It is unfortunate that our church has reached a point where the litmus test of “orthodoxy” is one’s attitude on sexual orientation. My understanding and belief in the historic creeds is traditional and I believe that Holy Scripture is authoritative. Yet because I do not accept the narrow and repressive hermeneutic of the Most Rev. Peter Akinola, he implies that I am unfaithful and have no place in life of the Communion.

I simply cannot agree that our Communion has room for only one interpretation of Holy Scripture. It is authoritative and on that there should be no argument. But how shall we read it? Will it be just another reference book used to validate previously formed opinion, as I fear the Archbishop would have us do, or do we read it with open hearts and minds, prayerfully optimistic that God will speak to us in new ways?

I honor and cherish Holy Scripture, which is why I will not let one person limit the infinite varity of experiences of God reveals through it.

A reiteration of his well-known position, just before proclaiming his own schismatic Church sometime this autumn. If he goes ahead, there will be branches not only in the decadent US and Canada, but (as was hinted last month) also in England and perhaps Scotland. Denominations have often been named for their founders: Lutheranism, Calvinism, Muggletonians. The Akinolite Church is upon us.

Too bad he cannot bother to correctly name TEC. That's rude.

About the missing footnotes:

Examination of the source code suggest that they may possibly be intended to go as follows:
footnote 2 adjacent to footnote 1
footnotes 3,4,5 adjacent to the heading “Scorned Opportunities”.

But I would welcome further opinions, correction, or even authoritative advice.

Presumably the key to this is

class=MsoEndnoteReference

that leads to a note, and does not in some cases. One comes before "With about seven weeks to go" but is out on its own. And there are many without connection. With the href= there is nothing different from using my NoteTab to wipe out many notes - I first regularised the paragraphs to see them, striped the code and then reinserted the code version with paras regularised again.

The code is an appalling mess. Best to take what is provided, I'd say, just cleaned up.

This is very anorakish!

Anyway, it is just another in a long line of documents presumably to justify what is coming. It'll be a "we gave you the opportunity to" according to the list he provides.

They have been only on this journey for ten long years. That puts their journey starting at 1997, ten long years after the South Africans coming out of apartheid suddenly found themselves "unworthy" and an alternative communion developed in their midst.

Sounds a bit to me like a drug addict finding that the pimpers's offerings aren't as satifying as they first expected.

One should remember that the grooming towards dependence and addiction can take many decades and the pimps can be very sophisticated in hiding that their "salvation" is short fleeting, does not lead to satisfaction and merely creates unfulfillable desires.

My suggestion is rather than targeting the pimps' scapegoats, they go back to and look at what the pimps really are. Spoilt burnt out men seeking to destroy any messages of hope lest their egos be deflated.

Cynthia: the name "The Episcopal Church" is pretty ambiguous in an international (and ecumenical!) context; one needs some way of distinguishing it from all the other episcopal churches.

Mike - I think you are right in a sense: one cannot predetermine what Scripture says but must come to it with openness that one may have misunderstood it. But I don't think Peter Akinola has the monopoly on reading Scripture to back-up his pre-formed opinion! The litmus test we must all answer is not "what do you think about gay sex" but "if someone could convince you your opinion on gay sex were unscriptural, would you change your mind?" I think the issue is that not everyone would answer yes to this question.

I am sure that many of you have already seen the article on the Sudanese-American priest in today's New York Times. I found the whole thing inspiring, but was particularly struck by the comments by the Sudanese that nobody in the Episcopal Church was forcing them to change their conservative ideas about sexuality.

That was pretty consistent with my experience. My parish in Los Angeles has a very large African community, and there's no doubt that they are pretty conservative on many issues. Yet they coexist with a largely liberal staff, including one openly gay priest, and a fair number of gays and lesbians in the congregation. It's not completely without tensions, I suppose, but if we can do it as a parish, how come it can't work in the communion as a whole?

I would answer no, Sean.

It is quite clear that narrow minded evangelicals have a clear agenda to unchurch others who cannot sign up to their travesty of the truth. They have never been treated like this by their liberal or catholic brothers and sisters. This debate will not only be about gay sex, but will soon move on to objectionable doctrines such as substitutionary atonement etc. Sadly not only the ABC but even naive folk like the Bishop of London indulge these bigots.

John Bassett on Sunday, 19 August 2007 at 3:05pm BST

It was an inspiring piece in the NYT (especially since it was a positive piece about the Diocese of Western Michigan -- which is where our monastery is located) & your point is extremely good -- the entire Anglican Communion used to be that way -- we didn't have to agree about everything to pray together -- the Bishop of Durham says that is now unacceptable, as do the primates of Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya & the Southern Cone. It is their decision (& their move).

I suggested to Bishop Tutu that the issue was not sex but a reaction to colonialism. His reply was that the money for the fight was coming from conservative Americans. American culture wars on wider front?

Why do I feel like I am listening to the neoconservatives make a case for why they have to invade Iraq and root out all the WMDs? But who will be the moderate Colin Powell, that the evidence is incontrovertible and make the case before the AC that it must be down to preserve peace? Sigh. I think the reasserters while only bring destruction and find that there were no WMDs at all, just Christians a justification for what their leaders wanted to do all along.

Analysis of the text and comparison with Archbishop Akinola’s interview with the interview in The Guardian, Lagos, published 30 July 2007 suggests that, like most of the publications from Abuja, this was written for the Archbishop by his conservative American secessionist friends. It is dishonest. It misrepresents church history and the recent history of the Anglican Communion.

The representation of the responses to the Lambeth Conference 2008 as tepid is conservative spin. There is considerable enthusiasm to meet next year, especially among many of the Global South bishops. This is much to the annoyance of the leading GS Primates. The Archbishop’s letter is part of the GS strategy to counter this embarrassing reality.

The letter presents the leaders of the Global South, a network which includes the Church of Nigeria, this invulnerable church of 20million members (and counting) as the victims, ignored, demonized, and marginalized.

Advocates of the full inclusion of LGBT people in the church can equally claim that the record shows that we, who also hold to the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints” have shown remarkable forbearance while continuing to be subjected to the prejudice against us which was first articulated in the Kuala Lumpur Statement and manifest in the plenary debate on Lambeth 1.10 in 1998.

We haven’t cried constantly for patience, listening and understanding. We have been patiently and sometimes impatiently waiting for the Primates and bishops of the Anglican Communion to honour Lambeth 1.10 in its entirety. We have been waiting for them to start listening to our experience in every Province of the Communion. Instead, many bishops have ignored the entirety of Lambeth 1.10 and used it selectively and dishonestly. Abusive as it is towards LGBT people, its negative stance towards us, with a small window of hope, hasn’t been abusive enough for the conservatives.

The report from the Church of Nigeria published on the Anglican Communion web site makes no mention of the listening process. Instead it reports Archbishop Akinola’s attitude to LGBT people:

“Thus it is clear from the passages considered that the Old Testament regards homosexuality as an atrocious and unnatural act. The Mosaic Law is against it and stipulates capital punishment for the offender. It is classified among the most offensive crimes like idolatry involving the sacrifice of children, having intercourse with animals, or marrying a woman and her mother.”

No matter what Akinola or other realignment preachers preach, the facts are coming, make no doubt.

And the new facts will not be much consistent in their frameworks and details with what most dominant legacy views typically read directly from scripture, traditionally.

The answer to the question blogged by Sean D. about scripture - brimming with an implicit, closed view of scripture as revelation authority - just neatly demonstrates how easily we may sidestep the empirical point by framing our questions to avoid it:

The going legacy view of how awful and dangerous queer folks definitely are, repeated via most con-evo scripture readings, is simply flat earth stuff. Period.

Yet. We seem to have amnesia, and feel no shock to find that oral sex fails to cause hurricanes and crop blight. Even con-evo-realignment believers can take that one in their stride now, apparently by roundly forgetting that anything else but the modern facts about oral sex (at least among exclusively straight conservative married people) was ever an article of true fear and true belief.

Sadly, believers still cling to many backwards folk beliefs about sex. Often these are pretty much folk toilet training notions of sex, sometimes all gussied up in high legacy theologies and scripture proof texts about sex, dirt, heresy, and celibacy.

TEC, Canada, … plus quite a few other Anglicans …. are now well on the empirical path, admitting that we are yet again finding what we found when the Ptolemaic Cosmology was slowly and rather agonizingly overturned: We cannot read modern facts, especially when it comes to our shifted and changing understandings of just how competent queer folks actually are - and have been all along as part of human and animal nature - plainly and simplistically right out of our scriptures.

Those who persist in trying to do so only make their particular sorts of con-evo realignment theology a commitment to a sort of closed-minded apostolic ancestor worship. Even science has yet to get right down to the detailed factual story of just exactly how being straight and being not straight tick, so stay tuned.

Meanwhile, generosity invites us all to open our hearts/minds by treating queer folks pretty much just as we would treat them, if only they had been straight. Scripture only hinders us if we must remain consistent with it by mistreating queer folks, especially by trash talking them on all occasions.

Again we find a reference to that bizarre event at Dromantine, where the pumped-up primatial predators decided that they should sieze authority by proclaiming who should and who should not participate in the Anglican Consultative Council.

And now, having acceded to this wholly illegitimate demand by attending but not voting, the Americans and Canadians stand condemned by this little man for having "influence."

Well, so be it. If we in North America can exercise such damning "influence" while submitting to the ultra vires demands of the heirarchs, then I am confident that, at the end of the day, our "influence" will trump his braggadacious bullying.

Agony. Such an interesting word to be used in this instance by a person who directly incites the infliction of agony by unjust laws in a lethally brutal legal system against, say, friends who might want to meet together for a bit of a shindig in Bauchi.

He wears such nice clothes, does the Archbishop Akinola. I do hope they don't chafe none because of starch. Such pains for the gospel. Amen.

Archbishop Akinola has helpfully summarised his "most agonising journey" and attached all relevant documents from the last decade.

We are also hearing about the agonising journeys being experienced by LGBT people in Nigeria, Uganda and Zimbabwe, where they are routinely persecuted, tortured, imprisoned and murdered. Closer to home we hear the disturbing news that two-thirds of gay teenagers are subjected to homophobic bullying at school, (Independent, Stonewall).

How difficult it is to stand up to these injustices, and avoid unintentionally inciting them, when you have to assert Biblical morality for the sake of the "faith once delivered". An agonisingly difficult moral dilemma for all bishops of our global family of Anglican churches.

An aside: I have heard that +Abuja and other GS bishops from across the globe - despite being on the brink of forming a new church - nevertheless retain some of their privileges in England. Not least the use of St. Luke's Hospital for the Clergy. I wonder if they plan to remain in full communion with this perk?

"Cynthia: the name "The Episcopal Church" is pretty ambiguous in an international (and ecumenical!) context; one needs some way of distinguishing it from all the other episcopal churches."

That's disingenuous, given the context. How many other Episcopal churches have encountered the wrath of ++Akinola lately? If it were not ++Akinola, or if the subject were something like whether it is appropriate to use grape juice rather than wine at the Eucharist, well I suppose you might have a case.

But given the writer and the topic, I suspect your real choices are [1] real ignorance or [2] calculated insult disguised as ignorance.

And besides, ++Akinola has the deposed TEC priest Minns as a bishop to advise him, so I would vote for #2.

It is the kind of petty insult that was [maybe still is] common among American racists who used to refer to "Martin Lucifer King."

Agonizing is watching +Akinola try to rework greed, fear/hate-mongering and scapegoating into honorable Christian teachings...bad NEWS, and dangerous actions toward others where Good News and love ought be. This man is off on a obsessive tangent that will take years for the Nigerian Church to recover from spiritually and financially.

A question for all of you -- a quite genuine question.

As far as I can tell, Archbishop Akinola is putting forward the deadline of September 30th as the deadline for the Episcopal Church (the American one) to comply with the demands made of them in the Global South's "Road to Lambeth."

However, September 30th is in fact the deadline for the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church to reply to the Dar es Salaam Primates' Communique.

Here is the point: These two documents demand very different things of the American Church, and I don't see any clear connection between them. So I would like to ask: why is the deadline for one being represented as a deadline for the other? It seems as though something like a shell game is going on here.

A Most Agonizing Case of False Witness and Selective Memory

Fr. Jakes got the FULL recap on +Akinola's antics:

http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2007/08/most-agonizing-case-of-false-witness.html

Thank you Prior Aelred for sharing Archbishop Tutu's statement "that the money for the fight was coming from conservative Americans". Concerning the "American culture wars on wider front?" question, Jim Naughton's excellently-researched, eye-opening "Following the Money" has been linked from this site several times - one more time won't hurt - it's a central document to proving that right-wing American money, particularly support from Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., is a central factor in the escalating "Global South" shenanigans.

http://www.edow.org/follow/part1.html

Only the first half of Jim Naughton's "Following the Money" is at the link that I just posted, Both parts are here:

http://www.edow.org/follow/

Cynthia
Has Martyn Minns been formally deposed by Bp Lee? I don't think so. In fact I wrote to Patrick Getlein about this point and he referred me to the 2 October 06 letter (on Virginia diocesan website) as evidence to the contrary.

I am interested why this document is considered to be ghost written.

"The Road to Lambeth" is an internal, Global South, document, Charlotte. As such, not only is it not binding on the Anglican Communion as a whole, but it has no standing whatever within the Communion. In fact, the preamble to the report on "Global South Anglican", the GS's official web-page, terms it a "draft report", stating that it "was commissioned by the Primates of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) in February 2006; it was received with gratitude by the CAPA Primates on 19 September 2006 and commended for study and response to the churches of the provinces in Africa."

Evidently, therefore, "Road to Lambeth" has no formal standing within the Global South and has only been "commended for study and response to the churches of the provinces of Africa". Recent experience suggests that this ought perhaps to read "the churches of some provinces of Africa".

http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/the_road_to_lambeth_presented_at_capa/

Hi Drdanfee - yes, my view is a "closed view of scripture as revelation authority". That is merely to describe my view accurately rather than provide grounds to criticise it! Why should I feel any sense of shame about that when it is and always has been the mainstream account of Scripture? That's not even a particularly theological claim, but a purely historical one! So for at least you and Pluralist, the question is indeed that of the authority of Scripture.

Cynthia: I really don't see how the term "TECUSA" can be a calculated insult... it's like Ronseal, it does what it says on the tin. Personally I find the name "TEC" itself insulting since it is patently not THE episcopal church (there are a few other Anglican churches, to say nothing of Rome, Lutheranism etc etc).

Leonardo

The Father Jake link is excellent.

Prior.

Thanks for sharing that Tutu considered that the (1988?) plays were a reaction against colonialism.

One of the beauties of the church plantings done or promised in the US, Canada, Scotland... is that we now know it is not a question of colonialism. It has been fun to contemplate the driving dynamics that have sent some souls into such a spin.

Many souls' dreams of "success" in this world are underpinned by some pretty nasty desires e.g. striving for success so they can make others jealous or suffer. Then there is the desire for security where they seek to be "untouchable" because they have the power to harm those that would hurt them; but because this need is underpinned by fear, there is the fear that the dangerous ones might not recognise that they are too powerful to be touched, so you have to do a preemptive strike to remind them that you are not meant to be touched.

Of course, if you have gangs of souls inflicting violence to demonstrate your power, you have to keep them fed and happy, or they might stop fighting or turn against you. So women and children are fair game for raping and plundering, but don't touch the heterosexual males (heaven forbid that they might have to suffer what they impose upon others)!

We are not seeing souls reacting against colonialism. What we are seeing are souls who are terrified of what would happen if tyranny was to end.

How can they keep themselves safe if the biblical teachings of isolated high mounds of complacent priests becomes recognised as the worst perversion of theology? How can they keep themselves safe if they aren't allowed to intimidate and desecrate to prove how "powerful" they are? How can they save themselves if God intends to save everything in the universe, including GLBTs, women, children, non-Christians, non-humans, or metaphysical consciousnesses?

Everything in this universe is of God, from God and for God. If they are that frightened by God’s breadth and depth, God can give them a nice little heaven where they are not confronted with the rest of Creation.

In the meantime, Creation belongs to God and we were given a job to care for it and all its inhabitants. We are going to stop abusing and stop being abused.

My understanding on Bishop Minns is that as Nigerian Bishop he is no longer under the jurisdication of Bishop Lee. (In other words, he was removed from +Lee's jurisdiction by his consecration.) Also, of course, as a Bishop he may not function as a bishop in another jurisdiction without the permission of the Ordinary both by Canon and by ancient custom (the faith once given to the saints?). So he is no longer a priest of +Lee's to be disposed but a renegade bishop invading the jurisdiction of another. But that is just my understanding and i may be wrong.

While it is obvious that TEC does not wish to walk with their sisters and brothers in the GS, it is still not self-evident why Bp. Katherine and 815 continue to execute their scorched earth policy of litigation against American churches that wish to be faithful to the historic position of the church as stated in 1998 Lambeth. Sure, TEC, walk your new path, but must you insist that others follow your heterodox ways? So much for tolerance.

Reading above, it would seem as if a nasty chap in Nigeria is making lots of demands for no good reason......

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think ++Akinola is simply saying:

1) one province's rejection of certain agreed AC positions and teaching is not sufficient to change the mind of the Communion on a theological issue;

2) it is not acceptable for one province to try to force the AC to change its position or accept a contradictory position through unilateral actons;

3) it is not acceptable to fudge the issues any longer....not with integrity anyway;

As I have said before, ++Akinola, +Duncan and many others have been very tolerant in the AC for decades.....but TEC caused a major conflict in the AC in 2003 by its unilateral actions, rejecting not only the pleas of the Primates but also agreed positions.......but now ++Akinola et al are accused of not caring for unity if they will not accept TEC's actions!!!

If you try to be impartial, can you see that maybe TEC has gone about things the wrong way and that is why they have not been rewarded in TWR / Tanzania etc?

I don't think the ABC can allow this precedent of unilateral by provinces actions forcing changes in AC positions or other provinces will follow in doing whatever they want and forcing the AC to accept their views...in the name of "unity"!

The right way to do things...in case anyone cares, is to persuade the Communion that its policy / statements / positions are wrong and then get a wide consensus for change....this is what people who care for unity would do.

"it is and always has been the mainstream account of Scripture"

I'f you are claiming that traditionally Christians have looked solely to Scripture as the authority in matters of faith, I believe you are wrong. The Church has traditionally seen the Church as the final authority, with Scripture playing a big role in informing Her decisions. There's a big difference betweeen that and claiming Scripture has all authority.

Somehow some lines got missing in the released document. They have been reinserted and include;

We now confront the seriousness of their actions as the year for the Lambeth Conference draws near. Sadly, this Conference is no longer designed as an opportunity for serious theological engagement and heartfelt reconciliation but we are told will be a time of prayer, fellowship and communion. These are commendable activities, but this very Communion, however, has been broken by the actions of the American and Canadian churches. The consequence is most serious because, even if only one province chooses not to attend, the Lambeth Conference effectively ceases to be an Instrument of Unity. The convener’s status as an instrument or focus of unity also becomes highly questionable. Repentance and reversal by these provinces may yet save our Communion. Failure to recognize the gravity of this moment will have a devastating impact.

Scorned Opportunities

Following the 1997 warning, the 1998 Lambeth Conference issued Resolution 1.10 that affirmed the teaching of the Holy Scriptures with regard to faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union and declared that homosexual practice was incompatible with Biblical teaching. At their meeting in Porto, Portugal, in March 2000 the Primates reaffirmed the supremacy of Scripture as the “decisive authority in the life of our Communion.” [ ] [ ]

The General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA responded in July 2000 by approving Resolution D039 acknowledging relationships other than marriage “in the Body of Christ and in this Church” and that those “who disagree with the traditional teaching of the Church on human sexuality, will act in contradiction to that position!” The Convention only narrowly avoided directing the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to begin preparation of official rites for the blessing of “these relationships … other than marriage.” [ ]

I've already answered the question on scriture - it was no. In other words, I take it seriously, and do not ignore it, and indeed go to the effort of understanding it critically (in who constructed it, where is its sources, who was it written for), but I am not a slave to it at all.

So it I had an action and reported on it, I would refer to scripture, but then say why I (if it was so) did not follow what it seemed to say in a direct sense.

"We have made enormous efforts since 1997 in seeking to avoid this crisis"

Scheming and plotting do indeed require enormous effort, as, apparently, does thundering from on high the repeated line "I'm right and you are wrong." What other enormous effort have they made?

"The leadership of... (TECUSA)... and (ACoC) seem .... the Bible is no longer authoritative ..."

This is simply false witness. That entire paragraph is an exercise in propaganda, as is as much of the article I could manage to read time and my temper restricting menon that score. The racism born of anti-Imperialism is also not hard to see. Dear God!

Slightly, but not wholly off topic. Today's update of "Anglicans Online" lists a 'not in communion" outfit called the "Anglican Catholic Communion U.S.A.". The church's web page gives its primate, the Most Reverend Gregory Francisco, DD, Ph D, the subordinate title of "Assisting bishop for the diocese of Katakwa, Anglican Church of Kenya".

http://www.theaccusa.org/

Katakwa is indeed a diocese of the Church of Kenya. Is this therefore another, "under the radar", episcopal incursion into the USA?

"the actions of the American and Canadian churches."

With regard to the recent actions of the Anglican Church of Canada, and especially the results of the last General Synod, I am curious as to what the Canadian Church has done that is so heinous. We will not bless same sex unions. Any gay bishop we might have, and I don't know of one, is securely locked in the closet. What is it we have done that is so wrong?

"We have made enormous efforts since 1997 in seeking to avoid this crisis"

- they have not left the AC and they have spent 4 years trying to get a solution with the ABC.......they may not have suddenly decided the bible is wrong and VGR is acceptable but it is true that they have been working hard to repair the "tear in the fabric of the communion"

"Failure to recognize the gravity of this moment will have a devastating impact." Tunde

Tunde,

Once again you attept to speak for the Holy Spirit and the whole of The Anglican Communion.

Nobody likes to be threatened, Tunde.

Meanwhile, +Akinola accepts "outside" *inspiration* for off-the-wall falsehoods ("Hooligan children of LGBT people" and other such absurdities) as he simultaneously attempts to persecute LGBT Christians/Anglicans at home in Nigeria and "poach" on TEC property in Virginia and Colorado.

These grandstanding "dramatics" are not very Christian or very "loving" nor very inspiring when viewed by more emotionally/spiritually "centered" human beings/Anglicans.

+Akinolas tiremsome THREATS and REAL actions of fear/hate-mongering are a very sad indication of the "state of Anglican/Nigerian Church" affairs.

"The consequence is most serious because, even if only one province chooses not to attend, the Lambeth Conference effectively ceases to be an Instrument of Unity."

Oh, what a very merry prankster is M'Lord Bishop, ++Peter o'Abuja!

Apparently, getting his wish for TEC(USA) and ACoC(anada) to be excluded, would *not* cause Lambeth to "effectively cease to be an Instrument of Unity," nor did their voluntarily excluding themselves from voting at the ACC (in fact, he'd have preferred they have been *in*voluntarily kept even from attending/participating at all) cause *that* Instrument to 'effectively cease to be" such . . . and yet, if it is *his* province that absents itself, well then, there goes another Instrument of Unity down the drain.

Nope, no contradiction or hypocrisy *there* . . .

Yes indeed, a very merry prankster is he!

I stand corrected about Mr. Minns' relationship to Diocese of VA and TEC.

"Repentance and reversal by these provinces may yet save our Communion. Failure to recognize the gravity of this moment will have a devastating impact."

We have comlied with the request to express regret for the pain we have caused. We cannot engage in "reversal." The resolution on same sex unions simply observed that they are blessed in some parts of TEC. How can you 'reverse' an accurate observation? Bp. Robinson is a bishop, duly and legally elected and consecrated. There are no canonical reasons to remove him.

Same old same old.

Set an imnpossible demand and then act all surprised and angry and put-upon when it is not complied with.

This is becoming tiresome.

Interesting offshoot, The Anglican Catholic Communion USA (ACCUSA)as there seem to be a lot of Churches accusaing others at te moment. Incidentally, this little one, via Kenya, rejects the filoque clause (bit says it doesn't matter too much) and, in a rather un-Anglican fashion, recognises seven sacraments rather than two. I'm sure people can't wait to sign up.

"This is becoming tiresome." says Cynthia

I AGREE.....give the AC a fait accompli and when people do not roll over and accept it, blame them.....and completely forget about the fact they are responding to an unacceptable action....this is tiresome.

Unilateral actions in a "communion", against an agreed position, cannot work - or everyone just starts doing whatever they want with no consideration of those in "communion" with them.....we have to persuade each other and then act together (i.e. the opposite of what TEC did in 2003).....we should not present fait accomplis and then complain if they are not accepted....indeed Cynthia, this is becoming tiresome.

Ford said:
"The Church has traditionally seen the Church as the final authority"

That's the catholic legacy view and not historical Anglicanism as espoused in the 39 Articles. Neither Hooker nor Cranmer would agree with that statement. Scripture has the authority God has given it - namely authority on what Scripture addresses. It does not have total authority because God has not given it total authority, as seen by the fact that it does not cover everything. But that Scripture does cover, we must yield to. The church and reason are only given places of authority outside the areas Scripture covers.

Remember, Jesus has been given all authority. He in turn gave authority to the apostles, who wrote the NT. Their writing is under the authority of Jesus and comes to us through the ages fairly directly. On the other hand, apostolic succession (the basis the Catholic Church claims for its authority) has proven far less reliable as seen by heretics and false teaching.

Ford,
What have we Canadians done wrong?
Some of our "offenses":

We are actively and seriously engaged in the listening process
We are discussing same-sex blessings at General Synod (even though it failed to pass)
We acknowledge the homosexual members in the pews
We acknowledge that we have gay and lesbian clergy
Some bishops have denounced or banned Essentials as divisive
We haven't criticized the Americans

We are simply not pure and holy enough for +Abuja to associate with. Nothing short of defrocking +Michael Ingham, reversing course in New Westminster, purging all the LGBT clergy (or at least those who aren't tucked away in the closet), and ending all this talk about same-sex blessings will satisfy these bullies.

So, I'm being censored, eh? TA is, then, as I suspected: not a venue for the free exchange of ideas, but a propaganda machine for TEC's heterodox faith. Thus I suppose I am left with no alternative other than to bid you adieu and say 'God bless you'. I would that your anger and dissension were turned into holiness and shalom for your own sake as well as for the sake of the church and the world.

Slightly, but not wholly off topic. Today's update of "Anglicans Online" lists a 'not in communion" outfit called the "Anglican Catholic Communion U.S.A.". The church's web page gives its primate, the Most Reverend Gregory Francisco, DD, Ph D, the subordinate title of "Assisting bishop for the diocese of Katakwa, Anglican Church of Kenya".

http://www.theaccusa.org/

I thoroughly enjoyed this web site.
Thank you

"2) it is not acceptable for one province to try to force the AC to change its position or accept a contradictory position through unilateral actons -- NP"

This is simply not true. May I be blunt? It is a lie. TEC has never tried to force the AC or anyone to change its "Position". Whatever that "position" might be. I didn't know the AC had "positions." (of course it doesn't).

What is happening, though, is that other churches dominated by fundamentalists are attempting to dictate to TEC. That is unacceptable. Lay people have a say in TEC, you know. We actually get to, like, vote.

Phylmom,

Actually NP's statement is not a lie.

From Gene Robinson's recent Times interview:
" I understand that a bishop is understood to be ordained for the whole church, although that's true for the priesthood as well. One is a priest of the church and provided they are a priest of good standing, they can exercise their ministry anywhere in the world. "

We are dependent on each other as Christians and as Anglicans. If the whole Robinson is a bishop for the whole church, then I would argue the church has the right to react when some one who does not live up to the Biblical or traditional standards of the office is consecrated.

Furthermore, the Anglican Communion certainly has positions. The creeds, the various Books of Common Prayer, the 39 Articles, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, dozens of Lambeth Conference resolutions along with reams of conference, commission and pastoral letters all establish various positions on a wide range of issues. You may not agree with most of them, but you can't simply wish 500 years of Anglican theological tradition away - and an additional 1500 years of catholic theology before that.

Some here claim Scripture should be interpreted by the whole church. I agree. Archbishop Peter Akinola's comments - and similar expressions voiced by others - is what that interpretation process looks like.

Some here claim Scripture should be interpreted by the whole church. I agree. Archbishop Peter Akinola's comments - and similar expressions voiced by others - is what that interpretation process looks like.

Posted by: Chris on Monday, 20 August 2007 at 8:57pm BST

It's no use dressing up your anti-gay sentiment in Churchy-sounding rhetoric. I am not taken in, and I am (no longer) alone....

"I'm being censored, eh?"

Joe, I have often posted things that didn't make it to TA. Such things were either too long or perhaps too ...forceful. It wasn't censorship. Grow up! Yes, we have no oppression, we have no oppression today!

"apostolic succession has proven far less reliable as seen by heretics and false teaching."

Really? Now how be it that there are Mennonites, Hutterites, Baptists (of various flavours), Pentecostals, and on and on, all following Scripture as the final authority, yet all disagreeing on some point or other? Sorry, but I don't see this as any more reliable. Your view is the, to borrow your terminology, Reformation legacy view. I think there is a great difference between "Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation" and your position. But we used to be able to disagree, being Anglicans.

Interesting offshoot, The Anglican Catholic Communion USA (ACCUSA)as there seem to be a lot of Churches accusaing others at te moment. Incidentally, this little one, via Kenya, rejects the filoque clause (bit says it doesn't matter too much) and, in a rather un-Anglican fashion, recognises seven sacraments rather than two. I'm sure people can't wait to sign up.

Posted by: Pluralist on Monday, 20 August 2007 at 5:26pm BST

It is very tempting Pluralist (and great fun)-- who could resist a Church that allows a choice of the / 'a' Roman rite, a 'BCP 1979 'rite (whatever that may be) and a 'Kenya rite' PLUS pro the ordination of (people who happen to be ) women; and (somewhat unconvincingly) anti-gay.

If I weren't a gay post-anglican quaker with unitarian / nonitarian tendencies I'd be there like a shot. (We have nothing this camp in the RSoF !)

Joe, if there are regular posters to this site who have not, from time to time, submitted observations that have been judged inappropriate for publication, I am certainly not among their number. Just pick yourself up, dust yourself off ........

In Luke 4, we see Jesus start his public ministry where "on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down.

There reactions of the witnesses started with bemusement to which Jesus gave numerous examples of how prophets who are not accepted in their hometown are instead sent to unlikely outcastes. Luke 4:28 "All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this." They attempted to incite a lynch mob to murder him, but he walked right on through. Of course, we all know after three years of controversy, they did succeed in getting Jesus crucified after much vilification. But their "success" was their dramatic and irreversible failure.

The Pharisees and Sadducees of the time would have rejected Jesus boldness and ministry because:

1) Jesus' rejection of certain agreed positions and teaching is not sufficient to change the mind of the Communion on a theological issue;

2) it is not acceptable for Jesus to try to force the Communion to change its position or accept a contradictory position through unilateral actions;

3) it is not acceptable to fudge the issues any longer....not with integrity anyway;

We are all invited to become Christ like, to challenge the rulers and authorities where they become complicit with complacency, corruption and cruelty. This is a prophetic tradition that existed thousands of years before Jesus and was honored and reaffirmed by Jesus. Yet we are witnessing the wailing and gnashing of teeth as souls attempts to stop souls moving in Holy Spirit are being brought into the light of day, along with the methodology by which they deny acknowledging the gifts spirit or Christ consciousness in souls whose very existence is living proof of the fallacies in their selfish puritanical theology.

Cheryl wrote: "They have been only on this journey for ten long years. That puts their journey starting at 1997, ten long years after the South Africans coming out of apartheid suddenly found themselves "unworthy" and an alternative communion developed in their midst."

Gays have been on a 2000 years journey, oppressed and mystified by false teaching, and now they claim the natural right to marry. The recent years for gays have been years of joyful struggle and growth, not agony. If Akinola is in agony perhaps he is experience the death-agony of the millenia old homophobic regime he clings to?

Then there is Canon Mark Harris:

Ratcheting-up Noise

http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2007/08/ratcheting-up-noise-forty-days-etc.html

_If I weren't a gay post-anglican quaker with unitarian / nonitarian tendencies I'd be there like a shot. (We have nothing this camp in the RSoF !)_

I might be your anti-matter, as in heterosexual post-Unitarian Anglican with quaker/ nonitarian tendencies.

We can fight indefinitely. Or we can begin to discuss how such disparate views can be held in one community. Something is happening to our Communion and it is not clearly the fault of anyone. All sides have in their ranks people of good faith and rabid zealots blinded by dogma. The question before the Communion now is, can we be one body? Blaming each for causing the rift is missing the obvious; we are many distinct groups in one house. To remain one house we will need to find a grounding commonality. I resist the idea that this commonality would be the basic truth of the Communion. Rather this commonality would merely be that by which we claim to be organized as one. I would hope that each group would hold that what makes them unique is what is most important to their witness. I imagine that we are all weary of the limiting drag this whole struggle imposes. No one can act in faith. We are all limited by the disagreement of each others opinions.

This is the only work that needs to be done now:

1) To honestly decide if we want to remain in communion with the entire communion.
2) If no, then decide which parts we want to associate with and build connections, and decide best how to peacefully disassociate ourselves from the rest. (This will have an untidy outcome.)
3) If yes, then see if this unity can be articulated in some common purpose.
4) If we can, then we create new patterns of organization to accommodate our diverse spiritual cultures.
5) However, we may have to realize that we cannot articulate any tangible commonality. In which case we will need to organize in peace the particulars of our dissolution.

We need to stop arguing issues.

In order to accomplish this unity we need to realize that each group does not just need the right of belief but of space to develop community around convictions. The way we organize ourselves around sexuality has a significant affect on how our communities function. That is one reason this is such a divisive issue. We are in a turf war right now. Who of us really wants to remain one body? Are we willing to do the work to see if that is possible?

Ford Elms,

The "legacy" bit is a crack on drdanfee.

The theological differences between evangelical Baptists and Anglicans are actually quite small. Most of the differences revolve around organization (episcopal vs. congregational) and the use of liturgy. However, some Baptists are discovering the liturgy and coming to understand its role in worship.

Nevertheless, denominational splintering does not erode the reliability of Scripture; it further undercuts the reliability of the church as interpreter. The church can not come to agreement on interpretation and this sits contrary to what the Spirit would have us do. I can take a finely tuned F1 race car and turn a horrific lap. The problem isn't the car its the driver.

My view is exactly sola scriptura. I am not adding anything to salvation that Scripture does not lay out. I am also not claiming that Scripture covers everything. But I will assert that nothing the church can support can violate what is in Scripture.

L Roberts,

I must have missed something in my own post - what did I say that was "anti-gay?" Did I say I supported the Archbishop's comments?

If simply disagreeing with your agenda and engaging in the debate is "anti-gay", then you must have an incredibly strong moral argument. Too bad no one has produced said argument, but instead resort to name calling.

Cheryl - the big problem with what you have written is that the Lord also said "I have not come to abolish the law" and you cannot find one bit of evidence in the bible to support a claim that He rejected the moral teaching of Judaism (which is the basis for our moral teaching in the New Testament)

Where do you see the Lord saying that he was against the morality of Judaism??

Ford: I think yor position is an eminently respectable (Roman Catholic) one. But what 'church' do you mean? A) Roman Catholic (who are not very sympathetic to revising the church's teaching on sexuality, B) The Anglican Communion (ditto) C) the church catholic i.e. through history and worldwide (ditto) or D) the tiny fragment of the church which is 'the' episcopal church? Believing that the church must interpret Scripture is one thing, but that doesn't license anyone in their 'small corner' to believe and do what they like - they are still part of and thus subject to The Church (TM).

Dear NP,

In the Bible there is no such distinction Civil, Moral, Ceremonial.

It was invented by ABC Cranmer pleading Henry VIII's divorce from Queen Catharine.

Moreover, the Churches that didn't have this quaint little problem of having to divorce Henry from his Queen have never heard of it...

Sean is dead right....which is why it is so ironic when TEC people want to call +Duncan et al "schismatic"......TEC's "schismatics" are very ordinary in their beliefs in most of worldwide and American Christianity when it comes to the presenting issues......maybe, just maybe, it is TEC(USA) being schismatic??

Goran...why do you think you advance the argument by mentioning irrelevant details???

You may occupy yourself with word games....but pls do not kid yourself that you are doing anything useful.

The reason we see people like ++Akinola losing patience after 4 years of time wasting since TEC defied the AC re VGR is that we have had no substantial arguments to change the mind of the communion.....and we are tired of the word games (and are certainly not fooled by them)

We are on the brink of the AC collapsing.....the Tanzania Communique deadline is weeks away, the ABC is getting ready to try and persuade the TEC-HOB to give an acceptable response to the AC and maybe prevent schism....and you want to talk about Henry?

_If I weren't a gay post-anglican quaker with unitarian / nonitarian tendencies I'd be there like a shot. (We have nothing this camp in the RSoF !) L Roberts

I might be your anti-matter, as in heterosexual post-Unitarian Anglican with quaker/ nonitarian tendencies.

Posted by: Pluralist on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 at 2:43am BST

You must be Pluralist !
Smiling broadly

L Roberts,

I must have missed something in my own post - what did I say that was "anti-gay?" Did I say I supported the Archbishop's comments?

If simply disagreeing with your agenda and engaging in the debate is "anti-gay", then you must have an incredibly strong moral argument. Too bad no one has produced said argument, but instead resort to name calling.

Posted by: Chris on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 at 6:14am BST

I find your witty repost(s) almost irresistible.
It must be the way you tell 'em !

my thanks

Sean is dead right....which is why it is so ironic when TEC people want to call +Duncan et al "schismatic"......TEC's "schismatics" are very ordinary in their beliefs in most of worldwide and American Christianity when it comes to the presenting issues......maybe, just maybe, it is TEC(USA) being schismatic??

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 21 August

Not so. I think you'll find us lgbt people in all the church of all times and places - including bishops and other ministers....

lgbt folk brightening things up very often with a bit hilarity and sparkle --ever been to say, All Saitns, Margaret Street or a gay pride flotilla ?

And of course, apart from the choreography, often at the forefront of pastoral listening and care; and spirituality ....

.... and sometimes throwing great parties ...

NP, we have covered the question of legalism that ignores reforms or intent before. E.g. my posting of 3 July 2007 http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002481.html#comments or 1 August http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002540.html#comments These earlier postings referred to Isaiah 43:25-28, Jeremiah 8:7-12, Hosea 2:21 to 4:13, Jeremiah 2:7-8, Habbakkuk 1:4

When one reads the gospel, we see that Jesus repeatedly foretold that it was the chief priests and teachers of the law who were going to betray him e.g. Matthew 16:21, 20:18-19, 26:57 and 27:41-42; Mark Mark 7:1-7, 10:33-34, 11:18, 11:27-33, 14:1-2, 14:43, 14:53, 15:1-9; Luke 6:7-11, 9-22, 11:46-54, 19:47-48, 20:19,22:1-2, 22:66 to 23:2, 23:10. Mark 8:31-33 is interesting because Jesus spoke plainly of these matters and when Peter sought to stop him. Jesus reply? “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

Many of Jesus’ direct rebukes to the teachers of the law were about nullifying the law to line their own pockets e.g. Matthew 21:12-16 or Luke 20:46-47, Matthew 15:1-9 where Jesus alludes to Isaiah 29:13-16

The words of Jesus in 23:15-22 ring so true for today as well e.g. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. “Woe to you, blind guides!... Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?...” As does Matthew 12:38-39 where a wicked generation demands a miraculous sign but none is given but the sign of the prophet Jonah; which is the repentance of the masses and existing churches, not the formation of a new church.

... see pt 2

Pt 2

Today you might ask by what authority we act. We would respond as Jesus did in Luke 11:27-33, or adapt Luke 5:30-32 where when priests and teachers of the law complain that we sit with GLBTs and ‘sinners’?” We answer as Jesus would “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners...”

Even Paul understood there are limits to legalism e.g. Hebrews 10 where he comments that the law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming. It can never make perfect those who draw near to worship. Thus Jesus came to put aside the first the need for endless sacrifices for once and all time. It enables a reconciliation with God because “Their sins and lawless acts God will remember no more.” Since we have been blessed to we hold unswervingly to hope, for he who promised is faithful. We spur one another on toward love and good deeds and do not give up meeting together, but rather encourage one another.

I note that you referred to Matthew 5:17, and I think Jesus own words just three short sentences later put that into a nice context. “…unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Because “…if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it… Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom … because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!” (James 2:9-13)

The distinction between the types of "precept of the law" certainly didn't original with Cramner. Here is Thomas Aquinas:

"We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz. "moral" precepts, which are dictated by the natural law; "ceremonial" precepts, which are determinations of the Divine worship; and "judicial" precepts, which are determinations of the justice to be maintained among men."

Though I know of none before St. Thomas who use this particular terminology, the whole biblical and ecclesiastical tradition, from the prophets onward, recognizes the distinction between these various kinds of laws and their relative importance.

"The theological differences between evangelical Baptists and Anglicans are actually quite small."

Certainly no larger than the differences between chalk and cheese! The nature of the sacraments, infant baptism, the nature of public worship, TULIP, etc. Not all that small, actually. Just because some Baptists feel at home in some of our wilder Evo churches and some Romans feel at home with some of our high tat anglo-catholic goings on doesn't make us theologically close.

"the reliability of Scripture; it further undercuts the reliability of the church as interpreter."

Looking at the situation, I would think that it undercuts the reliability of using the Bible as the sole authority. The whole issue of things "ncessary to salvation" is an odd one to me. I would side with the ORthodox, what is necessary to salvation is the Christian faith, and it's not fully embodied in Scripture.

"what 'church' do you mean?"

Ah, there's the rub. On the one hand, it is of course the Church Universal, but that Church hasn't been united since First Nicea. So, are we not to decide anything? No. We could take the idea that the Church is all Christians everywhere, with which I do not agree, but it's no help anyway, given our divisions. So, we can only, sadly, define the Church as "us" respecting the fact that "us" is actually only a small part of us. "We" therefor seek to know where God is guiding us, always humbled by the fact that He could very well be leading others in different directions. The current sarcastic Nigerian attitude to culture is a case in point. Why do we not seem to consider that, given the huge cultural differences between American and Nigerian society, God is leading them in a different direction on an issue that is not actually crucial to our salvation? Perhaps God is trying to sort out the mess we have made by going against His wishes and allying ourselves with the state all those centuries ago, which necessarily led us to grossly compromise out principles for the sake of social benefit for our more powerful leaders, and, unfortunately, the sin of sacrificing the lives of gay people in Nigeria is one of the many prices we have had to pay for that.

"the whole biblical and ecclesiastical tradition"

Aquinas isn't Biblical, which leaves us with an ecclesiastical "tradition" that was very concerned, and grew moreso as the centuries went by, with preserving its place of power in the Empire, and helping the Imperial authorities control hoi polloi. To do this, there was a good bit of Scripture that had to be explained away. This Ritual/moral distinction is one of the ways this was done, along with declaring the Empire an icon of the Kingdom of God, and a whole lot more. Sorry, but if one defends things like this instead of acknowledging them for what they are, one really has no business accusing modern day people of compromising the Gospel for the approval of the world. Such behaviour is hardly new.

And NP, how is a 500 year old disobedience of Scripture irrelevant to you when the crux of your hatred of TEC is their "disobedience" of Scripture? How is Church acquiescence to murder irrelevant to someone who trumpets obedience to the word of the Law? How can you say that 500 year old sin is acceptable when modern sin isn't? I'm not saying modern sin is justified by old sin, but that if we are going to condemn modern sin we at least have to acknowledge our own past sins, no? Hardly irrelevant.

Cheryl - sorry, but legalism is not the same as wanting to be obedient to God and we are called to do that.....and you still have not come up with verses to prove that the Lord said that the AC should accept as a bishop someone like VGR who will not accept Lambeth 1.10 (the agreed teaching of the Anglican church, not me, please note Cheryl) You can search the whole bible, Cheryl, but as Rowan Williams says, there is zero in terms of positive comment on what TEC wants us to accept...and many "clobber passages" (as Ford calls them)

Ford - the problem I have is that The Spirit inspired the word...but now there is a very small number of people (many with vested interests) who claim the same Spirit is leading them to contradict his word as most of us in the last 2000 years and now understand it.....and we are told in the AC that we must accept this small minority as leaders even though most of us are not persuaded by their new "revenlations"?

Even more tellingly, many of those in the US who agree with the majority in the AC (i.e. accept the teaching of their church).....are being dragged through the civil courts.....maybe the spirit they are listening to in TEC HOB meetings also encourages litigation in the church now, Ford?

What we all need is for the AC to come to an agreed position and stick to it....I am happy for a vote to be taken at Lambeth 08 if all commit to stick to it this time....without a clear view of where we standed, we will fall as a house divided.

Goran said:
"In the Bible there is no such distinction Civil, Moral, Ceremonial.

It was invented by ABC Cranmer pleading Henry VIII's divorce from Queen Catharine."

and

"Moreover, the Churches that didn't have this quaint little problem of having to divorce Henry from his Queen have never heard of it..."

Are you sure about that?

From the wikipedia:

The Formula of Concord distinguished three uses, or purposes, in the Law in Article VI. It states: "[T]he Law was given to men for three reasons. . ."

1. That "thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men [and that wild and intractable men might be restrained, as though by certain bars]"
2. That "men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins"
3. That "after they are regenerate. . .they might. . .have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life"[7]

We may summarize the three uses as follows:

1. To restrain external evil (civil use) or (curb).
2. To show us our sin (pedagogical, theological, or elenchtical {convicting} use) or (mirror).
3. To show us God's character and will as a rule and guide to holy living, empowered by the Gospel alone (didactic use) or (rule).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Gospel#The_Book_of_Concord

“Joe, if there are regular posters to this site who have not, from time to time, submitted observations that have been judged inappropriate for publication, I am certainly not among their number. Just pick yourself up, dust yourself off ........” Lapinbizarre

That’s right, Joe. We’ve all experienced this at one time or another; conservatives are not being “picked on” at Thinking Anglicans.

Ford, that should have read the differences between evangelical Baptists and evangelical Anglicans are fairly small. Yes, areas such as liturgy, creeds, worship and infant baptism create differences, but many central topics such as Christian anthropology and sanctification are fairly close. Limited vs. universal justification is still a miss.

Once again, I'm not claiming Scripture as the sole authority. Salvation is fully embodied in Scripture (John 3:15, the "Roman road", etc.). We have no liberty to add requirements to salvation (such as church membership or indulgences) or to remove requirements (such as repentance of sin or watered down Christology). Sanctification, discipleship, the church, worship, how we treat other people and many other issues are not fully embodied in Scripture, but we are given first principles. Primary authority and sole authority are different animals.

Funny note on TULIP - some have tried to dodge the acrostic by using "particular justification" instead of "limited justification." I guess TUPIP is the new model.

I repeat:
All who want to stay living under one roof raise your hand!

"All who want to stay living under one roof raise your hand!"

Posted by: Scott Henthorn

I do! I do! I do!

"Primary authority and sole authority are different animals."

Our argument is thus over the definition of "primary auhority".

"liturgy, creeds, worship and infant baptism create differences"

Huge ones, actually, since our understanding of these things is directly linked to our approach to such things as "Christian anthropology and sanctification". I may be maximizing the differences, but you are minimizing them.

"We have no liberty to add....or to remove requirements (such as repentance of sin or watered down Christology)."

But who is doing this? That "reassessors" do not believe in repentance, for example, is untrue. They just think that the things for which we should repent are in some cases different. "Reasserters", for instance, are rabid about sexual sin, but will jump through incredible hoops not merely to ignore economic sin, or war, or a number of other things, but even to justify them.

And, Scott, my hand is waaaaay up!

"the same Spirit is leading them to contradict his word "

And this would be new in that......?

No,

I don't really want to stay living under one roof.

Every week in the UK two women die as the result of violence from their partners. I don't want to be under the same roof as people who make alternative provision for those who say women are not fit to teach men, or are not valid matter for priestly ordination - it encourages violent men to think they can beat women.

I have no figures for violence against gay people, but I know it is widespread in the UK. I don't want to be under the same roof as the Global South, who give crediblity to this behaviour.

My hand stays firmly down.

Let them go thier own way.

Scott Henthorn,

Sure! Why worry about doctrine?

There are, apparantly, to be no binding votes at lambeth 2008, therefore no agreed position there, therefore nothing to stick to there. Not everyone believes that all that is in scripture, as selectively read over the ages, is binding, nor does everyone believe that all that the Church decides and changes its mind about is binding, and if we stayed as one then the one will be broad, and messy and pointing in different directions at once. As has ever been since it was both Reformed and Catholic, and when Reformed carried all kinds of meaning, as indeed Catholic came to do.

This is why Akinola and company are getting ready to walk and show signs of impatience, because the opurity they want will never be delivered, so much so that if they do not walk they will look somewhat deflated and marginalised. Let those who want to walk, walk, and everyone else can carry on.

All who want to stay living under one roof raise your hand!

Posted by: Scott Henthorn on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 at 3:39pm BST

OR wave ! ;-)

"All who want to stay living under one roof raise your hand!"

Count me in!

This might raise a few laughs, given previous comments:

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=59606

"Aquinas isn't Biblical, which leaves us with an ecclesiastical "tradition" that was very concerned, and grew moreso as the centuries went by, with preserving its place of power in the Empire, and helping the Imperial authorities control hoi polloi. To do this, there was a good bit of Scripture that had to be explained away. This Ritual/moral distinction is one of the ways this was done, along with declaring the Empire an icon of the Kingdom of God"

So when Amos says, "I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts I will not look upon....But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream,"

..or when Jesus says, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others."

...they are not distinguishing the relative weight of the ceremonial and moral obligations of the law, but shilling for the Empire.

Chris asked: "Are you sure about that?"

Quite. To us the Law is the 10 Commandments, only.

What you are referring to is what we call "the laws of men".

But we never call them God's law, we don't even call them Mose's law. Only Calvinist do.

Chris's Wiki entrance is Pietist (references to LL Laestadius and Missouri Synod). Not Lutheran.

To: Pluralist
Re: the web link

ROTFL (and you're definitely going to Hell. But that's OK, it seems we'll all be there; except, of course for the Donatists and the and the Pelegians. Only God knows where they'll be.)

Rick Allen wote: "Though I know of none before St. Thomas who use this particular terminology [moral, ceremonial, legal], the whole biblical and ecclesiastical tradition, from the prophets onward, recognizes the distinction between these various kinds of laws and their relative importance."

O no, they don't.

Simply because such distinction did not exist (and the paragraphs in Leviticus stand in glorious juxtapostition: a melée ;=)

Like most abstract concepts "moral" is scholastic; 12th century.

Before that moral was concrete; life, way of life, cf Plutarch's Moralia, a collection of lifes; personal histories of more or less actual characters, such as Persian King Sardanapalos (even more lascivious that a woman - of course he never existed outside Neo Platonist wet dreams ;=)

Rick,
Please! The quote from Amos is about mindless religiosity that gets in the way, which is something that could just as easliy be laid at the feet of the legalists. Same with what Jesus said. They both speak of justice and righteousness being more important than mindless religiosity. Very applicable to those who demand obedience to Law above compassion and mercy, I'd say. Slavish obedience to ritual isn't the only way mindless religiosity is expressed. Interesting that the "moral" things you identify deal with the very justice issues NP claims are at best a minor part of the Gospel.

"We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz. "moral" precepts, which are dictated by the natural law... "

Nor do we have Dr Thomas' "natural" law (very un-natural to us ;=)

Scott, I'm there too, but it seems that makes three or four of us. What we need is for Peter Akinola and company to join with us for Christ's sake.

Hmm. The book of Enoch is missing. The books of Susanna, Judas, or Mary...

Jesus was silent about homosexuals, even though they would have existed at his time?

There were zero passages retained in the Christian bible that offers loopholes to affirm homosexuals and souls refuse to apply the precedents that relate to eunuchs.

Who were the editors who chose what should remain in the written tradition? Duh! Homophobes.

Now we know why God sent me. Now we know why souls deny they have received correspondence and delete evidence.

The Hindus have a concept of Kali - both the mother of all things and the destroyer. The angel of death does not appear just at the moment of death, it can also appear when souls are at a crossroads, where they can choose between one route that leads inevitably to death or another that offers hope and a sustainable future for both that soul and their descendants.

It is God's way of asking "Are you really sure that you want to take the route towards extinction? We can make you extinct if that is what you really want, but you don't have to go that way if you don't want to."

God existed before this planet or humanity was formed and God will continue after this planet and its occupants have gone.

Gaia has shown she wants to continue to live, there are other souls demonstrating that they also want to live. They now have to choose between theologians who will give them a future and theologians who would rather die than show graciousness.

We can not change souls who cling to hate. But we can demonstrate that their theology is premised on hate, judgement and vengeance. We can offer an alternative.

The teachers of the law hated Jesus because he showed an alternative was possible. They repeatedly contrived to stop his messages of love, forgiveness, mercy, compassion and inclusiveness.

If the bible has been silent, then the bible needs to be expanded. It would merely be fulfilling a prophetic vision told to me in the 2000, so I am not surprised that we have come to this point. Just as I was given a prophetic vision when I was 19 that I would live to see the start of the 1000 years of peace after the book of Revelation was fulfilled.

Before this thread goes away completely, I'd like to endorse what Scott Henthorn posted (Tuesday, 21 August 2007 at 2:45am BST). I've never seen it put better.

But there's just one catch. We can only remain together if we are willing to do so. It takes an act of will, not an act of intellectual assent, to maintain charity among sisters and brothers.

If we were only willing "to remain [in] one house [and]... find a grounding commonality" -- not a set of opinions, but a way of organizing ourselves under one roof with our many disparate opinions -- not "the basic truth of the Communion" but "merely ... that by which we claim to be organized as one" -- then we could avoid a schism.

If we will that, despite our divergent views, we will continue to occupy a common space, to live under one roof, then we will go on doing so in one Communion. (And if we are not willing to do so, then the Communion will split.)

Liddon, I'm with you. My hand stays down. Frankly, I don't care if I'm in Communion with them. Their views are anathema to me.

If we want to stay as on body, how will we provide real space for each ethic to mature in community?

Can this be done in an Episcopal organization?

DrRags,
their views are an anathema to me too, but I have no choice but to want to stay in Communion with them - it's what Christ is asking us to do. We're not just to feel cosy with those we agree with, but we are all one body.

Hi Ford

I liked Rick's posting. The term shilling confused me, but I presumed he was talking about the priests spouting either moral, written or legal teachings whilst they had sold themselves out to cruel leaders.

Rick, if that's not what you meant, I'm sorry I misinterpreted you.

Zechariah 7:9-14 continues God's rebuke of cruel priests. It includes “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.’ “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the LORD Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets... “ ‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the LORD Almighty. ‘I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations, where they were strangers. The land was left so desolate behind them that no one could come or go. This is how they made the pleasant land desolate.’ ”

Scott

It would be lovely to stay under the one broad tent, but not if that is at the expense of condoning and advocating the mistreatment of either our own members, our neighbours or Creation itself.

My hope is to remind souls of God's vision for a pluralistic peace free of tyranny, accusations, greed or corruption. The beauty of this debate is there will be communion formed that has as its cornerstone an understanding that everything of this universe is for God, of God and from God; and thus everything should be treated with respect as it contains a holy spark. A communion where we seek to bring out the best in ourselves and each other, where we relish the diversity and breadth of gifts God has bestowed not only on our Communion members but on humanity and Creation as a whole.

Erika,

Feeling cosy isn't the point. Global South is telling us to break communion with the USA and Canada. As far as I'm concerned, I'll stay in communion with anyone in the AC, but if the GS bishops want to make different rules then let them go off and do their own thing. I'll feel much more comfortable without them. And, if they stay, then let them listen to Changing Attitude and let them learn. We mustn't dance to their tune. We have an obligation to women and to gay people that we must not ignore.

Liddon,
As someone living in a loving same gender relationship and active in Changing Attitude I couldn't agree with you more about listening to what we have to say.

I had read Scott's question to mean who is willing to be in communion with everyone instead of walking away. If I had to chose, I'd certainly not go anywhere with the GS, although I would still believe that they are refusing to be in communion with me, while I am still in communion with them.

Why do we not seem to consider that, given the huge cultural differences between American and Nigerian society, God is leading them in a different direction on an issue that is not actually crucial to our salvation? -Ford Elms on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 at 12:13pm

Ford states the reason why many Christians do not see the danger of rewriting the Holy Scriptures to suit human desires. The end result is removal of need for salvation. May not be very visible now, but that is the direction which we find difficult to believe God who sent His Son to deliver us from the power of our sins will lead anyone.

All who want to stay living under one roof raise your hand! – Scott H.

Count me in IF Jesus Christ remains honored under the roof!

"They both speak of justice and righteousness being more important than mindless religiosity."

Indeed they do. And Jesus speaks specifically about all these things being "matters of the law"--he only notes that some are "weighier" than others.

I don't disagree about the denouncing of "mindless religiousity." I would only ask, What is 'mindless religiousity' if not the the taking of those good and salutory religious observances, laid down for Jesus in the Torah, and for us by the scriptures and the Church, and making them outweigh our obligations to love God and our neighbor? With regard to the tithing of mint and dill and cummin, Jesus doesn't denounce them; he specifically says they should not be neglected. But he says they should have less weight. And the mandate to give one set of laws less weight than another implies the distinction between the two. That's all that I was saying, that the distinction between the weight of ceremonial and moral laws didn't begin with Cramner, or the scholastics, or the Fathers, or even with Jesus.

It is an important thread running through the whole bible, and is a matter of balance, "weight," not of abolition of one or the other. Jesus asks, "Was the Sabbath made for man, or man for the Sabbath?" He questions the inhuman extremes of Sabbath observance--but he doesn't seek to abolish it.

Hi Cheryl-

You mention some things which are missing from the Bible:

(1) 1 Enoch is indeed a work contemporary with the very latest parts of the Old Testament. There are also other later books of Enoch, not that any of these (or 1 Enoch) are by Enoch.

What is the idea? That every Jewish writing before a certain date belongs in sacred scripture? If so, many questions arise. Why only Jewish writings? When is the cut-off date? Why aren't the Jews allowed to produce any inferior-quality writings? (Not that 1 Enoch is one of these.)

(2) Daniel is the latest book of the OT and Susanna is a later addition to Daniel. Susanna was therefore written after the chronological cut-off point for inclusion in the OT. (Having said that, the 1st century canon could potentially have included books of this late date: just, none were voted in.)

(3) No books either by or attributed to either Judas or Mary were written in (or all that near to) the period of the New Testament writings, ie 1st century AD. I will rephrase that. There are no surviving writings by either Mary or Judas, and I have no idea whether either of them could write. But I would be well capable of writing something on a parchment today in the names of either or both. Would you then press for my humble efforts to be included in the New Testament simply because of the pseudonymous name they were written in?

The serious question is: So what if something is pseudonymously attributed to an earlier figure? What authority does that give it?

Goran,

Missouri Synod would most certainly consider themselves Lutheran.

Actually, Goran, even if you don't think LCMS is Lutheran, their doctrine belies your claim that the only reason anyone we have the idea of the three uses of the law was to justify a royal divorce.

All who want to stay loyal to agreed AC positions and if necesasry agree to work to change positions in an orderly way within the communion (i.e. not just going ahead with unilateral decisions and telling people they have to live with the change!), please raise your hand!

(not many hands raised around here because, sadly, so many are wedded more to a single agenda than to AC unity or the aim of the AC as a properly functioning communion with mutual responsibiltiy.....but most of the AC would agree would raise their hands to my call.....which is why we are getting a covenant in the AC - bring it on!)

I can't see how the Road to lambeth and its proposals, which would essentially say there is no place in the church for anyone who doesn't take the conservative line on gay relationships, can be something which can be united around.

If that is their bottom line position, then yes, they will probably end up breaking away.

So this is spiritual warfare to some. I am trying to come to a different approach or at least a clearer understanding of how we stand with each other. My intuition is at least partly confirmed that for many of us for reasons of moral logic it is not possible to remain in one house. This needs to be admitted. It needs to be understood as the result of our differences and not the singular nastiness of one side. I have been chided for seeing things so simplistically and yet it is clear that progressives are equally capable of a dualism. So let the debate resume?

Cheryl,

For all your Scripture quoting you summarize things according to teaching I don’t understand as Biblical,

To help my understanding can you provide a text for the following:

1) pluralistic peace free of tyranny
2) everything should be treated with respect as it contains a holy spark

Some speak as if only progressives believe in justice. The characterization of conservatives as ferret faced legalists who care nothing for human suffering, and perhaps even enjoy it, betrays an all to human weakness for bigotry. We (and any who agree with this are part of our We) We too have righteous indignation against injustice. Do progressives really think they invented the mission to the poor? We are not enamored with the revolutionary spirit of Eros. We are not complacent before it victims. How many slaughtered unborn? How many dead by the spread of disease through sexual immorality? How many innocent dead because of the sin of there parents, or spouses? Aids and other STDs are spread by sin not by wont of condoms. Take a moment to understand what we think is happening in a pregnancy termination and our indignation is perfectly logical.

Justice and Righteousness are inseparable in Scripture. Righteous without Justice is empty. Justice without righteousness is doomed to the fate of all political theories. God insists on both. For this reason I believe it is important that we make the effort to hear what each is saying. Are conservatives sometimes blind legalists? Without a doubt. Do progressives propose a victimless morality?

I find the eperience of reading some of the posts here, from people who call themselves 'conservative' and 'orthodox' amd 'Biblical' very disheartening.

They seem often to be characterized by a defensiveness, a nastiness and a narrow-mindedness that belies faith (to my mind).

Whether there is to be 'one house' or not, we have but one world, and we must all share local, and national communities -- and this one world.

Rick Allen wrote: “... or when Jesus says, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others."
...they are not distinguishing the relative weight of the ceremonial and moral obligations of the law....”

Not at all. But it does seem to me He gives them precious little weight. Hardly worth mentioning…

Chris asked: "Are you sure about that?"
Quite. To us the Law is the 10 Commandments, only.
What you are referring to is what we call "the laws of men", we never call them God's law, we don't even call them Mose's law. Only Calvinist do.

Chris's Wiki entrance is Pietist (references to LL Laestadius and Missouri Synod). Not Lutheran.

"We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz. "moral" precepts, which are dictated by the natural law... "
Nor do we have Dr Thomas' "natural" law (very un-natural to us ;=)

In fact we’re a 1st Millennium church, we never really “Roman” (= Gregorian), not even Lutheran. We were rather Dr Martin’s Ideal, the 1st Millennium, that anything else. And the 1593 Confessio fídei of the Church of Sweden does not incorporate the Books of Concord of the German churches, only the 3 Ancient Creeds, the unchanged 1530 Confessio Augustana (in a changed translation) and the decisions of the Council itself (Upsala möte). With us, parts only, of the Books of Concord are an e x p l a n a t i o n to the Confessio augustana (Regency of Carl XI, 1664).

Chris wrote: “Missouri Synod would most certainly consider themselves Lutheran.”

Look at their teaching.

Chris wrote: “Actually, Goran, even if you don't think LCMS is Lutheran, their doctrine belies your claim that the only reason anyone we have the idea of the three uses of the law was to justify a royal divorce.”

Precisely; so not Lutheran. A 19th to 20th century Protestant sect amongst others in America. If this is influenced by ABC Cranmer, so be it.

(Pietist readings of the Book of Concord often are quaint, such as the denial that John 6 is about the Eucharist ;=)

I must say that I’m rather shocked to see so many grave in-readings. How can anyone imagine that the 3 “uses of the law” viewed from within, of Luther’s theological great-grand-sons of the 1580 Book of Concord, is the same as the most superficial division into 3 from without of ABC Cranmer; Civil, Moral and Ceremonial?

???????

And yeah, Henry VIII an “irrelevant detail”?!? And you claim to be an Anglican, NP (and moreover, that there is nothing wrong with your comprehension ;=)

More +Akinola/Church of Nigeria AGONY and justifications:

"What Rot! Nigeria Justifying CANA!"

http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-rot-nigeria-justifying-cana.html

By Canon Mark Harris

L Roberts

If you mean me I think we have all grown to hear from each other a spirit that may not be there. I am really trying to find common ground, trying to listen. Pointing out the sins of myself and of those I broadly agree with. There is plenty of ”defensiveness, a nastiness and a narrow-mindedness that belies faith” to go around.

All,
That is why I am pushing the question on what basis can we be one community. To assume that one side is nasty and the other patient by nature but pushed to the limit is to not really have our ears open to what all are saying. Right now we are fighting for territory. That is, I think, at least some of AB Akinola and other’s motive. Act now before it is too late. There is some Biblical basis for this kind of action. I do not think we have exhausted our possibilities yet before division. But I am not sure at what level of our communion that there is any real attempt at reconciliation; any real commitment to allowing for actual differences on the ground. It is difficult imagine that someone who considers the liberation of homosexuality from all prohibition ever being silent before any who say that homosexuality is sin, and visa versa. Without the ability to say this is our spiritual culture and that is yours, each with contradictory forms, can we remain one communion? We are fighting because as of yet we are one group. If we cannot imagine a way to end the fight we cannot but become two or more groups. If this is inevitable, and I do not think this is certain yet, we should work towards a way to dissolve our unity with some decency.

As Christians, we struggle with biblical texts, and our very commitment to the struggle is the sign of our faithfulness to this book, the Bible. Christians can learn from Jews how the commitment to wrestle, even angrily, with the texts manifests faithfulness.

Why is it that we take Romans 1 more seriously than Titus 2 ("Wives should be submissive to their husbands")? What about Jesus' judgment that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? My sad conclusion: if a given group is powerful enough, then we ignore the passages that criticize them. Homosexuals still represent a marginalized group in our society and our church, so we take literally the passages that condemn them!

Hi Scott

Good questions. The kind I like, it gives me an excuse to troll through the bible again.

Question 1: pluralistic peace free of tyranny

Isaiah 2:2-4 is an excellent vision "In the last days the mountain of the LORD'S temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nationS will stream to it. Many peopleS will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.” The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He will judge between the nationS and will settle disputes for many peopleS. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore."

Micah 4 repeats Isaiah's vision and clarifies further with "Every man will sit under his own vine and under his own fig tree,and no one will make them afraid, for the LORD Almighty has spoken. All the nations may walk in the name of their gods; we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever."

See also Isaiah 11:10, 43:8-14, 61:9, 25 which includes God "will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peopleS, the sheet that covers all nationS", 29:22-26 which includes "“See, I will beckon to the Gentiles, I will lift up my banner to the peoples..." Isaiah 55 which includes "...a witness to the peopleS, a leader and commander of the peopleS... You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace..." Isaiah 60 which includes "...You will drink the milk of nationS and be nursed at royal breasts... I will make peace your governor and righteousness your ruler. No longer will violence be heard in your land, nor ruin or destruction within your borders, but you will call your walls Salvation and your gates Praise."

Daniel 7:13-14, Zephaniah 3:9-20, Romans 15:11-12, Zechariah 8:18-23 which includes "...love truth and peace... many peopleS and powerful nationS will come..." Habbakuk 2:10 is a succinct rebuke "You have plotted the ruin of many peopleS, shaming your own house..."

Scott Henthorn raises interesting points.

One group has found an issue on which it can make its move to have a purer Church. Having found an absence of alternative passages on the gay issue, using this rather than any other issue of the same sort of absence, it is extending the logic of this as far as it can go - the argument is actually about new reformation, that is to say with the environment of secularisation and pluralism you have a different approach of the Christian faith.

Some think the Christian faith can negotiate with the secular/ pluralist in tension with them (modernist liberals), others that the faith works within them (postmodernist liberals and radicals), others that it must resist and defend from the plural/ secular (traditionalists of old denominational subtypes) and others that it must resist by attack (conversionists, the likes of Akinola and so on). This is why the homosexuality issue quickly becomes a broader issue about doctrines.

At present most of the liberals can get on with most of the radicals, as they are both under attack, and most of the traditionalists can get on with most of the conversationists, as they see overlaps regarding doctrine. The people in the dividing areas are Open Evangelicals.

At present this phase emphasises division. Reconciliation comes for example at an equivalent time of the Methodists in 1932. In other words, when the old arguments for division have played out and something else becomes a new basis for division. So, beyond some getting cold feet, who add to those who genuinely would imagine they can redefine the centre (and cannot - like the Open Evangelicals), the whole thrust now is towards division.

Goran,

I think your chronolgy is faulty. The Book of Concord was written in 1577 - roughly three centuries prior to the formation of the LCMS.

' It is difficult imagine that someone who considers the liberation of homosexuality from all prohibition ever being silent before any who say that homosexuality is sin, and visa versa.'

This is not an (intellectual) discussion between equals.

For the first vital two decades of my life I was criminalised by the UK law; and for all of my life up to a few yeares ago I lived in the virulent anti-gay atmosphere.

I was only able to have my relationship of over thirty years validated in a civil (Registry Office) ceremony August 2006; and only had a spiritual ceremony in a christian place of worship, last Saturday.

So we are not equal(s) in this 'discussion'.

People....read what ++Akinola says....I think some have demonised him so much that they do not even bother to see what he says before attacking.

Rowan Williams has a clear choice....
a) let TEC get away with ignoring the pleas of the Primates, TWR and Lambeth 1.10 (i.e. institute a way of doing things which is all about rights and stuff the view of the communion);
or
b) people who want to stick to agreed communion positions.

I think you see in the ABC in the last few years a man who realises that his job is more than pushing one rights-based ageenda....and a man who believes in church unity as well as order. This is why he so disappointed some "liberals" with the Tanzania Communique and why he is about to do so again in TEC in September......his ACTIONS to date are all about AC unity and show a lot of sympathy for those like ++Akinola who did not "tear the fabric of the communion" through unilateral actions in the way that TEC did.

Some will bleat on..."but they cross boundaries" - yes, they do because, even though you want no response, there are still some people in the AC who believe in confronting false teaching....because the bible does not say "live with false teaching" or "make false teachers your leaders and have lots of warm chats together" or "do not judge teaching, accept all views and ordain even those who contradict church teaching" (not sure all here even know this!)

Anyway....pls read ++Akinola's words without prejudice. He is not unreasonable

As a retired (but active) priest of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa/New Zealand, I have been watching the 'Global South' Network web-site now for some time, and have come to the opinion that it's content is subversive and obstructive of the work of the Gospel.

Archibshop Akinola's latest statement reeks of a fundamentalist judgementalism of the very roots of the Church which gave him the freedom to speak and promote the Gospel imperatives of love and justice. In his diatribe against those people of homosexual orientation who happen to be faithful members of the world-wide Anglican Communion, the bishop is betraying the cause for which the Church exists - to preach the love of God, and to love one's neighbour as one's-self.

It seems to me that the power struggle that is presently going on in our Communion is one which needs tolerance and patience - 2 virtues which seem to be missing from the agenda of the Global South. If Akinola were to hear (and do something about) the cries of the homosexuals in his own country who are being brutally treated by the authorities - with his implicit backing - then perhaps the rest of the world might begin to believe in his protestations that he has the mind of Christ, especially in his attitude towards some of the most marginalised of his own society.

The political posturings of any cleric in the service of their own ambition only show the rest of the world how shallow is their claim to share the passion and the humility of the Christ they profess to serve.

Perhaps the Anglican Church of the future, if it is to survive, needs to curb the power of those of its prelates who seek to pursue a relentless pogrom of moral superiority (shades of the Inquisition) at the expense of the rest of us who are struggling with human issues of vital importance - sexuality, women's place in the Church, etc., all impinging on our place in the Kingdom of God.

The wrath of Jesus was mainly pitted against those who thought themselves beyond judgement because of their own moral superiority (see the Pharisee and the Publican). God save us from the revival of Pharisaism in the modern Church! Jesus Christ came into this world to save sinners - and I guess that includes everyone?

My job as a priest, is not to condemn people to Hell but to show them a pathway to Heaven.

Cheryl,

I would Think these verses do not support a pluralist view

Isaiah 2:2-4 Many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.”

This is not a vision of people coming and sharing their ideas. They are coming to receive teaching from the God of Jacob.

Spot on Pluralist. I knew we could agree on something.

My thinking is that I have come from a small sect. And in that sect have witnessed sub-secting over minutia. I am committed to my views and feel they are hard won. I want a place to develop them in community with others of roughly like mind. I am not sure at what point God considers us out side of His house. He sure has been patient with me through my changes.

The issue around sexuality has focused on homosexuality. As such it becomes a very personal and justice issue. From my thinking the Gay movement and the disposition that fosters it are ways of dealing with the human condition. Much of the teaching in this subculture is counter to the broad (and specific) teaching of Scripture. Therefore though convincing and even helpful on some level they are not congruous with the best good that God has given us. Part f my thinking is if there are those who want to graft this teaching onto the churches teaching let them have a go, come back in 50 years and let’s see how things worked out. These things cannot be judged normatively; they are ultimately empirical questions. I believe that the Scriptures provide sexual prohibitions to guide us closer to God. The empirical ‘study’ was already done in the nations of Canaan, Egypt, etc. We do not need to repeat it. At least I do not want to repeat them in the community I work out my salvation in. I do not think this an unreasonable request given the nature and history of our community and its documents. I want to practice traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethics because, like other traditional teachings I think they are wise in their simplification of our contition.

But if there ore those in our communion who consider this a justice issue on par with denying people food and water, and those who consider this a sin that any connection with a community that condones such practice corrupts us by implication, we cannot live in peace with different social structures built on differing sexual moralities.

This is not a vision of people coming and sharing their ideas. They are coming to receive teaching from the God of Jacob.

Question 2: everything should be treated with respect as it contains a holy spark

This question also tightly interweaves with the first one. It a much harder to answer it really requires a book “Finding God In The Singing River” by Mark I. Wallace is a good place to start. The first draft was 1358 words, so I’ve had to do some major culling. If you want more, let me know, I’ve barely scratched the surface.

We are called to treat ourselves as holy sparks and ambassadors for God e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:19 or Isaiah 52:11 and to create in kind communities that are to be holy in the midst of other peoples e.g. Jeremiah 7:4-7. There are promises that when the world is in order, God’s graciousness flows to ourselves, our neighbors, even plants and animals e.g Isaiah 11:5-10, 30,48:17-22 or 65:17-25. Even the rocks cry out for joy, the mountains tremble and the Universe sings in accordance with God’s Will e.g Isaiah 40:25-26 or 45:11-12.

Isaiah 54 is one of the most powerful and relevant passages for this time and it includes “… shout for joy… “Do not be afraid; you will not suffer shame…. For your Maker is your husband… he is called the God of all the earth. The LORD will c