I agree with Sentamu's concerns about excessive legalism. Jesus came to set us free from laws, not to have shackles added upon shackles.

The Harry Potter imagery has been bouncing around over the weekend. I find myself totally empathising with Harry Potter's decision to contrive the house elf Dobbie's freedom from his cruel Malfoy master. I don't mind being hissed at for depriving a cruel master of slaves.

There is a concern that there are souls trying to bind the Americans to an etiquette prior to the conference itself. It's a bit like demanding that a wife gives their husband a blank cheque prior to the marriage. The problems is that history demonstrates the problems of men being able to impose standards with no regard to the carrying capacity of their victims. Thus the conservatives might simply demand an excessive level of control and authority to which the Americans might reasonably refuse to cooperate.

If ABC's office demands complete capitulation, and the Americans rightly refuse, ABC could well find up having a communion of one. The conservatives walking away because they can't control the agenda, and the others uninvited because they refused to be kicked anymore.

A rare talent for saying what both sides want to hear?

(this irritates everyone, achieves nothing, unfortunately)

Throughout all of this, I have said that +++Rowan will never expel TEC or the Canadians, and this is the first strong statement, through his friend ++York, that he is prepared to lose the conservative Africans. I hope but doubt that Akinola will submit to this demand of ABC to attend. My hunch is that many other African primates, not just South Africa, will sooner defy Nigeria than Canterbury. In 2008, we may have a Communion smaller in numbers but more tolerant, loving, forgiving, more like Jesus.

"The more you write down your laws and have more of them, my view is that you are becoming less and less of a free society." "Discuss", as examination questions say, "in relation to the proposed Covenant".

How, one wonders, will "while liberal north Americans disagreed with conservatives over sexual ethics, these were not core issues" play against last week's statement of a clique of selected Global South bishops, relative to the recent meeting of the Canadian General Synod, that "we ... are dismayed by their unilateral declaration that ’same-sex blessing is not core doctrine’".

Interesting times ahead.

....either that or Dr Sentamu is picking up a bit of rhetoric from Benedetto XVI to shoot at both sides; you are not a real church without Canterbury. Now there's a line for you....

Andrew - did you not read the bit about it still being possible to withdraw invitations to the TEC bishops???

I'm not sure we will be smaller. Our communion is now in covenant with the Lutherans and Methodists worldwide, thus creating a communion of mainline-with-bishops churches. If we consider the Anglican/Lutheran/Methodist/Old Catholic as a continuum of churches, then we are actually quite large and reasonably similar in our approach to things. Maybe losing the conservatives in Africa will draw us into deeper relationships with our Lutheran and Methodist brothers and sisters.

The edges of a system that go on and on that something is intolerable tend to be those who find themselves out of it, if the rest can hold.

However, should September 30 disappoint those who find something intolerable (as it probably will) and go on to have their own Not the Lambeth Conference, then it will follow that consecrations will be made for England (and probably Scotland, even Wales) as the Sugden doctrine is introduced - that is God showing his anger at national Churches and introducing international oversight.

This does not mean some meeting of prelates making decisions about difficulties, that so many reject as unacceptable, but archbishops and bishops consecrating other bishops for other parts of the world. In other words, Chris Sugden in his dated August 2007 article has set up the intellectual grounds for an alternative communion to consecrate bishops into other countries.

And we begin to see the attempted coup d'eglise collapsing around the heads of its ringleaders.

"But he also warned the American bishops that Dr Williams reserved the right to withdraw their invitations if they were not prepared to engage in the decision-making processes of the Communion in the future."

Taken at face-value, ++Sentamu's "warning" is no danger at all (as TEC has REPEATEDLY stated, it's committed to the AC, and deliberating among its member churches).

But if "not prepared to engage in the decision-making processes of the Communion" is a EUPHEMISM for "refusing to SUBMIT to the Draft Covenant---as it stands" (especially as interpreted by its drafting chair, ++Gomez), then that's another kettle of fish...

Lord have mercy!

I see:
Lambeth 1.10
Windsor Report
Dromantine
Plea after plea that TEC consider the rest of the Communion before it acts.
All ignored or pushed aside.
But it is Akinola at al who risk severing ties? Beyond laughable! The path to God does not run through Canterbury.

NP, round these parts we have a saying:
"live in hopes, die in despair."

Sorry to upset your triumphalist apple cart, but your gloating might be a bit premature. Shame to add a sin to your soul for no reason at all!

The blame game is over...all cards face up por favor (especially the ones up your sleeve +Akinola)!

But they have never said they are unwilling to engage in the decision making processes in the future....
Fact is, whether you like it or not, NP, is that the CofE isn't going to throw out all the liberals. So maybe you will have to leave instead?

I am not irritated by Sentamu attempting to consider all the perspectives. It's called peacemaking and reconciliation. It's also reconciliation to suggest the strengths or pitfalls in possible strategic decisions. That's called giving good advice, rather than conniving to throw your competitors into the lions pit or burning furnace.

Colossians 1:20-23 Through Jesus God was able to reconcile all things, whether of earth or heaven, by making peace through his consenting sacrifice. Ephesians 2:13-22, Jesus's purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God. Kabbalists would know that this means integrating both Esau and Jacob traits and gaining mastery over Esau's aggression. (Just as the feminine needs to integrate Leah and Rachel).

That is why Jesus message to the Daughter of Zion of bringing gentleness was so important (Matthew 21:5). It worked. The shechina accepted him, and unlike Boaz or Aaron's sons, Jesus can freely interact with her without dying.
http://www.chabad.org/holidays/3weeks/insights/article.asp?AID=144582
http://www.algemeiner.com/generic.asp?ID=3736

Jeremiah 3:16-18 The ark of the covenant will not be missed, nor will another one be made. Because the two souls it sheltered no longer require this sanctuary. As their consciousnesses have evolved, they have been able to comprehend more of God's Creation. They no longer require a holy land, they can accommodate anywhere on this planet and will be with humanity even if they reach the stars.

Luke 12:56-59, you might as well try and reconcile with your enemies. You're not going to get out until you have paid the last penny. If you cling to your hate then your hate will keep you imprisoned. Matthew 11:25 "If you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins". As you forgive, so you will be forgiven. If you do not forgive, then you are not forgiven.

"The path to God does not run through Canterbury"
DAN:-- THE path does not, but one path surely does and it is called Anglicanism. It is open, moderate, kind, and as the Dean of Grace Cathedral has often said, allows people to be Christians who find other interpretations difficult. TEC is the first daughter of the Church of England; they are in the same family forever. We also have a Presiding Bishop of extraordinary intellect and emotional skill, who is determined to keep TEC within the communion. ---Andrew

I see the Church Society quote St Paul as to who is in and out---including not just the sodomites but the covetous. I am reminded of the holy old French priest who said he had heard people confess many sins, and sins that were not sins, but in his long life he had never heard anyone confess to breaking the commandment "Thou shalt not covet".Just who IS going to be in this "Godly" church of the future?? They tried it in the 17thc-it didn't work then, it won't now.

Ford - in your hast to attack me.....you refer to "gloating" - what do you mean? Nothing on this thread from me can (fairly) be described as gloating - can it??

As for what I have actually said, Sentamu trying to bully both sides into sticking with Rowan is not powerful or helpful - as we can see above, pro-TEC people will not see them compromise and merely assert membership of the AC without willingness to give up "rights" they have won in TEC........ and everyone else does not really believe that our souls are in mortal danger without....Canterbury! Very weak argument indeed!

Perry - yes, and your point is?

THe issues in the AC are that a few want to redesignate certain things as no longer sins, ,making no confession necessary.

Confessing sins is supposed to be followed by repentance - you are making up your own religion if you think confession with no intention of repentance is meaningful at all - this is just not what the bible teaches and an abuse of grace

NP,
The majority of your posts have an air of "nyaa, nyaa, just wait, we'll win. We're bigger than you are, so we're right and you're wrong. TEC will be put in its place, you'll see."

"Confessing sins is supposed to be followed by repentance"

Coming from an Evangelical who, I assume perhaps wrongly, would faint at the idea of actually MAKING a sacramental confession, this is odd. I rather suspect a little frisson of joy on your part everytime someone comes to the mercy seat, it's another example of a wicked sinner grovelling. There's something unsettlingly pornographic about that. You are obsessed with other people's sin and wrongdoing. You'd do well to listen to Mother Julian and look to your own sins. And the issues are much more than you are able to see. This is what comes from giving in to fear and reviling and breaking the Second Great Commandment. You need to have the rules plainly laid out, I assume so you can feel like you, since you are obedient, are better than those you feel aren't obedient. In order to be assured that the rules are plain and you thus ARE better, you have allowed yourself to be led astray.

Reading Romans 1 again -- it is great rhetoric, and its quaint utterances about the men deserting the natural use of the female and doing what is shameful to one another is just a baroque adornment to its rhetoric. I don't recall the older exegetes obsessing about that clause, no doubt because they were in touch with the rhythms and conventions of Hellenistic rhetoric. We don't obsess about "all Cretans are liars" do we? We know it is just rhetoric.

What we should reflect on is Mt 21.31: "they will into the Kingdom of Heaven before you". Cynical clerics talk of love, but it is gay couples who, at considerable personal expense, actually chose love -- "the awful daring of a moment's surrender" -- when it came to the crunch, while the apostles of charity sneered and jeered...

I would have thought that rather than 'redesignate certain things no longer sins' - which may or may not be an accurate analysis of what some people may be doing - one of the tasks of the church at present is to both:

(i) give accurate descriptions of what it is we are talking about, rather than using generalised or perjorative language (the Church Society piece refers to sodomites, for example, which is both perjorative and so genaralised as to be inaccurate in relation to the range of activity which causes concern to "conservative" groups)

(ii) understand the biblical categories and descriptions so as to discern what the bible is actually talking about

only after both tasks are done can we hear the bible speak to the situations we find. But it does not help at all to use generalised categories of sexual behaviour or activity which are not present in the biblical text. There is a tendency to generalise culturally/socially learned disgust to make the biblical text say more than it actually does. There is, for example, no biblical category 'genital acts' and on analysis there are acts we would call genital or sexual which have no reference in the biblical text.

Careful exegesis is occasionally done, but rarely finds its way into debates.

Yes Mark Bennet but what if you do all that careful analysis and the Bible - if on balance - is still against gay relationships? My answer is we do what has always been done, eg for divorce, say the Bible is wrong. Nowhere does the Bible talk about faithful, loving, relationships. It does not mean it approves of faithful, loving relationships. If it doesn't, so what?

FJOL - the reason that people in the past were not "obsessing" on certain texts is that there was nobody saying that certain acts were good and holy....but today there are so we have to see whether their assertions are based on scripture.....or not.

It is not just one issue too.....again, based on scripture, I would be against an alcoholic being a bishop....or a "prosperity gospel" heretic.
The issue is the authority of scripture - we want bishops who uphold the faith (call us weird if you like but that is what we "conservatives" want)

As anachronistic as the tag Sodomites is, its use in the article linked nicely encapsulates part of the intellectual and emotional core of our hot button religious controversies.

Do any of the Cons-Evo believers who so facilely resort to its use as a pejorative? - what would we do in these conversations without terms like Sodomite, like Abomination? - at all comprehend in critical perspective how their reading of scripture aided in the laborious social construction - it took slow centuries - which simplistically and originally equated All non-procreative sexual activities done by anybody with brute heresy?

Now, of course, Cons-Evo campaigns have slyly redacted the traditional emphasis on sodomy being all non-procreative sex acts whenever done by anybody for any reason at all, into a reduced list of prohibited sex acts when done by same sex folks, never mind when they are done by straights, especially by Cons-Evo straight believers.

And of course, the early potty training sense of anal intercourse is a pat guarantee in these diatribes, guaranteed to trigger just tons of outrage/disgust among Cons-Evos reading audiences. - what happened to the potty training silliness and fun of it? Lost in translation?

It remains to be seen, just what Sentamu's remarks about being willing to participate in the cooperative - and hopefully democratic, with a believer's bill of individual rights of conscience? - decision-making of the worldwide communion will actually turn out to be. Stay tuned, as the much vaunted covenant unfolds: Faith and witness pledge? Or Police Brief? What's the diff?

Those of you interested, I have blogged a number of themes together, here:

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-this-rumour-matters.html

Which combines this, Chris Sugden, the ACI and more.

NP I think we need to define sin. Do we pick and choose which biblical rules we will and won't follow? Stoned anyone lately? Have any mixed fiber clothing on? Circumsized?

Also, what translation do you want to read when defining sin?

One was of looking at what ++ Sentamu statement is to look at what happened to TEC and the ACocC when we absented ourselves (or at agreed not to vote) at the ACC function, in Nottingham, back in 2006.

All in all, we need to keep talking. It's what Christ wants.

Bob

“Dr Sentamu, a close ally of Dr Williams, said that as long as Anglican bishops did not deny the basic Christian doctrines they should all be able to remain within the same Church.
While liberal north Americans disagreed with conservatives over sexual ethics, these were not core issues, he said.”

I hope this is accurate and I hope it sinks in. Sexual ethics are not core doctrine. Of course, that was the ruling in the presentment against Walter Righter, quite a few years ago now, that it made not one whit of difference with the sexually obsessed amongst us.

It is by no means true of all who want to make issues of sexuality the pretext for property theft and sheep-stealing, but a morbid and disturbing fascination with the supposed mechanics of other peoples' sex lives seems to be a condition of some.

It's not core doctrine. Thank you!

NP commented "...you are making up your own religion if you think confession with no intention of repentance is meaningful at all..."

Having been previously married to a Catholic, many a household debate was based on whether his confession was genuine. My complaint was that saying sorry for a deed of today or yesterday was no guarantee that tomorrow he would not go out and commit the same sin again. That we are now divorced shows that my capacity for perpetual forgiveness has its limits.

Yet that said, the process of the debate brought out that it is not humanly possible to be perfect all the time, nor to fulfill all of the laws. That is why Paul taught that Jesus had demonstrated that faith transcends legalism.

Drdanfee gives a practical example of how legalism simply implodes on itself in the face of reality. "...Cons-Evo campaigns have slyly redacted the traditional emphasis on sodomy being all non-procreative sex acts whenever done by anybody for any reason at all..."

There is one example where a husband and wife were unable to conceive. It transpired she was a testosterone female (born with the XY genes but only manifested female genitalia). The church denounced their marriage as homosexual and she was shunned from her marriage and church, simply for being as the potter made her.

There are males who think that as long as they are only having sex with their wife in a method that leads to conception, that their relationship is holy. So it doesn't matter how many bruises she has, how often she is insulted, how little she has to eek out an existence for herself or her children. As long as she shuts up, smiles in public and spreads her legs in private all is fine.

Reverence goes beyond being able to demand a women join with her husband in bed. It includes respecting feelings, refraining from abuse (physical or other), reasonably providing for the family's needs, considering the whole family's needs rather than one's idolatrous self-aggrandisement.

The other thing that amuses me no end is that some of the most vehement dioceses about repentance being required for forgiveness have been some of the worst for extensive collusion to hide abuse of parishioners (including children) by church representatives, often spanning decades. Hypocrites who rely on being able to hide up filth up their sleeves.

On the rhetoric of Romans 1, we should recall the notion of the skopos (purpose) of a passage. Paul is not talking about sexual ethics in this passage, still less about the concrete issues of homosexual orientation. His theme is God's revelation to the gentiles and their failure to embrace it. The sexual allusions are just conventional Jewish vision of a corrupt gentile society. In the following passage, Romans 2, Paul does a similar rhetorical diatribe against the Jews. His rhetoric may be slightly off, considered as real-life phenomenology, but it serves his purpose in the larger scope of the entire Letter; namely, to convict all of sin and to prepare them for reception of the redemption offered by God in Christ.

Whilst as a Roman Catholic I believe sexual matters are key doctrine, I find this ironic when it comes from Church Society. They are divided over the meaning of marriage, whether it is indissoluable or not. They can not come to an agreement as to what the Bible means, hence the ambiguous reference to marriage in the Covenant they signed.

Bob - yes, we do need to define sin....and Lambeth 1.10 is quite clear in its interpretation of the bible on the presenting issue - is it not?

Cynthia - Sentamu has tried this line before and it has not worked......he tried it before Tanzania and see what happened then - a few people asserting that their particular innovation is not core doctrine is not a strong argument.

In the end, I will be very surprised if (after Dromantine, TWR, TAnzania and the covenant) the ABC changes tack and lets the AC fall apart, leaving just a few liberal churches......but if he and his friends like Sentamu continue to try and play poker, they will find the GS is not bluffing. We already see in the US that conservatives are willing to form new structures to get away from institutionalised false teaching - the AC is not grateful to be linked to CAnterbury or desperate for US money but do want a church which can be united with integrity

NP

There are those of us who would love you to have your church united in integrity.

We also love the secular state to ensure that none of your members (covertly or overtly) harass or steal from those who choose not to be in communion with you.

We choose to love our children, from their first faeces until death. There are some who are not prepared to push their children away when they have fallen too far. Especially when their fall is less than that of the priestly castes who accuse them.

Personally, I consider any homosexual man who marries a woman to be an adulter. By the very nature of his sexuality, he already loves another before he has even consumated his wedding vows.

I have never been raped by a homosexual man, no homosexual has ever participated in defrauding myself or my family. I do not have to worry about why they are being nice to me, is it because they want my gifts or because they genuinely love me? Because there is no possibility of a divine consumation, I am able to enjoy homosexuals company as easily as I enjoy womens, children and the elderly. Pity the same can not be said of heterosexual men. Pity I have yet to find one honest honorable heterosexual male who puts God's agenda before their own self aggrandisement.

Even my previous husband has more honor than many of these priests. He chose to be a Tov and surrender me to enable God's will to be done. What have these thugs surrendered? Nothing. In fact they collude and incite to not only retain what they already have but to see what more can be swindled or stolen.

NP Lambeth 1.10 clear?

eg (b) in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;

Abstinence from what, precisely - nothing is said, it is perhaps assumed that we know what we are talking about, but I'm not convinced?

And 1.10 (d) "rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with scripture"

But there is no analysis here of what constitutes homosexual practice. And if the homosexual practice being described is that which is specifically incompatible with scripture there is work to be done on interpretation, which is contested.

What is clear is no blessing of same sex unions.

But to be able to read this resolution and consider it clear in the current context of debate - I don't see how it can be done.

Mark - it ain't unclear.....the teaching of the church is that within marriage (i.e. hetero as you say) is the only holy place for activity.

Yes, the view is contested - but only by a minority in the AC and they have failed to persuade the majority....even in the CofE, today. I base this on the Dr John fiasco and the history of the CofE and AC in the last 3 years.....I do not see a huge amount of support for TEC's promotion of VGR in England or the rest of the AC...do you?

Once you stop going to church, this all seems pretty pointless.

"the Dr John fiasco"

You see, NP, I find some inspiration in this, not a fiasco. I have no doubt there was pressure put on the man, but in the end, he "gave up the honours with which he had been entrusted" for the good of the Church. Read a life of St. Chad, that is if you're not afraid a life of one of the saints (sorry, the "traditions of men") won't burst into flames in your hands.

"within marriage (i.e. hetero as you say) is the only holy place for activity."

This is just too easy!

One can assert that certain things are or are not core issues, but unless one states the criteria by which one makes this judgment...need I go on?

This is obviously necessary since there is disagreement over whether these are or are not core issues.

NP

What "activity" are you specifically suggesting? It is generalisations and evasions like this which are so hopelessly inadequate to the case.

In a communion as diverse as the Anglican Communion, for example, it is pertinent to discuss the cultural meanings of kissing of various kinds. Is it OK for a man to kiss a man? For a man to kiss a woman to whom he is not married? Quite apart from the very different cultural overlay, what do we make of the biblical suggestion that we are to greet each other with a holy kiss? Why don't we see more of this holy kissing going on? What is a holy kiss, and what makes this different from "activity"?

And if you want to ban genital contact, you have to make some exceptions for doctors and nurses and some kinds of carers ...

And if sexual pleasure is a target - quite apart from there being very little Biblical material of even arguable relevance, a careful analysis of the relationship between mother and child might be called for.

The slogans just don't meet the case. And by their tendency to reduce concern with human contact to sex they diminish human relationships. Affectionate friendship is a strong biblical idea.

"One can assert that certain things are or are not core issues, but unless one states the criteria by which one makes this judgment...need I go on?"

Yes, you do need to go on, since it was stated in the St. Michael Report what the reasons were. Reading into your statement, you seem to be saying this came out of thin air with no great amount of thought or justification. This is totally untrue, please do not make this claim again as it merely adds to the false characterization of the "liberals" as faithless and making things up as they go along.

What do you mean "too easy", Ford?
It is in line with the bible as I see it and Lambeth 1.10 seems to agree.....and still represents the "mind of the communion" as the ABC says

What is "too easy" is those who just ignore verses which prohibit what they promote as holy and then want to say it is fine as it "non-core" - it is "too easy" to say if you ignore certain verses, your case is made

NP: "....the AC is not grateful to be linked to CAnterbury or desperate for US money but do want a church which can be united with integrity."

There, you'vd heard it. They don't need the ArchBishop of Canterbury, they ARE the Anglican Communion!!!

Magic is Might.

It's all falling apart for the Global South bigots and it may be time for them to dump +Akinola, +Orombi and any other grandstanding (on the souls of other Christians) Network priests who thinks that "poaching on Episcopal Church property" for Christ is honorable, respectable and a decent cover for discrimination, outcasting and the damning of their fellow Christians...fear and hate-mongering ain't gonna work at The Episcopal Church/The Anglican Communion or beyond. There is no excuse for perpetuating/preaching and promoting crimes of hate against LGBT people and heterosexual women in our religion and everyday Churchlife:

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=43&doc_id=531629&doc_no=G036096

"within marriage (i.e. hetero as you say) is the only holy place for activity."

NP, it would be very easy, and childish, to make the obvious joke, that those not married ought to just be inert, 'activity' can mean any activity. It was just a joke given that you left out the word 'sexual'. As to 'non-core', well that was a statement of the Primates Commission on Doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada. They were asked to give their opinion on whether or not same sex marriage was a matter of doctrine. The St. Michael Report, their response, was that it is, but not core doctrine in the sense of being credal. In theological terms, it is adiaphora. They are not a bunch of rabid liberals, despite the fact you would disagree with them. This is a considered opinion from some very good people, and, having listened to Bishop Victoria Matthews explain it, I can say she went a great way to show me that our leaders DO actually know what they are talking about. So many of the arguments you amke are the same as ones I made 20 odd years ago when I stopped going to church. you and I are not as far apart in attitude as it might seem. Bp. Matthews is actually quite conservative, and a good Catholic minded Anglican.

>>>in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;

Funny how no one cares much about that "lifelong union" part.

Funny how no one cares much about that "lifelong union" part.

Posted by: JPM on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 at 9:10pm BST

Well, no, of course, there needs tobe plenty of elbow room for divorces ...

Ford

Why are you surprised that there are those who add "...to the false characterization of the "liberals" as faithless (by) making things up as they go along"?

After all, we all know that if you can't slander people on their actual conduct, then you have to take a kernel of truth and distort that instead. That is why one of the Accusser's other names is the Deceiver.

So if souls demonstrate faith, destroy the evidence. If they can't destroy the evidence, take it out of context. If they can't take it out of context, create an absurd scenario to justify victimisation (the chastity ring example springs to mind). Use worst case scenarios, see the worst in others, take things to an extreme. Throw mud, slander, scratch and maim.

After all, if they blow up another's statues, infrastructure or culture, they can claim that their "unmutilated" faith is more beautiful. That is the theology for assassins and terrorists.

It also explains why such souls cling to orthodoxy and precedent. They have to prove that their faith has been "unmutilated" or they are no better than those they have sought to suffocate or decimate.

Choirboy...yes, scandalous isn't it.....I don't seem to know the verse in which the Lord said "Canterbury is the vine and you are the branches...." When did communion with Canterbury become essential to faith?

Ford - I agree with you in the sense of moral issues not being credal but implicit within them - would you not agree?

(This "non-core" argument is not very strong. As I have said many times, we want to hear a positive case from the bible....the ABC says there isn't one even though he wants to make an exemption.......most of us in the AC want more a positive case in order to change Lambeth 1.10 - we want to see a biblical case to say that actually I should look on TEC's rejection of Lambeth 1.10 (eg VGR) and see that it is driven by scripture - as you know, at the moment, I see it contradicting various verses. I will agree with TEC's innovation not because it is "non-core" but because people have convinced me and most of the rest of the church that it is right, good and holy .....)

>>>Well, no, of course, there needs tobe plenty of elbow room for divorces ...

True. I mean, we can't deprive aging heterosexual men of their trophy wives, now can we?

JPM - just to be clear, I agree with you that some have an inconsistent line re divorce....I would not support this. We have to be consistent and honest

Are there no 'trophy' husbands?

Cheryl,
"That is why one of the Accusser's other names is the Deceiver."
I hadn't seen it like that. Much to ponder.

NP,
"Ford - I agree with you"
No, you are agreeing with a group of theologians. It is not for me or you to declare some doctrines core and others not. We leave that to those who are a) trained and b) called by God to the role. As to the argument being "weak" well, that's just because you don't know much about theology. Neither do I, but it made sense when Bp. Matthews explained it. She's no liberal, and she knows her stuff, and that's not something I say about a lot of bishops. I was rooting for her to be primate.

When you say something "contradicts" various verses, you point out the difference here. This is called Bible mining. I know that Evangelicals consider it perfectly reasonable. You need to realize that, just as you have big issues with, those who read the Bible differently from the way you do, so do they have huge issues with this kind of thing. You run the very great risk of putting words into God's mouth to bolster your own arguments. So when you keep saying that you need "Biblical arguments" the response is that you are getting them, just in a way you don't accept as valid, and you are asking people to provide you with arguments in a way they don't consider valid.

2 Timothy 3:1-9 and 1 Corinthians 13. Without love all other things are meaningless.

There are those who would deny divorce, so that they are legally consistent and correct. This can be done without love, because it ignores the question of abuse within marriage. Yet, the bible tells us there are times when it is appropriate to end a marriage e.g. in cases of greed and deceit (Jeremiah 8:10). In Hosea 4:14 we see that God does not demand more of women that it does of men of their priests. “I will not punish your daughters when they turn to prostitution, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery, because the men themselves consort with harlots and sacrifice with shrine prostitutes..."

Wilberforce did not end slavery by relying on convincing the majority. Nor did Jesus require the majority of synagogues to agree with him. Nor did Moses require the majority of Egyptians (or even Israelites) to accept. Nor did Jacob require neighbouring nations to adopt his vision (or even his own father-in-law for that matter).

Rather, they asked what God would want as the ideal and they worked towards that ideal. They accepted that God had affirmed them, in the storm, in the baptism, in the burning bush, in the dream on the way to exile.

As God moved through their lives and allowed God's Will to be made manifest, others came to see that their vision was consistent and divine and adopted the new paradigm.

Moses surrendered his earthly wife and entry to the holy land, Jesus surrendered having his own family and his own earthly existence, Jacob surrendered his material parental inheritance, David surrendered his kingdom. All surrendered with no empire or majority flattery to justify their decision, with no resentment to God of what they had lost. (Although they might have asked why with lament).

They chose what was moral and good, because it pleased and honored a God that is above mortal whims and ambitions. Not because it looked good on their resume or ingratiated them with earthly institutions. 1 John 10, a hired hand runs away, but Jesus came that souls may have life, and live it to the full. That includes loving companionship and dreams of a sustainable future for both male and female offspring (whole or afflicted).

I find it ironic that Sentamu is so critical of government legislation, pointing out the failure of a constitution or additional laws to achieve much; yet at the same time he supports the proposed covenant.

If consistency and honesty applying law in regards to divorce or elsewhere, is done without love then it is meaningless and cruel.

When my previous husband wanted to borrow against the family home, I went on three occasions to different church leaders and explained that it was a well that if he failed I did not have the resources to recover or get us out of the financial hole. They all told me it was a husband's perogative, and if he bankrupted the family that was God's will.

This is on par with Joseph going to his neighbours and asking for help because his brothers were conspiring to put him in a well. The leaders response at the time was equivalent to saying to Joseph, if your brothers put you in a well and send you into slavery, then that is God's will and we are not required to do anything to help you.

God loved Reuben because of all the brothers and people associatd with Joseph's being sold into slavery, it was only Reuben who had a conscience that it as wrong. It was Reuben who moved to save Joseph's life, and thus prevented the brothers or repeating Cain's heinous crime of murder. (Genesis 37).

The other thing to note is that while some souls are put into a well, they are not always meant to climb their way out of it. Neither Joseph or Jeremiah climbed out, they were lifted out by others. Sometimes a soul will sit in the well, because it gives other souls a chance to demonstrate righteousness by giving them the choice on whether or how to help.

If we see a soul being abused and do nothing, then we are heartless. If we see a soul being abused and put them into a situation of slavery or abuse, we are opportunistic pimps. If we see a soul being enmeshed and arrange their true freedom without conditions, then we have acted for God.

Here I thought that when Ebor was criticizing more rules as a solution to problems, he was talking about the proposed Covenant -- foolish of me to expect consistency from any status quo official, ecclesiastical or otherwise, I suppose.

But if some bishops boycott Lambeth as a matter of principal (not simply bishops who don't attend this round for whatever reason) it surely sends a strong signal and it ought to be recognized as such (in fact, I think it's been ignored for too long -- as Mark Chapman has pointed out, "There is something disingenuous about giving power to determine membership of the Communion and to decide what constitutes the ‘common mind’ of the Churches to a group who at the moment refuse even to share eucharistic communion with each other.”).

If a good chunk of the Communion does not turn up, in my book that changes the mind of the Communion on the basis of who continued to turn up. Anyway, it isn't the mind of the Communion just because some of those who turned up say so - the Communion exists of all the people in it and a lot of mind changing has been taking place these last ten years.

There is an old saying from the rough and tumble world of secular politics: "Decisions are made by those who stay until the end of the meeting."

The Canadians and Americans made a horrible tactical error in agreeing to the wholly untra vires demand of foreign prelates that they refrain from full partisipation at the last ACC meeting.

The foreign prelates who seek to rule the North American churches appear ready to make that same mistake now.

Pluralist - don't worry, if necessary all the GS will turn up to save the AC.....as the ABC says they have nothing to lose by doing so.

(But I still think you will see the ABC disinvite TEC bishops following the very negative response they are likely to give at the end of Sept)

Malcolm....be clear, TEC and the Canadians did not really have a choice .....they took the best offer open to them rather than walking
(and this has wasted 4 years for the AC and will end up in a split anyway!)

"Malcolm....be clear, TEC and the Canadians did not really have a choice .....they took the best offer open to them rather than walking"

NP, be clear. The Anglican Church of Canada did what it did out of respect for the differences we have. "Blessed are the peacemakers", NP, not "blessed are the schismatics". Certainly not "Blessed are the emphatically right". But if you need to see it as some sort of victory for "your" side, then by all means, fill your boots! There's no sense in trying to show you how it is neither a victory for you, a loss for them, but something else entirely. Your loss.