About time too.

I have had enough of Akinola and his mob braying for others blood. There are many who wish to see the continuation of an Anglicanism not polluted by fundamentalist nonsense and reactive largely to fear of the rise of Islam.

Comforting, TRUSTING and confident WORDS that Gods "will" prevails with sanity, clarity, emotional balance and all "will be" as it ought be eventually...The Global South is inclusive and a loving/steady example Anglicanism/Via Media and social progress at it's very best...after the greed, scapegoating, prejudice, discrimination and howling fear/hate fades (or simply eats itself alive) away our Communion will be restored to Gods sanity/reality everywhere.

The whole world ought note these pastoral words from the lands where Spring, perseverance and patience are eternal realities...Trusting God is a HEALTHY fact of daily life for millions of Christians in countries where repression, oppression, exploitation and corruption exist (orchestrated by fellow Christians)!

Tremendously encouraging. Praise Christ! :-)

Perhaps the entire Communion (apart from the US and Canada) are not quite so closely bound to the Akinolist position as certain posters here keep claiming.

Calm and reassuring words that seem intent on keeping us all 'at the table'.

But is this saying anything about what our communion shares in common? What are the 'essentials'? We do seem to have two passionately held, irreconcilable world views in our church. While I am game to continue walking along together, trusting God to sort it out, it is clear to me that this strife is draining much energy from the work of Christ we should be doing. How long do we keep at this? How do we know when it's time to part and refocus our efforts?

I've been pushing the Global Center position ever since the Declaration of Panamá in October, 2005, but so many people are unaware of the Global Center. One can not simply divide the Anglican Communion into Global North and Global South; there are many provinces who are non-aligned.

While visiting the U.S. last year I talked about the Global Center at churches in the dioceses of California, El Camino Real, and San Joaquin, and the people in the pews were relieved to hear that such a group exists.

The Global South is not as powerful as its supporters claim, and neither is the Global North.

Join us! Join us!

What's all this talk I hear about all the Global South marching in lockstep behind ++Akinola and the American Falange?
"Millions stand behind me?"

Meanwhile, the Falange is losing its grip in America over all matters secular and sacred. After 6 years of Divine Rule by the Holier-Than-You cabal, people are finally fed up, and an equal and opposite reaction has begun over here. I credit the decision to plant the Cross and the Flag in Baghdad as the fatal turn of hubris here.

There is no "Global North" - although we all know who that means.

The "Global North" have never organized. They have never sought to compel any other province to conform to their will. They have never sought to establish litmus tests for Anglicans.

Thanks Malcolm French+, I was wondering where on earth this Global North term came from.

I love it, these Global Centered (emotionally as well as physically it appears) Bishops actually stand accountable for their mutual statement and ANNOUNCE they are SIGNING on the DOTTED line (as opposed to the African/Global South cluster of Primates that can't seem to find full agreement, mutual fact or ink in their pens to do the same...Akinola assits the "consensus" of his Global South contingent by pretending their unwritten "mark" supports "statements" of fact where, in fact, none mutually exist.

But Malcom, that's the problem. The 'Global North' force the Communion to accept their innovations by adopting them in defiance of Communion wishees. And that indeed is requiring the Communion to conform to their will and teachings, which many in the Communion see as false teachings.

The agenda of ECUSA is divisive in effect. As a member of an Episcopal church who feels this agenda is contrary to scripture and teachings of the church, I can only pray for our leadership to return to the faith, and away from this current path.

"And that indeed is requiring the Communion to conform to their will and teachings"

The Communion doesn't have to conform, in the sense that all have to agree and follow suit.
All the Communion has to do is accept that one of its members (legitimately) comes to an understanding that others (legitimately) don't come to.
Anglicanism has always been able to accommodate different views. I really struggle to understand why there has to be conformity on this one.

Or would you seriously suggest that because some believe in transubstantion and others don't, we have to separate?

Or because some would like to venerate the virgin Mary and others don't accord her much importance, we have to split?

What, Harvardman, is it about this particular issue, that is suddenly so incredibly important that it separates Christian from Christian?

No, the Communion is not being 'forced' to accept them at all - simply accept their right as an independent province to make their own decisions.

I agree with the direction of ECUSA. Their agenda is no more divisive than any other - what we need to accept is that there are genuine disagreements and divisions.

Tim and Malcolm

Cynically, if someone wants to grandstand as a leader or member of the Global South, they have to have something or someone to grandstand against.

It sounds pretty lame to say that they have decided on a global conquest and have ambitions of creating social structures that outcaste and persecute isolated citizens. It sounds pretty bad to say that you intend to allow souls no privacy and will scrutinize even what they do in their own bedrooms.

It makes you sound like machinators who contrived to have Daniel ordered into the lions' pit.

Therefore, they have to posture that anything that would thwart them is evil. Obviously, they have a mandate from their god for rabid expansionist empire plans, to participate and shelter those that would abuse or insult women, children, the afflicted, minorities, others and even Creation itself.

On a high note, I have a profound respect for many souls in Latin America. One of my greatest joys in the last few decades has been witnessing them undertaking reforms and embracing liberation theology, despite trained death squads and scholarly repression by authority figures. It is heartening to see souls embrace justice.

I feel that neither Malcolm French nor Harvard Man have it right.

There effectively IS a Global North, but it most definitely does not consist of solely the US Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. It also includes the Anglican churches of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and most of England.

But, none of these provinces seeks to impose their beliefs on other provinces; they merely seek the traditional respect of diversity, in interpretation of scripture and tradition and liturgy, which Anglicanism has historically included.

And, as now witnessed by these Latin American provinces, as well as South Africa and New Zealand and most of Australia, other provinces in the Anglican Communion remain prepared to retain this inclusivity of differing beliefs in a broad Anglicanism that has served us well for centuries.

The organized so-called Global South, or at least Akinola and his chief lieutenants, seek to impose their own self-determined singular standards on the rest of the provinces, as if we had always been some kind of Puritan and fundamentalist body.

That is the real difference, Harvard Man.

Jerry,

Hmm, how is it that the ones who interpret Scripture inconsistently with the tradition of the communion are able to call those who do not depart from that traditional interpretation 'self determined'?

By adopting new innovations, the Global North you describe does indeed impose its teachings on the rest of the communion. It is not the same as other issues, where Scripture is of divided teachings, in their understanding. Women's ordination, for example, can be interpreted biblically on both sides: scripture is not of one mind. But sexual activity outside of marriage, and same sex activity does not enjoy the same divided scriptural mind, as they understand it.

So, to ask them to accept these teachings is to ask them to accept what they belive are teachings in direct contrast to Scripture. They apparantly cannot, and I sympathise with them. Changing this church is different from starting a new one, and by changing something so core (sexual activity o/s Christian marriage) is not a change many can accept, and honor their faith.

I do continue to try and 'live the tension' but it seems to be past the point of draining energy and resources of both camps. Perhaps it is time to move apart, and all try to live the Gospel as they understand, and let the Lord show us the way forward without this strife.

In saying that there is no "Global North," I was merely stating the fact that there is no organized pressure group called the "Global North" analogous to the so-called Global South under the leadership of the Prince Bishop of Abuja.

There isn't one.

That said, I also conceded that we know who is meant by that term, and that there is some rhetorical utility and legitimacy to its use.

Fact is, though, that these arbitrary labels of Glocal South, Global Centre and the notional Global North as labels for the "conservative," "moderate" and "liberal" positions are not really so geographically tidy. There is no unanimity on the issues at hand in any of the autocephaous provinces - although any "liberal" opinion in Nigeria or Rwanda is likely to be a) inherently isolated and b) cowed into silence.

Now, if we look at the substance of the Global Centre's declaration, we find that they have not chosen sides in a way that does choose sides on the subsidiary issue.

Without accepting the "liberal" position on the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals or the blessing of same sex unions, they have firmly and categorically rejected the aggressive agenda of the so-called Global South and have stood with the "Global North" AGAINST schism and FOR the continuation of the Communion.

Now to harvard man's claim that "the 'Global North' force the Communion to accept their innovations . . ."

Do they not teach logic in Ivy League schools?

By your argument, the decision of the several Provinces to ordain women in the 1970s "forced" the hand of the rest of the Communion.

Yet, oddly enough, there are still no ordained women in the Church of Nigeria.

So, how did this "innovation" force anything?

I am not aware that Nigeria has been required to bless a same sex union. Nor that Nigeria has been compelled to ordain a non-celibate lesbian to the episcopate. Nor do I see a scintilla of evidence to suggest that they might be forced to do any of these things any time soon.

In the meantime, I do see an attempt on the part of the so-called Global South to rewrite 450 years of Anglican tradition in favour of a new curialism, in which foreign prelates are given control over national churches.

Look at the history of our Communion, and the fact that the "mother church" of our Communion came to be a separate denomination precisely for its rejection of such foreign interference in the internal affairs of a national church.

Now, tell me again who is forcing innovations on whom.

"As a member of an Episcopal church who feels this agenda is contrary to scripture and teachings of the church, I can only pray for our leadership to return to the faith, and away from this current path."

Fine, so you "feel" that way, harvard man. Leaving aside what makes your feeling in any way *credible* (Are we supposed to bow down to your Ivy League handle?), regardless I, and "our leadership", don't dictate to *you* that you can't share the Body&Blood of Christ with us. Nor do we accuse you of "walking away"!

"While I am game to continue walking along together, trusting God to sort it out"

Really?

Because all of your posts, hm---all the suspicion, all the accusations, all the fear---suggest that you *aren't* game. And, to follow the logic of your above statement . . . that you DON'T really ***trust God***. Show me I'm wrong: please. :-/

" It is not the same as other issues, where Scripture is of divided teachings, in their understanding. Women's ordination, for example, can be interpreted biblically on both sides: scripture is not of one mind. But sexual activity outside of marriage, and same sex activity does not enjoy the same divided scriptural mind, as they understand it."

But you can't deny that there are strong groups of Anglicans who deny that Scripture allows women's ordniation, to say nothing of the Roman Catholic church.

The same gender love issue is in the early stages of the same kind of debating process women's ordination had to go through.

And I am absolutely convinced that none of it has anything at all to do with Scripture. For as long as people are psychologically opposed to any social innovation they will read Scripture restrictively. Once converted to the possibility for inclusion, their reading of Scripture and of liberal theology in that respect will change.

Although ruidh says on another thread that there is still a severe lack of theology underpinning the call for the acceptance of same gender love, there is nevertheless enough to make it possible for anyone who wants to be open to change their minds without having to give up their love of Scripture.

Past "hot issues" where initially no Scrpitural leeway was perceived, such as slavery and women's ordniation, are ample proof of this, and it's fascinating to see how many have clearly forgotten that anyone ever thought there could only be one Scriptural view on these issues.

"So, to ask them to accept these teachings is to ask them to accept what they belive are teachings in direct contrast to Scripture."

But, you see, Harvard Man, there are many who, for instance, would believe that pouring into the toilet or down the drain that wine left over after Mass is tantamount to blasphemy, or at least reflects ignorance of the nature of Sacrament. Yet we have had to tolerate that there are Anglicans who either don't care about the disrespect they are showing to the Blood of Christ or are genuinely ignorant of the enormity of the act. Still,we do not feel compelled to deny our beliefs as to the Eucharist, we are still able to witness these things to the world, and to defend why it is that we remain in Communion with those we genuinely feel are doing something very, very wrong. Why is it that we can tolerate your wrongs, but you can't tolerate ours?

"But sexual activity outside of marriage, and same sex activity does not enjoy the same divided scriptural mind, as they understand it."

Hmm.... so why isn't there a concerted move to kick all churches out of the AC who have co-habiting members, or to forbid priests to marry couples already living together? Is there a demand that engaged couples must convincingly declare they have not had sex and won't do so until they're married? Are priests who have ever had unmarried sexual relationships automatically declared unfit for their vocation? Does anyone ask them during the selection process?
Do we have bishops whose consecration is considered invalid and an international scandal because they've had pre-marital sex?

I'm not even aware of a whisper of a debate in this respect, far less a public slanging match of liberals vs conservatives. Instead, proud couples get married in church with their children as bridesmaids and page boys.

As I said before - this has nothing to do with Scripture and everything with prejudice and intolerance.

Good posts Harvard Man:

It's unfortunate that many don't seem to understand your basic point--i.e., there is a fundamental difference between having a diversity of views over issues where scripture is at least arguably ambiguous, and having a diversity of views over issues where scripture is not ambiguous.

The former does no violence to the authority of Scripture. The latter does.

Steven

Steven,
And it is unfortunate that you do not get the point that others have tried to make, which is that there is a fundamental difference between placing authority in the Tradition we have received, of which Scripture is a part, and putting all authority in Scripture. The former does no violence to the Tradition, the latter does. Furthermore, you are clearly unaware of the St.Michael Report which discussed the issue of whether same sex marriage is a matter of doctrine.

I am struck by the claim that there is no ambiguity about what scripture says regarding homosexuality.

Not all would agree on that score. Indeed, there is far more ambiguity on the issue of homosexuality than there is on, say, the charging of interest.

Steven is really precious when he tries to "reinforce" all that Harvard Man has had blown away by the postings of so many on this site.

It's as if he imagines that his own acceptance of the fundamentalists view of "scriptural inerrancy," as interpreted of course by those same fundamentalists, is sufficient reason to claim that Steven and Harvard Man and their friends represent the only truth, and that those who disagree with them are accordingly automatically wrong.

Their circular reversion to scriptural literalism, to the abandonment of centuries of Anglican tradition and to the exclusion of its acceptance of diverse views by provinces and within provinces, brings to mind the excellent posting in April by Viriato da Silva, when he wrote:

"Remember: The Word of God is not the Bible, but is the Risen Lord Himself. The Bible points to Him, but is not identical to Him, whether in Person or in Nature. It has always struck me that by elevating text over the Living Jesus (and over the reality of the Holy Spirit present among us), one runs the risk of heretically turning the Holy Trinity into a Holy Quadrinity: Father, Son, Spirit, and Book. Yet the Godhead is not revealed solely through pages of text subject to corruption and bound by culture and history."

Steven comments, "...there is a fundamental difference between having a diversity of views over issues where scripture is at least arguably ambiguous, and having a diversity of views over issues where scripture is not ambiguous."

Yet neither you nor harvard man have responded to Erika's very pertinent point above. We have so-called "conservative Anglicans" in the U.S. who happily ignore straight couples remarrying after divorce (incl one leading AAC/ACN priest I know personally), marrying after co-habitation, and who give a little nudge, nudge, wink, wink to unmarried straight couples who're dating "getting a little" on the side (oh sure, no one talks about it - but we all know they do, and no one raises serious objections)

And this is completely w/o mentioning all the non-sexual activities engaged in by "conservatives" which are Biblically prohibited (e.g. usury, war-mongering, doing the "judge not, lest thee be judged" thing, etc...)

This is Cafeteria Christianity at its finest. So don't be too disappointed when we have a bit of a hard time ceding to you guys the title of "the only true, orthodox Christians" in this debate.

Hi Ford:

You start out arguing from an Eastern Orthodox position on the relationship of Scripture and Holy Tradition, then switch to a Report issued by the Canadian Church. This is rather a strange combination, considering the Eastern Orthodox, based on their approach to the relationship of Scripture and Holy Tradition, support the viewpoint espoused uniformly by the Western Church throughout the ages--i.e., homosexual activity is sinful.

So, whether approached from a traditional Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant perspective on the interrelationship between Scripture, Tradition and Reason, the answer on this issue has always been the same. Only modern liberals claim to know more than Scripture and Tradition, whether Scripture is considered to be a part of Holy Tradition or above such traditions. I.e., you will find no support for your position in any of the traditional Faiths of Christendom. So, why go this way in trying to establish a point?

Conversely, knowing where I stand on liberal innovations and absurdities contra Scripture and Holy Tradition, why would I give special consideration to a document issued by liberals in the Church of Canada?

Still, I am not unsympathetic to the approach used by the Eastern Orthodox, as noted elsewhere. And, I wish you well in your studies of this part of Christendom. I think the EO have a lot to teach the Western Church. But, on the other hand, I also think we have some things we can teach them. Hopefully, in time, the long breach will be healed and the sundered branches of Christendom will come back together.

Steven

"The former does no violence to the authority of Scripture. The latter does."

Translations, Steven, translations.

The 1947 Calvinist Revised Standard Version introduced "homosexuals" for malakós AND arsenokoítai, with further changes (new "proofs" for Dr Calvinus's exploded "to know in the biblical sense") after 1955 (DS Bailey's magisterial Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition).

The transforming changes came with the English translation of the Jerusalem Bible (Cambridge 1966) which turned "act" for all into sexual orentation as identity for the newly invented social minority.

Translations.

Malcolm French+ on Monday, 4 June 2007 at 5:55am BST

Excellent post -- apparently you & I have missed the news reports of the PB of TEC & the Bishop of New Hampshire jetting about Equatorial Africa consecrating gay bishops & blessing same sex unions & refusing to receive Communion with anyone who disagreed with them.

BTW -- I do find the persistent use of the phrase "forcing something down someone's throat" when discussing sexuality questions extremely odd. Any Freudians in the house?

What Goran said (which is to say, if there are "issues where scripture is not ambiguous", homosexuality certainly is NOT one of them!)

Harvard Feller:

This past Sunday I stopped at my old parish of 38 years to hear Bishop Duncan speak but got there too late. I left the parish because it is no longer a broad church but an evangelical/fundamentalist parish which fully supports Duncan the the Network.

I got a hug from the rector who is like a daughter to Bishop Duncan. I was invited to lunch and even sat with old friends of the family. We tried to not talk church but the issue came up. Since I fully support the inclusion of Gay and Lesbian people as children of God, they feel I'm not going to get to go to heaven. Their concern for my soul is touching but I find passing that judgement very hurtful.
I thought that was God's job. I wish conservatives would let God do God's job. Ours is to love each and every person as God loves us.
I've always been told that God loves us unconditionally. No conditions except that we share that love with everyone.

I'm not going to bash Akinola or Duncan at this point. It's time that we realize we're not going to agree on everything. Even my family doesn't agree on everything but we still love and care for each other. Isn't that what Christianity is about?

Peace, Bob

Jerry:

I find it ironic if not totally ludicrous that a liberal would accuse a conservative of abandoning centuries of Anglican tradition. Conservatives are not the ones abandoning centuries of Anglican tradition and millenia of Christian tradition on this issue. It is the modern liberals who, in the absence of any historical or Scriptural support, vaguely allude to diversity within Anglicanism as if this solved their basic problem of being outside the established teachings of Scripture and tradition.

David:

I don't try to respond to every post, and did not even read Erikas. However, having gone back and looked it over, I find it too mixed up to try to untangle. There is a vast difference between open, notorious, unrepented sin and sin that has been repented and left behind. If there is sin that is clearly established and unrepented, obviously the Church should act on what it knows. Loving discipline can be administered with repentance and restoration to fellowship as the ultimate aim. And, as far as I know, conservatives agree with you regarding the heterosexual peccadilloes of various folks in the modern church. However, we have been outnumbered and outgunned in the slow downward trek of Anglicanism into the sewer. Greater and greater "tolerance" of illicit behavior of various types over the years has led to the current situation, the nadir and culmination of a long downward trend. But never fear, the clean-up may begin here, but I doubt it will end here.

Steven

Steven,

"established teaching" means Political power. It does not mean "without historical or Scriptural support".

The historical teaching on Human sexuality of Gnosticist/Neo Platonist European Academia was turned around in 1966.

It was "traditionally" about the Gnosticist category of the (non) Spilling of Semen, not about the Late Modern category of a "sexual orientation as (social) identity".

Re-writing false "proofs" of a NO to Masturbation into a false No to homosexuality gives the game away.

These teachings - traditional as they are to a small segment of male academics - have no place in a Biblical perspective, where God is Maker and his Creation is very good.

It's Indo European Heathen Philosophy. It's anti Biblical. It's anti Gospel. It's a different Religion (Neo Platonism).

And yes, "conservative" when reactionary (wanting to get back in time before whatever...) a l w a y s means changing tradition radically (cf the 1814 Reaction in France; they had few propositions that would have been even thinkable in 1789 - least of all Ultra-montanism).

'Loving discipline' - now, thats just the sort of rubbish which the church regularly spouts.

Steven, I have nothing to repent for regarding my relationship - it has given me more than the church ever has or could, and I have no need of fellowship with homophobes.

About time too.

I have had enough of Robinson and his mob braying for others blood. There are many who wish to see the continuation of an Anglicanism not polluted by revisionist nonsense and reactive largely to fear of the rise of Anglican Christianity as it has been received.

The New Testament Committee of the first edition of RSV consisted of the following scholars:

# Luther A. Weigle, Yale University, Chairman.
# James Moffatt, Union Theological Seminary, Executive Secretary. (died 1944)
# Henry J. Cadbury, Harvard University.
# Edgar J. Goodspeed, University of Chicago.
# Walter Russell Bowie, Union Theological Seminary.
# Frederick C. Grant, Union Theological Seminary.
# Millar Burrows, Yale University. (joined 1938)
# Clarence T. Craig, Oberlin Graduate School of Theology.
# Abdel R. Wentz, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg

This is an unlikely collection of scholars to produce a "Calvinist" Bible translation. I am not sure about the reception of the NT but by the time OT and NT were published (1952), many evangelicals were deeply unhappy about the RSV (see http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv-bibsac.html for a contemporary example) .

In 1977 the Revised Standard Version became the first translation officially authorized for use by all major Christian churches: Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox.

O, nearly forgot to mention this, my edition of the RSV does not contain the word "homosexual", maybe the 1946 edition did but I rather doubt it.

Interpretation, translation, argument - it's more fun with facts.

“You start out arguing”

Not gay “fer” or “agin”, though, but against the idea that all authority is vested in Scripture, I have argued this before. That your knee jerk reaction is to link the two unrelated arguments, coupled with your perception of the Canadian Church as "liberal" shows the degree to which you have bought into the Consevo persecution myth, not to mention your ignorance of the Canadian Church. +Virginia Matthews, our next Primate please God, is no liberal.

“So, whether approached from a traditional Roman Catholic,.......the answer on this issue has always been the same.”

I am not arguing against the position. Arguing against Evangelicalism is NOT arguing FOR inclusion of gays in the Church! You give Scripture an authority it was never meant to have, allowing for personal interpretation, essentially allowing someone to put words in God’s mouth. Which is why it is also not the traditional way the Church makes decisions. If the Spirit guides the Church to reject SSBs, I won’t be terribly upset, I wouldn’t get one anyway. If She guides us to accept them, then I will always wonder whether the Church got it wrong. The thing is, we are not seeking the Spirit’s guidance, we are involved in a power struggle between fundies who insist the Spirit's guidance is contained in Scripture only, and lefties for whom justice, and only justice, defines the Kingdom, and both sides are far more interested in proving what uberChristians they are, in the most dramatic ways possible, than in listening to what the Spirit is saying to the Churches.

Erika Baker asked: "Is there a demand that engaged couples must convincingly declare they have not had sex and won't do so until they're married?". I can only speak to my own experience. I was married 13 years ago by one of the early group of Global South primates (now retired). He made it very clear that he would not marry a couple who were either cohabiting or who he otherwise believed to be in a sexual relationship. Since my wife and I lived several thousand miles away at that point, we felt fairly confident that if we kept quiet, no-one would ever find out that we'd been living together for the last two years.

I have found evidence that the 1952 edition of the RSV used "homo-sexuals" in 1 Corinthians 6.9, following the interpretation of malakoi and arsenokoitai as passive and active partners in homosexual activity. (The 1971 edition has "sexual perverts".)

And I can see that someone who does not accept the existence of non-abusive homosexual relationships in antiquity or who believes awareness of homosexual identity to be a modern discovery (but what about Plato's Symposium?) will consider the use of the term "homosexual" (apparently first attested in English as a noun in 1912) anachronistic and deeply misleading.

And bearing in mind that "Calvinist" is a term of abuse for Göran, maybe he did not mean to imply that "Calvinists" were responsible for the RSV.

This is pointless without 'plurality' and 'diversity' being more closely defined. Anyone who thinks they are unmitigated goods has not thought about it. For example: the addition of a few Satan-worshippers who call themselves 'anglican' would increase both plurality and diversity. Are we therefore to welcome it?

Everyone has parameters beyond which they will not go. People draw the line in different places - but big deal. They would hardly all draw the line in the same place.

"Greater and greater "tolerance" of illicit behavior of various types over the years has led to the current situation"

But, again, "illicit behaviour". I am not arguing that we have been set free to sin, but I do reject the view that sees "toleration of illicit behaviour" in that sense. I agree we should be calling people to metanoia, but I don't think obedience is based on legalism. We do not "obey the law" we "behave as Christians". Behaviour outside this is not somehow "illicit". And "you" have not been outgunned by anyone, you have merely been told that it is not for you to sit in judgement on others. Now, we have not at the same time claimed a right for the Church as a whole to do this, and we should, but that is a different matter. Tell me,who are you, or me, or any layman, to "tolerate" or refuse to "tolerate" any kind of "illicit behaviour" in anyone? Do you and I not ask God to forgive our illicit behaviour "as we forgive those who trespass against us"? Where does God give any of us as individuals the right to "tolerate", or refuse to "tolerate" "illicit behaviour"? This should be the Church's job. It is our job to pray and seek the guidance of the Spirit for the Church as a whole, not to drown out god's voice with our own loud assertions of our own positions. We are all guilty.

"I have had enough of Robinson and his mob braying for others blood." What strange, parallel universe do you inhabit, John?

"But never fear, the clean-up may begin here, but I doubt it will end here."

Did noone else find this frightenlingly chilling?

"I have had enough of Robinson and his mob braying for others blood." John?

Dear Simon, this would be a good place to start the "clean up" campaign...perhaps John the last nameless would care to share with us exactly what he means about +Robinson "and his mob braying for others blood." This vile remark is about OUR +Robinson who encourages EVERYONE "to love oneanother" which, in this case, would certainly include John the lastnameless slanderer of LGBT Christians, their supporters(?) and fellow Anglicans everywhere.

What "blood" are "we" braying for? Seems like a fair question to me given the great feardriven ugliness of the published comment.

Merseymike:

I always appreciate your honesty. Better one honest man than a hundred that "want to have their cake and eat it too."

Thomas Rentz:

Very good posts. I especially like some points you made in the second. One of the absurdities often found at TA is the assertion that "non-abusive" homosexual relationships are a modern discovery. None of this is particularly new.

Ford:

On your first post, when did arguing for RC and EO positions become arguing for Evangelicalism? This is a contradiction in terms. What does arguing for the established position of the Eastern and Western Churches have to do with "personal interpretation"? It is, in fact, just the opposite. This accusation is better aimed at liberals, who consistently revise and/or ignore Scripture/Tradition when they don't suit liberal notions. The Church is the interpreter of Scripture. I do not believe in open ended "private interpretation" by liberals or otherwise. However, even the Church is not free to distort Scripture and go off into the ozone. (See, Article XX, 39 Articles). What is an SSB? Finally, the battle is between conservatives (who include "fundies" as you put it) and liberals. I do not consider myself to be a fundamentalist in the sense that term excludes truths over and above a limited list of evangelical "fundamentals" of the Faith. But, I do find fundamentalists to be more consistently on target than liberals.

On your second post, you seem to think I want to be the one in charge of Church discipline--no way! That is a job for appropriately authorized, and I hope trained and godly, ecclesial authorities.

Christopher Shell:

I agree, but this gets back to the question of what are the essentials of the Faith on which we are not at liberty to be "diverse". This is the crux of most of the arguments at TA.

Steven

Erika,

I lean more conservative and I found the "clean up" line a bit chilling as well. These issues aren't - rather shouldn't be - about which human idea is right. The issue is what does God call us to be as individuals and as a church?

But, you see, Lapin, this is the effect of the Evangelical persecution myth. This man seriously believes that, despite the fact that the only ones calling for any kind of enforced homogenous purity, for some to be evicted from the Communion, who are so strong in this that will gladly create a power structure for Anglicans that they would oppose vehemently in Roman Catholicism are the "reasserters", he actually believes the exact opposite of reality. This is not something he is making up, it is real for him. That is, unless he meant to write "Duncan", but there are many who behave in exactly this fashion.

"People draw the line in different places - but big deal."
this is where the dispute lies, however, Christopher. The "reasserters" are telling the "reappraisers" that they are drawing the line in the wrong place, and it IS a big deal. And no, we shouldn't accept Satanists in the Church. Worshipping a created being is not justifiable through Scripture, Tradition, or reason.

What do you mean by "clean-up", Steven?

Steven finds it odd that "a liberal would accuse a conservative of abandoning centuries of Anglican tradition."

Now, the traditional Anglican understanding of ecclesiastical authority seems to be summed up in that article which states that "the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England." The assertion seems fairly clear - that national churches are not subject to foreign prelates. The later history of the Communion, including the histories of the Episcopal Church of Scotland and the Episcopal Church in the US, would seem to bear this out. Likewise the status of the Archbishop of Canterbury as primus inter pares rather than as juridical demi-pope. Further, the repeated declarations of the Lambeth Conferences themselves.

Now, we have a clear and unambiguous attempt to grant precisely that sort of juridical and governance authority to the Primates (as a body, if not individually).

I am amazed that any "conservative" could claim that such is not a radical overthrowing of centuries of Anglican tradition.

I may not be alone in wondering what has become of NP.

In my baser self, my first inclination was to presume that he was "hiding" in the face of evidence that "the rest" of the Communion was not quite so united in its condemnation of the American Church as he had supposed.

Then (with perhaps more grace) I began to wonder how he was going to reconclide this "Global Centre" declaration - with its clear and unambiguous rejection of the tactics of the "Global South" - with his frequent statements previously.

Then I actually started to worry about what has become of my erstwhile fencing partner.

I hope he's well. And I hope he returns. And I really do want to see how he squares this circle.

Malcolm
NP never posts over the weekend but usually catches up on Mondays. Today being Tuesday afternoon, he's only really been "missing" for 2 days.
But I agree, I hope all is well too!

"when did arguing for RC and EO positions become arguing for Evangelicalism"
Steven, I think we're talking past each other. I have not made any argument about the propriety of homosexuality. Your post of Monday spoke of "the authority of Scripture". I challenged the idea that Scripture has full authority. Neither Rome nor Constantinople claim it does. Evangelicals do. This has no bearing on the fact that Rome, Constantinople, Evangelicals, and indeed 2000 years of Church tradition condemn homosexuality.

I have never argued in favour of SSB (same sex blessing). I have repeatedly stated my misgivings on the issue. I have challenged the hypocrisy of opposing it while countenancing other sins, especially eggregious sins in those who lead the attack on gay people, and of refusing to marry the faithful because they are gay while being only too glad to marry the faithless because they are wealthy or believe that, being heterosexual, they deserve a Church wedding. This, however, is not support for SSBs. I have challenged the lie that the Church has never compromised the Gospel before. I took exception to your reference to "a document issued by liberals in the Church of Canada". The Primate's Theological Commission, the makeup of which can be found here:

http://www.anglican.ca/primate/ptc/smr-intro.htm

is not a group of "liberals". I have to wonder why you spoke of them in that fashion.

"The Church is the interpreter of Scripture." Absolutely. Yet the Church is not being allowed to interpret Scripture in this, is she? She is being hijacked by the agendas of both left and right whose interests are in proving their own Christian credentials rather than listening to God.

Ford said,
"[The church] is being hijacked by the agendas of both left and right whose interests are in proving their own Christian credentials rather than listening to God."

Completely agree. Scripture only has authority placed in it by God in the first place.

I would caution that many Evangelicals do not ascribe all authority to Scripture the way fundamentalists do.

Ford makes a good point regarding the alleged liberality of the Canadian Primate's Theological Commission.

It is passing odd to label +Victoria Matthews a "liberal." It is beyond bizarre to so label either Dr. Andrews or +Benjamin Arreak.

There certainly are "liberals" on the commission. And so their should be. But it is well off the mark to label the commission as "liberal" across the board.

"I am amazed that any "conservative" could claim that such is not a radical overthrowing of centuries of Anglican tradition."
I also find it amazing that the very Anglicans who show such mistrust of "Popery", who would faint in dismay at the slightest hint of anything Roman, are the very ones who want to set up a quasi Roman hierarchy within the Church, and, like Rome, claim that Communion must be based on doctrinal agreement. It's really quite funny. I too wonder about NP, and hope he's all right. That last is an unfortunately placed sentence, no?

That hadn't occurred to me Ford. Perhaps, as you suggest, he did indeed intend to say "Duncan". I'm aware of the extent of this persecution mania - it occurs among "reaffirming conservatives" generally, regardless of churchmanship, not just evangelicals. Not having the patience of someone like Merseymike, who evidently can deal with posting on these sites and is allowed to get away with it, I tend to avoid posting over there, partly to spare my blood pressure, and partly because, so far as I can tell, it is such a d-mned waste of time. Postings to certain of these sites, which we will leave anonymous to avoid the charge of ad-homininity, seem sometimes to me to be deeper in the realm of abnormal psychology than that of theology. But "Robinson and his mob braying for others blood", apostrophe-less tho' it be, takes some sort of cake for divorce from reality.

Holiday time is upon us. Maybe NP is drumming his heels in a "wireless" Skegness caravan?

"And bearing in mind that "Calvinist" is a term of abuse for Göran, maybe he did not mean to imply that "Calvinists" were responsible for the RSV."

Thanks dear. I meant the Calvinist 1947/1952 version of the RSV to the differnce of the 1972 Roman one.

And I take the stating that the 1972 is Roman, that is an accomodation to Roman church political and socio-political "needs" and Roman dogmatics (imprimatur and all), to be equally an admission that the 1947/1952 is indeed Calvinist, catering to the same needs on the opposite side of the spectrum - in reality the same, Neo Platonist one, IN drag and without "Godless ceremonies" (Charles IX) respectively.

Erika

You have played particularly well during this thread. Sorry I wasn't parlaying much over the weekend, a few significant family matters that needed to be addressed.

Some of the words on this thread are chilling, they remind me of the evolution of nazism towards the "final solution" with the aim of creating the "pure" race.

Erika's point "there are strong groups of Anglicans who deny that Scripture allows women's ordniation" is valid. There are issues of how women should be interpreted and treated, not just within Christianity but within all the faiths.

For example a new Koran has recently been published in Australia http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/local-flavour-in-new-translation-of-koran/2007/05/25/1179601669117.html It talks about the vexatious issue of how to deal with a recalcitrant wife. This particular article also gives us the loophole to take on the issue. Mohammad was innocent and righteous, in that he faithfully wrote down word for word as instructed by the archangel Gabriel. Mohammad is above reproach and the reform can not come from within the text. But the reform is possibly - by taking on archangel Gabriel.

Basically, my recommendation is that God gives Gabriel a human wife for a few decades. She'll knock off the utopian male delusions. Gabriel's advice that a woman should first be shunned, then seduced and then knocked into submission is fundamentally flawed. It presumes that the woman does not know better or does not have a more legitimate position. In such circumstances, Gabriel's advice becomes transformed into one of Gandhi's postulations "First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they attack. Then you win." When a male seduces a woman, not because he loves her, but as an attempt to control her, he is ridiculing her emotions and betraying her trust. Gabriel, like other ignorant males, would do well to learn that talking to women can sometimes lead to insights that they had failed to work out on their own.

This is but one precedent that demonstrates that texts and scriptures are retrospective documents that scribes conserve. But history is in the future, not in the past. Divine fulfillment is bringing forward the best and shedding the worst of previous formations. Jonah did not seek the extermination of the people of Ninevah, but their transformation. So too for this generation.

"Plato's Symposium" is not "Scripture" Thomas.

I hope.

You are going to have to count Muslims amongst God's flocks.

763 posts so far on Google about cyclone Gonu today - the most powerful cyclone to hit the mid east since 1977 e.g. http://news.google.com.au/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1116870749 and
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=NDEwMDA2NDk2
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=97132&d=6&m=6&y=2007

Apparently its not only the US that needs their bottoms spanked.

Like the Christians, the Muslims can celebrate that they have been acknowledged as one of God's peoples. Like the Jews, they can now cringe as they are subject to disciplinary action.

Göran - there is indeed a Roman Catholic edition of the RSV but this does not affect the argument because the way it differs from the editions used in Protestant, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox churches is minimal. (I think it uses "virgin" in Isaiah 7.) It is still inaccurate to say that the 1952 edition (or the 1946 NT) was produced or sponsored by "Calvinist" if by that you mean to refer to a denomination, body, or person which would self-identify as "Calvinist".

Shucks! My long detailed posts in response to the "chilling" (chortle!) nature of my "clean-up" remark apparently got whacked. Oh well. That'll teach me to say too much at once I suppose. In any case, I'll summarize some points: (1) Don't let your paranoid fantasies carry you away (no pogroms are in mind); (2) the intention of my comment was that church discipline should be even-handed and should extended equally to the types of situations Erika complains about--"sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"--heterosexual sin is not privileged over homosexual sin; (3) church discipline is primarily a pastoral affair with the goal of eliciting repentence and restoring fellowship--check out the Pauline epistles for examples; and (4) more is expected of the shepherds than of the sheep--the church is, after all, a hospital for sinners.

I doubt this will clear matters up, there are so many here that are desperately determined to imagine me with a noose in one hand and a pitchfork in the other in order to validate their particular stereotypes. But . . .

Steven

Steven

Thanks for the explanation. I think this is example 19,345,333 why the internet is a tough place to have real dialog.

I agree discipline is important, but the reason you mentioned for discipline is key - repentance and fellowship. Unfortunately, some don't accept the repentance of others and continue to refuse fellowship.

There's a saying I heard in the Baptist church I grew up in, "the Christian army is the only army that shoots its own wounded." Discipline should be loving and with the goals above in mind.

The post-modern mind sometimes has trouble believing that form of discipline is even possible.

"there are so many here that are desperately determined to imagine me with a noose in one hand and a pitchfork in the other in order to validate their particular stereotypes."

Mr. Pot, there's a kettle our here that would like to talk to you about issues of colour.

"... heterosexual sin is not privileged over homosexual sin"

You k n o w it is.

Thomas Renz wrote: “Göran – there is indeed a Roman Catholic edition of the RSV but this does not affect the argument because the way it differs from the editions used in Protestant, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox churches is minimal.”

There is no such thing as “minimal” in translations. A comma can change a whole book (cf Matt 5:18), so yes, it does indeed “affect the argument”.

Denial again.

Thomas Renz wrote: “(I think it uses "virgin" in Isaiah 7.)”

This seems a particularly unfortunate example ;=)

Thomas Renz wrote: “It is still inaccurate to say that the 1952 edition (or the 1946 NT) was produced or sponsored by "Calvinist" if by that you mean to refer to a denomination, body, or person which would self-identify as "Calvinist".

Oh, but they never do, do they? From day 1 they have called themselves Catholic, Evangelic, Church, and a whole lot of other things.

Exegetics in itself is a Calvinist form of art, all along from the Academia Juliana at Helmstedt “proofing” radical anti-traditional 16th century theologies by 3rd century “Fathers” at the Duke’s Pleasure.

(and remember that in Heinrich Julius’s day this was a form of Foreign politics – intra German, as it was… What was to be disproven was whatever the Elector’s men at neighbouring Wittenberg had come up with ;=)

Ford:

Touche!

Steven

Brief background information for those interested in this discussion: there are two main editions of the RSV, one from 1952 and one from 1971. The second edition became the first translation officially authorized for use by Protestant, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox churches. The editions used in the Roman Catholic church (1966; 2006) differ from those in Protestant churches.

Göran - can you tell us what you mean by "Calvinistic" and which translation decisions lead you to describe the 1952 RSV as "Calvinistic"? Am I right in thinking that you do not want to describe any of the 1971 editions of the RSV as "Calvinistic"? In this case, there is no need to discuss the specifically Roman Catholic editions.

I readily grant that minor textual changes can change much. The Roman Catholic edition uses "full of grace" in Luke 1:28 which is clearly of theological significance (the mainstream edition of the RSV follows KJV). It also reversed the decision to exclude the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) which is also significant although maybe not obviously in a Roman Catholic direction and it is one of the changes which were also introduced into the Second Edition of the RSV New Testament in 1971.

Apparently no changes were made to the text of the Old Testament; the change from "young woman" to "virgin" is only found in the second Roman Catholic edition of the RSV published in 2006.

Just to add to Thomas Renz' note on RSV, I believe that when the original RC edition was published it was stated that the only changes which had been made were a number of marginal readings being promoted to the main text in the NT, and no changes in the OT, though the latter included the deuterocanonical books. I found it the most handy edition to use when teaching A level students and reader candidates.

Göran - if you want to be really helpful, your explanation of what you mean by "Calvinist" might include a few words on Neoplatonism. Your frequent use of the two in the same breath baffles me. Maybe my understanding of Neoplatonism is deficient but if anything I always thought Calvinists would be accused of leaning too much in the direction of Aristotle...

I know better than to put my trust in Wikipedia but maybe it can serve as a reference point to abbreviate the discussion: do you take issue with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Platonists ?

Still no sign of NP.

That's unfortunate, since I'd really like to see his take on the "Global Centre" statement, which really does seem to overthrow NP's absolute assurance that the rest of the Communion was more or less united in the Akinolist coup d'etat.