The time for "legalese" and fudge is over ......technicalities ain't going to save the day for those with the bizarre desire to stay in the AC while feeling completely free to "tear the fabric of the communion" at will when it does not suit their agenda.

The Primates will respond to whatever TEC says at the end of September and we will see real actions and a covenant for the AC - it is interesting that some hope for organisational paralysis!!

As this booted, I was thinking how telling people they don't actually have the power to do what they seem to THINK they have the power to do would be rather like a red flag to a bull. "You're not the boss of me!" "Oh yes we can!" Then I read the above! Good on ya, NP, at least you are true to form. You remind me so much of myself at, say, 20. Same arguments, same tone, same basic position, but the issue was different. Sorry to be "benevolent elder" here, but you really need to cultivate a more cynical view of the world and the politicians who run it. You're only seeing certain trees, NP, not the entire forest.

Sorry, NP, but the Abuja putsch (whether or not backed, or guided, by the US radical right) was not going to succeed anyway, as increasing numbers of Primates were making clear. You can quote your holy troika of past communiques and resolutions all you like, but I prefer today's reality, and most Primates outside the Global South will have none of this exclusionary nonsense.

This additional bit of legalism, if you prefer, simply adds a structural barrier to those hoping to manipulate the process for their objective of "punishing" the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, as well as anyone else who would have the temerity to impede the Calvinization of the Anglican Communion, and the elimination of all who stand in the way of political ultraconservative objectives.

I thought you were taking a break, NP. Short one then.

It would be a huge effort to have such a vote never mind get 26 provinces to vote in that manner. Anyway, the issue starts with the Archbishop at TEC House of Bishops, and then moves to an entirely separate meeting amongst the plotters. And what matters is what the latter do, because their agenda now moves far wider than simply the demands made of Tanzania - according to their own words.

Some real news happening then, NP - right?

"The time for "legalese" and fudge is over..."
Isn't it interesting how the rules and regulations of an organization suddenly become 'legalese' when it looks like the projected outcome may not be the desired one?

Reminds me of how my own state shamefully responded to Brown v. Board - if the Supreme Court declares 'separate but equal' unconstitutional, then let's have Massive Resistance and close ALL the public schools.

If the law doesn't suit us, we'll just ignore it.

The fact that the Episcopal Majority is even thinking of this issue speaks volumes.

Those who wish to seize power always find a "higher authority" than that which is set forth in "legalese" or "technicalities". For the AC conservatives, it is "Scripture"--absent reason, absent the Holy Spirit, Scripture alone.

If the church is not to be governed by the documents and practices established for that governance, by what is it to be governed, NP? By the word of the Primates? Are the Primates infallible? Didn't we settle that question, at least in Anglican tradition, over 500 years ago?

This is truly what rankles the forces behind the US conservatives--that they are subject to a democratic rule. That they must make their case before a skeptical public...it is what rankles them in the political arena and what rankles them in the religious arena. They cannot rule by fiat, much as they might wish...so they attempt to turn the Anglican Communion into a place where fiat trumps reasoned discourse.

Maybe NP meant November 2006? :o) Can't seem to keep his nose out.

I loved Brooks first paragraph. It explains the fudges distinctly, and why the fudges are so bad, and reminds us why the Magna Carta was written in the first place.

We stand at a crossroads, where humanity either moves forward to a time when history and law revert to becoming subject to the whims of the powers that be and their sycophantic advising priests; or we restore honoring the intentions and principles of the rule of law.

The former reminds me of the witchery of the Pharoah's sorcerers, the latter of the process of Exodus and enshrining the ten commandments as fundamental premises.

Isaiah 54:9-10 comes to mind "“To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again. Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,” says the LORD, who has compassion on you." Note that God refers to a covenant of peace, cough, that means NOT tyranny or accusations...

The other thing about the rule of Law, is that the Law can become vexed and a case needs to be put before the Highest Court that their needs to be a compassionate interpretation accepted so that ongoing conflicts can be resolved and neighbors stop feuding and attacking each other. Thus I act as an advocate for GLBTs, who are the neighbors of heterosexuals and celibates. The feuding has gone on for centuries, and they are the typical early targets that tyrants use to recruit and groom their aggressive thugs. They need to be covered by grace so that the process of tyranny becomes an anathema in all circumstances.

Off-topic, I know, but this has to be highlighted:

From Rt Rev Isaac Orama, Bishop of Uyo, Nigeria - http://www.upi.com/AfricaMonitoring/view.php?StoryID=20070902-831713-6007-r :
"Homosexuality and lesbianism are inhuman. Those who practice them are insane, satanic and are not fit to live because they are rebels to God's purpose for man" and "It is scaring that any one should be involved in a thing like that and I want to say that they will not escape the wrath of God."

I'm sure we'll hear Bps Minns, Atwood, Guernsey and co. roundly condemning this? Won't we?

I was very happy to read Canon Brooks' analysis. It seems like such a sane and reasonable reminder, despite those [such as those MJ cited at 11:11pm BST] who seem to rant in ever more hateful language.

But here's the best thing Canon Brooks' essay did for me: It made me step back and ask, "Of the 38 provinces, do we really believe that even a simple majority of 20 primates would vote to expel the Episcopal Church (U.S.) from the Communion?" Y'know what? I really don't think so. There are roughly 13 who have been consistently and more-and-more loudly shouting imprecations upon the church in the U.S. But I find it hard to believe that even a simple majority of primates would vote us out. Think about it: How many other primates want to open the gate to the kind of extra-provincial invasions we are experiencing?

I think -- and I certainly hope -- that the other primates would give us the kind of latitude that the Anglican Communion gave to the African provinces early in the 20th century.

Mostly, I just want it to come to a vote -- whether in the ACC or among the primates. Up or down. Let's have an end to the posturing and excoriations. Let us get on with the business of being the church.

Bravo to Bishop Orama for giving us all such a fine example of con-evo realignment trash talk - aimed at guess who?

Guest sermons next Sunday then, as the bishop's remarks are read solemnly from every Anglican pulpit?

The main purpose Brooks' essay on the ACC might serve is to remind the TEC bishops and Canterbury that few or none of the Primatial demands and analyses of what TEC is doing, and why TEC has been doing it, have the covenantal force of sheer communion-wide purchase so loudly claimed.

I really love the StandFirm blog comments: Democracy has failed. Utterly. Time to try something else in human history and world civilizations - like, say, Christian Reconstructionism? Scripture trumps everybody and everything - meaning Con-Evo Realignment Scripture natch. Can God the Holy Spirit move through the laity, according to StandFirm and similar? Well - yes, when that laity is holding its collective nose in high straight repugnance and voting to leave TEC intact with funds and property. And no - not when that laity has voted to correct our egregious history of factual and spiritual errors when it comes to so much of our received negative understandings of people who are not straight.

Take your pick. A lovely, lovely example of selective hermeneutics, ignored and glossed and unacknowledged. Plus ripe, juicy samples of Nigerian trash talk - could the wrestlers on cable TV or the Bodog boxing opponents do it any better?

And all offered up to all of us as essentials of being Anglican in the modern era. Apostolic faithfulness, indeed, and then some.

All have won and all must have prizes. And after TEC and all its woggy alternative believers have been voted out or kicked out by Primatial pronouncement - along with Canada at minimum of course - what next? Steal the silver, raid the available funds, claim ownership of the property held in trust. Natch.

Are you listening, Canterbury? All this, Coming maybe to a CoE parish near you. Soon. Alas. Lord have mercy.

"I'm sure we'll hear Bps Minns, Atwood, Guernsey and co. roundly condemning this? Won't we?" asks MJ.

A valid question indeed. Shall we also hear from the would-be Presiding Bishop of the new Anglican province in North America, Robert Duncan? Will he and +Jack Leo dissociate themselves from the homophobia and hate-mongering against gays by Big Pete's suffragan of Uyo, Nigeria?

If not, when will presentments be filed against +Jack Leo Iker and +Robert Duncan and their Sees of Fort Worth and Pittsburgh declared vancant?

Ford - it was the ABC who got Jeffrey John to step down......he is older than you, right?

And for the rest - note that on technicalities, Jeffrey John did fit the rules but the objections to him were on his teachings contrary to Lambeth 1.10 ......technicalities did not save him when the ABC had to choose between unity in the CofE and the sort of arguments put forward by Brooks.....

Don't put your faith in technicalities.....the ABC seems to understand that we need genuine unity and a communion in which people are not merely committed to the rules but to keeping the spirit of agreed positions too (i.e. NOT like TEC in 2003 and since and NOT like those in the CofE who take advantage of "don't ask, don't tell" weak bishops)

Rowan Williams gave us something of a snapshot last February when he told the English General Synod:

"After the debates at the American General Convention last summer, I wrote directly to all the primates of the Communion to ask about their reaction and the likely reaction of their provinces as to whether the resolutions of Convention had met the proposals of the Windsor Report for restoring something like normal relations between the Episcopal Church and others in the Communion. The answers were instructive. About eleven provinces were fairly satisfied; about eleven were totally dissatisfied. The rest displayed varying levels of optimism or pessimism, but were not eager to see this as a life and death issue for the Communion. Of those who took one or the other of the more pronounced view, several on both sides nonetheless expressed real exasperation that this question and the affairs of one province should be taking up energy to the near-exclusion of other matters."

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/070226.htm

The Rivers State University of Science and Technology Alumni Association felt moved only two weeks ago to honour Bp Orama as a 'great man' who had 'distinguished' himself in a field of 'human endeavour' - http://www.thetidenews.com/article.aspx?qrDate=08/28/2007&qrTitle=Ekpotu%20tasks%20RSUST%20Alumni%20on%20membership%20drive&qrColumn=NIGER%20DELTA

"The deputy governor who threw the challenge in Uyo when him and other alumni who have DISTINGUISHED THEMSELVES in different fields of human endeavour were HONOURED by the association."

"The chairman of the occasion, Prof. Kingsley Akpabio observed that RSUST has produced GREAT MEN AND WOMEN and thanked the association for HONOURING some of them."

"Those HONORED alongside the state deputy governor were...BISHOP ISAAC ORAMA of Anglican Communion, Uyo amongst others."

Wilberforce wasn't a primate nor the Archbishop of Canterbury.

NP, if you think that, you really have swallowed the Kool-Aid.

But for the record, Stephen Cottrell, the (highly capable) current Bishop of Reading, to whom absolutely NO-ONE objected, preaches and teaches EXACTLY what Jeffrey John does on this issue. I know this having heard both preach and teach on several occasions, in person. Have you?

"Don't put your faith in technicalities...."

Like 'legalese,' 'technicalities' are inconvenient rules the writer would rather ignore.

"Jeffrey John did fit the rules but the objections to him were on his teachings contrary to Lambeth 1.10". Evo-porky time again, NP. The witch-hunt against Jeffrey John was, as we BOTH damned well know, simply because he is gay. All else was window dressing - a pretense, and a pathetically slight one at that, to flimsily drape the real reason that the radical evangelical right were out in force for his blood.

As to this "Lambeth 1,10" "incessabili voce proclamat" garbage - once again, NP - LAMBETH V.13. Remember Lambeth V.13? Doesn't count because it "doesn't suit our ends", I suppose?

"Lambeth V.13: Episcopal Responsibilities and Diocesan Boundaries

"This Conference:

1. reaffirms Resolution 72 of the Lambeth Conference of 1988 "Episcopal Responsibilities and Diocesan Boundaries"; and
2. requests the Primates to encourage the bishops of their Province to consider the implications of Resolution 72 of the Lambeth Conference 1988. "

"he is older than you, right"

The AbofC not by much, and I think +John is younger. Interesting that you see the Jeffrey John business as the ABofC forcing his will on Jeffrey John, while I see someone, like St. Chad, "relinquishing the honours that had been thrust upon him for the good of the Church." I don't expect you to know the story, and, since it's about St. Chad, I suspect you consider such humility to be nothing more than the "traditions of men". I'm sure you can find some place in Scripture where you think Christians are being told NOT to be humble. As to Jeffrey's "teachings"(sounds lovely, no?) weren't the usual suspects upset more by what he DIDN'T teach, to whit, the uncompromisingly hostile message against gay people that they believe to be the True Gospel. Oh, and he hadn't "repented", whatever form they felt that should take. I am fascinated that such a child of the Reformation as yourself is so eager to return to the kind of Roman style authority structure we broke with 500 years ago. It's very much like the ACs who pray for "Benedict our Pope" as though the differences are minimal between us and Rome. I don't get why they don't cross the Tiber, and I don't understand why you are hanging around in a Church whose ethos and attitudes you do not share. I know why I'd never become a Roman, though I have given thought to becoming Orthodox (the real ones). Why have you not gone to the Pentecostals or the Baptists or something?

"Don't put your faith in technicalities.....the ABC seems to understand that we need genuine unity and a communion in which people are not merely committed to the rules but to keeping the spirit of agreed positions too (i.e. NOT like TEC in 2003 and since and NOT like those in the CofE who take advantage of "don't ask, don't tell" weak bishops)"

The ABC, I am cautiously optimistic, learned from the John episode (and subsequent history) that if you give an inch (or your friend's head, on a platter) in compromise to the Realigners, they'll still insist on taking 1,000 miles.

This intricate ballet is still playing out, NP -- and neither "side" ought to have any confidence that the ABC will wind up backing it. He is very much in play, even as he himself seeks to game things.

PS to NP: “Never, ever has he [the Archbishop of Canterbury] spoken publicly in defense of the orthodox in the United States...” -- +Bob "I see an extra prenominal cross in my future" Pittsburgh, quoted recently in The Living Church

Sorry NP and others hoping for institutional salvation through their special sort of worldwide Anglican realignment.

I would say instead: Don't put your faith in Lambeth 1.10 as the final word of eternal believer discernment.

For one thing, empirical research is ongoing and if you aren't expecting further surprises in sexuality, including the investigations into what makes people straight or bi or gay - well it's a good bet you haven't been following the research news much.

For a second thing, as most of us know by now, the passing of Lambeth 1.10 was a hasty con-evo attempt to derail the more fully considered motion that otherwise would have been submitted - and passed? Yes, a hasty substitution for accuracy and truth about our varying views.

Thanks to Lord Carey and just about the same con-evo gang that is now bringing us the ill-considered realignment campaign, 1.10 was passed. The displaced resolution would have basically allowed that believers are sincerely of different minds and hearts as our views of sexuality are challenged by empirical and other changes.

But so what?

If con-evo believers don't have to care about diocesan boundary-crossings - because souls are at stake, why should I as an alternative believer care so much that I must still cling to ancient trash talk about sexuality in general and queer folks in particular? -(now exposed more and more as trash talk, because (A) once stripped from its original historical-cultural contexts in scripture, it gets preached too often as trash talk witness Nigeria, witness innumerable con-evo statements about queer folks, and because (B) the data contradict the underlying ancient claims and frameworks which reasonable intelligent reconstructions of NT mention painstakingly have investigated and weighed)?

The sky simply will not fall in, if queer folks are held to just about the same core relational ethics of commitment, care, generativity, and honesty that is supposed to constitute the historical gold standard for straight folks. No falling sky in citizen civil life, no falling sky in church life.

? God so loved the world that he sent his son to hurl thunderbolts at wickedness, burn the queer folks to a crisp unless they cower in fear and ignorance before his high and mighty feet, and help the straight folks make babies at every possible opportunity regardless of the circumstances?

Ooops. I think I'm misquoting it. I've obviously been reading too much StandFirm and other con-evo realignment blogs. Apologies. I will recover momentarily. Thanks to the grace of following Jesus of Nazareth as Risen Lord.

Rowan Williams was a busted flush before he was even enthroned. On hearing of his appointment, he issued a statement that although he had previously, knowingly ordained a practising homosexual he would not do it again. He also said that he would would support a Third Province for misogynists and homophobes. So, he sold the farm before he even took the keys.

It should be noted, NP, that even Chamberlain eventually realized that appeasement had failed.

So, who can resign from the communion? Can big Pete speak for all of the Nigerians and claim they're out of the communion? Just because some of the bishops don't go to Lambeth 08 does that mean the country has split from the communion?

Furthermore, the violation of boundaries committed by African bishop installations is rather serious violation of something. That debate needs to be brought to a head, because, frankly, that's some communion busting, in my opinin.

WARNING: THREAD DRIFT TO FOLLOW

Ford, I've never heard of any Anglo-Catholic praying for "N. our Pope."

I have heard of (and have myself) included intercessions for "N. the Patriarch of the East, N. the Patriarch of the West, N. the Archbishop of Canterbury, N. our Primate, N. our Metropolitan and N. our Bishop."

And this in turn reminds me of the tale of a priest in the Diocese of Rupertsland who, during the time of the late Howard Clarke, included intercessions for "Howard our Primate, Howard our Metropolitan ad Howard our Bishop," the three being one and the same.

Curtis

I agree there is an attempt to communion bust and it will succeed.

There will be a communion of those who endorse and educate appalling comments such as MJ referred us to earlier in this thread.

There needs to be at least one communion that holds up a mirror that embraces the principles of true justice of mercy and compassion, free or repression or accusations (e.g. Zechariah 7:9-10); recognizing that all of Creation contains a holy spark and is entitled to basic respect (e.g. Zechariah 3) and that all of Creation (including beasts and aliens) are entitled to the holy Sabbath day (Exodus 20:8-19). The Sabbath is a holy day, and we keep the day holy by placing no burden upon any soul on that day. That means work and it also means refraining from accusations and guilt tripping which can place emotional and psychological burdens upon others.

God rested on the seventh day because God had seen creation and that it was good. Creation still exists, so it must still be pleasing to God and we would do well to rejoice in God's generosity and share God's blessings freely and with gratitude. We all have the capacity to share God's peace, by simply refraining from cruelty on the Sabbath, e.g. by refraining from hate teachings.

Some of these organizational power plays are simply to see who will end up with what resources. Some of them are uglier than that, they are an attempt to destroy a more gentle communion. Such souls act as Snow White’s stepmother, who when told there was someone fairer than herself in the kingdom attempted to murder her. Some souls rely on there being nothing more attractive available, so they can posture that they are the most true ambassadors of God and Jesus. It is again as the Dante poem, he did not recognize what was evil until true peace was revealed, it was only then that he realised the travesty that he thought was love was actually a gutted parody.

'Ford, I've never heard of any Anglo-Catholic praying for "N. our Pope."'

I have heard it myself.

'Our Pope' or 'the Pope' in various dioceses in England.

Ford - no, the issue was what JJ teaches and not what he does not teach.....but JBE is right, I am surprised to hear what he says about Cottrell (maybe he is another one who says different things to different groups?)

Viriato...yes, the ABC learned from the John affair (when he certainly did put pressure on his old friend to prevent a split in the AC).....the ABC went on - what followed, in the 4 years we have already lost since TEC's 2003 actions, was TWR and the Tanzania Communique.

Martin Reynolds....you take comfort from that....but want to ignnore that just 6 Primates not taking communion with TEC's PB led the ABC and ALL the Primates to support the Tanzania Communique - you really are kidding yourself if you think there is a majority of Primates or bishops or laity in the AC who are for and not willing to oppose the ordination of adulterers or drunks or thieves or anyone else explicitly disqualified b scripture from leadership in the church.

Malcolm - I also have though of Williams in terms of Chamberlain. I guess that those who we were appeased were those who took the aggressive actions and ignored pleas from around the world not to do so......in the end, we needed a Churchill! As far as I know, Churchill did not tell the rest of the world to accept that the aggressors had a different but legitimate difference in their understanding of things and we had no right to judge - did he??? Sometimes Malcolm, a decision about what is right and wrong has to be made

NP, if this were true then Anglican Mainstream would have been up and running a good deal earlier. I can namecheck bishops as well as you can, who have publicly preached, and taught, that Lambeth 1.10 reflects neither a real-world reality nor a Scriptural truth.

In fact, of course, AM don't even pretend this themselves. Their argument at the time was that they acknowledged Jeffrey's personal abstinence, but that it was his refusal to repent of past sexual activity outwith 1.10 that made him unacceptable.

Lambeth 1.10 does not (yet) appear on any list of historic Anglican formularies. No-one has ever asked me to affirm it in any ecclesiastical oath I have sworn: I have never seen or heard of anyone else doing so. It is not doctrine. It is the opinion (pace various well-written pieces about its origin from those who were there) of a bunch of bishops. That does not make it doctrine.

JBE - it is not based on nothing, as you know......that is why it is more important than you want to make it (because rejecting it is rejecting its basis)

JBE - just got a reply from someone very involved with the JJohn situation and the diocese.

I am told that Stephen Cottrell is on public record as standing by Issues in Human Sexuality which is why there was no objecton to him.

"you really are kidding yourself if you think there is a majority of Primates or bishops or laity in the AC who are for and not willing to oppose the ordination of adulterers or drunks or thieves or anyone else explicitly disqualified b scripture from leadership in the church."

NP, in this statement, you reveal the huge differences between you and me in terms of assumptions about life, our relationship with God, and the current political situation in the Church. We not only practice very different religions, we don't even come at these issues from the same vantage point. I'd explain how I'm not talking about issues, but thought processes and attitudes, but you wouldn't get it.

And are you really doing a Godwin here? Do you really think that people in the TEC who are working for social justice are comparable to Nazis? Even if you are merely referring to territorial expansion and power grabs, do you truly perceive the actions of TEC as a power grab by Liberals? How is this possible? Liberals have not tried to dictate what any athor Church should do, have not tried to kick out their opponents, have not poached the flocks of others, so how is it they who are the ones trying to take over?

'I am told that Stephen Cottrell is on public record as standing by Issues in Human Sexuality which is why there was no objecton to him.'

It is good to know that he supports same gender relationships of the laity, as supported and indeed encouraged by 'Issues'.

I am glad there is so much support for this at HTB too.

NP - it's based on one interpretation of Scripture. That is all.

NP - So is Jeffrey John. He stands by IHS and conforms his pattern of life to it. See previous comment about what AM said *at the time. He was viciously campaigned against because he was gay and refused to apologise for it.

It's been 1984 for a while for AM/Reform/fellow-travellers, I realise that, though...

In fairness to NP, Ford, he was carrying forward from my Chamberlain analogy which, while not itself equating the "conservatives" to Nazis, did set the analogy in train.

That said, I am interested in NP's repeated assertions about American aggression.

At what point, NP, has the American Church done anything compelling another province to do anything?

Of course, if you were to reply honestly, you'd have to admit that the American Church has done no such thing.

Right or wrong on the "presenting issue," it is a gross distortion of the facts to call the American actions "aggressive." ("Gross distortion." I believe the correct term in moral theology is a three letter word beginning with "l" and ending with "ie.")

The aggression here has been all one-sided - a band of self-appointed popes seeking to overturn a province they hate.

"In fairness to NP, Ford, he was carrying forward from my Chamberlain analogy which, while not itself equating the "conservatives" to Nazis, did set the analogy in train."

True. Sorry, NP, I jumped the gun.

Hi Malcolm and Ford

I think that the problem is not American aggression, but rather American inspiration.

A bit like Wilberforce bringing down the slave trade.

There is something wonderful about imagining a world that the meek have inherited. Where children can play on the street unmolested, where it is normal to reach a ripe old age, where neighbors meet and banter and share their theology and different life experiences and lessons about God, where there is enough food for everyone, surrounding by beauty and sustainable ecosystems and economies. Where we all contribute in a meaningful way, are wanted and respected. Where we are all nurtured and healed and no one is a slave or victim to another.

e.g. Isaiah 54:13-15 "All your sons will be taught by the LORD, and great will be your children’s peace. In righteousness you will be established: Tyranny will be far from you; you will have nothing to fear. Terror will be far removed; it will not come near you. If anyone does attack you, it will not be my doing; whoever attacks you will surrender to you."

There was a time before in history where God's peoples lived through incredible suffering where the ruler destroyed ethnic minorities and gave harsh burdens under repressive tyranny. Even though this ruler gave Moses permission to allow the Jews to go and worship their God, when he realised that would mean losing his slaves, he sent his minions to bring back the slaves or kill them if they couldn't. Amaleks, Edomites and others sought to plunder, obstruct, corrupt and destroy this beacon of hope.

God succeeded then and God will succeed now. The alternative is literally extinction, that is not an option for any sensible soul. Our camps will include both male and female, young and old, Jew and gentile, pure and impure, priest and ignorant, the lame and virile; our beasts and our pets. We all come to the journey broken in some way, we will carry each other when required and be carried when we can no longer carry ourselves. But we will do this journey and in the process of doing the journey God will nurse us back to wellness and increase our wisdom and our joy. We will not flee in haste, for the Lord God will be before us and the Holy One of Israel our rear guard.

Malcolm - it is quite clear that in 2003, one province wanted to do something to which most of the AC and ALL the Primates objected....the point is not forcing anyone else to do the same but an attempt to force people to accept what the said province was doing within the AC.

There would be no problem if TEC said, "We see Dromantine, TWR and Tanzania and see that we are really out of step with most of the AC so we will set up on our own."
Rather we are told: "We will do what we like, even if you all ask us not to do something but we also demand to be in the AC" - this is aggressive and has led to 4 years of negative responses from all the Primates

Gee I wish we'd had four years of vigorous campaigning for the Millenium Development Goals. But then some only took them up after the TEC did, and Rowan did say that some leaders had only done it to buy votes.

Hmm, I wish we'd had four years of vigorously fighting domestic abuse. Would that they had fought so hard to prevent wars based on greed and deceipt.

Yes, they have fought hard on this agenda item. What is really telling is what they haven't fought for, and the discussions we've had about why not.

For example 21 December 2006 on TA, we had three denials that God cared about justice on this earth. We've had a denials that Jesus would have cared about ending tyranny and repression as he chose to ride into Jerusalen on that fateful passover. Dismissals that God cares about anything other than pure heterosexual Christian priests and their endorsed flocks.

Would that they had fought so hard to bring about peace, nurture the meek, protect the fatherless and widow, provide for the poor, show justice to the weak and afflicted and hospitality to their neighbors.

But by their own testimony they approve of their priorities for the last four years. Luke 11:39-53 comes to mind, including "“Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness.... you experts in the law...load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them... So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs... Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

What a beautiful vision of hope :--

'There is something wonderful about imagining a world that the meek have inherited. Where children can play on the street unmolested, where it is normal to reach a ripe old age, where neighbors meet and banter and share their theology and different life experiences and lessons about God, where there is enough food for everyone, surrounding by beauty and sustainable ecosystems and economies. Where we all contribute in a meaningful way, are wanted and respected. Where we are all nurtured and healed and no one is a slave or victim to another.

e.g. Isaiah 54:13-15 "All your sons will be taught by the LORD, and great will be your children’s peace. In righteousness you will be established: Tyranny will be far from you; you will have nothing to fear. Terror will be far removed; it will not come near you. If anyone does attack you, it will not be my doing; whoever attacks you will surrender to you." '
(Cheryl)

Thursday, 6 September 2007 at 10:26pm BST

I have not quated it all. It is all compelling and nourishes hope -- and trust and love.
thank you

"...the point is not forcing anyone else to do the same but an attempt to force people to accept what the said province was doing within the AC."

You mean the way the African provinces permitted non-monogamous converts to retain their multiple wives? Because it was fitting within the cultural context of those provinces?

PAt,
That's not a good analogy. Africans do not marry someone if that person is already married. I have to hold with them on this one, they tolerate monogamy as part of the Divine Economy, which they should, but they, rightfully, do not bless it.

Which should have read "polygamy". Blush.

So, saying that "we are doing this" is "aggressive.

Yet an active campaign of slander, theft and ecclesiastical invasion is not "aggressive."

Positively Orwellian, NP. Have we always been at war with Eurasia?