Friday, 10 August 2007

Sentamu interviewed on ABC radio

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s National Radio programme, The Religion Report carried this interview of the Archbishop of York, conducted by Stephen Crittenden.

There are audio links on the same page if you prefer to listen to it.

But do read it all, carefully.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 1:13pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

Very interesting

Its clear that he does not think that sexuality is a first-order issue, that he believes the discussion should continue, that he thinks ECUSA jumped the gun, and that he thinks that the Global South have not obeyed the Windsor Report either.

What this is very much not is any sort of endorsement of Akinolaism.

Posted by: Merseymike on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 2:44pm BST

What is right about what John Sentamu says regarding Lambeth 2008 is that if they don't turn up they are going. Interesting on what he says specifically about the gay and lesbian issue - that if there is continuing to listen about this then that listening prevents it being the "dominant theological factor for the whole of the communion". He has a point, that only when such listening is concluded does it become that (if it does - and I doubt for him it would, given what he says everyone agrees upon).

People who say the Archbishop of Canterbury distances himself from the Archbishop of York's comments (and vice versa): clearly by this interview there is not a scrap of substantive difference between them. Notice that there is no reference to the 30 September deadline in what he said, as indeed such is implied in what Rowan Williams says.

"the Primates Meeting in Tanzania set out a fairly clear way ahead in its communiqué, as well as the whole question of the covenant. Now if we're going to continue to talk about the covenant at Lambeth Conference, and some people absent themselves from this, what is it that actually they think they're going to be achieving?"

In other words, one leads to the other, and not a decisive date in between. It is up to Akinola again, and his group, leading those troops to the top of the hill, whether they will be marched down yet again in order to attend at Lambeth 2008.

Posted by: Pluralist on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 2:57pm BST

Sentamu does not decide the future of the AC - you guys know that, right?+I hope Akinola et al come to Lambeth....even if the ABC refuses to resolve anything before then, faithful Anglicans from around the world should all be at Lambeth to vote and keep the AC faithful to its scriptures and traditions.

If anything, we will get stronger AC positions than 1.10.....bring it on!

But watch the ABC - he will do whatevr is needed to keep the GS in the AC because they did not cause the current chaos in the AC...they are responding to very aggressive actions from TEC in 2003, actions which Rowan Williams begged them not to take..........following Jeff John, TWR and Tanzania....you're not likely to see the ABC suddenly change tack and sacrifice the AC for VGR....there is no evidence to support the view that he will give in to TEC's demands....look at his actions over the last few years - actions speak louder than words and his actions say that he believes in church order and striving for unity (unlike TEC in 2003 and since)

Posted by: NP on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 4:00pm BST

The Lambeth Conference is a meeting to which Anglican bishops are invited. If they choose not to go, they don't thereby cease to be Anglican bishops!

Posted by: John Richardson on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 4:09pm BST

"TEC's demands"

Those being? Much has been demanded of TEC - but what "demands" has TEC attempted to impose on anyone? Nobody has demanded or asked any other province to ordain copled gays or pronounce marital blessings on gay couples.

Posted by: Cynthia on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 4:42pm BST

I find it refreshing that he acknowledges the bad behaviour of both sides. None of the petulant squealing of "Mean old TEC didn't listen to us and walked over all the rest of us and we'll get them, we will!!!" Of course, this means nothing to those who behave like that, mature self-examination not being all that evident in their behaviour. Besides, they can't politically afford now to come out and admit that they have been just as quick to act, and more provocative in their words and actions, than TEC has ever been, even if they were mature enough to see the need. It'll certainly be an interesting Lambeth, if nothing else. Perhaps I'll pop over to Blighty and picnic on the grass to watch all the antics.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 5:12pm BST

NP, I thought the archbishops of York and Canterbury jointly decide who is in communion with the CofE. If there's a mechanism for kicking someone out, that would be it.

Posted by: ruidh on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 5:45pm BST

"Sentamu does not decide the future of the AC - you guys know that, right?" NP

Neither does the archbishop of Nigeria, thank you.

Posted by: Davis d'Ambly on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 6:13pm BST

I have heard rumors and some talk of ECUSA bishops (my own included) of boycotting Lambeth.

This must not happen, and I hope that my fellow bloggers of the USA will encourage their bishops to do what ++Sentamu exhorts.

Ultimately, whether some like it or not, this will be solved by consensus. This has brought about reminding me how the Philadelphia Eleven, through their "irregular and illegal" ordinations, finally prodded the Church into a greater sense of God's creation. Despite the ecclesiastical trials and outright silly whining, I think that few of us can really comprehend going backwards.

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 7:33pm BST

John Richardson:

Perhaps not; but if significant blocks stay away (from either pole or from both) the Lambeth Conference is not what it has been. And as an "Instrument of Unity" for the Communion, changes in it reflect and/or predict changes in the Communion. In that case, arguably none of us is "Anglican" in the same way that we have been.

Posted by: Marshall Scott on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 8:04pm BST

Re "TEC jumped the gun"

If ++York means the election, consent, and consecration of +GR, it's difficult to imagine otherwise.

Interesting to compare to South Carolina: that diocese operated *improperly* (vis-a-vis the consent process), and now has come right back to elect Mark Lawrence again. If New Hampshire (which did act properly) had been turned down at GC '03, does anyone think it likely that they would not have done the same as South Carolina just has (that is, re-elect THEIR choice, Gene Robinson)? Where does this end?

...unless by *accepting* provincial autonomy, of the different AC churches (i.e., what's "jumping the gun" for some is RIGHT ON TIME for others!)

Posted by: JCF on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 8:41pm BST

"I have heard rumors and some talk of ECUSA bishops (my own included) of boycotting Lambeth."

I hope none do. I hope all who attend feel moved to wear small pink triangle pins on their finery.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 8:52pm BST

bring it on...bring it on...bring it on...so she nags! However, the analysis is wrong, as already the Akinolite and Evo capital is spent re ++RW and there is only so far down the line of trying to indulge you anti-gay guys and gals that anybody can tolerate.

Posted by: Neil on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 9:54pm BST

I found the character description of Amin interesting (reminds me of my friend's phrase 'the smiling assassin'). I also loved this imagery 'The higher the baboon climbs the tree, the more it reveals its rather less attractive parts.'

The other thing that pleased me is that when he looked at the problems of overcoming racism, he also mentioned other historical mistreatments e.g. of women.

When people want to cry "victim", it doesn't hurt to look who else has been victimised. Those who have taken on extreme repression can tell you that GLBTs have always been an early target for brutality.

A wall is breached at its weakest point. If GLBTs are excluded from communion and human dignity, that is the breach point to where other souls get swept into brutality e.g. those who would advocate or shelter GLBTs from smiling assassins.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 10:54pm BST

Cheryl
"A wall is breached at its weakest point. If GLBTs are excluded from communion and human dignity, that is the breach point to where other souls get swept into brutality e.g. those who would advocate or shelter GLBTs from smiling assassins."

That's an interesting point. Does it mean that the cause is only incidental? That if conflict in that area is removed, the battle will simply move on to the next bounday issue?

Posted by: Erika Baker on Friday, 10 August 2007 at 11:12pm BST

"....faithful Anglicans from around the world should all be at Lambeth to vote and keep the AC faithful to its scriptures and traditions. If anything, we will get stronger AC positions than 1.10.....bring it on!" - NP on Lambeth

"..... it is not a parliament; it is not a legislative body, it doesn't have any constitutional power, it does not have power to take decision for anybody ..... the meeting is consultative and advisory." - Archbishop Akinola on Lambeth

Wishful thinking time again? Remember who popularized the expression "bring it on"? Reminder, if needed - it was a certain American president crowing over his administration's successes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Saturday, 11 August 2007 at 2:31am BST

JCF,

The election of Robinson was proper in a legal sense - the issue is his qualification as a bishop while living in a SSR. I suspect you know that.

Lord, grant wisdom!

Posted by: Chris on Saturday, 11 August 2007 at 4:38am BST

The simple act of staying away from Lambeth is, in and of itself, of no relevance. I understand that many bishops of the Communion - including the then Archbishop of York - gave the first Lambeth a pass.

However, holding an alternate Lambeth would, I think, be a little bit different.

And, NP, His Grace of York (unlike His Grace of Abuja) is not claiming to decide who is in and who is out. He is merely noting that people will make their own choices - and that choices have consequences.

Just remember, NP. When you decamp from the Church of England to the English Province of the Akinolist Communion, you probably won't be allowed to take your church building with you.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Saturday, 11 August 2007 at 8:03am BST

Erika

You raise a good question. If the answer is only quantitative, then yes, the conflict will move on to the next boundary issue. If the answer is qualitative, then the whole wall is embued with the precedent that protects the first potentital breach.

That is why Jesus exhorts us to not only love those who would flatter or help us, but also those that are "our enemies". e.g Matthew 5:43-48,

My limited recollection seems to recall a recent Schori article where she quoted as stating that the people who would repress are a very small minority. She seems to appreciate that such souls rely on an offensive posturing to appear bigger and more fierceful than they really are.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Saturday, 11 August 2007 at 1:04pm BST

"the issue is [Gene Robinson's] qualification as a bishop while living in a SSR. I suspect you know that."


What I know, was that +GR was HONEST enough that, in the NH diocesan election info documents, to list "Spouse: Mark Andrew".

I don't see honesty as an issue, Chris---but I suspect you know that. ;-/

"Lord, grant wisdom!"

Amen!

Posted by: JCF on Saturday, 11 August 2007 at 8:22pm BST

All those realignment Anglican believers who so often seem to make comments, relying on the implicit idea that more policing and punishment of people in committed same sex relationships will be key to all of us being properly saved, might take note that the Lutherans/ELCA has just voted in annual assembly to the opposite. ELCA urges that such alternative thinking believers/pastors be extended the good benefit of a faith-inspired doubt.

See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070811/us_nm/religion_lutherans_dc

Anticipate that this assembly vote will be quickly spun into some sort of Anything Goes doomsday preachment. Alas, Lord have mercy.

Believers are clearly not of a single conservative view - let alone does any significant portion of educated believers still hold to a completely unaltered legacy view, not even about how central the sexuality hot button domains might be. How shallow to allow our capacities for condemnation of others' sex lives to be the ultimate test/standard/witness of our merit in following Jesus of Nazareth.

Posted by: drdanfee on Saturday, 11 August 2007 at 10:55pm BST

Well according to the Church of England Newspaper, the Diocese of Sydney is holding back its replies regarding turning up at Lambeth 2008 according to what happens at the end of September 2007.

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=1988

Meanwhile, the rhetoric against the Archbishop of Canterbury increases.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6482

All this, it seems to me, is evidence of positions already set out, as well as an attempt to lean on Rowan Williams. They ar elike greyhounds in the traps, ready to run, except they've been turned around to run the other way.

Posted by: Pluralist on Sunday, 12 August 2007 at 3:13pm BST

Pluralist, Unfortunately, like the greyhounds in the stalls, if they could get their teeth on the rabbit, they would maul it. They forgot that God is protective the orphan, the afflicted, the outcaste; and even the beasts of the air, sea and skies.

Ezekiel 12:13 "I will spread my net for him, and he will be caught in my snare; I will bring him to Babylonia..."

Amos 3:3-7 "Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so? Does a lion roar in the thicket when he has no prey? Does he growl in his den when he has caught nothing? Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground where no snare has been set? Does a trap spring up from the earth when there is nothing to catch? When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets."

Hosea 9:7-8 "The days of punishment are coming, the days of reckoning are at hand. Let Israel know this. 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."

2 Peter 2:10-13 "This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done."

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Sunday, 12 August 2007 at 11:04pm BST

drdanfee said,
"Believers are clearly not of a single conservative view - let alone does any significant portion of educated believers still hold to a completely unaltered legacy view, not even about how central the sexuality hot button domains might be."

What you do you mean by "significant portion" and how do you propose to test this theory? By what measure do you claim a believer become "educated" and in what discipline are they trained? My favorite is "completely unaltered legacy view" Where do you draw the baseline? c100 AD? Mid 12th C? 1622? 1953?

Instead of making baseless assertions about the teeming masses who support your ideas, please produce a single credible theological case that makes the case for the Scripture not only tolerating but blessing homosexuality. We can play Goran's little games about how many ways to translate the Greek all we want - the best that does is get you to a neutral position on homosexuality vis-a-vis Scripture. If you want the church to give a blessing to homosexual relationships and want to make active homosexuality compatible with Christian leadership you have to go a lot further than neutrality.

Oddly enough, those cases have been made for the issues of slavery and social justice. A strong case has been presented for womans' ordination that already has acceptance in many parts of the catholic church and is continues to gain acceptance.

Why hasn't the case been made here?

Posted by: Chris on Monday, 13 August 2007 at 2:29am BST

Lapin, Malcolm....you accuse me of being in denial etc....but this liberal ABC gave us TWR and the Tanzania Communique.........what is your optimism based on that he is now going to let the AC split in order to please a small minority which obviously cares little for the untity of the AC (unlike the ABC, if you look at his actions!)???

Posted by: NP on Monday, 13 August 2007 at 7:16am BST

Unity at what cost? Long sleeves and sunglasses so that parishioners can pretend we aren't hiding bruises from the violence of our husbands? Women who do not cry in public because that proves we are evil, and that males do not care how we are talked about. Christian domination, and abuse from our husbands, as the alternative is abuse by "other" men. The irony being that our own males don't care how much we are insulted or vilified, as long as they don't personally suffer sexual misconduct. Some males hate homosexuality, simply because it makes them potential victims to what females have been suffering for centuries.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Monday, 13 August 2007 at 8:42am BST

Chris ; your mistake is to assume that Scripture cannot be both 1) wrong, and 2) historically and culturally bound - essentially expressing the mores of the men who wrote it.

Conservatives need to get real and recognise the problems are caused byu the inflated authority they give to this human production.

Posted by: Merseymike on Monday, 13 August 2007 at 12:04pm BST

NP, at Dar es Salaam "this liberal ABC" certified TEC as being Windsor compliant. To say that he gave "us" (to paraphrase the old Lone Ranger joke, "who's 'us', Evo?") the Tanzania communiqué, is simply an additional indication of the depth of aforementioned denial.

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Monday, 13 August 2007 at 1:31pm BST

Here's a class for you to attend Cheryl, in case you don't know your place in Christianity. I'm sure they provide an apron to hide those black and blue marks.

This is what "Christianity" is becoming in the states.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KY_RELIGION_TODAY_KYOL-?SITE=KYLOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Monday, 13 August 2007 at 2:12pm BST

"This is what "Christianity" is becoming in the states."

It never ceases to amaze me that women go along with this!

Posted by: Erika Baker on Monday, 13 August 2007 at 3:17pm BST

Lapin.....you're so busy trying to score points that you forget the report you mention was not accepted by the Primates....and anyway, remember what the Tanzania Communique said....it gave a deadline for an unequivocal response from .....TEC (nobody else, you know that, right??)

Plus, remember the ABC has reserved the right to withdraw invitations to Lambeth 08 (you can pretend he does not have TEC bishops in mind...but everyone else knows he does)

Come on rabbit.....facts is facts

Posted by: NP on Monday, 13 August 2007 at 4:31pm BST

Erika,
Some women go along with it because they would lose power by opposing. Women have been socialized into a disempowered position, but this has meant that women's power is exerted in other, more subtle and unhealthy ways. In many parishes, the traditional power structure has been visibly in the hands of men, but women have exerted real, and in some cases the greater, power, just subtly. I come from such a "closet matriarchy". In some places relatively recently there had to be ten men for a quorum to hold a congregational meeting. Yet, it was the women who discussed the issues, who decided on the course of action, some of the men wouldn't even vote, then the women told the men what to do. Yet, if there hadn't been ten men, there wouldn't have been a meeting! In such cases, the introduction of a woman priest, for instance, upsets the applecart and we find the women being more vocal than the men in their opposition. Part of the problem is that we define power, and even violence, in male terms. Thus, if power is a male thing, we can't recognize it women, because it doesn't "look male", so to speak. So some of the women will go along with this kind of thing because, somehow, it is part of their position of power within the structure.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 13 August 2007 at 4:37pm BST

NP accusing ME of "scoring points"? Whatever next? I'm sorry, NP, but I cannot live in a fantasy world. I was born with a brain, and would far sooner go through life using it critically, than clinging endlessly to "certainties" that serve shore up my prejudices and insecurities.

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Monday, 13 August 2007 at 5:42pm BST

So far, +Cantuar has apparently chosen to invite all but the most polarizing figures on each side.

People will now choose whether or not to accept the invitation - with Sydney playing silly-bugger asking for an extension.

+Ebor has now affirmed that those who chose to reject the invitation will find their choice fraught with consequence.

That, my friend, is the source of my optimism.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Monday, 13 August 2007 at 6:45pm BST

Choirboy.

Unfortunately for some it is not becoming, but rather having the veils lifted on what has been there for decades or even centuries.

Ford

Praise be to the secular state. For example, when I was a young girl, a woman who left her husband in Australia was more likely to have herself and her children killed than if she remained with her violent husband. I still remember a hunting knife been thrown at my mother when I was ten, there was a gouge in the hall plaster for many years to remind us of the violence that was always waiting to rear up and attack. Our "dad" did shift work, and our lives were spent planning which weekends we were most likely to be violated, when and how; and how to avoid it or recognising that if you allowed lesser violence your mother and sister might be spared greater violence that weekend.

That is what the CoE minister told me that I must "want". That is what the churches are in uproar about being made accountable for teachings that aggressive males use to justify enslaving and abusing women and children behind closed doors. It's been despicable to see that it is not just within families, but also in church services.

They scream about litigation and the secular state, but the righteousness to reform the Sodomite callousness came from the secular and was imposed upon the churches. It was the righteousness of the secular that gave witness to there being a hope of humanity, the priests benefit from God's grace, but this generation did not inspire it. Most are worthless shepherds.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Monday, 13 August 2007 at 10:33pm BST

Lapin - I note you do not address my point....the ABCs actions in Tanzania (and with J John,TWR and now the covenant) encourage me....what is the basis of your optimism?

Malcolm....have you seen the Telegraph report which says only a couple of hundred (out of 880) Anglican bishops have responded to the ABC by his July 31st deadline?

The ABC is not getting the response he would like from his brother bishops.....if you look at his past behaviour when he realises the strength of feeling in the AC, I think you will see him ensure that Lambeth 08 is not a flop and there is no GS-led "Alternative Lambeth" meeting after TEC's September responses......his actions in the last few years show that he is not willing to let the AC split for the sake of the current TEC leadership (who directly ignored his pleas and those of all the Primates as well as Lambeth 1.10 when they "tore the fabric of the communion". You will see the ABC do what is best for the unity of the AC....he is not prisoner to a minority with a dominating agenda but has a bigger role to fulfil in the AC.

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 14 August 2007 at 9:13am BST

There seems to be a new version of predestination Calvinism: what NP thinks the Archbishop of Canterbury will do. I mean I read something different according to what he has written, but I don't know what he will do.

Posted by: Pluralist on Tuesday, 14 August 2007 at 2:27pm BST

Pluralist....so funny...you and others here just hate to admit what the ABC has done in the last few years....I know it is because he has not been dancing to the pressure group's tunes but he has done what he has done and (while he is slow), I agree with his big decisions to date

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 14 August 2007 at 5:33pm BST

Chris wrote some time earlier "please produce a single credible theological case that makes the case for the Scripture not only tolerating but blessing homosexuality." Actually some very good cases have been put forward about tolerating homosexuality (the precedents with eunuchs work), but the homophobes refuse to acknowledge the theology. The same as they would refuse to recognise Jesus incarnate if he advocated tolerance to homosexuals, and any miracles or divine affirmations would simply be deemed as proof that Jesus is "the evil one".


It doesn't matter who is in with ABC. What matters is that some kind of viable communion is formed that theologically refuses to condemn souls for being as they are born.

It matters that a communion is formed that repents of placing emotional and psychological burdens upon its parishioners on the Sabbath. It matters that a communion is formed that detests abuse of children or the vulnerable, and is prepared to denounce and dismiss priests and leaders who either do so or aid and abet others. It matters that a communion is formed that denounces slander and accusations and despises tyranny and enslavement.

Don't care how the communion pans out or who is in with the cruel and complacent.

God is looking for quality. Quantity is immaterial. God can play numbers games later, what matters is getting that initial kernel in order.

Once we have a solid kernel, the seeds can spread. The other communions, denominations, faiths and philosophies will swing around; because it just makes good sense. This is not a two week or two year battle. It is a battle for humanity and this biosphere's future and will be played out over centuries (unless evil manages to extinguish life on this planet earlier).

There will be more prophets and matriarchs and patriarchs; but they will not be found with the cruel accussers nor their complacent priests.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Tuesday, 14 August 2007 at 10:52pm BST

NP writes: "Lapin - I note you do not address my point....the ABCs actions in Tanzania (and with J John,TWR and now the covenant) encourage me....what is the basis of your optimism?"

I love the way that NP focuses upon events in the past, and ignores events which have subsequently happened.

If NP would focus upon what Archbishop Sentamu has said, and then combine that with what the Primates of Ireland, Scotland, Mexico, and Brasil very recently said, and combine that with the known views of most of Australia as well as New Zealand as well as the Primate of South Africa, then he/she should realize that the ABC has a lot more to be concerned about than NP's own focus upon the demands of some "Global South" primates.

Sorry, NP, but it is not even close to what you want to imagine as the true dynamic of the historical Anglican Communion. Archbishop Williams has to be concerned about the other major provinces of Europe, as well as North America, most of Latin America, most of Australasia, and even -- at least -- one major province in Africa.

This is far beyond what you and others like to pretend is only about sexual issues, which, as the ABY wisely notes are not core issues.

This is about changing the entire focus of the historical Anglican Communion, with its broad tent welcome for all within the true core elements.

Unfortunately, for all of us, I believe that we are going to end up with an Abuja Communion, and an Anglican Communion, since those strongly allied with the Primate of Nigeria really want to create a Calvinist communion, and seem unwilling to continue the historical approach of Anglicanism.

That exclusionary approach is being rejected by more and more primates, so the ABC finds himself in the uncomfortable position of ultimately having to choose between the historical communion, and a new exclusionary communion.

NP apparently believes that the ABC will cave into the new Calvinists, while I believe that he will reaffirm the broad tent of Anglicanism, which has served us well for hundreds of years.

We will all know in good time.

Posted by: Jerry Hannon on Wednesday, 15 August 2007 at 2:26am BST

I think what NP fails to appreciate is that his solution will also produce disunity. RW is trying to keep all sides on board - but if the GS insist on the 'Road to Lambeth' as the future, where gay people who aren't self-repressors will be thrown out of church, then I think they are living on another planet.

It appears to me that there is little room for compromise with their hardcore and that they may well go their separate ways - taking NP and his mates with them, no doubt!

Posted by: Merseymike on Wednesday, 15 August 2007 at 10:14am BST

Merseymike...now banging the drum for unity?? THought you wanted a split...or was that last week Anyway, pls do bang the UNITY drum because that is exactly what gave us TWR and Tanzania.....the ABC has shown, by his actions, that he cares for AC unity and this does not mean letting a tiny minority hijack the agenda and split the AC.

Jerry...yes, I will focus on the ACTIONS of the ABC and the PRIMATES....you can focus on statements from minor players if you want.........following, Tanzania, you know TEC has some deadlines coming up...and depending on those responses, we will see more ACTIONS in the next year from the ABC and the Primates.....actions consistent with their TWR and Tanzania Communique, I am sure.

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 15 August 2007 at 10:25am BST

David was the runt eigth son of Jesse. Size doesn't matter. Goliath was a huge giant, but a well shot stone was enough to bring him down. Stones that are stumbling blocks do not have to remain dormant on the ground. Sometimes God can choose to move them.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Wednesday, 15 August 2007 at 1:59pm BST

I agree with his big decisions to date. NP

Like inviting bishops who consecrated Gene Robinson, like inviting the rest of TEC, like excluding AMiA and CANA bishops. Like what he said to the Tme reporters. You agree with his big decisions to date. Or are these are little decisions, to hit the reverse gear for a big decision? Because he is told some will walk, he would rather push others. Crystal ball again.

Posted by: Pluralist on Wednesday, 15 August 2007 at 9:25pm BST

Pluralist....I am not too upset about CANA and AMIA bishops not being invited (Carey did not invite similar bishops)

As for invitations to TEC bishops....I am quite happy that the ABC has invited them on the basis that he can withdraw the invitation and much depends on how TEC responds in Sept.....quite happy for them to come if they repent.

You still trying to pretend TWR and Tanzania did not happen???

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 16 August 2007 at 8:53am BST

Seems to me you're trying to pretend that the Windsor Report is something else than a report, and that the machinations at the hotel by the Indian Ocean outside Dar have the support of the ABC, NP.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Thursday, 16 August 2007 at 12:17pm BST

The Windsor Report found that TEC achieved two our of three of its requirements, and neutral on the third; the Communique from Tanzania involved two headquarters, some rather nasty dialogue, and an outcome that imposed a deadline that seems not quite to be the deadline some envisaged because of the further importance of Lambeth 2008 for discussions that cannot result in all-communion rules (and indeed there are none now). I retain my point, that to do what you say, NP, requires the reverse gear and an explanation that would not stand up.

I further point to the position taking of some to walk that seems to be more than posturing in order to apply pressure, even if it is also designed to do this, and that the rhetoric against the Archbisop of Canterbury from this quarters is one where they seem to have given up on him already.

Plus, we are all making the mistake that the Archbishop is going to act, whereas he says he is no Pope, and there is no mechanism of excluding at the moment - when not inviting all of a sudden would take away chances to find ways ahead. Yet the people who can act have stated a grat intention to act, such as by having their own meetings in order to plan a quite different future. No one can stop them doing this, and it comes with not a few advantages (even of the Archbishop of Canterbury might regret any splinter).

Posted by: Pluralist on Thursday, 16 August 2007 at 12:18pm BST

I am laughing out loud, Goran.....so, now, without any evidence, you want to claim the ABC does not support his own Communique......

Evidence, Goran....show me where he has distanced himself from it?

I point you to his explicit threat to withdraw Lambeth invitations....which very much looks like he is still looking for a proper response to the Tanzania Communique......not the actions of someone who has rejected it.

"Let your yes be yes and your no be no" - heard of this, Goran??

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 16 August 2007 at 12:28pm BST

"You still trying to pretend TWR and Tanzania did not happen???"

You know, NP, for someone who claims such faith in Scripture, you put an awful lot of faith in politics. Do you honestly believe the Scriptures are to be understood through some sort of political process?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 16 August 2007 at 12:59pm BST

It still comes down to your wanting an AC which consists only of conservatives, NP.

That cannot happen whilst unity is retained.

Undoubtedly there has to be some sort of split, because conservatives cannot handle the continuation and progress made by liberals and progressives.

Unlike many, I welcome a split, because conservative theology is something which I stronlgy disagree with.

Posted by: Merseymike on Thursday, 16 August 2007 at 2:40pm BST

Hello Ford...I think the politics and the law suits are sickening and sad.....but I am pleased the CofE has issued reports and communiques to support my view that we are on course to stay faithful to 2000 years of understanding of scripture and tradition....I don't like the assertion from people like Goran that we have deviated when we have not....yet

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 16 August 2007 at 5:33pm BST

Let's face it, NP has tried over and over and over again to treat his legendary troika of reports and statements of the past few years as equivalent to theological pronouncements from the historical Councils of the Church Universal.

It seems very much like George W. Bush trying to pretend that his Executive Orders are the equivalent of Amendments to the US Constitution.

Both NP and GWB can pretend, but such pretensions do not change reality.

For NP, his favored politically-influenced pronouncements are not core Anglican (much less Christian) doctrine, just as for GWB his attempts to redefine the three branches of US Government are not irreversible legal precedents (much less legal in and of themselves).

But we can count on NP continuing to try to make everyone believe that he has uncovered the new Council of Nicaea.

I, for one, am looking forward to the ABC's actions, or even his decisions not to act, during the next few years, as well as during the next few months. I very much doubt that he wants to reject the clear beliefs of Ireland, and Scotland, and Wales, as well as most of the Church of England, as well as non-British Isles Anglican Communion provinces, on this attempted putsch by Abuja and its allies.

The historical broad tent of the Anglican Communion will continue, even if the ultraorthodox refuse to continue as part of it.

Ireland will not impose its non-core beliefs on Canada, nor will the US impose its on Scotland, nor will South Africa impose its on England, and so on through the historical Anglican Communion.

Life will go on, and the Christian mission and message will progress, even if through a numerically smaller communion.

Posted by: Jerry Hannon on Thursday, 16 August 2007 at 6:22pm BST

I don't mind being in a smaller communion, especially if it is founded on a fundamental premise that accusations, violence and tyranny are the antithesis of Jesus and biblical principles.

I am looking forward to a communion that understands that imposing burdens, especially on the Sabbath is ungodly, that all of Creation needs to be treated with respect, and that the pulpit is not meant to be used as a forum for intimidation and recriminations.

We are where we are, it's time to get on with the journey. Those who want to whine and complain can stay around their campfire in the desert. Those who are interested in sufficiency and sustainability can go looking for the holy highways that repel all ferocious beasts.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Thursday, 16 August 2007 at 10:13pm BST

Jerry says "For NP, his favored politically-influenced pronouncements are not core Anglican (much less Christian) doctrine"

OK....EVIDENCE please?

I think you will find that TWR supports Lambeth 1.10.....and that Lambeth 1.10 is consistent with the vast majority of the last 2000 years of all Christian teaching and tradition.........you assert it is not "core" Christian doctrine.....but offer no proof.

And the pronouncements you write off (with no evidence) are not mine...they are from the liberal ABC and ALL the Primates of the AC...... your assertions look a bit week, Jerry!

Posted by: NP on Friday, 17 August 2007 at 9:09am BST

NP,
Your smug self-righteousness is a very poor advertisement for the Gospel, no matter how full your church is. The self-delusion that makes it impossible for you to recognize the very nasty politicing that went into things like your Holy Trinity of Lambeth, Dromantine, and Tanzania is on times frustrating and laughable. Yes, we know, the Church has hated, oppressed, and murdered gay people for 2000 years. The question is not whether that is 2000 years of Chruch tradition, but whether God wants us to keep that tradition. Of course, you think it's more important to get the evil "saint worshippers" to stop their 'vile enormities' (and I hope you get that reference) than it is to repent of killing thousands of God's children, much less to try to stop someone who wants to keep doing so, and use the Scriptures to justify it.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 17 August 2007 at 1:24pm BST

"it is not "core" Christian doctrine.....but offer no proof."

Again, read the St. Michael report.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 17 August 2007 at 3:53pm BST

Well, NP, let's start with a few excerpts from the recent interview of the Archbishop of York, which began this thread:

"Now what I don't think should happen now [is] that the whole question of gay and lesbian people -- when we said we should listen to their experiences -- should now become the kind of dominant theological factor for the whole of the communion. Because really the communion, at the heart of it, has got to do a number of things. While on one hand upholding Christian teaching, [it] must also be very loving and kind towards gay and lesbian people because that's part of the resolution. And it must also continue to listen. And I'm not so sure, when some people speak as if the debate has been concluded, or we cannot engage with this, you're being very faithful to the resolution."

Posted by: Jerry Hannon on Friday, 17 August 2007 at 5:07pm BST

And let's continue, NP, with an excerpt from the 22nd July sermon by the Primate of Ireland:

"...recognizing in each other the faithfulness to Christ that is the cornerstone of our common life and cooperation, a spirit of arrogance on both sides is causing people of genuine faith and undoubted love for the Lord Jesus to bypass the requirement for patience and for making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

I have yet to meet any “leader” who does not treat with the utmost respect and indeed reverence the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. I have heard no one in this crisis deny the fundamental tenets of the faith as Anglicans have received them. Yet I have heard believing Christians attack other Christians for not believing precisely as they themselves believe. Equally, I have heard believing Christians attack other Christians for not attaching the weight they themselves attach to this biblical text compared with that.

This is not the way of Christ; it is the way of fallen humanity."

And to define the circle for this concept, NP, I think we may safely presume that the Primate of Ireland has met, and listened to, the Primate of the United States and the Primate of Canada, among others, and even has met and listened to their predecessors, as well as many of their brother and sister bishops.

It sure doesn't sound like a core belief disagreement, does it?

Posted by: Jerry Hannon on Friday, 17 August 2007 at 5:07pm BST

Ford...are we dealing with saints in the groups who have infiltrated the AC, making vows but breaking them, turning church order upside down???

Forget about me and your bad experiences with evos growing up.....why has most of the AC reacted so badly to TEC's actions?

I know you do not approve of them ....but you will give no credit to those who have been toelrant in the AC for decades but now find themselves pushed too far by TEC

Posted by: NP on Monday, 20 August 2007 at 10:55am BST

"are we dealing with saints"

I never said we were. I was referring to your previous scorn for catholic teaching on the Communion of Saints. WRT to "infiltrate", How does a devoted cradle Anglican "infiltrate" the Anglican Church? Anyone who isn't a legalistic Consevo like you must be an infiltrator from outside?

"why has most of the AC reacted so badly to TEC's actions?"

It's a number of primates and other bishops who have reacted badly. As to what the majority of their flocks think, I have no idea. Let's say most of them are in agreement with their hierarchs. How much of that is as a result of the misinformation about gay people, slander, reviling of TEC, false witness of what their "opponents" believe, and other such propaganda has led them astray and, like you, fanned the flames of their anger and self-righteousness? Given some of the things Consevos have said about gay people on this site, I have no doubt that disinformation about gay people is the order of the day in many places.

As to those who have "tolerated" for long, what precisely HAVE you tolerated? Not the gay thing, now, but what, say, were you tolerant of in the 70s or 80s?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 20 August 2007 at 7:04pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.