Once again we see the insistence that resolutions from Lambeth 1998 are considered binding -- an astonishing innovation that would have been news to the bishops who met there (& every previous Lambeth -- never anything but a self described consultative group).

Worse, they are selectively binding -- gays are not to be ordained nor their unions blessed, but rather the resolution calling for their pastoral support and listening to their experiences is not only ignored but their open persecution is condoned.

This doublethink is truly contemptable.

"This doublethink is truly contemptable."--Prior Aelred

Right on, Prior!

The Canadian Link via Greg Venables says this "...concluded their meetings in Rwanda today with a statement demonstrating the consequences for churches that stray from authentic, biblically-faithful Anglican teaching."

To be honest, I don't think the content of Lambeth matters one iota. If the wording of Lambeth was not convenient, they would have touted out another document.

They have a clear position, and no one is going to move them from it. Let them be and have their church the way that they like it.

In the meantime, those of us who approve of the ordination of people such as Robinson and Schori, and rejoice at the inclusive love of souls such as South Africa's Archbishop (who do not presume to judge should or should not respond to God's call to come into grace) need to be able to support and nurture those who would be in communion. There are some souls who will go with the anti-GLBTs with no conscience for the forsaken, but the forsaken also need servicing.

I have no problem with one group saying "not in our communion" but I do have a problem with them then saying "thou shalt not have any communion".

Prior Aelred is unfortunately quite right.

I find one of the most amazing things about our current situation to be that those who insist on multiple innovations in church life and order (e.g., attributing a jurisdictional aspect to the Anglican Communion that it never had, giving completely unprecedented authority to Lambeth conferences, Archbishops of Canterbury, the Primates and other instruments of unity, insisting on a completely untraditional and unAnglican method of reading Scripture while ignoring the application of reason and tradition) have had the nerve to arrogate to themselves the description "orthodox" as if they were following our tradition instead of trying to throw it away. This is just one more example of the success of the "big lie" technique.

If we weren't in the midst of a deep crisis of charity (i.e., it seems to be in remarkably short supply) it might be worth trying to insist on a more traditional use of this term.

Bravo to Ms Gledhill for her deft spinning of selectively collected facts/quotes. She is getting better at spin in this current piece than she has been in other pieces published before under her byline.

It is ever so helpful to the rest of us to have Ms. G. modeling her astonishment that anybody is not already a new conservative conformed Anglican - via the new orthodoxies published all over the place during the last thirty to forty years of vigorous new conserve efforts. It becomes almost impossible to actually recall that, in historical fact, these new conserved folks are just about as recent a cultural or church phenomenon as the contemporary queer folks or progressive believers or anything/anybody else they so love to attack.

Bravo to Ms. G., too, for deftly reminding us in passing that it is Kigali which is already by new conserved definition the unquestioned Anglican norm, closed, settled, signed, sealed and delivered. Why, Canterbury will be measured in its scales, and found wanting, especially as regards any legacies from the Elizabethan Settlement. And everybody else is already defined for all eternity as needing a special, conformed new conserved Anglican conversion from their sinful ways.

So what is behind the deft touches of spin? Why the continuing campaign for New Conserved Anglican institutions/processes to have new policing and punishing powers over the rest of us, no matter who we are, or how we are, or why in good conscience we are.

Kigali is just another beachhead in the ongoing Anglican Home Invasion that closes us down, narrows and conforms us beyond historic recognition, and claims to be able to arm new conserve believers with new institutional powers while criminalizing any other sources of church authority.

Thanks in part to the ongoing split campaign, our openness for listening and dialogue is fading quickly, just to the extent that new conserved frames rule out from the start any possibilities of discerning and agreeing to disagree over any longer time.

I do hope that Canterbury is indeed planning to simply invite without fuss and ado, each and every Anglican bishop with jurisdiction to Lambeth 2008.

Even then, such a lovely Anglican moment at such a Lambeth cannot pretend it represents the final, closed Anglican mind of the entire church, since lay believers are notably absent.

Kigali needs to get real. The rest of us are still here, following Jesus of Nazareth.

drdanfee

Just 'cos I haven't said it an a while, I really enjoy most of your postings. Don't be discouraged by bad manners.

I agree!--- and Yours too, Cheryl !

(I have left a comment on co-incidence and synchronicity for you on the other day's thread).....

Am I the only one to find it troubling that the "Kigali Statement" comes geographically from the only country on earth in which mass participation in genocide has taken place?

This is no comment on Rwandans, as history and the scriptures teach us that such a horrifying capaciy for evil is within every person. And in the person of such people as Paul Rusesabagina, who was personally responsible for saving the lives of about 1,260 people, Rwanda gave us an inspiring example of the heights to which humanity can rise.

However, in the aftermath of church participation in the genocide (see eg. "Committed to Conflict," by Dr Laurent Mbanda, SPCK 1997) we - I think rightly - chose not to sever the bonds of communion that join us with our Rwandan brothers and sisters. That would have been to claim a self-righteousness that no-one can truthfully claim.

Christians sincerely disagree in good faith on the vexed question of homosexuality and homosexual practice. But I hope that none of us will be in any doubt about the repugnance of genocide. Why is homosexuality seen by some as a reason to break communion, when we did not break communion over genocide?

Rob, you forget that genocide is scripturally sanctioned and therefore a legitimate area of Christian diversity. Remember the Calvinist dictum, that only that which is explicitly permitted in Scripture may Christians do.

It also explains elegantly why some African Christians can speak in dehumanising language about homosexuals, since that springs from the same genocidal instinct and again has scriptural sanction.

So let's hear a resounding Christian 'Yes' to Genocide — you know it makes Biblical sense.

Laurence, thank you, I will go looking for that other posting.

Rob, good point, and synchronously it parallels some of my own contemplations in the last few days. They are in uproar that ~2% of souls might be homosexual and sexualy active.

Are they worried greater atrocities such as the ones that you mentioned? Or what about other statistics e.g. reports indicate that globally one in three women are beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in their lifetime? http://www.unece.org/stats/gender/genpols/keyinds/crime/violence.htm

Then there is child abuse and neglect: http://www.unicefusa.org/site/c.duLRI8O0H/b.262152/k.221E/State_of_the_Worlds_Children__Publications__Media_Center__US_Fund_for_UNICEF.htm

Then there is terrorism, ranging from State to individuals simply acting out what is considered "normal" ways of expressing their anger.

Why focus on teaching the Beatitudes when one can encourage hatred of particular groupings, incite insitutional suppression of alternative voices, and condone human rights violations if they are done by the "godly" leaders?

The truth is unchanged by censorship, and God does not need hyperboles in reality or science to exist or care. Let humanity decide whether they believe that the Supreme Being would support suppressive violent sects imposition and destruction on the rest of humanity and Creation. If they don't believe in such a God, then let them pray for the inclusive, generous, loving God that this planet needs right now.

While Rwanda was certainly the site of unbelievable atrocities I wouldn't say that it was "the only place where there was mass participation in genocide". IIRC there are more than a few places in the former Yugoslavia that would fit that description equally well.

Nonethless, it strikes me as very sad that the Global South meeting in Kigali was held at the Hôtel des Mille Collines, the original Hotel Rwanda. The difference was that then those considered to be "cockroaches" were in the hotel.