If only it were true that he could be manipulated by them. As soon as he was appointed, Williams gave assurances to anti-gay and anti-women priests that he would stand by them, giving the impression that he would take the shape of anyone who sat on him. It now seems that he has been fixed in that shape, and no attempt to change him by the American bishops will have any effect. It seems to me to be likely that if the Holy Spirit had been active in his appointment, then it was to install a liberal at Lambeth. He has sadly failed to live up to this calling.

"The meeting will be used to “manipulate” Dr Williams, the Bishop of Fort Worth, the Rt Rev Jack Iker said on July 31" +Iker, Fr. Worth

I find Iker to be amazingly forgettful...he doesn't even attend HOB meetings generally so how can he project "manipulate" or anything else?

If any religious political faction is "manipulative" it's clear-as-a-bell with George Congers/Jack Iker's smudged up reporting/projecting of other Christian peoples intentions...perhaps George Conger and Jack Iker can tell us with their "magic tricks" what the Holy Spirit has in mind as a "message" for the upcoming HOB meeting in New Orleans with the Archbishop of Canterbury...love to get the inside "skinny"...but, I'm afraid to ask them as they might think they know and tell me!

Such attempts to condemn ABC if he is kind to TEC are fear mongering. The benefit is that souls know that if they are kind to TEC some elements are going to be "their enemies".

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6517
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6522

I know I shouldn't read these things, but the misrepresentation and vitriol being directed at TEC is staggering. The first article is outraged that TEC has resources and is prepared to use them. Where is that same vehemence when their side sponsors other dioceses and even nations? (South Africa 1987 comes to mind)

The second article refers to social experimentation and suggests there are no boundaries. For the record, I at least am advocating the social experiment of life long monogamous relationships, where both parties freely consent to form the bond and interact with each other. Where both parties seek to create a safe nurturing home in which they are neither abused nor abusive. A home in which they understand that as humans we all make mistakes, so we need to have forgiveness, tolerance and a good sense of humour to get through the rough patches and be able to savor the good times.

There are those who demand that we cling to 2000 years of precedent that includes berating females, allowing males to act like spoilt bullies, only caring about our own and only if it suits our whims at the time. Being prepared to conduct acts of aggression or greed to destroy or desecrate others.

Basically, if such strategies were going to bring about the Messianic era of peace and an end to tyranny, they've had over 2000 years to do so.

Has it occurred to these souls that maybe the reason we haven't experienced the Messianic era of peace, beauty and abundance is that we have been manifesting our worst characteristics and pursuing selfish idolatrous outcomes. Perhaps peace is possible if we choose to pursue peace, abundance if we choose sustainability, beauty if we build rather than destroy, reverence if we forgive rather than accuse.

Will this experiment mean that no GLBT is abused by the GLBT partner? No. But the current experiment has not stopped them being abused either, nor has it made it safe for heterosexual males or females either (violence does not have to be physical). It's time to end metaphysical abuse, including insulting women, inciting hatred of our neighbours and scapegoating the marginalised.

The meeting between Rev. Canon Gregory Cameron and the Windsor bishops was held in radio silence, so nothing can be inferred from that, and the Church of England Newspaper Williams ’set to be manipulated’ by George Conger contains little other than Bishop Iker muddying the waters early and Bishop Keith Ackerman supposing how the meeting will go. They are using, from their point of view, pessimism and cries of manipulation to try and sway things in their favour ahead of time. Presumably the reality is around Rev. Canon Gregory Cameron's presentation and listening to the Windsor bishops. Consisency with what has been published hardly constitutes information. So everyone waits - and should.

Lordy, the arrogance. Why did we ever consent to Iker's election as bishop?

It seems wise to wait and let discernment and manuevering unfold, with the inevitable shifts and surprises of a varied range of contexts over which nobody, absolutely nobody, has all that much say.

Still. Hard to resist reading between the lines, when two spin doctors like Conger and Iker are trotted out in such a national media venue. One possible is that Conger/Iker are aiming to rally the con-evo troups, lest they fall asleep waiting with lamps untrimmed for the arrival of the Anglican realignment bridegroom who has indeed come like a thief in the veritable institutional night of what even Canterbury has called, unintelligent readings of scripture.

Or. Are other Anglicans growing weary of realignment spin dry cycles? Will the realignment doomsday preachers wear out their welcome?

Ah, church life soap opera drama. Nothing quite like it apart from True Romance magazine, or the daytime USA soaps.

Tikkun, witness, praise, keeping on will keep on.

Canon Cameron is worryingly a little lightweight - and (like a lot of other staff though he was Welsh imported) should have been replaced by more talented people at Lambeth. I know myriad top quality people who would have been delighted to work with Rowan - but he arrived with 'chaplain' Cameron and retained the Carey losers.
However I am delighted to hear he has left the forces of reaction in a complete panic about the ABC!! I await the confident chorus of 'bring it on, bring it on,' from Miss NP as usual.

The audience for this is surely not ++Rowan. He knows what +Iker and +Ackerman are up to. I know that George Conger is also considerably to the right of center. So, for whom is this spin? I can't help but think it is the primates. Dar es Salaam was the the ultimate manipulation. We now know, only through the court documents, that +Duncan et al. had worked out a PV scheme, in secret, with the GS, four months in advance of Dar. The scheme asked for a APO from the GS core, oversight that would virtually eliminate TEC from exercising any oversight, discipline or order of a church that would operate within its borders. I would assume, not known by the primates, +Katherine Jefferts Schori had already offered such a plan to Network representatives, not once but twice with 2 separate groups. The variation was simply that she (and TEC) exercise ultimate oversight. I can't help but wonder if the primates had actually seen her plan, had actually known that she had offered it the to "suffering" Network diocese and churches, things might have turned out very differently. For manipulation, +Akinola's rapid fire shuttles to the room above where Sugden+, Minns+ were pushing paper, the unchallenged statistics presented by +Duncan and the pretense of "urgency", "emergency" and "suffering" designed to pull at African heart strings trumped up by +Duncan et alia are hard to beat. Do +Iker and +Ackerman really think they can fool them twice?

"Manipulation" - a situation in which you can't bully everyone else in sight into doing precisely what you demand that they do - in contrast to the Dar es Salaam Diktaat and the Precious, Infallible Lambeth 1:10, neither of whose origins has anything to do with bullying and manipulation?

"The meeting will be used to “manipulate” Dr Williams, the Bishop of Fort Worth, the Rt Rev Jack Iker said on July 31. The leaders of the American House of Bishops believe “If we can talk to Rowan, face to face, we can convince him of the rightness of our position and that he will stand with us,” he said…"

So for Iker to talk to Rowen face to face and convince him of the rightnes of our position is to "manipulate" him?

This is called pre-spin.

I'm somewhat confused in that the ABC is to be first among equals, but time and time again people want to treat the office as head of some "curia".

If our polity dictates this is the road we are taking, then we ought to take it. But, at the same time, in plain and clear language, we need to state our position, made clear that we have prayed, studied, and chosen to walk with Jesus down this path.

Kind of ironic: the (so-called) "Windsor Bishops" are being pretty explicit re *their* intention to manipulate the ABC. . . yet +Iker claims that the (non-Windsor, so-called) *majority* of the HofB will do so!

Frankly, I have no doubt that anyone and EVERYONE tries to manipulate Rowan Cantuar. More importantly, I fear the sad reality of his being more concerned w/ *posterity*, than *morality* (i.e., the equality of all the Children of God in the AC, inc. the LGBT ones) has guaranteed that he will leave NEITHER in the AC. I hope I'm wrong.

Who should have a chance encounter with ABC while dining at Café Milano, in Georgetown, Washington, D.C. on June 10?...Christopher Hitchens!

As Hitchens reports in Vanity Fair: "Signor Franco leads us to a nice table outside and I sit down—right next to the Archbishop of Canterbury. O.K., then, this must have been meant to happen. I lean over. "My Lord Archbishop? It's Christopher Hitchens." "Good gracious," he responds, gesturing at his guest—"we were just discussing your book."... I ask him how it's going. "Well"—he lowers his voice—"I'm rather trying to keep my head down."

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/09/hitchens200709?currentPage=3

ABC must have choked on his Prosciutto.

dradanfee

I wonder if it is because of the lack of oil for their lamps that they are unable to distinguish between the bridegroom and a seductive womaniser? (You know the kind, whispers compliments and promises to respect you, but in the morning is no where to be found and pretends they never knew you in the first place).

Open discussion to persuade could be described as "manipulation," but it oughtn't to be.

FWIW, I supported the (controversial) elections of Iker & Schofield & Ackerman because I really believe in "big tent Anglicanism," but having finally accepted that they don't, I've wised up & do not support the election of Mark Lawrence.

Presumably, the Windsor bishops, of whom my own bishop is one, do oppose the repeated boundary violations of various Global South primates & accept that dialog could lead to acceptance of full inclusion of gays in the church (contrary to the so-called "Global South" position).

Prior Aelred wrote: "I supported the (controversial) elections of Iker & Schofield & Ackerman because I really believe in 'big tent Anglicanism,' but having finally accepted that they don't, I've wised up."

I fully concur. Initially, in early 1997, at the consecration of a bishop in which +Jack Leo Iker participated as well as +Carolyn Tanner-Irish, I thought that 'big tent Anglicanism' still had a chance. Since then I have been appalled at +Jack Leo's behavior during hearings at General Convention... storming out of the room (like a naughty child) when a feminist or a gay/lesbian person approaches the microphone to comment on issues before General Convention.

In the world of Public Relations, this is known as "expectation management."

Iker et al expect to lose. By claiming that the meeting will be "manipulation," they can write off their stunning loss as a mere set back.

The piece by Christopher Hitchens above tells a lot. Rowan Williams, spotted, asked how it's going, says he is keeping his head down.

You're telling us! Actually he didn't want to tell anyone; he was keeping his head down.

I wonder if this is a bit like me: "I must do this - I hate doing this." Much later, "I really must do this - nope, can't." As time goes on, I look for sand to bury my head.

He must be like that rabbit on the road seeing headlights blasting, unable to move, to then move too late so that wheels run over the creature when the car would have gone over the top had it continued to freeze.

I've a suggestion then to the Archbishop. Continue to freeze.

Pluralist

Those who survived the World Trade Centre were those who ignored the advice of the complacent, and fled.

Having had one appalling outback drive at sunrise over two decades ago, my suggestion is be a crow. Just jump to the side of the highway and allow the juggernaut to go through. The crow can then go back to consuming their carrion until the next juggernaut appears. It takes a lot less energy and there is a greater survival rate.

In the meantime the express juggernauts to Zion don't have to worry about hurting unsuspecting birds that didn't have the sense to either get on board or get out of the way.

Yes, Rowan should have been a crow. But he isn't. He is a rabbit. So, given that he is a rabbit, and in the road, what should he then do? The Lincolnshire rabbit I ran over would have been fine if it had continued to stay where it was. By the way, the rabbits around the Humber Bridge are clever - they stay on the grass and in numbers. My wife shouts "Zaichiki!" at them (actually, hares) which is also her pet name for me. So it is best if a rabbit does not get on the road in the first place, or at least directs the other animals from the grass or road edge, and shifts out of the way when the big wheeled animals come close.

Pluralist

My daughter and I have a joke when she wakes up grumpy in the morning (it cheers her up too). She walks around with this dazed look and her mouth partly open.

I told her she looks like she just ate a goldfish, is contemplating whether or not she actually did eat a goldfish, and thus whether or not she liked the experience.

The problem with some rabbits is they see the lights of the juggernaut coming their way, are stunned by the light and contemplate what it means, then at the last minute decide it is a bit scary and get out of the way.

As you say, they would be better to either not get on the road or not move. At least if they sat still we could swerve to miss them.

It's starting to sound like an insurance claim joke. The rabbit was on the road and then it moved, so I hit it.

Pluralist, please forgive me for failing to recognise the biblical link in your posting.

Of course God would not want his flocks (or rabbits) to be unaware of the needs to stay out of the way of the drivers of four-wheeled vessels.

God warned us in Ezekiel 10 e.g. "Then the glory of the LORD rose from above the cherubim and moved to the threshold of the temple. The cloud filled the temple, and the court was full of the radiance of the glory of the LORD… the LORD commanded the man in linen, “Take fire from among the wheels, from among the cherubim,” the man went in and stood beside a wheel. Then one of the cherubim reached out his hand to the fire that was among them. He took up some of it and put it into the hands of the man in linen... I looked, and I saw beside the cherubim four wheels, one beside each of the cherubim... As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the cherubim faced... When the cherubim moved, the wheels beside them moved; and when the cherubim spread their wings to rise from the ground, the wheels did not leave their side. When the cherubim stood still, they also stood still; and when the cherubim rose, they rose with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in them. Then the glory of the LORD departed from over the threshold of the temple and stopped above the cherubim. While I watched, the cherubim spread their wings and rose from the ground, and as they went, the wheels went with them. They stopped at the entrance to the east gate of the LORD'S house, and the glory of the God of Israel was above them."

It is unthinkable that God would not have warned us in advance, after all it is consistent with Isaiah 41:26-27 "Who told of this from the beginning, so we could know, or beforehand, so we could say, ‘He was right’? No one told of this, no one foretold it, no one heard any words from you. I was the first to tell Zion, ‘Look, here they are!’ I gave to Jerusalem a messenger of good tidings."

Returning to the Archbishop - there is a serious point here. Why not indeed just sit there at meetings, ask what people have done, keep the invitations going, and let the circus begin. Perhaps Rowan Williams should be an isalnd of calm while all the parties act in a mad, frantic manner. After all, he is not going to be able to meet demands himself, as that is up to others, and he can hardly change matters, but just facilitate means by which they variously can meet. If they want to play games, let them. After all it is just beginning to look like those who would take the big step to leave the Anglican communion are but a few provinces, even if they do. There are a lot of troops marching but they may end up doing little else, and those who start letting off ammunition might find they are doing such in fields on their own.

Good observation about crows. They sit on the New Holland bypass (I know, it just ends up curving around into a track) and for some reason the birds just hop out of the way, rarely bothered to go to the effort of flying off. They take their time and calculate well - perhaps the Archbishop is more like a crow.

because, Pluralist...the ABC does not want to see parishes leaving the CofE let alone provinces who have not broken any agreements leaving the AC - this explains his behaviour in Tanzania etc

Speaking of Bp Iker, is there any truth (this time!) in the following rumour that seems to be growing? The timing seems apt too - just after the Sept 28th deadline. More in the next post.

7th June - The Continuum (http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2007/06/personal-prelature.html)
"Oh, and you might also spare a glance for Rome as well -- if that is true which I heard the other day, that at a meeting of the SSC clergy of the Fort Worth ECUSA diocese (together with Bishop Iker) with the RC Bishop of Fort Worth, Bp. Vann, the latter announced that Rome will soon be transforming the "Pastoral Provision" for "Anglican Use Roman Catholics" by erecting a world-wide "Personal Prelature" for Anglicans wishing to enter into communion with Rome."

"It is going to happen, but what the results will be, time alone will tell: the proposal went from the CDF to the Pope last November and has been approved by him; although there appears to be some doubt about whether to promulgate it formally now, or to wait until after next year's Lambeth Conference. I have heard, and had confirmed, the story about Bishop Vann's talk to the SSC people in Dallas, and I have also had it from two separate sources wrt its being discussed at the Anglican Use conference in Washington a couple of weeks ago."

"I can at least confirm these rumors. My parish priest is a prominent member of the SSC in the Diocese of Fort Worth and the rector of one of the most (if not the most) Anglo-Catholic parishes in the Diocese. He brought up Bishop Vann's comments this morning. Also, I met with Fr. Allan Hawkins of St. Mary the Virgin (an Anglican Use parish) in Arlington on Monday who had just returned from a meeting in Rome, and he seemed to be of the opinion that a Personal Prelature was in the works, although the Vatican is keeping quiet about it for now."

Here's some more on that rumour:

July 28th - The Bob Catholic Show (http://anglopapist.wordpress.com/2007/07/28/is-a-personal-prelature-for-orthodox-anglicans-imminent/)
"I have heard rumors (from various reliable sources) about the possibility of a Personal Prelature for Orthodox Anglicans in the near future. My information is that a document is to be signed by the end of the year by a group of Anglicans. The group in discussions includes Orthodox Anglicans from around the world and (here is the twist!) is not exclusively the Traditional Anglican Communion. The group includes sections of the Canterbury Communion and parts of the Continuum."

16th August - Virtueonline (http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6522)
"On the subject of "Anglican Use of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church" which Anglo-Catholics have yearned for, an Anglican University professor and VOL reader who was in England recently and met with various Forward in Faith UK leaders, told him...that they had very good information that Rome will issue a decree for Catholic Anglicans at the end of September (perhaps a papal Motu Proprio) expanding the "Pastoral Provision" into a "Personal Prelature" with its own bishop, world-wide in its scope, and not, as at present, limited to the USA."

19th August - The Bob Catholic Show (http://anglopapist.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/more-anglican-uniate-rumors/)
"Further to the earlier rumor of a pan-Orthodox Anglican organisation in full communion with the Holy See, Is a Personal Prelature for Orthodox Anglicans imminent?, I have heard a solid rumor that a document will be signed in October. This document will be signed by a high ranking Roman official and all the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion and
various other Anglican Diocesan bishops who remain within the Anglican Communion. The second group is not exclusively Forward in Faith but includes other orthodox Anglican bishops who remain Diocesan bishops."

20th August - The Bob Catholic Show (http://anglopapist.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/filling-out-the-rumor/)
"Further to the rumor of a document to be signed by a pan-orthodox Anglican group (from now on, POAG) and the Vatican. The Roman Offical is rumored to be William Joseph Cardinal Levada, head of the CDF. The POAG has side-stepped the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity as there are no theological issues but only issues of disciple [sic]."

Regarding the rumour of a Personal Prelature in my previous posts:

The American who heard the rumour in England mentioned by David Virtue appears to be William Tighe. In his comment to the original post on 'The Continuum' he was sceptical. However, after visiting England he posted the following on 'Stand Firm' on Aug 11th (http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4978/) -

"It was of some interest to me to learn that rumors of a forthcoming Vatican “initiative” to make wider and more generous provision for Catholic-minded Anglicans to enter the Catholic Church (perhaps in the form of a Personal Prelature) had reached some of my English Anglican friends, and that what they have been hearing matches rather closely what I have been hearing."

Must be fun playing Church like this --so much excess time and energy for all this stuff ....

(sermon on the mount is a million light years away)

_this explains his behaviour in Tanzania etc_

What, that the Archbishop was sat horrified that some of these prelates with an alternative headquarters came up with speeches about gay people which showed nothing but ignorance? Extremely unpleasant.

Ah yes, then about the pope. It seems that he is circling above, watching, and thinking about plucking off a few morsels for the Roman Catholic dish. If so he can forget any piano duet with the Archbishop.

http://www.exacteditions.com/exact/browse/397/440/2434/3/8/0/piano%20duet

L Roberts - have a read of Galatians....it is not new for people to have to confront false teaching in the church....we are not playing!

Pluralist...so the ABC was "horrified" and agreed to the communique demanding unequivocal statements from TEC with a deadline????
Hmmmm....you are not spinning what actually happened very well!

My mistake, William Tighe was not the sceptical post on the Continuum comments. In actual fact, he himself posted on this on Titusonenine last November 11th:

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=16162#comments
"I have heard that a proposal is due to land on the pope’s desk on November 16, a proposal that has something to do with facilitating the entry into the Catholic Church of disgruntled Catholic-minded Anglicans. I know nothing of the details, but I would guess that it might involve some sort of expansion and “globalization” of the present “Pastoral Provision” set up some 20+ years ago here in the USA for Episcopalians distressed over WO. My guess is that it may involve a “Personal Prelature” for these people (as for Opus Dei) or else an “Apostolic Administration” like that that was erected a couple of years ago for a whole schismatic “Tridentine Mass” group and their bishop in Brazil."

Ruth Gledhill then picked this up and posted this herself on November 14th after a separate source verified it:

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2006/11/pope_throws_ope.html#more
"According to a comment on Titusonenine, the Pope will this shortly receive on his desk a document that proposes something akin to an Opus Dei-style personal prelature for disgruntled Anglicans of a Catholic bent. A separate source tells me: "There are secret conversations going on to enable a Uniat solution." This would allow disaffected to be received into the Catholic Church but retain their Anglican identity, with presumably their (or should I say our?) own priests going with them too. The one thing the Pope is understood to be insisting on, in the name of ecumenism, is that the Anglicans leave before negotiations for entry into the Catholic church can begin. But of course they won't leave with nowhere to go to. My own source says that discussions are well advanced at the highest levels, but nothing is likely to be formalised until after the women bishops debate is concluded."

Roberts - have a read of Galatians....it is not new for people to have to confront false teaching in the church....we are not playing!

Coulda fooled me ! No repsonse to the sermon on the mount then ?

Take your pick of true teaching from the Adventists, Anabaptists to anglicans, via (Greek) Orthodox,RC denomination, Salavation Army to Unitarians to Welsh Calvinistic Methodists (etc)......

The Choice is yours ! Go ahead, feel free !

(but don't get too worried if we all make different choices -- or none!)

NP

I've always like Ephesians 6:12. It was rather bemusing to have a church leader tell me it doesn't apply to Christian churches because they've been saved by Jesus and can't make mistakes.

Events of recent history would indicate this sould meant their side can't make mistakes.

One of the greatest travesties of this recent theology is the "dumbing down" of the holy scriptures. It is rather like unilaterally giving God liposuction because some have decided the body is too big. Some souls like abundant earthly mothers and prefer complex conversations over vain preening.

MJ, I love it! Here, 50 odd years ago we had a referendum about joining Canada or returning to independence. We chose the former. One of the factors that guided the day, this place having the Catholic/Protestant bigotries of England and Ireland in its culture, were claims that the RCs were in favour of independence, and there were even sermons preached on it. This rallied the Orangemen to the Confederation cause. I wonder if, given the kinds of sentiments sometimes stated around here, the possibility of "Papism in the woodpile" might turn some of our more traditionalist anti-gay people against their Catholic minded friends. Which is better, the fags or the enormities of the bishop of Rome? It might be alright in America, but anyone in England trotting off to the the Italian Mission might just be sneaking gunpowder into the basement of Parliament. This looks like one of the more enjoyable chapters in this depressing little book.

L Roberts....tell me point you are making in referring to sermon on the mount...and I will respond. You know it says "blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteouness" and not "blessed are those who teach that what God has always said is a sin ain't no more!"???

Cheryl
- I agree with you that we need to study the scriptures thoroughly and not dumb down. We also must avoid being fooled by those who seek to avoid very clear teaching by over-complicating interpretation. The point is, we need to know what God has said and what he is saying now....and not try to create him in our own image - this is why we have to stick to the bible (it protects us from people with agendas teaching whatever suits them, even if it contradicts everything God has made clear for milennia)

"No repsonse to the sermon on the mount then ?"

Ever notice how Conservatives in the US are always going to court to force the State to allow them to put the Ten Commandments in public places like courthouses? No-one ever demands the right to publically post the Beatitudes. "Thou shalt not..." leaves far more room for self-righteousness than "Blessed are...." I guess.

Ford Elms - "This looks like one of the more enjoyable chapters in this depressing little book."

Well, it would certainly solve the problem of containing conservative Evangelicals and Catholics in one body. Those Catholics who can swallow it will join Rome's 'Prelature', the Evangelicals will gather in an Abujan 'Anglican' Communion, and the rest will be soaked up by whatever united 'Continuing' Church remains. Problem solved. Until they realise it's not that great and come trickling back :-)

"this is why we have to stick to the bible (it protects us from people with agendas teaching whatever suits them,"

Right. No-one ever uses Scripture to justify their personal beliefs. Gotcha. NP, how can you be so naive? Oh, right. Scripture tells us we have to judge other's teachings, which enables you to make the outrageous claim that "false trachers are not my neighbours"! You say so many things that I can imagine having said when I was 17, likely even said when I was 17. But, "when I became a man...." I'm sure you can give chapter and verse for that, besting me again.

NP is worried about things becoming overly complicated?

Is love, forgiveness, mercy, compassion, humility overly complicated?

Or is it overly complicated to decide that it should apply to all souls?

Is ending tyranny overly complicated? Is it easier to just accept that pure heterosexual Christians are the only ones allowed to be tyrants?

Actually my theology is far less complicated that yours.

My theology does not entail guessing who is allowed to be the tyrant and allocating tithes accordingly, it says that ALL tyranny should end. Nor does my theology entail guessing which of our children will grow up to be gay or sin and thus choosing when we should withdraw love and expel them. It involves loving all of them and encouraging them to all live sustainable reverential lives filled with love and hope. My theology does not entail guessing where, how, when or with whom to live so that one will be safe from war, economic upheaval, ecological desecration or abuse. My theology says that everyone should be able to live safely with sufficiency and free from insults and abuse.

My theology is far less complicated than yours, because it covers everyone and everything.

MJ

That is their real conundrum. If they leave us alone, we can build a compassionate communion that models what it is like to live without tyranny, abuse or corruption. Their fear is not only that their own will come trickling back but that the masses will come pouring in.

It is the same as they can't say that GLBTs hate God and are immoral sexual gluttons if there are known GLBTs who say they love God and live morally consistent with the standards of heterosexual couples.

They desire a beast, woman, GLBT without a face or manifestation so they can disparage and accuse to whatever degree required to convince others how ugly "the other" is.

But if the beast, woman or GLBT becomes manifest and people can see for themselves; souls can realise there has been hyperbole, deception and abuse. They then look at the accusser with the veil lifted and realise that there is a deeper ugliness behind that charming smiling facade.

This is right Cheryl.

The cat is out of the bag in the consistent criticism of Gene V. Robinson as 'openly gay'.

Not gay. Openly gay.

This is so dishonest.

L Roberts,
Not only that, but how dare he, an obvious degenerate homosexual who abandoned his family and flaunts his perversion, live in a manner showing more holiness than most of his opponents? How dare he deny that he abandoned his family? We don't care what his wife and children don't agree, he abandoned them for a life of sexual promiscuity. When he chose to be gay in defiance of God, he chose to be promiscuous. And how dare he forgive those who made it necessary to wear a bullet proof vest at his consecration. Condemnation of gay people is Christian, forgiving people who threaten your life, well that's just selling out to the morality of the world. Not to mention heaping coals on the heads of those oh so holy prelates who think nothing of slandering their fellow Christians.

Yes, Ford, you are right

and the other strange thing is that such an outstanding evangelcal should be so rejected and unsupported by fellow evangelicals and other fellow orthodox Christians.

Hmm.

Don't forget, they can't possibly love him. He is neither their friend nor their enemy. He's gay. So obviously Jesus exhortation at Matthew 5:43-48 doesn't apply to Gene, or anyone else like him, or anyone else who would advocate on behalf of him or his kind.

"that such an outstanding evangelcal should be so rejected and unsupported by fellow evangelicals"

First of all, he's an Evangelical!?!?!?! Well, this should go a good way to breaking my bigotry! Deo gratias! Second of all, in the eyes of his Evo opponents, he, by definition CAN'T be an Evangelical. I don't even think that in their hearts they'd even consider him a Christian.

And, Cheryl, "false prophets are not my neighbours!" Pretty much sums it up. I don't know if you know the provinence of that quote, but it isn't mine!

Ford.....as you know, most of the church for the last 2000 years and today would agree with the interpreation of the bible in Lambeth 1.10 - right? This is the issue that has to be addressed.....assertions on VGR's holiness mean nothing. The issue is about what is right and wrong in the AC......and also whether we have to accept in the AC people who do whatever they like regardless of the views of the rest of the "communion"

I see someone like Rowan Williams maturing quite differently to you.....he wrote liberal opinions years ago but now when it comes to a choice, he is for unity and he is for patience and persuading the church (not presenting the church with fait accomplis and forcing it to accept change as TEC has tried to do with VGR). This looks like maturity to me....and it is putting others first and giving due respect to the interpretation of the bible shared by most Christian traditions in the world today.

Do you think that rather than coming to a mature understanding of scripture, you may be simply ignoring certain passages as they are inconvenient for you?

NP,
"Do you think that rather than coming to a mature understanding of scripture, you may be simply ignoring certain passages as they are inconvenient for you?"

Are you certain you aren't? My sins are between me and God, yours are between you and God. Mother Julian of Norwich said we should pay no attention to the sins of others, but concentrate on our own sins. "Traditions of women" in this case, I suppose, but echoed in Psalm 37, NP, and it sounds so much better in the KJV. And you might want to apply Psalm 46 to your situation as well.

"assertions on VGR's holiness mean nothing. The issue is about what is right and wrong in the AC"

You do realize that this could have come from the mouth of a first century Pharisee, right? Holiness of life means nothing, one must obey the Law? That is in direct opposition to what Jesus preached. Matthew 15:11 (and verse 18) should give you something to pray and meditate on. It is NOT about having the "authority" to eat a bacon sandwich.

And why are you so triumphant about what +Rowan will do? He is in an unenviable position, having to please everybody, having to find out how to make us all behave like Christians, it must feel like labour in vain at times. If he "disinvites" TEC in September, what will that mean to you? That you have won some kind of victory and punished the uppity Yanks? Yay for you! Triumph in our failure as Christians, all the while thinking you do God service. We are called to love our enemies, NP, not rejoice in their humiliation. That would seem to be one part of the Gospel you are quite happy to ignore. Now, I'll watch you miss the point yet again.

I know Ford it makes me smile too.

I have never heard an anglican speak so personally and naturally of Christ as does Gene, and that includes that great evangelist John Stott, to my mind. Gene Robinson is just so simple, natural ,matter of fact and quaietly draws my spirit towards Christ ...

a rare gift

"...most of the church for the last 2000 years and today would agree with the interpreation of the bible in Lambeth 1.10 - right? "

And until the mid-19th C. most of the church (actually virtually ALL of the church) found that slavery was not only moral, but Biblically mandated.

Until the early 19th C. all of the church held that the events of the first chapters of Genesis were a scientifically accurate description of the beginnings of the universe and of life on this planet.

Are you saying it is impossible that the church was wrong in any interpretation of the Bible, ever?

Or just this one? And, if so, why is this one so different from the others I've cited?

NP

As Scott wrote elsewhere, if everything the church mostly agreed on was so right, then why are things such a mess?

Aren't you sick of violence yet? Don't you want an end to tyranny? Don't you want you and your neigbours' children to be able to grow up safely, with sufficiency and wellbeing both in the present and for their future descendants?

Doesn't the imagery of Isaiah 54:13-14 inspire you "All your sons will be taught by the LORD, and great will be your children’s peace. In righteousness you will be established: Tyranny will be far from you; you will have nothing to fear. Terror will be far removed; it will not come near you."

One form of tyranny or terror is witnessing a child being abused for being as God made them or knowing that the child was killed or taken away because they were "unworthy". A compassionate mother doesn't want safety only for herself, she wants it for all her children. She also knows that if her neighbours' children are not safe, then neither are her own.

Love the least in order that all can love the most.

L Roberts,
That's the thing. It is funny, but also fascinating how we can read Scripture and come to such differing understandings of God. As I said elsewhere, I simply cannot see the Evangelical image of God in Scripture. They can't see, it seems, the "lover of mankind". Oh, they think they do, but they see the love of God as conditional, I guess. I don't really know. The difference is, if I may be permitted a bit of selfrighteousness, I don't think that the fact that they see a very different revelation of God in Scripture from the one I see means they don't read the Scriptures, much less that they don't believe them.

Cheryl - there would not such a mess in the AC if TEC had "listened" to the ABC's requests in 2003.....there is a mess because some deliberately tore the fabric of the communion (maybe arrogantly believing that nobody would challenge them because they have inherited some cash!)

Lots of people round here want to forget this.....but the ABC begged TEC not to start this chaos we are now seeing played out in the AC.

Personally, I think it is good that TEC went ahead because at least the AC of the future has a chance to be honest and not an institution which has "don't ask, don't tell hypocrisy" infecting it - that is how we have got where we are

I see what you mean Ford.

I find the Quaker emphasis on finding God in our own experience (including the silence of the meeting for worship) very helpful.

For me, it words ...

Also, George Fox's response to Bible-quoters, was "What canst thou say ?" ....

L Roberts - do you prefer the Quaker way because it is so "spiritual" or because it lets you pick and choose which sins you choose to redefine as sudddenly not sin (ignoring 2000 yrs and most of today's biblical interpretation)?

I hate the "prosperity gospel" because it effectively preaches that greed and materialism are not sins and this contradicts the bible.....I guess most people on TA don't like the millionaire preachers either and would rather see them preach what the bible says about greed and about looking after the poor........I take this attitude consistently when I see leaders ignoring the bible to justify whatever sin they want to justify.....

Jesus Christ's gospel is "I accept you and pay for your sins - go and sin no more".....his love and forgiveness cannot be separated from his holiness and his call to us to strive for holiness stands.....do write out all he said from a gospel and see his approach does not give us license to sin. The Lord gives us NO EXCUSES for refusing to repent or justifying our sins....do listen to his words

NP wrote: "... there would not such a mess in the AC if TEC had "listened" to the ABC's requests in 2003..."

It's History, NP. Forget it!

It was a fleeting moment, it passed un-noticed. It won't ever come again...

And for that you can only blame your leaders that have over played their hand (never very strong, but only cultural and political).

It was a fleeting moment.

Child abuse by church leaders did not start after 2003. Nor did it only occur in the US. Cambodia and the Holocaust didn't start after 2003. One in ten women being raped didn't start after 2003.

Further, your reply no shows no awareness of, interest or desire for peace. It simply cites accusations and justifications for continuing aggression.

It appears you have no interest in the complete fulfillment of the scriptures if that means turning weapons into plowshares, wolves sleeping safely side by side with lambs, children playing safely in the streets, souls having sufficient food, being kind to both friend and foe, kin and neighbor. I see no recognition of unconditional love or God's desire to be in an active relationship with individuals on 24-7 basis.

Rowan once commented in the lead up to Tanzania that some leaders had adopted the Millennium Development Goals to buy votes. You can't have sufficient food if it is being thwarted by hoodlums, you can't have medicines if factories are being blown up or there is no electricity for the production plants to work, you can't stop the spread of AIDS if women are passive wombs with no right to say no.

Obviously those who only adopted the Millennium Goals to buy votes failed to appreciate their biblical significance. Micah 4:13 "Rise and thresh, O Daughter of Zion... and you will break to pieces many nations. You will devote their ill-gotten gains to the LORD, their wealth to the Lord of all the earth."

"Jesus Christ's gospel is "I accept you and pay for your sins - go and sin no more"....."

Is it really?!?!?! And here I was thinking it was love God, love your neighbour. Here I thought it was that God loved us so much He came Himself to heal the damage we had done to ourselves and all Creation in the Fall. Here I thought it was about restoring us to the state of grace in which we had been created. Here I thought the Gospel had some sort of Cosmic significance, the trampling down of death, the inauguration of the Kingdom of God. It's kind of disconcerting to know that all that glorious mystical stuff that hundreds of generations of Christians have believed is all by the by. Actually, the Supremely Perfect Creator of all that is, so high as to be incomprehensible to us mere mortals, became one of the lowest and weakest of His Creation, suffered the scorn, hatred, and malice of His own Creation (the Creator is struck by the hand of the Created, as one Orthodox hymn says) all so that a bunch of criminals could get away with their crimes and, presumably, play in God's sandbox after they die! If that's what you think the Gospel is, NP, then you have been taught some very unorthodox stuff. Here's a little quiz: have you ever heard the phrase 'the eighth day of Creation'?

""Jesus Christ's gospel is "I accept you and pay for your sins - go and sin no more"....."

At the risk of boring everyone again... Go and sin more more is mentioned only ONCE, whereas there are a number of healing/forgiving of sin stories where it isn't mentioned at all. The one immediately springing to mind is Jesus being annointed by the sinful woman in Simon's house.

Erika....are you seriously suggesting that the Lord accepted / forgave people and then gave license to them to carry on sinning???

(St Paul certainly did not understand grace in this way - see Romans 6)

NP,
I see you continue in the practice of ignoring anything that suggests the Gospel might be about anything other than social control and compliance with a well defined legal code.

NP,
I'm seriously suggesting that Jesus knew we would keep on failing. Yes, it's good to try and avoid repeating past mistakes once you've realised that they are mistakes, but the forgiveness doesn't depend on it.

As I said before, we really have to stop seeing Jesus as a kind of moral policeman.

NP,
What does this mean(the verse referenced):

1 Corinthians 6:12

_the AC of the future has a chance to be honest_ and earlier we had the Archbishop of Canterbury "maturing" his position compared with previous liberal writings.

I don't call being asked in an airport by a reporter, "Yes but what is your position" followed by the reply, "I am an Archbishop and this is what I teach" an example of maturing or honesty. I call honesty getting away from this bibliolatry and stating what happens to be actual opinion worked out according to - yes - mature reflection, as was.

The Anglican Communion has long had space for such mature reflection, and is part of the definition of Anglican. Such is the basis of the invitations handed out, and the described nature of the Lambeth Conference 2008 itself (it will not be handing out rules and regulations - right?).

Erika - yes, he knew we would keep on falling even though he said, "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" as he taught us how sinful we are......but he never said, "You're forgiven, now carry on sinning if you do not want to repent." This is just not consistent with the words, life, death and resurrection of Christ.....we are called to repent and struggle against our sin whether that is gossip, greed or adultery.

Ford...the verse (1 Cor 6:12) must be read in context (as you know!) First read it in the context of its chapter, then the surrounding chapters, then the whole book and then the whole bible........when you do that, it is impossible to argue that it is saying that is fine to sin.
Ford, please think on Romans 6 and 7. We are all struggling sinners but we are rescued from it....and called to fight sin. St Paul said it was (Rom 6) "by no means" appropriate to take God's grace for granted and carry on sinning, refusing to repent. Please see 1 John too. How do we respond to God's sacrifice, love and mercy.....surely not by refusing to repent in the light of what you call the "clobber verses"?

NP,

I'm not Erica, buit I would seriously suggest that you either have

mis-understood foregivness,
or is mis-representing it,
or doesn't like it,
or reject it,
or ...

NP,
for someone who reads his bible as seriously as you do you do miss rather a lot. Find me another instance, just one single one, where the forgiveness of sins was followed by the command to "go and sin no more."
And then find me the rest of the instances where Jesus forgave sins.

But just before we get too deeply into this, can I point out one more time that I'm NOT calling for license to sin. I do genuinely believe that same gender love is not sinful, not in my eyes and not in the eyes of God.

You said in another comment that "reasserters" ignore the clobber verses. I really wish you would stop making those false comments. We don't "ignore", we interpret differently. And that's legitimate!

"it is impossible to argue that it is saying that is fine to sin"

How can you so utterly keep missing the point? First, I have read the Bible, so kindly stop telling me I haven't. Second, I am not claiming it says it is fine to sin! Where did you ever get that idea? Because your stereotypical liberal heathens think so? No-one is saying it's all right to sin! That's just one of the lies that go to make up the Great Lie. Paul says "all things are lawful" but he also says not all thing are edifying. Doesn't that make you think that maybe his attitude towards Law was different than yours? For him, Law is by the way. We don't not do things because they break some Law, the Law doesn't apply, all things are lawful. We don't certain things because they are harmfuil, or not beneficial, or hurt our spiritual growth, or bring the Gospel into disrepute. That's why God made them unlawful in the first place. Humanity needed law then to do what what was good for us. We now have Christ, the Law is done away, and we do what is good for us by following Him.

I get the feeling that for you repentance is about apologizing and swearing earnestly not to that bad thing again, like some mechanistic forgiveness machine. Sin is not breaking the Law, NP.

I would add here: these clobber verses are not talking about faithful, honest relationships. But it is important not to get into the locked in assumption that the Bible is always right. There are lots of statements where it is just wrong, and of course this is not just isolated to the Hebrew Bible or some books.

For example, it is not at all sinful to lend money and receive interest. A service is being provided for which there is a payment. Money is a symbol of goods and services produced, and just as in the natural world, energy is borrowed from the future in order to make material. So when the Bible is opposed to usuary, they simply got it wrong. In so far then as all gay sexual relationships might be stated against, then the Bible is wrong. Simple.

It's the Smear campaign, Erica.

(to get off with the real estate ;=)

Erika...there are many examples that show repentance comes from faith....pls see the choice the Lord gave a rich young man who refused to repent of his sin
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Mark+10%3A17-31
Again, pls see Romans 6 - we fight our sinful nature as a response to God's grace.

Erika...you are right, we come back to whether or not we are talking about a sin....in the AC, your "interpretation" is not accepted as a correct interpretation of the bible.....that is why we have Lambeth 1.10 and it still stands. Those vicars who ignore it (with all their "integrity") dare not push for another vote in the AC as they know they will lose again.....because not many in the AC have been persuaded that the interpretation of the bible in 1.10 is wrong and we have been listening for decades now.

You say that God approves of certain sins these days....but the bible does not support this and the attempts to argue for the special exemptions you desire, including from Rowan Williams in the past, have not convinced many people in the AC (let alone in other deonominations).

Ignoring verses which say "do not...." is not to "interpret differently" - it is just to ignore them. If the "clobber verses" did not exist, I would have no problem with your chosen lifestyle....I have friends and family who make similar choices to you and we are on very good terms.......maybe that surprises you but it is true. My only problem in all this AC strife and pain is "the clobber verses" which appear throughout the bible....and as Rowan Williams says, the complete lack of anything positive in the bible to support relationships which contradict "the clobber verses"

Ford...you are right, sin is not breaking the law...it is as we see in Eden rejecting God's rule over lives, thinking we know better than him, ignoring him when he says " do not..", rebelling against him.

So, with your definition of sin - must we accept VGR as a bishop? This is the issue and why the ABC is going to the TEC(USA) HOB in a few weeks time.....you can define sin as much as you like, tell me everyone is sinful but the issues must be addressed Ford! Was TEC right or wrong and is their behaviour acceptable in the AC?

NP wrote: "Again, pls see Romans 6 - we fight our sinful nature as a response to God's grace."

You have been going on with Romans 6 for a while now, NP. Without explanations as always. I would like you to tell us what you see in Romans 6, for it apparently is not what Paul says in Romans 6.

verse 14 Amartía gàr umån ou kurieúsei,
ou gàr este upò Nómon allà upò Xárin.

Sin doesn't lord over you,
for you are not under Tradition (of the Elders) but under Grace.

NOT "... we fight our sinful nature as a response..."

Well Goran......if you are sitting comfortably, let's start at.....verse ONE and go from there:

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Read Goran....it says very clearly "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means!" We

I am not a pseudo-academic like you ....but I think Paul is saying that continuing to sin is a wrong response to God's grace. This is not a controversial view!

Pluralist,
"But it is important not to get into the locked in assumption that the Bible is always right."

It's fun, though, to watch the fundamentalists dismiss the large number of Biblical inconsistencies as "insignificant". I would also disagree with you on the issue of usury. I think it has had some very bad effects on modern society.

NP,
"would have no problem with your chosen lifestyle"

I however have huge problems with the ignorance manifested in this statement, not least of which is the fact that this shows that you are not telling the truth when you claim to have listened.

"Was TEC right or wrong and is their behaviour acceptable in the AC?"

So, it's not about the Gospel, it's about who's right, who gets to say what's acceptable, and who gets to punish. God's on your side, right? Let's say they were wrong. I think they failed to take due consideration of their brethren elsewhere. Does this mean you don't have to forgive your brother not 7 times, but seventy times seven? (read the Bible some time, you'll find it there). But, you'll probably point out that you have forgiven TEC 490 times, and can likely name each time, so you don't have to any more and can get on with baying for their blood.

"Paul is saying that continuing to sin is a wrong response to God's grace. This is not a controversial view!"

No indeed. That's why nobody tells us to respond to God's grace by continuing to sin. I'd suggest you give some thought to implementing this little dictum:

"walk in newness of life"

is it not time you started?

"I am not a pseudo-academic"

No, indeed, you're a saucy little crackie! Look it up, it ain't racial.

NP: “I think Paul is saying that continuing to sin is a wrong response to God's grace.”

OH? t h a t is what you think, now is it really… for it is not what you wrote.

Which was "... we fight our sinful nature as a response..." and, moreover, that's what I asked you about.

But then, changing the subject is your trade-mark, isn’t it?

Goran.....do you think you have made any sort of meaningful point in your response??

Maybe language holds you back or maybe you are just a confused thinker. Anyway, obviously, if we are not going to try to justify sins in reponse to God's grace, we are going to have to fight our sin....that is why Romans 7 follows Romans 6.

Ford says "That's why nobody tells us to respond to God's grace by continuing to sin"
Really...you heard of VGR?? YOu listened to his interviews (paper and radio)?
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/newswatch.cfm?menuopt=2
He says he is not sure if he is right....but he seems sure it is worth splitting the AC over his desire to be a bishop! He says he hears God...but most of us are not convinced, partly because of his alcoholism but mostly because what God seems to be telling him strangely fits his life and contradicts 2000 years of biblical interpretation which is still believed by most of the church today! That is why we have TWR and Tanzania.

Ford, you know that Lambeth 1.10 stands and has been reaffirmed in TWR..........these statements have been made because some are trying to justify certain sins, claiming God's approval and abusing his grace.

"partly because of his alcoholism"
Ah, yes, your mercy, conmpassion, and caring for your fellow Christians! At least you are consistent. You showed no more concern for the redemption of one of your own accused of theft than you do for someone suffering from aalcoholism.

"most of us"

My, my. How you fit in the councils of the high and mighty! Figuratively, this kind of statement is like walking up to the good seats at the high table. Now who told us not to do that, since it is better to be asked to move up than it does to be asked to move down? Gee. It's some book or another, I think, but I haven't read it.

"what God seems to be telling him strangely fits his life"

But NP, what God seems to be telling a lot of conservative Evangelicals seem strangely to fit their lives too. Odd that, how we can read Scripture to justify our own lives while condemning others for doing the same.

NP and Ford: that is enough.