I'd just like to say that I think Bishop Gene Robinson is a pioneer, and I would like to offer him full support and indeed love. His account is one where he has been able to draw on his own not untypical experience and bring that into ministry.

In that the Church of England, from the Archbishop down, is locked into a terrible muddle over this whole issue, it is because it does not have the integrity of which the bishop speaks. It hides its gay personnel in corners, faces two ways at once, looks ridiculous (as in the Hereford case, right down to its bishop congratulating an organist on his Civil Partnership whilst preventing a celibate man from a job also "promoting religion"), and leaves people in one job saying restrictive and closeting things in public they have opposed in their writings previously. This core dishonesty rots the institution.

What The Episcopalian Church has done is pushed through that institutionalised duplicity and opened up the future, as pioneers do. In forty years time Churches will look bck at this from a position of wondering what all the fuss is about, but at present the fuss is important. I wish the Bishop and his immensely strong shoulders the best for a full and complete ministry, one which hopefully will come to seem ordinary and uncontroversial in the not to near future.

I write this as a full blown heterosexual, with no gay people in the family, and only occasional gay associates. It is time the dishonesty and duplicity was brought to an end and people were welcomed for their talents and qualities.

I totally support Pluralist. Hear, hear !

Gene Robinson is a mensch if ever there was one !

A great and Godly pioneer. We all stand in his debt.

The future will vindicate him, of course, just as it did, Nelson Mandela; and the Suffragettes.

Thank you, Pluralist, for your moving comment.

If there's a Gene Robinson fan club I'll join it too! There is such strength in the way he continuously makes himself vulnerable, speaks out for honesty and true Christian love, retaining all his integrity. I wish I had half of his courage!
My non-churched and ex-Christian friends consider him to be a ray of hope for Christ's light in the world. A church that can hold and support someone like him is still worth bothering about.

Lovely post from Pluralist. Without supporting duplicity (though I know how to survive in that 'given' mindset) nevertheless to our friends in TEC I would urge a generosity towards those who cannot agree with your new boundaries. The CofE coped well re women priests by not excluding people who cannot sign up to the new orthodoxy. It continues so to do. I am told no such space exists in the US for people who, in good conscience, are still not persuaded by the progressive agenda in the US. Is the Spirit asking the TEC to be as generous to traditional Christians as it can be? I have heard that Gene and others are not. And heard this from liberal friends. Is this true?

"I am told no such space exists in the US for people who, in good conscience, are still not persuaded by the progressive agenda in the US. Is the Spirit asking the TEC to be as generous to traditional Christians as it can be? I have heard that Gene and others are not. And heard this from liberal friends. Is this true?" Neil

No

The Episcopal Church "Welcomes Everyone"

or, if that doesn't light your fire:

"We will leave the door open and a light burning for those who choose to walk apart"

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori

We do suggest if you insist on leaving that you leave the Parish keys, Silver candlesticks, Prayer Books and the kneelers behind for your brothers and sisters (and children and grandchildren) to use at The Body of Christ.

Neil

We'll have to wait to see if some eyewitnesses from TEC make a posting. For the rest of us it would be mere conjecture or hyperbole.

I can say that as someone from the liberal end of the spectrum (even though I am a fundamentalist about Jesus life, death and resurrection - a fundamentalist liberal?!) that we should be aware that there has been a terrible lack of hospitality in some conservative dioceses. The attempted anti-gay legislation in Nigeria is obviously an extreme of an extreme, but I know of parishes who have been appalled at how lay leaders or ministers were bullied out of office, their diocese or their parishes.

To be honest, some of those that are most screaming about potential lack of hospitality need to take a good look at their own hospitality (or lack thereof). Some reek of self-righteous Pharisian hypocrisy.

Pluralist, that was a beautiful posting. One of the things I am most liking about Gene's testimony is his honesty. I've known of gay men who married to try and appear straight, without ever disclosing to their partner their homosexual tendencies or history. Gene's honesty right from when there was a potential serious relationship is to be admired.

Gene follows a long line of worthy reformers. One contemplation in recent days is that Jesus is probably one of the first inclusionist reformers - he opened Judaism to the Gentiles and unclean.

Neil wrote: "I am told no such space exists in the US for people who, in good conscience, are still not persuaded by the progressive agenda in the US."

That is simply not true, even within dioceses that elect to ordain women (most of them). We have many more parishes in our diocese that have no women priests, but have a few with women priests on staff, and even fewer with women priests as rectors.

A parish selects its own priests, and even its rectors (subject to consent by the bishop), so it is up to each congregation to determine which clergy shall serve its people.

The same is true for rites for the Eucharist; some parishes have only Rite One (which mimics the 1928 Prayer Book), some have only Rite Two, while some have one or more services in both Rites One and Two.

Having attended services in a number of dioceses throughout the US, during vacation travels, you will generally find this to be true in the US.

Could there be a bishop or two who might be less than charitable in welcoming Episcopalian clergy of various persuasions, yes, of course. But that is true on both sides of the spectrum, Neil.

So, don't believe all the nonsense that some have obviously been telling you about the Episcopal Church.

As the well-known signs say, The Episcopal Church Welcomes You; it really does, whatever your persuasions are regarding the supposed "progressive agenda in the US." However, I rather prefer the term "Christian agenda," as the Episcopal Church pursues the mission of Christ; you and I can disagree on what that should mean, but the integrity of your beliefs are recognized by me, just as I trust that the integrity of my beliefs are recognized by you.

By the way, it took me a few years to become comfortable with women priests, but now I look back and think how silly I was, yet my initial discomfort was understandable.

Gene Robinson ungenerous?

My God, that is more untrue than even the maddest claims of the most insane separatists!

More than any man living, Gene Robinson has held out his anointed hands and his torn and battered heart to any and to all without reservation or demand, asking only that the slaughter of the centuries finally, finally cease!

He is a man for all, a man for this time and for all the seasons, a man for all reason, a man for all humanity -- one of the few of us left without besmirched integrity.

And he wears the miter on a head already bloodied by his own betraying and schismatic brothers, by those exquisite haters cloaking their despite behind the false and sneering masks of "conscience", seeking naked power in the name -- dear God -- of purity, and flinging wide and fatal curses in the name of "custom".

God save them all and forgive them for what they and their like have already done, and for the obscenities they seem committed yet to do.

"Is this true?"

No, Neil, it's not.

I've met +Gene Robinson and what Pluralist said is all true. He makes his detractors look so small and mean just by being himself, a very brave and generous man.

As for who is "in" or "out" of Anglicanism, +Robinson has publicly stated on many occasions that he wants to remain in the same church with ++Akinola. We all know what ++Akinola thinks.

"Is the Spirit asking the TEC to be as generous to traditional Christians as it can be? I have heard that Gene and others are not. And heard this from liberal friends. Is this true?"

No, Neil, it is *not* true -- because the only level of "generosity" acceptable to TEC's traditionalists is for TEC to either reverse course completely and "repent," promising never to again consecrate a gay and to never authorize same-sex blessings, or to allow the traditionalists to de facto secede and form a parallel province (in their eyes, one day a replacement to TEC).

What they demand of TEC is far greater than the accommodations made in the CoE -- flying bishops and all -- for opponents of women;s ordination.

You therefore compare apples and oranges.

Neil,

I can only make an observation as a partial outsider, since I am a lifelong Continuing Anglican. From my observation, like many others aspects of American life, polarization has reached such a point that neither side is terribly open to the other. My own parish has received around 150 new members from TEC during the past 4 years. 80% of those would still be TEC if their priests had responded pastorally to their questions and concerns. Instead, they were viewed as troublemakers and made to feel very unwelcomed. And I'm sure there are plenty on the other side who have had similar experiences.

The idea of team spirit is enormously powerful in America. That coupled with a difficulty in separating issues from personality fuels polarization. Within America, I think those who take the brunt of this are the conservatives, not because the others are mean and abusive, but simply because they are the minority within TEC. The most common complaint I hear from those coming to us from TEC is that they feel "disenfranchized."

I have to admit that I've reached the point where I believe that the biggest problem here is not the debate itself but that we lack the maturity to carry on that debate in a healthy way.

Mark

Neil: Although on the surface most parishes try genuinely hard at accepting all ideas and forms of liturgy, the irritating pattern I seem to find more and more in use in TEC is the early service on Sundays, fits the schedule of most older people, so let's save the stark Rite I said service for them and the RIte II for the younger crowd at the latter services.

What is truly saddening is the almost dissapearance of Rite I Morning Prayer, with it's sung canticles in Anglican Chant. The alignment with proposed WCC liturgical standards in the late '70's brought the push as the eucharist to be the primary Sunday service, leaving matins on the wayside. Some parishes will perform a form of Morning Prayer, truncated with a communion at the end, thereby making the entire service quite lengthy. Another terrible quiet tragedy was the elimination of the sung "Amen" in most of the hymns of the 1983 hymnal. Along with this is the "Gloria Patri" is no longer said (or sung, if the parish does it) at the end of the psalm during the Eucharist. Small things, but such that probably fed the reaction to +VGR.

Although it is never overt, the witholding of Rite I around the younger generations is something that cannot be denied. Seeing the Harry Potter phenomenom among the younger set, one would think TEC would reveil in it's Anglican/British heritage. Instead, it's Hip-Hop masses and U2charists.

So yes, at times I feel that the leadership of TEC just "doesn't get it".

I sing in an RSCM choir that is no-nonesense about the music and liturgy that treats the young with respect, professionalism and as equals in the offices. In return, they have high expectations demanded. The parish is probably the most sound financially and in attendance in the diocese. And of course, we are an all-inclusive and loving house of God. Why would we be otherwise?

My sense is that TEC has it correct theologically speaking, but much dear to us has been lost, and we need to be true to ourselves of our heritage if "we are to do all such good things that thou hast prepared for us to walk in."

High fives to all the believers in New Hampshire who discerned their bishop, right in the midst of all the USA rightwing mess happening in church life and in government life and in economic life. (If you want to see a slice of that mess, attend a screening of Michael Moore's new documentary, Sicko.) Believers in New Hampshire had known VGR for decades, up close and personal, so they knew who they were calling to be their bishop, no?

High fives to VGR for responding, and keeping on keeping on. When was the last time one of us had to wear body armor, just because we were going to church, our sheer presence deeply offending somebody else who was armed and dangerous? When was the last time a con-evo believer had to wear body armor because some prog-lib believer, or gay-friendly believer, was gunning for them?

Get real. Maybe.

We are not shutting down con-evo welcome when we ask believers to check their traditional-historical theological firearms and doctrinal IED's at the church doors.

Neither their welcome, nor anybody else's welcome, is predicated exclusively on their own special doctrinal terms and authorities. God in Jesus invites and welcomes.

The New Testament points to a risen, and living Lord who is Jesus of Nazareth. To our very great surprise - and few people are more surprised than the queer folks are nowadays - the Holy Spirit has fallen upon people without changing their sexual orientations and embodiments. Maybe you can lock up certain closed readings of scripture, history, or religious tradition in exclusively straight vaults, but Jesus will still walk among us, inviting whomsoever Jesus will invite. If prog-lib believers, or gay-friendly, or queer folks cannot pray openly in your local church, trust me, they will still pray somewhere else.

Thank you for various replies. It seems these liberal friends have got their analysis wrong. I am talking about quite well travelled English clergy (ie they claim to know TEC) who have spoken of polarisation. They support +Gene. But they still have commented on a fairly rigorous pursuing of the line (whether that be conservative or progressive...but it is 'felt' more by cons because they are in the minority) and, the desirability of a softer approach to whoever is being 'persecuted'. I am glad to hear +Gene affords space to his opponents...and from people who actually know the full picture there in TEC.

The polarization dynamic in the USA is changing. It appears that the quarter century long right wing hegemony in politics and political discourse is coming to an end. And it seems that Conservative Evangelical Christian rule in the Federal Government is going down in flames in the Iraqi desert. Of course this affects the conflict in the Episcopal Church since that conflict reflects the political and cultural polarization of the United States (a polarization created by the exclusivism and absolutism of Conservative Evangelical politics that insists on demonizing all opposition -- and then is astonished when that same demonization turns back on them).

And as our Godly Divinely Appointed regime is about to become the most unpopular and widely hated presidency in the USA since WWII, the apocalyptic lunacy just gets loonier. Have a look, folks, at what is a central driving force in American foreign policy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/rapture-ready-the-unauth_b_57826.html

No, these are not marginalized isolated lunatics, these folks are actively courted by the White House and the Republican Party.

I'll take +Gene Robinson in a lavender miter and cope over these toxic mshuggenehs every time. I'd be happy to ship the whole lot to Britain to be fed and housed by their British counterparts.

Last clergyman I heard of wearing body armour was Pope Julius II - and it warn't for no consecration, neither.

I thought us lesbian and gay folk were in the minority in Church and society ? I thought we really know 'persecution' is -- if being ostracised,committed to an asylum, fined , imprisoned, ruined or put to death count as persecution. And although things have improved in Britain, Europe and America VERY recently, gay people are still executed in 40 countries and ostracised, imprisoned, fined and commented to asylums in others ....

'Only connect '

I do admire Gene and agree with the original posting but want to enter the discussion about who feels welcome where. I see it particularly as a woman priest -- deaconned in 75 and priested in 77 -- most dioceses are far more accepting of indivdual differences than was true in the past when some bishops forbade what they considered highchurch practices like the reservation of the Sacrament or eucharistic vestments. That very fact makes those anxious to feel in the majority uncomfortable unless they are particularly provided for. Liturgical functioning by women priests at diocesan conventions or youth programs makes some feel too uncomfortable to participate or send their young people -- just as singing praise songs and encouraging charismatic expressions of devotion does others. This just is a vigorous and therefore challenging place and time in which to live. Everyone is welcome -- whether they feel at home or not.
Columba Gilliss

Neil

Be aware that there are some very well travelled clergy have their own agendas that may at times be consciously against others. We had reports last year that some were touring and refraining from using the internet to articulate their positions and concerns, and advocating that others do likewise as electronic information has a tendency to "fall into the wrong hands".

Now, if such souls visits a parish they are going to elicit varying responses. Some who are already strongly predisposed to elitism, intrigue or herd mentality would simply coopt their paradigms. Others, who are more protective of the vulnerable or despise rabble rousers might go into a defensive strategy.

As a practical example, while I do not stop my dad from moving around or living a "free" life, I warned my cousins of his pedophile tendencies and he is not allowed near my own children. What I have not done is gone into stalker mode and harassed him from living a normal life. Sometimes, you have to look at what the battle will turn you into. If the battle is going to make you into a monster as big as that which you fear, then you need to hand the problem over to God and go and deal with mastering your own fears. My dad does not contact me or my cousins' families. So we leave him alone. If he was to stalk us, then we would move to protect ourselves. There is a difference between choosing to not be aggressive and not being capable of defense. The problem for some souls is they don't know which strategy to use.

Some demand that souls submit or surrender to the authorities. Whilst a slave submits to a master or a victim surrenders to a rapist; souls exercising free will choose to collaborate and cooperate e.g. a wife collaborates with their husband, souls freely cooperate to build healthy communities.

Similarly there is a difference between the love of compliments versus complementary love. A weak husband might demand obedience and compliments, whether or not he is behaving honorably. A strong wife understands her husband needs to be complemented: praised for his best, supplemented in his weaknesses, and occassionally reminded of his vows e.g. to love and honor, to provide for ALL her children, to love peace and hate tyranny, to foster justice and mercy.

Hi Neil

I think that while some at the lower levels might display both generosity and bigotry, the senior levels of the TEC has been extremely ungenerous and all that ungenerosity has been in one direction. For instance there is different reactions and process over acknowledged faults in the Mark Lawrence and the Virginia bishop elections and that is just a case that has been documented recently. There are may others

Hopefully my previous posting went up. There were some problems with software, and a word reduction edit might have gone missing.

Further to Neil's comments, it would be nice to know which clergy he is talking about. I do know there have been slander tours, and to be honest one heartening thing has been witnessing souls seeing through accusations and trouble makers.

Some bible passages to hearten those who refuse to surrender to slanderers:

2 Timothy 3 which includes "People will be lovers of themselves… boastful, proud, abusive... without love, unforgiving, slanderous... Have nothing to do with them. They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women... Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth... But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone."

Exodus 23:7 "Have nothing to do with a false charge… for I will not acquit the guilty."

Ephesians 5:11-14"Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible...."

Titus 3:10 "Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him."

3 John 1:9-11 "I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church. Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good."

Jesus' words in John 15:18 - 16:16 includes "…He who hates me hates my Father as well... They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me…"

Without names, we can not say whether well-traveled clergy are from the slander tours or otherwise. If they were of the slander tours, then here is our response. If not, then they might find these words helpful.

Neil, thank you for asking about the situation in the US Episcopal Church regarding the welcome of "traditionalists." I live and minister in California the "left coast" as we are known. It's true that many (the majority) of our parishes have male rectors. They are picked by each congregation so no one is forced to have a woman or gay as their rector. Rite 1 (traditional) liturgy is offered where desired. But that actually underestimates the real problem. The traditionalists do not just want the right to quietly coexist. Let me give you an example. I teach in a college that prepares our deacons. One of my students came from a very conservative parish in a different diocese. He walked out of the first 10 minutes of my class because he learned that i was gay from another student. I welcomed his view point in the class. But he wanted all gay and lesbian instructors fired or he would leave the school, which is exactly what he did. Welcoming is really not the question. Peaceful coexistance does not really seem possible at this point. Recall that it is not just +Gene that some object to; it is any Bishop that voted to approve his election. How likely is it that they will all be removed.

"Another terrible quiet tragedy was the elimination of the sung "Amen" in most of the hymns of the 1983 hymnal"

TRAGEDY?

Good grief.

I suppose another is that in most TEC churches I've been in lately, the altar candles are extinguished before the final hymn, so there is no longer the Ritual of Kneeling Again After the End of the Final Hymn to Worship the Dousing of the Candles.

Oh, the ladies in the choir stopped wearing little blue choir beanies in about 1948 - what a crime!

While I suspect Mark Clavier and I are from different places on many (most?) of the besetting questions, I do think he has given a remarkably sound answer.

Certainly there is nothing institutional whereby "conservatives" should feel persecuted or unwelcome. And in some cases at least, they appear to want to feel that way regardless of what is on offer.

But there are probably those on both sides who have been made to feel unwelcome by angry partisans.

Thank you, Mark, for that honest apraisal.

On the larger point, though, I am not aware that anyone has uttered threats agains the lives of the Bishop of Pittsburgh or any of the other leading "conservatives." I am not aware that metal detectors were required at the consecrations of "conservative" bishops over the past decade. I am not aware that "contingencies" were in place to deal with bombings or gunfire at the consecration of any "conservative" bishops.

But one bishop-elect / bishop has been threatened with death. One consecration did require all the congregation to pass through metal detectors. One dioces did develop contingencies to remove a bishop-elect to a place of safety to have him consecrated there in the case of attack.

To the degree that people have been making others of God's children to fell unwelcome, we should all be ashamed.

But it is certainly no one-sided persecution of the "conservatives" as some have argued.

Neil: I'm not sure this site is the place to find out if TEC is allowing conservatives to follow their consciences or not. I live in an area where 98% of the population is the same race. If you ask them, "Are you racist?" The answer is, of course, "Of course not!!" You have to ask the 2% the question to get a more realistic answer. Are the majority lying? Not deliberately, but they see things very differently. Might the 2% exaggerate? possibly, but to find something like the truth, asking both would be necessary.
Asking that question on one of the most liberal blogs online seems very similar. If you want to know if TEC allows conservatives to follow their consciences, you may have to look elsewhere.

I don't think "Flying bishops" have been seriously offered in America. I understand Schori has offered to create a second-in-command under her to oversee them,but as some dioceses/parishes don't allow women priests,they wouldn't want her to oversee them, let alone her stand-in. And presentment charges have been presented to at least a few bishops who crossed lines in an attempt to help conservatives in liberal diocese.

You all seem so happy to see each other praising VGR - but you need to persuade the AC not yourselves....you do get that, right?

Anyone round here heard of Lambeth 1.10 and the interpretation of scripture in it - which the liberal ABC says represents the "mind of the Communion"?

If you have, you may not think VGR is so "honest" ...... but he is more honest than the English bishops and vicars he criticises for hypocrisy.....he is more honest than those pathetic "leaders" for sure.

No NP. We don't need to persuade all the AC.

I have no desire to spend the rest of my life wasting my time in discussions with males who don't care if a woman has been raped the night before whilst they justify female hatred from the pulpit the following morning.

I have no desire to waste my time with people who show no remorse at promising victims' friends and family that their beloveds went to hell after the tsunami.

I have no desire to waste my time with souls who do not blush, nor care about how their sermons and theology impact on people in the field. Who do not care if their theology is used to justify rape, homosexual bashings, genocide, extinction, bankruptcy, war, poverty, sanctions.

There are souls in the communion who know their theology is used to justify such things, and they don't care.

I brush the dust of their theology off my feet. I will walk with those who seek out peace and compassion, who care that there might be victims and suffering amongst the pews and in the community, who are aware that our their own actions can exacerbate already difficult circumstances. I will walk with those who step lightly and considerately, in humility and in faith.

No, I don't care if I don't win over the bullies. They have not only shown no hospitality, they have been openly predatory and aggressive. I have no desire to call them beloved. They might be relatives by geneology or circumstance, but they do not dwell in my heart.

Margaret wrote: “For instance there is different reactions and process over acknowledged faults in the Mark Lawrence and the Virginia bishop elections and that is just a case that has been documented recently.”

This is calumny, Margaret.

Apart from the apparent sloppiness common to both, on diocesan and PB Office level (and remember, people in the Church are amateurs, not professionals…), the two cases are un-related.

Diocese 1 did not receive enough signed consents. Not even prolonging the period. Nil.

Diocese 2 did receive Consent, however un-canonical in form. Now, “form” is secondary.

“Form” does not trump “matter”. Nor is every “violation” a VIOLATION, indeed every violation does not carry the same weight.

The “matter” of consent is primary. If there are no signatures, no consents can be established. Simple as that.

Nor did the “short” vs “long” muddle start yesteryear over the SC case, but years ago.

To my mind this speaks strongly against the “malicious intent” interpretation…

In short, the SC and V muddles are unrelated. There is no case; there is nothing to see.

Claiming there is – as is currently done all over Titus-one-nine and Stand Firm and other blogs – is propaganda.

Cheryl - have you thought that most of the AC may be fed up with "wasting time" with people who when they fail to persuade many in the AC (even by a big majority eg Lambeth 1.10), simply ignore agreed positions??

Many of us in the AC are fed up with the lack of integrity in that position

"I understand Schori has offered"

This was probably typed in haste. Her last name is Jefferts Schori. There is no hyphen, but she does always use both names in tandem.

NP, there are no "agreed positions".

That's why all this.

NP

You love to project words into others' mouths.

I used the term "I" for a reason.

There have been big majorities who have supported more than Lambeth 1.10 but they have been lost in history as Lamberth 1.10 is held up as the trump card to be honored above all others.

It is because it is the only trump card left.

The bible exhorts us to love both our neighbours and our enemies, to forgive others, and to do unto others as we would have done unto us.

Priests who seek to exclude others based on a trump card should not be suprised if they find themselves excluded because of that same trump card.

Revelation 3:7-14 includes "See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut." This is as annoying as Joseph's visions to his brothers or the Daughter of Zion's in Isaiah 49:21-26 which includes "I was exiled and rejected. Who brought these up? I was left all alone, but these—where have they come from?’ ” This is what the Sovereign LORD says: “See, I will beckon to the Gentiles, I will lift up my banner to the peoples; they will bring your sons in their arms and carry your daughters on their shoulders. Kings will be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. They will bow down before you with their faces to the ground; they will lick the dust at your feet. Then you will know that I am the LORD; those who hope in me will not be disappointed.” ... this is what the LORD says: “Yes, captives will be taken from warriors,and plunder retrieved from the fierce; I will contend with those who contend with you, and your children I will save... Then all mankind will know that I, the LORD, am your Savior,your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.”

Can this happen? The Jews and many are seeing it possible: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1184766054867&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

There are those who subscribe to theologies of hate that justify violence to fallen sinners before they are even out of the womb. There is no desire to be in affirming communion with such souls.

NP: "Many of us in the AC are fed up with the lack of integrity in that position"

Many in TEC were (and still are) fed up with the lack of integrity of clerics trying to pretend (and preach) against what they were not.

Cynthia Gilliatt: Liturgical "gee-gahs" I admit, but for the want of a nail....

A (male) priest took charge in my old hometown parish a little over a year ago. It was a Rite I parish that had called a woman over ten years ago. Her ministry there had been fairly successful, albeit a little lack luster. Now the new rector has dis-allowed using the altar rail for communion rail, and to be "pastorially sensitive" has placed a single kneeler in front of the baptismal font (moved to the transcept). When I was last there, the disgusting sight of soaked bread crumbs littered the basin of the font. Now the priest has an open revolt and the place is on the verge of becoming an aided mission.

The Episicopal Church, along with most of the Anglican Communion is liturgical in nature. (Sorry NP, not Pauline) Mess with it, and the crazies will (and have) come out of the woodwork.

In some sense TEC has become a mirror negative image of the U.S. government.

This is what struck me most:

"As a Christian, can he forgive his enemies? "You know, I can. And here's why. They only believe what the church has taught them to believe, and I believed those same things myself for a very long time. That is what a gay person has to contend with. We've been taught the same things everyone else has. The church has taught us all to condemn homosexual behaviour. I would argue it has taught that mistakenly, but I can certainly understand why people feel this way, so no, I don't have any trouble forgiving."

Gay couples are now triumphing -- they are inheriting the kingdom of this world and it seems they are also going into the Kingdom of Heaven before us. That they have overcome two millennia of false, destructive, poisonous teaching, and that they have had the courage to love while cynical clerics sniffed or sneered, is a great testimony to their humanity and heroism. Robinson will be remembered as one of the outstanding Christian witnesses of this generation.

NP,

"Anyone round here heard of Lambeth 1.10"

Have you heard of the rest of it? I'd like, just once, for you to explain why it is that you only think one paragraph of the Lambeth '98 statement is some sort of law, but you can ignore the rest. It is more than one paragraph long, you know. I find it fascinating that you can read things like the Collier piece about +VGR, and I have never read anything that shows anything different about is character than what one reads in this piece, and still think him unfit for the episcopate while someone like +Akinola can behave in a most unChristian fashion and you think he's OK. I'm not trying to justify his consecration, but if you're going to demand he be defrocked, why are you willing to accept bishops of lesser character? And you might want to stop speaking for the rest of the Anglican communion. I had a very humbling experience recently, reinforcing for me yet again that basing my opinion of Evangelicals on the behaviour of people like you is wrong. You certainly don't speak for all the AC, not even for all Evangalicals.

Maybe NP would be happiest at Rev. John Haggee's church in San Antonio planning for Armageddon -- A revenge fantasy on a cosmic scale.

I believe Lambeth 1:10 was discussed at length on this site some time ago, and that are serious questions about its legitimacy having been railroaded through Lambeth by Lord Carey in collaboration with certain other bishops.

Goran,

The cases in DioVA and DioSC are very much related. DioSC did have the required number of signatures, just many of them were sent via email - one FORM of communication that signifies the MATTER of endorsement.

If you argue DioVA had the correct MATTER even if the FORM violated the Canon, the same argument holds w/ DioSC. If TEC is going to disregard FORM while stating MATTER is correct in one case, it should be consistent in other cases.

These right-wing Calvinists are beneath contempt.

NP,
"Cheryl - have you thought that most of the AC may be fed up with "wasting time" with people who when they fail to persuade many in the AC (even by a big majority eg Lambeth 1.10), simply ignore agreed positions??"

If you scroll up to the next thread and read the interview with Archbishop Akinola you will see that even he knows that Lambeth has absolutely no binding authority. While it's nice that the participants agreed on certain things during their chats, it really has no legal force for any of the churches in the AC.

Which is just as well, because while some of us don't accept what it says about same gender love, others clearly don't accept what it says about the Listening Process and Border Crossing, for example.

The Episcopal Church HAS offered a plan for alternative episcopal oversight - a plan based on the "flying bishop" scheme in the United Kingdom.

The plan has been rejected by the "conservatives" on the grounds that the episcopal authority is delegated rather than surrendered.

Of course, that was also the case in the English scheme. The "flying bishops" did not act on their own authority, but on the delegated authority of the diocesan and with the express permission of the diocesan.

So, the claim that the American church has not offered "flying bishops" is completely false.

Christine may well have been misled on this point. But there are others who repeat the falsehood knowing it to be false. If memory serves, the technical term for that in moral theology is "lying."

I just thought I would look at this resolution that NP keeps repeating as being the mind of the communion, and yes indeed the Archbishop does not think it should be redebated, although there are issues within it that can be. (Word that one out).

Point 5:
cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;

Right. So it does not advise this. Does it reject, dismiss, refuse to recognise, condemn, regard as heretical...

I read Lambeth 1:10 and the reason it would not be debated is that it is couched in general terms. Nothing TEC has done warrants its dismissal on the basis of this resolution. And, anyway, this resolution is not some form of law. In advance the Archbishop has said as much about 2008.

Nevertheless Archbishop Akinola has made it clear again that he is not going, and that some sort of upholding of Lambeth 1:10 is hardly going to be on the agenda. What will be is the willingness of TEC to engage in Anglican Communion processes, and Akinola is unwilling.

To say otherwise suggests that the Archbishop shifts his ground. He could, of course, but if he did the Communion would start to look mindless, never mind have a mind.

couterlight - yes, Lambeth 1.10 is regularly dismissed around here but that does not mean it has no authority in the AC (and Windsor and Tanzania should tell you that something being dismissed on TA really does not mean that the AC is likely to dismiss it too)

Ford - you judge ++Akinola very harshly - bet that is on little second-hand evidence. Serious charges from you......I wonder why he is treated with so much respect by the ABC?? Maybe because your charges against him are hyped beyond recognition?

You are making up your straw men again! Don't think you have heard me saying any other part of the resolution can be ignored, do you? In fact I have said the opposite and that we have "listened" for decades but do not find the case of Changing Attitude et al very compelling.
You ask why object to VGR....well, it ain't rocket-science and you know the answer - the AC has an agreed position so TEC presenting the AC with fait accompli in the shape of VGR is not acceptable.....they have to win the theological argument and persuade people first.

Malcolm+,

Thanks for the kind words in your email.

I do know that there have been threatening mail sent to some of the conservative leaders, though my experience is certainly that those on the far right tend to be quicker to threaten violence. In the end, though, I don't think the strength of a position is validated by the reaction given to it. What it does tell us is how much work the Church still has in converting the world.

The whole debate also highlights to me what an abysmal state theological education has reached in the Church and, by implication, how much general education leaves to be desired. I'd like to hear more people questioning what the way in which this debate is carrying on tells about us all.

Mark+

No Chris,

The matter are the signatures. They were lacking in the one case. They were there in the other.

Two different cases. Someone cried Wolf!

I think NP better devote himself to the other few matters that the Church and the Sect disagree upon.

Penal substitution, the ripping away of the OT deutero-canonicals, the Law (ever the 10 Commandments), Sin, & c.

Don't be shy!

I certainly agree that the poor conduct of those on one side of an issue does not validate the position of those on the other side.

I only raised the point about the threats against my Lord of New Hampshire because many of the "conservatives" seem determined to create this perception that a monolithic "liberal" elite has persecuted innocent "conservatives." I don't think that there's much truth to that at all.

There has doubtless been bad behaviour on all sides. There are some on all sides who have been made to feel unwelcome by that. And, as someone else noted on this thread, there are some who have seemed determined to find a reason to claim themselves unwelcome.

Goran, either the Canon matters or it doesn't. If the form violated the Canon the form is worthless as the Canon does not allow for other wording to be used. And to the best of my knowledge the Standing Committees that send unsigned forms in for DioSC affirmed they were given consent - I'm not aware of anyone after the fact saying they just in in a form with but were with holding consent.

At the very least, in this charged atmosphere, 815 should have acted to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or hypocrisy, but I guess the crack legal staff was too busy executing torts against fellow Christians.

This article was posted overnight on www.torah.org

http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter1-6b.html

It reaffirms the principles that also Jesus taught: judge others as you wish to be judged.

The problem with nitpicking and accusations (particularly from the pulpit) is that it contines the error that Adam made. Namely that seeing God has chosen to refine another soul (Eve), Adam decides to assist God in his punishment with his own "value add". The problem is that Adam added to God's burden, thus showing a lack of faith in God that God's judgement was insufficient.

The need to "add value" to already suffering souls is that it creates a dynamic of its own. The souls who embrace this paradigm never seem to ask the question of "when is it enough?" That is why women are still treated with contempt and considered too stupid to teach men or understand the bible Thus, if we interpret the bible differently to the "authorities", that is obviously because we are stupid not, heaven forbid, because we are correct!

Foolish men, whose harsh words, lack of humility and inconsiderateness condemn them. Cruel accussers who never apologise for their conduct (unless it is in a litigation court where a secular authority might deem to take away some of their financial assets). They do not care if they drive away brutalized or gentle souls, they do not care if they aid and abet rapists and slanderers.

They trust in a Jesus that is not from the holy texts but from their scribes' edifice. I do not trust in a Jesus that is not consistent with the holy texts, nor do I trust in this "everlasting" covenant when apparently every other "everlasting" covenant is now superceded. Sounds to me like the sweet lying whisperings of a womaniser who in the morning moves onto the next conquest.

"At the very least, in this charged atmosphere, 815 should have acted to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or hypocrisy"

I'd substitute "the diocese" for TEC in that statement.

And, NP, you try to justify +Akinola's breaking of the Lambeth statement. Clearly, you don't care when he ignores it. I'm looking for his denial of its authority to provoke as much anger in you as TEC's "disobedience". I understand him through his words, NP, so not second hand evidence. You think that's how we're supposed to understand God,so surely it's a good way to understand a bishop. I have never made the claim that listening was supposed to convince you of anything other than the humanity of gay people, I don't think that the successive Lambeths (surely as much the mind of the Church as Lambeth '98) did either. Your words prove you didn't listen in that respect. It is NOT, never was, about making you agree with SSB or ordination of gay people. It was about learning that some of the things you believe about gay people, but NOT the Biblical stuff, is wrong. And how can TEC convince you when you don't think their approach to theology is valid? Cripes, you don't even think they believe the Bible, much less that they even HAVE a theology.

Cheryl - the people I referred to are not from slander tours:)! What an arresting description which is making me smile. I would not have bothered to have flown a kite with their opinions had they not been people I respect. Also in fairly influential positions within the liberal firmament of the CofE...so definitely pro Gene. They said one thing, but clearly their impression was partial.

"couterlight - yes, Lambeth 1.10 is regularly dismissed around here but that does not mean it has no authority in the AC (and Windsor and Tanzania should tell you that something being dismissed on TA really does not mean that the AC is likely to dismiss it too)"

When all else fails, theres always the appeal to "might makes right".

Thank God the Conservative Evangelical Christian Theocracy that has ruled our country for the last 7 years is coming to an inglorious end. Alas that it has cost so many thousands of lives, American and otherwise. Alas that it has driven our country into a ditch.

The "Biblical stuff" is wrong, Ford. It is not even Biblical. It has been put there in translations. Such, by definition, are late. Most of the late Modern. Culture. Cultural Wars. Anti Modern Social Politics.

Chris wrote: “Göran, either the Canon matters or it doesn't.”

It is “Matter” that “matters”, not “the Canon”. Your reading i s literalist, isn’t it?

But it’s not allowed to make things up. There is something called Procedure: how things are read (to the difference of Bible school, Law school teaches h o w to read) and the priority of parts of the law over other parts.

The Canon law of Rome makes (makes) a difference between “matter” and “form”.

There may be a prescribed “form”, but that doesn’t proscribe other “forms” in all circumstances. Here a “short” form has been in use for a decade (we still don’t know the proportions), thus pre-dating the current mess. Personally, I think it is ill advised to leave the “form” (even if “form” always is secondary) but surely you can see, that since the short” form has been in use well before the current unpleasantness started this speaks against the accusations.

Chris wrote: “If the form violated the Canon the form is worthless as the Canon does not allow for other wording to be used.”

What “matters” is that the “Matter” is established; the Consent. Without the signatures this cannot be done.

Chris wrote: “And to the best of my knowledge the Standing Committees that send unsigned forms in for DioSC affirmed they were given consent…”

Now, Roman Canon law dates from the 12th century. The first edition was in 1243. 760 odd years. EVERYBODY knows Canon law (and Civil law under its influence) requires Paper, autograph and signature.

Chris: “At the very least, in this charged atmosphere, 815 should have acted to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or hypocrisy…”

I can agree with that, but we must remember that people in the Church are but amateurs, not professionals.

Chris wrote: “… but I guess the crack legal staff was too busy executing torts against fellow Christians.”

Well I guess that they didn’t understand that that is what you take for granted in all circumstances. Enough.

Ford - again, you make up a straw man to knock him down......I do not need convincing of the "humanity" of people like you and I certainly do not need TEC to convince me ..... I have friends who convince me, Ford. I have family who convince me of their humanity.....and we are "in communion" so to speak! (but they are not trying to be ordained!)

Show me a single occasion when I questioned the humanity of anyone?

THis is what I mean by the issues being muddied by emotional blackmail. I won't agree that we can ignore the bible to make it ok for VGR to be a bishop in the AC......and I get FALSELY accused of thinking people inhuman.......not true nor fair nor at all persuasive as an argument, Ford

Malcolm+,

That's the curious thing about the situation within TEC. The minority within TEC is representative of the views of those who are in the majority in the surrounding culture (though this, I suspect, is changing). So, you end up with both sides feeling victimized, one from within the Church and the other from outside.

I do hope that those who side with TEC's establish will keep in mind that whatever the age, whatever the cause, beleaguered minorities tend not to be generous, open-minded, and kind in their rhetoric. I don't defend the language that's often used, but I do understand that it is what normally comes from those who feel surrounded, defensive, and outnumbered.

The issue is not whether souls humanity is recognised, but how they are to be treated. Would heterosexual men want done unto them what they have done unto women and GLBTs? Would Christians want done unto them what they have done unto Jews and indigeneous peoples?

There are some who have decreed that they are more worthy and holy than others. Yet we are exhorted to have equal concern for each other. (1 Corinthians 12:25-26) "If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it."

If a soul asks to be in communion, who are we to refuse? Luke 6:30-37 "Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." After all even sinners love those that love them, do good to those who are good to them, lend when they expect repayment. Love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then you will be children of God who is kind and merciful to the ungrateful and wicked. “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

2 Corinthians 2:17 to 3:5 includes "Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity... Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? ...You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant — not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

1 Peter 2:16 "Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God."

"I get FALSELY accused of thinking people inhuman......."

OK, NP, perhaps a bit over the top of me. Sorry. All the same, we have +Akinola saying exactly that and trying to get us thrown in jail, and you defend him. You repeatedly claim to have listened, yet you have little understanding, you don't even know WHY you were asked to listen. You have given no indication that your practice of the listening process at your parish was anything more than a group of conservatives outlining all the support for their position. You support the right of people in the public sphere to refuse us the services any straight person takes for granted, under the guise of freedom of conscience. You support +Akinola as a bishop, despite his behaviour, yet you condemn a man who shows obvious Christian behaviour, even forgiving publically those who threatened his life, as if his being gay somehow cancels out any virtue in him, while opposing homosexuality seems to wash away any of +Akinola's offences. If I am less measured, it is because I am frustrated. I'm still laughing at your "false teachers are not my neighbour" comment a few weeks back. You just don't see what's wrong with that, do you? You are the stereotype I fight against, and, thankfully, I have been able to meet Evangelicals elsewhere who make me realize, to my shame, that I have been falsely caricaturing all Evos on the behaviours of a few. You are a near occasion of sin (look it up) for me, and I am sick of my own weakness in falling for it.

Sorry you feel like that, Ford....

May I respectfully suggest that a "man who shows obvious Christian behaviour" would not flagrantly remain unrepentant when his scriptures and his church set standards that he does not want to keep?

You find it funny that I do not consider false teachers to be my neighbour....but you want to take away any right for an individual to say that teaching may be false....except for the church - but when your church has a stated position like Lambeth 1.10, you don't care if it is ignored (just as long as nobody has the audacity to say that maybe priests should not disobey their own church's teaching!)

I come on TA to communicate. Many say it is waste of time because liberals only "listen" when they hear what they want to hear....the listening process is only supposed to go one way, right?

Anyway, I am going to put more energy into writing to ++Akinola asking him to be more careful with his language, to apologise for the hurt some of his words have caused.....and begging him not to boycott Lambeth 08! We need all the GS to turn up and vote out the doublespeakers that are only too happy to turn up.

I second Elms's comments of 1330-31 BST.

NP, I find it intangibly laughable that you can dismiss ++Akinola's comments as not being violence prone (do you ever stop to think that these pronouncements motivate visceral reactions out of his followers?). There is a difference between not approving of certain aspects of Christianity and applying them to yourself, and goading the faithful to engage in legislation that comes close to genocide.

Again, it is clear that your obsession with +VGR's sexuality and easy forgiveness of ++Akinola's hatespeech is parallel with the modern American culture that finds it more unacceptable to have two men kissing on televison than to see two men killing one another.

That's truly SICK!

You may be able to run circles around (most) of us in Biblical quaotations, but you miss the ultimate message by miles.

We've seen what your type of thinking, taken to an extreme, has done to Islam, darned if I'm going to allow it to happen to Christianity, let alone the AC.

choirboy - so, disagreeing with you and believing that the stated position of the Anglican Communion with regard to appropriate behaviour for a vicar or bishop.....is now just a step away from inciting violence????

Please be sensible.

My only problem with VGR is that he wants to be a bishop in the AC but does not think he should conform to agreed AC positions - this is not consistent!

NP: On who's stated position?

+VGR IS a bishop, whether you like it or not. We elected him legally under our constitutions and canons. So the problems you have with him are no longer about him, it's about TEC.

So who's making up "Straw Men"?

Just keep to your delusional obsession with Paul and Lambeth 1.10. And definately don't take any responsibility in fracturing a church. That would be consistent.

""man who shows obvious Christian behaviour" would not flagrantly remain unrepentant"

Well, +Akinola does not repent of his behaviour, so there you go. And you know what behaviour I'm talking about.

"I do not consider false teachers to be my neighbour"

You can't possibly justify this and remain true to the Gospel. What do you think the Good Samaritan is about?

"but when your church has a stated position like Lambeth 1.10, you don't care if it is ignored"

Neither do you when the person doing the ignoring is someone you agree with. Still waiting for your opinion on +Akinola's statement that Lambeth is not binding.

"liberals only "listen" when they hear what they want to hear"

Do I actually have to go through the archives and point out all the ways this applies to you? You think I support SSBs for starters, despite everything I have said.

Mark+

I suspect that neither of us knows for certain who are or are not the majority in either the Church or the World.

But I suspect that we could cobble together a clear and unambiguous majority from among those moderates on either side.

Some of them believe that blessing same sex unions is simply wrong. Some believe that the question isn't settled, but are not prepared to start. Some believe that it is right to do but that we should proceed with caution. Some believe we've waited too long already.

But what they have in common is the sense that this is not an issue to shred Communion over.

Unfortunately, it is the tendency of such discussions (especially online) to be dominated by the least moderate - and for more moderate commentators to get swept along in the rhetorical tide.

>>>You can't possibly justify this and remain true to the Gospel. What do you think the Good Samaritan is about?

Ford, I once had a Calvinist explain to me, in all seriousness, that the word "neighbor" in "Love they neighbor" refers only to fellow members of The Elect.

Yes, he really meant it.

"...May I respectfully suggest that a "man who shows obvious Christian behaviour" would not flagrantly remain unrepentant when his scriptures and his church set standards that he does not want to keep? You find it funny that I do not consider false teachers to be my neighbour...."

What about souls who remain unrepentant when scriptures set a standard they do not want to keep? E.g. Love your enemies. Choose the plowshare over the sword. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Grace through faith, not by law or works. Do not respect scribes who handle the law falsely. Do not judge others, hand judgment to God. Do not plan your enemies' destruction or seek to hasten God's judgment. Show true justice: mercy and compassion. Rely on Spirit, not power or might. Do not count God's peoples. Do not set yourself up on high mounds. Do not participate in baal-sacrifices or theology. Do not commit idolatry. Avoid complacency and self-righteousness. Show reverence for Creation and God's blessings. Show kindness to the weak, the orphan and the wicked. Include the outcastes, the orphans, the alien, and the beasts in the Sabbath. If you see a being overwhelmed by its burdens, help them. Do not steal. Do not commit adultery. Honor the Sabbath. Show hospitality. Model humility.

Malachi 4:5-6 God will send the prophet Elijah to turn the hearts of parents to their children and their children to their parents so that the land is set free from a curse.

Malachi 3:13-18 includes "“You have said harsh things against me,” says the LORD... “You have said, ‘It is futile to serve God. What did we gain by carrying out his requirements and going about like mourners before the LORD Almighty? But now we call the arrogant blessed. Certainly the evildoers prosper…’ ” Then those who feared the LORD talked with each other, and the LORD listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in his presence concerning those who feared the LORD and honored his name. “They will be mine,” says the LORD Almighty, “...I will spare them, just as in compassion a man spares his son who serves him."

God knows who has turned others to love all God’s children, and others who have connived to condemn others harshly and treat them cruelly. The scrolls of remembrance records both.

As to those priests

Isaiah 43:25-28 God “...who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more. Review the past for me, let us argue the matter together; state the case for your innocence. Your first father sinned; your spokesmen rebelled against me. So I will disgrace the dignitaries of your temple".

Jeremiah 8:7-12 " ‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? ...From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. “Peace, peace,” they say, when there is no peace. Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen..."

Hosea 2:21 to 4:13 “I will show my love to the one I called ‘Not my loved one.’ I will say to those called ‘Not my people,’ ‘You are my people’; and they will say, ‘You are my God.’ ”…the LORD has a charge to bring against you...“There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God... There is only cursing, lying and murder, stealing and adultery; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed. Because of this the land mourns, and all who live in it waste away; the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea are dying. “But let no man bring a charge, let no man accuse another… “Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests… The more the priests increased, the more they sinned against me; they exchanged their Glory for something disgraceful. They feed on the sins of my people and relish their wickedness… They consult a wooden idol and are answered by a stick of wood. A spirit of prostitution leads them astray; they are unfaithful to their God. They sacrifice… where the shade is pleasant…”

I would love to see a Galatian Ford Elms telling St Paul to go easy, moderate his language!

Even the Lord would have been chastised by Ford....look at some of his language against the Pharisees eg "children of the devil" - and you know he told his disciples to leave areas where his gospel was not accepted (not make a fudge and accept contradictory views)

Ford Elms the Tishbite would have been ever so upset with Elijah!! So judgmental for a mere man, wasn't he! (and violent too, calling down fire etc!)

Just so silly for anyone to try and argue that a false teacher comes into the "neighbour" category when we are told to have nothing to do with them!! (I know we should have sorted out this AC problem when Spong et al were spouting their nonsense....but we did not, driven by a desire not to see the AC split and the knowledge that those liberal ideas would only empty churches, as they have)

Ford - by the way, I know you do not support SSBs

I just think it inconsistent that you are not willing to say that those who flagrantly reject the teaching of the church (not to say the bible!) are not fit to be vicars and bishops!

And you don't want anyone else to say it either.

This leads to chaos (as we have in the AC) where people can break the rules of the church but nobody can say their contradictory position is false teaching.

BRING ON THE COVENANT!

"And you don't want anyone else to say it either."

First of all, it is not for me, or you either, to decide whether or not someone is called by God to be a priest or a bishop. There is a process whereby the Church and the candidate work to discern vocation. Don't you think it a little arrogant of you to claim that you can say of someone you don't know and have never even spoken to, with whom you have not worked at discernment, that he or she has no vocation to the priesthood? You may be right, but who do you think you are that you can say this? Walk HUMBLY with your God, NP. Second of all, I will challenge anybody who says someone is unfit to be ordained because of sin X while someone else can be ordained without question despite sin Y. That's just hypocrisy. If all sin is equal, NP, then if one unrepentant sinner is barred from ordination, they all should be. This is clearly not the case, despite whatever fudges you accept, or whatever behaviour you turn a blind eye to or attempt to justify. You want honesty, well be honest enough to admit that those you consider leaders in this fight haven't exactly covered themselves in glory. Furthermore, while I do believe, because of their public standing and leadership role, clergy are called to a stricter standard, it is ridiculous to say clergy can't sin. Again, when clergy, appointed lay people, and the candidate have talked, prayed, meditated on and discussed the issue for months, how do you get to be so arrogant to deny the vocation this process has discerned, whether or not you are correct? What gives you the right to claim superior knowledge about someone you do not know over those more learned than you, who the Church has placed in the position to make that decision? This is not about justifying gay ordinands, NP.

Bring on the Covenant? But the Covenant won't bring on that.

"This leads to chaos (as we have in the AC) where people can break the rules of the church but nobody can say their contradictory position is false teaching."

Oh, horror! I know this is what it's about for you, NP. You have to have the right and wrong spelled out, you have to be able to point fingers at those you consider "false teachers". The question is why? Why is this so important? Seriously. If you use the word "institution" in relation to the Church, I am going to respond that the Church is not some human institution to be run by human rules. A human institution needs that kind of conformity. Why try to run the Church of God like a human organization? Isn't it something more than a mere human construct to be governed by the rules the World lives by? Aren't you just then doing what you accuse others of, applying the ways of the world to the Church as though the world gets to dictate how we behave?

Yes, Ford...walk humbly with God and do not ignore what he says is right and wrong! Don't just ignore him when His will does not suit.

Yes Ford, the church says what is right and wrong for vicars and bishops....VGR flagrantly disobeys certain parts of that but you have never said this matters with regard to him being a bishop.

Yes Ford, other types of hypocrisy matter too....if you or others have enough evidence to show that, for example, a GS bishops is breaking the law or his vows, please bring them up and encurage the Primates to take action.....we don't want hypocrisy. AS you can see, in the last three years, the Primates do respond when there are issues.

"repentant sinners" - that is the point, Ford!
The CofE and AC says vicars and bishops must stick to a certain standard of holiness.....how can you support some clergy just ignoring this and even encouraging others to do so too?

Repentant sinners....yes, they are fit to be leaders in the church. The unrepentant are not fit - not my rule as you know, Ford!

"you have never said this matters with regard to him being a bishop."

because it is not for me to decide that issue! As to:

"if you or others have enough evidence to show that, for example, a GS bishops is breaking the law or his vows"

We do. You ignore it or try to justify it with things that if they were put out as arguments against your position, you would dismiss as "fudge".

"how can you support some clergy just ignoring this and even encouraging others to do so too?"

How can you?

"The unrepentant are not fit - not my rule as you know, Ford!"

Not yours to judge, either. The Church can. You can't. You actually think you somehow have the right to judge other people's Christianity? Are you God to Whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid? Look to your own sins.

Ford - if you really have strong evidence, do not bring it to me, send it to your Archbishop, get it taken to the Primates....get action!

If ++Akinola really has supported violence against anyone (which he has NOT, to my knowledge) then he would be ostracized by the other Primates!

I am not accepting some despite their sins as you say......the point is that, unlike VGR, people like ++Akinola have not had clear AC statements addressing evidence as to why they should not be bishops....because the liberals who hate them have not been able to present evidence.

You see the difference with TEC and VGR, right?
The AC has a stated position. It does not make sense to have a bishop who just ignores that position and encourages others to do so. He is not the first and I think Spong et al were more serious problemns than himm and should have been opposed...but that does not mean that we have to continue the hypocrisy of pretending to be united with those who are quite openly out to subvert the teaching of the church.

"which he has NOT, to my knowledge"

But you can read. You post here every day. You know this statement is not true.

"Ford - if you really have strong evidence, do not bring it to me, send it to your Archbishop, get it taken to the Primates....get action!"

I am not nearly so self important, NP. You're not really all that much different from the extreme liberals you hate, fancying yourself some great warrior in the cause of righteousness. This childish stamping of your feet demanding everyone comply with the rules as you claim God has dictated them is really getting funny.

"I am not accepting some despite their sins as you say"

LOL!

"pretending to be united with those who are quite openly out to subvert the teaching of the church."

Why not, we've been united with you Evos for over a century, and in my eyes, many of you subvert the teaching of the Church, you in fact are doing it on another thread as we speak. So is Jensen in Sydney.

My Lord of Abuja has actively and enthusiastically supported legislation which would imprison people for expressing opinions with which he disagrees.

Strikes me as a form of violence.

"would imprison people for expressing opinions with which he disagrees. Strikes me as a form of violence."

Malcolm, I kind of get the feeling that for people like NP, all +Akinola is doing is helping God out. After all, if they can get the jump on punishing gays now, that's a whole pile of Nigerian gay people God won't have to worry about come the Judgement Day! They can just be rushed on ahead of the line and go straight to the goats.

OK, Malcolm and Ford.....if you are right about ++Akinola, why is the ABC not doing something about it? Surely he would not warmly greet the man and give in to his demands (eg Tanzania) if he thought him guilty of such bad behaviour as you see.

Ford....this thing about not being able to judge anyone in the church leadership etc etc.....is not right....see 1 Cor 5:12. WE are the church! We are to hold our leaders to account.

I thinnk ++Akinola is guilty of using hurtful language and I wish he would not do it. I think he supports some legislation which I, just like you, find unacceptable...but the problem you have is that the bible also can give very harsh punishments for certain sins....it is not possible to say he is going against scripture in supporting very tough laws from the Nigerian government (however much I do not like the laws in question myself)

I am not sure that there is enough to disqualify him as a bishop because he is not breaking his vows to uphold the teaching of the church. He is not saying "I steal so it is ok to steal" or "I lie so it is ok to lie". You will attack me for belittling the struggle some face with my analogy to lies and theft but I am afraid that until the AC is convinced that we are not talking about the commission of a sin like any other sin (no greater or less than theft for example), most of us cannot accept the exemptions and justifications needed to make us go along with TEC's unilateral decision re VGR. Most of us feel like a small group of people are trying to force us to accept a bishop who has not repented of a sin....and that just does not make sense.....sorry, it is our place to think about who is fit to lead us and unrepentant people are not (according to Anglican tradition and the word of God)

NP
" He is not saying "I steal so it is ok to steal" or "I lie so it is ok to lie". "

I'm still trying to believe that you're intelligent and/or that you're not malicious, but it's getting harder.

Please, humour me just for once and tell me who says that it's ok to sin.

Tell me where TEC says it's ok to sin (and I want a proper verifyable quote).
Tell me where VGR says it's ok to sin (and I want a proper verifyable quote).
Tell me where KJS says it's ok to sin (and I want a proper verifyable quote).
Tell me where anyone you talk to on TA says it's ok to sin (and for the last time - I want a proper verifyable quote).

We believe that same sex relationships are NOT sinful. That is not the same as saying we know they're sinful but we're going ahead anyway.
Prove to me that this is not what we're saying.

NP
"I thinnk ++Akinola is guilty of using hurtful language and I wish he would not do it. I think he supports some legislation which I, just like you, find unacceptable...but the problem you have is that the bible also can give very harsh punishments for certain sins....it is not possible to say he is going against scripture in supporting very tough laws from the Nigerian government"

I have just had the privilege of spending three days with Davis Mac-Iyalla who lives in exile because of the harsh views of his church. The agreed AC position is that homosexual orientation is not a sin - so how can you justify that Akinola's policies force a man into exile simply because for how we was born? Are you really drawing on the bible to support punitive views that are not against agreed Christian views??

The astonishing thing is that there is no bitterness in Davis, no anger, just sadness and a desperate will to help change the hearts and minds of his people and his church.

Comparing this to the harshness, hatred and unforgivingness that's coming from the Cons Evo camp I know who is truly following his Lord.

"such bad behaviour as you see."
Imprisoning the innocent? Reviling one's neighbours? Not bad behaviour?

"WE are the church!"
Yes, NP, WE are the Church. You are not, neither am I.

"it is not possible to say he is going against scripture in supporting very tough laws from the Nigerian government"
Yes it darned well is, NP.

"disqualify him as a bishop"
I'm not so arrogant. I assume the Spirit guided his election. Regardless, he does not often show Christian virtues. My argument has only ever been that it is bad to tolerate certain behaviours in yourself and those you support while condemning them in others. You can't condemn an argument as "fudge" when it is in favour of something you don't like, but claim that an equally contrived argument is "Scriptural" when it goes your way. I have never said you were wrong on the gay thing. I have tried to point out how your behaviour weakens your arguments. You have not listened and now you look childish and predictable. Now, let's hear you claim I just said adherence to Scripture was childish!

To be clear, the legislation which Akinola so strongly supported does not criminalize homosexuality. Homosexual acts are already criminal offences in Nigeria.

The proposed legislation went well beyond the pale, restricting any open or honest discussion of homosexuality. Under a legislative agenda to prevent the "promotion" of homosexuality, it would be illegal in Nigeria for any person to publicly express the belief that homosexuality was not inherently evil or that homosexuals should not be persecuted.

The target of this piece of neo-fascist tripe was not homosexuals per se, but those non-homosexuals who choose not to be silent in the face of state sanctioned (and unfortunately Church sanctioned) hate.

"Are you really drawing on the bible to support punitive views that are not against agreed Christian views??"

Sorry, that was of course meant to read: " support punitive views that ARE against agreed Christian views."

come on Ford....the Spirit is not schizophrenic so is certainly not guiding the church to have both Akinola and VGR as bishops....or maybe both are unfit.....either way, you certainly do have the right, the knowledge, the responsibility and the freedom to have an opinion, Sir!

NP,
I refer you back to the Isaiah passage I linked to several days ago. The Spirit can do what the Spirit will do, and having them both as bishops is not out of the question at all, in my mind. Stop trying to make God out to be an all powerful version of yourself! Yes I can have an opinion. I do. I'm just not so arrogant as to think that I have the right to force the rest of the Church to agree with me, nor to think I have the right to speak for everybody else. Furthermore, deal with the real issue: I'm not talking about gay people, I am talking about your bad behaviour. I have been very clear on this point, yet you consistently ignore it. This is pointless.

OK no further comments on this thread unless they relate specifically and directly to the original interview.