Absolutely right - "The lust for institutional harmony and stability is strong. It repeatedly seduces us...."

WE have all, conservative and liberal, been led a tragic, delaying dance by those who put above all else keeping the old club intact (even at the cost of speaking the truth plainly)

She's right, of course. Sacrifice of the institution wasn't on the agenda: it may just be (to be positive) that once the schismatics run away, the brakes can come off.

Great! - The more progressives complain that the HoB agreed to a moratorium - a "pause" contrary to the wishes of the LGBT community in deference to the rest of the Communion - the more reasonable TEC sounds to the establishment - the more likely that the Akinola et al. will be seen as demanding unreasonable extremists - and the less likely TEC will be "disciplined."

(in response to McCord Adams) Amen! Lord have mercy...

I do appreciate Dr. McCord's remarks. Intellectually and spiritually I must stand near enough to her position/views to always feel a strong resonance and sense of recognition - she often reads to me as if I had given her notes as to how to speak for me.

However, I think she heightens the gospel sources of change urgency for our church life dilemma, while omitting or downplaying the other New Testament pastoral considerations one gets from reading the Pauline letters about taking one's brethern of doubtful conscience into account. This gets even more complicated when one adds in the witness of Acts, showing that no such leeway was sought/given in regard to the Holy Spirit falling upon the Gentiles at Cornelius' house, against all early church Jewish expectations. Eating meat offered to idols vs. discerning the Holy Spirit falling upon the Gentiles?

More to the practical Anglican point right now: We clearly lack a vigorous Anglican institutional and institutional leadership pledge at the highest levels - at minimum to two hot button things = (1)To Affirm historic Anglican leeway for different Anglican believers, none of whom has institutional authority to punish/police the others + (2)To Affirm an institutional Anglican discernment process which by empirical definition remains open-ended because the science in these hot button domains of human nature and sexuality-personality-behavior is ongoing and not yet unanimous (though a preponderance is growing, slowly). Unless or until RW and other provincial leaders lead relentlessly and persuasively in these two directions - we have no institutional framework that is settled for balancing our deference to conservative-traditional conscience with our alertness to changing, new info about just how equally competent queer folks (for example) really demonstrably are - at work, in relationships, and therefore in witness plus service plus caring plus community life.

This ethos for difficult worldwide Anglican discernment gets even hotter and murkier when one realizes or hears what so many conservative traditionalists apparently are saying: Nothing that anybody could ever say, for whatever reasons, on whatever basis, can make me change my mind and heart. Full stop. Period. I do not like queer folks. I do not wish to run shoulders with them in any rooms that I frequent, particularly in church life. I do not wish to think of them, other than knowing them to be dirty, possibly dangerous, and exemplary in deserving God's damnation. Full stop. Period.

What then?

C.B. is assuming there is some body capable in principle of disciplining TEC. There is not. There are various bodies able, and determined, to harm both TEC and its supporters in this country. They will go ahead whatever. But even if Rowan decides to serve their purposes, as he has done before, it won't be discipline. It's only discipline if the punished person accepts the authority by which it is done. Otherwise what we have is a failure of communication.

God bless Marilyn

One of my contemplations in the last few days has been about how the established precedent of scriptural interpretation is deemed to be the only holy authoritative interpretation.

One of my contemplations in the last few years is "how come the world still looks so bad"? Why is there so much poverty, famine, tyranny, repression, censorship, greed and corruption?

In particular, what happened to the beautiful imagery of the "new Jerusalem" coming down from heaven as promised in both Isaiah and Revelation? Where children could play safely on the streets, with the elderly sitting and watching in contentment, where all are fed and all are well?

It struck me that it was because this imagery fundamentally repudiates any theology that justifies repression and accusations, it repudiates tyranny and greed, it exposes corruption and selfishness.

Jesus died for the dream of the new Jerusalem, John and Isaiahs' last passages are an intense longing for that colourful peaceful joyful Jerusalem.

Yet for millenia, scribes and rulers have thwarted it being made manifest. They nitpick apart biblical characters to justify why the world is still wrong from Eve to Noah to Rebecca and Jacob.

You know, this world is about learning and taking responsibility, that means you are going to have to deal with good and bad, no one is going to be perfect.

The scribes who gloat that they have taken control over churches and their colleges should contemplate this: they have become Holy Spirit's biggest enemies in transmuting this earth into the promised Jerusalem. By their censorship of how they have obstructed peace and persistent teachings justifying accussations and tyranny, they have made themselves more guilty than the secular leaders who can at least claim that they have never read the bible.

Good on Marilyn for reminding us that Jesus did not wait for "the authorities" approval and not to anger that which can destroy both body and soul.

I've always thought it a mistake to expect much from bishops. Bishops, like Congress, will never do anything constructive on their own initiative. The Unwashed Proles (ie us) must constantly light a fire under their feet to get them to do the right thing. Progress in the Episcopal Church, and in the Anglican Communion is up to us. It would be vain and foolish to wait for some kind of fiat from a prince bishop (or a whole synod of bishops) to make everything right.

Canon Harmon and others called on TEC HOB to speak the truth plainly about what they believe and what they allow / do.

Only VGR has done that really clearly....

It would have been better for everyone if TEC HOB did not enter into weaving tangled webs with the Lambeth Palace bureaucrats

drdanfee criticises some for taking the attitude he sums up as " Nothing that anybody could ever say, for whatever reasons, on whatever basis, can make me change my mind and heart. Full stop."

So, drdan, are you saying you are open to persuasion that Lambeth 1.10 is right and would potentially encourage people to obey it?

"the altar of institutional objectives."

This is what bothers me. There is the constant "rah rah rah" of defending the rights of the poor suffering gays against those who would sacrifice us on the "altar of institutional objectives." What ever happened to things like what Paul talks about in Romans 14 and 15? It seems to me that to say "I am standing up for my rights" misses the point. It is about not putting stumbling blocks in the path of those whose faith is weak. To say that "They're the ones kicking me out" also misses the point. It's not about how THEY act towards ME, but about how I act towards THEM. WE were not sacrificed on the altar of institutional objectives, we decided not to do something that would put a stumbling block in the way of those of weaker faith. It is valid to ask what about putting stumbling blocks in the way of gay people whose faith is weak and who will be driven from the Church by this. I don't have an answer, but I don't think one is to be found in looking at it from the point of view of some sort of defense of the downtrodden. The current situation is a direct result of the fact that each side has conceived of itself as a downtrodden persecuted minority, or the defenders of such a minority, and where has it gotten us? We're tearing ourselves apart in a fight where each side is trying to prove its victimhood is more valid than the other side's. It's all lovely and modern, and oh so worldly, but it's not very productive. That's why the hypocrisy of the Right is so galling. They accuse others of following the world, yet they happily buy into the world's validation of the militant victim and can't see how they've sold out. I think the most important part of not being victimized is refusing to think of yourself as a victim. In the end, if we truly believe what we say we believe, can any of us ever be a victim of anything? At least the Left acknowledges its attachment to societal trends. There has to be a better way. There is, of course, and it requires all of us to adhere to our principles. Self effacement is a Christian principle, putting one's needs behind those of others, but few on either side seem interested in standing for that particular Christian value.

'Hi' Marilyn

You several times mention 'the Bible's God' approvingly. What does 'the Bible's God' say about homosexual practice?

It is undeniable that you are being selective, dishonest, or both.

Might I suggest from a generally progressive point of view from the US side of the Atlantic that it is high time for the progressives in the CoE to begin doing some of this heavy lifting instead of waiting on TEC HoB, commenting and criticizing. Sympathetic leaders in our Mother Church were rather silent in the past couple of years.

In addition, in the political environmnent of houses and synods, compromise is not ignoble. It is simply how things work. These bodies try to bring along the most number of people to a statement of belief or purpose. This is how progress is made. And progress has been made.

(Witness the Acts of the Apostles' "food sacrificed to idols or strangled." There it is, a parial compromise in Holy Writ, agreed to in order to welcome Gentiles into the Church. Didn't work out so bad in the end for us goyim.)

Now I just hope that we progressives can all line up to make sure the much promised listening process can proceed--instead of carping at one another because we didn't get everything we want. For those on one side or another to press for complete victory or total clarity is to press for schism. Let's be happy with a partial victory and work for progress the next time round.

What you wish, NP, is for the Americans to draw a line in the sand. That isn't going to happen. Since they value inclusion, their very diversity makes it impossible. Their tent is big enough to tolerate the far right and the far left. You are pleased by the clarity of this speaker, not because of your openess and willingness to hear her , butbbecause her clarity makes easier for you to target her and focus your aim. An interesting take on this was, I believe just offered by the Bishop of Rochester. He suggests that the right thing to do is for Cantuar to revoke the Lambeth initations of all American bishops who consented to the consecration of Gene Robinson. Such would have the moral effect of removing any "scapegoating" of him. (Of course the same request has been made by the CAPA Global South group and it would also have the effect of silencing the voice of the great majority of the Americans ((ala Dromantine Nottingham)) but +Rochester didn't reference that)

Lambeth 1.10 is right and would potentially encourage people to obey it? NP

Lambeth l.l0 has no power to insist it be "obeyed." It is a "suggestion" of "beliefs" and does not need be obeyed or even "believed" by everyone in The Anglican Communion...stop the tainted silliness of "imagining it law" and stop trying to force this "ramroded" nonsense down our throats as we all know how badly +Carey mishandled the "debate" on "human sexuality" at the past Lambeth.

On the above, apparently it was +Exeter joining +Rochester in his views and +Exeter suggesting the recinding of the US invitations. (which is not to say +Rochester would disagree) I so wonder what Ottawa's thinking will be this week. Will it provide the GS and "Reform" a clearer target? I realize that the GS has already grouped the ACN with TEC after its synod this summer and decision that the current teaching (Lambeth 1.10) on sexuality was adiaphora...

Oh yes indeed, NP, I am capable of being persuaded that Lambeth 1.10 is accurate.

Just to the extent that any body of solid empirical research (and derived empirical theory or model) can demonstrate what must be the factual or data side of that traditionalistic resolution - i.e., that (1) sexual orientation variance is, after all, NOT squarely within the natural variations of animal and human evolution, plus that (2) not being straight innately causes and/or results from clear detrimental empirical phenomena.

Now, strictly considered, Lambeth 1.10 hedges - some who post here and elsewhere might say, fudges? - just these two key empirical matters.

Why? Because even in 1998, we pretty much knew that both through-lines of the traditional negative views about queer folks were demonstrated to be factually inaccurate. Wrong then.

Nevertheless, nearly all of the posters who pledge the resolution as the mind of the church also seem to be claiming it is the revelation mind of God and the salvific mind of Christ. So given the scriptural negatives they read, they quickly import or at least hint at, pieces of bearing false witness against queer folks, mainly involve something in these two change domains of our modern thinking/knowledge.

We constantly hear how unnatural and creepy queer folks are supposed to be. We hear how dirty, dangerous, and damned they are. Guess who preaches these views, loudly?

This makes a bad conservative hermeneutic worse, by implicitly urging me to dubiously presume I can read some alternative ancient near eastern biology plus psychology plus ethology plus sociology plus cultural anthropology - rightly and plainly from our most curious set of so-called clobber scriptures.

Quite a dilemma.

Looking back into history, I find that this is just the blind approach the church leaders took, more or less, when the new solar system discoveries were being battled by the church. But Ptolemy and the church lost, and Copernicus won, along with Bruno and Galileo. Sadly, this markedly shaky and failing strategy is still the approach being used in the main to try to battle against evolutionary cosmology.

I believe: The earth is not flat. God did not magically create us by literally and plainly speaking us into being. Queer folks are not innately incompetent as citizen equals, members of the human family - either in society or in church life.

Persuade me? By best practice empirical and hermeneutic means? Do.

"potentially encourage people to obey it?"

Can we hope that you might one day potentially encourage people to obey the other parts of that document? Why ought people to only obey one clause of a much larger document?

Nice to hear a 'liberal' say we shouldn't demonize Christian's who we disagree with, and their motives...

I wonder how she (and those above who just agreed with her) would describe me, my insistence that the Bible condemns homosexual sex (among many sexual activities and attitudes), and my rejection of the idea that God makes people gay (since even identical twins don't necessarily develop the same sexualities!) ?

Or what about St Paul, who put those who are homosexually active into lists of those who "will inherit the kingdom of God" (1Cor6:10) and must repent?! Come to mention it, if she believes that the early church was lead by the Holy Spirit to include such texts in the canon of Scripture, hasn't she just condemned herself if she rejects it out of hand ?!

"Might I suggest from a generally progressive point of view from the US side of the Atlantic that it is high time for the progressives in the CoE to begin doing some of this heavy lifting instead of waiting on TEC HoB, commenting and criticizing. Sympathetic leaders in our Mother Church were rather silent in the past couple of years." (sub_deanery)

I am pleased to refer sub_deanery to the blog of Bishop Alan of Buckingham, Bishop Alan's Blog, specifically the post "What kind of party spirit am I on: Someone asked me if I'm going to the Lambeth Conference" Bishop Alan's answer is "yes" but I commend all four reasons he gives for going. They are quite clear, and challenging. His comment on the Windsor Report is breathtaking.(I'm incapable of making links, I'm sorry, but Dave Walker on the cartoon blog has a link to Bp. Alan's blog and post.)
Enjoy, everyone.
Lois Keen

Ford

I enjoyed your posting of Friday, 12 October 2007 at 12:36pm BST

You are right that some parties have decided that the battles are about who is or is not saved, and why. Two underpinning paradigms that keep these mouse in wheel polemics continuing are first that tyranny is inevitable, so therefore the trick is to be the one repressing. Secondly, that Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection was a failure, it was not sufficient for God, so there is only a limited portion of grace.

The mouse in wheel imagery is appropriate, some souls are working very fast, very vehemently BUT they are going nowhere. You can not escape God because you can not escape the space-time universe, to leave would mean to "not be". God is limitless, so therefore there is no need to "make room" by excluding or denying others.

So those who seek to justify accusations and repression of others or to garnish more than their fair share by whatever dastardly means actually demonstrate their lack of faith in God. It is one of those ironies that those who feel the least confident at shunning others are actually those who are closest to Jesus and Holy Spirit.

We do not deny a child is from God if they have a heart condition, diabetes, autism, missing limb. Nor would we deny hermaphrodites, eunuchs, testosterone females or chimeras. Yet we deny GLBTs?

Those who exclude one camp are prepared to exclude other camps (e.g. females). Those who trust in God realise we are all equal before God and that encumbers each and everyone of us to show reverance and graciousness.

Ezekiel 14 is a powerful rebuking chapter against those who put stumbling blocks before others. God warns us that in harsh times even Noah, Daniel or Job can only save themselves. Yet God promises that even in the worst of times there will be remnant, and when the sons are daughters are brought out from under tyranny, all are consoled that God's harshness was justified. God does this to recapture the heart of his peoples.

Jeremiah 2:8-13 They have prophesised by Baal, offering up human sacrifices, they have forsaken the spring of living water. Jeremiah 23:27-29 "They think the dreams they tell one another will make my people forget my name, just as their fathers forgot my name through Baal worship…”

NP posted: "So, drdan, are you saying you are open to persuasion that Lambeth 1.10 is right and would potentially encourage people to obey it?"

What claptrap.

How long, NP, will it take you to understand the fact that Lambeth -- whatever year you choose to reference -- has no juridical power; it has no authority to compel one Province to do "x" nor to compel another Province to refrain from doing "y."

There are some Lambeth conclusions with which I might agree, and you might disagree, and it has others where the reverse would be true.

But you cannot be compelled to obey any of them, in and of themselves as "Lambeth resolutions," nor can I be compelled to obey them.

Lois here is the link you mentioned:
http://bishopalan.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-kind-of-party-spirit-am-i-on.html

"What does 'the Bible's God' say about homosexual practice?"

Not a whole lot, unless you insist on a truly strangulated reading of ancient Greek words by translating them into terms the authors wouldn't recognize.

Obviously, NP is not an historian. Has s/he read John Boswell's Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe (1994)? Obviously not; or else s/he wouldn't spout off the way s/he does. Not all such unions were, or are, sexual. As a parish priest since 1970s, I have known many gays in committed relationships that were non-sexual. Of course, NP is obsessed about sex and what people do in their BRs. It is a known fact, within the RC Communion, that 50% of its priests are gay at least as far as orientation is concerned--that means 50% of its cardinals, bishops, parish clergy. It probably means 50% of its popes! Yet the majority of them were faithful and exemplary Christians. The Eastern Orthodox have blessed same-gender unions, going back to the 4th century AD. In what sense are +Gene Robinson and TEC innovators? I bet you, there are closeted gays among the finest bishops and priests in Nigeria. Maybe, Big Pete is a gay man, too, in denial of his own sexuality, whatever his personal reasons or need for U.S. dollars.

"I wonder how she (and those above who just agreed with her) would describe me"

Well, since you asked, David Wh.:

1) "my insistence that the Bible condemns homosexual sex (among many sexual activities and attitudes)"

You're a person w/ a badly mistaken interpretation of God's Will, probably formed by false translation of Scripture [To wit, "St Paul, who put those who are homosexually active into lists of those who "will inherit the kingdom of God" (1Cor6:10) and must repent": it says no such thing].

Henceforth---

2) "my rejection of the idea that God makes people gay (since even identical twins don't necessarily develop the same sexualities!)"

---you're a *prejudiced* person [since whether sexuality is chromosomally-determined is hardly an indication of whether or not "God makes people gay"].

At least, that's my *charitable* take on you, David Wh. It's just as likely, that 2) leads to 1) [i.e., your prejudice is determinative of your choice of Scripture translation, and subsequent poor interpretation].

Lord have mercy!

I have to agree with Dr. Marylin but I'm still torn on how we meet middle ground with those that we disagree with. I also agree with Dr. Dan that what the HoB's did was give conservatives enough rope to hang themselves as unreasonable. Many leaders/Primates/bishops of the older generation are set against the full inclusion of GLBT's. We are really planning for the future since many in my generation and younger are much more open and as understanding. As scientific/medical studies continue and support that sexuality isn't chosen, future generations will hopefully not have this issue to fight over.

"I wonder how she (and those above who just agreed with her) would describe me, my insistence that the Bible condemns homosexual sex (among many sexual activities and attitudes), and my rejection of the idea that God makes people gay (since even identical twins don't necessarily develop the same sexualities!)"

We wouldn't demonise you. We just simply believe you're wrong.

What would happen if we substituted the phrase "the colour pink" wherever we see "Lambeth 1.10".

Let's play a game and do it for a week or so, the obsessional absurdity might come to light and we'll have some fun in the meantime :-)

>>>my rejection of the idea that God makes people gay (since even identical twins don't necessarily develop the same sexualities!)"

Well, I wouldn't demonize you, but I would point out that you apparently don't know much about genetics.

JCF: you're a *prejudiced* person [since whether sexuality is chromosomally-determined is hardly an indication of whether or not "God makes people gay"].

I don't understand how it is possible to judge that someone is "prejudiced" just because they believe that it is only possible to say that God may have '"made" someone like this' if they were born that way (due to genetics, womb environment etc).

If someone is a particular way due to being conditioned by upbringing, experiences etc (eg someone's culture, religion etc) or by choosing a particular behaviour or preference (eg religion change, political opinion, football fans etc) then God did not "make" them like that.. even if they were born with some genetic predisposition (unless it is determinative).

Weren't you pre-judging me when you said that I was prejudiced?! Are you really just worried that the issue is homosexuality ?

Hmm thanks CC. Color pink it is, if I remember to make the switch, given my feline alzheimer's, early stage. LOL. Imagine, Lord Carey and company shoving through the color pink as a bright banner of Lambeth. Gotta love it, sad and funny, as the original.

Nature or nurture?

Hmm. Even the scientists agree that there are some genes that lead to certain illnesses, but that they are not always "triggered".

We can't deny that hermaphrodites, chimeras and testosterone females occur.

Nor can we deny that illnesses such as MS, parkinsons, or lupus exist Or schizophrenia, bipolar or depression.

Yet some souls try to deny that sexuality is affected by genes and hormones?

That's as bizarre as saying there is no such thing as shortsightedness or colour blindness.

There are those who seek to discredit GLBT advocates as being subjective and having their own agenda. Yep. I'll confess to that. I work from a subjective agenda that each and every human is a child of God and deserves to be treated accordingly.

Those who claim to be "objective" in their right to dehumanise and vilify others are also subjective. But their subjectivity insults Jesus' sacrifice as they deny grace to those who should be covered by God's unilateral and preemptive grace.

"Nice to hear a 'liberal' say we shouldn't demonize Christian's who we disagree with, and their motives. I wonder how she (and those above who just agreed with her) would describe me . . ."

I can't speak for anyone else, but my perception of you would not simply be based on your opinion(s) related to the present issue. In fact, your opinions on the present issue would likely be of less importance than your behaviour.

Personally, I tend to make a subtle description between conservatives (those who believe as you do and conduct themselves with decency) and "conservatives" who, claiming to agree with you, use the issue as a wedge to divide the church and marginalize those who disagree with them.

I haven't read enough of your posts to decide about you yet.

David Wh.
What's the point of this?
Unless you believe that God deliberately "made" individual people, this conversation makes no sense.

Whether homosexuality is genetic or due to other influences (like a hormone imbalance in the womb)is really neither here nor there.
In all countries in the world, regardless of culture or religion, there is a similar percentage of homosexual people. Homosexuality is therefore entirely normal.

The question is not how someone comes to be homosexual, but whether anyone has any right to tell them that they are inferior and must not live a full life because of it.

Tell you what - even if it was an active choice (and bisexual people to have a measure of choice, at least about sex, not so about whom they love), it would not be immoral. It's the love that counts, and how it is expressed in a relationship.

I propose a rainbow with colours not only for Pink, but also for Tanzania, Dromatine, ALL Primates....

So, dradanfee, are "you are open to persuasion that the colour pink is right and would potentially encourage people to obey it?"

Erika

I like your proposal. One of my regrets in the last few days is that "pink" is not one of the colours of the rainbow.

Mind you, after reading Sacks' article this weekend and the book Revelation on many an occasion, pink seems appropriate. Pink is what happens when you combine red and white, it is a transmutation that is not part of the rainbow of Noah but a colour that we all recognise. Perhaps pink is a great colour because it epitomises a colour that "is not" yet "is". Just like GLBTs represent a humanity that "is not" yet "is".

"Nice to hear a 'liberal' say we shouldn't demonize Christian's who we disagree with, and their motives"

In your rush to paint yourself out as the poor downtrodden victim valiantly fighting against your oppressor, a very worldly way of thinking, by the way, you happily ignore the way you do it to others. As I said before, it isn't how THEY treat you that matters in the end, it's how YOU treat them. In the Lamb's Book of Life, it won't read "stood up to those who would oppress him" after your name, it'll read "loved his neighbour as himself".

"If someone is a particular way due to being conditioned by upbringing, experiences etc (eg someone's culture, religion etc) or by choosing a particular behaviour or preference (eg religion change, political opinion, football fans etc) then God did not "make" them like that"

What an odd statement! The Church has for a long time understood that God's Creative acts are continuous. God did not just set something in motion eons ago and just sit back and watch it, God continually wills our existence, thus God is always creating. Do you think God's creation of a person stops when that person is born? Do you really believe our parents and families AREN'T from God? That our experiences AREN'T from God? That He makes us in our mother's wombs, then all the rest of our lives is just happenstance? Cripes, I have a profound aversion to anything Evangelical, and even I don't go so far to deny the omnipotence of God! Do you really think God is that limited? And something so complex as sexuality cannot possibly be determined by a single gene, and the only one's who think so are the Conservative Evangelicals whose understanding of science is abysmal. There is no quest for a "gay gene". What there is is a quest to understand the processes, plural, by which something so complex as sexuality develops.

EPfizH - yes, I may not agree with Dr Adams or with VGR but at least they are not honest and stand by what they believe to be right. I respect that more than TEC HOB NO statements which try to say yes and no at the same time.

drdanfee - the point is scripture and what is compatible and incompatible with scripture.....
You ask a question but I am not sure you will read this answer - here it is anyway.
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/20070108odonovan7.cfm?doc=179

I have just been pondering the colour pink ! ....

"the point is scripture and what is compatible and incompatible with scripture"

No it's not. You make it pretty obvious that for you the issue has nothing to do with "compatible with Scripture". Stop trying to look so holy, you're not fooling anyone.