Outstanding. Alleluia! :-D

The writer asks: "The Episcopal Church (TEC) in the USA has been singled out from other Anglican provinces and subjected to harsh criticism and threats of expulsion. Why is this?"

Well, the answer is that in 2003, TEC was asked by ALL the Primates of the AC not to go ahead with making VGR a bishop because he is openly breaking the agreed position in Lambeth 1.10 - they REJECTED the AC's pleas not to go ahead and presented VGR as a fait accompli to the AC. Many do not want to accept this fait accompli and others sympathetic to TEC's province can see that TEC's behaviour shows little respect for church order in the AC. No other province (not even Canada) has done anything similar to TEC so TEC does get a tougher response....this is the simple, honest answer to the question asked.

NP,
I don't argue that TEC perhaps ought not to have done what it did, but to suggest this is the sole reason for our current problems is just laughable.

There are certainly other reasons that the Episcopal Church has been singled out -- ones that are not about the named issues but arise from resentment of the United States, stereotypes of pushy Americans (some resulting from actual behavior of the government and individuals)and others the deliberate efforts of Americans both within and beyond TEC. I'd like to see them explored in depth.
Columba Gilliss

I second JCF's comment -- several days ago I forwarded this to a few people in spite of its length -- the fact that the CofE has tolerated semi-openly gay clergy for decades but never been called to account indicates that TEC's problem is its integrity -- part of the significance of this paper is its Developing World provenance -- the failure of almost all provinces to follow through on the listening process requested (not mandated) by Lambeth 1.10 is also notable -- I suppose when the majority selectively ignores its own statements, such seemingly reprehensible behavior is inevitable.

I rather agree with this by Savitri Hensman the author:

In some ways, the treatment of TEC has come to resemble a sports match where the referee threatens to send off players from one side for a disputed technical infringement while their opponents are allowed to punch, bite and do what they wish, despite the occasional plea to play by the rules. An atmosphere has also been created in which numerous Anglicans in other provinces are aware that, if hardliners take a dislike to any aspect of the way they themselves seek to be faithful to Christ in their own context, they too will feel the wrath of those seeking control over the whole Communion, and few will come to their aid. Proposed changes to the way the Anglican Communion functions – including the introduction of a Covenant giving greater power to bishops, particularly primates – are likely to reinforce this problem.

The priority given by some Christians to opposing acceptance of consenting same-sex relationships, in the light of pressing issues such as extreme poverty and powerlessness, environmental destruction and the risk of world war, also raises questions.

NP:
What was it that TEC might have done to "block" the ordination of Bishop Robinson? What legal, constitutional, and proper action could TEC have taken which would have satisfied the protesting Primates? Any pleas "not to go ahead" would have had to be accompanied by a description of how that could happen given the polity of TEC. They would have had to disclose some constitutional or canonical impediment, and there was none.

Every single detail of the nomination, election, and confirmation of Bishop Robinson conformed totally and completely to the Constitution and Canons of TEC, the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of New Hampshire, and any other applicable legal or proper order or discipline.

Even if TEC wanted to, there was literally no legal way "not to go ahead". Anyone certainly had the right to disapprove of the ordination of Bishop Robinson - and such disapproval was voiced at the time of his ordination and dealt with properly at the time - but there was literally no way to stop it (thank God!). It couldn't be un-done: Bishop Robinson could not be un-nominated or un-elected or dis-confirmed.

You and your primatial confreres simply asked what was not possible, and now you blame TEC for refusing to do what was legally and canonically impossible.

This is coming from Canada where perceptions seem mostly of shadows and one reads and one struggles to understand.

But-- really --that was it, wasn't it: the "imperialist manner" of it, as Ekklesia's summary of Henson's points expresses it?

It was the arrogation of the right to decide not even so much as the issue itself that was just so much gasoline on the match.

Is it too naive to wish that in that inkling of understanding there is also a germ of a resolution?

I've started to read Savitri's paper.

So far, it is well considered and balanced. One thing I like is how she has acknowledged how experiences and cultural influence souls’ perception of church and theology.

There is an Anastasia song with a line "I wonder if you know how it really feels to be left outside alone. It's cold out here".

Some might glibly point to the 2003 decision, but in reality there has been a layer in the communion that have been putting outside or setting up alternative communions for decades. They have a paradigm that only those who come to their communion table are saved. As far as they are concerned, the rest of us have been condemned to hell. That is why after tsunami they could rush to the pulpit to warn of the coming judgment day to instill additional fear into already suffering families and friends and witnesses.

Their theology is more consistent with the apologetic politics of the Pharisess that Jesus so vehemently fought against. They have created a gilded idol in their perception of Jesus and articulation of Jesus as being the complete manifestation of God.

Only God is only God. Everything else is an alloy with varying compositions of heaven and earth. Jesus was born to Mary, he was part human and therefore only an alloy. He might have been 99.999999999% divine, but there's still that 0.000000001% human. See http://www.torah.org/learning/ramchal/classes/fundamental-2part4.html

No soul is above being rebuked by God. Any soul that transgresses their core purpose is subject to disciplining. God wants a healer and saviour, NOT an accusser and slayer. God wants an end to tyranny, not a justifier for tyranny.

It was an act of love to affirm Gene Robinson, it was an embracement of truth that such souls exist and are also entitled to dignity. Those who attack Gene also attack females, we are tired of their hate sermons. They never forgive nor consistently acknowledge their own sins. If this planet and its occupants are so repulsive to them, we wish they would just leave. If they are going to stay, maybe they should try showing some manners. Their gilded Jesus doesn't seem to care about manners, as long as they are "right" they have the "authority" to be as nasty and aggressive as they want to be. Their gilded Jesus is not consistent with the holy texts.

I second JCF's comment -- several days ago I forwarded this to a few people in spite of its length -- the fact that the CofE has tolerated semi-openly gay clergy for decades but never been called to account indicates that TEC's problem is its integrity (Prior Aelred)

I'm not sure which comment this refers to; and I can't find it. Can anyone help locate it ?

Yes, the CofE has kind of tolerated or even accpeted at somelevels semi-open or openly gay ministers. But has been very very inconsistent. I was one such minister --though how one could not be 'open' i.e. conceal -if I wished to, -- a long term (live in ) relationship is beyond me.

It this duplicity and hypocracy which is unforgivable ---well is n't it ?

"Their gilded Jesus doesn't seem to care about manners, as long as they are "right" they have the "authority" to be as nasty and aggressive as they want to be. Their gilded Jesus is not consistent with the holy texts." Cheryl Clough

I think you've just managed to say everything that needed to be said.

Thank you

Ford - the old boss of Enron might have said there would have been no problem for his company if the regulators had not made such a fuss - I am sure you would not have blamed the regulator for responding??

TEC's actions are clearly the cause of the AC chaos we see. Sure, the AC Primates (ALL of them, including the doublespeaking Griswold and KJS) have responded ..... but they did not cause the problem....it is weak to argue that there would be no problem if there had been no opposition to TEC's actions - the questions which matter are:
1) was TEC right in principle that there is no biblical objection to its actions?
2) was TEC right to ignore the pleas of the AC not to go ahead?
3) was TEC right to put the election in one diocese (NH) above the agreed AC position in Lambeth 1.10, presenting a fait accompli to the AC?

Yes - gamekeepers chase poachers.....but they only can do that if poachers poach.

Why do people continue to even debate these issues with trolls?

I've heard from those in the know that even the c-of-E has a homosexual bishop in a live-in relationship who votes consistently with the other bishops on questions of sexuality. Apparently this is not a secret. Where is the integrity in that?

NP,
Stop arguing against what you want me to have said, and argue with what I'm actually saying. I did NOT say that the current problem was caused by the primates or the conservatives. On another thread, which you ignored as you do anything that points out what's wrong with your arguments and attitudes, I pointed out some of the many issues that have led to this. I acknowledge that as far as I can see, TEC's actions were perhaps ill advised, given the attitude of many in the Anglican world to which you keep referring. But that one action, to consecrate Gene Robinson, is not the root cause, any more than Humbert's arrogance in Hagia Sophia was the root cause of the Great Schism.
1) Are the GS right to insist that everybody accept their idea of Biblical authority as though it is somehow the only true way?
2) Is the GS right to make the consecration of one bishop they believe to be in error into a communion breaking issue when they tolerate the errors of other bishops and when other bishops tolerate what some think are errors in Evangelical bishops?
3)Are you right to keep hammering away at one clause in a statement by the Church that contains a multitude of other statements that you happily ignore?
4) Do you think it's all that helpful to your arguments to continually ignore comments that point out inconsistencies in your own arguments?
5) Is it helpful to the spread of the Gospel to claim to love gay people when your actions prove otherwise?

Why do people continue to even debate these issues with trolls?

Posted by: Kurt on Friday, 27 July 2007 at 1:36pm BST

You were right Kurt --I recant !

There's a great piece on trolls complete with cartoons over on Thinking Baptists. I admit I didnt really know what a 'troll' was (in your sense) until I came across that. An American term I realise.

"Why do people continue to even debate these issues with trolls?"

Because I have longstanding issues with Evangelical spiritual arrogance, because I am sick of being told that because I am not an Evangelical, I have no faith and am not a Christian, because I am sick of the hypocrisy that says that Evangelicals can be as rude and insulting as they like about everybody else, but if we even defend ourselves, much less get angry, we are persecuting them and "intolerant", because I want people like NP to realize that there are people out there who are just as appalled at his beliefs as he is at theirs, our tolerance does not reflect admiration, much less approval and perhaps he can learn from that how to be more tolerant, because everyone I know hates Christianity because of the spiritual arrogance I mentioned and I find that particularly sad, because of a lot of other things, but, primarily because, like every other opinionated Church geek, I find it fun!

The Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands (which shares full communion with the Anglican Communion) allows same-sex marriage rites. I wonder why no one has taken them to task.

Does anyone know the stances of the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church and the Church of Southern Africa? The answers would be illuminating.

Financial regulators had the authority to investigate Enron.

Gamekeepers have the authority to apprehend poachers.

The Primates have no authority outwith their own Provinces.

After all, the investigators that intervened in the Enron case were not from Nigeria.

OK - here are answers to your points, Ford -

1) Are the GS right to insist that everybody accept their idea of Biblical authority as though it is somehow the only true way? - Their view?? THey are aksing for Lambeth 1.10 to be upheld. Nobody else agrees with them?? Not even +Duncan and many others in TEC?

2) Is the GS right to make the consecration of one bishop they believe to be in error into a communion breaking issue when they tolerate the errors of other bishops and when other bishops tolerate what some think are errors in Evangelical bishops?
- TEC chose the issue by ignoring the pleas of the AC no to go ahead.....you cannot expect people to stay silent in the face of blatant rejection of the "mind of the Communion" represented by Lambeth 1.10 as the ABC says.

3)Are you right to keep hammering away at one clause in a statement by the Church that contains a multitude of other statements that you happily ignore?
- weak point, I have told you before that I do not ignore them and all of us in the AC have spent decades "listening" but are not necessarily persuaded (you are a master of words but want to define "listening" to mean "agreeing"?)

4) Do you think it's all that helpful to your arguments to continually ignore comments that point out inconsistencies in your own arguments?
- actually, it is not deliberate Ford. I have a very busy job so I do not have time to keep up to date with every thread....sorry.

5) Is it helpful to the spread of the Gospel to claim to love gay people when your actions prove otherwise? FALSE accusation, Ford. I do know some people who would not agree with your claim that I do not love them.....but is it loving to tell people that God approves of activities which He condemns in the Bible? Even the ABC says the bible says nothing positive to support your case. It ain't loving to tell people that God approves when the bible tells me and your beloved church tradition tells you that He does not approve.

Ford-Right on with your reasoning on trying to deal with "trolls".

Here in the mid-west of the U.S. the emergence of (not necessarily population growth) of fundalmentalist Christians is probably causing many young to shy away from ANY Christian denomination because of their obnoxiously skewed beliefs (w/ the distortion of scripture to justify them) and equally disingenuous means of re-cruitment, or "evangelism" for instance. As we all know, children tend to react and rebell against what is forced upon them; and the popularity of paganism and outright atheism among the young in small towns has to be attributed to this. This is not a good thing to allow to happen. I will admit that TEC's experimenting in various rites doesn't seem to help, but at some point we Christians need to take responsibility for the excesses of a few.

As for the argument of "orientation" vs. "activity", I think that a meaningful discussion on what goes on in that "activity" needs to be examined as what is Christ-like or the devil's playground. Now if some of us on this website could get beyond the continual, psychotic, and sickening repeat rants of LGBT relationships being not Christian, as the point of hypocracy in admiting that divorces are o.k. despite differences in Old and New Testament readings, but all gay sex is sinful has been proven by many. Now let's move on.

NP:"...but is it loving to tell people that God approves of activities which He condemns in the Bible?

He=St. Paul???

".....you cannot expect people to stay silent in the face of blatant rejection of the "mind of the Communion" "
I darned well can when they themselves are guilty of ignoring the "mind of the communion". Again, there's more to Lambeth '98 than 1.10, NP, why is this the only thing to which you insist on obedience?

"I do not ignore them"

Really? Minns consecration wasn't ignoring the other parts of Lambeth? And you have already admitted to only having listened to yourselves talk about and judge gay people in absentia, which also represents disobedience to Lambeth '88 and '98. And I have been quite clear that I do not expect you to listen to change your mind. I have repeatedly suggested that the process was so that you could understand gay people, and, if you didn't feel moved to change your mind, you could at least learn how to preach your message without doing spiritual violence, and likely inciting real violence against us, that's all. The way you behave drives gay people from the Church. If you sincerely were concerned about our salvation, you would have, on your own, looked for ways to preach your message that didn't do this. Your refusal to do this tells me you are not interested in my salvation. You claim to love gay people while still, after all this time, not acknowledging that if you want to convince gay people of your message of celibacy, you need to change HOW you preach your message, not your message itself. You have been entirely resistant to this. This makes your last statement laughable. It might not be love to allow people to continue in sin, NP, but it certainly isn't love to refuse to change your practices that make darned well sure they stay there! But then again, if you actually changed the way you preach your message, some gay people might listen. Then, not only would you not be able to feel superior to those God has abandoned to their sin, you'd have to sit next to them in Church.

As Ford pointed out recently, the arguments are fun.

Plus sometimes the arguments are part of God's greater plan. Even trolls are useful.

God could never have so dramatically and emphatically made the point that he wanted nations such as the Jews if the Pharoah had not been so stubborn, the establishment priests so arrogant and complacent, Aaron prepared to speak on behalf of his brother, Moses prepared to continue to trust in God and hang onto that staff, Miriam prepared to nag her parents to continue their marriage and thus conceive Moses, the princess prepared to convert to Judaism and adopt a Jewish boy baby she found in the river...

There are times in history that things are so ridiculously obvious that it is obvious that God is moving. This is one of those times you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out that God is affirming that God wants humanity and an inhabitable sustainable planet. That means we have to reign in our aggression and greed, we literally won't survive if we don't. Seek to be reconciled with your enemies or you can spend eternity debating who contributed the most to the extinction of humanity.Pyrrhic victory, if you ask me.

I would rather be dismissed as the most insane women who ever lived, and have a humanity that can laugh at my foolishness. That is a far more pleasing and worthwhile legacy. Even better, would be if people could accept wisdom, even if it seems foolish.

Hosea 9:7-8 "Because your sins are so many and your hostility so great, the prophet is considered a fool,the inspired man a maniac. The prophet, along with my God, is the watchman over Ephraim, yet snares await him on all his paths, and hostility in the house of his God."

NP

"Ford. I do know some people who would not agree with your claim that I do not love them"

Your idea of love must be different from mine, I have yet to hear you say a single word that sounds loving, rather than lecturing, righteous, certain, cold and absolutely oblivious of the reality of the people you're talking to.

"I have a very busy job so I do not have time to keep up to date with every thread....sorry."

Considering that you post about 10 posts a day on pretty much every thread, and that Ford has made this point on numerous occasions, that argument doesn't sound all too convincing to me.

NP, please, if you are loving and if you do want to engage - engage! Answer questions, even hard ones and don't dismiss them as "weak" without saying why. Explain why what we think are contradictions is consistent in your eyes.

Erika - what do you mean by "engage"? You reject certain scriptures and I do not....this makes it hard to "engage" if I want to stick to Lambeth 1.10 and the interpretation of the bible which underpins it....which even the liberal ABC says represents the mind of the Communion - so, I ain't no extremist in the CofE or the AC, Erika! Are you "engaging" with the teaching of the church or ignoring it where it does not suit you?

Ford - you are making assumptions (again). You used to be much more measured in your responses! Above, you just set up straw men and have fun knocking them down!

Anyway, who said we judged "people in absentia"? I think you made that up. You do not know. I have told you that we had careful study with people of all kinds....but you refuse to take that on board.

Who said we drive people away?
....the contrary is true! Sure, people who want to ignore what we (and Lambeth 1.10) say are not going to stay.....but not all people are like that, as I hope you know.

Who says we must change HOW we preach our message? You cannot as you have not heard it. Hundreds come to hear....all sorts of people.

Why are you inventing who you think I am or what you think I say? Are you projecting a negative image onto someone with whom you disagree on a particular issue in order to justify ignoring what they say?

"who said we judged "people in absentia"?"

You described the "listening process" as carried out in your parish. No mention of actually talking to gay people. I challenged you that you had listened to one another talk about us rather than to us. You did not reply to alter that perception.

"Who said we drive people away?"

The vast majority of the people I know, for starters. Everyone who publically ridicules Christianity for another. It is your style of Christianity they are mocking. I keep telling you, you need to talk to the people who hate Christianity.

"You cannot as you have not heard it."

I have heard it and read it over and over, NP. From the way people like +Akinola talk about us to the death threats against +VGR, to the use of propagandistic pseudoscience to bolster the most outrageous claims about gay people, to the siding with people who have publically called for us to be stoned, and on and on. I hear it on TV, I read it in the papers, I read it on the Internet. And hundreds might come to hear, but millions are staying away. Ask them why some time, instead of just thinking they are just rebels against God, Who has abandoned them to their sin.

"Why are you inventing who you think I am or what you think I say?"

It's not an invention, NP, what you post here reveals how you think.

NO, Ford- you are not "listening" but just putting +Akinola's words or those you grew up with on me!

Sorry if I did not reply...but no we did not just talk about people, we talked and do talk to people. (I have friends and family (none ordained!) in this group you think I never talk to!)

As for people staying away.....why do we have thousands using our church 6 days a week and you have so few coming to your "inclusive" church? Surely not our fault..... I have said many times that I do not buy this nonsense that we turn people off church - especially as it comes from the liberals who have led decades of church decline.

We attract thousands to conservative evo ANGLICAN churches in London while liberal ones 5 mins away are empty (surviving because we pay parish share which they don't mind taking!)......we do not really pay attention when those failed ministers tell us that their churches are empty because of what we do or preach.....they never look at themselves and wonder why so few find their message attractive.

In the end, you don't like what we preach because we don't want to ignore the bible to agree with your lifestyle, right?
Would you not be in the RC church if only they were more flexible on biblical morality?
So, you want the AC to allow RC-Lite (all the ceremony but flexible morality)?
If I agree to that, then I would have "listened", right?

"thousands using our church"

And why are literally millions staying away?

"your "inclusive" church"

Actually, NP, I go to a quite conservative parish, in a relatively conservative diocese, in a Church that less than a month ago decided not to bless SSU out of respect for others in the Church. Just because someone disagrees with your attitudes on Biblical authority and points out the hypocrisy of your actions and statements, they aren't necessarily on "the other side".

"I do not buy this nonsense that we turn people off church"

You don't talk to the people you have alienated. Or you are impervious to their responses as you are to any counter arguments made here. (You seriously believe I support SSBs, for instance.)

"you don't like what we preach ......?"

No, I don't like your spiritually arrogant, dismissive attitude. You have no respect for the faith of those who aren't Evangelical. You have at times been proud of that! The list of what I object to is too long for this post. And you don't know anything about my "lifestyle", though I can imagine you THINK you do, and disapprove of it sight unseen. And no, I wouldn't be RC. I would be Orthodox, I may yet, and I wouldn't want them to change a thing. Listening is not about agreeing, NP, it's about respect.

NP, I shall respond: do you think you should identify this church and, indeed, yourself, so that these claims you make can be compared. I use a web name but it does not take a minute to follow the link to find out who I am, which church I attend, and the cleric I know who posts on this board but is currently under canvas? You do not have to name which places are failing, just which is successful - where you go.

Pluralist - there are obvious candidates for my church in London. (I won't identify it as I do not speak for it)

Ford - we see people becoming Christians all the time (all types of people!)....so I am not concerned that you know some who do not like the fact that we stick to the biblical teaching in Lambeth 1.10 and so stay away.....I am afraid that we cannot ditch that biblical position to attract in that sort of person. ....and the churches which have tried to accomodate them shrink, as we all know.

"the fact that we stick to the biblical teaching in Lambeth 1.10 and so stay away....."

NP, NP, NP, it's not Lambeth '98, of which you follow one section. They would laugh you to scorn for condemning the "disobedience" of others while ignoring that of those you agree with, and would see it as yet another example of the hypocritical judgementalism of those who claim to follow Him who told us not to judge lest we be judged. And I'm not talking about judging doctrine here, NP, but people. Most of them don't even know what Lambeth is, let alone '98 or any other time. They do know that the Church has been responsible for some very bad things. They know how the Church has abused her power. They refuse to tolerate the hypocrisy of condemning the sins of others while ignoring one's own. They note how big a lie it is for us to sing "They'll know we are Christians by our love". They know how wrong it is for a follower of Christ to claim there is someone in the world they are not called to love.

I think Max Weber needs a new edition to The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. This is about the Puritans who, seeing their bank balances grow as they put in the capitalistic work and didn't consume, took it as a sign that they were part of the Elect.

The new edition is called The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Numbers.

Ford, again two wrongs do not make a right

As I have said MANY times, I can agree with many of your criticisms of the church, evos and me.....but none of those change the main argument in the AC which is about the interpretation of scripture in Lambeth 1.10.

People who do not like what the bible says can find a thousand reasons not to come to church etc...and we can give them more.

Even if you think (wrongly!) that some are selective in their application of Lambeth 1.10, still you have no excuse in rejecting any of it....you don't want to be a hypocrite too, I am sure.

Again, let's deal with the issue, please.
What does the bible say? What does God intend for you and me today? Has TEC done something good and holy in 2003 ....or not?

Pluralist - Weber would have hated but not been surprised by the Bureaucracy we see in the AC!

Weber found the march to bureaucracy depressing against the human spirit, but in Anglicanism we have something called systemic authority, which is not quite the pyramidal authority Weber outlined. Systemic authority is where experts are found around the bureaucracy so that leaders to some extent must rely on them. These experts we can call theologians, and they are often liberal and radical in doctrine, advance biblical criticism, and qualify some key concepts, such as the meaning of Trinity.

"What does the bible say? What does God intend for you and me today?"

Abolutely nothing.

Only Lev 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27 come anywhere near, but neither addresses Homosexuality as "act" or "orientation" but Koítän; the Bed (in 18:20, 18:22, and 18:23 - you will have troble finding that Bed in modern translations ;=), and Gnostic/Gnosticist ideas on Sperm percieved as seeds, respectively.

"still you have no excuse in rejecting any of it"

Well, by all accounts, +Akinola seems to think he does. The issue for the current discussion is this: why do you feel it is perfectly OK to ignore all the other parts of the Lambeth statement you mistakenly keep referring to as Lambeth 1.10, while being rabid that TEC be punished over your favourite verse?

"People who do not like what the bible says can find a thousand reasons not to come to church etc"

As a general rule, NP, the people I'm talking about have no argument with what the Bible says. Their argument is with the behaviour of those who claim to follow the Bible when they clearly are not. They are merely saying that if you are going to call yourself a Christian, you should behave like one. The refrain is "Lord, I love you, save me from your followers." I have been trying to show you this for the past, what, 7 or 8 months. It isn't about people hating the Gospel. They don't. You need so strongly to look down at these people as rejecting God that you can't see, no matter how often you are told, that it isn't God they are rejecting. You need to pray about this in relation to yourself. That would require self examination, though, and the realization that some of your most cherished beliefs and attitudes might be unChristian and something you ought to change. You ought not to change the faith for the world. You ought to consider what example you show of Christian behaviour.

The answer to the second question is

Love thy Neigbour as thy self (even if he be a false teacher ;=)