“Any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such.”

If this is the case, why bother with the provincial structure at all? Why go to the trouble of primates and presiding bishops and general conventions and synods?

Sounds like Rowan is trying to find a way to keep both the wider TEC and the likes of Pittsburgh and Fort Worth in the communion without resolving their differences as to practices within the province.

Of course, how this affects individual parishes within places like my own Pennsylvania diocese is another issue entirely.

Oh dear!

Desperation has leapt in here.

No longer a Primate willing only to negotiate with other Primates - Church to Church - this is now a free-for-all.

"Windsor compliant" ........ what utter nonsense.

One cannot help thinking that if this is what is on offer the sooner the whole mess falls apart the better .......

The language attributed to the Archbishop of Canterbury in this pastoral letter has surprised many of us, but Bishop Howe does present it as a direct quotation from a very recent e-mail.

Among other things, it seems to put paid to the Reformation concept of a national church, since the Communion is merely an assemblage of dioceses. Hence, no issue (I presume) if, let us say, the Diocese of Rochester wishes to affiliate with a group of Ugandan dioceses rather than with the other dioceses of the Church of England.

The juridical status the Archbishop here ascribes to the Windsor Report also contradicts many of his own earlier statements.

Clarification from Lambeth on these points would be helpful.

"Clarification from Lambeth on these points would be helpful"...

especially as the Archbishop's quoted statement may pertain to dioceses in the Church of England. Does the established status of the C of E protect Archbishop Rowan from his own alleged words?

Lois Keen

I hope this capitulation is not an attempt to maintain sources of funding for Lambeth and other Communion interests in order to avoid questions of ecclesiology, jurisdiction, and interrelatedness of the national church. This statement from +++Rowan may well do more to fragment and encourage intolerance than the separatists themselves have done. Does this mean I can someone develop their own sect of Anglicanism, intolerant of women, intolerant of gays, or intolerance of any living outside of Pauline and Levitical doctrine, but remain in the Anglican Communion as long as I am Windsor compliant?

Could anyone post a PDF of the Bishop's letter, as distributed today in the Central Florida churches?

Thanks, Simon, for pointing out that not all versions of this Howe pastoral letter put the close quote in the same location. We can continue to speculate, but it seems advisable to wait until we know which is correct. Whatever the correct quote it would be nice to see the ABC's entire message.

Hope Rowan's as generous when the war breaks
out in England...but lets first give him the benefit of the doubt. I would like to see that quotation in its full context.....if the interpretation is a mandate for diocesan free for all it contradicts all his previous statements. Furthermore why dissn't he entertain the dissident dioceses in New Orleans.

Furthermore a "localised diocesan solution" can help Sydney lay celebrantists and equally gay blessers like Canadaian dioceses advanced of their General Synod.

Rowan is far clever and nunaced than that.
So Martin Reynolds calm that impetuous Celtic blood.

Kendall Harmon says that he has seen the version sent to all clergy of the Diocese of Central Florida. In this version, the quotation marks extend to the end of the paragraph, attributing the last sentence also to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I have also seen a version at Stand Firm that has an ellipsis before the final sentence of the paragraph, indicating that some words have been omitted from the Archbishop's e-mail.

Sarah Hey at Stand Firm said (and I concur) that it would be helpful to see the context of the Archbishop's quoted remarks.

Kendall Harmon has now added:

[quote] I am posting this in the comments as well as the original blog entry--

Important Update: I have contacted bishop Howe directly and he has given permission for me to cite his response: “The longer version is correct.”
October 21, 1:04 pm [close quote]

And now that we have established the text, as it were -- what about the (ahem) plain meaning of the text?

I commented earlier on someone's remarks on Fr.Jake Stops the World Blogsite:

"All of this nonsense about being 'in communion' with the greater Anglican tradition via Canterbury is silly at this point." - Terry Dyslexia

A good point now that ++Rowan Cantuar, according to +John Howe, has re-defined "constituent member" of the Anglican Communion as a "Windsor-compliant diocese" rather than the province. Sp-Iker-land, under the new definition, is a Windsor-compliant Diocese (i.e., no same-gender unions and no openly gay priests and deacons) and, therefore, a constituent member of the Anglican Communion. +Jack the Lion now has a free pass, thanks to ++Rowan Cantuar, to take his diocese out of the "General Convention Church" which has menstruants for bishops and a divorced, (gay) partnered Bishop of New Hampshire, not counting the still closeted gay clergy in Fort Worth and in TEC. What hypocrisy!

But he hasn't really said that, JH. What he appears to be saying is that as these dioceses are Windsor-compliant, they should stay within the set-up as it stands rather then look overseas, given that as they do so, they will still be in communion with Canterbury.

Its, I think, a last-ditch attempt to try to keep everyone on board which is his aim above all else. And always has been

It's necessary to read the entire letter, rather than the extracts that Bishop Howe originally published, to get some feel for what the Archbishop is trying to say. Even so, it's difficult to see quite where he is headed, and I don't believe that the ambiguity is entirely intentional this time around. He's going to have to clarify what he has just said or anyone, of any shade of opinion, can pick something from it to justify whatever action they chose to endorse.

I suppose he DID read it before he sent it to Bishop Howe?

I've read this letter (from Rowan Williams) several times with some sense of bafflement (to say the least). It is extraordinary! He is saying, is he not, that the bishop is all, in any place. As I understand it, though, a bishop must be a member of a Church. Rowan Williams has, in effect, elevated the Anglican Communion to the level of a Church, and effectively undermined every single Anglican Church going.

But that is not how the Church of England regarded the Anglican Communion not so long ago.

Even the wandering bishop will either be within a Church or create one...

It is hardly the family of Churches in the Anglican denomination of Alister McGrath - whoops, he is a Protestant of course.

Merseymike may be right, that the letter is a tactical statement, but this is a tactical statement that is like dropping a bomb on national Churches and destroying them in one fell swoop.

I wonder whether Rowan Williams expected this letter to be leaked. It says tell his (Howe's) priests, but not tell the world what I have written. Well, now that this is been told to the world, Rowan Williams had better make something clear - how does he regard any national Church?

His Catholicism and centralism is again getting the better of him.

Yes I rather think this is all falling apart rapidly. The letter is, really, absurd, and I think I shall read it again.

I would like to accept Merseymike's interpretation, but it would be nice if this former Don could speak with some clarity, but:

"The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such."
The obvious interpretation is that ++Rowan is simply wrong about the facts -- the WWAC is composed of provinces that generally (but not always) conform to national churches.

Does this mean that he is now supporting entire dioceses leaving TEC to form a separate (but equal?) Anglican province (rather than parishes leaving to affiliate with African primates)?

The promotion of individual dioceses at the expense of national churches reminds me of Joseph Ratzinger's 1982 book Theologische Prinzipienlehre in which, as in several subsequent Vatican pronouncements, national episcopal conferences are downgraded and the location of churchhood in the individual dioceses is stressed. (This was probably motivated by the power the episcopal conferences showed in their reception of Humanae Vitae in 1968, as they have again in their reception of the recent Moto Proprio attempting to restore the Tridentine Mass). I had understood the Anglican Communion to be a communion of autonomous regional churches, one of which is TEC, rather than primarily a communion of individual dioceses. Is this wrong?

I have blogged on this amazing letter (where I can say more), and it includes a painting I did on the study of an ordinand's wall.

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/10/national-anglican-churches-demolished.html

(I cannot add comments for the next few days as my computer is having some jacks' sockets wired up - I'll only have a lesser one with dial up.)

The ABC needs to start being informed about the audience he plays to:

http://episcopalmajority.blogspot.com/2007/05/limits-of-tolerance.html

Intolerance, thanks be to God that God wants us to use our brains and learn how to say yes, maybe and NO!

Just say NO!

"The first is that I have committed myself very clearly to awaiting the views of the Primates before making any statement purporting to settle the question of The Episcopal Church’s status"

I had to explain a few times last week that Sept 30th was a deadline for TEC(USA) to respond to Dar...and now we wait for the Primates' response.....seems like the ABC has just confirmed that.

"However, without forestalling what the Primates might say, I would repeat what I’ve said several times before - that any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. "

Very good - TWR is not dead just because some assert that it is irrelevant......and the ABC is still working with it and for the "inclusion" of the US Anglicans who are in tune with "the mainstream of the Communion".

If the national churches are abstractions, why is he waiting for the opinions of the primates? Or is he thinking of the primates as something like the college of cardinals? If that's the way it's going, I have only one request: install a little stove in Lambeth Palace so you can have the white smoke and the black smoke! Anthony

Leonardo says "The ABC needs to start being informed about the audience he plays to:"

Indeed..... so, TEC(USA) gets 0.9m people on a good Sunday and the ABC should follow them and ignore the 37m of CAPA and his own CofE?

I don't think it serves your agenda to remind the ABC of his "audience" .... not all or most of it, at any rate. What you are really saying is, "The ABC should listen to people who agree with me even if that splits the AC!"

Rowan has chosen the bishops.

Only a few weeks ago he said there was too much hoopla about child abuse in his churches.

Both of these decrees are the swan songs of his credibility as a neutral player.

P.S. the child pedophile comments make him culpible for his church's conduct and he should not be surprised if he is personally sued, as well as the CofE as a legal entity.

John the Baptist could reach the masses and the secularists, but the teachers of the law refused to listen, to their own credibility's demise...

I cant remember where I read it but I am fully aware that the Archbishop of Canterbury will not allow himself to be bullied or pushed by any one not even the Global South Primates

The best Bishop John Howe can do is to make use of ++Rowans letter which is still very helpful and useful for those who doesn’t have any secret agenda to split the communion.

Rowan's opaqueness shows the risk of becoming too "ivory tower" - whatever it is that he is trying to say could have been put in one or two pithy phrases by a blue collar worker - perhaps even by a carpenter or fisherman from Judea. I think he is just obfuscating in order to stall - he is hoping to outwait others and let the impetuous hang themselves by their frustrated actions.

Cheryl Clough wrote:
"P.S. the child pedophile comments make him culpible for his church's conduct and he should not be surprised if he is personally sued, as well as the CofE as a legal entity."

Duh??? How do you reach that conclusion, Cheryl?

I don't know where you live, but here in the UK there is the most ludicrous paranoia about paedophilia. The most extreme example was perhaps the semi-literate mob who trashed the house of a paediatrician. This, I think, is what +Rowan had in mind.

Perhaps Archbishop Williams' greatest failing as a leader in our contemporary society is that he is a great theologian rather than a pundit. At least here in the US, we are being enculturated to accept pithy sound bites from our leaders as the expression of their feelings on a topic. Archbishop Williams continues to dare to write with depth and sometimes obscurity....excellent for a theologian...not so good for a political leader.

In addition, let us remember that TEC (as beloved as it is for me) is not the center of the universe. There are primates in other parts of the world who are threatening to keep their entire provinces away from Lambeth and seem to be posturing toward removing them from the Anglican Communion as a whole. What of the bishops and dioceses within these provinces? What if they wish to continue to remain Anglicans in communion with Canterbury?

Perhaps Archbishop Williams, due to his unique perspective from his position, is sending a subtle message to these beleaguered bishops to give them hope should their provinces wish to remove themselves from the Anglican Communion altogether.

There are always so many more sides to a story.

Those who are saying, "this is a breath of fresh air" or see the two sides to the story should realise that there is one side only - that a bishop is king in his diocese, and that a supreme objective is to remain in communion with the Anglican Communion of which they are a bishop. Which means the Communion is the Church, and the decisions are taken by (according to Rowan Williams) Rowan Williams and the primates. As said above - "No." it is no for the Church of England, for Wales, Scotland, Nigeria, South Africa...

I'm back to speculating again whether Rowan Williams is not a Roman Catholic - and this is not a cheap point. He is indeed implying an ineffective Pope and informal College of Cardinals. Which means that the centre of the redefined Church has no effective centre - as indeed Lambeth 2008 (all those bishops in dioceses) cannot make a decision binding on others. Why not?

Reluctant as I am to respond to NP these days, this is why NP is wrong: there is no mechanism for this new "Church" called the Anglican Communion, other than the ACC plus the Archbishop as to who is a member. Even they may not be able to decide, effectively, if doors from national Churches start slamming shut to this Communion. They are the Churches.

What chaos.

(By the way my computer is back fully functioning)

I" had understood the Anglican Communion to be a communion of autonomous regional churches, one of which is TEC, rather than primarily a communion of individual dioceses. Is this wrong?"

Since I was always taught the opposite, I would say you are wrong. The basic unit of the Church is the diocese gathered around its bishop. "National churches" can exist for the purpose of local administraion, but the national entity is not the Church. There is only one Church. The issue of doctrinal differences is different, but connected: given that there are Anglicans, RCs, etc. how can they be said to constitute "one Church"? We are not talking about this, though, but about whether or not the icon of the Kingdom of God can be linked to a particular national consciousness. The Orthodox suffer with this dreadfully, and call it phyletism, a sin. Rome answers it through its demand for obedience to a central authority, but that is anomalous. Traditionally , no bishop is greater than another, except in areas of administration and "primacy of honour". If the Reformers said or implied otherwise, then they were wrong too! Arrogant of me to speak like this I suppose, but it IS what I believe.

"I don't think it serves your agenda to remind the ABC of his "audience" .... not all or most of it, at any rate. What you are really saying is, "The ABC should listen to people who agree with me even if that splits the AC!" NP

Don't be silly, NP, the ABC has never been a good "listener" to anything other than the fear/hate "threats" of multitudes of "excluding" driven bigots at The Anglican Communion...the ABC seems to "lend" his "listening" process "time" when the largest mob of "extremists" visit Lambeth Palace but has little "time" for refuting dangerous political anti-human rights/anti-LGBT plotting against OUR fellow Christians in Nigeria and Uganda...I'm afraid the ABC and his SINGLE visit to "listen" at TEC in NO are not worth much to the overall-worldview or ANY CLEAR thinking/beliving Christian in the pews. TRUE MORAL behavior, a tiny sense of address the "whole audience" or even slightly balanced leadership listening are almost "nil"...the man, the office of ABC, will suffer greatly as the bloody stories of LGBT persecutions at the Global South roll in and ++Rowan discovers he must resign as HE HAS NOT only NOT been "Windsor" compliant but he has harmed fellow Christians.

The ABC has fogged up all the windows and the rear view mirrors with hot air.

++Rowan ought resign immediately as HE has become a accessory to preaching/instigating of pogoms against LGBT Christians/others and can't hear anything other than the sound of his own muddled inner voice.

"Archbishop Williams, due to his unique perspective from his position,"

Indeed! He is not the Archbishop of Gay people, neiother is he the Archbishop of Extreme Conservatism. He is the symbolic head, the first among equals, of the Anglican Communion. How horrible that he doesn't say to one particular group that their pet issue is the only real argument to be had, and that all other issues must take second place! These groups are thus disgusted with his "lack of leadership" and on and on. As far as I am concerned, his only failure of leadership is that he didn't say to both sides in this that they had better shut up, grow up, behave themselves, or 'tis off to bed without any pudding for them. He has tried to keep two sides attached to the middle by straddling them both. He have just stood in the middle and said to either of them "A pox on both your houses!"

I think we all need to take a deep breath, and "consider the source" on this.

This is from an *email*, for heaven's sake, to one sometimes helpful/sometimes difficult bishop.

The ABC is NOT going to decide polity for the whole freakin' AC, in an email!

In sum: there's less here, than meets the eye. Don't panic.

The ABC's answer to Bishop Howe is soo passive aggressive and soo co-dependant.

That's all there ever will be.

Pat O'Neill writes: "If this is the case, why bother with the provincial structure at all? Why go to the trouble of primates and presiding bishops and general conventions and synods?"

Or rather, why bother "waiting for what the primates have to say" and their process? After all, they are just bishops of dioceses then (except where they aren't even that). And especially as a number of them are not adhering to the less popular parts of the Windsor report themselves.

I think I owe an apology to Martin Reynolds...he was right and I was wrong.

Ford
"As far as I am concerned, his only failure of leadership is that he didn't say to both sides in this that they had better shut up, grow up, behave themselves, or 'tis off to bed without any pudding for them"

Please explain what both sides should do.
I possibly misunderstand you, but your past postings appear to say that: a. TEC should not have moved towards an openly gay bishop and ssb's without the support of the whole church.
b. The evangelicals should accept that they do not have the only right answer.

To me, that seems like a vote for stagnation forever. It is unrealistic to believe that any change will ever attract 100% support, so TEC and likeminded churches would never be able to righten what they perceive to be an unChristian wrong.

It's relatively easy for a bystander to look at the squabble and gently wag a finger, saying "children! children!". But for most of us there's too much at stake.
What would you have us do? If one side is absolutely determined not to live side by side?

Alan

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/15/nbishop215.xml

In this UK Daily Telegraph interview of 17 September 2007, Rowan is quoted:

"Another concern is the paranoia surrounding children. "We have got obsessional about paedophiles," he says. "A generation ago people would have smiled rather wryly about a scoutmaster or a schoolteacher caught in some improper activity, now we know the damage. I doubt that there are more people with perversions, we are just more aware of it. That is right but unfortunately it also carries the wrong kind of awareness and people have become overprotective towards children, they are stifling them in a different way."

Happiness lessons, which have been suggested by the Government, are not the answer, he says. "Happiness happens when you are not thinking about it, when you are inhabiting your body comfortably… when you feel at peace with yourself and the world. When we live overprotective, overstimulated lives we expect more all the time, we find it hard to be unself-conscious and just do what we do, we overanalyse."

I let it slide at the time http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002612.html#comments

But this encouraging bishops to think they may be chosen over their national churches makes it appropriate to highlight the similar decision making. In both cases, the desire to preserve the status quo has come before what is right and honorable. It has become acceptable to compromise safety for our children and marginalised as long as the church's "reputation" remains intact, and too bad if that slurs God’s reputation.

The Child Protection Thread articles and comments below this thread say it all http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002701.html#comments

Further, looking at some of the problems we've been having with some nasty posters on TA, I think Rowan was in error to refute the need for happiness training. There are some souls who do not comprehend the concepts of gentleness, tranquility, peace, joy, tolerance, compassion, empathy, companionship. They don't get that they don't get it and they don't get that their behaviour is the opposite of what the fruit of grace is meant to manifest.

No doubt, Rowan and the bishops would state that I am overarguing on this one too. But at least now we know why Rowan had stopped using the electronic media months ago because it kept blowing up in his face. He hasn't improved his thinking; he's just been too embarrassed or cowardly to let everyone know what he has been seductively promising to some.

I think JCF may be right. A private e-mail sent to show sympathy with one bishop should not be seen as ABC's new innovation in ecclesiology. After all, it directly contradicts Windsor itself which describes "the Anglican Communion as a fellowship of churches", not a fellowship of dioceses! What about those bishops in non-compliance with the requirement to "effect a moratorium on any further interventions"? Or are we being as selective with Windsor as we are with Scripture and making it up as we go along?

Where does this leave the future Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor, whose manner of life (ie divorced and remarried) might present a problem for some if they are being "consistent"? How could gay bishops and blessings be opposed then, at least in the C of E? This would indeed be "piling anomaly upon anomaly"!

If the Church of England is disestablished, the College of Primates would elect future ABCs. But who would perform coronations of British monarchs?

Nobody (ABC, Cameron, Mcgrath) can agree on what the Anglican Communion is, proof that it is an abstraction, in contrast with the constituent churches which are very much a reality.

Bishop Howe sometimes troublesome? This was his interpretation:

"Since he has given permission to share it I do so as well..."

Of this said by Rowan Williams:

"Do feel free to pass on these observations to your priests."

On its own, not quite the same thing. Whatever happened to confidentiality?

Leonardo - maybe I am being "silly" but I think you will find that "the listening process" is not measured by visits to TEC HOB.....and Dr Williams is one of very few noteworthy academics who have written in favour of your agenda - but he won't do what you want so you accuse him of not "listening" and call for his resignation?

If Dr Williams has not "listened" a la Lambeth 1.10, then you really must define the word to mean agreeing with you - and that just ain't going to convince many.

Erika

I concur with your sentiments.

Those who suggest there is some mild middle ground are ignoring what it is like to be a GLBT who wants to be in a reverential monogamous relationship and provide for their partner and dependents, just like a heterosexual would.

In the stupid assumptions that all homosexuals are promiscuous, what is forgotten are those who are not.

Being quiet means allowing this group to be forgotten amidst the noise of selfish complacent arrogance.

The other thing is that I see that those most prepared to overlook this group are also the first to rush to the pulpits with accusations against other elements too, and who show no remorse about tyranny and are oblivious to repressive actions being a problem.

The status quo when it condones such acts either overtly or by sin of ommission is disgusting when souls purport to be representing God.

Erika,
First of all, people should tone down the rhetoric. You have spoken before of the pretty blatant exclusion you received at the hands of your parish. Nothing wrong with talking about this, making it public, decrying it, but also no reason to make it into some great oppression (you don't BTW, I'm just using this as a close to home example, but many do). The same applies to the other side with it's hatred and reviling of TEC and myth of the persecuted remnant. In short, both sides should stop trying to make themselves out the poor persecuted martyrs. Second, in response to TEC's acknowledgement that it acted inconsiderately and caused hurt, the right could stop pretending TEC hasn't done this and stop moving the goalposts every time it looks like they might be losing justification for schism. The Left in turn could stop doing what it admits to doing but isn't supposed to. The Right could stop lying about gay people and could at least admit where its money is coming from. The Left could actually put together a theological argument that the Right could acknowledge is theological, whether or not they agree with it. It IS possible and, frankly, the Left is far too uncertain about the God it claims to believe in. We could stop with the phyletism! The Evos could stop claiming they are the only true Christians and scorning everybody else. The Left could acknowledge that some, many, of those who have a problem with this are not actually bigots and homophobes. Cripes, I have difficulty with the theology of the Left on this, and I'm no homophobic bigot! Basically, we could all stop looking after own interests, demanding that our needs, ideas, and beliefs be considered the only right ones, or the most valid, or make us better Christians than the other side, and start realizing that the other side is human, just like us, dealing with the same failings, fears, and hurts as we are, and are just as fallible. We could start being Christians instead of Crusaders.

"In the stupid assumptions that all homosexuals are promiscuous, what is forgotten are those who are not."

Cheryl,
I am gay and monogamous. I'm not forgotten "amidst the noise of selfish complacent arrogance." Neither am I ignoring what it is like to be gay. I know what it is like first hand. That's why I am suggesting that we should tone down the rhetoric that allows you to say the things you said in this post. It is simply untrue that all, or even most, of those who have difficulties with the full acceptance of gays also "show no remorse about tyranny and are oblivious to repressive actions being a problem." Many, many people are quite aware of the Church's past sins towards gay people, and women, and a lot more, and still have difficulty with the way the Biblical passages are interpreted, or at least with the way that interpretation is explained. I'm one of them, and I don't have a great toleration for tyranny. This kind of thing just adds fuel to the fire.

Ford's posts above contain a lot of biblical wisdom - it deserves to be read carefully and with respect. Ford is right, we can all repent of various sins.

"biblical wisdom "

Neither chapter nor verse, and honestly, I wouldn't be able to find a passage. It really makes me nervous to have you agree with me. A little question, did you read either post as though it were written to you? I can assure you they were, as much as to Cheryl and Erika. If you think what I said was so Biblical, do you think you might give some thought to following it? I doubt it, I've been saying exactly the same thing to you for a year. How is it I can say something to you for a year and you ignore it, then all of a sudden proclaim it Biblical when you think it's being used as a weapon against those you consider your enemies?

I knew you would not like me agreeing with you, Sir!

Sure, I read it as directed to me. I take on board your challenges since they are biblical. You are not Merseymike just calling for the church to adopt the policies of our socialist government here in England....

Our discussions in the last year, Ford, have not been based on me proclaiming the holiness of what you call the "Right".... but I do proclaim the holiness of the scriptures and so I want the CofE to stick to Lambeth 1.10 and not condone (tacitly or explicitly) behaviour "incompatible with scripture"..... this is why I often have to say to you, Ford, that the many sins of others and myself are not the issue - the issue is the authority of scripture. This does not mean I think "the Right" is sinless - it means I think the scriptures, including you "clobber verses" are clear and right and to be obeyed in the light of God's grace.

So, I agree with you that you, me and all of us are selfish sinners - the question is, what is God's will for us personally and corporately?

"the question is, what is God's will for us personally and corporately?"

That is, indeed, the question. The problem is you seem to think you know it. The rest of us are humble enough to realize that, at best, we guess at it.

"the issue is the authority of scripture."

No. The issue is the credibility of people who demand rigid adherence from others to a legal code that they do not follow themselves and that their religion claims to be a Divinely granted and perfect replacement for. That is the issue. God knows I'm far astray from the Gospel, but why follow someone who's as far from it as I am? THAT is the issue. Those who most loudly trumpet the absolute authority of Scripture do not submit to that authority in any place where it disagrees with their particular world view, tells them not to pleasure themselves by being selfrighteously judgemental of others, or where it threatens the source of their wealth and power. Why should I give any credence to their demand that I follow a Law they don't follow themselves? THAT is the issue.

Sorry, Ford - that does not work.

So, others are sinners and even if they state a biblical position, you do not have to follow it because they are sinners?

Nobody is asking anyone to obey anyone else. The call is to obey scripture.
Some of us are calling for Anglicans, and especially clergy, to respect the agreed positions of their own church....too much too ask?

The issue is whether Lambeth 1.10 is right on certain behaviour being "incompatible with scripture". If it is wrong, let's ditch it. If it is right, let us honour the sriptures ("clobber verses"?) it is based on.......this is the issue.

NP,
Of course it doesn't work for you! you can't tolerate the idea that the people you have put your faith in don't deserve that faith. That's your problem, not mine. If you see holiness in unChristian behaviour, how can I convince you otherwise? The call to obey Scripture is just as much to those you idolize as it is to the Evil Hell Bound Liberals. As long as you and yours do not answer that call, you have no business demanding it of others. We're not talking about perfection here, were are talking about people recognizing their own failings and trying to improve on them. No-one is asking your leaders to fully obey Scripture in all instances. But they should at least acknowledge their own disobedience to the Gospel, not try to turn that disobedience into a virtue.

Ford says "you can't tolerate the idea that the people you have put your faith in don't deserve that faith"

This is why we always end up disagreeing, Ford..... I am not putting my faith in any people. It is the scriptures which inform my faith..... and I, like most Anglicans in the world, do not want to condone behavior "incompatible with scripture".

You can say a million times that there are sinners on what you call "the Right" and I will agree with you..... but your "clobber verses" remain and to persuade me and most in the AC, we need to be shown that they do not mean what they we think they say and what Lambeth 1.10 says they mean. No repentance from the nasty "Right" is required for your "clobber verses" to stand......the authority of scripture is the issue.

"I am not putting my faith in any people. It is the scriptures which inform my faith..."

But aren't you relying on the idea that the people who have translated and interpeted those scriptures have done so correctly and according to the Spirit. THAT is the faith you are putting in other people.

What bothers so many of us is that you have no doubts about those things, but only--apparently--when the translations and interpretations agree with your own preconceptions.

What bothers me about you, Pat, is that you have no problem with most bible translation (eg on greed etc) but it is only on certain issues that you cannot be sure the bible means what it says....

"the authority of scripture is the issue."

Indeed. But those who do not give it the authority you do are not apostate, nor faithless, nor seeking the approval of the world. Besides, your assertions of the authority of Scripture are pretty hollow when you don't even comply with that authority yourself. And that isn't about the human brokenness that leads us all away from the Gospel from time to time. This is about blatantly acting in ways that are not compatible with Scripture, claiming you do not even when it is pointed out to you, and twisting Scripture to justify it! That's not human sinfullness stemming from the Fall, that's willful disobedience and self justification. And it's not about saying that since you are a sinner I can be one too. It's about saying that, if you are so blind to your own sin as to think you have Scriptural justification for it, how can I trust when you tell me I am sinning in a particular thing? If you can't identify your own sin, how can you possibly be trusted to identify mine?

"it is only on certain issues that you cannot be sure the bible means what it says"

Rather like the way Evos take everything in the Bible literally except "This is My Body/ This is My Blood"? Or is it just the legal bits that confirm one's pre-existing prejudices and stereotypes that are to be taken literally?

"What bothers me about you, Pat, is that you have no problem with most bible translation (eg on greed etc) but it is only on certain issues that you cannot be sure the bible means what it says...."

Because the meaning of "greed" or "wealth" in Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and English is undisputed and has not changed in 2000 years.

But the words that you translate and interpret to mean "homosexual" could not have meant that...because the term and psychological definition of same did not exist at the time.

Further, of course, to call someone "greedy" is not to demean his very person...only his actions. To say that someone is "homosexual" and therefore unworthy of the same respect and opportunities (marriage, ordination, consecration) as a heterosexual does demean his very person.

"Evos take everything in the Bible literally except "This is My Body/ This is My Blood"?"

Surely you know that Calvinist Supper denies the very thing?

(not to say they deny it was wine ;=)

Ford says "Evos take everything in the Bible literally except "This is My Body/ This is My Blood"?"

Ford....you realise that the Lord was alive and talking to the disciples when he said those words to the disciples.......I hope you don't think they ate parts of him and drank his blood at the last supper?

The wine and bread the Lord handed to his disciples at the last supper symbolised his body and blood as he headed to the cross.....they clearly did not eat his body or drink his blood at the last supper but the wine and bread he gave them....and we are called to remember him with the same symbols.

"I hope you don't think they ate parts of him and drank his blood at the last supper?"

Well, yes actually. First of all, why 'hope'? Second, God made all that is, NP, including time, which we now know to be merely an artifact of our living in the created universe. That's modern cosmology. So, if God made the universe, and time is a part of the created order, then God is outside time. It is thus silly to say they couldn't be His Body and Blood because He was still alive. All the stretch of created time is open to Him, so in some sense God is both before and after the Incarnation. What's more, the idea of Eucharist as memorial meal is not only not Anglican, but based on a misunderstanding of the word memory. When we celebrate the Eucharist, we are making 'anamnesis' which means 'remember', but has the connotation of "bringing into being by remembering". So our "anamnesis" on a Sunday morning brings the sacrifice into being for our time. It is not a repetition, but a joining of our sacrifice to that one time sacrifice. If you aren't comfortable with that, fine, but to deny that the elements are not, in some sense, the Body and Blood of Christ is not 'orthodox' whatever way you want to define that word. Just because the Real Presence is typically vague for us Anglicans doesn't mean the elements stay as they are. God made you with a more concrete mind, so this idea is suspicious for you, you probably would use a word like 'superstition'. Well, that's not how God made me. You mistrust the mystical and the supernatural, for me it is a vital part of my faith. And while we're on the subject of Biblical literality, I hope you don't believe insects have four legs!

Ford - you think Paul, Peter, James and John believed in transubstantiation?
I doubt they did...or they might have mentioned it. Just like they did not mention we should pray to or through deceased people.... so yes, I do not think it is authentic, apostolic Christian teaching but later tradition. This will not surprise you - nor should it divide us.

You may be surprised to know that I am godfather to my devout RC pianist friend's son....quite funny at the service as the priest made me do lots of readings even though he must have seen I was not sayig all of the written text for the godparents to say (I could say most of it....)
My friend converted from the COfE to the RCs but we are still brothers in a very real sense.

"you think Paul, Peter, James and John believed in transubstantiation"

You think I do? And you have to know that, in my ears, your rigid "it's not in the Bible so I won't believe it" just sounds so sad and soulless. We mustn't do that, it isn't in the Bible. Right, so no cars, none of the poeple you mentioned drove cars or mentioned them. No hymns from anything other than the OT. The only thing you can pray is the Lord's Prayer, Jesus never told us to pray anything else. Let's see, no flush toilets, no doctors, no antibiotics, no pasteurized milk, no refrigeration, and get off the Internet this instant! Jesus never told us to communicate electronically.

"You may be surprised to know that I am godfather to my devout RC pianist friend's son....quite funny at the service as the priest made me do lots of readings even though he must have seen I was not sayig all of the written text for the godparents to say (I could say most of it....)
My friend converted from the COfE to the RCs but we are still brothers in a very real sense."

Having been brought up as an RC and becoming Episcopalian as an adult, I know that one of the things a godparent must do in the RC baptism is promise to raise the child as a Roman Catholic in the absence of his/her parents.

If you couldn't even speak all the words of the godparent's part in the ceremony, NP, how would you ever be able to carry out that pledge?

I'm a godfather to one of my RC nephews. I knew what was required, and I pledged to it, because I understood what it meant to my sister and her husband.

Does your RC friend know that you didn't actually perform as required at the baptism?

Ford -face it, the Lord and the apostles did not teach us to worship or pray through his mum nor did they teach or believe in transubstantiation....they would have told us something that important......made up traditions are not "gospel".
Do you object to my "rigid" views on sticking to the bible because they do not allow your "clobber verses" to be ignored?

Pat - oh yes, my devout RC friend knew exactly what I did. He is more "liberal" than some on TA.....he said his son gets a socialist and a RC view from his dad so he needs a bit of protestant and capitalist (but Labour voting before some get too excited, not that it matters) influence. I wonder why you left the RC church? Was it because they have a nasty habit of saying what the church believes and expecting people to stick to it?

"Do you object to my "rigid" views on sticking to the bible because they do not allow your "clobber verses" to be ignored?"

But you don't NP. You pick and chose.

You don't "stick to the Bible" on the question of interest or forbidden foods, or to your precious Pastorals on the place of women (horisontal), or war, or Olympic games, or even slavery.

How come you suddenly "stick to the Bible" when the 6 isolated verses there are suit your culture and your background (and reject the Bible when it suits your culture and your background?)

You need to tell us.

"Was it because they have a nasty habit of saying what the church believes and expecting people to stick to it?"

No, it was because they have a nasty habit of doing that and then ignoring the parts that would be inconvenient to them.

Sound familiar?

Pat - you mean like the Anglican clergy who ignore what Lambeth 1.10 says is "incompatible with scripture"??

Goran - I fear you believe your own "translation" based smokescreens. Please read John Stott's "Issues Facing Christians Today" on homosexuality and what the bible says about it.

"Pat - you mean like the Anglican clergy who ignore what Lambeth 1.10 says is "incompatible with scripture"??"

No--and you know very well that's not what I meant...particularly since I have never known a liberal clergyman who took a tolerant position toward homosexuality and then interpreted other scripture literally and fundamentally so as to enforce it on others.

Generally, we who take a tolerant attitude toward scripture take it toward all of scripture, not just the parts that match our own predilections.

Example: When I bring up the "greed" passages to you, it's not because I truly think rich people can't get into heaven (as Jesus seems to imply), it's only because I find it odd that you would insist on the absolute inerrancy of Paul's words on sexuality and not on our Lord's own words on wealth.

Oh...and one other point. Here's one more thing about the conservative, evangelical movement I find disturbing: the way they seem to have of advertising their religion and their religiousity. I bring this up because the Gospel today--at least in the TEC lectionary--was the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector.

Pat says "Generally, we who take a tolerant attitude toward scripture take it toward all of scripture"

Yes, I have noticed that....especially on certain issues.....but I am afraid we have no right to tell people that God tolerates sin.....there is zero evidence for that and the strongest refutation of the idea is the cross.

1John 2 v1-6
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

"Do you object to my "rigid" views on sticking to the bible because they do not allow your "clobber verses" to be ignored?"

No. I object to them because they are not what the Church taught for the first 1500 years of Her history, they are an innovation, but you refuse to acknowledge this. I have said this many times. I predict that you still will either ignore it or deny it with fictitious 'history'.

More importantly, I object to them because they are not true. You do not follow the Law yourself, and despite accusing others of picking and choosing the parts of the Scripture they want to follow, you do this all the time. What's more, you defend this kind of behaviour. I've told you all this a million times. You probably think you DO actually live a life "compatible with Scripture". Please, read the Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee. Why do you think the publican went home closer to God than the pharisee? Because, by being proud of his "holiness", the pharisee was unable to see the things in his life that needed to be changed. The publican, by acknowledging his sinfulness, was able to see more clearly how he needed to change to bring himself closer to God, so God drew closer to him. You need to take this aboard, NP.

"the strongest refutation of the idea is the cross"

Actually, NP, the Cross is the strongest proof of God's love for us. The Crucifixion does not give you the right to think yourself better than anybody.

Ford:

Have you noticed that, confronted with the words of Jesus, NP almost invariably falls back on the words of Paul...as if Paul trumps Jesus?

"as if Paul trumps Jesus?"

But he does! Jesus says "Judge not lest ye be judged" Paul tells us we as a Church are to judge the rightness of people's teachings. NP claims that this means we are to judge each other's faith! Part of it is that Jesus's teachings come as a reaction to mindless legalism. Paul was in a very different situation, and trying to comes to terms with the anti-legalism of Jesus while understanding that we need guiding principles, so how can we who need laws and rules follow someone Who taught there are only two rules, love God, love your neighbour? I also suspect Paul was one of those people who feel comfort in well delineated rules, rather like NP. Thing is, he knew better. If all you are doing is following rules, then you have outward compliance, but your heart is still rebellious, and Jesus taught that what's in the heart is what matters. So many people think that outward appearance reveals inward purity, though, outward show equals inward grace. Now who was it called that "whited sepulchres"? I think there's a book about him, but I've never read it.

Let's stick to discussing Central Florida, shall we? (I am about to publish news of a new development on that anyway...)