With its accusation that "the Archbishop of Canterbury has shown that he has now taken sides" it is clear that schism is now under way. The main question, which I assume will be answered shortly, is how may other provinces intend to take this same plunge.

ps At least, this should put paid to the "Anglican Covenant".

That the bishops of the Church in Rwanda will not attend Lambeth is to be regretted, but this blatant attempt by Rwanda to redefine Anglicanism is to be deplored.

Rwanda has said "our way or the highway," and I am therefore very grateful to most of the provinces of the Anglican Communion who have thus far not given in, and who will increasingly -- far beyond North America -- not give in to such extortion.

Anglicanism is a broad church, and its history is that of a tolerant church.

Those, like Rwanda, who want a new Calvinist communion can depart for one of the many Calvinist churches that already exist, or they may form an entirely new branch. They are not, however, Anglicans in the traditional sense, no matter what they call themselves.

Bye bye. Good, and the essential point for the future is that the schismatics are walking. Let them now do what they have intended, which is to set up the geographical alternative centre.

It always was the case of who would walk or be pushed first, and what was beginning to be clear was that for all these Lambeth resolutions and the rest of these meetings, that the agenda was going to be more discussions and no one (who did not want to go) being pushed. Now Rwanda has taken a decision to, in effect, walk, and they have to walk somewhere.

If Uganda and Nigeria does the same, as a start or even as complete, it means that the whole balance of the communion moves towards inclusivity and using theological brains, and with the voluntary brakes able to come off.

If Archbishop Jensen wants to take a few from Australia (he won't and can't take all Australians, of course) let him too. That'll provide a few from the "first world" (Global North in the southern hemisphere?).

It does signal the death bed of the Covenant, and perhaps the English General Synod ought to take note. It was designed to keep Rwanda and its likes in, by restricting others. Now that purpose is gone, so has the point of the Covenant. Wave the Rwandans goodbye and send a note of thanks.

I have suggested for some time that the plan has always been for the "Global South" primates to "walk apart" -- if they can get the CofE or Sydney to tag along, they'll accept them, but it really doesn't matter. The Windsor Report not only condemned their boundary crossings but also allowed that full inclusion of gays might occur & could be seen as being in the process of reception -- the CMS progeny have always rejected that possibility. Also note the use of "repentance" which was never used in TWR. As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, "Words mean what I want them to mean."

In response to (the bishops of) Rwanda, I feel an attack of Lerner&Lowe (w/ unauthorized alterations) coming on---

"No, my reverberating friends:
You are not the beginning and the end!

They'll be spring every year without you,
[The Church of] England still will be here without you.
They'll be leaves on the tree,
And a shore by the sea,
They'll be [Lambeth] crumpets and tea
Without you!

[Sacred]Art and music will thrive
Without you.

Somehow [Anglican orthodoxy] WILL survive
Without you.

...and without much a-do,
We can all muddle through
Without you!!!"

Nevertheless---Lord have mercy! :-(

When I was a teen, and made, as teens do, sweeping announcements about who was Wrong and who was Right, and who deserved my attention, my mother would infuriate me by chanting this, smiling smugly. It always deflated my balloon of ego. I suggest the ABC memorize it.

"We are the girls from the Institute.
We don't smoke and we don't chew,
and we don't associate with them as do!"

KA-BOOM ! ! ! !

wishful thinking, Lapin....the covenant will be happening. Dr Goddard's analysis on why some oppose it is spot on.

Worry not, Rwanda, Nigeria and Sydney will all be at Lambeth....because the ABC will not see the growing, vibrant parts of the AC go for the sake of rebellious, small, shrinking TEC and Canada - look at TWR and the Tanzania Communique if you do not believe me.

Even in CofE terms, he ain't going to lose hundreds of thousands in Alpha for the sake of a few who refuse to uphold the teaching of the church despite their vows - and yes, a few who are mostly a cost burden on the Cof E rather than any kind of benefit.

THe ABC has never willingly disciplined TEC or imposed order in the AC (this is not in his character)....he has always been forced to take a lead and you will see him capitaluate again to the "orthodox" majority in the AC.....poor chap did not expect such a strong reaction from the "orthodox" but when he has to choose, he has to date chosen to support those who have not broken church order and moving ahead with innovations which have certainly not persuaded the "mind of the Communion"

Kenya - out
Nigeria - out
Rwanda - out
Sydney - wavering

It appears that the so-called Global South may be committing the same tactical error that Canada and the US did after Dromantine.

Decisions are made by those who show up.

The decision speaks for itself, and is in line with the "I'm not playing" statements already made by Uganda and Nigeria. No doubt those now falling over each other to appoint their own special border crossing bishops (like Kenya, with e.g. Southern Cone bound to follow) will do the same: "I'm breaking your rules, you won't let me, I'm not playing".

But the reasoning provided in this statement is very poor.

1. The invitations do not "disregard" Rwanda's faith commitments. They expressly recognised that acceptance would not signify assent to the practices of other churches.

2. Since border crossing is explicitly condemned by Lambeth Conference and the Windsor Report, it is logical that border crossing bishops should be disinvited by Williams as they were by Carey.

3. No Lambeth Conference resolution said that Americans should not be invited.

c) The statement simply ignores the fact that Bishop Robinson was also not invited.

d) The Lambeth Conference and the ACC are no less important than the Primates. TEC's actions have indeed been punished by disinviting Robinson. Those who consecrated him have been invited, just as those who consecrated AMiA bishops were invited.

NP said: 'he [the ABofC] ain't going to lose hundreds of thousands in Alpha '

As far as I know, Alpha is a course not a 'sect', 'interest group', 'cult' etc.

The Alpha course are run in a whole range of churches (ConsEv, liberal Methodist to RC): whilst the 'official' alpha apparatus has a definite theological agenda, the 'thousands' that participate up and down the country are far from being an ecclesiastically homogenous group...

I have, on occasion, considered the Alpha organisation to disply 'sect like' tendencies, but that's usually in my least charitable moments.

The one word that jumped out at me in the Communique is the 'unless' in the final paragraph.

'...unless the previously stipulated requirement of repentance on the part of the TEC and other like-minded Provinces is met, and invitations are extended to our entire House of Bishops.'

As Prior Aelred notes, repentance was not the word used in TWR. The Rwandan bishops rephrase TWR to say what they want it to say. Not only that, the bishops extend 'repentance' to other like-minded Provinces. It's up to those of us in England to show that we are a like-minded Province - which we are.

The 'unless' introduces indecision into the Communique. The bishops have left themselves a get-out, and I predict it could work either way - TEC attends, the AMiA bishops are not invited, but Rwanda changes its mind and turns up at Lambeth.

NP accuses Lapin of wishful thinking. I think you are engaged in wishful thinking yourself, as usual, NP. I admire your tenacity and commitment to one viewpoint, but not your truth-telling.

Alpha people are not all signed up to the Global South agenda. The ABC doesn't make decisions based solely on gross numbers but on his understanding of the Gospel and the call of Jesus Christ to be a disciple. The ABC knows that as well as the tens of thousands of people who have participated in an Alpha course (and moved on) there are tens of thousands of lesbian and gay people spread across every Province of the Anglican Communion. +Rowan won't lightly abandon us either.

Worry not, Rwanda, Nigeria and Sydney will all be at Lambeth....

On the contrary: what do the Global South have to gain by attending Lambeth - and what do the have to lose?

They have nothing to gain and everything to lose!

the real question is when - not if but when - the CovenenatCofE, Alpha and other Conservative Evangelical folks in the UK announce broken communion, call for boycotts of Lambeth, and find (or appoint) bishops to attend the alternative communion event that Sydney and Rwanda are attending!

Given the rather (ironically) catty nature of the communique (Handbags at dawn, anyone?), I thought more of Gloria Gaynor, rather than Lerner and Lowe.

First I was afraid, I was petrified,
thought that I could never live without you by my side.

etc.

They obviously like to get together with 'like minded' people !

Its clear enough that the Road to Lambeth is really the Road to Schism - their demands would mean the exclusion of just about everyone who doesn't agree with them.

Colin - you talk as if Dromantune, TWR and Tanzania were all supportive of your agenda in the AC!

As you know from recent history, the ABC does respond to pressure from the GS - why do you think that is Colin?

Look at what has happened since TEC's arrogant actions in 2003 - you have very little to support the assertion that the ABC or the AC is supportive of your agenda.

Cynthia - nice variation on your mother's performance of "The Girls from the Institute" on the internet:

"At the end of the poem...after high kicking through "Which goes to show the price of sin"...my mom and my aunt would add the following:
Rooty Toot Toot,
Rooty Toot Toot,
We are the girls from the institute,
We don't smoke,
We don't chew,
We don't go with the guys who do!

(Then with their hands held like an open book and in a sing-song looking angelic)
OUR CLASS WON THE BIBLE!"

This and more at:

http://www.poetrylibrary.org.uk/queries/lostquotes/?id=191

NP, TWR is supportive of what I need the Anglican Communion to do to respect my place as an ordained gay Anglican Christian.

#146. We remind all in the Communion that Lambeth Resolution 1.10 calls for an ongoing process of listening and discernment, and that Christians of good will need to be prepared to engage honsetly and frankly with each other on issues relating to human sexuality.

One of the deepest realities that the Communion faces is continuing difference on the presenting issue of ministry by and to persons who openly engage in sexually active homosexual relationships.

...it has to be recognised that debate on this issue cannot be closed whilst sincerely but radically different positions continue to be held across the Communion.

NP, Windsor repeats the request of Lambeth Resolution 64 (1988) for provinces to "reassess, in the light of ... study and because of our concern for human rights, its care for and attitude towards persons of homosexual orientation".

Where to begin? So much that can be commented on!

I'm amused by how the statement talks of the "Road to Lambeth" as the work of some official body, even implying that it has been adopted or issued by the Primates.

Second, it seems to exalt the Primates to curial status, and suggest that the ABC and the other instruments of unity are mere handmaids of the Primates (even more status to the Primates than the draft covenant gives them?)

It's a lot of bluster and righteous (or unrighteous?) indignation. Maybe they'll calm down from their tantrum and come back to the table when they find they can't have their way.

But Colin, you've already stated your mind is made up! You've closed the debate for yourself. Last week you posted it is a sin in your church to call homosexuality immoral:

"in my church, there is no place for believing that loving a person of the same gender is a sin. It is sinful, in my church, to be prejudiced in any way against a person who is lesbian or gay."

Here's where I think the error is: addressing "[the AC's] care for and attitude towards persons of homosexual orientation" does not mean we must go against the plain spoken word of God as revealed in the Scripture. There can be a prophetic voice calling for greater inclusion and less hostility towards homosexuals - there can even be churches who have a special mission to reach out to homosexuals. But, we can do this with out reversing God's plan for human sexuality.

"plain spoken word of God as revealed in the Scripture."

Unpack this jargon for me, Chris.

Chris ; the Bible contains words written by people, inspired by their faith to do so. It is not 'the plain spoken word of God'. You appear to take a somewhat Muslim view of the way to look at the Bible, treating it as some sort of fax from heaven, the direct words of God. No. Not the case.

"plain spoken word of God as revealed in the Scripture."

That's hardly a radical or even fundamentalist belief. Three ideas behind that:

1) I believe in God and He directs me to the Scripture to learn about Him. God uses other sources for teaching as well, but Scripture carries a great deal of weight.

2) Scripture has perspicuity - it is plain meaning and areas that are unclear are made clear when compared to other parts of the Scripture.

3) There was a very important human role in the writing of Scripture that retains the style and type of literature, but does not distort the message or intent. There is also a human role in interpreting Scripture and making it relevant to every society - again without distorting the message or intent. Exactly how this happens is a mystery, see point #1 for why I believe it to be the case.

John 17:20-21 - "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

Jesus prayer is for us to be united in faith in Him. That faith comes from the apostle's message and Scripture is one way we hear the apostle's message and teaching, as sent by God, today.

AH! But what about Mosaic Law? In Christ, God has revealed more about Himself and His plan for humanity. This revelation means parts of God's previous revelations are at an end.

Again, this is not radical thinking but pretty basic theology for most people in the mainstream.

Gosh. Never mind WWJD (today) but WWMD (today) (PBUH)? Emerging from a cave after deep spiritual contemplation: "I have received a fax!"

Merseymike - you describe Chris' view of the bible as "muslim" but what is yours given you believe next to none of it?

Whether I would agree with point 1 or not, Chris, the problem comes with 2 because it is by no means obvious that what is unclear in one part of scripture is made clear in another - except of course by selective literalism (I don't have a view that fundamentalists are literalists, I think they are selective literalists). The reason many evangelicals can't decide about women's ordination and wearing hats is because one part of scripture unclear is not made clear elsewhere.

As for point 3, the human role is not interpretation, but in the actual writing of it so that it is all to be interpreted and understood as culturally and socially set. That's why Paul was not talking about stable relationships among gay people, but about a product of idolatry, and so all of that doesn't impact. And even if he was to be interviewed, and thought against faithful relationships, it would still be a case of so what. Like, who privileged your words?

"Scripture has perspicuity - it is plain meaning and areas that are unclear are made clear when compared to other parts of the Scripture."

That's almost a *definition* of fundamentalism, Chris (at least partially so).

What's your source? (It sure as heck ain't Anglican! To say nothing of "not in the Bible")

'...there can even be churches who have a special mission to reach out to homosexuals...'

Please Chris don't bother !

It's an offer I can refuse !

JCF -it's very easy to say something 'sure as heck ain't anglican.'
There are many very strong statements about the bible included in the foundation documents of anglicanism.
Article 20 certainly encourages sensitive reading of one scripture against the other (as well as limiting church councils only to actions not contrary to God's word written.) I think this supports Chris's (2) and may go beyond his (3).
The first book of homilies (commended in article 35) contains one on Scripture -http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk1hom01.htm It's interesting how far this goes towards what would be called novel, non-anglican fundamentalism on these pages.

I'm aware many here wouldn't share my loyalty to the articles. I wonder, however, whether reading them would help us all to generously allow Chris's views have a strong anglican heritage.

Well, apparantly the In Depth group has decided to look at the 39 Articles in the next meeting(s), as something that exists but is hardly looked at (so it was being said), and although there are a range of views I hardly think this group will come to a conclusion other than one of heritage. Anglican worship takes a lot out of the glass cases of the museum, but some things really ought to stay under glass.

Charlie,

Thank you. Please remember around here the "broad church" only extends from left-of-center to far-left and that "traditional Anglicanism" is based on 1960's era liberation theology with healthy doses of pluralism.

One English ordinand, when asked to assent to the articles, supposedly said that he acknowledged them much as he did the local gas works - he admitted their existence and was not, at present, involved in a plot for their overthrow.

The articles have never held confessional authority in Anglicanism.

But if one is going to start building a case around the articles, might I draw everyone's attention to one which makes it clear that foreign prelates do not have the right to meddle in the affairs of other churches.

Perspicuity does not mean complete revelation nor does it mean taking words right of the page and "getting it" - that IS fundamentalism. I have to have an understanding of Cod and Christ before the plain meaning is obvious. Jesus and Paul show this process in their many references to the OT.

As for the human role in writing AND interpretation - see John Stott's idea of "double interpretation." He argues that there is a very important role in interpretation by making the Scripture relevant to the modern world - think Paul in Athens.

I can't cite a "named Anglican" who wrote on Perspicuity directly, but Luther did - and there are a number of Lutheran ideas in traditional Anglicanism (read Cranmer & Hooker). Bishop NT Wright comes very close here:

"But you won’t come with a preconceived notion of what this or that passage has to mean if it is to be true. You will discover that God is speaking new truth through it. I take it as a method in my biblical studies that if I turn a corner and find myself saying, ‘Well, in that case, that verse is wrong’ that I must have turned a wrong corner somewhere. But that does not mean that I impose what I think is right on to that bit of the Bible. It means, instead, that I am forced to live with that text uncomfortably, sometimes literally for years (this is sober autobiography), until suddenly I come round a different corner and that verse makes a lot of sense; sense that I wouldn’t have got if I had insisted on imposing my initial view on it from day one."

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

While I rarely agree w/ +Tom Dunelm in recent "Anglican Unpleasantness", I would say that that quote you provided bolsters my case *AGAINST* idolatry of "the plain meaning of Scripture", Chris.

What else IS biblical literalism, except "imposing my initial view on it from day one"?

"There can even be churches who have a special mission to reach out to homosexuals."

This one, for example?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-exgay28jun28,0,1590125.story

"I have to have an understanding of Cod "

Bless my sole!

JCF, that makes absolutely no sense to me. How can taking God at His word be idolatry?

I believe in God. I believe God has given and preserved Scripture to help us understand Him. Therefore, the Scripture is trustworthy and understandable in what it says about God and us.

There is no imposition of my view on Scripture when I accept what Scripture says. If that is idolatry then Christianity is a cruel joke.

Instead, it is liberal criticism of Scripture that imposes ITS VIEW on Scripture. It presupposes that God CAN NOT work through humans to communicate across time and culture. It denies the possibility that there are unchanging standards God expects of His people. It looks at very easy to understand concepts and says, "nope, doesn't fit in with MY moral framework."

That is idolatry my friend.

Never come across the old culinary rule "ye cannot serve cod and salmon", Mynsterp?

Chris: "Instead, it is liberal criticism of Scripture that imposes ITS VIEW on Scripture. It presupposes that God CAN NOT work through humans to communicate across time and culture."

Oh, dear, he's been reading the Ladybird Book of Biblical Criticism again. Chris, try reading some PROPER works on biblical study rather than the outpourings of The Banner Of Truth Press.

"ye cannot serve cod and salmon"

I've obviously got lobster learn about the sayings of the Lord.

"ye cannot serve cod and salmon"

I've obviously got lobster learn about the sayings of the Lord. - mynsterpreost

I am becoming concerned about posters who are making light of this just for the halibut.

Jerry, Mynster, for Christ's skate!!

Amazing - Simon censors posts that quote people from last week but allows supercilious comments on typos.

Way to go TA!!!

Malcolm,

Thanks for responding. Sorry to be slow to reply, I've been taking a wedding away from home.

You said: The articles have never held confessional authority in Anglicanism.

Those more learned than me could probably have a long historical discussion backwards and forwards about that but I don't think we need to for this thread.

I only wanted to say that if a view is in the articles then we should be polite enough to admit it as 'anglican.' That's different from saying it's 'true', 'helpful' or deciding whether it should be allowed out from under glass in the museum case (thanks for the vivid image Pluralist.)

'God's word written' describes the view I've come to after a very anglican journey across the spectrum from liberal Catholic to evangelical. I'm sure many here would think my views fundamentalist but I wonder if you'll allow me to be an authentially anglican one?

Lighten up Chris. This isn't the plaice for hard feelings ;-)

Fishy to be sure, Chris. Don't fret - Simon's cutting posts both sides of the fence on this one.

All right, let's move away from the fish shop and tackle this matter of scriptural perspicuity. It is founded upon a belief, a belief in perspicuity that must come first, that is instantly contradictory. A position of perspicuity has to be argued for. It should speak for itself.

It sets itself up so that no one should have to revert to the Church for interpretation, yet scripture is multisourced, complex, multilayered, contradictory, written for different groups, and is not historically, biographically or in matters of nature reliable. The problem is that if you are going to claim perspicuity, then someone is going to have to make the decision of what is clear over what is not.

The claim about the perspicuity of scripture was effectively made by the English Presbyterian Puritans, who rejected doctrinal statements as part of their fiece Calvinist Christianity, on the basis that it was all reliably in the Bible. It wasn't: as these congregations soon became Arminian and, after a few generations down the line, Unitarian. Then there were Unitarian ideologial liberals, and they read the Bible straight off the page, clear as day, with no doctrine of the Trinity there. Was this perspicuity? No because it is entirely legitimate that a trinitarian belief or something close was under early development.

So in the end perspicuity comes with conditions, comes with some prior doctrine, and needs someone to do the interpreting for others, to enforce one line in perspicuity. And that just renders the belief a nonsense. The Bible sustains many interpretations according to what bias you want to place on it in the first place.

(As for inveitable typos, remember that to err is human but to really foul things up requires a computer, and the email of the species is always more deadly than the mail.)

Pluralist said:
"The Bible sustains many interpretations according to what bias you want to place on it in the first place."

Does this mean liberals have biases as well? And if liberals do have biases, how can they be anymore trustworthy than conservative theologies?

""Pluralist said:
"The Bible sustains many interpretations according to what bias you want to place on it in the first place."

Does this mean liberals have biases as well? And if liberals do have biases, how can they be anymore trustworthy than conservative theologies?" - posted by Chris

Absolutely, Chris, which is the point about nobody, repeat nobody, having a valid claim that they, and they alone, know "the truth."

Not just liberals or conservatives but even centrists, like me, can be wrong; on the other hand, I don't try to impose my standards on you, or anybody else.

That is the blessed joy of traditional Anglicanism; we are all, of many stripes, welcome. All of us seek perfection in the totality which is Christ, and all of us fall short, but we don't condemn others for beliefs that are different than our own.

I'm quite happy to accept you as an Anglican, Charlie.

What I'm NOT prepared to accept as Anglican is this perverse covenant which establishes that a committee of foreign prelates gets to interfere in the internal governance of provinces. It is unanglican to its very core.

And if I might touch on another recent discussion about "credentialism," I could point out that, at college, I was designated the "Bishop of the Un-Anglican Affairs Committee. ;-)

hey Malcolm, you know the Lord was not an "Anglican", right?

seems to me that "Anglicanism" (whatever it means) is like "polity" for some in TEC....i.e. an idol to be worshipped (even if it means contradicting scripture....or maybe as a justification for doing so)

If I believed in governance by foreign prelates, I'd have been a Roman.

Whether our Lord was one or not I'm grateful Malcolm will have me as an Anglican.
Thank you, Malcolm.

I guess when I came in I was hoping JCF would accept Chris and his view of scripture as Anglican but perhaps this thread has had it's time now?

My worry was that in a rush to find fault with the covenant (which might be possible at lots of levels) some seemed to want to draw the anglican lines narrowly to exclude Rwandans, or those who believe there should be confessional limits of some kind, or anglican 'possibly-fundamentalists' like me. Maybe some feel that would be a good thing but I'm not sure it works historically and I'm not sure it gets the discussion very far.

Charlie,
"Article 20 certainly encourages sensitive reading of one scripture against the other"

When has anyone ever interpreted Article 20 as advocating reading the sacred texts of another religion against our own?

And Chris,

"Simon censors posts"

I posted some stuff last week that didn't make it to the page. I assumed it was either because my posts were too long, or because they were too strongly worded and ad hominem (and some were), or because they were not relevant to the argument, and Simon didn't want the thread derailed any more than it already had been. Calling this kind of behaviour "censorship" is merely alarmist crap, meant to nurture the myth of the poor suffering persecuted faithful Consevo remnant. It happens to all of us, it's about the running of the site, so stop dropping velied hints that the "opposition" is somehow being kept down here.

Sometimes posts don't make it to the site for other unfathomable reasons. On a number of occasions I have re-posted a comment (with an apology for the double posting) and either it or the original comment did appear.
We do create quite a flood and it's easy for one or t'other post to get missed off!

All comments are read before being published. Simon, Simon and Peter try to get this right, and any one of us can approve the publication of a comment. We do devote some time to this each day, as well as weeding out spam and nasty-grams. If we see a corrected comment before the original comment is published then often we will only publish one of them. But sometimes one of us will approve one and another of us the other: that's just how it goes I'm afraid.

Simon K

'When has anyone ever interpreted Article 20 as advocating reading the sacred texts of another religion against our own?' - Ford

Ford, I'm a bit confused. I wasn't interpreting it like that. Nor am I aware of anyone else doing that. I was trying to say that I thought the Elizabethan reformers would have agreed with the idea that clarity of scriptural meaning is achieved by carefully reading any individual passage in the context of all the rest. 'neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.' Even given Pluralist's weighty list of problems with this approach it's still one I think has mileage and which has strong claims to be 'the' / 'one of the' anglican approaches to Scripture.

But perhaps you meant to recommend reading scripture against other sacred texts? (sorry, I'm genuinely confused whether you're suggesting that or not.)

If you did I think it's an interesting idea. I'm going to a local chapter meeting on interfaith relations this afternoon where I guess that'll be on the agenda. At our church we're currently having quite fruitful meetings with Muslim neighbours where each party brings their scriptures and we read them together. It leads to better understanding, better relations, genuine respect, and occasionally to Muslim people deciding to follow Jesus (I'm sure it occasionally works the other way round too.) I think the Christian-Muslim forum call it 'scriptural reasoning' when they do it but I've never made it along to one of their meetings so I can't say how it works for them.

Doing that is different, of course, from giving the Quran the authority to interpret/clarify the bible. If anyone's still interested about what the articles meant (just me then?) I think it's clear from article 6 that they were concerned to limit scripture to one list of books only. And articles 1,2, and 18 are ones I hope will be allowed to be relevant this afternoon if we get onto what Anglicans have historically thought about other religions.

Sorry, Charlie, I was in a decidedly unChristian mood. Use of the word 'scripture' to mean one verse or passage of the Bible is a pet peeve of mine. 'Scripture' is not individual passages, but the whole shebang. That usage is, I find, typical of Evangelicals, and the Evanglelicals who post here tend to be most interested in telling the rest of us how we have no respect for Scripture because we don't agree with them, and I guess I got a bit snarky. Sorry, it was uncalled for. That said, I think it is important to understand other faiths, I've had some very enlightening discussions with Muslims and Hindus about our differences and similarities.

Posting far too late now to ever be read by anyone but:
Ford, thanks for the apology. Not sure you needed to; I was confused not offended.
For the record I'm an evangelical and I meant 'the whole shebang' (though that obviously includes all the little annoying bits along the way.)
I'm sorry you've heard a connection between 'we don't agree' and 'you don't respect Scripture.' (Not from me I hope.) Doesn't sound like logic to me either. Some people don't respect Scripture and some disagreements may have their root cause there. It shouldn't be played like a big fat trump card in all disagreements though.

Glad you're having some good discussions with Muslims and Hindus. Me too.