The holding up of 'diversity' as something to be intrinsically (as opposed to very often) valued is something which has been endlessly refuted.

Well, if this is what the Church Times thinks, then we are all saved.

There is much to like about this statement, even from traditionalist view. John Stott wrote an excellent piece last year outlining three choices for those unhappy with the church: 1. leave 2.stay and compromise or 3. stay and don't compromise.

Quoting Dr. Stott now, "Two of the options we have considered (to get out or give in) are ultimately defeatist, whereas to stay in while refusing to give in seems to me to be the way of courage. We need again to hear God’s Word to his people: Do not fear, for I am with you; do not be discouraged, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand" (Isaiah 41:10)."

This speaks to me and synchs with this statement from these bishops. It is not a passive love, but an active one. Yes, if we feel another brother or sister is errant, we are to speak the truth in love and gently help them see their wanderings as just that. We also need to live our lives in ways that show our faith, including living in ways that do not offend our faithful brothers and sisters. And of course, that's not easy.

None of us have the answer, Christ does. We need to be in fellowship to bring each other back to him and his cross, submitting ourselves.

"We also need to live our lives in ways that show our faith, including living in ways that do not offend our faithful brothers and sisters. And of course, that's not easy." H Man

BINGO! Now, you're talk'n because the ONLY character that you can REALLY know (and pray to God to have you improve/change) is your own...so, it is best, I agree, to keep your selective "convictions" active in your own life and most certainly some will fellow Christians/prospects will be attracted to YOU for moral support (and possibly even guidance if you are on course)...until then, assuming the specific moral character of others is "errant" and "snearing" at it "lovingly" is a distraction, and a lame diversion from ANY ability to be a power of attraction no matter how GODLY it may sound to hear/read it come from ones own self-righteous voice/pen.

Real is nice, it just takes some gettind used to.

"None of us have the answer, Christ does. We need to be in fellowship to bring each other back to him and his cross, submitting ourselves." H. Man

BINGO (again), I agree...emphasis on NONE and CHRIST!

What sort of Anglicanisms are these, when their most faithful partisans repeatedly feel assaulted and betrayed and dirtied by calls for openness, for empirical and hermeneutic studies, for figuring out how to live the good news of Jesus in a zillion new situations as we change, experiment, learn, grow, mature?

Yes, I am convinced as a believer by the empirical data, and somebody else is not. I can be persuaded additionally in any number of remaining open-ended directions about a large number of hot button themes, but only by solid data that results from best practice investigations, not loud repeats of ReCon views of scripture. That is just where we are, for the long time being.

What is the most gracious and true Anglican response to another believer who preaches as basic core presumptive doctrine, that I cannot be honestly convinced if I reach a different conclusion in a hot button domain?

Then ReCon believers take that opportunity to engage us as if we were facing a stark, stern conformity choice in every realm of our global church life - failure vs. success, truth vs. lie, continuity vs. innovation, well the list goes on and on and on and on. But that does not make the forced choice listings accurate, nor compelling - to the rest of us.

The ReCon tent so far is a small tent, intellectually - no matter how many people get crammed into it, by hook and by crook and be Primate Meeting power plays and by conservative erudition that sidesteps the new data. I've looked rather carefully at its methods, and I still find its presuppositional hermeneutics too wanting to live by, not to mention too small or too closed or too self-assured in its notions of God, revelation, and human embodiment.

Finally, we arrive at the heightened pressure point. ReCon believers alone are among the saved. Ever so graciously they deign to reach out to the rest of us who by their closed definitions are impossible of being saved.

Alas. Oh for the historic big tents of Anglicanism. They are not rent, so they do not need just the sort of fixing and repair offered by recent Primate Meetings.

God willing, and the Anglican creeks don't rise, we shall wake up from the siren song of realignment. First the centrist bishop statements in Latin America, and now these in UK. Thank goodness, thank God.

Speaking of bishops who value diversity, this is a wonderful sermon recently preached by the Rt. Rev. Leopoldo Frade, Bishop of Southeast Florida (Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, etc.):

http://trinitymiami.org/sermon.asp?id=20070603

Christopher: The endless "refutations" of diversity as a gospel value have been read by all of us. They don't hold water.

The celebration of and fight for diversity is a gospel imperative. Arguing that we can successfully "refute" the centrality of diverse acceptance in the faith is like arguing that we can successfully refute the centrality of forgiveness or grace in the faith.

But see, Harvard Man, I feel the same way. I do believe these words apply to me as well as you. Do you not see it the same way? And why is it the right in general seems to think that "faithful brothers and sisters" are those who agree with them, all the rest of us are faithless and have no respect for Scripture, Tradition, or indeed anything other than the approval of the world?

On the subject of diversity and inclusivity, some folks here might like to read my review of Steven Shakespeare's and Hugh Rayment-Pickard's (2006) The Inclusive God: Reclaiming Theology for an Inclusive Church, London: Canterbury Press Norwich.

I've just put it on my website here:

http://www.change.freeuk.com/learning/relthink/inclusivereview.html

It is rather long, and is what happens when a prospective and now soon to be ordinand lends me a book and we agree I'll do a review of it for her.

Ford,

Funny, I was thinking it was the left that felt anyone that didn't agree with them was an unenlightened homophobe!

I do enjoy your posts, and find them thoughful and non reactionary. Not always the case in blog land, this blog included. Thank you for your insights and respectful tone.

Seems to me our reactions in general are Original Sin manifested in 'it's all about me'. So we act/react from our own limited view, lacking Christ's perspective.

Both extremes of our faith seem to me out of step with what we're asked to do as Christians. And Stott just hit it right for me...walk on even in disagreement.

It does get dicey to try and sort out what to do about teachings that can be construed by many as 'false', and counter to the Gospel. Those are 'essentials', and it is important to work that out. Approving same sex marriage, for example, cuts against most of Christianity. More importantly to me, it seems to undermine those who have same sex attraction and feel it is not God's plan. Here's a thoughtful post that addresses that: http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/3528/

How do we find the way to reconcile these two positions? I have no clue, but until it is clearer to me what way forward I am reluctant to accept changes should be made to the traditional teaching on sex outside of marriage.

Hi Dennis-
You don't and can't believe that. Anyone who thinks that diversity is intrinsically good (not that I said intrinsically) must affirm the diversity of mobile phone stealers and non mobile phone stealers (whatever turns you on). Or of pagans (or indeed satanists) among the Christian community.

Hi Dennis-
for 'not that' read 'note that'

HM,
WRT your first point, both sides have their hypersenstivities. You are aware of those of the left, what about your own? You need to realize that most gay people of my generation grew up in a society that believed us to be sick child molesting perverts, outside the pale, questionably human, certainly deserving of any violence that comes our way, and frequently told that God hates us. When a conservative piously states he "hates the sin, but loves the sinner" while speaking in such a way as to show that he considers us outside the Church, disease ridden, and inherently promiscuous, and defends those who would persecute us as acting "consistent" with the Gospel, the how do you expect us to react? (all things expressed here, BTW) How many signs have you had waved in your face telling you God hates you? How many bishops claim you are little better than an animal and want to throw you in jail? Hence the feeling that the sensitivity is not all that "hyper" at times. If you think this site casts all who disagree in the worst possible light, try going to some place like VenomOnline and suggesting that perhaps they might want to behave in a more Christian fashion. Do no oppose anything they say, merely the way they say it. I have done so. If they even post it (and I know nothing about what DOESN'T get onto TA) I assure you your treatment will be far worse than anything you receive here.

Thank you for everything you just said, Ford Elms. I have never believed anyone who parrots the "hate the sin" line.

We had this argument in the Unitarians. How do you stop fascists and Satanists when it is creedless. Answer, fascists don't get the authoritarianism they seek and Satanists can't stand the liberal ethic. Same in a more standard Christian church - those that want to punch those who punch them or are happy with power get a bit fed up when they keep reading and absorbing something else. They might even get converted.

Trouble is, Lapin, it never seems to get through. That may be a factor that it has to be said over and over on an individual basis, so it seems like no-one's listening on "the other side". I have to wonder how many haven't even examined themselves as to their own bigotries on this issue, and sometimes it seems that, for some, their refusal to do so (in general, Harvard Man, none of this is directed at you) is based on the fear that their understanding of Scripture would be threatened if they were forced to deal with us as human beings. It's easier in some cases to talk piously about "hating the sin, loving the sinner" if you don't look too closely at how your ideas are grounded in hatred or fear, and if you can speak of some "faceless other". Surely though, if their understanding of Scripture is true, and God being a loving God, then it is possible to teach as they do in a way that doesn't push gay people away. That they seem not to be interested in that suggests to me that their deisre is not to "save" gay people, but to ensure they can feel justified in saying "See, they are turning away from God. He has clearly abandoned them to their sin." Of course, while this MAY be true of individuals, it is very difficult not to generalize. The same applies to "the other side". See how many think that to be a "liberal" is to be faithless, based on the statements of a few. We must all try to avoid that trap, at which I am not often successful.

Pluralist et al

Shrek 3 is worth seeing it. There's a lot of biblical imagery. I particularly like how there is a scene where everyone drops weapons and some fantasize about growing daffodils. It reminds me of Isaiah 2:3-5. How it comes about has some powerful lessons not for the conflicts within the Anglican Communion, but on a broader scale as well. How many will see the parallels between Snow White and the Daughter of Zion, I wonder.

Endlessly refuting something has got nothing to do with the merits of the argument.

Watch a screaming toddler in the shopping aisle embarrassing their mother because she refused to buy him a toy gun. The mother knows best, the child does not succeed, and most children grow up to learn the wisdom from their mother. Most children also eventually learn that the only things hurt by their tantrum are their indulgences, pride and credibility.

Isaiah 54. The toddlers might tantrum, but the Father will win and the Mother will be vindicated.

Ford,

I really enjoy these threads.

I am in a traditional environment theologically, but a pretty liberal social setting. So I see the tension every day, as I hear what I understand to be the Gospel, preached to me and all the other wretches in the pews, all broken like me.

Sexual sins are no greater or less than any other. We all need the cross. Gay members are treated no differently.

Whither NP?

I'm still curious to hear how NP will explain away this evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean that the North Americans are not so isolated as he would have had us believe.

And after two weeks of silence, I'm beginning to worry that something has happened to him.

Malcolm - thank you for your concern - I have been somewhat busy (new Alpha course starting etc thankful for good numbers)

Anyway, to your point, these developments are not suprising or that important.

As the ABC keeps on stressing (recently again in TIME), it is the mind of the AC as a whole that matters.....and the fact that some people in the AC (a small minority) want to change the agreed position or do not like the Covenant idea is not a big deal.....and not surprising as it would curtail their abiility to be in the AC and subvert it at the same time.

AS the ABC says, the AC consensus has not been shifted on the presenting issues - this is important in terms of where we are going under his leadership.

What matters most now is the response we get to the Tanzania Communique from TEC in Sept (up to then, everything else is noise)

"Gay members are treated no differently"

What planet is your "traditional theological environment" on? I'd love to go there.

But gay people are treated differently, Harvard - that's the problem. Their relationships are not treated equally with those of heterosexuals. That, for me, is enough to conclude that traditional Christianity has simply got it wrong.

NP,
Glad you're back! I too was getting a bit worried. I will be away for a week starting tomorrow.

Merseymike,
It's not merely that our relationships are not treated equally, though I sometimes get a bit Michelangelo Signorili and claim that they AREN'T the same anyway, but your point is taken. If it were just that, I could keep silent. I'm just wondering: if gay people are treated no differently, Harvard Man, could you indicate to me one bishop who advocates the jailing of the covetous? How about a bishop who claims that usurers are no better than animals, and that those who allow them to get away with their sin are a "cancer on the Body of Christ"? How many people have been forced to decline a bishopric because they refused to repent of their gossiping or to preach against it? It sounds like you live on a very interesting planet, but not one I am familiar with.

Tut, tut, NP, what were you doing wasting time with 'Alpha' when you should have been blogging here? Have you NO sense of priorities? :-)

The Bizarre Rabbit said, "I have never believed anyone who parrots the "hate the sin" line."

Indeed. And the Rev. Br. Tobias Haller (BSG) has written a wonderful blog entry entitled "Enough of Hate" on that very topic:

http://jintoku.blogspot.com/2007/05/enough-of-hate.html

Well worth your time to read.

NP, reacting to Malcolm French's point about the growing number of Anglican provinces who are rejecting the exclusionary efforts of Abuja, commented "...the fact that some people in the AC (a small minority) want to change the agreed position or do not like the Covenant idea is not a big deal."

Once again, he/she has confused numbers of parishioners in a province with the heart of the historical Anglican Communion, as if we are being judged by a balance sheet of numbers. There is no more validity to tabulating numbers of people than there is in tabulating the relative wealth of provinces. Both are specious approaches.

What is becoming apparent, NP, is that we have an increasing rejection, around the world and not merely in North America, of the attempt by fundamentalists to reformulate the traditional Anglican Communion.

We may indeed end up with a Nigerian Communion (which will somehow incorporate the name "Anglican" in its yet-to-be-determined title) that enforces a narrow approach toward practice and beliefs (both core and non-core), in which some small segments of non-Global South provinces may indeed join, and an Anglican Communion which affirms its historical tradition of acceptance of differing approaches within the core beliefs of the faith.

I invite NP to watch the global Anglican provinces, outside the self-proclaimed Global South, increasingly reject the exclusionists.

Well, thanks Ford - I am touched that my absence is noticed.....even if my presence is a pain in the neck sometimes!! Mynster..you are right, I should prioritise.

I think what Harvard Man means is that we are all treated the same in the sense that we are all sinners in different and many ways and none of us can excuse / justify not repenting.....in that sense we are all treated the same - so, we come back to square one and what we define to be a sin and what is holy

No, we don't come back to square one, NP, for the simple reason that, regardless of what you say, all sins aren't treated the same. I repeat, can you name one bishop who advocates jailing the covetous? Can you name one bishop who claims that usurers are nothing more than animals and those who support them are a cancer on the body of Christ? Can you name anyone who was forced to decline a bishopric because, despite having stopped gossiping, he hadn't repented appropriately and didn't preach against it? Clearly, homosexuality is NOT treated the same as any of these sins, so where do you and Harvard Man get off claiming that they are?

Welcome back NP

We've missed your insights and sometimes baiting.

"...we come back to square one and what we define to be a sin and what is holy..."

My square one is we come back to God and how God forgives. No one is holy, no one is without sin. We are all sinners and all need to be forgiven. The form of our sins, the ease at which they are discovered varies, but it is there in each and every one of us. We are all inadequate and incapable of rescuing ourselves. We are all dependent on God's grace.

Jesus ended the curse of law by Galations 3:13-14 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit."

God always intended for the gentiles to be redeemed e.g. Isaiah 42:5-9, 49:5-18. 49:22-23, Nehemiah 5:8-13, Joshua 9. The latter is a very good example, the Gibeonites used deception, but because the treaty was made, God's people had to honor their people provided they acted appropriately. Also in Joshua 8:30-35, we see that there were already aliens amongst the Jewish people and they too participated in the renewal of the covenant. So gentiles who cooperated with the Jews have been part of the holy peoples from even when the Israelites first entered the holy land.

On what is sin and what is holy. Some claim that all sex is sinful. By that thinking, any parent is a sinner. Do we really want to live and die by law? I'd rather put my trust in faith in God.

Jerry - do have a look at history as it can helpfully temper wishful thinking. I refer you to recent history eg Dromantine, TWR, The Tanzania Communique etc.......I really do not see the great liberal victory you desire.

Ford - the point is whether or not people are seeking to justify the sins you mention.....so I know of no bishop in the AC preaching that "greed is good" or none saying that is fine to gossip. (and, yes heretics are a cancer .....sorry!)

"the point is whether or not people are seeking to justify the sins you mention"

No, NP, the comment was made that all sin is treated the same. I am merely pointing out that this is garbage since all sins are not treated the same. It has nothing to do with justification of anything in this instance. I am merely stating that it is gross hypocrisy to say that gossip, slander, or usury are dealt with in the same fashion as homosexuality. It is the same kind of hypocrisy as "hate the sin, love the sinner".

no, it is not, Ford....as I said, we are not ordaining anyone who is saying "greed is good" - are we??

No, but we do ordain people who say "usury is good", we ordain people who support war, we ordain people who actively slander their fellow Christians, indeed, in some quarters these last people are considered Godly.

I am sure that not all sins are treated as equally grave by the NT, nor indeed would common sense suggest that they ought to be.

Homosexual practice is an interesting case here, in that although it appears in fewer contexts than various others do (and more contexts than still others, of course) whenever it does appear it is indicated to be of high seriousness. Rom 1 makes it quintessential evidence for the disordering of creation. 1 Cor 6 places it alongside some of the worst sins. It is not however a candidate to appear in nearly as many lists as murder, adultery etc, because these are in the 10 commandments and it is not (well, to an extent it is, under the heading of adultery, but not specifically). When a NT writer was making a sin-list, the 10 commandments would naturally spring to mind.

Also, Ford, note the liberal ABC's TIME comments....even he can find zero positive passages of scripture to support the "revisionist" case.......as I have said before, there needs to be a case for something being good and holy if we are to be forced to accept vicars and bishops contradicting the scritures.

Good to see you're back, NP, although your selectivity about interpretation remains unchanged.

I presume, from your comment, that the increasing number of Primates aligning to the "Global Centre" are just more "noise" from the "tiny minority" then?

"if we are to be forced to accept vicars and bishops contradicting the scritures."

Yet again, the letter of the Law combined with the idea that this is the only teaching ever to be out of line with Scripture. You know, NP, I feel really sorry for you. You need to have clear rules, it seems, so that you can feel holy in the following of them. You do realize that this is not at all what Jesus taught? I asked you before, do you ever see yourself in the Pharisees? Your attitudes are exactly like the way they are portrayed in Scripture. Your willingness to defend anything, no matter how awful, in those who support your legalism is a sign of how far gone you are. +Akinola can be a power hungry, oppressive demagogue, he can behave in any vainglorious manner he chooses, but as long as he says that the letter of the Law is binding on us in some fashion, you will defend him, or anyone else who does as he does. This isn't about your religion or your beliefs on homosexuality, it is about how much damage your need for legalism is doing to you. Realize that God loves you for no other reason than that He loves you. No amount of abiding by the Law can make Him love you more, and no amount of disobeying can make Him love you less. That is not to say there are no consequences for disobedience, but that your justification in the sight of God is a gift from Him and not something you can attain through obedience to any Law.