There does seem to be an inconsistency. If Bishops (NOT only in the USA as many CofE Bishops actually do support Gene Robinson and TEC in their stance) who support the progressive cause are invited, but not Gene himself, what justification can be made for this?

Perhaps the thinking is that both TEC and conservatives in the Global South will still be prepared to go should only a small number are excluded? I have my doubts, from both sides.

Robinson and Minns are uninvited according to AP.

I have to ask - do those mysteriouis "one or two" bishops who are still under consideration know who they are, or do all 800 bishops have to keep checking their mailboxes every day, like Charlie Brown on Valentine's Day?

_Coming to the Lambeth Conference does not commit you to accepting the position of others as necessarily a legitimate expression of Anglican doctrine and discipline, or to any action that would compromise your conscience or the integrity of your local church._

_...coming to the Conference does not commit you to accepting every position held by other bishops as equally legitimate or true._

These statements, of course, are to keep the Nigerians and others coming when the Episcopalians are coming; they are somewhat contradicted by not extending the invitation to Gene Robinson or, for that matter, Martyn Minns. It is an odd sort of Communion where you do not have to accept the legitimacy of the other. The statements are actually rather desperate. Nor is it clear that they are sufficient for Global South provinces not to go and meet somewhere else. In fact, they might regard it as exactly the problem. Plus, they do not want to go to Lambeth without having already resolved the issue outstanding, and yet it will not be resolved by then, certainly not in the way Akinola wants.

Also, a continuing discussion about a Covenant seems somewhat overtaken by events. A Covenant that is not restrictive enough will not satisfy some, as it is hardly worth the effort, and a Covenant too restrictive will not satisfy others and bring forward an international process of authority that many Churches have rejected.

This ship is rather leaky and the Archbishop of Canterbury is someone who, whilst having an unsure grip on the wheel, keeps steering this ship towards a particular set of rocks. The crew is not very well, and argumentative, and there are calmer waters nearer, even if the ship may go nowhere fast. Otherwise there are more dedicated and designed ships, one crew for one and one crew for the other.

Anyway, the reply slip has to be in 31 July 2007, when 1 October 2007 might have been a better date. I would guess that some replies might be late in.

"At this point, and with the recommendations of the Windsor Report particularly in mind, I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion. Indeed there are currently one or two cases on which I am seeking further advice."

No prizes for naming the "one or two", I suppose. Gene Robinson and Martyn Minns not invited. Maybe the Bishop of Harare will be out too.

The ABC says he withhold the right to withdraw invitations to Bishops "whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion."

I find this very confusing. Is the ABC saying that Robinson has been invited (the invite is in the mail), but if there is a large enough protest he will withdraw on the grounds that his appointment and manner of life have caused serious division.

Otherwise, why invite him now. The division Robinson has caused is already known. Either the ABC considers it to be exceptionally serious or not. What more does he need to know? Who else does he need to hear from on this matter? Similarly, what more does he need to know about Akinola's actions? Is he saying that if it turns out the Primates are really really upset with TEC after September 30th, he might withdraw it?

This is a very odd way to run a railroad.

If Gene's out, Akinola should definitely be out - it's his despicable vitriolic hatred that causes division.

"...bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion."

If this doesn't describe my friend and yours Peter Akinola I don't know who it does describe.

Most interesting! If "contradictory" is the byword for the Anglican way of doing things, then Archbishop Rowan is a master of it. He points to the historic openness of the Anglican Communion, in which we are not bound to accept others' interpretations as binding upon ourselves; but then he offers hints and vague warnings of possible adverse consequences for improper behavior.

Note with interest the short paper by J. Robert Wright on the Anglican Covenant, posted on the Anglican Centrist website, in which, once again, Archbishop Williams is quoted as offering the possibility of "non-acceptance" in the face of assertions of provincial autonomy.

Regarding invitations, it appears to me that only ONE bishop will not be invited: Minns who was irregularly consecrated. Robinson should be invited as regularly consecrated, although under a theological cloud.

How can any of us accept either of the alternatives given for a more specific Anglican identity? Any such specification cuts some of us out. The only hope is for continued openness and autonomy, under the spiritual headship of the Archbishop and the guidance of the instruments of communion, but without pontifical or curial imposition that runs counter to our Anglican heritage.

C.B.-
Bishop Robinson's not caused division. The strains started at lambeth '98 when the threats and anger of a few Bishops forced 1:10 on us. Then, long before +Robinson, the boundry violations began. The AMiA stupidity was BEFORE the New Hampture election, or perhaps the conservitives forget that the strains on the communion were started LONG before the events of GC 2003.
The idea that all of this can be blamed on TEC or +Robinson is one of the, oft repeated, parts of the Donatist Big Lie. The fact that the Media has been complacent in it dosn't add to its verasity.

Canon Kearon confirms that Bp Robinson has not been invited, nor have the AMiA bishops or CANA's Martyn Minns, in line with Abp Carey's refusal to recognise the AMiA consecrations seven years ago. A few other bishops, including Kunonga of Harare, have not been invited either because their standing is in question. Abp Akinola has, of course, been invited.
Consideration is being given to inviting Gene Robinson as a guest of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but this is not being extended to Bp Minns.

Canon Kearon confirms that Bp Robinson has not been invited, nor have the AMiA bishops or CANA's Martyn Minns, in line with Abp Carey's refusal to recognise the AMiA consecrations seven years ago. A few other bishops, including Kunonga of Harare, have not been invited either because their standing is in question. Abp Akinola has, of course, been invited.
Consideration is being given to inviting Gene Robinson as a guest of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but this is not being extended to Bp Minns.

Tim and Eddo - are you just attempting (and failing) to score points against ++Akinola?

Look at TWR, Dromatine and Tanzania......and see that Sept 30 is not far away and you will understand why the ABC does not have to close his position now - TEC will do that for him depending on whether the TEC HOB decides to repent or walk away.

To quote from a 3 March 2006 Stephen Bates article posted at http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/001585.html "if Rowan Williams bans the bishop of New Hampshire but extends invitations to men such as Akinola, Malango and Kunonga, Anglicanism will have ceased to be a communion worthy of the name. It will be, to coin a phrase, spiritually dead."

It's worth reading the article in full.

A final thought. We - rightly in my view - did not break communion with the Episcopal Church of Rwanda over the terrible Rwandan genocide, despite the involvement of Anglicans in those crimes. Nor did anyone talk of barring Rwandan bishops from Lambeth.

If a church wrestling with mass participation in genocide is still welcome at Lambeth, why isn't Bishop Gene Robinson also welcome?

I'm saddened. Gene Robinson is being sacrificed on the altar of unity in exactly the same way as Jeffrey John. Bishop Robinson is a properly elected diocesan bishop, but in his case politics trumps both polity and politeness. It's in marked contrast to the way Katharine Jefferts Schori was affirmed by the ABC as having a seat in the Primate's Meeting by right, despite the objections of those who disagree with her theology.

I half hope other TEC bishops will respond that as one of their number is being unfairly excluded they too will be unable to attend in solidarity - but I can foresee some reasserters' glee should that happen, as they could interpret it as an acknowledgement that such bishops were "walking apart from the Communion."

As for Martyn Minns and the other extra-provincial bishops, that's a greyer area. In the interests of keeping everyone at the table, though, shouldn't they also have been invited?

This is pathetic, a crashing failure of leadership.

As I see it, Bishop Gene is being excluded because the ABC assumes he can be. As he belongs to a marginal class of people (gays), it will be acceptable to sacrifice him for the sake of pacifying those who have made him the occasion for their schismatic, imperial, and/or curial projects. (Gays are to remember that if they are here at all, it is always on sufferance and not by right.) Bishop Martyn is then crossed off the list in an attempt to appear even-handed. It doesn't work; the books don't balance.

Once you start eliminating people, where do you stop? There's no shortage of scandals and disputes here. Why leave out Minns but include Akinola? Why invite Iker but shun Robinson? Why not invite everybody to the table, exert some leadership, trust in the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the people, and see what happens?

Pluralist pens, quoting +++Rowan:

"_Coming to the Lambeth Conference does not commit you to accepting the position of others as necessarily a legitimate expression of Anglican doctrine and discipline, or to any action that would compromise your conscience or the integrity of your local church._

_...coming to the Conference does not commit you to accepting every position held by other bishops as equally legitimate or true._

These statements, of course, are to keep the Nigerians and others coming when the Episcopalians are coming; they are somewhat contradicted by not extending the invitation to Gene Robinson or, for that matter, Martyn Minns. It is an odd sort of Communion where you do not have to accept the legitimacy of the other. "

What is more, these statements also highlight (again) the internal contradictions in +++Rowan's "position(s)."

On the one hand, the ABC has loudly bought into the view that Lambeth 1:10 represents the "mind" and the "teaching" of the Communion as a whole, and he has sought to ascribe to 1:10 far more authoritativeness -- even almost "force of law" -- than has traditionally be the understanding for Lambeth resolutions.

On the other hand, he now assures one and all that Lambeth attendance can be no guarantee of doctrinal orthodoxy, "legitimate expression of Anglican doctrine and discipline," etc etc. Yet if that is true (as it is!), how can any resolutions that emerge from such a gathering nonetheless be deemed to be authoritative teachings, whether as to doctrinal orthodoxy or as to "Anglican-ness"???

By the ABC's reasoning, if Lambeth were one year to see seated a horde of Arian or Ebionite bishops, no one need be discomfited since it says nothing about the other bishops' positions or integrity (which, indeed, it would not) -- yet any resolutions they adopt must need be accepted as the authoritative teaching of the Communion on the matter.

Here is Bp. Robinson's reply.
http://www.nhepiscopal.org/artman/publish/article_455.shtml

Sayeth badman:

"No prizes for naming the "one or two", I suppose. Gene Robinson and Martyn Minns not invited. Maybe the Bishop of Harare will be out too."

If -Kunonga gets invited but +Robinson isn't, it will only demonstrate the sale of the Communion -- and of the ABC -- to the very same pharisaical principles that Our Lord railed against.

Moneychangers in the Temple was bad enough; now we are to have a whore of Mugabe there, one who blesses the destruction of shantytowns and the driving out of their residents into homelessness, one who blesses stealing the property of others not to feed the poor but to give himself estates, one who is an apologist for the deprivation of human rights and political freedoms.

But hey, Williams, Akinola & Co. will have kept themselves "pure" from the taint of those nasty homos.

What kind of Christianity is *that*???

What *would* Jesus do?

The "Washington Post", among other newspapers, gives more detail:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052200411.html

Of particular interest is a reported statement of Kenneth Kearon, secretary-general of the Anglican Communion: "Robinson may be invited to attend the Lambeth Conference as a guest, but Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is not contemplating inviting Minns, Kearon said".

The article continues "The question of Gene Robinson ... I think has exercised the archbishop of Canterbury's mind for quite some time," he [Kearon] said, and there was no question that Robinson was duly elected and consecrated a bishop according to the rules of the Episcopal Church.

"However, for the archbishop to simply give full recognition at this conference would be to ignore the very substantial and very widespread objections in many parts of the communion to his consecration and to his ministry," Kearon said.

The most significant statement, since for once it suggests the direction in which the archbishop is leaning, is "Rowan Williams is not contemplating inviting Minns".

The Bishop of New Hampshire, V. Gene Robinson, took the moral high road in his response to +Rowan's non-invitation:

"While I appreciate the acknowledgement that I am a duly elected and consecrated Bishop of the Church, the refusal to include me among all the other duly elected and consecrated Bishops of the Church is an affront to the entire Episcopal Church. This is not about Gene Robinson, nor the Diocese of New Hampshire. It is about the American Church. It is for The Episcopal Church to respond to this divide-and-conquer challenge to our polity, and in due time, I assume we will do so. In the meantime, I will pray for Archbishop Rowan and our beloved Anglican Communion."

It seems that the 104th Cantuar has turned politician, following the script of his master, Julius Caesar, "divide and conquer', while ignoring the teachings of the Good Shepherd, Jesus.

If TEC's bishops accept +Rowan's invitation to Lambeth 2008, they betray their Gay and Lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ. If, however, they decline the invitation, they turn the Anglican Communion over to the homophobes and bigots,led by Big Pete, thus excluding themselves from any further meaningful inter-Anglican dialog.

+Rowan's great legacy: the DEATH of the Anglican Communion!

viriato says WWJD?

Well, he would say something like "go an sin no more" to us all......not "your sin is fine, keep on going" - he would have the same message for us all (repentance in reponse to his grace)

NP - Where does Jesus say homosexuality is a sin?

One cannot help but be struck by the courage of the Church of England when it helped end slavery. This was a major miracle of Christian leadership. One wonders whether Williams is even capable of minor miracles of leadership.

If all are not invited, then this is no Church of Christ. The invite is unconditional. Come to love and be loved. Believing is the work, loving is the striving, fear is the war.

I"m not sure we're going to change a lot of minds by going to Lambeth but I think it is important that we stay in the conversation. For TEC bishops to excuse themselves from Lambeth isn't turning the other cheek, but giving Akinola and company what they want.

WWJD? I think Jesus would go and take Akinola and company to task. Jesus wouldn't avoid but confront. How we do that is to keep pushing and questioning.

NP- those without sin can cast the first stone.
I presume that leaves you and me out?

I'm saddened both on behalf of the AC and TEC by the ABC's non-invitation of duly elected Gene Robinson. After Williams' statement re the inclusion of those who differ from one another at Lambeth, this rejection hurts all of us, not least those who have found a home in TEC where they hoped for full acceptance of themselves and their households. We'll see what kind of inclusive courage the HOB and the Presiding Bishop exhibit in response to this non-invite. Let's pray, and write and talk to our bishops in TEC, before the HOB meeting, and to ++Katharine as well.

The TEC bishops ought to meet and decide to send a small number, say six (is there a symbolic number?) of bishops to take full part, but the rest stay away as a gesture of solidarity. Cold shoulder it but be there, sort of thing.

We don't know yet what Akinola thinks of his invasion underling being excluded. After all, they are full of plans (or publicity) to meet in the south anyway. As I suggest, reply slips might be in a bit late.

Good point implied above by Viriato da Silva - that if the meeting is without prior recognition of agreement between bishops, a funny sort of communion, how can anything they say be taken as a communion outcome? Talk about contradictions - they are piling up one on top of another.

Anyway the invitations or lack of them in a few cases are subject to seeking advice, so things could change as the mess develops.

NP: "Tim and Eddo - are you just attempting (and failing) to score points against ++Akinola?"

NP, no attempt to score any points, just pointing out that while some read "bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal" and think "Robinson", I, and apparently others, read those same words and think "Akinola." Some are going to read those words and rejoice, saying, "The ABC has finally come to his senses and come October 1 is going to set TEC straight." (couldn’t resist) Others will rejoice with "Thank goodness Canterbury's finally taking a closer look at the implications of what Abuja and Company are up to."

I hope for the latter. I gather you would be more content with the former. I suspect neither of us is going to be entirely satisfied with the actual result. Despite that, I’m willing to live with it, remain in The Church, and practice my faith. Are you willing to do that along side me?

As Charity has pointed out, Cantuar has a sad history of sacrificing people on his altar of "unity." (Note: that's sacrificing *others*, no self-sacrifice involved - easier that way, don't you know ?)

I'm rather warming to the plan Pluralist describes. Send a few Episcopal Church bishops, but the rest stay home in solidarity. But I'd add one thing...

Have ++KJS bring +Robinson as her personal chaplain!

Whoever eventually goes to Lambeth will be hugely symbolic for worldwide Anglicanism.

Under the spotlight of the media for the next fifteen months or so, the chasm that has opened up between the Church of England's official attitude to gays, and society's, will be highlighted time and time again.

The UK's outlawing of discrimination of gays in employment and in the provision of goods and services, and the introduction and increasing acceptance of Civil Partnerships, will throw into sharp relief the C of E's exemption from this important development in human rights.

Gene Robinson's exclusion will flush out English bishops and those elsewhere in the Communion who affirm the ministry of lesbian and gay Christians. Hopefully, they will show solidarity with Gene and Katherine, and somehow people will keep talking, even if around separate tables.

"The division Robinson has caused is already known. Either the ABC considers it to be exceptionally serious or not. What more does he need to know? Who else does he need to hear from on this matter?"

Maybe that an invite will be issued, if +GR kicks Mark Andrew out of their home, and lifts the episcopal purple to reveal his new titanium chastity-belt?

{snark/OFF}

Excellent suggestion, David H (+GR as Chaplain not to just ++KJS, but the entire USA contingent). At any rate, ALL of TEC's bishops should definitely plan on attending: +Gene Robinson at the front of the pack! (i.e., any disinviting will have to be done "incarnationally", face-to-face. Rowan Cantuar can then decide if London bobbies are to be involved :-/)

"Gene Robinson's exclusion will flush out English bishops and those elsewhere in the Communion who affirm the ministry of lesbian and gay Christians. Hopefully, they will show solidarity with Gene and Katherine, and somehow people will keep talking, even if around separate tables."

Yes! And now is the moment for not just TEC bishops, but bishops worldwide (and *especially* in the UK, to drive the point literally *home* to the ABC as to the potential breadth of the global schism he has been aiding and abetting), to stand up and speak out for +Gene's inclusion.

Spirit-filled bishops of the world, unite! Ye have nothing to lose but your crumpets with the Queen.

"viriato says WWJD?

Well, he would say something like "go an sin no more" to us all......not "your sin is fine, keep on going" - he would have the same message for us all (repentance in reponse to his grace)"

NP, Jesus spoke out on divorce and remarriage, but divorced-and-remarried bishops will be there. He never specifically addressed homosexuality, and it has been rehashed a zillion times already on these blogs what we are to interpret from that silence.

Your whole argument is predicated on +Gene's monogamous and faithful relationship being sin in God's eyes, but we reject your presupposition.

And looked at differently, if the regressives mean what you say about "loving the sinner but hating the sin" and how the rejection is not of homosexual orientation but of homosexual acts, well, I sincerely doubt that +Gene will be engaging in any such acts on the floor of the conference. So he won't be sinning amidst the gathered purple shirts.

Yet I suspect you'll still want him shunned.

Now, remind me again how it's the act and not the person that is being shunned?

It would be a terrible tactical error for the American bishops to refuse the invitations.

I understand the rationale. I understand the desire many will have to stand in solidarity with their brother bishop.

But, as was clear when the Americans and Canadians acceded to the bullies and declined full participation in the ACC meetings, this hands control over to those who would destroy the Anglican Communion and replace it with governance by foreign prelates.

It would be very difficult for Archbishop Rowan to invite Gene Robinson, given the cintroversy in the Anglican Communion at present. I think caution is the best way forward in these troubled days.

"It would be very difficult for Archbishop Rowan to invite Gene Robinson, given the cintroversy in the Anglican Communion at present. I think caution is the best way forward in these troubled days."

Jesus and the prophets all having stressed prioritizing caution over justice, of course.

Pluralist suggested six bishops from ECUSA. That's appropriate. It's one short of seven (a symbolic number of wholeness). Another number is eleven, to symbolize that one among the apostles has betrayed them... and this time, no one is taking that place.

Bishops who support Gene and Katherine could decline the invitation to the main conference and invite themselves as special guests of Williams along with Gene. After meeting Williams, they would then facilitate their own fringe conference in Canterbury, representing the world's marginalised. This would attract more media interest than the main event and be seen to be more in keeping with the Christian ethos. Invite other bishops to break off from the main conference for a while to form small groups to engage in a Listening Process and to discuss MDGs.

After the Lambeth 1:10 debate in 1998, "Peter Selby, Bishop of Worcester likened the poisonous atmosphere generated by the debate to a Nuremburg rally". (Bates 2005: A Church at War p.175)

Anything to avoid a repeat of that fiasco.

viriato - no, I would not have divorced and remarrieds there either.....I am not inconsistent and making up the rules as I go along.

"silence" on the issue is a very weak argument....I hope you realise that?
(he said nothing about the environment either - so you think we should pollute as much as we like??)

The Bible was written by men of another age and limited knowledge. Some of think that we should acknowledge progress made since, not wallow in premodern mistakes.

John Spong talks more sense about the Bible than the entirety of the so-called Global South put ogether. They may wish to keep a religion suited for a premodern, superstitious society - but they are welcome to it.

Roll on the split and make it soon!

you said it, Merseymike - the AC will be so much healthier and less distracted without those who hardly believe anything in the creeds or Bible.........but liberals have always been too scared to go it alone.

Watch now as the TEC HOB comes to Lambeth without VGR ...... Rowan is flying in for the September meeting to get their compliance with Tanzania in the bag because he does not want to be the ABC who too the ABC from 77m to 7m and shrinking

What would Jesus do, we are asked ...

Well Jesus would sit down with the pharisees and hypocrites, the prostitutes and sinners - there is a story about him sitting down with one lot and one of the others invading the space ... and there are lots of indications about some people thinking they are better than others.

And maybe Jesus would just find a way of telling one of those stories (remember the 'good samaritan') which challenged people to examine themselves before judging others. There's a rather good one about a wedding feast and the people who were invited but didn't come ...

NP wildly speculated, "Rowan is flying in for the September meeting to get their compliance with Tanzania in the bag."

As much as your fantasies may feature "compliance with Tanzania" and other such arrogant & extravagant imaginings, it ain't gonna happen. To do so would fly in the face of TEC constitution and canons, and the HoB CAN'T change that. Only General Convention can.

Truly, if you believe this, I've got some swamp land for sale in Florida I'd like to talk with you about... ;->

Mark Bennet - you have made up your own idol who never talks about sin, judgment and the holiness the Lord requires....what right have you to misrepesent him who said to sinners "I do not condemn you, go and sin no more"??

David H - it is not wild speculation...don't you know about how the ABC pushed KJS to get resolutions through GC2006 which he thought might help him make an Anglican fudge?

Anyway, I hope you are right and the TEC HOB does stick with VGR and walk away, stop disrupting the AC and flagrantly disobeying the biblical teaching in Lambeth 1.10

NP dear,

It's the other 14 resolutions that are Biblical.

;=)

NP - what an extraordinary thing to say on the basis of the limited amount I post on the various blogs to which I occasionally contribute. Of course John 8 which you quote is there (though one of the most heavily contested inclusions in the Gospels), but if that is all there is to say, why did John write a whole Gospel? In particular John 4, in which Jesus speaks to another woman, and does not say to her 'go and sin no more' - but she goes and tells lots of people about him.
My whole point was that the Gospels are a rich resource, and as I read them they rather resist being collapsed to even extended comments on blogs like this.
Perhaps it will reassure you a little to know that sin, judgement and holiness are significant parts of the doctrine I live, preach and teach.

But Mark - your post above stressed acceptance and not judging and contained nothing on repentance, holiness etc so it was half the story and so seems like a misrepresentation of what the Lord said and did...

With the AC's stresses and distractions since 2003, we are talking about ordained people - and some who claim that it is good and "holy" for leaders to flagrantly go against what the bible teaches (let along the teaching of their own church eg Lambeth 1.10). It is a misapplication of scripture to say we should not judge such people's actions and in fact contradicts all the passages which say we must judge those in the church and especially leaders who must have transparent integrity, as I am sure you know.

But NP, you are constantly promoting unbiblical ideas - like the idea that schism is a good thing to be encouraged.

Malcolm says "But NP, you are constantly promoting unbiblical ideas - like the idea that schism is a good thing to be encouraged."

Really? If you actually read your bible rather than claiming it says what you want it to say, you will find many passages which warn that there will be false teaching in the church and always says have nothing to do with it....

Schism amongst believers is not a good thing but when a church has to deal with false teaching, we are not talking about schism but something else....something that has to be done and is clearly sanctioned in scripture, as you should know.

I am surprised you would describe as unbiblical an idea which is present strongly in both the OT and NT. Would you have been saying to Elijah that he should "listen" more to Baal's prophets and to the Lord that he should not be so hard on the Pharisees? I guess you would have encouraged "listening" until nothing was done....

Maybe you are very selective in what you preach on, Malcolm? Do you avoid all the verses (eg on dealing with immorality and false teaching in the church) which do not fit with your views? Many people coming to hear your message?

I don't think I need any lectures from you about picking and choosing. In fact, I have never seen anyone (apart from your pal in Abuja) quite so blatant in the hypocritical cherry-picking of texts.

As a point of interest, NP, how do you handle the anti-semitic texts of terror in John's Gospel? Presumably you have difficulty with the blanket condemnation of "'oi ioudaioi" (including 'those Jews who believed in him') and therefore (as Keith Ward would say) somehow sublate the passages.

NP - there are passages in Scripture which say there will be false teaching in the church, that is true. But most of these, it seems to me, are concerned NOT with false ethical teaching, BUT with false teaching about Jesus (eg 1 John). I guess 1 Corinthians is the most obvious teaching on what to do when behaviour is driving the church apart. 1 Timothy 6: 2-10 focusses on the Christian attitude to wealth as a key area of spiritual concern in relation to false teaching. There is also an interesting comment in 1 Timothy 3.7 that a bishop 'must be well thought of by outsiders' - so in judging our bishops, if that is a thing we ought to do, this criterion must surely be a part of the mix?

On the other hand there is a strong strand in Scripture which warns against the judging of people by people and not by God. This must surely be part of any understanding of judgment in church governance and polity. And Jesus own teaching on the substance of judgment (Matt 25) refers strongly not to whether those being judged believe the right things or not, but rather how they have acted towards others in need. [The interpretation of this passage is not straightforward since it refers to the judgement of the ignorant, but those who have heard the parable are no longer in a position to claim ignorance - this goes back to Genesis and eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil].

So when you say 'we must judge those in the church' - I think that has to be rather nuanced, and Biblical criteria carefully adduced, rather than applying inadequate generalisations which seem to me to be based on an unfortunately narrow range of texts - like 'we must judge'. I could say rather more about the 'we' in this phrase which seems to me to lack biblical warrant unless carefully circumscribed, and I do not see how the 'must' comes in unless it is a person who is teaching me, or who is under my authority. I have not exhausted the subtleties of judgment either, and would not want it presumed that this is all I would have to say on the subject. Eschatology for example, is a major part of the picture.

This all began with me suggesting in a post that in relation to the question 'what would Jesus do?' the data as to what he did might be relevant. I still think that is right!

Dear Mark Bennet, I don't disagree with what you have said but if we had an ordained thief, I think we would be right in making a judgment that this behaviour is not acceptable in a leader - I am sure you would agree.

Just because a few have decided that a particular sin is no longer a sin because they say so does not mean we should all accept the ordination of those who indulge in that sin - does it?

The ABC has got it right re Harare....he has made a judgment but, not for the first time, he is inconsistent in his application of the principle that leaders must be beyond reproach and upholding (not subverting or flagrantly disobeying) biblical teaching.

sorry for the double post - Mynster, I do not accept that there is any anti-semitism in John.

(Prof Don Carson has a great commentary on the book if you are interested)