under this spineless, "anything goes" way of doing things, the man who is supposed to be bishop of Harare would have to be accepted by the whole AC regardless of what people think of his behaviour "locally"...... or is it just certain sins which are to get the local option??

the argument is false anyway - see Anglican Mainstream:
"Some recent statements have raised the question of what defines being an Anglican church. It is worth remembering that a number of Anglican churches have already pointed out that Anglican churches have from their beginnings seen themselves as part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church. That is much more than a matter of formal conformity with a particular see or institution, or attendance at a specific gathering within the Communion, no matter how venerable. It is, rather, founded on a commitment to faithfulness to the scriptures as the supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct and the catholic creeds. That commitment requires agreement in faith, holiness of life, and biblically faithful teaching. Only thus can the leaders of our churches enable the Communion to remain part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church, positioned for global mission."

19 words. Nice going.

And he managed to write that without one "whereas" or "hereinafter"... :)

You have to wonder how things got so complicated in the first place.

Sane anglican voices -- like those we used to hear.

As we would say in Glasgow - 'Gaun yersel Idris'[1]

Kennedy

[1] Roughly translated as 'The view expressed by the speaker meet with a not inconsiderable amount of agreement from my point of view'.

Some more choice extracts:

***

We really do not need anything more structured in order to facilitate what began and remains in essence a relational experience.

a church that is not afraid to risk making mistakes; as a church that welcomes the seeker and explorer to join with us in the quest for Faith; a Church that can move and change quickly and respond to new situations

I think that the current thinking which would seek to draw us into a more complex structure is entirely wrong. Rather reduce the structure and return to a simple and basic thing - "communion is when churches accept the leadership of the See of Canterbury" full stop.

There was a period when orthodoxy was demonstrated by conformity - but this is one of those manifestations of church life that has gone and most of us would say that life is richer for that.

The Anglican way has always at its heart been a way of holding people together whilst accepting that they have divergent views - on pretty much everything in belief and practice that you can think of.

***

I rather approve of these statements; and indeed this approach would result in a very short Covenant. I don't think this is the Covenant under consideration, however, so those who voted for it and think this will be the result might be changing their vote later.

Two excellent and very reasonable responses to the Bishops and the presiding bishop's open and generous attempts to keep dialogue open with all parts of the worldwide church.

And even the unreasonable demands of their critics.

"the argument is false anyway - see Anglican Mainstream"

See! Here are some people who agree with me! Who think just like I do!

No doubt they posted that on the web, so it must be true.

The fact that some people agree with you does not make you or them right.

"It is, rather, founded on a commitment to faithfulness to the scriptures as the supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct and the catholic creeds."

Reason, NP. What about reason? That is and has always been the all-important third leg of the Anglican tripod.

If all we have is your "scripture and the creeds" formula, what are we to do when reason, through scientific discovery, invalidates the scriptures? Are we to abandon or ignore God's greatest gift to humanity (other than his Son, of course), the gift of reason?

I would prefer no covenant beyond what we already have in the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds. Anything beyond that is just so much gnosis. The sole purpose of any new additional covenant is to presume upon a task that belongs to God alone, seperating sheep from goats.

I do look forward to the day when all these ecclesiastical chicken hawks will live up to their swaggering rhetoric and finally leave. Instead of posturing, blustering, and threatening, it would be refreshing if they actually did something decisive, like start a whole new church. I would so look forward to Simon being able to reclaim the comments section of his blog. This site performs such a great and valuable service, and I hate to see the comments turned into someone else's blog.

Bravo for these moderate statements.

To those who claim the basis of the Communion being some commitment to some totalitarian uniform belief, they might have been coming to TA and reading but they have not read and understood.

For example, the US TEC's response following Dar Salaam about their own membership to the Communion. It happened after the American Revolution and the early church was very determined to not re-become a colonial outpost or puppeteer to some divine authority figure (their concerns aka the CoE parallelled the early Protestant Reformers aka the Pope). Something that some theologians in this debate had failed to understand when they tried to bestow ABC Anglican papal authority to prove that the US should behave itself, they threw the ball to their competitors' goal circle giving them a free point.

Then there was that lovely soul who recently described the early gloabl primate meetings, how they came about, the tensions and the affections, what was and what was not to be countenanced.

Those who now sprout off about how the Communion was formed to be one body in total agreement are stubborn in their refusal to recognise evidence. Their desire for control leads them to make hyperbolic claims and they rely on censorship and removal from office of alternative voices so that they can seem credible. They are the emporers without clothes having henchmen in the crowds silencing the prophets of truth who expose their nakedness.

Romans 9:17-29 Sometimes God allows souls to act out their ambitions and desires for imperialism, in order to demonstrate how that is the antithesis of God's desire for humanity. The book of Judges is one long lesson in why God doesn't want us looking for earthly figures. Jesus life in kind too, you can have your earthly king, but I am going to take him away and you are going to have to trust that he is in heaven, and from there comes God's grace and forgiveness. Stop looking to create "the" divine human institution and get on with making a holy people amongst other peoples, some of whom are holier than you in some ways and less so in others. A bear does not stop being a bear because there are sheep in the fields, nor does a sheep become a goat, and none become God, each contains a portion appropriate to God's purpose for that manifestation.

Bravo, Scotland and Ireland. I relate. Please repeat, often, loudly, just as you have done.

Let me say just for the prog record: I am not now in need, nor have I ever been in need as an Anglican believer - of more than the agreed Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral framework for boundaries on our communion of communities which can thereby assert some peaceful aspirations to be one part of the one, holy, catholic church of all believers, adapted as always, locally.

The fact that we aspire to pursue a covenant by other than power-hungry domination arrangements, backed up by rabid new Anglican Communion police powers, is part of the witness to just how urgently we need, Not to police.

With calm and clear voices like these from Scotland and Ireland (and one suspects, also to be heard to some extent from Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Australia in part, New Zealand, and South Africa and elsewhere), who needs a conservative Anglican realignment? Whose power/domination/policing needs does such an odd duck realignment truly serve?

Pat - you ask about reason.......I would love to see some reason applied to scripture from the quarters which just ignore the verses they do not like....ignoring inconvenient verses is not exercising reason, you know.

NP - 'I would love to see some reason applied to scripture from the quarters which just ignore the verses they do not like....ignoring inconvenient verses is not exercising reason, you know.'

For goodness sake NP, when will you get it through your skull that it is not a case of 'ignoring verses', but of interpreting Scripture differently from you. You have obviously never bothered to seriously study any Scriptural viewpoint different from your own narrow literalism - as called for by Lambeth resolution. But literalists pick-and-choose which verses they want. If you accept divorce and remarriage for anything other than adultery then you too are 'ignoring verses'. If you collect interest on your bank account then you too are 'ignoring verses'. If you disagree with stoning to death then you too are 'ignoring verses'. You reinterpret Scripture when it suits you.

Ignoring the Jesus sermon is not exercising reason, you know.

NP - do us all a favour and find a position which doesn't ignore Bible verses it doesn't like. Do you have a pension or pay into a pension fund? If you do then like our "orthodox" "biblical" bishops you are ignoring the many references to the sinfulness of lending money at interest. You are a sinner, intent on carrying on sinning, an unashamed and casual sinner.

Jim - your logic would lead to nothing being prohibited, right?? Maybe you need to think on the old phrase, "2 wrongs do not make a right"

MJ - so, let me see...... Lambeth 1.10 clearly states that certain behaviour is CONTRARY to scripture....does it not? I believe this was voted for by a majority of the bishops of the AC, you know.

I think some people ignoreLambeth 1.10 ....do they not? Maybe they are ignoring the scripture behdind Lambeth 1.10??

The ABC and his liberal mates don't want to put Lambeth 1.10 up for another vote because the liberals will lose again.....because most of us in the AC do not want to ignore inconvenient scripture in order to justify behaviour CONTRARY to scripture (as a majority of the bishops of the AC said in 98)

"...you are ignoring the many references to the sinfulness of lending money at interest."

The Baby Jesus cries when you use a credit card.

And the Baby Jesus is really upset with lenders who charge adjustable rate mortgages with "teaser" rates, and then foreclose and evict people from their homes when the rates suddenly shoot up (eg Countrywide Lenders).
And Little Jesus is a really collicky baby when He finds out that the executives of said businesses are making obscenely huge salaries for these practices.
And this is not just happening to a few people, but to thousands and dramatically altering entire neighborhoods.

And what has any church group said about this? Get ready for it.............(crickets chirping).

Meanwhile, two boys boink each other between the sheets and the religious roar is deafening.

Small wonder then that the unchurched masses think that the Christians can all go f*** themselves.

Since when was claiming to be part of the "One, Holy, Catholic. and Apostolic Church" seen as the same thing or consonant with seeing Scripture as the "supreme authority". The later is an ultra-Protestant stance. reflecting the "scriptura sola" views of those who see Scripture as something above those things that define the church as Catholic (e.g. tradition). This seems to set up Scripture as something above the Church rather than as something that came from the Church in the first place. The "supreme authority" is Christ and the Church is his Body. Scripture shows us how we measure and guide our faith and mission, but it is not something that can be separated from the life of the Church and set up as some kind of talisman or divine object by itself. Our faith is in the Living Christ.

counterlight - do you know of a province ordaining a bishop who is practising usury?? If so, I am happy to join you in opposing him

By the way - my church in London has been used by God greatly - literally hundreds of non-Christians have come to faith so I ain't going to ditch biblical morality to attract those outside - that does not really work, in my experience.

NP: decisions in the AC are not bade by 'majority vote'.

It is a communion of different churches, not as political party, and contains people of differing theologies

The decisions of Lambeth are advisory. Not policy which must be followed to the letter in the same way in any place. For example, the CofE position is very different to that of Lambeth 1.10 as gay people in partnerships are welcomed as communicants. Of course, you would rather this not be so.

The conservative evangelicals have made it abundantly clear that they wish it to be a conservative-only grouping, but that's not going to happen.

Hence the moves towards starting a rival.

NP: "Jim - your logic would lead to nothing being prohibited, right?? Maybe you need to think on the old phrase, "2 wrongs do not make a right""

Is this an admission of wrongdoing? Or is it a classic politician's approach of ignoring awkward questions / answering the question you'd rather had been asked?

NP said: "so, let me see...... Lambeth 1.10 clearly states that certain behaviour is CONTRARY to scripture....does it not? I believe this was voted for by a majority of the bishops of the AC, you know."

If you're going to quote it at least get it right. Lambeth I.10 did not state that homosexual practice was 'contrary to' Scripture. It said it was 'incompatible with' Scripture - which can mean 'opposed to', 'discordant with' [not in harmony with', disagreeing with'] or 'inconsistent with'. In fact what it says is 'This Conference (i.e. in the 'opinion' of) while rejecting...' To reject is to 'PUT ASIDE or send back as not to be chosen, used, complied with, etc; refuse acceptance of' (OED). There is no condemnation of homosexual practice as 'sinful'. There are many things we do and beliefs we have now which are 'inconsistent with' Scripture if it is viewed with literalist eyes - but we still do and believe them. And while Lambeth 1998 might have 'refused to accept' homosexual practice, here's a radical idea. What if they were wrong? Who suddenly graced Lambeth 1998 with the gift of infallibility? They have been wrong before, they will be wrong again. You really need to brush up on the theology of reception. Even the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils were not considered definitive until they had been received by the whole Church, and during that period of reception there were proponents of both. The decision of Lambeth 1998 has most certainly not been received by the Anglican Communion as a whole, so why should it be considered an infallible decision.

NP: "MJ - so, let me see...... Lambeth 1.10 clearly states that certain behaviour is CONTRARY to scripture....does it not? I believe this was voted for by a majority of the bishops of the AC, you know.

I think some people ignore Lambeth 1.10 ....do they not? Maybe they are ignoring the scripture behind Lambeth 1.10?? "

Just to repeat, neither Lambeth nor the ACC nor the Primates' Meeting has to power to decide the doctrine of the Anglican Communion. Those who repeat Lambeth 1.10 like it is the 23rd chapter of the Book of Revelation (maybe 'Apocalypse' is a better name in these circumstances) are kidding themselves if they think it is the final word on the matter like a Papal 'ex cathedra' infallible dogma. And it is those who most insist on Lambeth 1.10 as dogma who do least to follow through the 'listening' part of the same resolution.

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." (Oliver Cromwell)

NP--you see, applying reason to the scripture verses is exactly what I'm doing. I'm reasoning that proscriptions on certain activities that were written before science knew that those activities were not only natural but the need for them probably present in some individuals at birth no longer apply...just as we no longer apply the scriptural accounts of the pain of childbirth being a "punishment" and therefore do not withhold anesthesia from women in labor who request it.

Reason...and the scientific inquiry and discovery that go with it...is one of God's greatest gifts to us. Why do you keep insisting that we ignore it in interpreting one of his other great gifts?

I believe that Calvin was wrong and usury is a sin. I am also very chary about the remarriage of divorcees in church, although I note that Scripture itself permits of exceptions to the prohibition on remarriage. Presumably it is therefore OK for me to also hold a conservative line on sexuality.

Pat: I laughed out loud when I read your post. I think you must be an ultra-conservative posing as an enlightened rationalist in order to discredit rationalism through exagerated panageyrics expounding the wonders of sweet reason. I have not noticed a great improvement in human affairs since the enlightenment e.g. world wars, nuclear arms, atheistic totalitarianism. Reason is just as dangerous as revelation!

More importantly, the three-stool picture of Anglicanism is tosh. The prayer book places the foundation of Anglicanism foursquare on biblical revelation, gross misrepresentations of Hooker notwithstanding.

Sometimes in the past week, I think I have lost all patience with our bishops, but these are indeed wise words from Ireland and Scotland. - Jay

"And the Baby Jesus is really upset with lenders who charge adjustable rate mortgages with "teaser" rates, and then foreclose and evict people from their homes when the rates suddenly shoot up (eg Countrywide Lenders)."

And Baby Jesus really throws a tantrum when he thinks about payday lenders who charge effective rates of 350% per annum, taking advantage of peoplein desparate straits, the unsophisticated, undocumented workers who cannot have a bank account ... etc etc etc.

Richard

But there were/are those who tried to say that the bible was closed.

They used to throw Revelation 22:18-19 at us (they still do where their debate is amongst the illiterate) "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

They lost the debate when it was successfully pointed out that John is referring to adding or removing from the Book of Revelation - NOT the bookS of the bible.

Jesus told us after his resurrection there would be more prophets, more prophets means more revelations, more revelations means expanded scriptural interpretations.

Everything we do is consistent with the biblical precepts, there are just some squirming about who they have to be nice to now. We are not denouncing marriage, we are exhorting it and offering it to others. Just as God exhorts us through Moses' writings to share the Sabbath with the alien and the foreigner.

"counterlight - do you know of a province ordaining a bishop who is practising usury?? If so, I am happy to join you in opposing him"

I don't know of a single parish or diocese that does not invest its funds. That's lending money and charging interest. By strict, literal interpretation of the scriptures, that's usury. (The Bible makes no distinction between "interest" and "excessive interest".)

"do you know of a province ordaining a bishop who is practising usury?? If so, I am happy to join you in opposing him"

Dude, you just don't get it. You never will.
See Cynthia's October 2nd 6:19BST post.

"Pat: I laughed out loud when I read your post. I think you must be an ultra-conservative posing as an enlightened rationalist in order to discredit rationalism through exagerated panageyrics expounding the wonders of sweet reason. I have not noticed a great improvement in human affairs since the enlightenment e.g. world wars, nuclear arms, atheistic totalitarianism. Reason is just as dangerous as revelation!"

Oh, yeah, things are so bad since the enlightenment--life expectancy doubled, even in the worst parts of the world; literacy nearly 100% in the Western world; democracy spread through all the continents...

Yep--the middle ages were so much better!

As a dangerous example of why Lambeth statements must never be regarded as infallible, lets look at Resolution 18 from Lambeth 1930:

"Sexual intercourse between persons who are not legally married is a grievous sin. The use of contraceptives does not remove the sin. In view of the widespread and increasing use of contraceptives among the unmarried and the extention of irregular unions owing to the diminution of any fear of consequences, the Conference presses for legislation forbidding the exposure for sale and the unrestricted advertisement of contraceptives, and placing definite restrictions upon their purchase."

This is the last word on contraceptives from a Lambeth Conference. So, Lambeth must be regarded as having spoken, right? Even Resolution 29 on AIDS from Lambeth 1988 does not mention their use in the fight to stop the spread of AIDS.

So, is it still the opinion of Lambeth that condoms should never be exposed for sale or widely advertised, and that their purchase should be definitely restricted? In sub-Saharan Africa? Do the African Primates still abide by this resolution? I mean, it is the 'mind of the AC'?

Then, Sean, you go and live in the premodern world and I'll stick to our contemporary one, thanks. In that world, your religion is simply redundant, just like the Anglican Communion as it currently stands.

Another Irish bishop speaks - Bishop Michael Burrows: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/1002/1191223002333.html

The truth is often much bigger than our own words or the principles we so eloquently defend, he said. "Powerful people have decided that what consenting adults of the same gender do of an evening is almost as big a theological problem as the truth of the Resurrection."

On your own blog Sean you write:

_the idea of contextualising the gospel is not some faddish contemporary novelty. It is written into the heart of the theological heritage of Anglicanism, it is what being Anglican is all about._

Yes, fine. And you do some (convoluted) reasoning about an embryo was well and something about a burden of proof.

So I think your dismissal of reasoning is a little selective.

Jerry - you are very welcome to those primates.....this TEC Global might hit 2m on a Sunday!
(Don't count South Africa....a new Archbishop is coming in there and his theology is orthodox.)

Anyway, looks like the ABC and his Lambeth Palace politicians are desperate not to call a Primates Meeting as that would not help them sell the fudge of TEC in the AC ...... just bizarre to for the Primates Meeting to ask questions of TEC, see TEC answer in time and then for there not to be a meeting to respond to TEC........that would be normal politeness but I guess it is not politically expedient for some to have the Primates meet. Better to have Lambeth Palace bureaucrats decide the future of the AC?

What is sad about the Lambeth Palace politicians' actions is that they really seem to believe that they can fool people into believing that TEC has responded positively when TEC bishops like Bruno and Ely and KJS make it quite clear that ssbs will continue (without "authorisation") and they are only pausing before the next VGR.........so, few in the AC are going to be fooled by the fudge-sellers and splits will be accelerated as a result of the attempt to fool people into a fake "unity".

Yes, Merseymike....and our churches in London and all over England are so full of people, we need new buildings.....and yours??

Maybe God blesses people who stick to his words?
I prefer to stick with him than adopt an alternative morality to please you

This quotation and comment from MJ yesterday makes an invaluable point. It shows the ludicrous nature of 'Lambeth pronouncements' on sex. They were wildly out of touch even back then. And arrogant in thinking they can dictate to people's love lives, like this. Thank goodness, none of us base our lives on this stuff. And I doubt anyone ever did.

They are an embarassment to themselves. And it would be dangerous nonsense, but for the way most anglicans ignore it. The same holds true of their specious guff on same gender relationships.

'As a dangerous example of why Lambeth statements must never be regarded as infallible, lets look at Resolution 18 from Lambeth 1930:

"Sexual intercourse between persons who are not legally married is a grievous sin. The use of contraceptives does not remove the sin. In view of the widespread and increasing use of contraceptives among the unmarried and the extention of irregular unions owing to the diminution of any fear of consequences, the Conference presses for legislation forbidding the exposure for sale and the unrestricted advertisement of contraceptives, and placing definite restrictions upon their purchase." '

NP - Numbers are no guarantee of orthodoxy - if you believe they are, perhaps a conversion to Roman Catholicism might be in order?

Dear me, we're not back to numbers, are we? If so, lets all become Muslim - the fastest growing religion in the UK. Conservative religion has always maintained a small proportion of followers, although if one removes migrants, the numbers fall considerably, particularly in London.

The point is that the CofE is not primarily there for those who go to church, but for the nation - and conservative religion will never reach the many who are interested in spirituality but repelled by the prejudices of conservative religion.

Liberal Christianity has far more potential openings towards them but is severely restrained by a number of factors, not least its accommodation with conservatives!

But I don't think that the mass of the population will ever return to church in this postmodern age. You will continue to get the deeply committed conservative minority, as one of many sets of strongly held beliefs, but they aren't my concern - I'm more interested in how the church can relate to the 93% who don't attend church.

Since there are flights of fancy going on, mine would be that TEC will ordain bishops to minister to faithful Anglicans in 'Global South' jurisdictions who 'suffer' as a result of the theological positions adopted by their Primates. Although being completely 'Windsor compliant' they recognise the need to offer care and support until this situation rights itself. They also call for care to be offered and alternative episopcal/primatial oversight to be given to clergy and laity who are marginalised/removed from post/de-selected.

And then I wake up and find that the nightmare of heirarchical compassion being only one way carries on.

sean - i think the basis of anglicanism was described as a three-legged stool, though your term 'three stool' seems to me to be more accurate at the moment, given the posturing of the global south, reform and wycliffe hall.

Merseymike - I have seen people like Ford Elms challenge your "ultra liberal" stance....you are really more of a secularist and will only accept religions to which you can dictate your morality, right?

Lambeth 1.10 stands, mate - deal with it

"Lambeth 1.10 stands, mate - deal with it"

And as you are constantly reminded, but constantly ignore, Lambeth resolutions are not magisterially binding (to use the phrase from the new JSC report) on the Communion or its member provinces. They are advisory, representing the "sense" of the Communion.

Pluralist - you're warmly welcome to debate me on my blog, I don't really think it would be on-topic or appropriate to respond to you here about that. Suffice to say that I think reason has a crucial role in interpreting Scripture and thinking about all manner of things, but that to treat it as a source of authority which faith rests upon coequal with Scripture is not at all what Hooker was getting at.

Pat: Don't get me wrong, I don't really think the middle ages were bathed in a halcyon glow any more than I think today is. Sure, some things have got better. But the world itself hasn't. In keeping with the Christian tradition I don't see why I should be so mad-keen about democracy. Literacy is as much a child of humanism and the Reformation as the Enlightenment so no points there, or at least equal points. And as a rampant green who thinks we may be teetering on the edge of self-destruction thanks to unfettered capitalism (the last project of the enlightenment) you have yet to convince me that things have improved.

NP said: "Anyway, looks like the ABC and his Lambeth Palace politicians are desperate not to call a Primates Meeting . . . "

Thing is, NP, that no Primates Meeting is scheduled until after Lambeth.

On the other hand, a Lambeth Conference is scheduled for next year.

Now, who is afraid here? Perhaps is chappy what wants to cancel the meeting that IS scheduled as opposed to the folk that see no reason to cancel that and scedule a different one.

There were 15 resolutions coming Lambeth 1998.

All have been honoured in the breach.

We are dealing with Lambeth, in a more complete form. There's that listening process. Look at the New Orleans joint response.

P.S. Poppy: You got me there. What a freudian slip! ROFLMAO!!

To Sean Doherty,

What Dr Hooker actually says is this:

“What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of Reason; after these the Voice of the Church succeedeth.

That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of Reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.

Dr Hooker: Of the Laws of the Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39, 8-14

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in the Controversies of Faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of the Scripture, that it be repugnant to another…

Dr Hooker: Art. XX in The XXIX Articles of Religion”

So it's Reason (of the lay),
Reason (of the learned) and
Reason of the Church in her Councils).

Capitalism by the way, is Dr Calvinus, a not very enlightened fellow living well before any “Enlightenment”.

Pat - very few buy the idea that there is INTEGRITY in just ignoring Lambeth resolutions which one happens not to like ....

-they are not made for fun,
-they are voted on,
-and ignoring a resolution based on scripture is ignoring the scripture.

"don't count your chickens"......

this is a wise saying, Malcolm

Remember the subgroup report presented in Tanzania?
Remember what happened?

Now we have to wait for the end of October to see the responses of ALL the provinces. A Primates meeting may be necessary......I do not fear such a meeting. It is strange that so many do not want the Primates to meet and consider the response together - a response which TEC HOB made to them! (maybe not that strange.....but less than honest)

Let's be patient.....no point crying victory before we have final decisions.

...neither may it so expound one place of the Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. [Hooker]

Oh Goodness. You mean Scripture isn't as clear as glass? That Hooker thinks it may be possible for churchmen to selectively quote from Scripture? But how are we to decide when people are doing this? Reason is extremely dangerous, you know?

...I don't see why I should be so mad-keen about democracy.

What alternatives do you prefer? Something along the lines of the present Wycliffe Hall management, perhaps?

Sean and Poppy

Welcome. The banter is terrific.

Thanks Goran for once again sharing historical knowledge, you have no idea how much I appreciate you coming to TA.

"Pat - very few buy the idea that there is INTEGRITY in just ignoring Lambeth resolutions which one happens not to like ....

-they are not made for fun,
-they are voted on,
-and ignoring a resolution based on scripture is ignoring the scripture."

The US Senate passes resolutions called "sense of the Senate" all the time. They are not made for fun, they are voted upon, and yet they are routinely ignored (indeed, forgotten) because they have no power of law. Just like Lambeth resolutions.

And I will happily ignore anything "based on scripture" if I think the interpretation of scripture being used is wrong. You see, I'm a human being and an Anglican...there's no great infallible pope or heirarchy telling me what I have to think.

- you sure it is not just that you want to justify certain sins, Pat?

No. NP. we don't believe gay relationships are sinful. I am sure we have mentioned that before.

This is getting tiresome, Simon - no new points are being made by NP, just the usual barrage of slogans.

"based on scripture" - isn't that rather like "based on a true story"? Apollo 13, JFK, and any number of "based on a true story" films spring to mind.

If I mix Gold and Lead, nobody would buy it believing it held the same value as Gold - even though it is "based on" Gold.

It seems to me that ECUSA (sorry TEC) have failed to get to the first hurdle in answering the repeated requests to enter into the moratorium that their primate signed up to. How can KJS in all honesty not recuse herself from the primates standing committee - TEC is still under a moratorium from serving on any of the instrumental bodies and in any case its her member of the communion that is under investigation. Interesting to see who represented the primates and ACC. None of the orthodox members had not responded to the draft before it was released. Another banana republic whitewash.

"...- you sure it is not just that you want to justify certain sins, Pat?"

The way the conservatives who ignore the usury scriptures want to justify their investments?

The way the conservatives who ignore the divorce scriptures want to justify accepting re-marriage?

At least I'm consistent in being willing to re-interpret the scriptures in light of modern science and reason and culture.

I count no chickens, NP.

But I do notice that my lord of Abuja is doing a very good impression of a chicken as he runs around pleading that Lambeth be cancelled.

What that tells me, NP, is that Abuja is afraid to have a Lambeth conference.

Quite a different thing from seeing no need to have a meeting that is scheduled for 2009 brought forward a year in order to replace the meeting that is already scheduled.

Your friends have overplayed their hand, NP, and even my lord of Abuja now realizes it.

"... and ignoring a resolution based on scripture is ignoring the scripture"

You will have to defend this, NP.

(not that it's defensible ;=)

Hi Goran. I don't really think your summary does the judicious one much justice. More like

Reason where it does not contradict Scripture
Reason in second place to Scripture
Reason does not over-rule Scripture.

(I am aware of Calvin btw. He certainly prepared the way in terms of moral thought. But capitalism as the utopian *project* it has become is pure Enlightenment - Smith, Whately, Ricardo etc)

"...- you sure it is not just that you want to justify certain sins, Pat?"

How condescending & patronisng.

It is a straight question, L Roberts.
People ought to consider themselves carefully before God and be suspicious of sin infecting their "interpretation" of scriptures, should they not?

Malcolm - I doubt Akinola is afraid of VGR. He, obviously, wants the conference delayed so that we have a proper conference with real unity i.e. without those who have been deliberately "tearing the fabric of the communion" in the last 4 years.
He obviously wants it delayed because some are using the fact that it is less than a year away to try and force everyone to let certain false teachers come and participate fully......most of us in the AC ain't going to have that. Maybe the ABC's political advisors will push too hard and the world will have 2 Anglican churches next year....in which case, we will have a proper conference (representing maybe 45m Anglicans and growing from the around the world, including the USA) and a little party in Lambeth to celebrate the victory of Integrity and Changing Attitude in forcing their agenda on the AC ( a party at which nobody will be allowed to project church nos even 10 years into the future!!)

Anyway - TEC HOB responds to the Primates....but now we cannot even have a video conference Primates Meeting to assess the doublespeaking response???? Really, the political machinations and fear of Primates speaking the truth is obvious!

"People ought to consider themselves carefully before God and be suspicious of sin infecting their "interpretation" of scriptures, should they not?"

Have you looked carefully for that beam in your own eye, NP?

"...- you sure it is not just that you want to justify certain sins, Pat?"

How condescending & patronisng.

Posted by: L Roberts on Friday, 5 October 2007 at 12:17am BST
It is a straight question, L Roberts.
People ought to consider themselves carefully before God and be suspicious of sin infecting their "interpretation" of scriptures, should they not?(NP)

"My, my, -- what's that in thy eye ?!"

NP

"People ought to consider themselves carefully before God and be suspicious of sin infecting their "interpretation" of scriptures, should they not?"

As someone asked you this here before - are you planning to start any time soon?

Do not delay !
Make start today !

O felix culpa !
O happy sin of Adam !

(the holy saturday liturgy)

"Reason where it does not contradict Scripture
Reason in second place to Scripture
Reason does not over-rule Scripture."

But this is not Dr Hooker, it's you and your fellow anti Moderns!

(and so is the silly "Scripture, Tradition and Reason" distortion so often heard. I wonder who first put it to print?)

Indeed, you have the rights of it, NP. Akinola only wants Lambeth to go ahead if he is in control. And since he is not currently in control (nor likely ever to be), he wants Lambeth canceled.

And I detect that even you, NP, have realized that your much vaunted conservative hegemony lies in tatters at your feet, as you concede that Akinola et al will not be at Lambeth when Lambeth goes ahead without them.

And like many on the losing side throughout history, you will declare victory and move on.

not at all, Malcolm..... you seem the CAPA response to the TEC HOB attempt at fooling the AC to letting them come to Lambeth?? Don't count your chickens, Malcolm

we have the Primates of 70% of the world's Anglcican saying they are not fooled by TEC or the ACO.....and they are demanding a Primates meeting (which we know the "liberal" politicians of the AC are desperate to avoid as they seek to hoodwink the AC to accept heresy)

Now, if there is a split because the ABC tries to force everyone to pretend TEC has any intention of halting its false teaching and practice, there will be 2 Anglican churches next year:

a) one 37m strong and growing, committed to scripture and agreed Anglican positions (including Lambeth 1.10) with some very strong, large churches in the US and ENGLAND;

b) one with 15-16m (if that) made of up of mostly small, middle-aged, declining groups based mainly in the "West" (this is generously including the CofE as 2m and not pretending it represents 26m, of course the CofE will not be untouched by a split and a much smaller no will be part of "TEC Global" and the haelthy parts of the CofE will be with group a)

Goran - but what I was summarising was the quote *you* posted. Your summary was just make-believe. And if it's so terrible to be anti-modern, why on earth one would bother to appeal to Hooker?!

????

Did Dr Hooker not write what he wrote?

Or has it perchance been "translated" of late to mean the opposite?

Curious, NP.

Up to now you've been assuring us that Dr. Williams would buckle under to the bullies. Now you're planning for the bullies to have their own meeting elsewhere.

B-bye.

OK Goran. What you said was:

"So it's Reason (of the lay),
Reason (of the learned) and
Reason of the Church in her Councils)."

And what you quoted from Hooker was nothing like that. Let's recap:

“What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of Reason; after these the Voice of the Church succeedeth."

Which I summarise as: reason only where it does not contradict Scripture & in second place to Scripture. Then tradition follows reason.
But for Hooker, from the very place you quoted, reason does not over-rule Scripture.

As you yourself quoted:

"The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in the Controversies of Faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of the Scripture, that it be repugnant to another"

The authority of the church in decreeing new things is always subordinate to Scripture, according to the judicious Dr Hooker at least.

Malcolm - don't get too excited.....I still think the ABC will in the end stick the agreed Anglican position we have in Lambeth 1,10 - not because he wants to but because he does not want 70% of the AC to leave him with a small group of liberals in decline in the West.

But, if he is silly enough to push for everyone to accept the rejection of the authority of scripture and the Communion's decision-making (as symbolised by VGR in TEC(USA)), then there will be a split.

Now..... see +Durham wading in to fight for biblical truth......

Remember Jeff John and Tanzania.....do not rely on old Rowan to sacrifice the AC for a minority concerned with particular rights (at the expense of the authority of scripture) but not very concerned for unity in the AC