It looks like the ACI and Christopher Seitz are going to be disappointed, then.

Because Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane's piece clearly states that 800 bishop hours werer lost to an hour-and-a-half plenary meeting producing Resolution 1:10, that the Subgroup found that the General Convention [of TEC] had gone beyond what had been asked by Windsor and elsewhere had operated within its own polity to reflect the spirit of Windsor which was
not the position that was reflected in the final communiqué, he sees the danger of setting up something that looks like a Curia and wonders if this Covenant is needed at this time or if one can enhance the Provinces and Communion.

So another nail in the coffin of the present process then, the thing itself being pretty dead.

The only quibble I have with Bishop N's long and thoughtful talk suddenly comes at the very end when he seems to be saying that while sexual orientation is not ontological, genderized male/female differences nonetheless are ontological. Thus while we would not have gay/bi/straight in heaven, we would still have male/female. This is a little shift, too far in the LDS direction, for my best conscience, so I must dissent as a believer. I cannot yet join Bishop N. in saying that gender is ontological.

Otherwise I find his remarks, especially his eyewitness testimony to what happened at Lambeth 1998 to result in the sudden adoption of the famous/infamous 1.10 - well all very informative, to say the least.

If anybody is gay and in lifelong love, everybody is muddied?

Inevitably protestants, catholics, and liberal believers would come at our hot button dilemmas quite differently, so effort is needed to lift up shared best tool kit intellectual standards. And other possibilities of common ground.

Poor Radner and Seitz. I keep reading them, to see if anything has opened in their views, and so far not much has opened. They are still closed in upon their own special conservative thinking – wittingly or unwittingly unable to take a place among the diversity of reasonable but varied views in all the marketplaces of ideas. They offer no basis for agreeing to disagree because research is ongoing. Their scholarly breadth of details always evokes hope, then their closed presuppositions always end up rendering the varied details null and void in favor of just where their special thinking started in the first place. Their conclusions always involve the rest of us being wrong. In the end, neither Radner or Seitz ever much reads as if common ground across varied views is ever really possible, let alone truthful.

What uniquely gifted believers they must surely be?

But the communion questions of covenant are at least as much about believer self-governance, as they are about proclaiming any particular new puritan or other set of doctrines or confessions. Institutional parameters which enact the divine rights of kings are one statement. Equality and democracy are another statement. Their views of scripture aka apostolic authority tilt far towards revelation as a divine right of kings to rule. Bishop N. surely gets this. Others, too. Including other African bishops. Maybe.

Lord have mercy.

Seriously, how does South Africa manage to get such outstanding primates?

Tobias has an excellent follow up piece about the nature of the church & covenant -- I do wish I could marshal my thoughts & express them with such clarity & precision.

Marshall on Chaplain at Bedside has more on the Covenant.
http://tinyurl.com/2vc6pg

I am grateful for Ndungane relating some of South Africa's 1987 experiences with a Sydney Archbishop assisting the development of CESA in South Africa. So what the Nigerians are doing in the US has precedence.

It would be interesting to hear more about the experiences from South Afica. What has worked well and what has been vexatious.

I also note the history of forming Lambeth conferences and am reminded of a comment from a Presbyterian minister that they had got rid of bishops because they caused more problems than they solved...

Just in case the readers of this list missed it, in the same Jesus-like tone as Abp N's message is an ad from the Episcopal Church on the page of the New York Times, p A25, today Saturday, May 12. It does make one proud, uh-oh, pleased, very pleased to be an Episcopalian.

Is there a link for this ad? A text? A scan? A pdf? What does it say?

"800 bishop hours were lost to an hour-and-a-half plenary meeting"? Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane also tells us that more than 600 bishops were present at the plenary meeting, so the plenary meeting actually counts for well over 900 bishop hours. Of course this does not minimise the pain of having one's carefully drafted committee resolution revised in a plenary session...

How odd that Ndungane should mention the Colenso/Gray dispute and CESA without linking the two together! CESA's origins are in that dispute when an Anglo-Catholic bishop was foisted on an evangelical province.

People do not listen to KJS - what makes you think they will listen to this guy given he, like her, fails to make a compelling scriptural case?

TEC GLobal, when launched with its inherited money, is welcome to Ndugane and his little SA church since this man will presumably lead them to worship the god called MDGs....CESA can then join the AC.

"TEC GLobal, when launched with its inherited money, is welcome to Ndugane and his little SA church since this man will presumably lead them to worship the god called MDGs....CESA can then join the AC."

The way things are going (especially after ++Akinola's recent laying-on-hands-fly-by in Virginia), "TEC Global" will be within the AC, along with Brasil etc., and the Nigerians et al. will be outside of it, so the foregoing premise is fundamentally flawed.

But let us assume for the sake of argument that NP is correct.

If so, TEC, IAEB (Brasil), etc will be proud to be in communion with the "little SA church" that gave the world not just ++Ndugane but also ++Tutu (who, most assuredly, shall remain in communion with TEC, whatever happens).

And btw, NP, when exactly did CESA's membership surpass that of the Anglican Church in Southern Africa? If the latter is just a "little SA church," doesn't that make CESA just an "itsy-bitsy, teensy-weensy little SA church"?

I would be very interested to know exactly what NP means with the quaint phrase "compelling scriptural case"?

"Applicaton"? Dynamic Equivalcence? Late modern translations in general? The NIV?

"John Foxe" wrote: "CESA's origins are in that dispute when an Anglo-Catholic bishop was foisted on an evangelical province."

That is a total misrepresentation. The truth is that Colenso was (in modern terms) a "liberal" in his biblical writings (he attacked the historicity of certain parts of the hexateuch, and the doctrine of eternal punishment), and an erastian in his polity. Gray was hardly an Anglo-Catholic, at any rate at the date of the schism in Natal. As a bishop, his appointment actually predated that of Colenso.

The first Lambeth Conference urged Colenso to resign, but he refused with the result that there was a schism. The real rise of anglo-catholic teaching was subsequent to all this, and became a convenient excuse for the continuing of a schism which was non-episcopal until the defection of Bishop Morris in the 1950s.

In addition to the theological roots of the schism, Colenso also tolerated polygamy, which caused considerable distress to his fellow-bishops, though he received strong support from the (arch-liberal) Dean Stanley, who approved of his pastoral sense. In 1869, Macrorie became Bishop of Pietermaritzburg, and continued as the "official" bishop of the diocese unmtil his death in 1893, Colenso having died in 1883. The successor to Macrorie was Hamilton Baynes, who resumed the title Bishop of Natal.

The modern CESA is rooted in surviving congregations of the Colenso schism, and any attempt to claim their origins as some kind of stand for evangelical truth as against Romish error is unhistorical fantasy.

SOME people do not listen to KJS, NP. Suspect that in the coming months we're going to learn who, in fact, has been listening to whom.

"Ndugane and his little SA church". Have you NO shame, NP?

"TEC GLobal, when launched with its inherited money..."

What's with the constant references to TEC's money, and who do you think we "inherited" it from?

The operating budget of TEC comes from the money sent to it annually from [theoretically] every diocese. There is a mathmatical formula I suppose that they use to calculate that assessment. In recent years, some few diocese have refused to send money or have reduced their giving to a token amount. That money is spent as budgeted.

ERD {Episcopal Relief and Development}does its work of rescue and reconstruction on moneys donated by individuals, churches, and dioceses on a voluntary basis.

The Church Pension Fund does indeed have bags of money, thanks to shrewd investment and management, but that money goes to participants - those employed by the church. It's a very fine defined benefit pension plan.

There are no hidden vaults stuffed with gold bars at 815 - would that there were!

It is obvious what NP means by "compelling scriptural case."

He means "a case that compelling sets out what I already believe."

Here is a link to the New York Times ad.

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/newYorkTimes_opAd.pdf

Göran asked, "I would be very interested to know exactly what NP means with the quaint phrase "compelling scriptural case"?

"Applicaton"? Dynamic Equivalcence? Late modern translations in general? The NIV? "

Why, the NIV of course. As wishfully interpreted by the current crop of neo-con, far right wingers.

No Malcolm - a compelling case would be one that is credible and backed up by scripture and tradition (i.e. not directly contradicting it and claiming some special revelation from the Spirit to do so)......

I am not the one trying to justify behaviour which is clearly forbidden......your deifinition of "a compelling case" fits a certain VGR very well

LOL Malcolm but I would improve the grammar

"a case that me and my mates thinks compellingly sets out what we already believe"

Unwritten plea - please no one open the bible to find the passages that contradict our theories. And if they do, please God don't enable them to have access to any forms of communication to let everyone else know that the the barn doors have been opened...

See Isaiah 35:3-10 (the highways to Zion contain no wicked fools nor ferocious beasts) and Malachi 4:2-6 which includes "...you will go out and leap like calves released from the stalls" and "I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. (S)he will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.”

We are to love both the "pure" and the afflicted, the elite and the outcaste, mother and father, son and daughter, both alien and kin, our enemies and our friends (This is consistent with Matthew 5:44-48)

Dear Cryptogram,

thank you for your comments. Can you back up your allegations with any evidence? I got my history from here
http://www.cesa.org.za/pages/detailed_history_of_cesa.htm

I note the dispute was not over Gray being foisted on the church but over his foisting of Anglo-Catholicism.

David H touches on an area of real concern. Now that (I believe) the necessity has been removed of even <30 residentially-trained clergy having a stab at NT Greek, (let alone the other biblical languages) we risk losing connection with Scripture as (at times) an alien landscape, and the move to 'accessibility' in translations is compounding the problem.

A case in point: I was preaching at a united service earlier in the year, at which the Gospel was Cana in Galilee. Like you do, you pick up the 'sign' theology, made explicit in John's comment 'This was the first of the signs....'

What I hadn't expected was that a congregation consisting entirely of fully-paid-up mature Christians should be treated to 'The Message' translation, which goes for easyspeak - and quite outrageously subverts John's Gospel by using the word 'miracle' to translate 'semeion'. NIV is nearly as bad - 'miraculous signs'. There's no MS support for any 'thaum-' word that I can find.

Thus unjustifiable (and I have to say ConsEv) spin is incarnated in the sacred text - and people will in thirty years have forgotten that there's more to Scripture than Hodder & Stoughton, and forget that when reading 'The Bible' they're actually reading a commentary, often with undeclared loyalties.

"lead them to worship the god called MDGs"

Can anyone explain to me just why some people seem to be so against the MDGs? I must have missed something somewhere.

Viriato, by the way, Desmond Tutu did a lot in the struggle against apartheid and in reconciliation but he is not the Messiah.....he can be wrong.....his personal views, pro-TEC or not, carry no special authority (I am sure he would agree!)

(I like the house Tutu has bought in Cape Town - you can still get a decent old pile for $2million there it seems!!)

John Foxe

How about the Judgement of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dated 20 March 1865 and the documents of the first Lambeth Conference cited in Davidson: Five Lambeth Conferences (London 1920) pp 73-75, 55.

If you want secondary sources too, you will find Chadwick pointing out Colenso's connection with F D Maurice (no conservative evangelical he!) (Victorian Church 1, p.550f) and see also Victorian Church 2 pp. 90ff.

That Gray became an anglo-catholic I do not deny, but his catholicism was not at issue in the Colenso schism. It was C's lack of orthodoxy. That the schism subsequently became a rallying-point for disaffected low churchmen (probably a more accurate term than evangelicals in this context) does not alter the fact that its origins were very different.

Question - and I have no idea what the answer will be - how humble is the abode of the Archbishop of Ajuba?

NP:
"I like the house Tutu has bought in Cape Town - you can still get a decent old pile for $2million there it seems!!"

That was unworthy sniping, particularly from one who has defended six- and seven-figure city bonuses. I had thought better of you than that.

I'd much rather belong to any church including, or associated with, Desmond Tutu than with The First Church of God's Fiery Wrath for Fags, Lib'ruls, and Feminists that NP proclaims.

Speaking of South Africa, an unregenerate segregationist and tireless supporter of apartheid in South Africa became a saint in NP's church today. I just hope Jerry Falwell meets a God who was far kinder and more full of Love than the Pastor of Lynchburg ever was. I'm sure all those AIDS dead that he slimed, along with the dead of September 11th whom he exploited and slimed, are meeting with him now.

"Viriato, by the way, Desmond Tutu did a lot in the struggle against apartheid and in reconciliation but he is not the Messiah.....he can be wrong.....his personal views, pro-TEC or not, carry no special authority (I am sure he would agree!)"

Did anyone call ++Tutu a (the!) Messiah, NP?

Messiah, no -- but Man of God, Man of the Messiah, yes, certainly. ++Tutu (rightly) commands far more moral authority, both within Africa and worldwide, than --Akinola ever shall.

In both theology and moral discernment, I'll take the former Primate of the Province of Southern Africa over the current Primate of All Nigeria, thanks.

"(I like the house Tutu has bought in Cape Town - you can still get a decent old pile for $2million there it seems!!)"

Tsk, tsk. As has already been observed, how very petty, sir/madame.

Rather than hurling stones at ++Tutu, perhaps you ought to have spent the time looking up membership figures for your vaunted alleged AC candidate CESA, so you can put into proper factual perspective just *which* SA church is a "little" one? (As if size mattered in matters of proving theological correctness anyway... See my previous citation of the Arians as once having been the majority of Christendom, not the Nicene-orthodox.)

David Rowett wrote, "David H touches on an area of real concern..."

Awww come on. We all know the NIV was translated by a wide range of scholars. Everyone from Conservative Evangelicals all the way to *Extremely* Conservative Evangelicals... ;->

On a more serious note, he's right on the money when he comments, "...and people will in thirty years have forgotten that there's more to Scripture than Hodder & Stoughton, and forget that when reading 'The Bible' they're actually reading a commentary, often with undeclared loyalties." (tho' in some cases not so "undeclared" :)

What a sad fate for Holy Scripture.

Drdanfee says:

"Their scholarly breadth of details always evokes hope, then their closed presuppositions always end up rendering the varied details null and void in favor of just where their special thinking started in the first place. Their conclusions always involve the rest of us being wrong. In the end, neither Radner or Seitz ever much reads as if common ground across varied views is ever really possible, let alone truthful."

come on now..you may not agree with these two men, but not 'truthful'? Cheap and beneath the scholarly (if sometimes impenetrable commentary) you offer. You can do better. These men care deeply for this church, and thoughtfully defend a position after much prayer, thought and scholarship. Let's give them the same in return, please. 'Thinking Anglicans' suggests a more inclusive and engaging attitude than we're seeing here.

Let's please acknowledge here that we can have two different views: justice oriented LGBT centric theology and scriptural based original sin theology. Our church is evidence that these two may not ever be resolved in this world. But if we are to 'live in the tension' then we must acknowledge these two views as lovingly held and worthy of human respect, even if irreconcilable.

counterlight - what are you talking about?? I have never mentioned Falwell in any positive or negative way.

Mynster - what is "unworthy" about stating a fact about Tutu? And, I do like his house....my greed, I am afraid!

You are the one who is anti-wealth(quite rightly, in my view, given all the bible says on the subject of greed)....but I notice when someone you appear to admire happens to live like a king in Cape Town, you criticise the person who mentions the fact.....

I expect you to be consistent given you are not one of the medication-dependent people posting here! If you saw Tutu's house, you would not be attacking me, Mynster!

I found an interesting article by Bishop Colin Bazley (former Bishop of Chile) one of the participants in the Sub-section on human sexuality, giving his recollections of the redaction of Lambeth 98 1.10, as a response to Ndungane's

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=1673

This is my first post here. Greetings from Chile!

Cheryl Clough said,
"We are to love both the "pure" and the afflicted, the elite and the outcaste, mother and father, son and daughter, both alien and kin, our enemies and our friends"

Absolutely. There is also a call to *holiness* (Isa 35:8 and Mal 4:4) that can not be ignored.

What NP, myself and most every reasserter is looking for is a case for the holiness of homosexual acts. We're all broken people - most with sexual sin in our lives. Why do we think God has changed the rules on a certain type of sexual sin and made it holy?

I found Dr Radnor's article very thought provoking. However, it was mostly academic in respect of the current crisis. The fact is that the Anglican Communion is a federation of independent local churches. A communion that was in fact a universal " confessional" church under a centralised governing body would not, by definition, be the Anglican Communion.

The CofE, the template for Anglican churches, is a local church, not a confessional one. It is legally established as the national Church of the English people. It is 'The Church' in England and as such has always provided a home to different expressions of the Christian Faith, theological and ceremonial. Outside of Lambeth Palace, there seems little enthusiasm for changing this.

Akinola may be successful in establishing a new Nigerian Communion or a world-wide Nigerian Church, but the CofE is unlikely to be part of it.

"We all know the NIV was translated by a wide range of scholars. Everyone from Conservative Evangelicals all the way to *Extremely* Conservative Evangelicals... "

Joking aside - which (modern) translations are more authentic?

Viriato - so, you prefer Tutu to Akinola - what a surprise - you still have to deal with TWR, The Tanzania Communique and Sept 30th coming up fast for TEC.....your hero Desmond is not having much effect in helping the cause of VGR, is he?!

And - .....is it throwing stones to mention the fact that this "Man of God" has bought a house in theCape Town $ millionaires row?

Is it throwing stones to say I like his mansion?

You're doing yourself no favours, NP. Cool it. Please! Failing which, how about evidence other than your repeated "say-so", that Tutu is living like a Renaissance cardinal? I have just deleted from this post a sentence on the alleged cost to the church of a Colorado Springs rectory, because I cannot now verify the source of the sum that I have seen quoted.

NP: you are being remarkably disingenuous, and I suspect you know it. The 'throwaway' comment about +Desmond's house is disconnected from the rest of your posting, hence many of us suspect you are trying to discredit the bloke. It's underhand and unworthy of you.

Erika asks: "which (modern) translations are more authentic?"

Probably NRSV is as close as you come (though strict accuracy is modified for the sake of inclusivity). Though it is our default version, I do find it lacks euphony, and I find NIV is useful as a fallback, though some of its renderings are - shall we say - doctrinally motivated. My personal preference is the New Jerusalem Bible.

Erika asked;
Joking aside - which (modern) translations are more authentic?

My two pennyworth asks 'what for?' By 'modern' I assume you mean post 1611!

We used the RV (of all things) when we were at uni: it renders each Gk/Heb/Aram word with the same English word throughout, which, though it makes for difficult reading, it's good for study and hard to 'spin'. But it doesn't have the Qumran material and all the other new textual stuff. At Durham we read it alongside the NEB, but that was probably because one of our lecturers had been heavily involved in the OT!

If you can cope with non-inclusive language, I still rate the RSV - the NRSV annoys me, when I'm trying to follow the NT readings it seems to mangle the Greek: can't read quickly enough to do the Hebrew! My OT Society spouse says 'REB with RV'.

Erika - the ESV is very accurate (not the most beautiful to read but the most accurate)

(Google ESV bible)

Chris - you are looking for a case for the holiness of homosexual acts. But no sexual act is intrinsically holy; a heterosexual act is only made holy by the intentions of the couple and many heterosexual acts are far from holy.

Sorry, harvard man - when somebody is being kicked to death in a park in London or tortured in a police cell somewhere in Africa, it is sometimes difficult to remember that the rational behind these acts of violence is "lovingly held and worthy of human respect".

It is difficult to remember that the theology behind slavery and apartheid and the oppression of women was "lovingly held and worthy of human respect".

Bigotry is always wrong no matter how much "prayer, thought and scholarship" goes into defending it.

HOWEVER, what Drdanfee said was that Radnor and Seitz will not accept that anybody else can have an inkling of the truth, that they consider themselves the sole arbiters of what is true - not that they themselves are untruthful.

ESV - Hm, I'd be a little happier if the list of scholars wasn't quite so one-sided.

That's not to criticise the scholarship as such - it's a translation I don't know first hand - but rather to wonder why there aren't more non-evangelical sources. It's good to have the Regius prof of Heb. at Cambridge on board, but (as NP posted earlier) he is Brethren in his theology.

Is this a competitor to NIV?

I think Ken Collins has a pretty good handle on the ESV:

"It was translated by a group of scholars representing a diverse group of denominations, most of which are conservative on social and political issues." (sounds about as "diverse" as the group responsible for the NIV :)

"(The ESV) uses archaic constructions to produce a text that sounds more literal than it really is."

"It is just as circumspect of conservative sensitivities as the New Revised Standard Version is of feminist concerns."

"If you consider yourself socially conservative, nothing in this Bible will cause offense."

And we wouldn't want to cause offense to the preconceived notions of any social conservatives, would we ? ;)

Terence Dear said,
"a heterosexual act is only made holy by the intentions of the couple and many heterosexual acts are far from holy"

Exactly! And I made the very point that sexual sin affects many many people - straight and gay. So why are we saying one type of sexual sin is not only acceptable to God but now *BLESSED*?

I'm glad we can agree on something, Chris.

Straight sex is often sinful but if used in the right way can be blessed.

Gay sex is often sinful but if used in the right way can be blessed.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that all gay sex is automatically sinful.

Terence, I'll rephrase my question so you can understand my point:
So why are [post-moderns, going against 2000 years of Christian tradition and everything the OT and NT says about marriage and human sexuality, using only marginal science and an aggressive social agenda] saying one type of sexual sin [namely homosexuality] is not only acceptable to God but now *BLESSED*?

You can see we don't agree, but I suspect you already knew that.

harvardman said: "Let's please acknowledge here that we can have two different views: justice oriented LGBT centric theology and scriptural based original sin theology."

At least you acknowledge that there are different views. But you fall into the trap of claiming that one is "scriptural" the other presumably "not scriptural." Despite the assurances of the Prince Bishop of Abuja and others, there may be more than one way to interpret what scripture is telling us on a given question.

And NP, NP, NP. I'm growing somewhat tired of your constant demand that all and sundry have to take the Windsor Report seriously. Perhaps you might consider the mote in your own eye. Your hero, the Prince Bishop of Abuja, has emphatically rejected Lambeth 1:10 by refusing to engage in any meaningful listening process. He has equally emphatically rejected Windsor by refusing to end his acts of ecclesiastical agenda, and indeed by expanding them.

Your claim that these documents are authoritative (despite Lambeth and the Primates having no such authority) lacks credibility when your allies are busily defiant themselves.

Terence Dear,

whoa..a bit over the line with:

'Bigotry is always wrong no matter how much "prayer, thought and scholarship" goes into defending it.'

Ok, so perhaps it's silly of me to take offense at being called a bigot on this open minded, inclusive, progressive blog. sheesh, you make the T19 crowd look positively graceful.

To believe homosexual actions not godly is not bigotry. It means we see it differently. And my understanding leads me to see some folks with same sex attraction capable of healing from the Holy Spirit. And perhaps I am concerned that they may miss that message if convinced it's 'how they are'. 'How they are' may not be how God wants them to be, and there is room to interpret scripture that way. Please give me room to understand it that way, and leave them room to come to their understanding with God. I do not condemn anyone in homosexual relationship. That is not my place. But requiring me to accept homosexual relations as godly is against my prayerful understanding of God's word, so do please understand why I can't go there.

Past church sins like slavery do not mean current church positions are sinful, so let's not take that cheap way out.

You have to admit though, harvard man, that history is not on your side. The Church has changed its teachings on a whole range of issues over the past 2000 years. Even since I was confirmed by the Bishop of Kensington 50 years ago, the CofE has changed its teachings dramatically on marriage, divorce and heterosexual intercourse.

I'm sorry you were offended by my use of the word "bigotry". I get very offended and deeply hurt when I'm told I'm not a Christian!

Chris - the problem you have is that "2000 years of Christian tradition and everything the OT and NT says about marriage and human sexuality" aren't what you think they are. Take 'Tradition' - Did you know that there was no such thing as Christian marriage before the 12th century? It was only then that local priests began to compose (illegal) blessings of what up until then had been an entirely civil institution. 300 years later, though, the Church made marriage a sacrament. After the Reformation, the CofE de-sacralised it. In fact, the only time Christian marriage has been compulsory in Britain was between 1753 and 1846.

There is no refuge in Tradition, any more than there is in incantations like "it's what the Church has always taught" or "it's what the Bible says".

Harvardman
"Please give me room to understand it that way, and leave them room to come to their understanding with God. I do not condemn anyone in homosexual relationship. That is not my place. But requiring me to accept homosexual relations as godly is against my prayerful understanding of God's word, so do please understand why I can't go there."

Yes, I could easily live side by side with you on that basis. But it would depend on one further compromise - could you live side by side with churches who do bless same gender love, or would you have to insist that no church does because it goes against your personal understanding?

Mynster - I was not trying to discredit Tutu. He is a hero of mine in his brave fight against apartheid....even if I think he has lost the plot in now thinking he and others can ignore scripture when it does not agree with them.

Mentioning Tutu's lovely house in Cape Town does not discredit him in my eyes.

I note that Anglican Mainstream carries comments on Abp Ndungane's address from Bps Bazley and Benn. Both dispute his version of Lambeth 1998, and Benn rather unwisely accuses him of a lack of integrity. I just hope that this time he's read what was said before leaping to judgement. I'm getting very weary of the whole "He said...I said...They never said..." thing. There is a time for sitting in silence before the Lord, and I think it's well upon us.

NP:
Mentioning Tutu's lovely house in Cape Town does not discredit him in my eyes.

Then why mention it? It added nothing to the discussion. What a silly thing to do!

Mynster - I mentioned it because Tutu was mentioned by someone else and this fact came into my mind. (I note that you express no view on $2m homes in Cape Town...but if a bishop in Abuja owned one, I guess you may comment?)

Crypto - there is nothing wrong with +Benn saying a statement lacks integrity if it is in fact incorrect in important points of fact....we have to say what is true and what is wrong - as you know, not all have integrity.

Thus spake NP: "Mynster - I mentioned it because Tutu was mentioned by someone else and this fact came into my mind."

Well, yes, *I* mentioned ++Tutu.

But I mentioned him with respect to his theology and his moral authority (contrasting them with those of Akinola, or more precisely, with the latter's relative lack thereof) -- not with respect to where he rests his head at night.

Ergo, the reference to his home was purely gratuitous and ad hominem, along with the hyperbolic assertion that I was elevating him as a "Messiah."

Hyperbole and gratuitous ad hominems, some of the usual techniques of those who gun for "Liberals"/"Revisionists"/etc...what would Jesus do???

NP: I don't give a stuff where ++Abuja lives, and my UK vicarage (owned by the Church Commissioners) would sell for a good $100,000, redbrick, uninsulated and undistinguished as it is (though a wonderful place for a gardening ASJ freak to live). I know nothing about real estate values in RSA, or Nigeria for that matter, though I know Abuja has dreadful areas of shantytown poverty. I do know that +Alphaeus Zulu (God rest him) had a house with three doors, one opening onto each of the zones of his diocesan centre, so all races could legally enter his place. I just don't understand the relevance of your initial comment, unless it was to suggest that +Desmond had 'sold out'!

Mynster - you say you do not know about Cape Town property values....well, the average house (for those who have houses) is worth about $100,000.
Most African people still do not own houses and have to live in much worse conditions, as you know.
Very few people (top 1% of society) live in houses worth more than $1m in Cape Town - mostly foreigners and millinaires from the business world plus the old-socialists and union leaders who have become so rich since taking power.

One important think Desmond Tutu has done is to speak out about "the masses of the people" being "left behind" (his phrase) as a small no have become very rich - he is still brave in speaking out against the injustice (but he does not choose to live with the poor or the middle classes - quite understandably in my view given security issues but also he has money and can afford a good lifestyle.)

Is there really that much money to be made making & selling hats in S. Africa, NP?

well, Lapin, as I said, sadly, most African people still do not have proper housing

the old left-wing,liberation-fighters live like kings these days....but they are only human and George Orwell did not base his brilliant little book on anything new, just human nature.

I was surfing for a summary of the issues confronting the Anglican Communion over the past 20 years or so, and read this thread from top to bottom.

I found quite a lot. But even allowing that some of it may just be bantering between old friends, I also found it quite depressing. If this is how Anglican Christians discuss serious matters, and are happy to be seen and heard by bystanders, then the foreseeable Anglican (and perhaps Christian) future seems set to be 'interesting' but increasingly lonely - whichever side of the debates one favours...