Andrew Brown's column here:
http://www.sarahlaughed.net/gracenotes/2006/06/brilliant_colum.html

"For who can deny that their [so-called "orthodox"] positions are substantially the undisputed positions of the church for centuries back?"

Um...me? Faithful, life-long Anglican Christian me?

(re "whoring after false gods": I'm afraid I can't come up w/ anything wittier than he who smelt it, dealt it? ;-/)

lol - I'll explain why I don't think the marriage picture is accurate.

Autobiographically, when I was assured that I was 'an anglican' at age 18-20, I was astonished. I had taken my confirmation to be simply a pledge to follow Jesus and seek the infilling of the Holy Spirit. The institutional side simply never occurred to me - and I have found this also with academic theories, that once one has broad horizons one can never go back to narrow.

A second point: whichever church one grows up in, one will not at first realise that the other 'wings' (wrongly so-called) exist - and one might not have signed up in the first place if one realised they did.

A third: we can't simply assume that everyone who calls themseves a Christian is one. No-one seriously thinks it is better to worship Humpty Dumpty and his endless interpretative flexibility. If so, why use language at all, if it can mean what I want it to mean? Communication becomes impossible. 'Christian', like everythnig else in the world, means something specific. It is perfectly possible to analyse the belief and practice of a given individual and conclude that they are in fact liberal humanist, or new age. Tony Blair proves that one does not have to be Labour to call oneself Labour (can have one's cake and eat it). Why should one dogmatically resist at least the possibility that there are people who call themselves Christian (again, havnig their cake and eating it, or wanting to be on the side of the angels) with either no notion of what the word means or no intention of conforming to Christ. This is not just possible, but actually likely.

"For who can deny that their positions are substantially the undisputed positions of the church for centuries back?"

Not sure that follows.

It's possible (for example) for both sides to hail (say) Calvin as their role model: one sides stresses Calvin's dicta, the other his modus operandi. It was not possible for Calvin to be a critical biblical scholar in the way which has been open to us since (say) Tischendorf, so to assume without argument that he would have jumped one way or the other is not justifiable.

I think the difference lies in our relationship with the tradition: both sides inherit it, but do different things with it.

Well, J.C. Saying it's so don't make it so (unless you're a far more important J.C. than I imagine you are).

Come up with some evidence--and something a bit more convincing than Junia embroidery or Boswellite special pleading--and you can be taken seriously.

I don't see anything particularly shameful about honestly admitting to innovation, actually. Just admit that you think the tradition is wrong, toss it, and carry on.

Smelt it/dealt it, however, is particularly shameful. How about "same to you with brass knobs on?" More colourful and somehow Anglican, I think.