I am delighted that Rowan and the JSC were able to stitch this up, once and for all.

Ruth Gledhill is reduced to quoting NP from comments here now - misrepresenting that opinion as representative of TA?

Has the woman no shame?

L Roberts - again, don't count your chickens.....and should they really be "stitching up" anything?
I thought we were concerned with truth and unity in the AC?

Remember Rowan was part of another half-baked report presented to the Primates in Tanzania - few were fooled, as you may remember (unless you have a "revisionist" view of what happened there)

Did anyone else spot that Ruth Gledhill quotes NP as a typical representative of the evangelical camp?

Erika - yes, did you feel proud to have TA's NP quoted?

By the way, I am quite "typical" you know.....note, even Fulcrum (which is very anti-schism and is not conservative evangelical) came out strongly to say TEC HOB was not giving and honest, unambiguous, positive response to Tanzania or Windsor......so, if your use of the word "typical" implies that you think I am "right wing" etc etc......please do not kid yourself.

Not many are fooled by TEC HOB doublespeak.....even their own bishops (Bruno/Ely/Bennisson) say nothing will change with regard to TEC(USA)'s false teaching, departed from agreed AC positions.

No NP some of us have naively hbeen 'concerned with truth and unity in the AC' only to find , that while we have been studying the Bible, kocking on heaven's doors & the doors of others who might engage with us in good faith --

only to find the pious homophobes stitching us up behind the scenes. Carey did it at Lambeth Conference, kicking out the thoughtful , scholarly work of Ndungane's working party. A body can only take so much shafting you know. Well, of course you do.

I really just want the homophobes heads knocked together and human rights implemented for all. I'm passed cosy chats with the cynical shits who seem to inhabit the Virtue-World and other unctious oddious blogs,--- and worse of all in the 'ministry' of the anglican Churches.

NP
"Erika - yes, did you feel proud to have TA's NP quoted?"

For once I thought Ruth got it right and that she presented the worst of the consevo stance appropriately.

I was surprised she went to TA to look for it, I admit, and I do believe that gives it more credibility than it is worth. As you well know, I don't consider you to be very Thinking at all, but simply spouting the same 20 sentences unreflected regardless of the content of the posts you reply to. But, hey, fame at last, NP, even if still more anonymously than your already anonymous TA posts.
Congratulations.

Erika - you comment on me saying "I don't consider you to be very Thinking at all"

Well, is that fair, Erika?
I think that the CofE should stick to its agreed, scripture-based positions. You think people should be free to ignore those - even vicars. Does that mean I have not thought a lot about my position?

Anyway, I am sure you would not really want to wound....so, rest assured, I am not wounded.

By the way, this is not the first time I have made the national press - normally it is for success in non-CofE related issues....but I choose to be anonymous because I think people should debate the issues and not the person. (For example, if you found out I was a woman of ethnic minority extraction, I suspect you would be a little softer on me....but I do not want that because it is the issues which matter.)

http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3848

;-)

So, Rowan is phoning and writing the Primates to see what they think. No need for an expensive meeting. No opportunity for my lord of Abuja with his protoge Minns to hold a meeting hostage with temper tantrums and bullying.

An opportunity for each of the Primates to offer a calm and considered response.

Enjoy being quoted in the Times, NP. Your Warholian 15 minutes are soon up.

"doublespeak....."

Let's see now...

Lambeth 1:10

"We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ... calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals..."

Dromantine:

"...we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and
care of homosexual people. The victimisation or diminishment of human beings
whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to
us. We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by
him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship."

Yes, it seems we Anglicans do "doublespeak"!

NP,
You may once have thought about your positions, I have no means of telling. I can only judge you by the way you present yourself here. And, just one example, although people have been telling you numerous times this last week that they are not ignoring scripture but are reading it differently from you, you still do not engage with a word they say but repeat the mantra, even in this post I'm responding to: "You think people should be free to ignore..."
This is NOT a thinking engagement with the people you're talking to.

As for who you may or may not be, I suspect you are not white because you once said that you would have been one of the victims during slavery. But as you know from my posts here that I detest Akinola and his ilk, and hugely admire Davis Mac-Iyalla and his group, you can't really believe that people's colour would influence what I think of them.

As for possibly being a woman - I happen to be one myself and I don't see it as an excuse for sloppy thinking and stereotypical answers. So, no, NP, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

Once you start to engage with what people actually say and give a reply that doesn't look like copied in from a Word macro, I may change my mind. Until then, I don't consider you to be Thinking.

NP wrote: “I think that the CofE should stick to its agreed, scripture-based positions. You think people should be free to ignore those – even vicars. Does that mean I have not thought a lot about my position?”

Well NP... since your opinionating is neither “agreed” nor “scripture based” in any sense, it can hardly be thought about a lot, can it?

Anyone for Greek?

Malcolm - this is not the first 15 mins I have had and it is unlikely to be the last....although it is my first 15 mins for CofE stuff.

Erika - as for "sloppy thinking"...... do you think that approaching scripture wanting to justify certain behaviours is somehow "rigourous"??

It is not "sloppy thinking" to ask what scripture says, what it meant to the first hearers, what its purpose was and then to apply it to our situtaions today. It is "sloppy" to just ignore it and justify our own behaviour.

Malcolm+ on Friday, 5 October 2007 at 7:52pm BST --

Thanks for that link -- one can hardly expect that primates who have established parishes (or entire dioceses) in the USA are going to be satisfied by anything that could be said or done since it would involve them relinquishing power.

BTW -- the audio link here earlier (can't locate the post at the moment) where Orombi appeared to be exultant about being a simoniac was baffling (to put it as charitably as possible).

A few days ago Jack Leo, the bully bishop of Sp-Iker-land, was in distress over on T19 when JSC published its response to the New Orleans HoB's statement, giving TEC a pass. So, he called in the cavalry--ACI. Now ACI has given a failing grade to the U.S. HoB's response. Signatories to the ACI statement are Drs. Radner, Seitz, the Lord Bishops of Dunelm and Winchester et al. Now the U.S. reasserters are in "hog heaven" again, their homophobic position having been recognized as biblical and Anglican by the theological heavy-weights, including Dunelm and Winchester, who are expected to force ++Rowan Cantuar to reverse course.

John Henry, would that be the same ACI that was operating as Don Armstrong's money-laundering front?

"It is not "sloppy thinking" to ask what scripture says, what it meant to the first hearers, what its purpose was and then to apply it to our situtaions today."

1) There is no way we can know what it meant to the "first hearers"--we cannot read their minds. This is the theological equivalent of the American constitutional theory of "original intent". It's bogus there and bogus here.

2) No matter what its purpose was then, if the circumstances have changed, that purpose is no longer valid.

3} Trying to apply it to our situations now is exactly what TEC is doing, but you call that "ignoring scripture."

"Would that be the same ACI that was operating as Don Armstrong's money-laundering front?"

Posted by: JPM on Saturday, 6 October 2007 at 6:24pm BST

Indeed. However, ACI reincorporated elsewhere and dissociated itself from Mr. Don Armstrong after the latter was presented for trial by the Diocese of Colorado's ecclesiastical court. As most bloggers remember, Mr. Don Armstrong was found guilty of embezzlement and is now subject to investigation by State of Colorado law enforcement. Now a priest in good standing with CANA-Nigeria, thanks to the intervention of Mr. Martyn Minns, Mr. Armstrong is to be cleared of all charges brought against him by a vicious, persecuting TEC bishop through CANA's own forensic audit. CANA has promised the audit, but hasn't so far released any findings.

NP, repeating your lie will not make it true.

Can you even wrap your brain around the concept that some people may honestly look at something and come to a different view than you?

Apparently not.

If so, I fear that you have fallen into the sin of pride, old friend.

Malcolm - what lie??

If you are referring to my statements re Lambeth 1.10, I think you will find I have merely stated facts about it. (It is a lie to say that it was only ever meant as an optional extra for vicars who agreed with it - you know?)

As for different interpretations...sure, within REASON! If the bible says "do not be greedy", I tend to struggle to see as equally valid "interpretations" which say it is fine to be greedy!
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/20061109odonovan5.cfm?doc=151

NP, the problem is that your grasp of simple moral theology is extremely shaky. Not surprising, since Alpha is notoriously weak on that. 'Greed' is a moral construct placed on 'possession' an empirical fact.

What constitutes 'greed' is a continuing subject for discussion - given you defended high City bonuses a bit ago, you must regard that as justifiable reward, not greed ('these lads and lasses really work for it' or words to that effect). So what constitutes 'greed' - the wish for more than a bare minimum for survival? Surely not! (Read Rowntree on that! )

Trouble with HTB is it does rather keep you in the prison cell..... Which environment, I believe, is the one in which Alpha seems to work best.

Mynster - I don't mind a man or woman earning millions but I believe the Christ-like use of that money is what would differentiate the Christian from the pagan..... you mention a Christian who made a lot and gave a lot of money, bringing glory to God.... he was not merely storing up treasure on earth where moth and rust destroy.

Solomon, David, Abraham were all loaded (just like Desmond Tutu - just mention this to irritate my favourite rabbit...)

"Solomon, David, Abraham were all loaded"

Sadly, these "Christians" never had the opportunity to hear that Jesus spent 2/3 of his teachings denouncing wealth.

ok Erika - so you want us to stick to biblical teaching on wealth but not on certain other sins?
Why might that be?

NP
"ok Erika - so you want us to stick to biblical teaching on wealth but not on certain other sins?
Why might that be?"

I'm not sure whether it is at all possible to get through to you, I suspect not.

I'm NOT the one who takes the bible literally and who uses verses as bullets.

I don't want to stick to literal teachings on wealth, I want to stick to the spirit of what Jesus said. And so I fully agree with you that it is not how much money Christians make that counts, but how they earn it and what they do with it.

Likewise, I believe that it is not what kinds of physical bits people have that counts, but whether their relationship is loving, Christ-focused and holy.

Only, I'm consistent in rejecting a literal approach. You appear to be feeling free choose between interpreting and literalism when it suits you. Neat!

NP: "I believe the Christ-like use of that money is what would differentiate the Christian from the pagan"

Ahmanson vs Bill Gates.....

"I am quite "typical" you know"

LOL!!!! Typical of something, NP, as I have repeatedly told you, but a typical Anglican? Not hardly! All, the same, thanks for the chuckle! Now, come on with the "the vast majority of Anglicans think the way I do about TEC", as though that's what I'm talking about.

WEll Ford....does the "typical Anglican" you imagine want Lambeth 1.10 overturned?
Pls don't say they do not care....do they actually believe it is wrong and we should be accepting VGR?

- note how some on TA in the past have hoped to split the "conservative" and "open" evos.....but now we see both ++Jensen and +Durahm not fooled by the JSC/TEC spin - so,as a conservative, I am not as isolated as some hoped.

The point I am making is that very few in the AC want us to ditch biblical standards for ourselves or our leaders....I am typical in that!

How many in TEC(USA) really wanted their church to spend the last 4 years fighting for the right of VGR to break agreed Anglican positions? Maybe a minority?

Rude Mr Virtue says that TEC(USA) has been hijacked by 2000 people in Integrity and the agenda of TEC(USA) is not what the typical TEC(USA) person wants.... that is believable, right?

You know very well what lie I am referring to. It is the lie that anyone who disagrees with you is "ignoring scripture."

NP,
Thanks for proving my point!

Malcolm - in order to condone behaviour which is incompatible with scripture, one has to ignore it (which includes twisting translation to justify certain sins). Please note, the disagreement is not with me..... I am sticking with the agreed position of the AC as set out by a large majority of its bishops......

So, it is true to say that people are ignoring scripture if they condone behaviour which the bishops of the AC have said (in Lambeth 1.10 and since) is "incompatible with scripture"

Re: 'typical anglicans'.

There is incredible dishonesty here among those who want to claim that typical anglicans are...er...a bit like themselves actually.

We all know that the anglican church is made up of quite a variety of people. Anyone denying that is doing so wilfully and dishonestly. For we all already knew that there is no such thing as a typical anglican. All else is propaganda.

The only qualified Christian-statisticians known to me, David Barrett and Peter Brierley, consistently emphasise the ascendancy of the charismatic-evangelical element. But is ascendancy the same thing as being right?

Why should I be irritated when yet again you prove my point about your attitude towards South African majority government, NP? Quite the contrary - thanks NP.

Christopher Shell hits the nail on the head: "There is incredible dishonesty here among those who want to claim that typical anglicans are...er...a bit like themselves actually. We all know that the anglican church [sic] is made up of quite a variety of people. "

What that means is that this "variety of people" are likely to come up with a variety of interpretations of what scripture is saying on a given issue.

Recently, I have challenged NP for precisely that sort of "incredible dishonesty" in claiming that anyone who disagrees with his is "ignoring scripture.

I am not surprised with his response, "in order to condone behaviour which is incompatible with scripture, one has to ignore it."

But what NP fails to grasp (or, less charitably, refuses to admit) is that he is not talking about behaviour being "incompatible with scripture," but rather with behaviour being incompatible with HIS INTERPRETATION of scripture.

That is not an insignificant distinction.

His refusal even to engage on the issue in an honest way tends to support the suggestion that NP is not here as an honest participant in discussion, but as a "troll," whose purpose is merely to annoy, to disrupt and to flame.

Christopher, based on his previous posts, is hardly a rabid liberal advocate of gay rights in the Church. Yet even his pointed assessment is a direct commentary on NP's arrogant claim to be the infallible voice of "typical" Anglicans and to hold the infallible interpretation of scripture.

NP, tell me I'm wrong. Tell me I'm foolish. Tell me I'm deceived. Engage the issue and present an argument.

But if you tell me again that I am "ignoring scripture," then I will simply have to accept that you are incapable of setting aside your "incredible dishonesty."

"is ascendancy the same thing as being right?"

Christopher, I think that depends on whom you ask. From what I can get here, especially from NP, it certainly is the same thing as far as Evangelicals are concerned.

Malcolm says "But what NP fails to grasp (or, less charitably, refuses to admit) is that he is not talking about behaviour being "incompatible with scripture," but rather with behaviour being incompatible with HIS INTERPRETATION of scripture.That is not an insignificant distinction."

Er.....Lambeth 1.10 says "incompatible with scripture".........it does not mention NP or his interpretation of scripture - does it?

I would love to have another vote on this at next year's conference but, of course, the liberal bureaucrats in th AC will not let that happen as they will lose.....anyway, they are now too busy trying to prove the TEC HOB NO reponse to the Primates is much more positive that even VGR says it is..... but, whatever, Lambeth 1.10 does not mention me but it does say certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture" (however much you do not like it, that is what it says and that is what it means)

well Ford - yes, I see the dwindling, ageing congregations of liberal churches as evidence that God is not blessing the so-called "inclusive gospel"

That would be the INTERPRETATION of a handful of bishops, NP. And at a conference which has no authority anyway.

But you carry on with your dishonest line of attack, slander and canard.

Malcolm - you accuse me of telling lies in the same post as you misrepresent the majority (70%+) of AC bishops as "a handful of bishops"

Come on - let us be honest.

Lambeth 1.10 was passed by a large majority if bishops. (FACT)

The liberal bureaucracy in Lambeth Palace does not dare reopen the question as they would lose...again.

Please do not tell me not to lie when I have stated a fact and your post includes misrepresentation....

"I see the dwindling, ageing congregations of liberal churches as evidence that God is not blessing the so-called "inclusive gospel""

Yet it is TEC who is seeking the approval of the world? Popularity is a sign of God's blessing? And would you care to identify one of these dying "liberal" churches?