They have done the right thing, according to their consciences and to the scripture to which they refer

(remember the cause of this dates back to the actions of TEC is 2003)

It is interesting that they have chosen to say "Ye that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your
neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith" (Book of Common Prayer). Is this a sign of their recognition that they are not in "love and charity", or do not "intend to lead a new life"?

Pete

Members of Global South should be reminded that we are all sinners of one kind or another. Not only are we all sinners, but we are also all made in the image of God, and all loved by Him. Praise be to Him for ever.

The only real news is that there are fewer primates grand-standing than there were last year when they pulled this stunt.

The Global South seems very fond of throwing around numbers, in this statement, that they represent 30 million Anglicans, which one must assume is every single Anglican in their own province. By this logic, then ++Katharine represents every single Episcopalian in the USA. Additionally, if strength in numbers is the criterion for having Truth, we should all become Roman Catholics.

It is unfortunate that a number of the Primates have decided not to receive communion at the same service as Katharine Jefferts Schori. They quote the Book of Common Prayer in justification of their action but perhaps they need to study it more carefully. Those who are not meant to receive communion are those who do not seek reconciliation. Are we to assume that Archbishop Akinola and the others do not seek reconciliation with the Episcopal Church? The implication of that is that they do not want to remain in the Communion and will continue to refuse aid from the Episcopal Church.

This would be regrettable, especially for the harm it would do the innocent people who are suffering in Nigeria and elsewhere who will be denied the aid they desperately need. This is a sad day for them as well as for the Communion, and I find it hard to reconcile with the Gospel admonition to care for the weak and helpless amongst us.

Does anyone know if the Primates who have declared a 'broken' communion attended the Eucharistic and heard the Word proclaimed and preached but did not receive the life giving sacrament? or do they have no need to even hear the Word?

I agree with Pete. None of the passages these Primates cite enjoins them to pass judgment on their fellow communicants; only on themselves. It might be different if these Primates were presiding at the eucharist in question; but that was not the case.

The only passage which applies to their position is the one which condemns themselves, not their fellow communicants, for not being in love and charity with their neighbours.

If they are so condemned, they should not be taking communion anywhere, from anyone, until they have reconciled themselves with their neighbours. Yet it does not seem that they will be following this logic. They are just pulling a stunt, and then putting out a press release.

I'm not impressed; and I would surprised if anyone else was. The press release is particularly bad. It is one thing to turn quietly away in sorrow and in conscience, however misguided (in my opinion). It is quite another to make a public fuss about it, and to give the impression that you think that you are worthy and someone else is not.

Ugh.

Are people deliberately misunderstanding the actions of thes Primates??

They recognise that TEC and KJS are UNREPENTANT with regard to their actions in 2003 and so did not want to participate on that basis - knowing that there was an openly unrepentant attitude at the table and that others were turning a blind eye in their desperate attempt to try and hold everyone together - they did not pretend all was well for this fudged "unity" because it is not worth it and will not last long.....in fact, it lasts at most until the next VGR gets elected in TEC, just a matter of time.

Pete, this would, then, no doubt be consistent with Archbishop Akinola's statement reported in the New York Times, "Many people say I embarrass them with my humility."

It is encouraging to see this as an act of public penance by the seven primates involved. It is up to the rest of the Primates then, to assure them they have been forgiven, and are welcome at the table, and that they have no need of further qualms or demonstrations.

By now we should be used to a subset of the GS Primates presuming to speak for all. (Sometimes that subset has contained but a single member.) Perhaps if I were to make a statement as thoroughly uncharitable as this opne I'd not want to appear alone, either.

We should note that at least four of these seven are not Windsor compliant in that they sponsor and encourage violations of another province's boundares.

Perhaps they will choose to walk apart. That would be sad.

So, there are the hardliners, and the basis of the new Fundamentalist Communion of Akinola

>They represent more than 30 million faithful Anglicans.<

Naturally, the primates represent their provinces in the same way that the Bishop (or a Standing Committee) is the Canonical Authority of a diocese. It is not an authorization to do whatever they want.

However, may be there is a group of primates believing in "L'eglise cest moi"!

So far, this is just a bunch of melodramatic, political grandstanding. “Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” (Macbeth)

Now if these holier-than-thou Princes in Purple really decide to withdraw from the AC, we might actually have some real news ;)

So what about this?

23-24"This is how I want you to conduct yourself in these matters. If you enter your place of worship and, about to make an offering, you suddenly remember a grudge a friend has against you, abandon your offering, leave immediately, go to this friend and make things right. Then and only then, come back and work things out with God.

Matthew 5:23-24 (The Message)

I'm serious -- Katharine Jefferts Schori knows these guys have a grudge against her -- shouldn't she be the one abstaining and trying to work things out?

This isn't an idle question, when my wife and I argue, she tells me I can't go to communion until we reconcile, even though I feel fine.

Mrs. Patricia Hamilton says: "Members of Global South should be reminded that we are all sinners of one kind or another."

Roger Stokes says: "Those who are not meant to receive communion are those who do not seek reconciliation."

And I ask:
Is our current disagreement NOT stemming from the fact that ECUSA/TEC is pursuing a Cause, namely accepting Homosexual sex as a Blessing instead of a sinful conduct?

As far as everyone can see, ECUSA/TEC is not regarding its actions as sinful and as needing repentance, so why are you guys casting a Guilt Robe on them when they are seeing and hailing themselves as Robed in Righteousness?

Sadly the text cited does not tell anyone to absent themselves from the table if they believe they are right and others are wrong. It is a call (based on the teaching of Jesus recorded in scripture) on each of us to respond to God's initiative in relation to us by taking our own initiative in relation to others.
When the human race 'walked away' from God, we didn't see God walking in the opposite direction, but coming in Christ to meet us - the incarnation.
There is deep theology here in relation to sin and repentance, and it is sad to see supposedly serious theological discussions mired in the shallows.

If I'm following the logic of the Nigerian nay-sayers, and there's no guarantee that I am. They are refusing communion with the American church, but the other primates that took communion with them are NOT refusing communion with them. Does that mean they've walked away from the Church of England also? Or more to the intent of my thought...do they VIEW the Church of England as apostate for not refusing the Episcopalians? Have they taken on the onus of "walking apart"?

I fear those bishops are so wrong.

1 They have spurned God's invitation to his table

2 They have abused His sacrament for their own ends

3 They have examined others rather than themselves

4 They have deliberatley cut themselves off from the means of grace.

Years ago I refused to take part in a Eucharist because Christian of other denominations had been invited to receive (this was long before it was a regular and accepted thing). I was utterly wrong and have regretted it ever since. The good that flowed from it was that I began to be committed to ecumenism as never before. I can only pray that these bishops recognise how wrong they have been, and are opened afresh to the people they presumed to judge, but whom the Lord fed at His table.

And here I thought only God has authority to judge.

Not only are they fancying themselves as God's great authoritarian defenders and speaking for Him, they are judging themselves as having no need for repentance, blind to the sour fruit they often bear, and the many teachings of Scripture they downplay or ignore.

At its convention last year The Episcopal Church compromised its own beliefs in reaching out to the conservatives of the Anglican Communion. Yet it is never enough. The coercive forces arrayed against TEC are engaged in a spiritual tyranny with its intellectual roots in the Inquisition. TEC has not made threats against those who seek power over us. TEC’s arms are open and there is always another seat at the table. While those who seek to deny us a seat and a place at the table continue their angry threats to harm TEC and the Anglican Communion if TEC does not surrender its religious freedom, intellectual integrity and understanding of God. So be not confused; the issue is not sexuality or scripture; it is power.

Like those who knew the earth was flat, burned books and witches, ran the Inquisition, funded the Crusades and justified slavery; these primates and others who seek power, not granted by God or man, are always right.

Since they have acknowledged their sinfulness and the fact that they are in need of reconciliation, perhaps there should be an opportunity to confess and receive their penance and absolution? That is what they are, in effect, saying -- that their knowledge of their sin is keeping them from receiving with their brothers and sister.

Roger, I somehow don't think the economic effects will be as bad as you fear. First, it sticks in the craw of +Akinola et al to be on the receiving end of charity, understandably so. Indeed, looking beyond homosexuality, he has been very vocal in the African churches finding self-sufficiency. He uses his anti-colonialism for good as well as evil:-) He can always claim, as would I, that God will provide. Finally, don't think that the only American money he has access to is that of TEC.

An appropriate act, since the Akinolans are most certainly not in love and charity with their neighbors.

The seven Primates refusing Communion are those who are in too deep to draw back from schism. I think we can expect them to announce their break with the Anglican Communion before or shortly after the Primates' Meeting is over. (Let us hope they don't announce themselves as a schism of the "Global South," while their American backers fiddle with the numbers implied.)

However, since Archbishop Akinola is due to retire shortly, his attempt at schism can be ignored by the rest of the Communion, who can resolutely count him as "not present" at future meetings. Once his retirement date is past, a new Anglican Archbishop of All Nigeria can be elected, and the schism will be over. It is possible the new Archbishop will be temporarily unable to occupy his see at Abuja, because it will be held by a schismatic faction headed by the former, now retired Archbishop. If the new Archbishop is patient and waits it out, he or his successor will eventually be seated at Abuja and the Nigerian schism will have healed itself. The rest will, sooner or later, follow suit or be relegated to the margins.

Roger Stokes says: "The implication of that is that they do not want to remain in the Communion and will continue to refuse aid from the Episcopal Church."

Dear Roger,
You really don't get it! Do you think the Episcopal Church has any material thing of its own to offer to anyone? Do you think Genuine Christians look up to man, (especially morally bankrupt and Christ dishonoring people) for sustenance instead of God?

The Lord of Hosts who feed His people in the Desert still feeds His people everywhere. He has the Wealth of the Nations in the Palm of His Hands. So dear friend, save your crocodile tears for "the innocent people who are suffering in Nigeria and elsewhere." CRY FOR THE APOSTATE CHURCHES IN THE US AND OTHER PLACES WHO ARE SUFFERING FROM THE WORST FORM OF NEED - THE SPIRITUAL FOOD THAT LASTS FOR ETERNITY.

“Ye that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith” (Book of Common Prayer)

This is the BCP which I grew up with. I took - and take - these words to be a serious invitation to an examination of conscience, not an invitation to judge others.

So may I assume - as some have suggested - that ++Akinola and his companions have performed an examination of conscience - found themselves wanting - and absented themselves for the Table?

If so, I would say to them, as a very wise priest said to me when he found me being overly scrupulous, "Remember, you can 'draw near with faith' - with faith that Jesus' love reaches out to you, offering you forgiveness through the Sacrament of Body and Blood.

If, instead, they are implying by this that some of those present at the Eucharist were not worthy to be there, then they are even more arrogant than I had supposed.

I sense the communion service went something like this:

"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Thank you, Thomas+, for referring to that. I was (and still am) going to ask, sincerely: where does this idea come from that archbishops 'represent' those people in their 'juristiction' (as it were))?

Is this strictly 'Biblikcal'? They speak as if it were a democracy. Who are they kidding? Akinola represents Akinola and Akinola's take on Christianity. For some reason he and his fellow 'representatives' seem to think that every single name associated with anglican Christianity in thier diocese agree with them absolutely.

I'm English Anglican (barely still). Williams does not represent me, nor does Santemu.

I thought priests were 'vicars' - ie representatives of Christ.

It seems very muddled and arbitary and self-serving.

i know
there is disagreement
regarding whether
tec has lapsed into sin

but assuming
(for the moment --
some must suspend their
disbelief)
that tec has lapsed

are you now saying
that priests are no longer
to discpline by
withholding Communion
?

have we forgotten the bcp
?

Quoting:

If a Minister be persuaded that any person who presents himself to be a partaker of the holy Communion ought not to be admitted thereunto by reason of malicious and open contention with his neighbours, or other grave and open sin without repentance, he shall give an account of the same to the Ordinary of the place, and therein obey his order and direction, but so as not to refuse the Sacrament to any person until in accordance with such order and direction he shall have called him and advertised him that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord's Table; Provided that in case of grave and immediate scandal to the Congregation the Minister shall not admit such person, but shall give an account of the same to the Ordinary within seven days after at the latest and therein obey the order and direction given to him by the Ordinary; Provided also that before issuing his order and direction in relation to any such person the Ordinary shall afford him an opportunity for interview.

the Primates
would have
withheld Communion
from Bishop Schori

with that stance
(right or wrong)
they could not
participate

they appear to
take seriously
Paul's warning
not to drink judgment
to themselves
.

By the way, I thought the Primates were not supposed to be releasing statements or otherwise commenting on the meeting until after it was over. Could this explain the rather late revision to the title -- which in no way changes the fact that a statement was released?

I would think it is GOD's Job to acknowledge if TEC has truly made ammends (if it needed to in the first place). Be you conservative or liberal we must remember that Judgement is God's and God's alone.

Imagine a conversation in which we say to the Almighty, "God, you didn't inflict enough pain on that sinner, or "God, don't you think you need to smite this or that person, maybe send a tornado to do some harm?" How about, "God, they really don't love you, I know that for a fact."
Do we really think we can do the job better? Do we really think God doesn't know what's in each of our hearts and minds?

I'm dissappointed in these Primates. It did answer a question concerning our episcopal visit in March. I had made up my mind I would not take communion from my bishop, Bob Duncan. I will receive communion with Robert Duncan when he visits.

There is a lesson to be learned.
Peace,

Spiro,

"And I ask:
Is our current disagreement NOT stemming from the fact that ECUSA/TEC is pursuing a Cause, namely accepting Homosexual sex as a Blessing instead of a sinful conduct?"

the problem is right here. these Primates and their followers are obsessed with "homosexual sex", more so than most of the actual homosexuals I know. it's so dirty to them that they can't stand to be in the same room with people who don't share their opinion.

This is not about sex. this is about people, and it is about relationships. the Episcopal Church did all it could to remain in relationship with the rest of the Communion, at significant (if symbolic) expense to the LGBT members of TEC. those Primates who walked apart see it as willful disobedience. from our perspective, to do any more would be a betrayal of our faithful LGBT members, and those who might have become members.

I'd argue that the Primates who walked apart have a faulty understanding of Eucharist and of Anglicanism. the Anglican Communion has always survived with diverse theological views. in Anglicanism, the act of coming together to celebrate Eucharist binds us in communion to each other. We do not require doctrinal conformity before we can celebrate Eucharist.

to the Primates who walked, I would rather you had stayed. but if you insist on walking, I suggest that if you can get past the transubstantiation bit, the Roman Catholic Church might be a better place for you. if that's not acceptable, then form your own church if you like. but if you call it Anglican, it will be Anglican only in name.

I weep that ++Akinola (and the other self-excommunicated primates) have so much hatred in their hearts.

The deny themselves the One Kind of Food which might nourish their souls, and fill the God-shaped hole deep inside them.

Indeed, as the excommunicate urge, I will pray for the Church---that the Church continue to reach out to ALL in need of Christ's Love.

Lord have mercy!

[Beyond that: it is a small (but significant) comfort, that fewer self-excommunicated here, than 3 years ago at Dromantine. I chalk that up to ++KJS clear, powerful witness---and the Holy Spirit's! ;-)]

Weiwen Ng says: "the Anglican Communion has always survived with diverse theological views."

and then continues:

"...but if you insist on walking, I suggest that if you can get past the transubstantiation bit, the Roman Catholic Church might be a better place for you." (End of Quote)

Friends and Foes, therein is the problem with this whole issue: On one hand the Revisionists say Theological Issues/Differences are not Communion-dividing matters, and then, without blinking an eye, they remind everyone that THEOLOGICAL differences, such as "transubstantiation," are the reasons why we are not in full communion with the RC.

Either theological differences matter or they don’t. Time to make up your polluted mind, you Revisionists.

Charlotte wrote "The seven Primates refusing Communion are those who are in too deep to draw back from schism."

This is why it is best to avoid extreme responses one paints oneself into a corner where one has to surrender ones pride for true healing to begin. I have found myself contemplating the parallel with the Iraq war in the last few days. Australia's PM commented the other day that the US can't withdraw now because it will look they will have lost and that is unacceptably humiliating for the most powerful nation in the world.

So here we have the "most" powerful sect and the most powerful nation who would rather continue to see needless death, suffering for children and dismantling of infrastructure that supports citizens; all so they can avoiding eating humble pie.

"Embarassment doesn't kill you - you just wish it would" - a favourite motto that has comforted me on many a dark day in the last few years.

To trust in God to care for the beasts and humanity of this world is biblical. To choose to apply the conventions of dignity to eunuchs to GLBTs is also biblical.

These people are so blind to the signs of the times that they couldn't read them even if they were thrown at them across a soccer field.

"Two souls went up to the temple to pray, one a puritan and the other tolerator of GLBTs. The puritan stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers — or even like this GLBT lover. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get. I also give thanks that my loving ministers forgive their parishioners of domestic abuse, theft, pedophilia and other acts of violence. Please give my pure ministers the strength to punish GLBTs and their advocates.'

But the GLBT advocate stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' I can not love unconditionally and then hate another."

"It did answer a question concerning our episcopal visit in March. I had made up my mind I would not take communion from my bishop, Bob Duncan. I will receive communion with Robert Duncan when he visits."

Good for you. I do believe that Christ can reconcile us when we come to the Table even as we might be unaware.

There is a man in my congregation who worked for a state senator who was aggresively anti-gay. He - the legislative assistant - and I could not be further apart on that and other political issues. We had some heated words over some proposed legislation a few years ago.

But we never stopped coming to the Table. He is a LEM and I am a priest, and we have received Communion from each other.

We have not changed our opinions on issues, but we are no longer angry with each other, and we have decided, in working on adult education, to do a joint discussion of Sen Danforth's book on politics and religion.

Having known people in my youth who would not take the Cup if a Black person had received from it, I have strong feelings about the need to come to the Table together seeking reconciliation.

"Do you think Genuine Christians look up to man, (especially morally bankrupt and Christ dishonoring people) for sustenance instead of God?"

I see you have a very, very high opinion of yourselves as Genuine Christians®, and a very, very low opinion of certain people who sit in the pews and pray with you.

I think there's a little story about that somewhere, isn't there? Ah, yes. It's found in Luke 18, and is one of the most wonderful of passages....

++Peter Jasper Akinola, ++John Chew et al., apart from grand-standing, are innovators, ignorant of the Anglican tradition.

Would their Graces read the Anglican Divine's great Poem: "Love bade me welcome; yet my soul drew back..." (by George Herbert)?

Love bade me welcome: yet my soul drew back,
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-ey'd Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning,
If I lack'd any thing...

You must sit down, says Love, and taste my meat:
So I did sit and eat.

(Love, the Host at every Eucharist, is none other than the Risen Lord.) Sadly, the Seven Anglican Primates have forgotten that. Shame... shame.. shame!

And to examine the flip side of the coin....

I guess this means that essentially all but 7 of the primates are quite willing to receive communion alongside the Presiding Bishop [with appropriate disclaimers for those absent from the meeting as noted elsewhere].

It does not appear that a majority of the primates will concur with the Global Seven on extreme sanctions against TEC.

Rudy, your comment "...when my wife and I argue, she tells me I can't go to communion until we reconcile, even though I feel fine." has been niggling at me.

I think that is one of the problems - lack of empathy.

I feel fine, so it doesn't matter how others feel (especially if they are women and particularly if I am married to them). After all, God told her that she has to love me unconditionally, so of course she will forgive me for my transgressions, callousness and omittance in attending to her needs. As long as I am getting what I want, what's the problem, that's the way God ordained things to be.

The problem is, that if you neglect, ignore or discount your family's needs long enough and severely enough, eventually even the most hopeful of souls will come to realise that you might say "loving" but in actual fact don't give a toss about her. In fact, she could go missing for quite some time before you'd even noticed that she was gone, and it can be ignored because she's just having another sulk and will have to come back because God ordained it that she must forgive you because she is ordained to love you unconditionally.

To paraphrase Jeremiah 8:10: because of your greed and deceit, I am going to hand your wife over to another. I toss my sandal at complacent, cruel and inattentive men.

Words spoken after the cards are played are gigilo promises from a soul that finds power to be an aphrodesiac. Aphrodesiacs wear off and where there is no love the player is later remembered as a deceptive snake, and the encounter recalled as being as comfortable as eating dry sawdust.

It is interesting that Akinola and now Michael Poon has broken with the agreed channels of communication for Primates during the meeting.

We may see more of this tomorrow.

And just when I thought everyone was going to be gracious and act like adults...

sigh.

Well, seems pretty obvious to me that they're trying to walk apart and pin the blame on TEC. Wouldn't be the first time in the past year that I've been reading about Akinola's antics.

Of course, the problem for those who wish they'd just finally up-sticks and go, is: if they leave the Communion, what's to stop these "Global South" folks setting up their stall in the US for real, not just this shim organization CANA?

They didn't just refuse to commune with the P.B.--they also refused the +++ABC, which, by definition, places them outside the historical Anglican Communion. My prayers continue to be for all Christians, in and out of the Anglican Communion. We can certainly do that much! There are no winners or losers here, in spite of what radical voices on the far left or far right claim.

It's sad in so many ways. It's sad because it's an abuse of the eucharist. It's sad because the primates involved have confused their belief in a particular kind of Christianity with the inexhaustible love of God and in so doing cut themselves off from that love as expressed in the sacrament. It's sad because they feel the need to take this position in order to ensure that their voices are heard. But most of all it's sad because it's not an act to with Jesus, it's a political act, an attempt to regain control over the agenda which they saw was slipping away from them. When the Primates' meeting was going well, they had to try to destroy it. Akinola making an unauthorised statement is Akinola challenging the authority of Canterbury. Giles Fraser was right, Screwtape is in Tanzania.

The Prayer of Humble Access says: We do not presume to come to this thy table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy to gatherup the crumbs under thy table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy:

So often we understand these things as relating or focusing on us and our actions or state of being. The point of fact is that they focus on God. It is not our sinfulness that should be the focus but God's mercy. It's not other's sinfulness that should be the focus but God's great mercy. To use the Table to make a point is to put that focus back on ourselves rather than on God where it belongs.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Tim, there will be nothing to prevent them from setting up their stalls. In the US we have so many stalls that one more will hardly matter. It would also mean that TEC, hopefully through the AC, would be free to bring the truly good news of God's love to those areas of the Global South were it is apparently not proclaimed.

Perhaps there is a kind of atonement theology here: that these seven did not go to the eucharist so that others may be able to go (something like that)...

It is a lower number than previously, but this comes after the Windsor Report with its 66.7% pass (as the cartoon puts it - but the 33.3% bit was a kind of neutral and in today's marking a non-negative needs the benefit of the doubt). Plus the press conference indicated difficult discussion ongoing.

Clearly Akinola is not going to end CANA, and his Church website wants to announce who was absent, so he's not marched them down the hill yet.

I bet they have a eucharist in "the" headquarters.

"Either theological differences matter or they don’t. Time to make up your polluted mind, you Revisionists."

The meta-question is: when does a theological difference matter so much that it destroys the unity in faith of a church?

Anglicans have a good record of living together in amity despite a vast spectrum of theological differences.

The current disagreements about gays are the same that are found in every society, family and church in the world today. It is unwise to erect them into make-or-break church unity issues. The debate is fluid and ongoing, and demands from everyone great patience with differences.

Spiro, you words are horrifyingly ungracious: I *know* Weiwen, and you won't find a more kind, and joyfully Spirit-filled Christian *anywhere* (And he's from the Global South---y'know, home of the New Anglican Champions?)

There's nothing wrong w/ Ng's mind, either.

*Nowhere* does he say that "theological differences don't matter", he says that the AC has always encompassed (LEGITIMATE) diversity. Surely, we all know the shorthand "High, Low and Broad" (Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical and Latitudarian)? Different theological *emphases*, but all within a (to use a contemporary phrase) "generous orthodoxy".

[Note: "Transubstantiation" is one such diverse view. I don't hold to it, but there's no reason one can't (Sorry partisans, but Art. XXVIII, like the rest of the 39 articles, itself is a point about which Anglicans may have legitimate diversity of views)]

It seems to me, Spiro, that you're confusing apples and oranges. One may hold diverse theological perspectives, but theology itself still matters.

What DOESN'T matter---to *theology* (and thereby, to Anglican faith)---is one's POV on gay ordinations and blessings gay relationships.

Is it not your well-known views, on this theological adiaphora, that is, well, "polluting" YOUR mind? :-/

Spiro wrote: “On one hand the Revisionists say Theological Issues/Differences are not Communion-dividing matters, and then, without blinking an eye, they remind everyone that THEOLOGICAL differences, such as "transubstantiation," are the reasons why we are not in full communion with the RC.”

and concluded: “Either theological differences matter or they don’t.”

Well, there are 2 different realities here…

Theological matters, including incompatibilities of church Ordinances (1073 Dictatus papae & c), are the reason we are not in communion with the Roman catholic church.

The late modern category of “sex” is a matter neither of church Ordinance nor Theology, so no bearing on communion in any direction.

But it would seem that the splinters do have theological differences with Catholicity in its Anglican form ;=)

'I bet they have a eucharist in "the" headquarters.

Posted by: Pluralist on Saturday'
Surely that depends on whether this is their Communion Quarter ?!

"See how these Christians love one another!"

I am praying - surely along with all Christians the world over, (particularly Anglican Christians) - that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit direct all speakers and bring all, all to desire and seek the Father's will and loving purpose and bring about a solution acceptable to Him.

Dear Spiro,

"Friends and Foes, therein is the problem with this whole issue: On one hand the Revisionists say Theological Issues/Differences are not Communion-dividing matters, and then, without blinking an eye, they remind everyone that THEOLOGICAL differences, such as "transubstantiation," are the reasons why we are not in full communion with the RC.

Either theological differences matter or they don’t. Time to make up your polluted mind, you Revisionists."

I'm not sure where that's coming from, but that wasn't my intent. What I was trying to say was this: there are some Roman Catholic leaders who have insisted that, for example, people (esp political leaders) who support abortion should not receive Holy Communion. in other words, uniformity of doctrine is required before coming to the table, at least for some RCC leaders. if you are OK with transubstantiation, and if you really cannot stand the diversity of the Anglican Communion, then you should consider the Roman Catholic Church.

Keep in mind, though, I get the sense that many lay Catholics don't require uniformity of doctrine and are less uptight about subjects such as homosexuality and birth control. so, if you're insistent upon walking, the RCC might not be doctrinally pure enough for you (although its upper hierarchy might be). that's your problem, not mine.

I never told you my own beliefs about transubstantiation. I don't agree with the concept, but it's hardly a thing which needs to divide the Communion. you seem to be reading into my words things which are not there.

The fact is, many of the rest of us know real alive gay folks. We know them, up close and personal and as family members or friends or coworkers. We know that their not being straight doesn't make them innately bad, any more than our being straight makes us superior and good.

Simply repeating simplistic legacy negative categorizations of these people we know so well - as nothing but egregious sinners owing to their not being straight - is (1) hard to support empirically (we can find little innate defect in them that is actually due to their sexual orientation variances) - and (2) it is becoming more and more difficult to support ethically (damning sex acts which take place in committed gay/lesbian couples and ignoring those sex acts when straight couples do them is curious, no?) - and (3) it is slowly but surely becoming questionable as a core matter of Jesus Freak life or doctrine.

Dig your conservative realignment heels in the sands of time if you will and if you must. We who know and cherish our gay/lesbian friends know what fruits their daily life and love and work truly bears, spilling over into the wider circles of church and world, all for the better.

At the very least, putting such decent folks in Nigerian prisons seems draconian and backwards. Pretty mean-spirited, too, as a witness to the incarnate and self-giving love of Jesus of Nazareth who is Risen Lord. The same Holy Spirit who fell upon the Gentiles in the New Testament is also falling upon people today, regardless of whether those blessed are gay or straight, sexual or celibate, childless or parenting, rich or poor, Anglo or Asian or African or Idigenous, male or female, old or young, literate or illiterate.

Spiro,
"Time to make up your polluted mind, you Revisionists."

I think you really need to prayerfully seek the source of your anger and paranoia. Now, all this "revisionists" garbage comes from the AAC and such like, who realy need to set up two camps in order to feel like they are being attacked by the other. You have bought into it and it is making you hate your brother, to use Gospel terminology. Jesus doesn't tell us only to love the people who agree with us. Ask yourself, who are you really hurting with your anger and hatred? Who taught you to think like this about your fellow Christians? Jesus said you can judge prophets: "by their fruit you shall know them". Regardless what you think about the "revisionists" can you say this anger and hatred are the fruit of the Gospel? Whose teaching is bearing this fruit in you?

Cheryl Clough, thank you for your response, although it doesn't quite characterise the situation, I appreciate the answer and will think about it.

I am grateful for a response -- this wasn't an idle or rhetorical question.