Given that there are many within the CofE who would agree with KJS: this is another clear sign that there will be a global split.

That would seem to be the end of the Primates Group.

The future of Lambeth looks rather bleak too.

It looks as if the plan is all coming together now.

I weep for Archbishop Rowan. He must feel like he's been mugged after this week. I truly feel sorry for him. I see no way back from the brink that opened up these past few days. I hope he does, and that it honors the faithfulness on both sides of the divide.
The Rev'd. Lois Keen

The Bishop of Uganda is a homophobic bigot and a poor example of a Christian, simple as that. If the issue of homosexuality was as important as these folks today believe why didn't Jesus speak of it in the Gospel? If God's love is unconditional and our salvation a free gift from that same God, then the sins of the flesh people make such an uproar over aren't as important as they believe.

This is sad, I suppose, but hardly a shock. I feel great concern for the Archbishop of Canterbury in this instance. Essentially, this is a statement of, "This is where we are. He who is not with us is against us."

Actually, I had expect this several years ago from Rwanda over invitations to AMiA bishops in the United States. However, living and working within a short distance of one of those twenty congregations, I can't be shocked; only saddened.

Of course, Jesus said in Matthew, "He who is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30a); and also "Whoever is not against us is for us' (Mark 9:40); and also "he who is not against us is on our side" (Luke 9:50). In emphasizing the first, Archbishop Orombi essentially discards the second.

By the same token, he along with many confuses the thought that God in Christ might love all those non-Christians enough that God can manage to bless and save so many that do not make a specific statement of intellectual assent to faith in Jesus. Scripture certainly says that salvation is accomplished in Jesus; but it doesn't say the unversality of salvation accomplished in Jesus is limited by our petty categories. After all, Jesus also says, "And I have other sheep you wouldn't recognize [not of this fold]" (John 10:16). Surely it is the height of arrogance for us to tell God what God can and cannot do, Scripture or no. That is all that Bishop Katherine has said: that God can do "infinitely more than we can ask or imagine."

Uganda has expressed an opinion that the Anglican Communion is broken, and the only question is where the pieces will fall. I am sorry that they have despaired of further conversation, of hope of reconciliation. God help us so that we do not ultimately fail to see Christ in one another.

Holy Vaca,

This bordercrossing, defiant, demanding forgetful, pontificating, non-Windsor observant +Orombi gets terribly carried away as he makes overtly zealous and meanie puritanical pronouncements/judgements about our beloved NEW Christian/Episcopalian/Anglican Primate Katharine Jefferts Schori.

Don't he *get* it?

MOST ALL of us God fear'n Americano Episcopalianos/Anglicanos ain't go'n nowhere/nohow! Go fish!

Such wasteful and overly wordy pontificating during Advent (when silence is best and blessed) ain't nice make'n nor respect'n Christ expect'n neither!

I better shut up and go pray for a spell!

Wow. This appears to be a coordinated attempt to seize control of the Primate's Meeting. It's a naked power grab. I'm actually sort of relieved. The Machiavellian shenanigans we've witnessed are disgraceful. I can't imagine that all of the Global South is on board with this palace coup.

I await the statements from Kenya and Central Africa, though not exactly with bated breath. Nigeria and Singapore will follow their "brethren" in due course.

The least dishonorable response ++Rowan could make at this point would be to cancel the entire Primates' Meeting. That would have one desirable consequence, namely that one of the three a-historic "Instruments of Unity" would have self-destructed in less than three years. If this Primates' Meeting is canceled, it is unlikely there would ever be another.

However, I expect ++Rowan to cave completely. Like the mediocre kindergarten teacher he should have been, he will throw all his energies into placating whichever child at the moment is throwing the loudest and most spectacular tantrum.

I fear that Lord Carey was right (though for the wrong reasons!)to want to keep him out of England. Would he had!

One way to start weighing this strong announcement is to briefly imagine what it would mean if the shoe were on the other foot, and liberal or progressive believers were so loudly announcing that they required Archbishop Akinola, say, or a bishop clearly associated with Reform or FiF or somebody else on the right to be disinvited from attending the near future 2008 Lambeth.

This thought experiment begins to suggest what is undoubtedly going on here as Uganda seeks the mind of Christ for dissing TEC and PB KJS - and of course any believer who isn't offended by her being the same Anglican rooms with them - particularly in a prayerful or sacramental moment?

It is very good, indeed, to be finally getting this rightwing stuff right out into the open where it can be heard, weighed, explored, and discussed from any number of best practice angles and frameworks as we get better acquainted with what it means in all its possible glory.

I followed the link to the American Anglican Council and stumbled on their blog with commentaries. Better than Vitriolonline, worse than Titusonline - so now you don't have to read it yourselves ;=)

Lois - I think the poor old ABC was "mugged" in 2003 when he asked certain people not to take actions which have led to this situation - but he was ignored...........

The fabric of he communion was torn a long time ago - and that was done knowingly and deliberately

I am saddened that an Anglican archbishop has such a lack of theological awareness as not to be able to differentiate between the pre-existant Logos (of whom John's Gospel speaks) and the incarnate Jesus. It is the Logos who is the way to the Father and is the 'the light that enlightens every man who comes into the world'. I hope and pray that the Archbishop of Canterbury will use his gifts as a teacher of theology to explain this to the Archbishop of Uganda. I also hope that the Archbishop of Uganda will have the humility and the sense to listen and understand.

And so it should have been, NP. A communion dominated by the ideas of much of the so-called Global South (premodern fundamentalists) is not worth preserving

Celebrate the split!

Has the Primate of Uganda ever met Presiding Bishop Schori?

"...we cannot sit together with Katharine Jefferts Schori..."

Was there anyone with whom Our Lord could not sit?

The refusal of these unnamed Primates to sit with a fellow Primate is not only fatal to a Primates Meeting including the Primate of TEC. It is also fatal to an Anglican Consultative Council meeting including her when, as resolved at the last one, Primates are included ex officio. It is also fatal to a Lambeth Conference of all Anglican bishops including her, although the statement holds back from a definitive statement of intention on that.

Two options present themselves. Either Bishop Schori voluntarily absents herself or the instruments of Unity will not convene in unity again. I hope she does not absent herself but she will be put under pressure to do so.

Can someone tell me where +Schori's kicked over the traces?

The bravest thing a soul can do is show up at an event where they are unwelcome by the "in crowd" but should be there by right of position or birth.

The next bravest thing is to be "above reproach" and be true to their beliefs and the souls whom they represent. Even if that means they are shunned by most of the "in crowd".

I hope KFS has the courage to do so and ABC rediscovers his spine and invites all the primates from all the dioceses.

Then souls can be judged by their overt conduct, not by their ability to covertly lobby "behind the scenes".

Speaking as West African Anglican, our African and Global South Archbishops should come out with some new positive ideas and not these old scripts.

The sad part of the debate is that the African Archbishops never consult their own House of Bishops or Laity but impose their views on them. At least, the Archbishop of Abuja does that and how are people to oppose him when they might be labelled as a supporter of homosexuals and could be sent to jail for 5 years under the new Bill.

The anchor which those who are splitting the Anglican Communion are using in Nigeria is the debate on human sexuality because no bishop or priest will dare speak against them if they don't want to end up in jail.

The world knows of only one Lambeth Conference, to which the Archbishop of Canterbury gives the invitation. No one has the right as to decide for him who is invited to Lambeth 2008. If Bishop Martyn Minns is to be invited so also should Bishop Robinson be invited.

Even if the Episcopal Church in the USA hadn't elected a woman as their Presiding Bishop these documents will still be written because the target is the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Episcopal Church is just a stepping stone in the attack.

In the case of a split, there will still be an LGBT inclusive Anglican Church in Nigeria that will still maintain ties with Canterbury and other Churches of the Communion. Changing Attitude Nigeria and the many people who support us in secret will be faithful to Archbishop Rowan. This is just one of the many reasons why Primate Akinola is supporting the deadly Nigerian bill - he wants to silence us and get rid of us.

Anglicanus,

And I'm hoping that you will explain your very non-Anglican, non Nicaean sounding statement! Are you trying to split Jesus from The Logos?

I am wondering if the Primate of Uganda has reached his conclusions about Bishop Jefferts Schori's theological convictions based entirely on media reports and the commentary on conservative blogs. I can't think of any other sources available to him. Can a decision of this magnitude really be based on such flimsy documentation? I don't think he can possibly judge whether her soteriological beliefs fit within the parameters of orthodoxy. At least when the Roman Catholics do this sort of thing to one another they conduct a thorough investigation.

About a week ago, a number of us were saying that the ++Akinola-led faction in the Communion wanted the Primates to vote out the Episcopal Church and Presiding Bishop Schori at the February meeting, but didn't have the votes to do it.

So now they are doing the next best thing: sabotaging the Primates' Meeting, preventing it from taking place at all.

So Jim Naughton, do you really think that if Reform and the Global South and New Wine etc all sat down with KJS they would find she is actually not very different to them on key presenting issues??

But then Charlotte, maybe it's for the good.

It will most certainly be very interesting, though not very comforting to behold, when the musical chairs begin to fall...

How many "Global South" grandees will remain in situ when the smoke has vanished, I wonder?

I am pretty sure that +Katharine Jefferts Schori believes that Jesus is the gatekeeper to salvation but leaves open the door on who can get through the gate (i.e., non Christians may or may not be saved through Christ; we can't limit God's grace).

This isn't different than statements from the Vatican, Eastern Orthodox and even the Presbyterians (USA). It's hardly heresy.

"...explain your very non-Anglican, non Nicaean sounding statement!" Dave W.

Nobody can explain/hear anything ANGLICAN anymore after receiving the "final word" on Christianity and "selective" Scriptural nonsense from shrill puritan zealots. Pushing out-of-control fear and Biblical hate inspiring thuggery against LGBT Christians is now gone into frundamentalist overdrive mode.

My goodness, the "covenant" (and implied financial blackmail) from Reform, et. al, Tanzania, and now Uganda. As Göran commented, musical chairs beginning to fall, indeed :)

I'll shamefully admit that, in my weaker moments, I'm enjoying a bit of schadenfreude at the ++ABC's expense. He was so terribly lenient and, well..., "wishy-washy" with the machinations of the extremist, conservative trouble-makers in the U.S., and now he's been rudely confronted with the same thing on his home turf. (I'll try, very hard, to resist comparisons to Neville Chamberlain)

Anglicanus, I am afraid that the ABC will probably side with Uganda on that one. As has been said on this post already, you cannot divorce the Logos from the Jesus Christ, that is what the incarnation means. The divine hypostasis of the sun has enhypostatically assumed an anhypostatic human nature for the purpose of revealing to us, who cannot comprehend what is outside of the created world, an uncreated God in a son of the creation.

For further reading, see the Council of Chalcedon, Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Leo 1, Athanasius, and the so-called athanasian creed, not written by athanasius, but still fairly good theology.

Perhaps it should be faced once and for all, that theology and theological language is metaphorical. (for heavens sake ! : - )

The real heretic is not PB Jefferts Schori, but the 'man in the purple shirt' who re-designates the Lord's Table in the Holy Communion as "Orombi's" Table, where the host presumes to turn away the 'unwashed'. It is high time for Mr. Orombi-Donatus to repent.

After nearly a decade of a Primatial-majority REFUSING to "sit with" any LGBT Anglican, it's only fitting, somehow, that they would extend this to "we won't sit with them, nor sit with anyone who DOES sit with them".

"They will hate you, because they hate me" said Our Lord. :-(

Kyrie eleison!

["I am wondering if the Primate of Uganda has reached his conclusions about Bishop Jefferts Schori's theological convictions..." Jim N, I had the exact same thought. Gob-smacking, really.]

All those people so eager to pin all the blame for the current troubles of the Anglican Communion on +Robinson and on the actions of the Episcopal Bishops in ordaining him should pin it where it really belongs; the Diocesan Convention of New Hampshire that elected Robinson to be their bishop, and on all the Episcopalians in New Hampshire who chose the delegates to their convention. If +Robinson must be deposed and excommunicated to appease his detractors, then those who chose him to be their bishop must also be likewise excommunicated; an entire diocese.

The divine hypostasis of the sun has enhypostatically assumed an anhypostatic human nature for the purpose of revealing to us, who cannot comprehend what is outside of the created world, an uncreated God in a son of the creation.

OK - but if you're not careful that backs into Docetism. I remember an ex-Brethren person in the next parish to my old one who was scandalised when I said that Jesus did not possess all knowledge - ie Jesus could have designed a thermonuclear device had he so wished. The C5 christological controversies suggest we need to take care not to over-state our preferred theological case.

It remains the inconvenient truth that John's Gospel talks of the indwelling Word in its first lines, thus setting the theological matrix. I know that this is primarily anti-gnostic (by insisting that the divine light is to be found in all humanity, not just the pneumatikoi), but it's still a component of the quadratic equation of salvation.

In all I don't see that the quoting of the pseudo-athanasian creed etc really has anything to say in this discussion. (One might as easily say that the John 14 4 passage should be taken as meaning that only those who meet Jesus in his incarnate, time-confined form can get to the Father if we are not to posit some rather more complex relationship between the Nazarene and the second person of the Trinity.) I can't help but feel that some contributors to this thread want the Kingdom to consist entirely of fellow club members!

In response:

The pre-existant Logos is not separated from the Incarnation. But there is a time gap. The Incarnation is time specific. Access to the Father was possible prior to the Incarnation. Therefore, although we now have the more perfect and unique access to the Father through a personal relationship with the Incarnate Son that does presume to destroy other means. I am always concerned when submissions on any site say simply 'Jesus said' or 'God said' without identifying the source. When the source is identified it is possible to apply textual criticism and understand more fully the truth that is seeking expression. His Grace the Archbishop of Uganda appears to me to impose limits on God's activity. I wish to recognise God's freedom to act and the place of journeying in our progression towards to Godhead. 'In my father's house are many mansions' and the Greek would suggest that these 'mansions' are like stageing posts along the way. By requiring that we proclaim only those who have arrived, His Grace abandons those who journey. I belong to the Pilgrim People of God.

I hope that this response will allow me to escape the accusations of false doctrine being bandied about. And I still hope that Their Graces will take time to discuss this theological issue.

Good response, Anglicanus.

Sadly, the GS primates and metropolitans, together with their reasserter allies, have hi-jacked the Bible. Only their reading of scripture is orthodox, valid and bestows the gift of eternal salvation. To hell with the wisdom of the Church Fathers, biblical exegesis from the time of Martin Luther to the present, and the papal magisterium since the pre-Vatican II era!

Wrote Pope John Paul II (probably Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was involved, too) in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

PB Jefferts-Schori's remarks about salvation are fully in line with a long-standing church tradition.

Juergen Moltmann, a Tuebingen theologian of international standing, presents biblical exegesis that equally supports both positions: universal salvation and two outcomes (heaven or damnation) in: The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology (1996).

Of course, the GS primates would like to see us shut down all major theology faculties in our universities as a sign of our repentance.

John Henry mused
the GS primates would like to see us shut down all major theology faculties in our universities as a sign of our repentance.

Not at all! They'd just find a degree from one a permanent impediment to ordination, and any bishop who had knowingly ordained a practising theologian would no longer be in communion with them.....

You know, it was barely thirty years ago that the president of Uganda was eating people.

Now the primate of that same country presumes to serve as the world's spiritual overlord.

What a difference a few years can make!

Anglicanus,

firstly it was Jesus the incarnate son of God who made the claim to the the way, the truth and the life. Secondly, the way is possible through his death on the cross. Thirdly we live post incarnation!

Errr...no, it wasn't.It was the person who wrote John's Gospel, some 80-90 years after the event, from second hand sources, and with an agenda to spread a new religion to the gentile population.

Mynsyter / John Henry......are you suggesting the Global South Primates are uneducated people or have inferior education or minds to you or other Primates? If so, why??
If you look, you will find they are very well qualified for the positions they hold, they have real pHDs from leading institutions......or are we seeing some sort of racism implicit in your views since you seem to want to label them anti-intellectual?

Why do you not question the Archbishop of Sydneys approach to what you call "theologians"?
Why do you not explicitly or implicity question his intellectual credentials when he holds very similar theological views to most of the GS primates?

Could it be that African bishops may be just as bright and just as "well-educated" and just as well-meaning as TEC bishops but still completely disagree with TEC innovations? I hope you are not struggling to see this could be the case just because your opponents are poorer and darker than you may be...because you would be very wrong.

I am pleased that English evos have made their own, public stand so people have to stop pretending that it is just some African bishops who have any problem with the church being hijacked by small, radical groups with their own particular agendas.....

I object again to the smell of patronising racism (explicit or implcit)in some comments re the Global South on this site.

Merseymike

1. The person writing the gospel was quoting Jesus
2. 80-90 years after. Depends upon your viepoint I guess but as the latest date for writing it tends to be placed at 90 AD then your time lag is somewhere out!
3. As for whether it was second hand sources that's only if you accept some fairly modern folks with their own agenda of questioning God's supernatural involvement

In response to Mr D Williams:

The words are those of the writer of John's Gospel, as Merseymike, points out. May I restate the point that the Word of God is alive and active and does not return to Him empty handed. From that I would like to posit that, whilst offering us the more perfect way through a living relationship with the the Risen Christ, God has not closed down other avenues which human beings may use. I am thoroughly accepting of the uniqueness of the Christian revelation given to us in Jesus Christ without desiring to make it into an exclusive chanel of approaching the Godhead.

And your statement reinforces my worry about those who want to say/write 'Jesus says' or 'God says' without refrence to the context from which they are making their reference.

This leads me on to express my concern about those who may lay claim to being 'Bible Believing Christians'. Biblical authority is received, by an Anglican, within the Church. It does not stand outside or opposed to the Church. The Canon of Scripture was set by the Church, after all. So, in a sense, what authority these writings have is recognised through the Church's acceptance of them. 'Sola scriptura', as a blanket motto, is therefore not the whole truth.

I am a man under authority. That authority in excercised by God through the Church, through Scripture, through Reason & Grace, and through prayer & sacrament. If I wilfully choose to refuse one of these I may well find myself living and expressing far less of the Love and Truth of God than I would hope.

By the way, I'm still waiting to have explained to me why homosexuality is THE issue that has finally caused such distress to 'Bible Believing Christians' when divorce and the ordination of women has not necessitated drastic action.

Thank you.

Anglicanus - I agree - there were greater reasons to object in the past (eg "bishops" like Spong and David Jenkins) - they helped create the mess the AC is now in....we are seeing reactions to symptoms because people were too quiet, polite, maybe too tolerant in the past.

Now, some lament that TEC has pushed the boundaries too quickly because patience was paying off nicely in subverting the church slowly.........

"Could it be that African bishops may be just as bright and just as "well-educated" ...as TEC bishops....?"

In actuality, NP, I'd suggest moreso. That's part of the problem. Going all the way back to Liturgical reform and the debate over the ordination of women, bishops here in Canada, and priests as well, have seemed to at least have problems with a theological argument if they can actually make such arguments, and seem to be unable to understand theology apart from human rights. My believe on this has been softened recently, after hearing Bishop Virginia Matthews speak. There are theological arguments to be made in support of all these issues, they just don't seem to be making them, at least not in an audible way, and I think this is a huge problem. We need "Liberal" bishops who have the courage of their convictions and are willing to speak the God talk. I think we may have such a one in +KJS, actually.

Ford - I am not surprised you like KJS.

I think KJS is a big improvement - at least she seems honest and willing to say what she thinks rather then pretending to be united with everyone....this allows some real progress for everyone even if that progress is a realignment.

NP: "bishops" like Spong and David Jenkins) - they helped create the mess the AC is now in.

Well, it took a while, but we have the names of two of NP's 'heretic' bishops, both retired I note.

0n what ground is +DJ being condemned, btw? So far as I am aware, no comment he made fell outside historic Christian boundaries, and most of them were almost tedious in their orthodoxy. His Synod expose of the unchristian nature of some late '80's miracle claims was a classic (for those with short memories, it was something on the lines of 'If we believe that God is prepared to find us a parking place, or fill our car with oil when we have neglected to do so, and yet he is not prepared to act at Auschwitz, nor to bring about a bloodless end to apartheid, then this is not the Christian God we believe in but a monster.").

I am reminded of a letter in the 'Times' of 1984 following on from an anti-Jenkins rant by the then bishop of Norwich, and former head of Oak Hill theological college, Maurice Wood, which pointed out that, according to CofE guidelines, he should have been teaching his ordinands the stuff that Jenkins was coming out with!

I realise that (as Keith Ward points out) there is a type of Evangelical who finds the plain words of Scripture about (say) the Resurrection difficult, and therefore prefers to believe in the 'conjouring trick with bones' which Jenkins condemned, but surely they're not represented on TA?

NP,
I didn't say I "liked" +KJS, merely that she seems to be a bishop who isn't afraid of speaking theologically. And it isn't a realignment, it's a schism, pure and simple. Whether or not it's progress is another thing entirely. For me, in my more sinful moments, I relish the idea. I'm still not comfortable with the idea that there are those who call themselves Anglican who seem to have more in common theologically and liturgically with the Pentecostals I knew growing up than with anything I recognize as Anglican. But that's my failing, my inability to see the good, and in my better moments I recognize it for the bigotry it is.

Dear Mynster....would you really make the case that people like Jenkins did the CofE (let alone the gospel) any good?

I saw people leave the CofE because of the damage done by the bizarre tradition of promoting "academics" and eccentrics to be bishops with pastoral responsibilities which they are not experienced enough to fulfil.

One great thing about the ABC is that he says explicitly that what he wrote as an academic (and he was a credible one) is not what he pushes through as ABC: he understands his role is different and is not following some agenda (much to the disappointment of some, I know)

Mynster - by the way, there are, sadly, bishops who have not retired who are clearly heretical in teaching and / or lifestyle - maybe they are being more honest about it in TEC but in England too, there are people trying to subvert the church - and making the ABC's life very hard.

We would not have the problems we have in the AC if it were not for such people pushing a particular agenda which is not part of the mission given to the church and not accepted by the vast majority of Anglicans (north or south)

Dear Ford, I have no doubt that realignment / schism will be progress - for both sides.
Being forced to stay "united" is destructive for everyone and wastes so much time and energy, leaving everyone unhappy...

...my only worry is that the ABC and AC bureaucrats are working overtime to create a fudge which traps everyone together for more years of self-destructing.

Anglicus,

1. You obviously missed my second post
2. I'm not sure how my comments as one who consistantly in his preaching refers to context can support your worry
3. The fact that the words are reported by John makes them no less the words of Jesus than the words of Anglican Mainstream quoted by Simon are Anglican Mainstream words as opposed to Simons words
4. Your asking the wrong person about why it has taken this long for Evangelical Anglicans to move!

NP,
I disagree entirely about the "benefits" of schism. I do not fear it, the CofE started in a much worse position than an excluded American Church would find itself in, and look what happened there. But it represents our failing as human beings to put our own pride aside, to put others ahead of ourselves.
And :"there are, sadly, bishops who have not retired who are clearly heretical in teaching and / or lifestyle".
I agree. I count the Archbishop of Sydney among their number. Don't you?

NP: exactly which of +DJ's teachings were heretical?

"The fact that the words are reported by John makes them no less the words of Jesus than the words of Anglican Mainstream quoted by Simon are Anglican Mainstream" etc....

In the wake of +Durham's comments about the correspondence between published documents and the genuine opinions of those whom the documents claim faithfully to represent, I'm not sure, Dave, that you've chosen a good analogy. Or perhaps you've chosen a VERY good analogy, backing, one might say, into genius!!

Ford - +Jensen is extraodinarily able as a bible scholar and very faithful in his work - so no, I do not count him a heretic as I have never seen him saying the bible means the opposite to what it says.

Mynster: Jenkins and others have / had an attitude to scripture and morality which is / was closer to TEC innovations than the 39 articles - ordaining doubters and academic speculators was never a recommended strategy in the NT for good reasons.....the decline of the CofEs "liberal" churches shows why.

David,

I think you get my point and I'm sure you know how to use analogies correctly -the example was about whether the words were Simon's words or the person quoted.

By the way, for all the hand waving, I've not seen anyone come back and show me how John's use of these words of Jesus in their context have been used illegitimately by myself

NP,
So lay presidency is OK?

Ford - I don't see lay presidency is wrong in biblical terms do you?

It is a fair point that it might not be breaking Anglican rules....but I don't think it is wrong in terms of what JC initiated or what the early church did

"+Jensen is extraodinarily able as a bible scholar and very faithful in his work - so no, I do not count him a heretic as I have never seen him saying the bible means the opposite to what it says."

The Bible quite often means the very opposite to what it "says". Jewish dialectics.

It's not an Indo European Philosophic treaties, you know ;=)

Early American Methodists proclaimed: "We will have no bishops on foreign shores." That sounds like a good stance for the Americans to take NOW. Look at the Anglican off-spring, she has out grown her mother many times over and still supports Human Rights for all persons around the world. WOW!