"We are hopeful for the future because our confidence is not in ourselves but in Jesus the Christ who gave his life that we might have life."

Upon Jesus's death, the veil to the holiest snctum of the temple was torn asunder.

What happened to the two souls of the ark of the covenant who had made that temple their home?

Was Jesus one of them, and thus continued God's continuing covenant to humanity, transmuting it to a more than Jewish covenant?

If so, what happened to the other cherubim of the covenant?

If not, what happened to both the cherubims of the ark? If Jesus superceded and denounces both of them, that what is the basis that Jesus is the continuance of the Jewish heritage?

The global south's future is based on a paradigm that denies or desecrates the original guardians of the covenant (one or both remains to be seen).

These six reverend gentlemen do like to stir it and try and get us all worked up. Sooner Peter Akinola retires ( in two years) the better. It'll all quieten down I'm sure once his energy is removed.

But they are at odd with both ACI and other factional groups of 'the orthodox' as the T19 website graphically show.

So ++Drexel remains committed to undermining The Other Half of Windsor. No surprise there.

If one were to invert this statement's vision one would be accused of imperialism and colonialism. There is not the slightest sympathy for indigenous Christians in the West facing our particular onslaughts, only a demand that we fall in with the pure religion of the GS Christian heartland.

About the only thing to be thankful for is that there's no explicit demand for us to renounce biblical scholarship....

So - how do they urge 'compliance' with Windsor when they keep on violating provincial and diocesan boundaries? How about their starting to comply with, oh, Nicea?

I'll believe in Akinola's retirement when it happens, particularly given the recent shenanigans concerning the presidency of the Christian Association of Nigeria. My money is on an extended term in office (a second term heading the CAN, a four year appointment, would obviously have helped here) or on promotion to the primacy of a new, larger communion, which clearly is also on the cards. The activities of those who need to be "the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral" offer endless possibilities. He ain't going to go away, believe me.

Simon -- thanks especially for the list -- that steering committee is essentially a list of the most outspoken homophobes among the primates.

I am astonished at the ongoing audacity (& disingenuousness) of citing the Windsor Report in #3 -- these Global South primates have never accepted the basic Windsor principles -- that the crisis is about inadequate consultation and that the church's acceptance of same sex relationships is a possibility after a period of reception -- (actually, I don't believe that, either, but I don't try to use the Windsor Report as a weapon) -- elsewhere these primates clearly state that this is about the authority of Scripture & consultation & reception are beside the point.

I would have more respect for them if they were more honest, but I am astonished not so much at their audacity as their success at getting away with it.

Akinola retire? Not after he's appointed the new Archbishop of the new Anglican Communion.

"Sooner Peter Akinola retires ( in two years) the better."

Anyone want to bet that at some time between now and then the mandatory retirement age will be raised? Rules and limits seem to mean very little if they are in the way of his grandiose ego and limitless ambition.

I expect the assembled jillion bishops of Nigeria will at some point join in a 'spontaneous' vote, by acclamation, to void the retirement canons for the Archbishop, and perhaps for Minns as well.

The power bid of the Primates Meeting to usurp what has traditionally been called the dispersed institutional and theological authorities of the worldwide Anglican Communion could hardly be clearer than in this statement, especially put in historical and cultural context.

I am bemused, if not also amused, by the presupposition on their part that a dictatorship of the GS believers is God's way, the closed and final yardstick by which all of the rest of us should be measured - as on the medieval rack? And, then to tag this approach, Reconciliation?

Alas. Lord have mercy.

Dear Steering Committee members, when you seek to condemn in order to forgive, perhaps you need to start with a good, long, profoundly inquiring look in the nearest mirrors. Jesus of Nazareth I will follow to the best of my abilities, but these gentlemen are casting an odd and dubious aspect on their own reverentness. And - too obvious to mention? - dripping with the sweet savors of high and exclusive straight privileges to say what is what is what.

PS. Wouldn't advise putting all my eggs into the basket of AB Akinola's retirement. The juggernaut realignment campaign folks are hardly going to let his leadership vacuum stay empty for very long.

Will this realignment campaign ship founder on the shoals of being unable to effectively split the CoE, or some other province or diocese? Or will USA-style rightwing religion finally prove itself to be as committed to sacrificing others in public as the Bush administration has now demonstrated? Heart for the poor, hah. These things are indeed more or less all of a piece in USA religious institutions. Just saw a cable rerun of the Crucible about the USA Salem Trials, and am reminded that this very Puritan spirit has been alive and well in USA for centuries, thanks to the errors of our past. Alas. Lord have mercy.

Who still pays any attention to the "primatial circus"? The GS primates and metropolitans have turned the AC into a "sick joke". It is high time for TEC, the CofE and the other inclusive provinces to ignore the pompous purple shirts and get on with the mission of the Church, which the pirates and power-grabbers neglect in their own backyards.

"be present but unable to participate in sacramental fellowship would all the more painfully demonstrate our brokenness. "

Perhaps being reminded, painfully, of this fact would be a good thing.

"faithful Anglican"

There's that reviling thing again.

"this is about the authority of Scripture"

Indeed. And they won't be satisfied till we are all agreed that, in defiance of 1500 years of Christian tradition, the Spirit only leads us through the word printed. If we all aren't Evangelicals, they can't, as was put to our parish years ago by a group of who refused to take part in an ecumenical event, "associate with the unGodly."

It is interesting that the Common Cause Partners do include a number of early continuing and breakaway groups: for example the Anglican Province of America (APA), opposed to Episcopal Church involvement in the Civil Rights movement and Prayer Book revision in the 1960s and 1970s, and the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC), an evangelical denomination from 1873 opposing Anglo-Catholic practices. The temptation for the current boundary-crossers is to pull in the various splits and offshoots going on for some time (and there are a number in England).

This division via the Global South goes against the cold feet approach seen by Ephraim Radner and company. In as much as these positions overlap, there seems to be some uncertainty. Even if Lambeth is boycotted, the split only happens with a shift of geographical centre for some Anglicans.

It is interesting to see an Anglican Covenant in the waiting by the Common Cause Partners. I can imagine a big push to get this accepted by as many as possible, and it does crank up doctrinal requirements.

http://www.acn-us.org/common-cause-partners/

Scroll down a bit to Covenant Declaration of the Common Cause Partners.

I should add, having gone to Covenant Declaration of the Common Cause Partners to continue down to Theological Statement of the Common Cause Partners as these both go together.

http://www.acn-us.org/common-cause-partners/

How does Archbishop Gomez square his participation in the Global South Steering Committee with his role as chair of the Anglican Covenant Committee and lead author of the draft Covenant?

How do others manage to reconcile his dual roles?

To me, it is impossible after the release of "This is a critical time" for ++Gomez to take a leading role in the Global South Steering Committee and still be considered a good faith participant in the Covenant process.

Having moved in political circles, I recognize why they want an emergency Primates Meeting.

They can win in an emergency Primates Meeting. Or at least they think they can bully their way through, marginalize +Katharine and now +Fred, cow +Rowan and rewrite the invitation list for Lambeth.

But another thing is equally obvious. Not only are they uncertain about winning the field at Lambeth (without the complete rewrite of the invitation list by the Primates), they are actually convinced that their schismatic actions will be roundly condemned.

They can only win at the Primates Meeting. At an unreconstructed Lambeth, they know they will lose.

Malcolm+ on Saturday, 21 July 2007 at 5:51pm BST --

"Wouldn't it be nice to think so."

I do think that this is the way things are headed -- it looks as if there will indeed be a split, but rather than TEC & the ACinC being expelled from the WWAC, it now appears as if those primates who refused Communion with their fellows will choose to "walk apart."

That would be sad, but would, one hopes, at least put an end to this ongoing sniping & self devouring, which does no good to anyone.

Please don't cartoonise this down to one figurehead. There were players playing these strategies before Akinola and there will be players after he has gone.

The more detailed the examination, the more clear it becomes clear that this is one priestly permutation and debate that comes up time and again. Similar debates are probably happening in other denominations and faiths (and if they are not, they should be). Shame on those who have repressed too harshly.

Overnight contemplations is that their theology is more consistent with the Pharisees than that which Jesus exhorted. Similarly, some of the behaviours and perspectives are very consistent with the Malfoys of the Harry Potter series (muggles being those not of their theology).

There appears to be two core perspectives shaping theology.

On one hand there is a theology that would see Jesus as an important figure woven into, of and for this reality. The other is of Jesus as a glowing figure above, apart and against this reality.

One one hand there is a vision of integration and healing and desire for this planet and its occupants. The other is a vision of separatation, judgement and replacement of this planet and its occupants.

Eve chose to "fall" to become one of this planet's guardians. The question being begged is did Adam desire this planet and thus Eve? Or is Adam so angry at being appointed a guardian that he wants to reject Eve and destroy this planet?

There are priests who say that Eve (the Shechina) can be saved if she surrenders free will and the right to rebuke Jesus where he contravenes or neglects implementation of God's holy principles. Shechina says the cost is too high.

She would rather be in hell comforting and counselling the victims of corruption and tyranny, than in heaven as a passive consort to cruelity and tyranny.

Similarly, to have the divine presence in any temple (Exodus 40:35, 2 Chronicles 7:2, 2 Chronicles 5:13-6:3, Revelation 15:8) requires that the feminine is not used as an excuse to justify bloodshed, hypocrisy or negligence. e.g. Jeremiah 22:13-30. Luke 12:10 "...everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

"How does Archbishop Gomez square his participation ... ?" I do not doubt that Gomez has no problem whatever in wearing both mitres, since he "knows he is right". This is what comes naturally when one appoints the longest-sitting primate in the Communion (30-some years) to chair a group whose head ought, regardless of his ideological bent, at least to be aware of the fact that we are living in the 21st century.

Additional to Simon's list of participating primates, Mark Harris at Preludium lists the associate and assistant secretaries of the group. The associate secretary, believe it or not, is one Martyn Minns. The Akinola/Minns axis that so brazenly and succesfuly pulled the strings at Dar es Salaam is behind this one, as well. "Buggers description", in the words of the late William Burroughs.

I suppose that the people posting here really are NOT "thinking Anglicans," because if you were you'd stop fighting against the tide (with mean-spirited words toward your neighbors) and begin to embrace the direction the Spirit is taking us.

Be honest, you know there is no place in TEC or ACC for what the polite among you call "conservatives" and there hasn't been for a long time. Maybe both can co-exist in the CofE, but those days are gone on the NA continent. And, please don't try to fault only those who hold fast to ancient traditions about human sexuality. Fact is, those who regularly preach tolerance are among the most intolerant (anyone heard of South Carolina?). Likewise, there is no place among conservatives for what we call "revisionists". We simply cannot agree that human sexuality is adiaphora.

Soooo, let's stop fighting against the notion of 2 NA provinces and start embracing the idea. Let the churches decide which province they want to be aligned with and that's that. Then we can all be free to embrace what we think/feel are the weightier matters of the faith in ways consistent with our own consciences. Who knows, maybe someday we'll all be one again. ;-)

My guess is that the ABC has likewise come to this conclusion and he's trying hard (on his sabbatical) to decide how he can be in communion with both provinces whilst they have no communion with each other!

Why aren't the TEC authorities directly taking the sponsoring provinces to Court for the hi-jacking of Church property?

Why aren't the Global South concerned about the Anglicans in the Diocese of Harare?

Do I see the dollar wafting in front of the Global South primates eyes? Subsidised travel, expenses etc.

"anyone heard of South Carolina?"
Of course we've heard of South Carolina. I assume you are talking about their bishop elect. Here's the thing. South Carolina diocese had the same amount of time as any other diocese to get the required consents for their bishop. The rules had changed as to how those consents could be submitted. We are talking about a contentious episcopal election in whcih it could reasonably be assumed by the responsible bodies that they needed their 't's crossed and their 'i's dotted. It would be the responsibility of any such body to make itself familiar with the rules by which it must operate, and a reasonable thing to expect such a body to do so. When the appropriate consents were not forthcoming, they were given extra time. How is this "intolerance" on the part of liberals? This makes me suspect that the whole charade was out together to provide yet another trumped up "example" of how the liberals are oppressing the poor faithful remnant in TEC. Explain to me otherwise. I am ready to believe I am wrong.

"Soooo, let's stop fighting against the notion of 2 NA provinces and start embracing the idea. Let the churches decide which province they want to be aligned with and that's that. Then we can all be free to embrace what we think/feel are the weightier matters of the faith in ways consistent with our own consciences. Who knows, maybe someday we'll all be one again. ;-)"-Joe

So what is stopping you? Go buy a piece of property next to Wal-Mart, get a contract with Morton Buildings or the local double-wide salesman and take your loving theology, hateful faithful and schismatic bishops with you!

You know the rules. Now act upon it.

No wonder the younger generation is spending this Sunday AM with Harry Potter.

I've lived in South Carolina, though not in this diocese, for many years, Ford. I think you're overestimating us if you see method in this, as opposed to good old Southern muddle.

Ford asked:
"How is this "intolerance" on the part of liberals?"

simple. Because the Neocons didn't get their way. Remember the words of Jesus.
"Rule 1. My ultra-orthodox, ultra-pure, ultra-conservative followers are always right.
Rule 2. When they are wrong, rule 1 applies."

verbum domini....

Re. South Carolina's episcopal election, how can TEC's diocesan standing committees give consent to a bishop-elect, who has made statements to the effect that, pending future developments, he may choose the AC over TEC? How can the bishop-elect vow at his consecration to uphold TEC's constitution and canons when he has no intention of doing so?

It's the Cranmer case all over again. At his consecration as Cantuar, he vowed allegiance to the Bishop of Rome, knowing full well that he would renounce that allegiance within days in order to become the King's ABC. Was Cranmer an honorable man? Definitely, he was duplicitous.

John Henry on Sunday, 22 July 2007 at 3:48pm BST --

I've said exactly this many times, although not so well -- Fr Lawrence has also refused to receive Communion when Presiding Bishop Katharine was presiding at the Eucharistic celebration (although his wife did -- maybe she should be bishop -- she at least seems to be in Communion with TEC's primate, which most people might think would be a reasonable requirement).

Well there is the Chelmsford move: you all know the one. Get the hands on the head to join the club, then refuse the meal afterwards.

Remember the juicy rumour and I made a suggestion of plenty of water and ice cubes on to it? Take a few ice cubes out.

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=1899

He's making a general point about justifying international oversight wrapped up in revelatory judgmental garb.

Well there is the Chelmsford move: you all know the one. Get the hands on the head to join the club, then refuse the meal afterwards.

Posted by: Pluralist on Sunday, 22 July 2007 at 10:48pm BST

MORNINGTON CRESCENT !

I had seen the Sugden "End to Nationalistic Anglicanism" linked elsewhere, Pluralist. Not difficult to see where we're heading with this one. And he's still pushing the spurious racist smear against those he opposes - "there has been a demonisation of African Christian leaders, especially from Nigeria" [I assume he means that the African Christian leaders, not the demonisation, are from Nigeria, but verbal precision is not always Dr. Sugden's strong suit]. Personally I had not noticed much demonisation of Archbishop Ndungane, so maybe the offence has been committed only against such African Christian leaders as have been donning horns and painting themselves red of late (Metaphor, NP!) But it is a revealing indication of the evolving strategy of the self-styled Global South's ongoing putsch.

The cherry on the cake, of course, is Sugden's statement "meanwhile, the work of sharing the love of Jesus continues". I used my William S. Burroughs' quote on TA earlier in the weekend, so let's leave it at that.

CBFH says: "Go buy a piece of property next to Wal-Mart, get a contract with Morton Buildings or the local double-wide salesman..."

Ah, such snobbish elitism is usually concealed in public. Thanks for proving my point!

Lapin - I haven't said anything on this one....but nice of you to think of me - you are my favourite rabbit by far!

Lots of ad hominem attacks on certain archbishops on this thread.....but anyway, yes, it is coming to a choice for the ABC: the current leadership of TEC or losing Nigeria+Kenya+Uganda+.....+ large parts of the CofE (the healthy parts, if you will pardon me saying so)

The ABC can threaten the GS (as he has through ++Sentamu?) that their non-participation in Lambeth etc will decide the issue.....but only if he is really willing to see the AC shrink to a few, declining liberal churches around the world - and, to date, he has not been willing to make that sacrifice for the TEC leadership, given that the start of the current problems was TEC's deliberate rejection of the AC's calls for patience and unity in 2003.....pls do not be deceived, we are where we are because TEC refused to hear the pleas of the AC re VGR and went ahead anyway, knowing how opposed most of the AC was (Canada has behaved differently - must be more nice people like Ford in their synod)

What is new in the AC is that the GS are serious (that is why we got the Tanzania Communiqué) - they see little benefit from all the time and money wasted fighting ordained heretics in the AC and want a resolution so that they can get on with their mission - they are striving to do so in the AC, calling it back to its roots and the bible, but if this is not possible, they are serious about not being compromised.

The same goes for US and English Anglicans who want to stick to the bible and the agreed positions of the CofE - losing some buildings and money is far less important than speaking the truth to the people entrusted to us. WE have lots of people so we can always get new buildings. We still hope that the AC sticks to Lambeth 1.10 and the covenant coming up is faithful to the roots of Anglicanism in the prayer book and the bible. We "conservatives" have not torn the "fabric of the Communion" so I still do not think the ABC is going to let the AC split for the sake of the current leadership of TEC and VGR

I agree it is an end to nationalistic Anglicanism.

After all, loyalty based on fiefdom is idolatry - it is promoting a family or a government as the ruling authority. The same as loyalty to one manifestation is idolatry, it denies that God can present in other forms.

My children and a friend wrote a play the other week. Their script was based on a phone conversation between God and various souls. A fourteen-year-old wrote that Lucifer asked God when would it be his turn to be God. Says it all, really.

The battle is not for who controls the nations. The battle is to ensure that the entire bible is honored, not just selected portions used to prop up tyrannical idolatrous opportunism.

They can throw Revelation around as much as they want, along with any other text. They can set up whatever rules they want, and change them whenever they want. We'll play.

The fun thing is that the more they play to win the more they condemn themselves. e.g. removing holy texts, participating in slander tours. The beauty of the slander tours is they demonstrated that they knew the repression was going on, that they were doing it, and that they were prepared to participate in "off-the-record" slander.

Might not be able to prove it in the human courts. But God is watching this time.

"healthy"

They might be numerically bigger, but if you want to call what they are practicing in this instance "healthy" Christianity, well, we have a very different definition of Christianity.

"TEC refused to hear the pleas of the AC"

Dear, dear. It's getting to the point where the only thing to do is pat you patronizingly on the head and say "What a nice little fantasy world you have."

"nice people like Ford"

Oh, pshaw! If you think I'm nice, that just goes to show the quality of the people by whom you judge me.

"ordained heretics"

But, you see, if the ordained heretics threaten to go into schism and take back from God the buildings they once gave to Him, then what are faithful Anglicans to do?

"losing some buildings and money is far less important"

Then why must they insist on taking those unimportant structures with them, thereby making this statement untrue and also showing how little understanding they have of the faith "once and for all delivered to the saints"?

"We "conservatives" have not torn the "fabric of the Communion""

What a nice little fantasy world you have.

"roots of Anglicanism in the prayer book and the bible"

And here I thought our roots were in Jesus. Silly me.

Snobbish elitism manifested itself when parishioners's insecurity over an insignificant bishop in a tiny diocese had to raise extraordinary amounts of money to import a cleric from thouosands of miles away to fuel and coddle their hatred.

Thanks for proving my point, Joe!

NP opined, "WE have lots of people so we can always get new buildings."

Nice to see you finally tying those, two concepts together. Esp. after your interminable going-on about about how your side is "right" because there are supposedly more of you...

So when can I expect the "Anglican Rightwing" in the West to stop their whinging, exit gracefully (leaving the silver and the church keys behind), and get on with this ? (i.e. "put your money where your mouth is" ?)

This is the so-called "Global South's" last desperate gasp. Their efforts have failed. Their attempt to hijack the Communion is collapsing around them.

And so they demand a meeting of the one body where they have been able to bully their way to victory - the Primates Meeting.

But even their, they have overplayed their hand so egregiously, I doubt that they would be able to win the day even there.

Of course, the point is moot. There will be no "emergency Primates Meeting" because even the most benighted observer can tell that it is the last desperate gasp of a failed attempt at power politics.

NP warned of the loss of parts of the C of E, adding "(the healthy parts, if you will pardon me saying so)"

No. I don't pardon you saying so. You denigrate vilely the faithful, prayerful folk in parishes like mine who would not dream of abandoning the CofE's historic messy variety in pursuit of a puritan elite.

A certain Palestinian Jew said something about the sorts of folk who cared more for their own purity than the wellbeing of others...

CBFH: Our dispute is about more than one bishop, he simply personifies the issue. Listen, I have no fight with you. Those persons like me (whom you are allowed to hate whilst preaching inclusion...go figure) see the leadership of TEC as being in need of massive reform in the least and apostate at worst. And I say that as a matter of fact with no malice in my heart.

For us it is like a husband who cheats on his wife over and over and over and eventually ceases to even apologize. In fact, he glories in his sin. In such a case, the wife who leaves such an unholy matrimony is not bringing about the divorce, the fault lies with her philandering husband.

This is the way we see TEC. Sure, you disagree. TEC is being "inclusive" and "seeking justice" and "loving all people". But we see these same actions as syncretism and idolatry. In fact we think TEC is actually harming the very people they say they are loving.

I know it is good sport to lump us all together with broad stereotypes but the fact is I (and those I work with) don't hate gays. We just believe that gay sex (which is only part of the greater problem) is incompatible with Christian living. Furthermore, for us to deny this is to deny a first principle: obedience to the self-revelation of God in the Scriptures.

Therefore, as important as Canterbury is to us, it is no more important than Rome was to Luther! And if our faithfulness to Scripture causes +Rowan to turn his back on us...well, we choose to believe that Jesus will never leave us or forsake us.

Joe, when you say "well, we choose to believe that Jesus will never leave us or forsake us", what is the force of 'choose to'?

I'm trying hard not to see it as a sideswipe at those who don't agree with you, but it does come across as the acid comment of a pure believer.

A couple of days ago, someone posting on Ruth Gledhill's blog inquired of the Global South clique, "can they start alternative episcopal oversight in Harare?"

Joe it's your faithfulness to YOUR interpetation of Scripture, which conveniently matches your own visceral anti-gay prejudice, which precedes Scripture in your life. Scripture you are using to ratinalise your anti-gay predudice., I don't care if you hate gays or not--please yourself. However, your anti-gay words and other behviours do concern me.

Get real--at least try to be honest with yourself.

I wish wish you would leave TEC as you despise it so much. Why stay ? It it to cause this stink ?

I left the CofE to disassociate from its institutionalised homophobia. You go too !

You will find plenty of churches to suit YOU !

Joe wrote: "for us to deny this is to deny a first principle: obedience to the self-revelation of God in the Scriptures."

There I think we see one of the big fissures. For many who would take an alternative view on all these issues the self-revelation of God is first of all in Jesus, and in the scriptures in so far as they bear witness to him. John's gospel has Jesus say (I quote the evangelical NIV) "You diligently study the scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the scriptures which testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." (Jn 5:39f) It is what we see and hear Jesus himself saying and doing in the Gospels, and consistently therewith by his Spirit in the lives of women and men today, which must be seen as the primary revelation of the heart of God.

Mynsterpreost adverts to the parable of the Good Samaritan. It struck me while reading it a week ago that it's an Englishman, Irishman and Scotsman story, and the lawyer was breathlessly expecting the third person to be one like him. Instead Jesus chooses the third player to be the unspeakable, the vile menstruant-from-the-womb Samaritan, who would defile even a corpse. We need to hear that kind of upsetting of the conventional, as well as reiterating the rules and regulations.

In response to John Marshall's comment above, a paragraph from a sermon preached here the other week:

"Just to look at the Good Samaritan story, especially in the light of Ezra and Nehemiah, the labels of 'good' and 'bad' are reversed. The Samaritan is revealed as a compassionate human being, the Priest and the Levite as deeply flawed. Perhaps even more controversial is the suggestion that they are flawed because of their religion. The labels which are attached to these three people by common prejudice are shown to be completely perverted. They say nothing about the worth of the three, they act only as shelters for privilege and camouflage for contempt."

David, you should NOT see my comment about 'Jesus never leaving us' as an acidic sideswipe, for it was nothing of the sort. I am simply saying if +Rowan chooses to abandon the GS (which he seems ready to do) we will not be abandoned by Christ, that's all I meant. Our security is not in Canterbury (or Kigali for that matter). ...try not to be so insecure, not all conservatives are mean. ;-)

John, you make a good point and one I've tried to consider. But, I ask you, couldn't every immoral and heretical position say the same thing? I mean, couldn't anyone contort the parable to say "two of my enemies and one of my friends were walking down the road one day"? Surely you could imagine how your use of the parable could be turned back on you? But that misses the entire point, doesn't it? However, if you follow your exegetical path into the Mary/Martha passage you'd see that the comparisons don't stop (I think these passages are meant to be seen together). It is not enough to serve (as the Samaritan did) we must also be willing to sit at Jesus' feet (in submission) and listen to his Word (as opposed to telling the Lord what he should be doing). True discipleship is not just about being compassionate to the hurting (though it is not less than that) it is also about submission to the self-revelation of God.

"I know it is good sport to lump us all together with broad stereotypes but the fact is I (and those I work with) don't hate gays. We just believe that gay sex (which is only part of the greater problem) is incompatible with Christian living. Furthermore, for us to deny this is to deny a first principle: obedience to the self-revelation of God in the Scriptures"

And it would seem to be a good sport to lump all gay sex as sinful.

Again, I've harped on this ad infinitum, how is it that individuals can ignore scientific evidence of sexual orientation being genetic in nature, then constantly, obsessively, and disproportionately mis-use scripture to condemn what is a fact of God's creation?

There was a teaching that I learnt years ago by a Jesuit no less (anybody who has heard of this, help me out), but have forgottoned the term used to describe the idea. That is if a person is doing something wrong and that they cannot change completely, then changing bits and pieces of their behavior in the "right" direction was considered a step towards salvation. Why then does the "conservative" faction fight so mightily against the blessing and/or unification of same-sex relationships into monogamous committments?

But beyond all that, making statements about "obedience to God as revealed in the Scriptures" sounds hauntingly like the operatives of Al-Qaida. Any means justify the ends as we interpret them.

And again, the issue of properties has not been addressed in this dialogue.

If you are so offended at Jesus caring for the lepers, then build yourself a new house.

Sorry mynster - I see too many parishes in my deanery synod which are not healthy....some stuff goes on but there is little or no growth at best, few attempts at mission, hardly anyone under 60, nothing much to build upon given the wishy-washy leadership in those parishes - just slow decline and it is clearly not sustainable long-term given the small, aging groups meeting there. Sorry, there are lots of very unhealthy parishes in the CofE.....with vicars who blame everyone else but themselves for the state of their own congregations. We have to be honest - not all parts of the CofE show health

I don't see why this is news. It seems to be a statement issued purely for the benefit of the blogosphere, which has gobbled it up with relish.

No-one else will see it. If it was meant as a communication to the Archbishop of Canterbury, it wouldn't have been released in this form.

It hasn't been published anywhere except on the web. It has not been covered in any national or local newspaper.

It is just the usual suspects saying what they have been saying for some time. There aren't many of them, and Ephraim Radner is on record as saying that Drexel Gomez wasn't going to the "Steering Committee" meeting in question, so that's one name off the list.

This is just a fuss about a fuss.

So - what?

If Drexel Gomez was not present, although listed as attending, who else, aside from Akinola and Mimms, who one can be pretty certain were there, was actually at the meeting? It did strike me as a little odd that the communiqué was not signed.

An alternative to so called wishy washy leadership would not make a scrap of different. Wishy washy? You mean people who serve others, who do things so valuable but others may not notice (so what), who make those little additions to people's lives that leave a positive mark. This is not some marketing business. And so what if folks are over 60, they have lives too, important lives of effort, reflection and wisdom, who also want their places to go and people to see. A good discussion with nine others is its own event, and everyone left with a positive spring in their step, where confidence has grown between them. This is growth - not some plastic numbers game. This is not wishy-washy leadership, but empowering the people (to use a contemporary term which this time means what it says). The best leader is the one who can stand back a little and watch people make the contributions and get things done.

CBFH: "...individuals can ignore scientific evidence of sexual orientation being genetic in nature..."

2 part answer: (a) This is not a confirmed fact, as you say, rather what we know is that there seems to be brain activity similar in homosexual persons not present in heterosexual persons. What has yet to be fully studied is whether the unique cerebral activity is 'the cause of' or 'resultant from' homosexual activity. Furthermore, as with almost all science these days, certain political outcomes skew the research from the beginning which leaves us always in somewhat of an epistemological quagmire. (b) Nevertheless, even if homosexual orientation were "normal" for certain persons, couldn't the same argument be made for pedophiles or philanderers or kleptomaniacs or whatever? I mean couldn't you justify just about any action under the label "this is the way I was made"?

Finally, let me say that you continue to show how true my post was re: the intolerance of those who preach tolerance. I continue to read your vitriolic words and wonder how it is that you see yourself as "loving" and "liberal". Frankly, I see neither in your words.

" Nevertheless, even if homosexual orientation were "normal" for certain persons, couldn't the same argument be made for pedophiles or philanderers or kleptomaniacs or whatever"

Following that line of argument, all heterosexual love would be immoral too because certain heterosexual persons are paedophiles and philanderers and rapists.

Can you really not distinguish between love and abuse??

Pluralist says "Wishy washy? You mean people who serve others," Nope - I mean people who empty churches by saying "when the bible says X, it actually does not mean X if you do not want it to mean X...." I mean wishy-washy teaching which tries to please people by ditching anything they do not like in the bible....but even Englican, this leads to empty churches.

DAIVD H - to answer your question, I have not left because of Dromantine, TWR, Tanzania and the upcoming covenant....the AC has not departed from the teaching I see in the bible (do you realise that???)

It would be so much clearer if, instead of hiding behind grand titles, like "Global South", or "Global South Steering Committee", people making statements simply said who was making the statement.

It now turns out that, of the seven Archbishops listed as members of the so-called Global South Steering Committee, three were absent from the meeting which put out the statement of 24 July.

Those absent were Malango of Central Africa, Venables of Southern Cone and Gomez of the West Indies.

That leaves Akinola of Nigeria (surprise!), Chew of South East Asia, Mouneer of Jerusalem and Middle East and Kolini of Rwanda.

Plus Orombi of Uganda, who isn't on the Steering Committee, but turned up anyway.

It's not clear if Martyn Minns was there - but he is listed as "Associate Secretary" so perhaps he was. He, of course, is not a primate, but a British born American resident in Virginia, USA, whose consecration as Bishop was not approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury and who has been refused an invitation to the Lambeth Conference.

It doesn't really sound like the Global South at all; more like a bunch of like minded people who met up in London.

"Can you really not distinguish between love and abuse??"

This confusion is common among conservatives. I think it comes from a very different understanding of what even sex is. If one's genitals are stimulated, it is sex. So, child abuse, rape, bestiality, homosexuality all have one thing in common, they are sex. The idea that something that involves genital stimulation might actually NOT be sex at all is foreign to their argument. I'm at a loss as to why this should be.

NP: '"when the bible says X, it actually does not mean X if you do not want it to mean X...."'

Tripe. Try instead, "when (eg) Paul in the Bible says X, there may be times when we are forced to examine what he says in the light of two millennia of cultural change and new knowledge." Not snappy, I know, but a bit more accurate a representation of what goes on in traditional Anglicanism.

I prefer the pithy, "If that's what the truth looked like to them, what should it look like to us?"

Thank you Badman. If this is true (is there an attributable source for this?) the circumstances of the "Global South's" attempted putsch are even crazier that I had imagined. Could it be that in more than one sense they are losing it?

Joe, I can only hope that did not post your comments realizing how obscenely, gratuitously, personally offensive many readers would find them. Gays take even less kindly to glib comparison to pedophiles than conservatives appreciate comparison to Nazis. Your "vitriolic words" comment is a classic mote/beam situation. Had I been told years back that one day I would quote Barry Goldwater with approval I would, to say the least, have been disbelieving, but your "arguments" hark firmly back to the 50's, why what the h-ll? Regarding the "intolerance of those who preach tolerance" - "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

I seldom on TA feel that I never again want to read anything posted by a particular individual, but right now, I'm close.

Joe:
You're absolutely right to not expect tolerance for those who hate under the guise of God. And you're a fool to expect it.

Never claimed to be a liberal (although I am politically, I am most assuredly in opposition-at least liturgically-from the present power structure in TEC). And I sure as h*** don't love those who attack others, however different than them, in their quest to be nearer to their Creator. So terribly sorry, I don't sugar-coat words for group of individuals who are vehemently "tear at the fabric" of an institution over their crazed single-minded madness over a man in New Hampshire.

Your patronizing statements about gays and lesbians ring hollow because of this, and your unreconciliable views with others in the AC (TEC) will cause a further splintering out of Christ's family. That you cannot deny.

You have spat upon people whose only desire is to celebrate their loving fidelity in a safe house of God.

Shame on you for using Christ in such a blasphemous fashion as fracture a church over hatred.

Yes, I have no tolerance over your intolerance. You've made that point quite clear.

Lapinbizarre, the source for those who actually attended the meeting of 21 July is the Global South website, which has been updated to admit these facts. Go to http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/weblog/comments/global_south_steering_committee_update_and_info_21july07/

I just wonder if Gomez insisted on this clarification, since he is the absentee most likely to feel uncomfortable with the content of the statement.

NP writes of those who (allegedly) empty churches by teaching that "when the bible says X it does not mean X if you do not want it to mean X".
This is an old rhetorical device - to accuse your opponent of saying something (s)he does not say, or taking a position (s)he does not take, used by orators from Cicero to the present.

I have never, ever, met anyone who takes such an intellectually dishonest position. I have heard people invited to consider that a passage, short or long, might have a different meaning beneath the surface (a canon of interpretation which goes back at least to the second century, before the scriptural canon was complete). And remember it was that archetypal protestant Martin Luther who is reported to have said "Love God and do what you like".

In a post on another thread, NP offers a perfect example of why questions sometimes have to be asked. He writes "so what do you think St Paul
meant when he wrote to the early church that "all SCRIPTURE is God-breathed".....they had the OT and they had the NT (maybe not in a nice book but they had it)" Well, the issue is what the rare Greek word theopneustos means. It's a word which only occurs four times in Greek literature. The interesting thing to me is what St Paul DOESN'T say. He doesn't use the perfect participle passive theopepneusmenos - which is how the word is often understood. So a question is raised. (Shock! Horror!) Does it mean that scripture is God-breathed (a completed action in the past) or that scripture is something through which God breathes - i.e. a means of discovering what the Spirit is saying? The two are not identical. Now it seems to me to be intellectually and spiritually right to wrestle with that issue, and it's a very long way from the caricature which NP offers. The comment on what at the time of the pastoral epistles constituted scripture is simply ignorant.

I'll second that Weird Rabbit, thank you. I just fired off a real howler to this death eater.

I have to wonder with these "counselors" (psychological, not legal, as the term is used in the U.S.), with their "love the sinner, hate the sin" diatribe have been the root cause of suicides in impressionable, young and uneducated LGBT youth.

Yea, that's "loving" Christianity for you.

It very often didn't say X, when we think it says something our cultural glasses thinks it says. Questions are: what problem were they facing (at the time of writing), how were they answering it (as best we can translate, and that means culturally too), how did it solve the problem if at all? So then we ask what's the problem now, how does that process work now, and how might a biblical persective if we understand all of it help, if at all?

Mynster - once again, we come down to "what is truth" ....and people like me think the Spirit has is not saying the opposite today to what he inspired in scripture (despite 2000 years of cultural change)

Ford - what is your problem with the factual statement that TEC deliberately ignored the "pleas of the AC" Primates in 2003....they did, self-evidently. You talk about "fantasy" but do not even want to aknowledge the action that sparked Dromantine, TWR, Tanzania and the covenant we are going to get......I guess you want to say it took two sides to cause a dispute (but this is not a strong argument, is it?

TEC started this mess in the AC and is unrepentant....sorry, this is a fact

There is a saying that "on the internet, no one knows you're a dog." It refers to the phenomenon of creating grand sounding virtual organizations to give credibility to your opinions. After all, "the Anglican Communion Institute" sound both grander and more credible than "six guys with a website."

To a great degree, the so-called Global South is just another example. They claim to represent the virtually unanimous views of Anglicans in the two thirds world. But the Primate of Southern Africa, it seems, wants nowt to do with them. Nor do several others.

In any other area of endeavour, the comic torrent of disavowals following the GS's Cairo statement would have permanently damaged Akinola's credibility. The statement was issued with a grand set of signatures claimed, only to have more than one-third of the supposed signatories say that they had either not signed off on the final version or had not been consulted at all.

The so-called "Global South" is Pete, a couple of his buddies, and whoever they can bully into joining the lynch mob on a given day.

Another statement from the Global South?

YAWN!

Lab: I see why the comparison to pedophiles was too provocative and I apologize for hurting you. I really did not mean to say homosexual sex was equally immoral. In fact, quite the opposite, really. I intended my logic to be read as a slippery slope argument: i.e., if one can justify some action on the basis of one's own natural inclinations, couldn't one carry that out to it's logical conclusion? Does that make sense? Thus, in my estimation, CBFH's argument from reason does not stand.

Here's a question (and it's an honest one): Do pro-gay liberals (such a horrid description, I know - give me a better one, please) in TEC and elsewhere defend their support of same-sex relationships via a theology of inclusion that supersedes scriptural exegesis, or by using a hermeneutic that excludes same-sex relationships from the scriptural understanding of (broadly speaking) porneia (and, specifically, arsenokoites and atimias pathos)? In other words, do liberals prefer to say, "Paul would agree with us if you conservatives only read him properly"? Or would most rather say, "Paul is an irrelevant homophobe"?

You understand, of course, that conservatives hear many within TEC saying the latter and very few the former.

NP,
The consecration of Gene Robinson was not what started this! Cripes! There has been a struggle between liberals and conservatives for a long time. Also, there has been a struggle between Evangelicals the rest of us. This is just the rock they choose to founder on. They put up with the Oxford movement, they put up with liturgical reform, and they put up with the ordination of women. They are refusing to put up with anything else. Mt problem is with the fantasy you have been brainwashed into believing, that everything was hunky dory before the immoral homos got uppity. It goes back long before that. I get the feeling that you either have to swallow the whole lump, or the entire basis of your position will fall apart. It won't. You can still oppose SSB and gay clergy while at the same time acknowledging the simple fact that this issue is a complex one of culture, Biblical authority, and the desire of some people on both sides to assert their rightness over everybody else. Stop being so easily led.

Presumably Joe liberals have different reasons for their position on not discriminating. For myself, it is mainly the inclusion of people who are faithful and loving. There is a biblical reference, and it is not talking about faithful relationships, but even if it covered them in its prohibitions it would not matter, just as other prohibitions do not matter. So what if it comes from Paul.

Joe
and for me it is the conviction that the bible has absolutely nothing to say about stable, faithful, long term and loving same sex relationships.
It condemns all abusive sex and it affirms loving bonds among all human beings.

My own love has nothing to do with men rapping on Lot's door asking him to send out guests so they can rape them, but it has everything to do with the love praised in the Song of Songs.

Even if Paul may not have fully understood that (and I'm not sure that's true), the Holy Spirit has changed the minds and hearts of many in the church towards seeing our love for what it truly is.

"conservatives hear many within TEC saying the latter and very few the former."

Might this be because conservatives haven't been listening? These arguments were and are being made. The problem comes when people get frustrated by the continual conservative denial of any faith in or respect for the Gospel coupled with a continual quoting of certain verses as if they were intended to be stand alone "Scriptures" in their own right. This goes along with a basic disagreement about the nature of Scriptural authority and an inability to separate arguments. If I oppose the position that all authority is vested in Scripture, then I must be pro-SSB! The Church has changed Her mind on other identical issues, and the classic is divorce, yet no-one wants to split the Church over this, but this point is either excused or ignored. One is either all 'a' or all 'b', I guess. This then leads to the mindset in which some are so frustrated as to say the things you mention. It is frustrating to be accused of picking and choosing which parts of Scripture to obey by those who do the same thing! Some of course actually believe as you describe, but they are in a small minority. Their words are then used by the agitators in groups like AMiA and CANA to paint an untrue picture, which is the "reviling" Paul speaks against.(see Equipping the Saints for a perfect example of this kind of false witness). Just because a few come up with some controversial stuff doesn't mean they speak for the majority, but you'd never know that if you only listen to the Right.

I'm not convinced of the common Christian practice of affirming relationships that are 'faithful and loving'. I think this is unnecessary. Relationships that are, for instance 'struggling and factional ' also need the understanding and support of others.

Also, I do not believe in the notion of first and second class relationships, implied in this kind of easy terminology.

Those who pontificate on relationships could reflect --how faithful (whatever that means) and loving (ditto) are my relationships ?

At home,with friends, at work, in the community...

btw

How do you treat your 'milk man', post man and shop keeper ?

Relationships, sex and sanctimoniousness don't do it for me .....

Erika Baker: "Even if Paul may not have fully understood that (and I'm not sure that's true), the Holy Spirit has changed the minds and hearts of many in the church towards seeing our love for what it truly is."

Very lovingly well put. Thanks.

Actually, I agree with you L Roberts. The point about faithful and loving should, of course, be an intention, not a score card. Just like honesty. The reality is that relationships are complicated and the wisest approach for Anglicans or anyone else is to get off this obsession. Two people in a group (outside church circles) that we as our own group of friends meet may be having an affair, or perhaps something nearer to swinging, and I just see people trying to get on in life and deal with whatever friendships, relationships, difficulties and problems they have. This Anglican Church institution is obsessed to the point of its own destruction, and really it should stop digging.

Laurie,
I agree with you!

But the point about the shorthand "loving and stable" is that it implies that people are genuine about each other's welfare, about not using the other for personal gain, and that each has the necessary sense of self worth and deep awareness that prevents them from being shallow and unable to see the full humanity of the other.

Relationships can struggle and fail, they can be long term or fleeting, sexual or not. But to be fully human and not destructive to the souls of those involved, they should be genuinely loving.

And, yes, that applies to the milk man and the child minder as much as the person you sleep with!

Erika: "Even if Paul may not have fully understood...."

Erika - well, most of us in the AC believe the scriptures to be inspired by God....ie not merely the opinions of human writers.

As for the Spirit now leading us to contradict what he has told us very clearly for millenia.....He ain't telling many people that he has changed his mind, even in the CofE, is he?. Funnily enough, he seems to be saying that God has changed his mind mainly to people who want to hear that in order to justify what they are doing in their lives anyway........not very credible.

So you think Dromantine, TWR, the Tanzania Communique were not led by The Spirit? Or do you think the Spirit is schizophrenic?

"As for the Spirit now leading us to contradict what he has told us very clearly for millenia"

Is there any point in telling you yet again that this is not the first time this has happened?

"he seems to be saying that God has changed his mind mainly to people who want to hear that in order to justify what they are doing in their lives anyway"

Is it in any way worthwhile to point out that this applies just as much to many of your "heroes" as it does to those you oppose, perhaps even to yourself?

"most of us in the AC believe the scriptures to be inspired by God"

Indeed we do. Why do you insist that those who disagree with you think otherwise? But human failings can still make mistakes in what God is inspiring one to say, cf the recent topic of the definition of pi, cf the fact that Scripture clearly considers the earth to be flat, or that insects have four legs. It is this that requires us as a body to seek the guidance of the Spirit and not just take the word of Scripture at face value. This is not disrespect of lack of faith in Scripture, NP. I would argue your position reveals a certain lack of faith in God, perhaps an insecurity about His love for you?