After the kind genorosity of the TEC towards the slower element of the AC, may the ungenerous response of the Kenyan Archbishop be despised and rejected. I hope he may hold his head in shame. I would love to say what I really think but I know it would not get past the moderators.

The statement from the Archbishop of Nigeria is issued in a papal tone. I think this is mistaken, but rejoice that this presages his self imposed marginalisation to which he should (and soon will) have been consigned years ago. May he reign forever in Fantasy Island!

""That word 'halt' is not enough," said Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi."

Halt, stop, not go forward. What more do ++Nzimbi and his fellows want? Do they want TEC to rescind the consecration of +Robinson? How do we do that and maintain the polity of TEC as constituted in its canons?

Of course, they don't care about that...as NP has intimated, it's just ridiculous that we insist on electing our bishops anyway.

What is becoming absolutely clear from these statements, contributions to conservative blogs and so on, is that the conservatives will only be happy if TEC and other liberals alter their theological position.

That's not going to happen, and so the intent to form another 'Anglican' Communion will go ahead.

The one that remains will, I think, be able to live far more comfortably with diversity.

If the CofE loses its lunatic fringe it will also be a far better place.

Knowing good bishops of TEC on both sides of this debate, I truly appreciate the hard work they put in to making this statement. Once again, however, a great sacrifice has been asked of-- and largely granted by-- us lesbian and gay faithful and all those who take seriously Christ's Gospel. And once again, Nigeria, Kenya, South Carolina, and others are quick to say it's not enough. It seems increasingly clear that the conservatives are not really interested in the Gospel or in the Communion, but in their own self serving power. How long, O Lord, how long?

Here's a letter I wrote to my priest:

"I am troubled about the Bishops' statement
this week. The Anglican Church says that
homosexuality is sinful. That's the bottom line.
There are individuals and dioceses which are
gay-friendly, but they have to work within an
organization which oppresses gays. This makes the
Anglican Church like the Confederacy--there are
certain states and certain plantations which are
nice to their slaves, but slavery is still the
law of the land.

I don't think I can be a slave, grateful to my
friendly masters, in a Confederacy which still
supports slavery. I'm not sure I want to put my
energy into an organization which oppresses
me--I'm not sure what I gain by picking more
bales of cotton just to thank my masters for not
whipping me.

As pastoral as you choose to be, you could not
offer my marriage a blessing which carries the
weight of the whole church. Whatever talents you
might see me display, you could not encourage me to become a priest with the hope I might become a bishop. And that's not going to change any time soon."

I can't see a reason, as a gay man, to remain an Episcopalian. I can't see working hard on the plantation hoping that my master sees how good I am and decides to set me free.

It is probably only fitting to allow some time/space for people to read, reflect, and respond - along with hearing more quickly from folks who have been on the forefront of the clashes between/among differing views (and who therefore pretty much know just what they think so far about the several possible presenting hot button conflict themes).

Then we shall see if we have a consensus, either about maintaining diversity and inclusion among differing believer views of hot button things, or whether the consensus is for only the type of conservative realignment which the campaign by conservative believers has consistently invoked as its call and reason for being.

Whatever through-lines of Anglican vitality hold, some believers will inevitably leave for more compatible church life communities. Science reading folks and others who value how God may work through democracy may leave if/when the conformed realignment regroups Anglican church life worldwide. Conformed conservative believers may no doubt leave if/when the wider/broader sorts of church life harking back to Elizabeth I hold sway without narrowing Anglican hot button inquiries and disagreements.

Either way, conservative Anglican leaders get some of what they have sought so passionately - a life separate from the rest of us, sketched out by special traditional holiness theories about sex - dirt, danger, damnation - which sometimes to the rest of us look to be too much indebted to toilet training contamination theories of sex, only able to admit matters of hearts bonding and relationship and mutual lifelong growth by a distant back door, an afterthought if at all.

Yet, oddly, after the smoke and pounding clears - the rest of us will still be here. And so will all the varieties of conservative believer.

Somehow, in that moment, I sense we still have quite a ways forward. Figuring how to live in peace on a small green planet.

The 'conservatives" are interested only in their own total domination of the Communion. Anything less than the complete submission of the Episcopal Church to the foreign prelates would have been acceptable.

The ensuing self-righteous hatemongering from the "conservatives" was entirely predictable.

Pat - you show me where in the bible it says that we should be electing bishops??

You ask "Do they want TEC to rescind the consecration of +Robinson?"
......Neil calls the GS "slow"

It is good that the TEC have now called the bluff of the conservatives and evangelical Africans. At least it removes any doubt that Windsor, the Communique, and all other attempts to reconcile the communion are merely a sideshow used by these people in an attempt to take over the communion and land grab territory in the US. Is there any point any longer in refraining from calling a spade a spade?

The papal ambitions of Archbishop Akinola are becoming clearer by the day. The sooner that self-imposed marginalisation of these schismatics happens, the better.

Archbishop Peter Akinola's statement was obviously written by Bishop Martyn Minns - no surprise there. What is surprising is that although it repeats the same old things, it isn't as forceful as previous statements and made me feel quite sad. Akinola and Minns are not going to get what they have been demanding, and now they know it. Almost certainly Akinola is going to be humiliated by having to reverse everything he has said before, and come to Lambeth.

Akinola (in fact, Minns) uses the first person in the first paragraph, as if he is speaking for all the Primates, when he is only acting as the mouthpiece for Minns - sad.

James

You have articulated one of my major concerns. There were GLBTs and friends and families who thought they had found a refuge in TEC.

Now they wonder if they can trust those refuges. It is ten times harder to win back a lost customer than make a new one.

A conservative victory, but my heart goes out to the GLBTs and friends and family who wonder if God will ever give them a safe sanctuary.

No Malcolm, "conservatives" merely desire the AC to stick to its own scriptures and agreed positions......not much to ask really

I don't think it is accurate to talk about "the conservatives" as if they are all of one mind.

Most of the Anglican Communion is conservative on matters of human sexuality, but most even of the conservatives are committed to the Anglican Communion. The conservative wreckers had the initiative, and have done a lot of damage, but their number is now up.

The conservatives, on the whole, will appreciate the concessions that TEC has made and will not support the expulsion of TEC or the self destruction of the Anglican Communion over a non-credal, non-Gospel issue.

Some will leave - but not so many as once seemed possible. Even Akinola's statement no longer threatens to leave. He has realised that, when he's gone, he will have no-one TO SHOUT AT. AND BY THE WAY, WHY ARE HIS STATEMENTS ALWAYS CAPITALISED?

James,
I appreciate you are upset, but do you really intend the comparison between gay people in the Church and slavery? Sorry, but I'm a gay person, and I find that over the top. The Church is not denying my humanity, despite the rhetoric of some, She is not about to flog me or sell me away from my family, or cut my Achilles Tendons so I can't run. The Church, well except for Nigeria, isn't trying to commit atrocities against me. I hope you calm down and rethink this. Frankly, I found the comparison offensive. We are not suffering like enslaved people did in the US South, nor are we suffering like many people in the world today. To claim that we are diminishes TEHIR suffering, and, I would argue, THEIR humanity.

And, NP, how DOES the Bible tell us to choose a bishop?

"not much to ask really"

It is actually a great thing to ask that the Church be a party to what you consider to be mistreatment of you and that She permit blatant hypocrisy by her leaders thus bringing the Gospel into disrepute. Many gay people feel the former, at times I feel it is over the top, but I respect people feel this way, and it hurts them to be so dehumanized. I'm sure you know this, NP, after all, it's not just that I and others have been saying it repeatedly, but the hurtful, unhelpful quality of the things you say must have been something talked about by all the gay people you listened to at HTB.

You seem to think that TEC is being hypocritical in the way it answers the attacks of the GS schismatics. Well, I am just as angry, if not moreso, at the hypocrisy of the GS leaders who speak of purity and holiness, then reveal themselves to be anything but pure and holy. You are saying that it is no big deal for the Church to accept the oppression of some of Her members. Now, you are an Evo who has bought into the persecution myth of the Right. How would you feel if I said it was no big deal for the Church to accept the silencing and marginalizing of your group? You already think this is happening. What's the big deal, you expect gay people to go to the back of the Church in silence, why is it so much worse for people to expect you to do likewise? And before you drag the Bible into this, I remind you that your behaviour is rarely if ever in accord with the way the Gospel tells us to act, so don't go accusing others of disobedience of which you yourself are guilty, unless it be to show how not to behave.

Ford,
as NP keeps saying - two wrongs don't make a right.
Of course people in Nigeria are much more persecuted than we are here, and there is nothing to stop you from joining us in Changing Attitude in Nigeria and to fight side by side with Colin Coward and Davis Mac-Iyalla for better conditions over there.

But since I started living openly with my partner, my church involvement here has also come to a grinding halt.

It's nice for you that you are not feeling discriminated against because God isn't calling you to be a bishop anyway (this from another thread). Round here you can't even be a Reader if you live in an open same gender relationship, and if you have been one before, you won't get relicensed.

It's nice for you that you don't want to get married or have your relationship blessed in church. I also rarely feel discriminated against when I'm barred from something I don't want to do anyway.

But I'm finding it difficult to see how saying “I don’t really mind that you’re not as nice to me as you would be to straight people because I’m so grateful that you’re not being as nasty as the Nigerians” is anything other than either false humility or quiet complicity.

Ford - for the umpteenth time, two wrongs do not make a right. You can repeat your (often accurate) criticism of "conservatives" as much as you like but still we have to deal with the issues and those who are teaching that what the bible calls sin is now, according to their special revelation, not a sin - despite 2000 years of scripture and tradition and most Christian thought (even in the US!) today.

One of the false accusations from you above - "You are saying that it is no big deal for the Church to accept the oppression of some of Her members." Please take this back.

I am saying we have scriptures, we have tradition and we have reason....all three have left us with an agreed position in the AC - have they not??? Take the emotion out of the debate and it really is not much to ask for vicars and bishops in the COfE to uphold the teaching of the church. It is bizarre that people are called intolerant because they feel that ordained people ought not to be subverting the teaching of the church!

Do you not see the the ABC went to Canada and went to New Orleans to get his old liberal friends to stick to the agreed positions of the church - did he not??
He has had some success with both - even if TEC HOB clearly does not intend to come into line in the longer-term.

You like to call out both sides sins like a prophet.....but I have not heard you comment on this sickening abuse of words to avoid the truth we see fom TEC HOB. What do you think of Bruno saying "I have not authorised ssbs" when everyone knows he permits them in his diocese and even goes to them?? You think that is the sort of "truthfulness" we should accept in bishops???

Erika,
There's nothing like what you describe in our more or less conservative diocese, so I am, I guess, a little naive as to what gay people elsewhee are putting up with. All the same, just because the Church won't do what you want doesn't mean you are being descriminated against, which is what you seem to be saying. Not letting you be a reader or take full part in parish life, that's another thing entirely and deserves to be confronted. I am reacting to the idea expressed by some that not marrying us is some horribly oppressive thing, dehumanizes us, and on and on. I think it is profoundly disrespectful of the sufferings of others to compare middle class North Americans to people who have far fewer opportunities than we do, who earn far less, who have their genitalia mutilated, who can be murdered in honour killings, who can be hanged just for being gay, who can be jailed for 5 years for being freiends with a gay person, and on and on. that's not false humility, nor is it complicity.

"Please take this back."

NP,
"it really is not much to ask for vicars and bishops in the COfE to uphold the teaching of the church."
Well, many say that by doing this, the Church is oppressing her members. Sticking to agreed positions certainly does lead to the oppression of some Christians in Nigeria, the gay ones they pretned don't exist. This is indeed a very big thing, so, I won't take it back.

"we have to deal with the issues"

Indeed. And the biggest issue is Church leaders who pretend to follow the Gospel while reviling their fellow Christians, lying about their fellow Christians, spreading propaganda intended to demonize a group of people, and condemn their opponents of things they themselves are guilty of. This is the issue, NP, the hypocrisy of the Right. That they are hypocrites doesn't justify the actions of their opponents, but it does mean that their argument is not credible, that no-one will give them any respect, and that their message, which they believe to be from the Gospel, is cast into disrepute. In that instance, what difference does it make if TEC is right or wrong? How can anyone tell, since those who accuse TEC are manifestly unwilling to live according to the Gospel themselves? What right do they have confront any kind of sinfulness in others if they won't even acknowledge, much less repent of, their own sin? How can they be given any credibility? It's not that their hypocrisy justifies anything in TEC, it's that it makes their own message worthless. Worse, it diminishes the Gospel. Do you not think the world is looking at this and saying "Well, what's the good of Christianity, a religion full of hypocrites who don't even bother to follow the teachings they demand everyone else obey, who pretend to speak the Truith, yet spout lies?"

Pat O'Neil --

I thought that Archbishop Akinola had, in fact, called for Gene Robinson to step down as a precondition for restoration of communion with TEC.

Ford,
I’m sorry, I should not have accused you of complicity, that was the wrong word.

But it strikes me that there is a strange mindset, and I’m guilty of it myself.
Take your comments on previous threads that you’re not out in your church. No-one here seemed to think there was anything particularly noteworthy about that. It’s just how many gay people live. And I can fully understand why they do!

But if you imagine a straight man saying that he’s married but hasn’t told anyone in his church and that he will not want to live an open life with his wife.... well, we’d all think it odd, wouldn’t we? We’d wonder about him, about his strange view of marriage and its place in his life. And in a church context, we’d wonder why he would not want to be as open, honest and true to himself as God calls him to be. Especially in a church context that should concern us deeply.

And yet, we believe those gay people who speak loudly of their desire to live the same open lives as straights are somehow “rights driven”, a bit too complaining, and they really should think of the oppressed in Africa (a bit like I was told as a child to eat my dinner because poor people in Africa were starving) before they want full inclusion in their own churches.

I am getting very upset that people are barred from becoming bishops, priests and readers (and church wardens, and PCC secretaries, and godparents). It has nothing to do with our right to be any of those things, but with our duty to answer God’s call. Where God calls someone, and a priest and a selection panel affirm that calling, there is much more at stake than the ego of the one being called.

It upsets me that a group of Christians with a very narrow focus can wag their fingers and say, no, God, you can’t mean it, that person’s gay after all.
It upsets me even more that gay people themselves often appear to think it’s no big deal and that we should just count our blessings.

That’s not to say we have to be strident and aggressive. But accepting? Never.

1. I quite understand that James feels hurt. "I can't see a reason, as a gay man, to remain an Episcopalian." I hope that he will find that reason to remain in the coming days, weeks, months, years. If not, Godspeed to him. I do note, however, that he is not proposing to steal the silver on his way out the door. Unlike some.

2. badman makes an important point about conservatives not being all of one mind. My (perhaps overly subtle) practice has been to distinguish between conservatives (those who take a traditional view, but who treat their fellow believers with respect and dignity, and who, if they choose to leave, likewise do so with respect and dignity and without trying to steal the silver) and "conservatives" who don't really give a rat's backside about sexuality except as a wedge issue whereby they hope to sieze control of the assets of the Episcopal Church in order to advance their views and silence all dissenters.

3. NP, I don't believe that you are of subnormal intelligence, but sometimes your arguments leave that impression. In pointing out the inconsistency of "conservatives" on a range of issues he is not arguing that one "wrong" justifies another. He is merely pointing out that the "conservatives" have no particular claim on righteousness or faithfulness, that their intellectual propositions are internally dishonest, and that they are prone to that sin towards which our Lord reserved a particular contempt.

By the way, NP, do you collect interest on your bank account?

"Pat - you show me where in the bible it says that we should be electing bishops??"

No--you answer my question first. I already asked that you show me anywhere in the Bible where electing bishops is forbidden. In fact, I asked you to show me anywhere that a specific method for choosing bishops is even suggested, let alone prescribed. Further, I pointed you to the earliest example of choosing a church leader--the selection of Matthias to replace Judas--and it appears to be either an election or a lottery (depending on how you want to interpret "casting lots").

I can't point you to anything else...but neither can I find anything that says, for example, that bishops must be chosen by political appointment, which appears to be the CoE method.

Ah, no, NP, sorry. Lambeth 1.10 from 1998 is not the real agreed upon position of the Anglican Communion. The true agreed upon and worked through position - which nobody would have liked all that much, but which would at least have been more accurate, and to that truthful extent, helpful - would have been the original resolution/report submitted by the working group charged with discerning sexuality issues.

Instead of this real deal, we got a sudden wave of conservative manuevering, helped along greatly by Lord Carey in one of his better moments as a conservative campaign leader. Of course that is also just the leadership mold into which the conservative realignment campaign wishes to cajole, pressure, or threaten Rowan Williams, too, since after all it worked so apparently well the previous time around.

In any event, Lambeth 1.10 has so many problems attached to it that nobody but strict realignment conservatives takes it all that seriously, except as a summary of just where strict conservatives have determined to camp out till the clock stops, or turns backwards. Two flaws undermine the 1998 Lambeth 1.10 - firstly, it completely neglects all the empirical data we have, buttressed by everyday commonsense observations in modern society, of the ethical, relationship, and other capabilities of queer folks, not one iota of which could have been predicted from the negative traditions and scripture interpretations about them of many earlier ages. Secondly, the rabid manuevering which brushed aside the real working group report, in favor of the version passed as 1.10, speaks poorly of the larger discernment process.

One surmises sometimes that, if the original report had been published, we would be a whole lot farther ahead in thinking through the disconfirming empirical data involved in point number one.

Alas. Lord have mercy.

Pat - the CofE method is even worse than TEC's! It is just ridiculous to have politicians and the palace involved - even worse than the party politics we see in TEC.

St Paul clearly sets out what makes some people unfit to be leaders - see Titus, see letters to Timothy - some people in the church want to ignore what he said but I do not and I am not alone, you know.

For how people should become leaders, see Acts 14 & 15 for example:

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Acts+14%3A215-23

The biblical pattern is that godly leaders appoint other godly leaders to carry on the work (being careful about their life and doctrine)

The Pastoral Letters (so called from the 18th century) were not written by St Paul himself, but are a century later.

More importantly, they d e n y his expressed views on the Gospel, the Congregation, Society, Women, Slaves, Military service & c.

Just telling you how it is. Not that you will listen.

O, yeah! incidentally, dear NP, what I just told you - not bits and pieces of Lambeth 1998 "resolution" I:10 - is a "recived teaching".

;=)

"The biblical pattern is that godly leaders appoint other godly leaders to carry on the work (being careful about their life and doctrine)"

So, the people being led should have no choice in who leads them? Poppycock! (A stronger, more barnyard epithet actually occurred to me first, but considering the nature of this site...)

What you are proposing is simply the RC method--top-down choosing of leaders, which only coagulates the leadership, making real change difficult if not impossible.

Goran- please don't waste your time telling me scriptures do not mean what they say and you you do not even know who wrote them.... I worked out long ago that you are not one of the great biblical scholars of our time.....so I am not surprised you keep on saying how much you do not understand from the bible.

Maybe I am very stupid and you are very clear.....but I notice that real biblical scholars like Dr Wright (+Durham), to name just one of many, seem to hold very similar views to me on scripture and current issues ripping apart the AC.....so maybe I am not so stupid.

If only all bishops led the blameless lives they espouse:

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=45360

http://www.speroforum.com/site/print.asp?idarticle=5381

Of course, it will be a cold morning in hell before the GS et al condemn such behaviour.

James 2.8-13 springs to mind.

Why NP, this is simply silly.

You decry the election of bishops, but when challenged you call for "godly leaders" to select them.

How incredibly arrogant, judgemental and (dare I say it) wicked of you to condemn out of hand the fine Christian men and women who are chosen to represent their congregations and parishes at an electoral synod. Just who do you think you are to tell me that the three synod delegates from my parish are not godly?

Of course, they don't agree with you on every jot and tittle of scriptural interpretation so that just makes them pure evil does it?

"Just who do you think you are to tell me that the three synod delegates from my parish are not godly?"

By all accounts, he is someone to whom Gopd has given the authority to sit in judgement of the Godliness of others. He seems unafraid that he will be judged by the same standards he applies to others.

Seems to me NP, that you deliberately left out the point about this being "the recieved teaching", Dunelm or no Dunelm.

Malcolm - pls do not put words in my mouth......but I am sure you can see the weaknesses of elections (in which special interest groups can push their agendas) and the mad system we have in England.

Stephen Roberts - yes, we were warned that there would be wolves dressed as sheep.....this is why ST Paul told us not to have leaders who were drunks, adulterers, greedy etc etc - because the church has always had a problem of unfit people wanting to lead at every level, we must stick to what God has revealed in scripture makes a person fit or unfit to be ordained etc.

"...but I am sure you can see the weaknesses of elections (in which special interest groups can push their agendas) and the mad system we have in England."

And who is to say that those "special interest groups" are not doing the work of the Spirit?

BTW, why is it only "special interest groups" whose special interests you disagree with that are a problem? You think there are no "SIGs" operating in the USA aiming at conservative results?

"in which special interest groups can push their agendas"

The point, I think, is that specific agendas are LESS likely when the whole people have a say. I find your willingness to give up the right of the people of God to speak in selecting their leaders to be odd. You seem to be advocating a system wherein one bishop appoints others, he being Godly. That's the way Rome does it, NP. Even a Pope is elected by the cardinals, and then he appoints all the other bishops. There you go again, betraying the Reformation you claim to stand for in order to make sure everyone complies with the Law in some fashion or another. Will you ever understand that the Gospel is not a Law?