A worthy paper with many points worth affirming.

Two main themes caught my attention. In point 4, Sharpe commented "...the Church was never “undivided,” as any reputable scholar of early Christianity will affirm and as any alert reader of the Gospels and the Book of Acts can see."

Absolutely. Read the book of Revelation and how the various churches already have clear personalities - with various strengths and weaknesses. Look at how Paul was shunted into his home town for seven years, ignored by the disciples, who only later capitulated after intense dialogue and demonstrations that it was not just the Jews who were responding to the Word of God. Precedent said that the disciples should have disciplined Paul and others for brining in the Gentiles.

The precedents of "law and order" can thus become the equivalent of complacency, desecration and tyranny. This planet was formed to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18). God has promised everlasting covenants to tyranny (e.g. Isaiah 55:3 & 61:8 to 62:5; Jeremiah 50:5-7) The latter passage parallels Paul's exhortatations to bow to authority for authority's sake. e.g. Ephesians 6:12. See also Joshua 7:12 God "...will not be with you anymore unless you destroy whatever among you is devoted to destruction."

Yes, our loyalty is to Jesus Christ, rather than some human institution or alliance who claims to have gazzumped his presence and own voice on this planet. There are those of us who are loyal to the principles and intent that God laid out and made manifest for Jesus.

There is a professional standard and mission required of Jesus that is more important than any personal foibles, or the limitations of what he could make manifest in a ridiculously shortened 33 years. Jesus empathised but did not make manifest all of humanity, neither all masculine traits, and certainly not all of God. That does not mean that Jesus is unloved, rather God loves us because of our incompleteness and foibles. God loves the humble who blush and repent over the arrogant who accuse and tyrannize.

As more people at least on the liberal side come to dislike the whole idea of even am existence of a Covenant, so the Covenant is already an agent of division. I always thought it would be, once it was published, and opposed it from the start, but I'll admit I did not expect its proposal and the pursuit of it would also be an agent of division.

I think the sooner the brakes go on, and a reverse gear employed, the better.

Am i the only one the whole covenant idea reminds of couples who want rules to keep a relationship together when their original attraction has failed? So often it is fear that makes one say to a pasroe or counsellor 'tell him/her to do x.'The very demand shows that the relationship is fragmenting. If trust is to be rebuilt rules are not the means.
Columba

Brava, Brava, Brava, Brava. (Throwing virtual reality roses towards the speaker's podium.)

Combine Professor Sharp's comments with the recent Centrist statements from responding meetings, and we have the beginnings of a clear and reasoned - though still not lockstep and uniform - answer to the power play of the Primates Meeting. Behind which, obviously, is the brute drive of the realignment campaign to stomp everybody and every witness that is not it, pre-approved.

One of the best things about Sharp is that she deftly resists the used car sales pitch that demands (by presupposing) that we can speak only in terms of the narrow and reductive realignment lexicon.

I also think she reminds me of just why I finally discerned for the considerable time being that God was working through so many of the women in my life, no matter what anybody else was saying about how pagan or heretical or unfaithful such open doors innately were. Remember? Back in the day when being queer was innately defined as misogynist, a rather clever but transparent mutation of the patriarchal-heteronormative 'Verse.

Wow, wow, thanks, thanks to Professor Sharp. I am a fan, definitely. She should be part of the TEC response, along with Professor Grieb and all the rest of us. I am not sure where Dr. Radner stands as contributor to the TEC in-house dialogues now that he is leaving for Canada.

Are you listening, Canterbury?

"God loves the humble who blush and repent over the arrogant who accuse and tyrannize."

True enough. Yet I am wary of deploying that line of rhetoric, because it fails to bridge/communicate with the realignmentistas/hide-bound-traditionalists.

They read that reasoning, I guarantee you, and they agree with it 100% -- because they perceive TEC and the other progressive voices as being the ones who "accuse and tyrannize," and they wonder why *we* are not the ones "humble" enough to "blush and repent." Akinola, Minns, Duncan, et al. -- they all could in good conscience subscribe to such language, in a fun-house mirror reflection of the progressive deploying that language.

Best, I think, to stick to argumentation on purely theological and ecclesiological grounds, while avoiding judgments of the other folks' humility or arrogance or lack thereof.

After all, only the Lord can judge how arrogant ++Peter Abuja & Co. truly are.

I think I agree with Viriato this time

Columba - do you know of any successful, long-erm relationship which does not have rules (written or unwritten)which are respected by those in the relationship??

The reason the AC is having to be more formal about what constitutes faithful AC membership is that the unwritten rules have been broken and abused..... eg despite Primates and others begging TEC not to tear the fabric of the Communion in 2003,, TEC paid no attention but still demands to be in the AC....so, it is now felt that a clearer definition of what is and what is not faithful AC membership is needed in order to prevent the whole thing blowing up because of the actions of a few.

I'm surprised that Professor Sharp lists eucharistic liturgies as one of the fundamentals which bind us together as anglicans, given the diversity of liturgy within the communion.
In any case liturgy doesn't define doctrine, it simply attempts to express it.

NP,

"the unwritten rules have been broken and abused"

Why do you never cite you My Lord of Abuja in this group? Surely he is just as guilty as the Americans. And could you comment on the serious charges being made against him in Nigeria, please.

" ... the unwritten rules have been broken and abused..."

And which unwritten rules would those be?

As an American who grew up and went to college and graduate school as the civil rights movement came into being and brought the beginning of racial equality and justice to our country, I have a hearty suspician of 'unwritten rules' and 'the way everyone knows we do things' and 'how we've always done things here' and the like.

Of course, the 'everyone' in these statements means what white people do know and what people of color had better know, for their own good.

I will continue to value the written Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral as a written document that sets out in which ways we recogize each other as church.

But they are not 'unwritten rules'. They are not 'rules' at all

Anyway, any set of rules would be unacceptable if based on conservative evangelicalism

Viriato

It is a legitimate point and your acknowledging it is respected.

I was annointed to be a polished arrow. That is my mission. It was not of my choice, and God knows that I came to that point kicking and screaming. There are those that think my postings are my failure, they are God's triumph.

It is an extreme that will be turned down once priests are no longer allowed to act with impunity to repress and tyrannize. When wars are no longer fought in "God's" name based on deceipt and greed.

If people want to be greedy, cruel and corrupt, that's fine. But don't invoke God's name to justify their own indulgences. God is not a corporate sponsor to rogue nations, sects or theologies. They can use a small "g" god to justify themselves, but not the big "G" God's name.

Any vital relationship which fails in trust, mutuality, openness, growth, and the like tends to fall back on rules. Nobody dislikes rules as such, particularly in two stellar cases. One, in cases where we are just starting to learn some craft or technique. Then rules are a good guide for early learning and practice, since we have to start somewhere. Two, in cases of instability or change or challenge. Then we hew to the rules as provisional guidelines while we either wait out the storm's fury, wait for the sunlight to clear the dark clouds, or muse and discern as new data disconfirms old frameworks without immediately offering complete and pat set-ups to immediately replace old frameworks.

In the realignment case, we are perplexed with conflicting sets of institutional rules, proposed as the best guidelines to get us through the entirely unexpected and disconfirming data which are surely overturning the legacy framework which defines all as God-ordered to be nothing but straight, and which condemns in God's name all who are not straight.

Once the core incompetence claims that give this legacy of condemnation common sense strength and legs to walk about in various daily life applications are disconfirmed; the legacy proper offers little or nothing else - it has collapsed traditionally into condemnation/repentance and nothing but. But if not being straight is a natural animal and human variance phenomenon, albeit on a largish statistically minority scale of incidence; and if such variations are in themselves not incompetent; then what else does the legacy negative view have to say to us?

Then we turn, advisedly many would say, to other provisional guidelines which seem more likely to see us through the changes. Among these are quite a few legacy views or frameworks which do offer us alternative hope. Democracy and equality pledges. Gospel-based justice as a godly ordering of society that criticizes popes and kings and overturns their pretensions to special divine rights and privileges. Ethical frames which equally serve sex, human nature and decent relationships, regardless of whether the people involved are straight or not.

Is the traditional negative legacy all gospel, and nothing but? Inquiring minds, hearts, and spirits wanna know.

Gets up, clears throat, rumples back of head with hand. Picture an older, blonder, way unfunnier, unnose-jobbed Jeraldine Seinfeld.

"Now, what I don't get here, is what is this about "covenanting together"? That would make us "Covenanters"? But, I thought we were the Anglicans, right? Weren't the Covenanters like, you know,-- the bad guys to us Anglicans --, back in British history. I mean, what do they want us to to turn into ... Presbyterians?

And another thing -- I get that what's wrong here is all this innovating. We Americans, we just innovate, innovate-- someone's got to put a stop to it, I tell you. I mean, whoever heard of a church in its very own country having its very own polity, credal in its theology but attuned to the local conditions? How un-Anglican! Its scandelous really. Such innovations must be stamped out! So, I propose that we get rid of the last major innovation in the Anglican Communion, one that began in pernicious unBiblical modern/post-modern times.

I'm talking the Primate's meeting. Who needs it? Get rid of it and ... hey, no problem!

No, seriously ladies and germs -- This is a wonderful text. Sharp is one sharp dame, and obviously a woman of deep faith. So why don't we just go on being faithful Christians, faithful Anglicans, maybe apologise for what the ABC seems to have said in the Time interview -- that we should have passed some sort of rule about gays in faithful relationships/marriages being fit for any office in our church that they are chosen for and they are silly enough to agree to suffer through.

Thank you all for not throwing virtual tomatoes. Working late tonight and just haddddddd to let it out.

Ford - I ain't a bishop from Nigeria and will not be forced to defend others who can defend themselves. ++Akinola is not the issue here.But if you thought there was heresy somewhere, I guess you would not hesitate to cross boundaries - at least I hope you would not hesitate because there are more important things than "ecclesiastical correctness", I am sure you would agree.

The important choice now is not for the AC and is not between ++Akinola and something else.

The choice on the table is for TEC to make - unequivocally to walk with the AC or to walk apart (even Rowan Williams asks for clear responses these days!)

NP,
I was referring to the thread labelled:

"Sunday, 10 June 2007
a news item from Nigeria"
Lust for power isn't heresy, but it gives a glimpse at the character of the man. As to "heresy", I see it this way: the Church is currently, messily, grappling with a contentious issue, attempting to discern the will of God. Now let's say you're right. Do you really think that, even though the Church is trying to figure this out, God will still condemn to Hell those who believe the wrong thing? Do you seriously think God is that niggardly that He would condemn to everlasting torture with no hope of death those who, in a time of confusion, make the mistake of worshipping with the wrong side when the Church is still unable to tell them what's right? Is your God that small? And, see NP, there are those of us, faithful Christians just like you, who do not think "it's in the Bible" answers the question. We are not some new thing, we are not faithless, any more than you, by being an Evo, are a mindless hysteric.

Well, Ford - I am bound (by scripture) to take false teaching very seriously because I am told it does have consequences....

I am not going to take the risk with other people's lives and tolerate those teaching the opposite to what scripture says - I am not at all sure they will get away with their "revisions".....they do not have the right or the authority to make up rules, in my view.

(I apply the same to the "prosperity gospel" etc etc)

So, I will stick with scripture, even if it is very challenging to me and everyone in various ways.

Ford

That was an incredibly beautiful posting.

At the core of it is the question of "Would God condemn those that seek to protect the outcaste?"

If they are talking about allowing criminals to rape, abuse and enslave others; then that is not protection and would incur God's wrath.

But if they are talking about encouraging people to feel real love, to choose to bond with another soul for life, to take on the responsibilities for caring and raising dependents in an safe home, to epitomise humility, faith, patience, and hope. Then I do not see God having a problem.

God wants each and every soul to find peace. Firstly within themselves, then within their family, then within their own community and then within broader societies and beyond.

Peace comes not when we judge but when we heal. God longs for peace and coexistence, these are the cornerstones of building a sustainable world for future generations.

"But if you thought there was heresy somewhere, I guess you would not hesitate to cross boundaries - at least I hope you would not hesitate because there are more important things than "ecclesiastical correctness", I am sure you would agree."

This isn't about "ecclesiastical correctness" paralleling the dreaded "political correctness" (which strawman in my experience tends to get hurled at anyone who advocates civil discourse or voices even the most polite objection to prejudiced/offensive attitudes or speech). It's about *ecclesiology* -- and after all, ecclesiology *is* a form of theology.

"The choice on the table is for TEC to make - unequivocally to walk with the AC or to walk apart (even Rowan Williams asks for clear responses these days!)"

Alas and alack, poor NP; whatever shall you do when it the realization at last dawns on you that TEC and ACCanada et al. actually won't be evicted from the AC (not before Sept. 20, 2007, and also not *after* that date), and that they *will* be at Lambeth etc., and that it will be the neo-puritan Akinolican Communion that chooses to walk apart, dragging away with it its supplicants from AMiA, CANA, Pittsburgh, Ex-Recife, and selected bits of the CoE who have hitched themselves inextricably to the realigning/reasserting scheme?

May the Holy Spirit unharden your heart, open your eyes, and stop your spinning.

"++Akinola is not the issue here."

-----------------------

The question is, why isn't he? He's openly and unrepentently breaking the rules about the respectful treatment of, and the promise to listen to, homosexual persons - rules which were set in place by Lambeth 1.10.

In addition, he's blatantly violated human rights norms - yet hasn't even been reprimanded, officially, by the Anglican Communion in whole or in part.

So apparently the nebulous "heresy" (which has never even been defined yet continues to be charged!) of TEC is worse than Nigeria's attempts to violate the basic rights of particular groups of human beings he doesn't care for.

Sad.

And we won't even get into his destructive incursions into TEC dioceses. Brother!

NP, I have a genuine question: how do YOU know something is a "false teaching"? Is it just question of reading/hearing something, and having the reaction "I, NP, don't believe this squares w/ the Bible?" Or is there somebody (a living person) who provides an imprimatur for you? Or something else---e.g., say a prayer and flip a coin?

Your absolute sense of certitude ASTOUNDS me.

JCF - first test of all teaching (whoever it is from) is whether it is from scripture or not - then whether it agrees with the scripture in narrow and broader context and then (lastly and least importantly) what trustworthy scholars think....it is not hard to identify false teaching as it is normal trying to contradict scripture.....eg saying "do not...." means "it is fine to...." (obvious, for example in the "prosperity" gospel which seeks to justify greed

"trustworthy scholars"

Unpack those two words for me, please.

quite simple really, Mynster - trustworthy scholars would be those with a record of working hard to explain what scriptures mean - i.e. not those working to justify any particular agenda and certainly not those who say "ignore those nasty bits...focus on the bits you like" etc

Sooooooo... a scholar who said 'we might expect this attitude to the headship of women in the C1 diaspora' would be untrustworthy? Or would they only become untrustworthy if they were to suggest that we no longer necessarily share that cultural milieu?

I'm not sure your answer is that enlightening, unless you're saying that any scholar who questions the cultural norms of any bit of Scripture is axiomatically off limits for Christians? Is that it in a nutshell?

As a supplementary on biblical scholarship:

1) 'ignoring the nasty bits' - does that mean the genocidal texts need rehabilitating?

2) when the Lord makes a statement like Mk 12 36, apparently attributing Davidic authorship to Ps 110, does that mean that no Christian OT commentator can dispute David's authorship of Ps 110? Is it permissible for a Christian to contradict the Lord on such clear teaching about the authorship of the Psalms?

NP: "But if you thought there was heresy somewhere, I guess you would not hesitate to cross boundaries - at least I hope you would not hesitate because there are more important things than "ecclesiastical correctness", I am sure you would agree."

I'm just not sure that heresy is one of them. One can fight heresy without violating the ancient canons of the church. One can fight heresy without rending the church with schism. Once can fight heresy without serving one's own selfish desires to control others and to keep property.

One fights heresy with sound teaching, not with consecrations or episcopal invasions. In time, the Truth will win out. In the meantime, you don't create a structure which will persist long after the current controversy becomes a historical footnote.

Heresy ebbs and flows with culture, but schism is forever.

But NP, Akinola IS the issue.

It is he (and a few of his fellow travelers) who have commited acts of schism.

It is he (and his fellow travelers) who have openly and incorrigibly defied the Lambeth resolution they claim is binding on the Communion.

It is he (and his fellow travelers) who have openly and incorrigibly defied the Windsor process which they claim is binding on the Communion.

To pretend that the conduct of the Primate of All Nigeria is not at issue is intellectually dishonest.