I think this is where Rowan Williams can revise his invitations - to include all on an equal basis. It still, though, should remain for discussions and for study etc. - nothing so illusory as a binding agreement can come from this set of primates - and it should be expected that nevertheless the issue of the Communion overthrows all other issues. The result could still be as Robin Gill puts it - some not recognising others, and some organising alone afterwards. Indeed, lack of ability to have the illusion to make binding resolutions might still keep those away who want to organise their own top-down Communion in a more pure set-up.

Otherwise, keep Lambeth 2008 as it has been set up, including the broader agenda, with no doubt an alternative Not-Lambeth 2008 being set up, so it becomes clear who the walkers out are.

Tutu is the only Anglican voice whose authority stretches far beyond a parochial support group. His present address is a prophecy, and must be listened to.

Tutu's plea is consistent with the imagery of Isaiah 54 and Zephaniah 3:14-20: "The remnant of Israel will do no wrong; they will speak no lies, nor will deceit be found in their mouths. They will eat and lie down and no one will make them afraid.” Sing, O Daughter of Zion;shout aloud, O Israel! Be glad and rejoice with all your heart, O Daughter of Jerusalem! The LORD has taken away your punishment, he has turned back your enemy. The LORD, the King of Israel, is with you; never again will you fear any harm. On that day they will say to Jerusalem, “Do not fear, O Zion; do not let your hands hang limp. The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing.” “The sorrows for the appointed feasts I will remove from you; they are a burden and a reproach to you. At that time I will deal with all who oppressed you; I will rescue the lame and gather those who have been scattered. I will give them praise and honor in every land where they were put to shame. At that time I will gather you; at that time I will bring you home. I will give you honor and praise among all the peoples of the earth when I restore your fortunes before your very eyes,” says the LORD."

Thank you so much, Archbishop Tutu, for the best and most helpful words heard yet in the current
Anglican row! I pray one of our great prophets will be listened to.

If there is one overriding theme for study, worship, prayer at the next Lambeth, surely it is theme of just how broad-hearted Anglicans worship at the Lord's Table and do Tikkun service while holding opposing or different views in theology. An example of how to differ while not taking up arms, doctrinal and otherwise.

Such a call is not destined to be received well on the spectrum of Anglican rightwing realignments, however.

Clearly, as the realignment campaign has steadily done throughout - the Anglican sex police are moving on, step by step by step. As planned, right from the realignment starts. They are going to separate from the ungodliness of all unconformed theologies, especially needing to step away from rubbing shoulders in church life with prog-lib believers, using the queer folks as wedge issue that reliably upsets most of their constituencies.

This is so far down the split paths that it almost represents a de facto reality.

The best way forward for now is something very like that modeled by the General Con in USA during the conflicts (mostly with southern state Episcopalians) about ending slavery - let rightwing believers stay away at their own discretion, but make no finality of it and always extend a welcome to return. Provided they disarm and agree to disagree.

The rightwing sex police realignment campaign hijacking of the Primates Meetings, combined with the home invasion tactics, will sooner or later arrive loudly on other shores. No?

Keep on keeping on and the family will eventually get through all this.

The Con-Evo realignment armada setting sail onto the high seas of modernity faces imposing reefs and shoals and dead calm winds ahead - womens' leadership-competency controversies are waiting in the con-evo wings, unsettled and rife with hard feelings by quite a bit; plus the probable large economic failure to acquire funds/properties that a realignment congregation might talk itself into stealing when it leaves TEC, plus the impending fade of the sex policing agendas upon which realignment believers have so strongly staked their causes, plus the peer-reviewed research flooding out in so many different journals which tends towards undermining the closed flat earth hermeneutics upon which so much of con-evo realignment thinking has so often been deliberately built.

drdanfee

Intolerance for difference is not the sole possession of “the spectrum of Anglican rightwing realignments”. Your whole post indicates you want it one way and no other.

AB Tutu is not impartial here,”Like his successor Ndungane, Tutu has been a staunch supporter of gay rights and advocated for an Anglican Communion that is inclusive of all people regardless of sexuality.”

Those who want to debate and disagree need to honestly and calmly state opinion and allow the same from others; Listen and calmly respond. That will be the only source of healing. It is clear that there are many on both sides of the divide that have no interest in this kind of process.

Tutu's tactics won't work. It's a nice thought, but the right wing has already stated their intentions to walk and not be in communion with progressives. So, it is as it has been. I agree with drdanfee. Let them walk and leave the light on for them.

Curtis,
I am not sure we know yetr who is walking fom whom.

Tutu remembers his friends. As one conservative commented on a TA thread several months ago, GLBTs were at the forefront of the battle against apartheid. At the time I pointed out that this proved they deserved respect, as they were also at the forefront of the fight against Nazism, and have been in many other crux periods in history.

This week's Out In Scripture study is excellent http://hrc.org/scripture/week.asp, it is a lesson in how they can and should play a role in restoring the streets and communities. This is the opening passage of the study "God’s people are about the renewal of community. This renewal is not simply a matter of gentrification or beautification, but of communities transformed in God’s justice, equality and compassion." They refer to Isaiah 58:9b-14 and Psalm 103:1-8 or Jeremiah 1:4-10, Psalm 71:1-6; Hebrews 12:18-29; Luke 13:10-17

From there I would add God’s inclusive visions such as Isaiah 56 or Isaiah 51:11-16 "The ransomed of the LORD will return... Who are you that you fear mortal men... who are but grass, that you forget the LORD your Maker… that you live in constant terror every day because of the wrath of the oppressor, who is bent on destruction? For where is the wrath of the oppressor? The cowering prisoners will soon be set free... I have put my words in your mouth and covered you with the shadow of my hand… and who say to Zion, ‘You are my people.’ ”

Or Hosea 1:10 to 2:1 "...where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ ...the people of Israel will be reunited… “Say of your brothers, ‘My people,’ and of your sisters, ‘My loved one.’"

Or Isaiah 52:12 to 53:12 "... you will not leave in haste or go in flight; for the LORD will go before you, the God of Israel will be your rear guard... and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many... I will give him a portion among the great... For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

I agree with you Curtis. Let them go. When will people understand that this policy of hatred and exclusion is the last thing for which a church should be known? Especially over something like sexual orientation which IS NOT CHOSEN but something we are born with. I usually like to say that I go with what Jesus said about it, i.e nothing. To me this is just a power play by a third world thug mascarading as a Christian.

"The best way forward for now is something very like that modeled by the General Con in USA during the conflicts (mostly with southern state Episcopalians) about ending slavery - let rightwing believers stay away at their own discretion, but make no finality of it and always extend a welcome to return. Provided they disarm and agree to disagree."

"Keep on keeping on..."

(but I don't understand the dys-functional family imagery, it's just weird. The Gospel is empowering precisely because it is critical of dysfunctionality and power-plays.)

Scott Henthorn: "Those who want to debate and disagree need to honestly and calmly state opinion and allow the same from others; Listen and calmly respond. That will be the only source of healing."

Try it! It might work.

"... honestly..."

Take some Greek - and a short History of Ideas!

... maybe a long one ;=)

The slavery analogy works fine -- Tutu recognizes that gay rights are human rights, yet he is prepared to be in communion with those who do not yet recognize this. As usual he is going the extra mile to a near-scandalous extent. As in the slavery debate, the rightists appear unteachable, shored up with their fundamentalist understanding of Scripture, but time is moving on and the welcome mat must be kept out for them until they too learn what so many Christians have learned in recent decades.

Goran,

I will calmly respond:
You presume I am uneducated because I do not hold your views.
You assume that if I did have the quantity, or quality of education that would earn you placement of me as worthy of engauging you indiscussion that I would agree with you.

On the subject of Lambeth...

The Good Bishop of South Africa has earnestly requested that all be invited. And, to the extent that the Conference is what the Archbishop of Canterbury purports it to be, non-legislative, non judicial, I absolutely agree for we truly need to be present to one another and actively listen. But I suspect that there is an entirely different agenda on the part of the Anglican Communion Institute, its British partners and "Communion Conservatives." I believe that the intent is to work with friendly primates and Global South allies to morph Lambeth into both a legislative and judicial body and subsequently claim that the actions taken by the majority are the work of the Holy Spirit.

Ephraim Radner is a conciliarist. In his treatise: "Lambeth can be what it wants to be," he clearly lays out a model by which a "conference" can become a "council" and that council's decisions to be taken as authoritative and prescriptive regarding the Anglican Communion.
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/docs.cfm?fname=20070608radner&format=pdf&option=inline
Subsequently, he engaged in a dialog with Matt Kennedy at Stand Firm {06-06-07 5:16} am stating:

"Let Lambeth 2008 finish what Lambeth 1998 began. Arguments to the effect of "but TEC hasn't listened and cannot be trusted" are all true! I have made them ad nauseum along with the rest of everyone on this blog. But so what? Nigeria, Uganda, and so on all have the numbers on their side by a long shot. Let us then see the Spirit uphold their witness. Or do we doubt that too?"

Again, if Lambeth is to be the prayerful conference ++Cantuar suggested, I am hopeful of dialog and listening, but I am deeply concerned that others do not share Bishop Tutu's hopes or good will.

No soul is more blind than the one that does not want to see.

There is an adult educational model (works for kids and nonhumans too). We don’t know what we don’t know. We then know that we don’t know something. We then decide we might want to learn about something, we then start to learn something. We then know what we know and can do what must be done.

A soul does not know that something exists or is possible, therefore it does not exist or is not possible e.g. microwave ovens a century ago. A soul comes to know that something is possible or might exist but does not see that it is relevant to them e.g. God's promise of an end to tyranny.

The only thing for the Book of Revelation to be completed is for a human grooom who has the courage to be married to the male cherubim of the ark and his female equivalent. Jesus can play the ball of being that soul or the ball of being God who is over the two cherubim. I don't care which way he throws, I'll play the game either way.

I’ll explain the metaphysical process that leads to this destination in the next posting as the mental models are really helpful for this time :-).

Part 2:

A soul comes to recognize that it does exist and it might be possible. This is the transformative moment when the soul turns to God and asks if it is possible, and whether they might personally experience it. For example, is it possible they could be part of the birth pangs to introduce the millennia of peace promised after the book of Revelation is complete?

Some souls panic and flee back to the familiar, no matter how cruel or degrading it might be. Others take the leap of faith, recognize that it might be possible and then ask of God then next logical question. "Dear God, if it is possible then what needs to be done?" God's reply is that we need to understand what we don't want to be, and why, in order to understand what we must become to be, and why.

We then have the flight-fight responses again. Some souls will take the leap of faith and lift the veils to see what needs to be seen so that they can understand what needs to be understood. This is what Eve did when she tasted of the tree of knowledge.

There is then an uncomfortable period of integrating and coming to understand what has been learnt. There is suffering, shame, embarrassment, anger, frustration, grief (of what could or should have been but wasn't). Depending on the soul's resiliency they then come to the point that they realise the only way to move forward is to leave where they are - this can be simply a psychological or spiritual insight rather than a physical upheaval.

Then the journey begins. There are the trials, the transformations, the lessons, the setbacks, the disagreements, the frustrating points where the road is blocked until a lesson is learnt and the new paradigms and leadership accepted. Finally, the soul is ready and God reveals the glory of the new paradigm and reveals a vision of the holy land that is yet to be occupied.

The souls refined and redefined now enter into that new paradigm and lands covered by God’s glory and begin the process of transforming the lands into the Gardens of Eden as God calls them to do.

Archbishop Tutu is quoted as saying, "Our Lord is weeping to see our Communion tearing itself apart on the issue of human sexuality, when the world for which he died is ravaged by poverty, disease, war and corruption."

But what if, in fact, sexual perversion is part of the "corruption" that is ravaging the world for which Christ died? What if no one will see God without sanctification (Heb. 12:14), and sanctification requires avoiding sexual immortality (1 Thess. 4:1)?

Dgus

Your theory is based on a fundamental premise that as long as male does not rape male there is not rape.

Unfortunately for the premise taught to you by complacent males, God remembers both the rapes against the males and the females.

"But what if, in fact, sexual perversion is part of the "corruption" that is ravaging the world for which Christ died?"

Yes, I agree. Rape and child abuse are indeed part of the corruption. I take it you meant those obvious perversions of loving sex, not the loving sex same gender people may have.

Imagine yourself standing before Christ next to a child who died because of malnutrition. Imagine yourself saying you genuinely believed it was more important to spend your time fighting against faithful couples who love each other, so, sorry, the child died.
Really??

"I am not sure we know yetr who is walking fom whom."

Well, Scott, consevos certainly seem sure that it is the "liberals" who are doing the walking. In response, some "liberals" seem to be taking the view that it is the Conservatives who have itchy feet. In fact, either side is too busy yelling its position to be walking anywhere. Indeed, each side is yelling so loudly, even the still small voice is being drowned out.

"But what if, in fact, sexual perversion is part of the "corruption" that is ravaging the world for which Christ died?"

DGus,
I would agree that sexual perversion is a part of the human brokenness that Jesus came to fix. The problem is that you are tacitly defining homosexuality as sexual perversion. Surely the current debate is about whether or not a loving monogamous lifelong relationship between two adults can be defined as perverted just because it is between two members of the same sex. The fact that some conservatives cannot tell the difference between the relationship I just described and pedophilia, and have no wish to find out what the difference is, or understand anything about homosexuality that contradicts their prejudices, just adds to the problem.

Erika reminds us of the most important point here. If I may paraphrase the blogger "Mad Priest" here, I'm not concerned with what loving, consenting adults do in private, but it scares the sh*t out of me to think that I had a chicken salad sandwich for lunch yesterday while a child starved to death somewhere in the world.

Try explaining *that* to our Lord upon the day of your judgment...

DGus asked: "But what if, in fact, sexual perversion is part of the "corruption" that is ravaging the world for which Christ died? What if no one will see God without sanctification (Heb. 12:14), and sanctification requires avoiding sexual immortality (1 Thess. 4:1)?"

The only corruption here stems from the sexualized reading.

1st Thessalonians says IRL:

1. Loipòn oûn, Adelfoì, eråtåmen umâs kaì parakaloûmen en Kuríå Iäsoû ína
kathås parelábete par’ämån tò pås deî umâs peripateîn,
kaì aréskein Theå, kathås kaì peripatêite ína perisseúäte mâllon,
2. oídate gàr tínas parangelías edåkamen umîn dià toû Kuríou Iäsoû.

Further, Siblings, we beg you and call upon you in the Lord Jesus
– that as you receive by yourselves so properly that by which you walk,
and pleasing to God!, that when you walk you excel even more –
you do understand the messages we give you through the Lord Jesus.

3. Toûto gàr estín théläma toû Theoû, o agiasmós umån,
apexésthai umâs apò täs porneías,
4. eidénai ékaston umån tò eautoû skeûos ktâsthai en agiasmån kaì timä,
5. mä en páthei epithumías katháper kaì tà éthnä tà mä eidóta tòn Theón.

For this is God’s will, for your sanctification,
that you shall shun away from sacral prostitution,
– you know how to keep your own vessel the Receptacle of sanctification and honour;
not in Plights of Greed like the Heathens who don’t know God.

6. Tò mä uperbaínein kaì pleonekteîn en tå prágmati tòn Adelfòn autoû,
dióti ékdikos Kúrios perì pántån toúton, kathås kaì proeípamen umîn kaì diemarturámetha,
7. ou gàr ekálesen ämâs o Theòs epì akatharsía all’en agiasmå.

Don’t ever greedily deceive your Brother in Commerce,
for the Lord is judge over all such, as we already told you and witness herewith,
for God did not call us to impurity, but for sanctification.

8. Toigaroûn o athetån ouk ánthråpon atheteî allà tòn Theòn
tòn didónta tò Pneûma autoû tò ágion eis umâs.

Consequently whoever disregards (this), does not disregard a human, but God,
who gave his Spirit, the Holy one, unto us. (= sin against the Holy Ghost).

Conclusion, apart from the Sacral prostitution we know to stay away from in verse 3-4, 1st Thess 4 is about dishonesty and Greed. So still in the Danish Bible…

Trouble being, that the Scholastics used this passage (immunditia in verse 7) to underpin their 1139 teachings of Mandatory Celibacy for the ordained.

Hi Goran

Your posting brings forward two paradigms that color this debate.

On the one hand there is the position that humanity and this earthly manifestation are the consequence of error and sin, of souls 'falling'. It was Eve's fault so all women should shut up. Souls who take this position often advocate separation from this world and most especially separation from the opposite gender lest they conceive and thus be seen to condone continuing this earthly manifestation.

The other position is that God creates all levels of existence including this earthly manifestation which is both desired and pleasing to God. Eve chose her actions to give her the skills and knowledge sufficient to become one of this planets two divine guardians. It was necessary to master both good and bad, light and dark, if the planet was going to survive and evolve.

At its worst, the battle involves one camp of angels seeking to expunge humanity and this earthly manifestation against another camp who desire humanity and this manifestation. The Jews talk of a scene where a camp of angels was contemplating whether or not God should create humanity, and one angel commented that whilst they were debating God had gone off and done it. She (the Shechina or Eve or Wisdom or Daughter of Zion), saw that what God had done was good and chose to help God in his earthly works.

Proverbs 8 is the prophetic insight to Wisdom's core paradigms. Wisdom raises her voice to all humanity, she dwells together with prudence and hates pride, arrogance, evil behavior or perverse speech. Wisdom was brought forward as the first of God's works, before this world was made. She was there when God set the heavens in place and as he moulded the earth. She was the craftsman at his side, filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in God's presence and the whole world and delighting in mankind.

A core paradigm of those who advocate hate is that humanity are fallen failures and only some are worthy of God's grace and presence. This theology is hated by God because souls flee when they feel God's presence because they fear punishment. God weeps as they run away and says "All I wanted to say is hello and that I love you". Love yourselves and each other just as God wants to love you and the other.

"... sexual immor-t-ality..."

No, sexuality (a Modern to late Modern concept) has nothing do to with immortality ;=)

Is Tutu impartial? NO

Is a fudge "unity"? NO

Does sticking together matter more than truth?
NO

Does the ABC want CofE parishes leaving to come under faithful Anglican leadership from Africa?
N0

Unity is great.....but it must be real and there must be trust within the communion.
TEC showed in 2003 that it does not give a fig for UNITY when its own agenda is not accepted widely in the AC.....

The weakness with the old lines Tutu has trotted out is obvious.....the Lord never called for unity amongst various groups which do not believe the same thing. The whole bible does not encourage Tutu's view that we are to be in communion with various contradicting views.....just have a read about Elijah and St Paul in Galatia to see examples of how men of God dealth with false teachers. Tutu is not consistent with Elijah, St Paul, the Lord or any man or woman of God in the Bible........we are never taught to be in communion with false teachers but we are taught to seek truth and avoid false teaching.

(Just look how Paul talks about false teachers in Galatians or have a look at 1 Cor 5-6, if you do not believe me)

There is the joke about the soul who ended up before St Peter because they drowned in the flood.

Sitting on the roof of their submerging house, a guy in a kayake goes by and offers a lift. "Go save someone more needy", replies the soul. Then a guy in a motorboat comes by and offers a lift. The soul replies ""Go save someone more needy". Then a helicopter rescue team arrives overhead and the guy suggests they rescue someone else first.

Indignant, the guy dies and goes to heaven. "Hey God, why didn't you save me?", he asks. Hey, I sent a kayake, a boat and a helicopter and you said "no", replies God.

Fast forward to today. There are Godly biblical promises of an end to tyranny, poverty, corruption, desecration, greed and slavery. "No cry some souls", leave us to our empires and paradigms. "Hey God, how come the world and humanity became extinct?" they fume.

Hey, I sent prophets, Jesus and the Daughter of Zion and you said "no" to their advice...

False teachers are those who tell you have solutions, but their solutions do not help in the real world. Such souls do not care about the real world or its inhabitants. In fact, they want its inhabitants exterminated and Jesus to be the world slayer.

Don't trust them, don't like them, don't desire them.

Cheryl - what is a false teacher in your definition? Seems to me that you are making up your own definition rather than going by the bible?

I am using the term as we find it in the bible eg
Jude 1:3-8.
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Jude+1%3A3-8

This (and other verses) tells us what a false teacher is....i.e. people "who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ".

Sorry, but I think we see both of the above in certain TEC leaders.....you see, the issue is not about one group or one act, it is wider and includes denial of the Lord (some bishops in TEC are pluralist if you look at their words, rejecting John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 amongst other verses which deny pluralism as an option). I kow you like scripture....the issue in the AC is the authority of scripture....this is why we have to be careful of those who look very like what the bible calls a false teacher.

"This (and other verses) tells us what a false teacher is....i.e. people 'who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ'.

Sorry, but I think we see both of the above in certain TEC leaders...."

What?!? Can you say any absurd thing that pops into your head and expect people to take you seriously?

To say that the leadership of TEC denies Jesus Christ is calumny of the worst sort. It is absurd. How can you get away with saying it.

Similarly, you simultaneously accuse the leadership of TEC of "pervert[ing] the grace of our God into sensuality". which is equally absurd.

The further away you drift from reality, the less seriously people will take you.

Thanks for the link NP, I note the last sentence refers to "Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones."

I refer you to Isaiah 37 which includes "Who is it you have insulted and blasphemed? Against whom have you raised your voice and lifted your eyes in pride? Against the Holy One of Israel! By your messengers you have heaped insults on the Lord... “Have you not heard? Long ago I ordained it. In days of old I planned it; now I have brought it to pass, that you have turned fortified cities into piles of stone. Their people, drained of power, are dismayed and put to shame. They are like plants in the field, like tender green shoots, like grass sprouting on the roof, scorched before it grows up."

You act as if there was no God, as if God had no feminine that God cared for. You deny God's ability to send messengers and incarnations.

You might strut before men, and preach before the ignorant, but you are stripped naked before God. You are a mere man who does not even comprehend with whom you argue. You lack the wisdom to even show prudence or restraint. You are despised and without credibility before the cherubim of the ark. Without the cherurbim of the ark's endorsement, your whole theology is ashes.

Cheryl....you seem confused.

You say wanting to stick to God's revealed will, sticking to what he says in the bible is going against him???

You say "You act as if there was no God, as if God had no feminine that God cared for. You deny God's ability to send messengers and incarnations"
- but does not ignoring what he says on certain subjects fit your description much better than sticking to what God has said in the bible??

There has only been one incarnation, by the way.....that is according to a man called Jesus Christ who called himself unique as God on earth.

Do you think you are some special messenger? Has Gaia been talking to you again?

ruidh - do read carefully before you throw toys...you misquote me and then criticise me for your misquotes

I said " I think we see both of the above in certain TEC leaders"

You never heard of any TEC leaders making comments which are basically pluralist?? Try using Google if you really are unaware that such statements have been made. (or you can read the famous Akinola (with some help from Minns) letter.

As for being connencted with "reality", are you also one of those who wants to pretend that Windsor and Tanzania did not occur in recent AC history.....I seem quite connected to AC reality given those statements came from ALL the Primates because "sensuality" appears to be put above the word by some TEC leaders and this is not acceptable in the AC.

Cheryl - I think this article may help you
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2007/08/now-hear-this-gene-robinson-and-voice.html

If we have to decie between people hearing voices and God's word, we are wise to stick with God....or there is chaos as in the AC currently

There are enough people quoting "scripture" in order to back up both reasonable and unreasonable thinking about this and that. In fact there are too many! Why can't we discuss reasonably, seeking our perception of a Christlike attitude and vision without falling into the trap of giving scripture verses an authority they were never intended to have. Our relationships with each other, even with those with whom we "disagree", would be better if we stopped doing it. We would then have to wrestle with the living vocabulary which we all have. Thank goodness I don't have to quote scripture when I am making love!!

Cardinal Wardrobe, What about the second coming ?
I think we should be told ...

"...without falling into the trap of giving scripture verses an authority they were never intended to have."

Because a significant number of those who call themselves "orthodox" subscribe to the distinctly unorthodox belief that Scripture not only IS the seat of authority in the Church, but, in denial of history, claim that it ALWAYS had this level of authority.

"seeking our perception of a Christlike attitude and vision "

But where's the fun in that? Those you refer to above have, on this site and elsewhere, quoted the Scripture to which they give all authority to justify their refusal to behave in exactly this fashion. You are new here, I think. One poster regular makes the claim, indirectly, that sitting in judgement on what other people believe IS a Christlike attitude, backed up with numerous verses mined from Scripture. I expect such a response to this post.

Asélgeia; ravings, refers to Bacchanals.

I don't think even NP in his wilder moments is ready to say that Bishop Robinson, or PBs Griswold or Jefferts Shori, or ABC Williams take part in Bacchanals.

Or?

PS The so called Letter or Jude is the same text as 2 Peter 2, the heathen origial of which is preserved. All are very late 2nd century.

So much for the (admittedly un-Biblical) concept of "Scripture".

Better tell the Catholics to demote Mother Theresa, as she experience "interior imaginative locution" -- she distinctly heard a voice in her head tell her what to do.

Other souls talk about hearing the Holy Spirit telling them what to do. There is the email about the guy who came out of a bible study that contemplated that God who spoke to Samuel was probably capable of doing so in the here and now. He then went through a series of hearing a distinct voice and following its prompts which led to him standing on a holding a gallon of milk on the doorstep of a home that had a screaming baby and a husband rushing out to find an angel to get them some milk as they had no money.

There is only one Jesus and he only had to do the whole crucifixion thing once.

That does not mean that there are not things unseen or from other realms, nor that they can not intervene in history. The Muslims don't have a problem accepting that Mohammad spoke to Gabriel; souls don't have a problem that Moses spoke to God or the Shechina. Yet apparently, God lost the capacity to do so?

This discussion continues not for NP’s benefit, but for others who are advised to draw back from the tents of hate mongerers. There came a time where the Holy Nation could not be formed because every time Moses took them to a new understanding, Korech’s whining nitpickers would attempt to sabotage with criticisms. Numbers 16 describes God's solution.

I wonder if Jesus recognizes Isaiah 63:8-10 and that these souls who he thought were loyal to his vision of gentle abundant peace have grieved his Holy Spirit? Or how that parallels Psalms 107?

This is a wicked generation. They made it humanly impossible to reform them and speed from one conquest to the next, never satiated, always accusing, and always repressing. Apparently God only exists to retain their camp’s power and to feed their hateful lusts.

I might be insane, but at least my insanity places me before God with a clear conscience that I had done everything humanly possible to end these cycles of tyranny, repression and accusations. I trust that Jesus knows exactly who, what and why I am and will mete out his justice accordingly.

The other thing is that "interior imaginative locution" is a well established gift from Spirit. It has the characteristics of many of the prophets of the Old Testament, and is one of the gifts following the Pentecost. If it is not legitimate, then the Apostle Paul really lost the plot.

On a personal level, it took a lot of convincing by God that it was not just my imagination. This paper is my Gideon’s fleece story of why I came to trust that distinct voice http://www.wombatwonderings.org/files/he_prepares_the_way.pdf
It preceeded many other corroborations, some of which are on the testimony page of my website http://www.wombatwonderings.org/page/testimony.html

I haven’t been keeping the website up to date recently as I found my enemies were reading the papers to anticipate my next move so they could appear “more authoritative” when I finally moved. It has been much more fun to play my cards close to my chest and drop the bombshells on TA without prior notice.

Without prior warning, souls have made real fools of themselves as they have claimed that something is not biblical only to have it become biblical.

For example, in the millennium of peace post the completion of Revelation, we can expect to see all the gifts of Spirit, including interior imaginative locution.

This is promised from the Old Testament e.g. Isaiah 30:19-21 “O people of Zion… you will weep no more. How gracious he will be when you cry for help! As soon as he hears, he will answer you… your teachers will be hidden no more; with your own eyes you will see them. Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, “This is the way; walk in it.””

So NP, I am merely verifying one of the many gifts that come from this time in history. If you do not believe my testimony, then you probably should stop reading the bible as my experiences are no more extraordinary than any of theirs and just as real as were theirs. Great changes in history are not brought about by cowards, the corrupt or scribes. Great changes in history happen when souls take leaps of faith and trust that God really does want a world that is abundant, peaceful, hospitable, sustainable, diverse, beautiful, joyful, colourful and innovative. It’s called a renaissance.

_Jesus Christ who called himself unique as God on earth_ NP

That's just the point, isn't it. No he didn't - he was a completely faithful Jew and would never have considered himself God on earth. Others, later, thought he was, quite some time later. Theological expansion it might be called. Maybe they were right, or not, but Jesus himself didn't think so. He might have thought he was necessary to bring about the Kingdom of God, but that is another matter.

"I said " I think we see both of the above in certain TEC leaders"

You never heard of any TEC leaders making comments which are basically pluralist?? Try using Google if you really are unaware that such statements have been made."

Ah, yes, the bait and switch. When asked to substantiate accusations of apostacy and denying Christ, NP comes up with lame old examples of "pluralism". Statements which, while they have been made by certain leaders, are not unique in the history of the Church and are a far cry from "denying Christ".

Again, I ask you to substantiate your calumny or retract it.

In the meantime, Tutu will be pleased to see the World Council of Churches quoting from his "God has a dream book" and looking at how to integrate the African concept of Ubuntu And Asian Sangsaeng into a modern and relevant theology.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200708281082.html?page=3

Some might cling to the old world order, but sufficient numbers have awoken to the realization it is a destructive and cruel path to death, and they are instead revisiting the holy texts and societal wisdoms to recreate wise and life affirming paradigms.

The other thing is that complete fulfillment of the bible necessitates active female figures. E.g. the bride offering the FREE gift of the water of life (Revelation 22:17). Or God's promise that the masculine would be surrounded by the feminine in order to bring about change (Jeremiah 31:22).

My personal inclination is to be a behind the scenes defense support player, but sometimes the only possible defense is a strong offense - it's calling instilling the fear of God. How many souls can a church abuse before God moves to make an example of them? One. If it's the right one. The trap was set and the bait taken.

There is one thing that no human can now change, that is that I am and am now woven into human history. You might remove the earthly evidence but the lesson has rippled beyond human realms.

Critical mass has been reached and humanity's consciousness is now evolving and no amount of insults, recriminations or sabotaging can reverse the metaphysical chain reaction that has begun.

God's Will has been done, we are at the start of a new heavens, a new earth, and a new hell.

Ford....you know the foundations of Anglicanism give the same high weight to scripture that I do....

Pluralist - same answer....I think you will find that this Anglican church that you want to be an "anything goes", biblical-theology-free-zone has for quite a while subscribed to the view that the Lord clamied to be God and was indeed proved to be God in his death and resurrection - you do know that right? I know you are making up your own religion which strangely enough requires you to agree with yourself but you do know that Anglicanism is based on scriptures and foundational statements?? I prefer sticking to those than following your revisions.

Cheryl - you say you might be insane - I agree. What does Gaia think?

ruidh - you ain't aware of the false teaching most of us in the AC cannot agree with in the light of scripture.....please see The Windsor Report for one example. You can read the Akinola (with a little help from Minns!) letter too.

"you know the foundations of Anglicanism give the same high weight to scripture that I do"

No, they don't actually. "Containeth all things necessary to salvation" does not mean the same as "all things contained in it are necessary to salvation." And then there is the oddly Anglican idea of "necessary to salvation" as though St. Peter stands with a clipboard at the Pearly Gates, making sure you have the required points of belief. Also, Tradition and Reason must be factored in, which you clearly do not do. And while "councils may err" we still accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils, more or less. Furthermore, just because something is not in Scripture doesn't mean it's wrong. And why do you assume that because others come to different conclusions than you, they must therefor not have the same high view of Scripture? That's the worst part, NP, your repeated assertions that those who believe differently from you have no faith at all and ignore Scripture. It is untrue, and is something Paul tells us not to do.

"you are making up your own religion which strangely enough requires you to agree with yourself"

As opposed to yours, which strangely enough requires the Bible to agree with you?

NP. We are all burdened with handicaps. I chose insanity over spiritual blindness.

To stop the plague of snakes, Moses had to incorporate the snake into the healing, just as we do with spider and snake venoms today. In a world sick with insanity, the vaccine must by necessity contain an element of the insanity to arouse the immune response.

The difference between my insanity and others is that it is a nonlethal form that heals the infected and refines their immune system to protect from further infections.

I had myself assessed by a professional psychologist before I took the major bold steps. She saw that the integrated picture made sense, it was highly unlikely, but it was possible. She also knows of my prayers and visions that God wants the world healed. She still agrees that it was worth taking the leap of faith. If the price has been high, it was my own price to be paid; I did not demand it of another. That is another difference between you and I, you demand that others behave so that you might be saved. Whereas I am prepared to surrender my salvation in order that others might be saved.

The scriptures are not complete, by the disciples' own testimony. John 21:25 "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." As the scriptures do not contain all of Jesus' miracles or teachings, it is reasonable to assume this applies to the other prophets as well.

Renaissances in the scriptures ripple into the arts and the sciences, as well as into the fabric of how our families and communities interact. New words and concepts become part of the vernacular. All this is as promised by Jesus "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” (Mark 16:17-18)

Hang on. How does NP know that I agree with myself? Sometimes I do some, gosh, even biblical study and decide I do not agree with myself. Oh, by biblical study I mean source criticism, redaction criticism, as in methods taught in the colleges, as in not reading stuff straight off the page as if that's all there is to it. Nor is it a book of rules.

"As opposed to yours, which strangely enough requires the Bible to agree with you?"

Experience tells us that when Text and teaching are supposted to be one (that is whenever they are conflated ;=), the Text will be changed to accomodate the (alien) teaching...

Ford...what you keep on avoiding is that I am merely wanting to stick to the creeds (when people like KJS say there are many paths to God) and I want to stick to the agreed position of the AC when it comes to Lambeth 1.10 (which has not been overturned as far as I know).....so, I am making up my own religion??

Ford, I think this is worth a read with regard to "listening" and honest reponses:
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2007/08/repeat-after-me-theyre-not-listening.html

I was always taught that everything not prohibited by scripture was compulsory.

There is another biblical interpretation to be considered. Adam was first married to Lilith, but God and Adam found her to be too demanding, nitpicking and cruel. Adam and Lilith's combined creation was destroyed as it was too inflexible.

Then God created Eve who was more kind. That is the creation we live with now.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.htm/aid/555601/jewish/Achieving-Man-2.0.html

The question being begged of Jesus as the "ultimate" male is would he rather be married to an inflexible nagging perfectionist Lilith. Or would he prefer the more flexible Eve/Cheva who is not as "perfect" as Lilith, but more tolerant of inadequacies and with a better sense of humour.

Unfortunately, the Liliths make it almost impossible to live under the same house as they abuse the children and reduce Eve to tears at each and every opportunity.

Jesus can't have both, he needs to choose one or the other.

"Cheryl - you say you might be insane - I agree. What does Gaia think?"

Is this really the kind of comment that should appear on this site?

Erika - you did not object when Cheryl said to me "your theology is ashes" - you think that is ok but I must not say wild statements are strange?
(pls note....Cheryl used the word "insane" about herself....and I merely agreed with her based on some of her statements eg "There is one thing that no human can now change, that is that I am and am now woven into human history. You might remove the earthly evidence but the lesson has rippled beyond human realms. "

Cheryl has not taken offence, from what I can see above, but Erika I notice you do not object to attacks on poor old NP!

Good point Erika Baker.

Also I wonder what is sanity, and who is really totally sane ?

I suppose all faith may involved a kind of madness, as does falling in love.

We pay a high price for human intelligence, consciousness, culture and sensitivity, I think....

The other thing are there are those who claim that I am not taking the gospel to the masses.

If I go into a Jewish community and sprout off about Jesus and demand that they become Christians (by force if necessary), then I am promoting my own agenda.

But if I go to a Jewish community and suggest that Jesus is the authority given dominion over all the souls on this planet, and his teachings are relevant to their own communities' health. Then they might listen.

The Lilith/Cheva lesson is a good example. Now I can go back to them and suggest they look at the lesson about Martha and Magda. Jesus chose the woman who wanted companionship over the nitpicking accussing woman who wanted to drag others into work, even when the gospel was being preached.

Erika

Thanks for your compassionate response.

It is, however, inevitable due to the nature of my mission. God chose to use me as an example that the God of gods does exist and has dominion over all the earth as well as the heavens. By the time I knew I had a personal role, the suffering of others was so extreme that I could not withdraw.

NP taunts that I listen to Gaia; what NP has failed to realise is that my testimony demonstrates that Gaia listens to me. As I cry, so does she, as I hope, so does she. Wilma went from nothing to a Cat 5 in 12 hours (something that normally takes 3-4 days). It was parked over Mexico for three days until I sent the second email and then married up with Alpha and a Nor'Easter (like the Trinity imagery?). Monica dipped to avoid Darwin with an "Oi Oi Oi" to the Aussie Anglicans. Cat 5+ Larry ripped through Queensland and the Aussie boys lost the 100m relay as they forgot to grab the baton, and the Aussie girls won gold as the English were disqualified for obstructing their path.

These are signs that cause wise Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, secularists and others to pause. It demonstrates that there is a God of gods who is above any Hindu god, Buddhist paradigm or Abrahamic prophet. Plus the paradigms are robust enough to integrate the lastest developments in theories in the field of evolution, cosmology, psychology, economics, chemistry, physics or sociology. That reassures both the faithful and the secular.

Plus it all reaffirms God's role as Jesus as the male Guardian of this planet and all its occupants.

Those who attack me, do not attack me because I jeopardise the gospel, Jesus or God. They attack me because their theology is inadequate and thus their marketing self-promotion is exposed for the distorted and reduced corruption that it is.

It was not possible to fulfill the book of Revelation without proof that would satisfy the Jews, Muslims, non-Abrahamic religions nor atheists. Nor could not be done without acknowledging and integrating the legitimate and righteous from all streams known to human consciousness.

For peace to come the cycles of tyranny had to end, and they could not end without fulfilling Revelation. I might be insane, but the alternative was literally extinction.

"want to stick to the agreed position of the AC when it comes to Lambeth 1.10"

Yet you are inexplicably unconcerned about sticking to Lambeth 1:9 or Lambeth 1:11 or any other verse from what you seem to think is the GS's latest addition to the Bible. We know. TEC has disobeyed everybody else and now has to be punished, because that's what unruly children do to other unruly children. We get it. You don't seem to get that your carefully laid scenario of the virtuous majority in the Church being pushed to the wall by TEC repeatedly ignoring their warnings not to be unGodly is only a distorted part of the picture. It is a story being told by people who have an agenda: to halt any further change in what they see as an already dangerously "modernised" Church. They also are full of the righteousness that comes from knowing exactly what God wants, and, since God is on their side, any tactics are acceptable. What +Rowan does in September, what was said at Dromantine, Dar, and everywhere else, whether or not TEC or us Canadians get kicked out of the communion, all this is beside the point. The point is that this is a battle between people who believe that a particular recent innovation in Biblical authority is God's Divine Will and that they have the responsibility to force what they understand as God's will down everybody else's throats. They also believe, presumably because of the Divine nature of their calling, that lieing about their opponents, propagandising, feigning persecution, shifting the goalposts, all these and worse are acceptable because they have God on their side. They don't seem to care whether or not they are on God's side.

L Roberts and Ford, thanks for your posts.

I loved L Roberts' imagery about falling in love.

I spend much time wondering if Jesus was satisfied by the light of life (Isaiah 53:11) and if he ever wants to re-experience the well of living waters (e.g. Revelation 7:17) and thus find the womb of the dawn (Psalms 110:3).

The possible chosen has the chance to either walk through the dry desert, forever forsaking and being forsaken.

Or he could try falling in love and find the wells of living water that lead to the wombs of new life...

Ford - you have spoken about martyr complexes before.....

I have said many times (but you conveniently forget it) that it is not just Lambeth 1.10 that I want loyalty to in the AC ..... but it is 1.10 which is deliberately, provocatively, arrogantly breached by TEC.

Ford - pls read the Tanzania Communique.....you say I am listening to people with an agenda but am I not wanting exactly what all the Primates of the AC request of TEC???

Anyway, forget it mate - I am tired of saying that I want the AC to keep to its creed and agreed positions when people like KJS and VGR preach liberalism and immorailty (clearly rejecting the creeds and agreed AC positions) only for you to avoid these issues and come back with all sorts of smokescreens about innovatios and hypocrisy from what you call the "right". It is nearly time for the key issues to be resolved and I trust the Primates will act in a way consistent with their actions in the last 4 years.

The Windsor Report and the Tanzania Communique make it very clear what the issues in the AC are and what is required to prevent schism. Please note, Ford, I did not write these...they come with the endorsement of all the Primates of the AC - not a miserable, right-wing cabal as far as I know.

NP
It's one thing to criticise someone's theology, but quite another to insult them personally.
You insult my theology all the time in the rudest terms without me getting particularly upset about it.

I might easily say of myself that I may be insane, I might even mean it, although it could be a joke. For someone else to take my comment at face value and then have the cheek to publicly agree with me is quite another issue.

Your "poor old" persecution complex really won't do. Although Cheryl kindly accepts your words as part of the price she has to pay for her work, they still should never have been written.

"all the Primates of the AC"

Like I said, people with an agenda. Who did you think I was talking about? Just because some people are very good at political manipulation doesn't make them the voice of the majority. Look, again, what you hope for in September may well happen. I am not so naive as to dismiss political things like this as meaningless. My continued pointing out of the hypocrisy of the right, as I have said many times, is NOT justification of the actions of the Left. The point is that this is NOT a battle between those who stand for the purity of the faith and those who would destroy that purity. That's what you have swallowed whole, and it is a myth. It has blinded you to the fact that you are following a bunch of cynical hypocrites whose interests are everywhere BUT in following the Gospel. This little fantasy of the Holy War might well appeal to your romantic notion of standing for Truth, but it just enables them to manipulate you better. The fact that, despite repeated explanations of this, you still can't see it is just a testament to the extent to which you have bought in to the Great Lie. It makes you miss the bigger picture. It also leads you to betray the Gospel you pretend to follow, though you are so far gone you can't even see this, indeed you defend it. Maybe you fear having to give up the comfort of your Evangelical absolutism if you do. I don't care. If TEC gets kicked out in September you will seriously believe that a great victory has been won by the forces of Truth. You'll understand it better one day, as will we all. Till then, fight on, brave soldier.

Np tells us that he has frequently said he wants loyalty to more than Lambeth 1998 1.10.

Indeed, he has also said that he wants unqualified loyalty to Windsor (or at least his selective interpretation of Windsor), Dromantine, Dar es Salaam and cetera. He apparently also wishes unqualified loyalty to doctrinal innovations like substitutionary atonement and to a particluar interpretation of scripture and tradition that would prevent us asking God's mum for her intercessions.

But those awkward resolutions from Lambeth after Lambeth after Lambeth, and the explicit condemnation of boundary crossings and ecclesiastical poachings in Windsor and elsewhere are adiaphora, apparently.

Indeed, Erika.

After all, this is a liberal site, NP. You are not in sympathy with its ethos, but nevertheless are allowed to post here, despite your lack of respect for the views of those who run and participate here.

being rude to those who are within the vision of this site is rather like coming to an indian restaurant and doing nothing but complain about the fact they only serve indian food! And spitting on the carpet or at the waiters in the process....

"I have said many times (but you conveniently forget it) that it is not just Lambeth 1.10 that I want loyalty to in the AC ..... but it is 1.10 which is deliberately, provocatively, arrogantly breached by TEC."

And all the others by all the others, hè NP?

;=)

"I am tired of saying that I want the AC to keep to its creed and agreed positions when people like KJS and VGR preach liberalism and immorailty (clearly rejecting the creeds and agreed AC positions)...."

Please point me to a specific (and I do mean specific) statement by other KJS or VGR that rejects the creeds.

Somehow I doubt you can do it.

Erika

Thanks for your kind words. I expect no apology (I've never seem s/he give one). God has given them evidence and corroborations that could even impress Richard Dawkins. Their response is laughable. Instead of seeing the gift they have been given, they have done everything in their power to destroy the evidence, discredit the messenger, corrupt or deny the lessons.

That is another difference between them and me. When God throws me crumbs, I see how big a cake can be baked. When God threw them crumbs, they fed them to the crows and denied they had ever seen them.

NP wrote "...they come with the endorsement of all the Primates of the AC "

How can this statement be true? ALL the primates, when some weren't invited last time? The vote was unanimous? I suppose the same applies in Tanzania.

A truer statement would be all the primates of the camp with which I wish to be affiliated. That camp of affiliates is welcome to their communion and each other. Good riddance, I say. Their fruits are tainted with sabotage, accusations, cruelty, corruption, power mongering and tyranny.

I look forward to seeing a communion that is committed to the FREE gifts of spirit and grace that lead to peace, abundance, sustainability and good will.

I look forward to a form of Christianity that is not only about protecting the purest and their sycophants, but actually cares about helping ALL humanity and creation. I look forward to a gospel that is not based on building empires and justifying tyranny, but is based on being a desirable wise model that other religions and philosophical streams find inspiring and choose to emulate their best characteristics.

I don't want competitions of who has the most power and thus can hurt and deprive the most souls. I want to see camaderie and inspiration, where souls mould societies and families to be nurturing, companionable, and abundant in the midst of colourful beauty, full of life and joy.

Pat - see KJS' interview in time....she is a pluralist. VGR rejecting the moral teaching of the church (not just the AC, but the church of today and the last 2000 years is obvious....even to you?)

Erika - you do not help a person one bit by reinforcing their delusions, especially if they are serious delusions.

Malcolm - boundary crossings are addressed in the Tanzania Communique.....they will cease when there is an AC presence in the US which is not at odds with the rest of the AC but while there are a large number of Anglicans in the US who request Primatial support from overseas, there are Primates who are willing to help as "thou shal not cross boundaries" is not actually in the bible, you know.

Ford - the issues are clear, brother. Is Lambeth 1.10 right or wrong? If it is right, then can the AC accept some vicars and bishops just ignoring it. I agree with you that this attitude applies to all issues - we must have integrity and honesty in all areas

NP,
"Erika - you do not help a person one bit by reinforcing their delusions, especially if they are serious delusions."

I have tolerated your serious delusions displayed on this site for months without publicly insulting you. I will continue to take your theology apart, but I will hang my head in shame if I have to realise that I have ever attacked you on a personal level.

If you genuinely believe that someone has mental health problems you should tread even more carefully. You have no idea how fraglie they may be. It's the first rule of psychological support that you do not encourage someone to "see the truth" (whatever that may mean), without spending a lot of careful time putting them together again before they drive home. Unless you have the training to do that and are face to face with the person you're talking to, you really must not make comments like that (and if you had the training, you WOULD not make comments like that). This person is your neighbour and you have an absolute responsibility for his/her wellbeing.

I love my delusions. They demonstrate that there is a God who cares and wants this world and its fallible diverse humanity to continue.

I spoke to my sister today. She remembers the woman who prophesized that I would remarry a second time and that it would be at the start of the millenium after the book of Revelation was fulfilled.

Some literalists hate me because they love war. They claim that since Revelation has not been fulfilled, war and conflict are inevitable "birth pangs" and so we must continue their ongoing manifestations. For such souls, the idea that Revelation has been fulfilled and thus there is no longer a need for violence, tyranny, accusations, desecration or intimidation is a complete anathema.

In some recent court cases that have been submitted in some secular courts against the leadership of some dioceses has been evidence that the leadership sought to isolate and discredit certain individuals who undermined their credibility.

Their early strategies start as interventions to protect the insane, or their families from their insanity. Their later interventions are to confirm they are infected with the "evil one" and to again protect their workplaces, their families and their parishes from their infection.

One of the things I hoped to achieve on TA was to demonstrate that this dynamic occurs.

Those who hate me, hate peace and hate tolerance. They are enemies of humanity in that they would rather the biosphere and its occupants were extinct if they do not have total world control.

In nature, they are known as cancer or a weed. Such leaders can never bring about world peace as they actually desire tyranny over gentleness. They are as the Edomites who not only refused passage to those coming out of exile, but actually participated in attacking and diminishing the chosen ones. These souls not only remove souls from the routes to Zion, they try to remove the highways themselves.

Erika

What NP and his allies did not know is that I have been dealing with death threats from before I left diapers.

For example, there is a wonderful night when my eight year old self and my six year old sister were dumped in an abandoned quarry after a terse explanation from our "father" that he could murder both of us here and now, no one would know we had died, he could claim we had moved back to the unknown relatives in South Australia. He could then swing around to murder our mother and make the same claim, and no one would know that he had murdered myself, my sister nor my mother.

NPs postings demonstrate he is not from God. S/he has said many cruel and hurtful things not just against myself but against other TA contributors, and s/he has never shown remorse nor apologised.

Other victims of pyschological abuse have complained how the leadership has not just rejected them, but "ruined" their reputations in their own dioceses. Some have gone so far as to claim that previous friends were no longer helping them as they did not want to foster their
"evilness" nor their "delusion".

One of my insane hopes was to provoke them to repeat this behaviour on TA, where they can not remove the evidence.

That hope has been fulfilled.

My prayers are that sufficient numbers of souls have not been infected who can recognise the cruelty and viciousness of this theology, recognise it does not come from God, and move to protect souls less resilient than myself.

I have a covenant with God that is not dependant on any male nor church endorsement, there are billions of others how are not so fortunate.

"you do not help a person one bit by reinforcing their delusions, especially if they are serious delusions."

Well, trying to change someone's delusions isn't always that effective either, I mean, no-one's been able to help you get rid of yours.

"Ford - the issues are clear, brother. Is Lambeth 1.10 right or wrong?"

My brother, since we're getting all Christian with one another, this is not the issue. This is the topic that is being used to manipulate people like you. Even if the Epistle of Lambeth '98 IS the issue, you cannot ignore the parts of it you don't like. This is not comparable to what you claim the EHBLs are doing to the Gospel. What you call ignoring the Gospel is an attempt to faithfully understand it and apply it to our lives. You might not agree, but you are breaking a Commandment when you call it faithlessness, and are thus ignoring a part of Scripture that would take away that little bit of fun for you. You ignore everything else in that statement except Chapter 1, verse 10. Even if we focus on that one verse, why is it that this is a communion breaking issue for someone who has no problem whatsoever with people ignoring other bits of Scripture, and don't try to pretend you don't? No-one is asking you to be pure and holy, NP. Not even God. All you are being asked is that you acknowledge your own failings and, as a result, have compassion on those of others. Or what do you think "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" means? You feel TEC has trespassed against you in some way. Well, is the your attitude towards them the kind of "mercy" you expect from God for your own sins?

"Pat - see KJS' interview in time....she is a pluralist. VGR rejecting the moral teaching of the church (not just the AC, but the church of today and the last 2000 years is obvious....even to you?)"

I'm familiar with the interview...I see nothing that contradicts the Creed. As for "rejecting the moral teaching of the church"--again, there's no "moral teaching" in the Creed, just a list of the things we believe as Anglican Christians. Sorry, but I don't see a word about sex or sexual orientation anywhere in the Creed.

And, as keeps being pointed out and you keep conveniently ignoring, for 1800 or 1900 of the past 2100 years, the church's "moral teaching" had no problem with slavery, condemned divorce, and condemned usury...yet we have "fudged" all those in another direction over the past 200 years or so.

Why is homosexuality--given all we have learned scientifically about human nature--not subject to the same re-evaluation?

"This person is your neighbour and you have an absolute responsibility for his/her wellbeing."

But, Erika, "false teachers are not my neighbours."

"NPs postings demonstrate he is not from God."

Amen, amen, amen!!!! The sad part is that he not only can't see that, but is so utterly resistant to the idea that he actually thinks that pointing this out to him is an attempt to justify what he sees as sin on the part of someone else! We are not saved by our works, but our works should bear witness to the effect of the Gospel. If NP is what the Gospel does to people, I'm off to be a Buddhist!

"I don't see a word about sex or sexual orientation anywhere in the Creed."

You know, I've waited and waited for the Evos to claim that because the Son is "begotten of the Father before all ages", heterosexuality IS in fact a Credal issue. God is straight! If they're willing to redefine the Trinity as support for male headship, then this shouldn't cause them much difficulty.

so boring going over old ground....

Pat - pls read about Onesimus and the radical anti-slavery approach of St Paul.....nobody had to say "the bible says it is good to have slaves but we decide it is not"

What you want requires people to say "the bible says do not do x, but we have a hotline to God and he says it is just fine these days"

VGR says he is called by God....most of the AC Primates and bishops disagree with him.....because the bible disagrees with him and as Rowan Williams has said, the bible contains nothing positive about the sort of sinful relations / acts you want to justify

Erika - don't think you are right....ill people I have dealt with have only made progress when they face reality and leave their fantasty world. Sure, it must be done gently...which I did, I think, by agreeding with a statement and not insulting anyone.

Ford/Erika - my "delusion" is that the AC has creeds and agreed positions on certain issues and it is the responsibility of the clergy to uphold these (or change the agreed positions if they are wrong, not just ignore them). Anyway, I seem to be in good company if you read TWR or Tanzania so I do not fall for the labelling of my views as extreme etc - most of the bishops of the AC seem to be very much wanting what I want.

Anyway, we shall see how things pan out....no doubt the ABC will try as hard as always to let TEC stay in without repentance and then will have to make a big choice (as he did in Tanzania)

I am going to try and take a rest from TA. If I manage to be disciplined and stay away, see you at the end of Sept or October when we will have some real news to talk about!

Prov 3:5-7

Can we actually read what the Archbishop said, and not this cut down that's it version:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1630234,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1630234-2,00.html

Isn't the Scripture straightforward on homosexuality?

It's impossible to get from Scripture anything straightforwardly positive about same-sex relationships. So if there were any other way of approaching it, you'd have to go back to the first principle of human relationships. Those theologians who've defended same-sex relationships from the Christian point of view in recent decades have said you've got to look at whether a same-sex relationship is capable of something at the level of neutral self-giving that a marriage ought to exemplify. And then ask, is that what Scripture is talking about? That's the area of dispute.

You yourself once thought it possible that same-sex relationships might be legitimate in God's eyes.

Yes, I argued that in 1987. I still think that the points I made there and the questions I raised were worth making as part of the ongoing discussion. I'm not recanting. But those were ideas put forward as part of a theological discussion. I'm now in a position where I'm bound to say the teaching of the Church is this, the consensus is this. We have not changed our minds corporately. It's not for me to exploit my position to push a change.

Simon,
NP writes: "Erika - don't think you are right....ill people I have dealt with have only made progress when they face reality and leave their fantasty world. Sure, it must be done gently...which I did, I think, by agreeding with a statement and not insulting anyone."

Well, I hadn't expected him to understand how dangerous words can be. Nevertheless, they are potentially devastating and we have no means of knowing what damage they do.

Would it be possible to make sure that potentially damaging comments like that don't get published on TA?

NP tells me that boundary crossing isn't in the Bible.

The thief who comes in the night comes to mind.

In any event, the point of my earlier post is that NP demands we all submit to one paragraph of 1998 Lambeth 1.10, while feeling free to ignore resolutions from Lambeth after Lambeth rejecting this particular form of ecclesiastical theft. Likewise, he demands that we all submit to certain sections of Windsor while feeling free to ignore the fact that Windsor was very clear in demanding an end to cross-border adventurism.

You can't have it both ways, NP. You maintain these documents are authoritative. Indeed, you cleave to that despite assertions from all and sundry that they are not.

Well, my firend, if they are authoritative, then you can't pick and choose.

Condemn yesterday's Kenyan consecrations or stand convicted by your own silence.

"Sure, it must be done gently... which I did, I think, by agreeing with a statement and not insulting anyone."

You insulted me by what you said to Cheryl. And whatever it was, it wasn't gentle.

You know, it takes some really low-life, racist trash to speak ill of Archbishop Tutu. He is a far greater man of God than any of the pseudo-bishops of the splinter groups. Whether or not you agree with Tutu, he deserves respect.

"What you want requires people to say "the bible says do not do x, but we have a hotline to God and he says it is just fine these days""

Oh, you mean like the part of the Bible that says not to charge interest...but about 200 years ago we got a hotline to God that says it's OK?

I have news for you, NP. God didn't stop talking to us in the First Century AD. He's still talking to us today...and one of the ways he talks to us is by letting us discover new things about ourselves, new things that--perforce--alter the way we view and interpret what God has told us in the past.

If God doesn't want us to view homosexuals as fully loving human beings, why does he keep letting us discover that they are, both on a personal and scientific basis?

Proverbs 3:5-7 is beautiful "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD and shun evil."

Another passage that adds value is Jeremiah 8:8-12 "“‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have? Therefore I will give their wives to other men and their fields to new owners. From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. “Peace, peace,” they say, when there is no peace. Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush."

Think of this as an Erin Brockovich piece of journalism. There had been rumors about how parishioners are collusively abused behind closed doors so there are no witnesses or documentation to substantiate the victims' claims. It was necessary to demonstrate that the practices do occur, and do not occur in isolation.

I love Desmond Tutu and would like to respect Rowan Williams. But if they call for a unity that directly condones this behaviour, or indirectly nourishes it by not taking a stand against it; then their whole communion is tainted.

Such behavior is evil personified.

I relate so well to GLBTs because I know what it is like to be silently screaming in my head, unable to reach out to another human in all honesty of what I am lest they attack or kill me or at least slander and isolate me. GLBTs suffer a terrible reality, but it is not a unique reality.

What conservatives forget when they gloat over the shortened life expectancy of homosexuals, is that many of those statistics are souls whose lives are shortened as a result of violent homophobic murders, or suicides as souls can no longer endure the suffering and anomy.

".......ill people I have dealt with have only made progress when they face reality and leave their fantasty world. Sure, it must be done gently...which I did, I think..."

I wonder how many souls on TA consider NP to be gentle? Maybe they do perceive that they are gentle and thus consistent with Jesus' promise of gentleness made to the Daughter of Zion at Matthew 24:15. Perhaps that is why they do not experience any dissonance between their conduct and God’s promise to end tyranny made at Isaiah 42:12-13?

Even this statement corroborates my complaints.

Namely that they deny that souls such as myself exist. If there is evidence that we exist, we can then be dismissed as insane or false teachers. If the evidence is too overwhelming, remove it and then put out a spin of how they gently but firmly handled the disturbed woman.

You know, a day after I emailed the Maximising Redemption paper I received an email from an Alfreda Rouse. The interesting thing about this email is that it was sent to my work email, but all the correspondence had been issued from my home computer. It was a non-existent address (I tried to reply). What it did tell me is that someone somewhere knew exactly who and what I was, and where I was. The words were "can not make live in type - listen Be - forget worry That - hear need them say lose He sing - put from complain hurt minute open - begin He fall start active try play we dance change"

NP might want to accuse me of insanity, but apparently I am not the only insane soul on this planet. God knows, if we are going to heal it, we aren't going to do it by allowing cruel scribes to set the agenda, they would simply entangle us into more wars, poverty and repression.

God knows, we aren't going to heal this planet through souls who claim to be treating parishioners gently when actually they are just plain nasty. How long is Jesus going to allow souls to get away with this blatent hypocrisy and outright deceit?

"... "the bible says do not do x, but we have a hotline to God and he says it is just fine these days"

The Bible does not say Do not do x. It's the Neo Platonist academic tradition from Alexandria that says Do not do x.

And the subsequent translations.

"I wonder how many souls on TA consider NP to be gentle?"

Cheryl, I've been bothered by my role in this. I got nasty last week, and, in upbraiding NP on his hypocrisy, exposed my own all over the Internet yet again! I got all wound up, he did too, and I've been wondering how much of that led to his intemperate comment to you. In so far as it might have, I'm sorry.

"How long is Jesus going to allow souls to get away with this blatent hypocrisy and outright deceit?"

Till the harvest. "Wheat and tares together sown". Thing is, we all like to think of ourselves as the wheat.

Sometimes I wonder if Christian "humility" and "charity" doesn't really spell co-dependancy.

I cannot find this auto-critique to be called for.

Thank the Lord that we still have voices of 'love' in the Anglican
Communion. Arcbp of Canterbury, York and Archbishop Tutu,
and a few more who put the squabble rabble to shame. We are told in no uncertain terms to 'love one another' and 'judge not that you be not judge' We are more like God when we forgive. The family analogy is perfect - we often disagree as a family, but we love each other dearly - we are a community. God's community - Christ's Church is diverse but we are united under the head - the Church 'which is his body - the fullness of him' How we do water down that fullness!. Jesus turned water into wine! Well done! Brilliant! we as the Anglican communion have transformed the good wine into water! Let us all endeavour with Desmond Tutu to put the smile back on God's face - surely the Lord is weeping over us - that's not dramatizing! Just visionary!

Cheryl - pls read above - I did not accuse you of insanity as you now say.....

-you made a statement about yourself and I did agree with your statement as we can see above, but I did not launch a pre-emptive attack on you, claiming you are mad....did I?

NP,
Back off this one, you aren't arguing with me, and this isn't one of our hissy fits. Cheryl has endured far more of the effects of the Fall than I have, or likely you for that matter. I don't agree with a lot of what she says either, but that is her particular way of understanding the world, her life, and her relationship with God. Until you have experienced what she has, and gone through the long and painful process of healing she has obviously gone through, you have no right to go on at her like this. Just say you're sorry, pick up the pieces, and move on. Defending yourself, however right you may feel you are, just increases the damage, to Cheryl and yourself. Let this one go.

ford is right, NP. apologise and move on. but that isn't the HTB way, is it? they're always right, no matter how much it hurts anyone else.