A great pity, especially as laity and clergy were decisively in favour. Realpolitik seems to have got the better of two swing bishops.

No side is claiming victory tonight, though, because the two resolutions are contradictory. Will wait to see what happens re New Westminster.

I think it should be noted that the Anglican Church's partner in full communion, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada also defeated a same-sex blessings proposal by a narrow margin.

If the outcome were any different, there would have been quite a furor, as the two Synods were meeting in the same city at the same time.

But I fully expect that the "core doctrine" decision would be the signal certain groups have been waiting for to intervene.

But as its not against doctrine, then all it says is that it is not expressedly allowed - I very much doubt that it will be acted against - and the new primate is supportive.

nearly there, I'd say.

This is a very sad day for me personally but I view it as a phyrric victory for the forces that oppose the BSSU's. It seems to me that the situation is analagous to a vote in the House of Commons which is overturned by, in our case, the Senate or in the UK, the House of Lords,in both situations, the chamber of "sober second thought." It is pretty clear that the HOB realises that they have bought very little time; in fact, their statement of a few months ago seems, in retrospect, to have anticipated this result (perhaps they held a straw vote at that time and realised then that the status quo ante would be untenable). They are correct in their assessment. Having, in a sense, thwarted the will "of the people", they must act quickly to address in clear, concrete, terms the "pastoral needs" of GBLT persons within their dioceses. No more motherhood and applepie!

On a personal note, I had decided before today that I would stay in the church regardless of the outcome to continue the conversation and to remind the powers that be that there is unfinished business. My partner (of 26 years), as of tonight, feels very differently.

Some Canadian friends have made a relevant point about the Bishops' vote. This being that conservative, rural sensibilities are quite over-represented in the ACoC HoB (one bishop, one diocese, one vote - whether you're from Toronto or "the back of beyond"). And even then it was razor close.

I grieve for my GLBT brothers and sisters who got slapped in the face by their bishops, but this won't stand for long. Just look at the votes of the laity and clergy to see how Canadian Anglicans really feel about this issue.

And they'll still get to SSB before we do in the U.S. I have great faith in the humanity and common sense of Canadians (and wish I could say the same of my fellow countrymen).

"The arc is long, but the universe bends towards justice": Martin Luther King, Jr.

The two-vote margin against SSBs among the Canadian bishops is a bitter pill, to be sure . . . but I'm *convinced* its effects will be short-lived.

The Holy Spirit is, as always, MOVING, and more and more Anglicans (in North America and around the world!) are hurrying to catch up. Alleluia! :-)

Andrew's comments included "...they must act quickly to address in clear, concrete, terms the "pastoral needs" of GBLT persons within their dioceses..."

Indeed. I was talking to someone today who is witnessing a parish disintegrate as the younger adults are leaving. The issue has become that autocracy is running amock and the development of the parishioners shunted to one side whilst the priest asserts his spiritual authority over the parish.

The conversation also included a comment that while homosexuality might not be approved of in the bible, they are entitled to be treated with respect.

My other personal contemplation is that the churches (including Catholic) have had no problem giving dignity to their priests who are found to have sexually interfered with male children. My bemusement is that they have had no problem aiding and abetting this conduct, but no can not find the generosity of heart to be compassionate to GLBTs who are not priests? If priests who have made a vow of celibacy but are unable to fulfill it are forgiven and accommodated, then why not souls who have entered into no formal relationship with God and are simply trying to live normal lives? Do we really demand a higher standard from the masses than we do from our own priests?

Also, don't give me that rubbish about repenting over priestly abuses, so it's okay to go on abusing homosexuals. God knows that there are still priests out there abusing, and still colleagues sheltering them from defamation. God also knows that if public scrutiny was removed, the abuse would escalate back to earlier levels.

I trust the Canadians. This will come back to the vote and some method for giving GLBTs a basic level of dignity will be found. They will be invited to weddings, baptisms, confirmations and ordinations. They will be there known for who and what they are and accepted on their own merits.

JCF - is this the same Holy Spirit who inspired scriptures which emphatically do not support your position???

I doubt it....unlike the Canadian votes, he does not go in for contradictory views held at the same time

This is a curious situation, as the General Synod has now neither "affirm[ed] the authority and jurisdiction" of dioceses to "authorise the blessing of same-sex unions", nor explicitly denied them that authority.

It is similar to the Australian situation, in which the General Synod decided that it could "not condone" the blessing of same-sex unions. It did not explicitly prohibit same-sex blessings, but everyone seems to assumes that that is what was intended.

While the failure to approve blessings of same-sex unions is disappointing, I think you are missing the importance of the declaration that blessing them is not a threat to the creed of the Canadian Church. This is a theological statement and thus a challenge to the theology of the conservatives. Between the lines, the Canadian church is saying that opposition to homosexuality is NOT a core doctrine of the church -- it is not required to be an Anglican, thus it is not required to be a Christian. This is laying the groundwork for full acceptance of LGBT people in a way that, it seems to me though I may be incorrect, that the Episcopal Church has not. The failure to authorize same-sex blessings is a disappointment, but the Canadian bishops may have felt that the credal statement was radical enough for one synod.

"I grieve for my GLBT brothers and sisters who got slapped in the face by their bishops,"

Please! I am a gay man and do not feel at all slapped in the face, thanks. I appreciate that some do, but there is another side that would have felt just as slapped in the face by any other decision. It's this kind of high emotion and offense taking on both sides that has gotten us into this mess.

Add'l info on the make-up of the ACoC HoB. So the representation is even *more* lopsided than I orig implied:

"The Arctic has 2 suffragans, and Saskatchewan has 1 suffragan (though he is retiring soon) whereas Niagara and NewWest have only the diocesan. (Anne Tottenham is part-time assisting bishop in Niagara, but I don't think she gets a seat).

Thus the smaller (and more conservative) dioceses have disproportionate representation among the Bishops."

(comment orig appeared on Fr. Jake's website by a third party).

The Holy Spirit might be having a rethink. For all the miracles in the world the Holy Spirit has not yet found out how to reverse history so to change a text in a book, but a voice in my head telling me this also says its not his method anyway. Meanwhile I'm wondering why the Holy Spirit keeps sending so much rain, allows the prices of utilities to be so high, causes awkward neighbours, makes looking for jobs so frustrating, causes some people to be argumentative, as well as adding text to some books deemed holy now and again.

NP, you mean like inspiring Matthew 5:17-18 and Galatians 3:23-26? That Holy Spirit?

Maybe I'm just a 'glass half full' sorta guy. I was glued to my computer screen for a good part of the day - difficult because it was a Sunday and I had folks over for a BBQ in the afternoon and early evening. I kept disappearing for chunks of time and nobody seemed to notice (which may itself be a problem). I was particularly taken taken by the debate - both the two debates on the resolutions and the 'committee of the whole' discussion. The way in which different positions were expressed was tremendous as well as the degree to which people with very different views are linked to each other within dioceses etc. Two bishops who voted in favour of the earlier resolution were obviously were obviously convinced - given the division within the ACC and the AC - that this General Synod ought not to proceed immediately to mandate dioceses to authorize these blessings. And that's it. The idea that 'bishops have slapped gay people in the face' or that they have caved in to the so called 'global south' - all of that is merely blogspeak. It doesn't accord with the tenor of the type of debate which took place yesterday.

I appreciate your empathy, and expression of support of your LGBT sisters and brothers David H.

I think individual ministers in Canada should just get on now, and start marrying all couples. I beleive it would be legal as well as spiritual (if such a dichotomy can be tenable). Otherwise some of these couple will be drawing their pensions by the time theGS evuntually says,
" 'S OK to".

Pisco - unless you really do not understand the passages you quote, your point is very weak indeed.....I would not be surpriseed if you now ask if I eat bacon!

Well whether you are staying, leaving, or floating around among faith communities like me lately; the beat goes on. The oddest thing about NP's post is not its blind, closed, done-and-do-not-bother-me-with-the-facts-of-queer-competencies, thank-you-very-much Refusals - that Closed Refusal seems a given frame among the new conservative views of homosexuality.

One blessed and remarkable thing is that whether NP likes it or not, according to his/her informed new conservative Anglican conscience, the facts of love and good among same-sex couples on the Canadian ground are changing, way for the better. If you are a man or woman in a gay couple in love, that is.

The blessing and grace preceeds the discernment and recognition of conservative church believers, in this case as in so many other cases where facts overturned ideologies, especially religious ones which reveal and declare certain groups of people to be inferior to the believers who so love to condemn them: Anathema and Abomination.

Same sex couples got called together by God in freedom of conscience; nothing NP or any other conservative preaches can/will change that for the worse. We follow Jesus of Nazareth because we are called to do so, and I don't recall anybody in the New Testament responding: I am not worthy, except (significantly, perhaps) the Roman Centurion whose (likely) servant-partner was ill and who asked Jesus for healing. Check out what Jesus says to him and about him: that is the working summary of queer belivers faith in the Out/Partnered/Parenting communities in USA, Canada, Europe, and elsewhere.

P.S. Some of the bishops who voted against will soon be taking tea with a same-sex couple, somewhere in Canada, in a parish or outside of it, depending.

"Between the lines, the Canadian church is saying that opposition to homosexuality is NOT a core doctrine of the church -- it is not required to be an Anglican, thus it is not required to be a Christian. This is laying the groundwork for full acceptance of LGBT people in a way that, it seems to me though I may be incorrect, that the Episcopal Church has not"

Depends on how you parse the outcome of the presentment against Bishop Righter. He was attacked for ordaining a gay man to the priesthood.

The finding was that how the church viewed homosexuality was not a matter of doctrine [teaching] but of discipline [procedures]. I am not a canon or any kind of lawyer, so may well have this wrong or garbled.

The finding exonerated Bishop Righter, but I don't think made much difference in the larger context of the issues. Again, members of TEC who post here may well have better and more complete information.

NP,

The *same* Holy Spirit who INFINITELY LOVES YOU, despite your tired "Is not!" routine (due to the heat of the day here, you'll understand if I have no motivation to engage in a round of "Is too!"? ;-/)

The writing is on the wall, Praise Christ, and that writing is "Same-sex blessings ARE coming, and soon!"

Ford, I agree with you. As a gay man in a 24 year relationship, I really do not think that I need any sacramental support from the church other than baptism and communion. I do not think that having some earnest, probably straight, clergyperson blessing me would add anything to my relationship.

I love the church, but I only expect so much from it as an institution.

I'm pleased. They've said a vital thing here distinguishing Core Doctrine from doctrine. The end of thrusting sexuality as a articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae matter that too often has tended to conflate the Trinity with sexuality and moral theology on that topic, which are responses to the Trinity, not a matter of the Trinity proper.

I do wish that instead of talking about blessings, we would talk more about vows. It is the vows that are the ground for relationships and commitments. Pastoral provisions must attend to matters of vows and the import as such for Christians, prayers or no prayers, Eucharist or no Eucharist.

NP: I've only been a Christian for a year, but those two passages seem crystal clear to me. I thought the orthodox liked clarity. But please do explicate them for me. I can't wait to hear this.

Actually, *Christopher, "they" said this over a year ago. It was the substance of the St. Michael Report. And:

"Pastoral provisions must attend to matters of vows and the import as such for Christians, prayers or no prayers, Eucharist or no Eucharist."

is an extremely alarming statement. For me, the Eucharist is the single most important act of Christian wqorship, in the words of the African martyrs in the time of Diocletian, "it is what we do." You seem to be suggesting it has something of a minor role, or at least is not as important as the vows we take. We do nothing more important than make Eucharist.

"- is this the same Holy Spirit who inspired scriptures which emphatically do not support your position??? ...he does not go in for contradictory views held at the same time..."

Note the presumption that Holy Spirit is masculine. Only a few weeks ago a conservative rightly pointed out that Holy Spirit could be masculine or feminine.

The bible is redolent with paradoxes. For example, on one hand Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek and walk away from the aggressive and inhospitable. Yet on the other hand he calls on his disciples to take up swords to defend themselves.

On one hand, the bible denounces adultery, yet on the other hand God calls on prophets to take back their adulterous wives (e.g. Hosea).

On one hand God asks us to touch no unclean thing (Isaiah 52:11), but on another God accepts gifts even from the rebellious (Psalms 68:18).

On one hand God tears down and rebukes unless there is repentance, on the other hand God sees that the children have fallen so far that they can not climb out of the well of misery and shows unilateral mercy. Look at these paradoxes Jeremiah 31:20 "Is not Ephraim my dear son, the child in whom I delight? Though I often speak against him, I still remember him. Therefore my heart yearns for him; I have great compassion for him." Then there is Hosea 11:8-11 which includes: "“How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? ...My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused. I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim."

Jeremiah's prayer at 10:24 acknowledges the paradoxes of the angry yet compassionate God "Correct me, LORD, but only with justice — not in your anger, lest you reduce me to nothing." Similarly at Isaiah 55:7 "Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon."

I like Malachi 2:9 as God's response to selective interpretations of the holy texts “So I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people, because you have not followed my ways but have SHOWN PARTIALITY in matters of the law.”

John Bassett and Ford - I will keep posting here that while church acknowledged marriage appears to be between just two people, it also has a significant role to play in the lives of an entire family.

As a gay Christian in a long term relationship with our own children, the church has a role to play in helping to explain/confirm the nature of our relationship as a couple and a family, one to another. No, I do not need the church to affirm my relationship to my partner. Yes, it would be help in raising our children if they could see that God affirmed that relationship.

"I love the church, but I only expect so much from it as an institution." John Bassett

John I have to agree with you on this point. After a lifetime of faithfull service to this institution, one expects very little.

As to what it would add to your relationship - Ubi Caritas...

Windsor bemoans the "surrendering to the spirit of the age" in the context of SSBs. Could this be the Spirit guiding us now?

Synod has completed its lengthy period of discernment as per The Windsor Report Section D 139.

It satisfies the requirement in 141 that, "In order for these bonds [of Communion] to be properly acknowledged and addressed, the churches proposing to take action must be able, as a beginning, to demonstrate to the rest of the Communion why their proposal meets the criteria of scripture, tradition and reason. In order to be received as a legitimate development of the tradition, it must be possible to demonstrate how public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions would constitute growth in harmony with the apostolic tradition as it has been received."

The report goes on to warn against the unilateral authorisation of SSBs. So there may be wisdom in the two bishops' strict compliance with Windsor in making the theological case, but not yet proceeding liturgically. Certainly it makes it harder for the Instruments to react detrimentally, much as I would have wished for a bolder statement from Canada.

*Christoper said,
"It is the vows that are the ground for relationships and commitments."

Then Anglicanism may not be for you. We have priests and bishops who have absolutely no regard for the ordination vows they made to God. See the lunacy of Anne Holmes Redding's two-timing as a Episcopal priest and a practicing Muslim along with her bishop's endorsement of this "experiment" as the latest exhibit.

If TEC leadership is so willing to sully vows they made to God, why should you think they will take any vows you make seriously?

JCF - what writing is on the wall???
We have seen a completely unsurprising decision from a small, declining province of the AC which has been dominated for years by liberals and is as a result very different to the rest of the AC.....if there is writing on the wall it says "not surprised" and "so what?" because this does not change the "mind of the Communion" (to use the ABC's phrase)

Pisco - if your questions are genuine, pls get some good clear exposition of the books you quote so you can see what verses mean and their context:

On Matthew
http://www.amazon.com/Message-Matthew-Kingdom-Heaven-Speaks/dp/0830812431/ref=pd_bbs_3/104-9651160-6487953?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182842645&sr=8-3

On Galatians,
http://www.amazon.com/Message-Galatians-Bible-Speaks-Today/dp/0851109829/ref=sr_1_16/104-9651160-6487953?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182842826&sr=1-16

"Small". "Declining". Back on the numbers game, NP?

Hugh of Lincoln on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 at 1:05am BST --

"Windsor bemoans the "surrendering to the spirit of the age" in the context of SSBs. Could this be the Spirit guiding us now?"

I think that the answer has to be, "Yes" -- the institutional church always seems to stifle the Holy Spirit -- not a single bishop voted with Wilberforce & in the States the only abolitionist bishop was Potter of New York (depressing, really) -- we are fortunate that there were no bishops present at the creation, for they would have said, "Pray Lord, let us not disturb the chaos!"

"the church has a role to play in helping to explain/confirm the nature of our relationship as a couple and a family, one to another. "

I would argue this. I truly don't understand matrimony as sacrament. I have the sneaking suspicion that it is actually a move by the Imperial Church to control the behaviour, especially the sexual behaviour, of hoi polloi. Marriage ought not to be about validating relationships, but we clearly use it like that. We validate the relationships of unbelieving heteros, which I think is a great misuse of and disrespect to any sacrament, even one I do not understand. God did not become Incarnate to validate my relationship, His purpose was far higher than that. The Church is about bringing people into a relationship with God, teaching people about God's love for them and His redemption of them, nurturing them on their journey towards God. I don't see that validating people's relationships is part of it, though I recognize I need more input in that respect. Far from SSBs, I would favour restricting marriage to practicing Christians. Not saying gay people aren't Christians, just that we need to behave honourably towards the sacrament as it now exists before we can validly talk about extending it to gay people. Those who oppose gay marriage as disrespectful somehow of the sacrament prove their hypocrisy every time they marry a straight couple who have no respect for Christianity. Those who come because their parents will be upset if they don't, or she feels a white wedding is her right as a Western woman, or he needs the societal acknowledgement to further his career but who actually do not practice any religion should be encouraged to go to the JP, no judgement, it's just that they wouldn't ask a Mullah to marry them, and they're no more Christian than Muslim.

"so you can see what verses mean"

You ought to say
"so you can see what verses mean TO ME"

Stop behaving as if your understanding is the absolute truth and the rest of us should just fall in line with you. What makes you right and others wrong? Because you have decided God is on your side? You ought to be worrying about whether or not you are on God's side. Or have you received some sort of spiritual gift?

All mainstream Canadian churches are in decline - to attribute this to liberalism in the ACC's case is a fallacy.

Lapin - it is true that liberal churches all over the AC including TEC are small and declining.......just a fact, even if you look at TEC nos

And it is also a fact that the failure to include more people of the "inclusive" experiment in the last 50 years means that the AC is less inclined to listen to the arguments of people with decades of decline behind them - sorry, but this is true.

You really think the ABC is going to ditch thriving Reform and Alpha churches for a declining liberal churches which drain central resources like there is no tomorrow???

I was at a Deanery Synod where some lady vicar arrogantly said her "ministry" needed subsidies and she demanded them because it was not her job to put "bums on seats".....but funnily enough, 10 mins walk away, another church has 5 services with 500 people there at each....you can guess which one was liberal and which one was sticking to the bible. Sorry, numbers matter! And the joke is that the "inclusive" branch has failed for decades to include more, in fact it shrinks year on year

No, Ford. I'm saying that irrespective of whether a local congregation will celebrate our commitment within the context of prayers and Eucharist, or not, the vows we make to one another are the outward expression of the inward grace of giving oneself to the other. Baptism and Eucharist are the ground and sustenance for such self-giving. So put the alarm bells away.

And Ford, they may have "said" it a year ago, but now it has been passed as official. That's the point I was making.

Oh, and we don't "make Eucharist", God does and our response of thanks is caught up already in Christ who is the Great Thanksgiver and Great Thanksgiving. You tend to find everyone else's tone here shrill, but I find your own alarmist.

As a delegate that sat through both days (about a total of 8 hours) of debate, the most important resolution was the first one - "That the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with core doctrine (in the sense of being credal)". This passed by about a 63% vote in laity and clergy and 21-19 in the bishops.

It is true that the local option motion failed - passing in laity by about 60%, in clergy by 55% - failing in the Bishops by the same margin (21-19) - two bishops voted yes to the first motion and no to the second motion, and both Bishops (according to interviews in the media) have indicated that it was a - "Yes, bot not yet" vote by them.

This also was a recurring theme from - what I would call the soft-right speakers - ie - we feel it will happen but it is too soon.

The Diocese of New Westminster is reporting that they will be studying the results - http://www.vancouver.anglican.ca/News/tabid/27/ctl/ViewArticle/ArticleId/514/mid/486/Default.aspx - and that some Canon lawyers are saying that the first motion allows local option "implicitly".

The Canadian bishops defeats the motion to bless same-sex unions, and the liberals are bending all out of shape. I do not however, applaud the Canadians. They and their TEC cohorts should rather be voting on whether the Scripture matters to them and their churches anymore.

As far as I can see, the scripture has become for them so old-fashioned, so out of place, such a relic of the past. Let them be courageous enough to say Scripture does not play any central role in their faith formation anymore and it shall be clear where they stand.

Come now -- the quickest way to empty the churches is to preach the Gospel -- a "Gospel of prosperity" or self-righteous judgmentalism have nothing to do with the Good News of Jesus Christ!

If you want the numbers game, the RCs are biggest & the fastest growing are the Jehovah's Witnesses & the Mormons. Ta-ta!

OK, R.A., as soon as the conservatives are courageous enough to say that a twisted and perverted interpretation of the scriptures plays a central role in their faith formation so it will be clear where THEY stand.

RA, you are making the mistake of stating that the scriptures do not matter. Your interpretation of them may not matter, to most in TEC, Canada, and many other Churches too, and indeed to people like me, but the scriptures do matter and they are interpreted though reference to biblical scholarship.

"we don't "make Eucharist"

Yes we do, actually. Some of the earliest writing on the subject refer to the various liturgies the various members of the Body perform when the community "makes Eucharist to God". We bless by giving thanks, by "making Eucharist", to God.

"put the alarm bells away"

Done. I tend to get a little edgy on this topic when in the presence of some for whom the central act of Christian worship is no more than a pious bit of memorializing. I then get awfully defensive over it, as though it were mine to defend!

And, NP, the idea of flourishing Reform and Alpha churches is enough to drive me right to Constantinople. I pray to God we can keep the broad church we have had for the past 5 centuries, but if it be His will to make us into a bunch of innovative fundamentalists, I pray he'll send me an Orthodox Church to go to.

You are free to go, Ford, but I hope you will stay!

Seriously, you would fit well in a Reform church - as long as they do a "proper" communion for you!

Pluralist said:
"but the scriptures do matter and they are interpreted though reference to biblical scholarship."

Why do you hold biblical scholarship in such high regard? Certainly it is no more objective than any other source of Biblical interpretation - and no less prone to error!!!

"Let them be courageous enough to say Scripture does not play any central role in their faith formation anymore and it shall be clear where they stand."

Why would anyone want to lie? I mean, just because people don't agree with you does not mean that they do not have faith or do not believe the Scriptures, or anything else. Why do you negate the faith of those who disagree with you? Why do you, with your much vaunted respect for Scripture, not obey the part of Scritpure that tells you not to revile others? Is Scripture so "old-fashioned, so out of place, such a relic of the past" for you that you don't feel the need to heed things like "love one another", "love your neighbour as yourself", "thou shalt not bear false witness", "bear one another's burdens". I mean, I know the world encourages us to think of ourselves only in terms of our own little group and to find some way that we can feel persecuted and oppose that persecution, but we Christians are called to behave differently than that. Surely we can rise above the worldly tendency to factionalize, demonize the "other", and paint ourselves out as oppressed. That's just selling out to the spirit of the age. As is said, a Church that married the spirit of one age will be a widow in the next.

"as soon as conservatives are courageous enough to say that a twisted and perverted interpretation of scripture.."

Dennis, I think the liberals have one problem. That problem is the problem of "AUTHORITY". As long we keep playing this game of chess with the scriptures, we will arrive nowhere. The liberals are master rationalizers. Every program (no matter how outlandish) fits into their agenda, as long as no authority challenges them: not the scriptures, not the ABC, not the primates, non. Rather they are "authority" unto themselves.

As for my good friend, Ford Elms, may I say that, Christians are commanded to uphold those good scriptural admonitions you listed, without neglecting the others. We do not pick and chose what we want about the scriptures.

And by the way, that I defend the clear truths of the scriptures does not make me holier than you. We are all sinners. But if I chose to defend my life of sin instead of chosing to repent of them, it makes it more dangerous. TEC and her apologists have strayed from "the faith once delivered to the apostles" and refuses to say to the rest of the AC world "we repent", and then pull back from the brink. But no, they are still rationalizing.

Did "the faith once delivered to the apostles" include the doctrine of the Trinity RA? How do you understand the relationship between the Church and the (church-selected) Church's book? The Arians saw the Trinity as anti-scriptural, did they not, and yet almost become the voice of orthodoxy (had it not been for Julian the apostate they migth well have done so!).

"We do not pick and chose what we want about the scriptures."

This is clearly not true. You seem willing to revile to your heart's content, yet reviling is listed right there with homosexuality. Judge not lest ye be judged. Yet I have no doubt you can justify your judgementalism, I have heard Evos do so many times. How many have no problem ignoring the parts that forbid divorce, or usury, or killing others?

You lump all who disagree with you together as "liberals" as if they all believed the same things. No doubt you think these beliefs are the academic musings of a few radicals like Spong, (this is false witness, and is explicit in that nasty little piece of work, Equipping the Saints, a vainglorious title). You then proceed to revile the "liberals", and disrespect and deny their very faith. These are sins. Why do you not repent of them?
You're right in what you say about authority. Most of us are quite happy to stick with the traditional authority of letting God the Holy Spirit guide the Church. We are not willing to buy into the relatively new innovation of giving the Bible authority over the Holy Spirit Who inspired it.

And, NP:

"you would fit well in a Reform church "

you take this back this instant! If they did a "proper" Communion, they wouldn't be Reform, now, would they?

Well Ford - they often do a "proper communion"
I say you would fit because you clearly believe most of what I do - we differ mainly on one ethical issue, I think

"you clearly believe most of what I do"

But you clearly don't believe most of what I do, NP, not unless you've got a Rosary in your pocket and regularly seek the intercession of Our Lady of Walsingham!

And address the first part of the post, please, not the joke I made at the end.

_Why do you hold biblical scholarship in such high regard?_

Because it finds things out, uses methodologies available. It shows what is often uncertain, and not certain.

And if it finds out something contrary to some certainty imposed by authority, of course it questions that authority. So it should.

Now we often hear about the Archbishop of Canterbury here, more than he speaks, and much misrepresentation too, but he has spoken in terms of having some sort of communion approach to biblical hermeneutics. I speculate that this is to try to counter some of the selective literalism that is so often presented. However, this is another centralisation that cannot work, because there are different approaches to hermeneutics, and there is no sense in which Anglicanism has or should adopt just one (if this is indeed the proposal). So, unfortunately, all these statements about biblical authority won't wash, and critical material on the Bible will continue to be written and continue to have impact.

But NP - it is the one ethical issue that you and the so-called Global South have decided is the definitve measure of orthodoxy.

Malcolm...it is not so much a single issue but the last straw.....the AC has tolerated much but TEC just pushed too far in 2003, no doubt expecting timidity or organisational paralysis to work in its favour but it has found Primates who really are willing to see the AC split rather than have it subverted further

Ford - I don't accept that the authority of scripture is an innovation....we find it very clearly in the NT and early church history.
As for not, judging....we 1 Cor5:12 and all the teaching about judging and avoiding false teaching is crystal clear, is it not?

Rome has tolerated much but England just pushed too far in 1549, no doubt expecting timidity or organisational paralysis to work in its favour . . .

To which England responded that "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction . . ."

"I don't accept that the authority of scripture is an innovation"

Neither do I. Putting ALL authority in Scripture is the innovation, NP, as I have said many times. Either you are ignoring this, or, as I suspect, your need to be right is so strong that you can only think in terms of: either Scripture has all authority or it has none, there is no middle ground. Well, the middle ground is the traditional faith, all or nothing is the innovation, you can deny history as much as you like.