One way to think about the ABC's letter is to imagine it as an oblique attempt to reconstitute the old British Empire - at least in the religious realm. Are we to look directly to the "mother country" for everything religious or will we colonials still be allowed the privilege of a "national church"? Most non-Brits are under the assumption that we gained our independence in all arenas a long time ago. I fear he treds where he is not aware of the depths of the emotional and historical waters. Basically, he needs a good talking to by a plain spoken ex-colonial.

I think Nigel J. Taber-Hamilton summarises it well (one of the links) in his bullet points.

A further point that Rowan Williams seems to forget here is that the Church of England is also Reformed, and that makes the national Church very important. In any case he has elevated the Anglican Communion to the status of a Church. I'm almost agreeing with Alister McGrath now.

By the way, my broadband computer is back already so life continues as normal.

'One way to think about the ABC's letter is to imagine it as an oblique attempt to reconstitute the old British Empire - at least in the religious realm. Are we to look directly to the "mother country" for everything religious or will we colonials still be allowed the privilege of a "national church"?'

The irony in all of this is, of course, that the CoE itself insisted, at the time of the break with Rome, on its own independence from foreign prelates. Indeed, this "national church" principle is arguably the very foundation upon which was predicated the very ability to *have* an English Reformation in the first place.

Without the "national church" principle, what permitted the break with Rome, or (to follow ++Rowan's multipolar-Catholic model) independence/autonomy from other national churches, whether of Sweden, the German states, or France???

++Rowan Cantuar may be a brilliant scholar and abstract thinker, and he may understand many things exceedingly well and subtly, yet he seems not to have a grasp of the basic concept of irony.

An implication of Rowan Williams' made public email letter is that he is showing a Roman Catholic ecclesiology, as a comment on my blog rightly points out.

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/10/is-rowan-roman-again.html

What a revoltin' development this is - Moe, The Three Stooges movie series.

A flurry of surprise questions flits: Did RW think this through? Does the CoE no longer matter so long as diocese/bishop stays intact? (What will the Queen think? What will Parliament think? What will the conservative extreme dissident CoE groups do next, given this chink in the theological-mystical walls of multiple global relationships?) How it is, that big tent traditional Anglican notions of relationship get oppositionally juxtaposed with this high-minded but idealized either/or notion of unity in church life?

Would not RW have been better advised to focus on Jesus or God, rather than bishops? Maybe bishop=God?

What Oh what, could RW have been thinking?
Is this a fine example of that famous organizational consultant law: Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong? Thanks, Murphy?

A working bottom line tool, heuristic? The realignment campaigners have already demonstrated that they will use every means available - on their going theory that the ends of Anglican realignment justify any and all effective means (and some that might not be quite so effective, as well) - to come to exclusive institutional power in Anglican church life worldwide. Failing takeover, destroy big tent Anglicanism, good riddance.

Yawn. Reads rather like RW stepped in it. But a little soap and water and disinfectant will do just fine, recalling that we all err. Is this maybe a little example of just why we cannot leave Anglicanism up to Primates, bishops, dioceses alone?

PS to Canterbury - leaven your attempts at high catholic thinking with a little Reformation leaven - the bishop and the priests and the people together embody one another, because we are all fundamentally embodied in Christ who seeks to be embodied in us. A little less on the up/down stuff, dear Canterbury, and quite a bit more on the traditional Anglican incarnational stuff, if you please. That is: To be church is to be a follower of Jesus, a representative in just that world service or servanthood (based in one's understandings of God, Jesus, Grace, Gospel, and Call) which is more primary than particular doctrines as such. Could you preach more often, more clearly about how one comes/grows in love of God through love of neighbor as an Anglican?

If only following Jesus could be reduced to doctrines, ditto for grace, gospel, and call?

Thanks for thinking about it.

Look, the man is going to have to make up his mind: he is either in communion with us Episcopalians, or he is in communion with the schismatics. I can assure folks on the other side of the pond that sentiment here is that he cannot be in communion with both.

I wait with some concern to hear with what joy Reform greets this explanation, or the Common Cause Partnership bishops in North America. We have long taught indeed that the diocese was the basic unit of the Church, without disregarding provincial structures as the context within which dioceses function. I'm an American and an Episcopalian; but I'd certainly like to hear how this is consonant with, for example, resolution of recent events in Southwark. How does this support Central Africa in resolving matters in Harare?

Perhaps it distorts Williams' perception that his dioceses function within the Church by law established. There might be legal ramifications of a diocese functioning too independently that don't obtain anywhere else. If so, he needs to take that difference into account.

He has emphasized again and again, as in this letter, seeking resolution of issues on as local a level as possible. If it is a bishop in his diocese that is dissenting, what can "local" mean, if not within provincial structures?

"I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who are most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the ‘national church’." RW. One is at a loss for words (almost) to respond to Rowan's utter refusal to acknowledge and respect the nature of the Episcopal Church. He spent a day listening to the American HOB and now comes out with this statement which is little short of arrogant in its knowing dismissal of the reality of the Episcopal Church as a 'national church'. The well intentioned attempts to educate the ABC and many of the bishops of the C of E in the realities of TEC seems to have collapsed in Rowan's momentous failure. Historically, the founding memebers of TEC, after the American Revolution, argued about whether they would have bishops at all, so fed up were they with the autocratic ways of the English bishops. Not enough has changed in the meanwhile. How does one say it plainly enough? In TEC, bishops are elected by lay and clergy delegates from the diocese in which they seek office. Their election is confirmed by a majority of the lay and clergy governing bodies of each diocese (standing committees) as well as by a majority of the bishops with jurisdiction. Bishops in TEC are elected according to the rules of the General Convention and they function as agents of General Convention. Apart from their accession to General Convention, our bishops are not bishops in this Church, no matter which other bishop they may claim communion with, including the ABC.

Now, will come the repercussions! I think I know my church well. I expect that many progressive bishops will feel betrayed by RW's statement. They strained the patience and good will of most of the people in their dioceses in order to demonstrate their deep desire to remain in communion with RW and the majority of the other provinces in the AC. Now, RW has given them the back of his hand. I expect that the following will ensue in due time: 1. There will be little support in TEC for RW's Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology and concept of the nature of the episcopacy. 2. Having demanded great sacrifices from LGBT persons and most of our Church, only to have the ABC subsequently treat our national Church as a fiction, more dioceses will feel no constraints in passing legislation renouncing the stand taken by the HOB. 2. There will be strong support in TEC to depose those bishops who renounce the communion of this Church in favor of some other jurisdiction and to reconstitute those dioceses. Perhaps RW will create an archepiscopal peculiar for them. Whatever! 3. The General Convention of 2009 will pass resolutions rescinding B033, the decision "to exercise restraint", etc. 4. The movement for the bishops of TEC to refuse to attend Lambeth without Gene Robinson will gather steam. I, for one, am opposed to my diocese bankrolling this fest while the ABC regards our national Church as an ecclesiastical nullity. 5. "The bonds of affection" will now be profoundly strained on the side TEC. 6. "Realignment" will now have to include the component of TEC moving further away from a "communion" that is rapidly becoming a shadow of the Roman Catholic Church. This is what we get for supporting the appointment of an ersatz Catholic, ivory-tower academic "liberal" for the office that RW now reinvents as his papacy. And to RW, "Could you posible have insulted your friends more deeply? Of course, you were never our friend. Nor were you ever the friend of LGBT persons." We in TEC need to spend our time working for justice and full inclusion, in an effort to earn back the trust of God's wounded people, so easily sacrificed by the ABC on the altar of academic theology, and "unity" with people who hate them.

"either in communion with us Episcopalians, or he is in communion with the schismatics"

...wait, the Episcopalians ARE the schismatics!

Presently will come a clarification from Lambeth Palace. There is too much confusion among the faithful about this letter. Anglicanism may not need a curia, but we do need more precise vetting of statements from high officials, including I regret to say in this case, ABC himself, who may have forgotten that he IS Canterbury and almost any "private" letter will soon be public.

Well said, Karen.

What we need is a new global movement, proudly and openly liberal, and yes, revisionist - accepting that Christianity badly needs revision.

And lets have someone to lead it with backbone and courage, who doesn't abandon their supposed friends, and who has no truck with conservative religion.

Stuff unity, stuff the so-called 'body of Christ'. Liberals and conservatives believe totally different religions and its about time liberals got tough and said so.

I'm sorry, but I just don't interpret this letter as being all bad and a finger shaking at TEC. The ++ABC does indeed claim that separatist movements by individual priests are irresponsible, and that the basic unit in the Communion is the Bishop and his/her diocese. If anything that is implicit prohibitively, is the idea of extra provincial relationship developing across diocesan (and thereby including provincial) lines. If anything he's telling +Howe's rebels to cool it.

Now as for what's happening in the Diocese of California, there's a mushroom cloud going off somewhere.

I'm sorry, but I just don't interpret this letter as being all bad and a finger shaking at TEC. The "++ABC does indeed claim that separatist movements by individual priests are irresponsible, and that the basic unit in the Communion is the Bishop and his/her diocese. If anything that is implicit prohibitively, is the idea of extra provincial relationship developing across diocesan (and thereby including provincial) lines. If anything he's telling +Howe's rebels to cool it." - choirboyfromhell

You may be right. Someone mentioned elsewhere that ++Rowan Cantuar's ecclesiology may bear a great resemblance to Papa Ratzi's, while the latter was an eminent professor of theology and a bishop in the Federal Republic of Germany. There may now be a love-fest between ++Rowan and Pope Benedict XVI. The Roman model for a pope troubled by the "regional" flavor of statements by national Roman Catholic Bishops' Conferences is that the basic entity of the Church is the local diocese headed by a bishop in communion with the Holy See (i.e., the Bishop of Rome). ++Rowan, being Anglican, replaces the reference to the Holy See with the See of Canterbury.

Papa Ratzi, being German, has strong memories of German Bishops' Conferences that advocated, or tacitly permitted, eucharistic sharing with Lutherans in specific pastoral situations, turning a blind eye to clergy entering (heterosexual) civil unions as long as there is no 'scandal' (the RC Church defining "marriage as a union of a man and a woman entered into in the presence of a RC priest"--Council of Trent; therefore, the priests are still "unmarried" in terms of RC canon law), allowing physicians to perform abortions on the premises of Catholic hospitals, provided that the pregnant woman has gone through professional counselling in which alternatives were explored, etc. As a result, self-governing ecclesiastical provinces have been under suspicion by the Vatican. And, under existing concordats, the hands of the Vatican have been tied.

Rowan seems to be having an attack of plititudo potestatis. If he's planning on applying these sweeping visions to the CofE, I suspect he'll find that his potestatis is constrained by the authority of parliament.

The Episcopal church isn't that abstract when the rest of the communion needs some bills paid.

So if its the diocese...why is he not inviting Bishop Robinson to Lambeth, who is 99 per cent accepted by his diocese....more so than Bishop Duncan?

You need to watch that RW does not create a diocese for the opponents of women bishops, whether they be Reform or FIF. Thank goodness he is constrained by parliament and General Synod.

I think some posters are missing ++R's central point, that the "The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese" is a "basic conviction of Catholic theology". This is not under any form an attempt to revive the British Empire. It may however be an attempt to focus on that first understanding of what makes for episcopal churches - and which even an evangelically trained person like me knows from what i learnt half a lifetime ago.

It's a pity that Rowan decided to hide from electronic communications for so long, he would have gotten feedback a lot earlier about how he was going off the rails.

Jesus was a schismatic, he advocated salvation irregardless of circumcision and mitzvot, even to those who had never attended a temple and were dying on a cross as a sinner.

Ettu and Viratio do a great job of highlighting the cultural blindspots. Pluralist, your article was great, good to see Simon linked it here although I had already read and concurred in your own posting link on another thread earlier.

Nigel Taber-Hamilton article probably articulates my deeper concerns, those who capitulated thinking they could trust the "authority" figure, only to find out that the trusted "authority" figure was lining up alternative leadership.

It's a bit like being thinking your about to get engaged to someone who is meant to be monogamous, to find out they are whispering sweet endearments and courting several other women who might end up being their bride.

Thanks, but no thanks, such womanizers not only don't have my trust, they have my contempt for their cunning duplicity.

The publication of this letter will, I fear, prove a major turning point.

As others say, it was quite clearly intended as a “lifeline” to a desperate bishop doing all he can to avert the schismatic activities of several of his clerics.

But now we have something of a new playing field.

In my view this makes it imperative for TEC to depose and defrock their dissident bishops as soon as they can.

I thought this unnecessary and brutal when it happened in Recife, but it now seems the clear (and only) way forward

Williams' betrayal of Jeffrey John should have told you that whatever he is, its an untrustworthy, duplicitous coward with no backbone.

It's surprising that so many feel +Williams is somehow expressing something 'un-Anglican'. It is fundamental Catholic ecclesiology that the bishop and diocese constitute the basic 'unit', forming together into provinces or 'national churches' as a convenient means of administration for a particular people. Previous Lambeth Resolutions make this clear:

Resolution 49, 1930:
"The Anglican Communion is a fellowship, within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury"

It is thus possible for individual dioceses in communion with Canterbury to be members of the Anglican Communion, without being members of a province.

Organisation of dioceses into provinces or 'national churches' is merely 'desirable' and to be 'encouraged', to prevent isolation and to become more effective in a given national culture.

Resolution 43, 1920:
"Whereas it is undesirable that dioceses should remain indefinitely in isolation or attached only to a distant province, the gradual creation of new provinces should be encouraged, and each newly founded diocese should as soon as possible find its place as a constituent member in some neighbouring province."

Resolution 52, 1930:
"Saving always the moral and spiritual independence of the divine society, the Conference approves the association of dioceses or provinces in the larger unity of a "national Church," with or without the formal recognition of the civil government, as serving to give spiritual expression to the distinctive genius of races and peoples, and thus to bring more effectively under the influence of Christ's religion both the process of government and the habit of society."

Resolution 53, 1930:
"In view of the many advantages of the organisation of dioceses into provinces and the difficulties and dangers of isolation, the formation of provinces should everywhere be encouraged."

Ah! Jonathan Jennings Press Officer to the ABC tells me that Lambeth Palace are now working up a statement on the Howe letter ........

"1. There will be little support in TEC for RW's Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology and concept of the nature of the episcopacy."

As opposed to what? I find defences of the "national Church" model confusing. I have previously been, I guess, more or less liberal, with misgivings. But I at least thought I was on the same page as far as ecclesiology was concerned. I thought the idea of a national church was simply a matter of administration. It makes sense to run things on a local level. But this "religious nationalism", for want of a better phrase, is disturbing. It isn't Catholic, for starters, and smacks of phyletism. Are we to start importing that heresy from Constantinople?

"great sacrifices from LGBT persons"

I'm an LGBT person. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, but I really don't think I've been asked to sacrifice all that much. Davis Mac Iyalla, yes, people in jails in Nigeria, yes, me, in comfortable North America, no. Can you explain? Having one's relationship ignored is annoying, being shut out of the life of your congregation, as has happened to others, may be maddening and hurtful, but a 'sacrifice'? What have gay people in the US sacrificed? Our Church in Canada has been more circumspect than yours on this, but I still can't say I've been asked to sacrifice much.

Trifle turgid there, Mike! Might it be, not that +Rowan is a spineless coward, but that Jeffrey behaved in a manner far more Christian than many of those on either side? Read a life of St. Chad. There's definite parallels. Then consider which of the characters in that story got to sainthood and which didn't. Sorry, but your hattred of the Church diminishes your credibility as a critic.

The answer as to why he would bring Bishop Robinson only under special circumstances is because "the Communion" - the basis of the bishop-dicocese relationship, has not in general approved him.

Even with a Pope who is not a pope and and Cardinals who are not cardinals, this is still a Roman Catholic view. It's not Orthodox, where the Metropolitan has real teeth and the patriarch is at one remove. Anglicans though aren't even as Orthodox - this has its own model because it is also Reformed.

Being Reformed is why many are in the Anglican Church - it is not just some problem with Papal infallibility. Also there is the liberalism - something that this often so labelled Archbishop has done much to undermine. That liberalism is sourced both from the Protestant side (belief) and the Catholic side (grace and space).

The point is no one has to agree with Rowan Williams. Just because he says something does not change the universe. Even supposing that he takes it upon himself to decide the status of The Episcopal Church, there could be challenges to that, not least the contradiction in his own thinking that he has made for himself - a so what given that it is all diocese by diocese!

Well, Ford, I think Jeffrey should have refused to withdraw.

The problem is that some think the Church is more important than people.

"the status of The Episcopal Church"

He'll come under pressure to adopt a divide and conquer strategy: only invite Windsor-compliant TEC bishops to Lambeth. But this would undermine the delicate truce so painstakingly forged in New Orleans, he probably wouldn't dare do it.

He is very wise not to call a Primates' Meeting, which would be prone to manipulation, but instead to elicit individual replies from the 38 Primates.
His only option after collating them, which will express a diverse range of views, is to say: "On the one hand, several Provinces say this, on the other hand...but ultimately it is for each Province to determine their intra-Communion relationship with TEC bishops. I cannot decide this."

"Having one's relationship ignored is annoying, being shut out of the life of your congregation, as has happened to others, may be maddening and hurtful, but a 'sacrifice'? What have gay people in the US sacrificed? Our Church in Canada has been more circumspect than yours on this, but I still can't say I've been asked to sacrifice much."

Not in comparison to Nigerian and other lgbt people whose very lives are at risk, no.

Depending on your diocese and status - lay or ordained - you may or may not be able to be open about your sexuality, you may or may not be allowed to be in Holy Orders, you may or may not be held to a standard of celibacy that straights are not held to, you may or may not be able have a normal social life of dating and friendship [since many straights assume all glbt relationships are sexual only, you may or may not be able to be honest about who you are, you may or may not have your relationshop blessed.

In terms of civil law, if you live in my state, the state constitution prohibits gay marriage, gay unions, and any contractual arrangement between two people of the same gender which attempts to confer the legal status of marriage. That means that, for example, your partner's right to implement an advance medical directive and to keep you from being kept alive as a veggie may not be honored by the hospital. And my state will not recognize the legality of out of state [or out of country, I suppose] same sex unions or marriages.

Pluralist - you're a very talented painter!
Maybe you have understated the eyebrows but very impressed with your painting.

TEC was founded as a separate and distinct national church by the same people who led the separation of the US from the UK. It did not understand itself to be simply an administrative unit of a broader church. When it joined the initial formation of the Anglican Communion it did not fundamentally alter this understanding of its structure. The acid test of reality will be how the civil courts of the United States recognize its power to control church property. The leaders of TEC have a legal fiduciary responsibility for the protection of the church's assets. Were they to fail to execute such responsibility they could and likely would be sued in civil court.

Ford,
"Davis Mac Iyalla, yes, people in jails in Nigeria, yes, me, in comfortable North America, no. Can you explain?"

First, let me stress that I know this is not how you feel.... but your comment smacks a little of "I'm alright, Jack".
And there's also the question of how far you have tried to do the same things heterosexual people are naturally allowed to do in the church.
I know you don't want your relationship blessed - just as well, because you couldn't.
I know you don't want to be a priest - just as well, because you couldn't.
I'm not terribly oppressed either, but I've wanted to be a reader and had been approved and almost finished training until my life changed. So now I can't. It's not a big thing, not compared to what happens to others, but it was quite big for me at the time. And because we “only” have civil partnerships in England, I shall travel to Canada next year to get married properly, with a religious blessing. So, no, I’m not too hard done by either.

But just because something doesn't affect us personally, it still affects us because we are part of the body of Christ in which some are not able to serve God in the way others are allowed.

And I feel very strongly about Davis, his trials and those of his friends. Maybe it's because I know him well, that I have this deep sense of being connected with him and those like him in Africa. What we do here has an impact on his church too. If we speak out and help our church to speak out, we also influence his church. If we are quiet simply because our own oppression isn't too bad, we collude in what is happening over there.

Like it or not, we are all connected, all part of the body of Christ. What hurts one of us hurts all. What else is the point of the universal church?

"Anglicans though aren't even as Orthodox - this has its own model because it is also Reformed."

Isn't the main difference between an Anglican Primate and an Eastern metropolitan, at least for this discussion, in how many teeth the Church gives them? Anglicans are generally toothless, Eastern Mets perhaps a bit less so. I don't see there to be that great a difference between Anglicans and Orthodox on that score. God knows there's enough everywhere else, all the same!

Williams' position here seems consistent with that held in much of the Church in Wales in the half-century or so following Disestablishment but goes back doubtless as far as S.Cyprian. One is reminded of Newman's assurances to Bishop Ullathorne on his reception in 1845 that he would obey him as his Pope

"If we are quiet simply because our own oppression isn't too bad"

I'm not being clear. I am asserting that the choice is not between fighting for our/someone else's rights or doing nothing. I'm saying there is, must be, another way. What is going on now is each side is claiming to be valiant soldiers in the cause of truth and this has led us to revile one another, demonize one another, draw further and further into our own respective camps, even consider one another not to be Christians. Whoever doesn't get their own way calls Rowan Williams a traitor. The polarization it has caused has made thing worse for some gay people. Your parish has isolated you, deeming you not fit read the Scriptures in public. This is incredibly unChristian of them, and they ought to have it rubbed in their faces at every opportunity. But there is a world of difference between telling them they are behaving in a shameful fashion and claiming, as others have here, the gay people are being somehow sacrificed on the altar of unity. That's the point. It's not that "I'm OK". Neither is it simply that I don't want to get married so no-one else should either. And priesthood isn't a job one wants. If I went to a bishop and said I "wanted" to be a priest, I would hope he wouldn't ordain me. It isn't even about what the Church is doing to gay people. It is about the fact that we have so bought in to the idea that the only valid human being is a victim fighting against his oppressors, and second best is someone who stands with them, that we can only see issues like this in terms of opression. This leads us to characterize our legitimate grievances as oppression. We know we have a point, so we must be oppressed because the only way to have a point is to be oppressed. Well, we're not, in North America. We were, and some vestiges remain, like the risk of ending up like Matthew Sheppard. Hard done by? Yes. Mistreated? Yes. Lied about? Yes. Lots of bad things that Christians shouldn't be doing to other people? Yes. Oppressed? I can't go there.

Thank you NP.

Best wishes with your marriage, Erika. There are ordained and even consecrated people who would carry out a marriage service in Britain, it's just that they are not Anglican, or if they have such a line they will have a few others.

"ultimately it is for each Province to determine their intra-Communion relationship with TEC bishops. I cannot decide this." Hugh of Lincoln

This would bring Rowan Williams back to espousing a more central position for national Churches!

"great sacrifices from LGBT persons"
"I'm an LGBT person. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, but I really don't think I've been asked to sacrifice all that much. Davis Mac Iyalla, yes, people in jails in Nigeria, yes, me, in comfortable North America, no. Can you explain?"

I am pleased that your life as an LGBT person in Canada is relatively comfortable. That is not the case for many LGBT persons. Those in jails, for instance, are most often subject to rape and brutal beatings. In our parish church we have a picture of Matthew Shepard on a side altar, dedicated to Jesus the Teacher of the World, as a reminder to all of us that the lives of LGBT persons are in jeopardy everywhere in the world, including in the U.S. The situation of LGBT persons in the Middle East is horrific. As Christians, does it make sense for us to read Matthew 25 and, then, to say, "I am fairly comfortable. What is all the hysteria about?" The sacrifice that all of us have made is the sacrifice of the witness of a large part of our Church. The evangelical wing of TEC is thriving, as is the case with the C of E. But the rest of the Church is dwindling for lack of vision. Some of us dream of and work for a Church that will take its place at the side of the poor, oppressed, and dehumanized of this world, in real and concrete ways. I believe that that is what Jesus wants us to do. And, it seems clear to me that much of the world longs for a Church that would really be like Jesus. In an effort to avoid alienating those who would discriminate against LGBT persons, we are sacrifcing our witness to a world dying from its hatreds. That seems like a big sacrifice to me, in the name of unity with people who would not want us to go forward with this vision for generations. And the fragmentation is being caused by those who refuse to come to the table with the rest of us because they disagree with us about this issue. What a pathetic witness to the world!

Earlier revkarenm wrote "Historically, the founding members of TEC, after the American Revolution, argued about whether they would have bishops at all, so fed up were they with the autocratic ways of the English bishops. Not enough has changed in the meanwhile... "

That is one of the reasons TEC has become so controversial. You see, when they were setting it up, they'd had a gutful of autocratic bishops and put in place steps to make sure they were accountable to more than just each other. Now we know why some bishops in other dioceses are so nervous, their parishioners might do unto them as was done unto TEC.

Shame on those who dismiss the suffering of others, and well done those who have stood up for them. Yes it is life or death, the right to authorize medical treatment for a loved one, the right to provide an inheritance for a loved one (who might be dependent on that insurance/superannuation for a sufficient income). Plus there is the whole issue of living life to the full, free of accusations and bullying.

Ezekiel 13:10-23 “ ‘Because they lead my people astray, saying, “Peace,” when there is no peace, and because, when a flimsy wall is built, they cover it with whitewash… the Sovereign LORD says: …I will tear down the wall you have covered with whitewash and will level it to the ground so that its foundation will be laid bare… I will say to you, “The wall is gone and so are those who whitewashed it, those prophets of Israel who prophesied to Jerusalem and saw visions of peace for her when there was no peace… set your face against… your people who prophesy out of their own imagination. Prophesy against them and say…. Will you ensnare the lives of my people but preserve your own? You have profaned me among my people... I will set free the people that you ensnare like birds. I will tear off your veils and save my people from your hands, and they will no longer fall prey to your power. Then you will know that I am the LORD. Because you disheartened the righteous with your lies, when I had brought them no grief, and because you encouraged the wicked not to turn from their evil ways… you will no longer see... I will save my people from your hands...’ ”

Part one:

"I am fairly comfortable. What is all the hysteria about?"

This is not what I'm saying! I am well aware of the sufferings of gay people in other parts of the world. That is precisely why making ourselves here in North America out to be some sort of victims is so infuriating. To suggest that I am somehow being oppressed because the Church won't marry me, or because it won't ordain me because I WANT to be ordained is frankly disrespectful of the sufferings of those who are oppressed because if they are found out they will have truckload of rocks tipped over their head after Friday prayers while their own parents cheer! Yes, there is a level of fear and danger in my life that straight people don't know, and that pious Fishtians love to ignore. Most of those pious Evo types who claim to have listened but don't know why their words are so dangerous have no idea who Matthew Sheppard was. I know. I've asked them, on this very site. But he was not the routine, despite what he says about the value of our lives compared to straight ones.

Part two:
"we are sacrifcing our witness to a world dying from its hatreds"

And creating others. That's the point. We are not called to be Crusaders, whether it be to free Jerusalem from the Infidel or to free gay people from +Akinola. We are called to stand with the oppressed. My point is HOW we stand for the oppressed. Step back from the crusader mentality with its "I will fight for the rights of the downtrodden" attitude. Might there be another way to follow Christ? Might it be that we have for so long considered it the only way that we have forgotten the idea that there might be a more Christian way to do a Christian thing? It's not that no-one is suffering because I am relatively comfortable. It's that it is offensive to claim to some kid whose family kicked him out because he was gay, and who now is a drug addict and prostitute as a result that MY "sufferings" are comparable to his. HE'S oppressed. Me, I'm just mad. My anger is valid, there's still ways I'm mistreated, but the validity of my anger doesn't justify me saying I'm oppressed.

Part three (sorry Simon, I'm done now).

the fragmentation is being caused by those who refuse to come to the table with the rest of us"

No. The Gospel isn't about blaming someone else who is just as much made in the image and likeness of God as we are. I fall into it. Everybody does. But it's still wrong. It is NOT THEIR fault, it is OUR fault, collectively. WE, all of us, are causing the fragmentation by our rigid adherence to the idea that we are the true defenders of the faith and those others just don't get it. They don't. But we don't either. And we don't get to go blithely on about our business ignoring the concerns of others, confident in our own rightness. You talk about people going to jail in Nigeria, where they will probably die. I know. Also, there is Sharia Law in the north. How long will it be before they start cutting our heads off, if they aren't already? THOSE are a pastoral emergencies, especially given that the Christians there support it. Where is the pastoral emergency in the US or Canada? I'm not saying we should shut up, but that we should find another way to follow the Gospel. We should find other ways of relieving the sufferings of those who are truly oppressed rather than trying to paint ourselves out as equal victims. What we're doing now is sowing seeds of discord, of hurt, of discontent, it is causing schism. That can't be the fruit of the Gospel. So, we must be doing it wrong. But we are so in thrall to the idea that to stand for the Gospel is to be some sort of crusader for the Truth that the idea that there might be a better way is just lost in the wind. Now THAT is a pathetic witness to the world!

Ford,

What you have just said made sense. I've had enough of liberal crusaders who are not helping the cause of Christianity, as much as I've had enough of conservative crusaders waxing triumphalistic at the collapse of liberalism.

That's what we get with theologies that promote a sense of "victimhood" rather than a sense of responsibility.

Ford, I think that many of us on the blogsite are just appalled at people portraying themselves as 'true' Christians are working so hard to alienate, and refuse those who are in need of Christ's love.

Abuse is a relative world. You may not have death threats at your head as may be the case in in parts of Africa, but the spectre of being abandoned by your family at a tender age of which you are ill-equipped to fend for yourself due to your sexuality and the family's seriously misguided following of hateful Christian teaching is nothing to dismiss.

You live in Canada. You have federally mandated unification laws up there that protect people like you and I. Come down here in the "land of the free" and I can demonstrate that we are not to far from Sharia Law in many rural parts. Psychological abuse is still abuse, plain and simple.

Ford,
I’m not sure whether we have a fundamental misunderstanding about language, or whether we really disagree in principle.
I don’t use the words fighting, rights and justice in a purely secular sense, but in the way I understand God’s will. If I say someone “wants to be a priest” I am clear that he/she is following a calling from God. I just cannot bring myself to say “God wants this or that”, because that’s just what, to my mind, is so wrong with the language of those who are never plagued by any doubt about God’s will.

But we may also have a more fundamental misunderstanding. Jesus was not mild and meek accepting his suffering because the others didn’t agree with his view of God, and unless they did he felt he had no right to speak out.
On the contrary, he was so sure about where God was leading him that he talked to everyone who would listen, stood form against those who tried to silence him in the name of God, and steadfastly followed his path, even to death. Those who killed him did so not because he accepted their words so meekly, but because he was a real threat to them.

Ford,
“Your parish has isolated you, deeming you not fit read the Scriptures in public”
Actually, my parish has not isolated me, although some individuals have. If my parish had said they felt betrayed because I suddenly appeared to them like a different person, I would gladly have asked them for their support again. They never withdrew it. It is our bishop’s policy never to license people living in open same gender partnerships. The bishop does not know me. He has a blanket policy that excludes a category of people without any individual discernment whether they might be called by God to serve in his church. This is what I mind, not my own personal exclusion. It’s not about me.

Somewhere else you asked for the left to start producing the theology to back up their call for gay inclusion. I find this puzzling, because there is already a sound body of theology around, certainly enough to acknowledge that a pro gay theology is possible. Of course, no-one has found a bible verse that will convince those who take the bible literally. But if you talk to the LCGM and Changing Attitude, they’ll be able to point you to theologians whose arguments are not based on secular justice models. Jeffery John, James Alison and even an earlier version of Rowan Williams spring to mind. Further good resources can be found the Louie Crew’s website http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/argu.html#bible and Tobias Haller has published the 6th instalment of his theological exploration on his blog http://jintoku.blogspot.com/ (scroll down to Where Division Lies for the first one).

Ford

You might do well to realise that some of those you criticize are those who actually comfort and shelter those such as Davis M from Nigeria.'

Personally, I have been thanked for providing support where it appeared that souls "didn't care" for people such as him, and that it has given him comfort in some very dark times.

If you can testify to the same level of gratitude from someone suffering on the front line, fine. If not, then maybe you should go back and ask why some are recognised as being of help and others of being complacently self-righteous.

I stand on principles. It is wrong to be abused whether that be in Canada, the US, Nigeria or Iraq. Irregardless whether you are Christian or Muslim, male of female, GLBT or straight, intact or blemished. My principles apply equally across all levels of Creation, I am not going to be less outraged when a Hindu female is abused than when a GLBT humanist is assaulted than when a Christian priest is burned.

I believe that God wants the millenia of peace, and that is not possible when people say it's "not that bad".

"It is NOT THEIR fault, it is OUR fault, collectively"

That's another one of those statements like "we're all sinners". Absolutely 100% true in a deeply theological sense, but not necessarily meaningful in a particular practical context.

What, in practice, does it mean to say it's OUR fault, when one side is absolutely adamant that they will not talk to you?
Yes, the fragmentation is caused by each of us interpreting God's will differently. To that extent, we are all “at fault”.

But if one side is absolutely adamant that they will not talk to you or worship with you unless you submit to their views completely, does it still make sense to say, oh, sorry, mea culpa?

I am saying that we need, indeed have been provided with, a different model for action than the one we are now using. How to we deal with one side that adamantly will not talk to us? Their self-righteousness is on their souls. Our response to it is on ours. What are we doing to encourage their sin? Might it not be better to not have SSBs in one's diocese till this is straightened out than to say you don't approve but allow it anyway? Why is that an impossibility? I believe TEC has done what has been asked of Her, and I think it is reprehensible for powerhungry schismatics to move the goalposts on them. The rhetoric doesn't just get THEIR backs up, though, it helps us put a wall between us and them.

"Suffering is still suffering", no difference between how Erika is being treated by her bishop and being beheaded in front of the mosque after Friday prayers! People have to believe themselves to be just as persecuted as some poor kid in Afghanistan who is beheaded for being gay and the other kids forced to play soccer with his head! I know this isn't well thought out, I'm just beginning this train of thought. We are infinitely better off than gay people in some places, and I think it is insulting to those who have to suffer under those kinds of conditions to equate our situation with theirs. What do we do? I don't know. Some of the things BOTH sides are currently doing, no doubt. Perhaps we need to start thinking of ourselves not as victims, but as redeemed children of God, Who will not let anything lasting happen to us. "Your oppression of me damages your soul and can have no real effect on me because I am a child of God." That sort of attitude. Maybe that is a more fruitful form of idealism. You can't say that either side has exactly covered itself in glory in this, where-ever you want to place the lion's share of the blame, and I maintain that this is because we have each chosen to think of ourselves as crusaders in some great cause rather than children of God, equal in His eyes and equally loved by Him.

Ford,
Of course my "suffering" is not the same as that of other people. I don't think I ever said that. In fact, I am quite happy to accept my own "suffering", although I will at the same time challenge those who caused it.
What I'm not willing to do is to accept the suffering of others. And I'm not willing to say that because A suffers more than B, B's suffering can be safely ignored.
But I don't think you're saying that either.

The practical issue is more complex. Of course it is possible not to have ssbs in one diocese until the issue is "sorted out". But this assumes that there is any realistic chance of any real sorting out in the future. If "sorting out" means simply accepting the view of the others, even if one geninely believes oneself to be led by the Spirit, then it's no longer quite so simple.

Our response is indeed on our souls. But our choices aren't black and white. Like most moral choices, they are shades of gray. And each carries the risk not to listen to the clear calling of the Spirit. That, of course, is why we need forgiveness of sins, because whichever way we turn we are bound to get it wrong. It is just not possible to get it right. All we can do is trust that we have heard God's calling and follow it to the best of our ability.

I am pleased that those who fought slavery followed their understanding of the Spirit's guidance against the dogmatics of their day.
They risked being wrong - so do we. But doing nothing is not an option in the long run.

As you said before, the church is the middle of a discernment process. If it ever wholeheartedly decides against affirming LGBT people I shall have to accept its verdict. Until then, I must be part of the conversation and I must clearly speak out for what I believe to be God's will.

Erika - firstly, you do realise it was evangelicals who fought slavery, believing it was wrong from the bible? It certainly was not the liberal establishment of the CofE which fought against slavery.

Secondly, you realise that there is no command in the bible to say we must keep slaves or that is good? Rather we see Onesimus and a radical attitude to slaves. Being against slavery did not involve anyone ignoring certain verses to justify abolishing it.

Erika - please be clear: the evangelicals who fought for the abolition of slavery were not asking the church to accept anything "incompatible with scripture".

Erika and others. Why not go for another approach, that of Queer theology, as promoted by Liz Stuart of the University of Winchester, also Archbishop of Britain and Ireland in the Liberal Catholic Church International?

"Queer theology increasingly draws upon the body of philosophy known as queer theory. Inspired by the work of Michel Foucault and associated with queer philosophers and sociologists such as Gayle Rubin, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Judith Butler and Jeffrey Weeks, queer theory rejects the view (often termed 'essentialism') that sexuality is a drive that is universal and eternal. Queer theory takes what is known as a social constructionist view of sexuality. Erotic desire does not exist above or beyond history or culture but is always interpreted within it....

Only if queer theology reflects the reality and spirituality of those who live the reality of queer lives in the mass and muddle of the world will queer theology escape the danger of being a self-serving ideology masquerading as theology and become a theology which has the potential to transform not just queer people but all men and women."

Introduction in Stuart, Elizabeth, Braunston, Andy, Edwards, Malcolm, McMahon, John, Morrison, Tim (1997), Religion is a Queer Thing: A Guide to Christian Faith for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered People, London: Cassell.

The relevance of this to the above debate is here is Elizabeth Stuart, ordained and consecrated into a named Church with a distinctly liberal theological tradition but on Catholic and apostolic grounds.

"I am pleased that those who fought slavery followed their understanding of the Spirit's guidance against the dogmatics of their day."

I'm NOT speaking in favour of slavery, but those who fought against slavery, had, by the very act of fighting(and I'm talking about the anti-slavery work done before and during the Civil War) a role in the causing of the Civil War. Perhaps there was no other way, perhaps freedom demands that much blood. Perhaps other ways would have produced more suffering in the long run. But it wasn't all that effective either, since the Civil War ended in 1845 or so, and we're STILL fighting for African American rights. Cheryl on another list cited chapter and verse, sorry, I already forget which, that speaks of us not waging war the way the world does. My contention is that we ARE waging war the way the world does, which is why our outsomes are always unsatisfactory. One of the ways we do this is to buy into the Crusader mentality, or that of the oppressed victim. I contend as well that every time we assert our own hardships here in North America in the same breath as we talk about the sufferings of gay people elsewhere, we ARE, perhaps subconsciously, equating ourselves with them. I don't have the answers, I am starting the process of posing the questions. It seems to me clear as crystal that for Jesus, standing for the oppressed was NOT anything we now consider ourselves so good for doing. Our efforts do not succeed, partly because if we define ourselves as victims fighting our oppressors, we are paradoxically diminished by victory, so have to find something else to be oppressed by. Our current methods demand that we see ourselves as 'us' and 'them'. That's not the fruit of the Gospel, so our current methods can't be in accord with the Gospel. What is? I can't say at this point.

One possible insight is something I read a while ago about Jesus and turning the other cheek. In those days, one slapped an equal with the palm of the hand, the back of the hand was used for inferiors. So when Jesus says turn the other cheek, He is saying force them to treat you as an inferior, to accept that sin on their own soul. Likewise, when someone demands your cloak, give them your shirt. You have forced someone to have on his soul the fact that he made you naked. Go and stand at his gate so all the world can see his sin made bare, but also so that, should you be effective and he repents, he can give you back your clothes! Perhaps you might learn why he demanded your cloak in the first place, perhaps he had need of it. Perhaps he has committed no sin at all in demanding your garments, in which case giving your shirt was a Corporal Act of Mercy. He DIDN'T say, if a man demands your coat, organize a letter writing campaign and a protest march against him. Christianity being made legal in the Roman Empire owed far more to the martytrdom of St. Agnes than it did to people demanding their rights, because her death showed the injustice of any law that demanded the killing of a child.
A woman in Africa gets AIDS from her husband. She knows it as the gay disease. She is naturally angry and terrified that her kids will likely end up prostitutes or worse when she dies. She is all rah!rah!rah! in support of +Akinola's actions at the gays she sees as contributing to her misery. Are we justified in calling her a homophobic bigot? If not, are we justified in saying that about anyone of whom we know no more than we do about her? Yet our current method of "waging the war" practically demands, or at least strongly encourages, that we do.

"Erika - firstly, you do realise it was evangelicals who fought slavery, believing it was wrong from the bible? It certainly was not the liberal establishment of the CofE which fought against slavery."

What's that got to do with anything?
Some Christians realised that the bible was being read in a way that they felt was incompatible with its spirit, so they looked for other interpretations than those ACCEPTED AT THE TIME.

Some Christians are doing the same to day with regard to same gender theology.

I frankly don't care about labels, and I thought I'd made that quite clear. I hate the "them and us" as much as Ford does. I will not group people and I will not reject whole groups on the basis of their beliefs.
I will criticise individuals for their words and actions, whether they belong to "my" side or to "yours".

By their fruits shall you tell them. Those who contributed to the end of slavery showed good fruits, those who opposed them did not.

Ford,
I accept what you say. It's what I meant when I said earlier that our choices are never black and white, that we are always morally implicated, always wrong.
Was there another way with slavery? I don't know!
Is there every another way, one that produces no suffering? I don't know!

I agree, it would be wonderful to find a different way. I shall join you in asking the question.
But I suppose I'm comfortable with getting it wrong, trusting in a loving and forgiving God. I'm less comfortable with not even trying.

The nagging doubt remains: NP still insists on dividing us into Them and Us, despite all you have been saying, and despite my continued posts that I do not wish to be separated from anyone. Is it possible to resist that effectively, other than in a theological realm?

"Are we justified in calling her a homophobic bigot? If not, are we justified in saying that about anyone of whom we know no more than we do about her?"

Of course not, but I don't think you have ever done that, and I hope I haven't either. That we shall not judge is absolutely paramount.
But that does not mean that we cannot challenge the resulting homophobic laws.

And your example of Jesus is pertinent. Of course I am called to give my coat. But this is all about how I have to respond to things done to me. I'm talking about how we have to respond to things done to others.

"Is it possible to resist that effectively, other than in a theological realm?"

Other than simply refusing to fall into it, I have no answer.

"But I suppose I'm comfortable with getting it wrong, trusting in a loving and forgiving God. I'm less comfortable with not even trying."

Me too!

"I shall join you in asking the question."

The more the better!

And, NP,
"the liberal establishment of the CofE"

I think perhaps you are extending your already silly separation of the Church into the Bad Liberals and the Holy Conservatives way too far. Our current polarization didn't exist in those days, NP, even if the seeds of it were there.

NP: Titus 2:9 "Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters.." There are several other passages in the NT Epistles almost word for word the same. I know the context is telling each person to fulfil the responsibilities of their station well, but these are passages in support of the institution of slavery. Imagine if, in apartheid S Africa, I had said to a black person "You should do your best to follow the requirements of the system and satisfy those who run it." Would that not have been a statement in support of the apartheid status quo? The same paragraphs in the NT Epistles also outline the need for the wife to be submissive to the husband. Are they not statements in favour of accepting a kind of patriarchy that we would not endorse now?
When you say Evangelicals were the driving force behind the ending of slavery, you forget the prime role of the Quakers in shaming the Established Church: they are strongly against sexual orientation discrimination today. As is Abp Tutu, of course. Those who have experienced discrimination understand how evil it is: the problem is that Consevative Evangelicals, in England, at least, come almost exclusively from old-fashioned middle-class backgrounds where they have no experience of having to fight against inequality or injustice of any sort.

Ford

I think there has been some miscommunication, and that I have been part of that process. Sorry.

You are right; there are those who are trying to incite an "us" versus "them" mentality, they are like rabble rousers who whisper sentences to inflame immature souls’ emotions so they over react to what has been said. That is often how full scale riots start.

We can see it on TA where some souls just love sensationalist comments, swinging whichever way they think will get a reaction. The same souls never say sorry and show a lack of empathy for others and seem to have no desire for peace or gentleness.

Erika wrote "I suppose I'm comfortable with getting it wrong, trusting in a loving and forgiving God. I'm less comfortable with not even trying." Bravo.

Some souls will not "get this" because they come from a paradigm that God hates everything of this level or reality and a few souls can "buy" grace through appropriate worship to the appropriate godly representative. Others see that God desires this level of reality which is why it still exists and that God goes to stupendous levels to prove that God wants every one of us. The former see that we are all condemned but for exceptional grace, the latter that you have to work exceptionally hard to fall permanently out of grace.

God loves people who freely volunteer their love and service e.g. Isaiah 6:8 or Jesus. God also uses intimidation to ensure the shy "get with the program" e.g. Jonah or Jeremiah 1:4-9 "“…before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” …“Do not say, ‘I am only a child.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you… I am watching to see that my word is fulfilled.” …Today I have made you a fortified city… to stand against the whole land… its priests…They will fight against you but will not overcome you, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the LORD.”

On complacency, Erika is correct Ezekiel 30:8, God sends messengers to shake souls out of their complacency. See also Isaiah 32:9-11, Amos 6, Zephaniah 1:7-13 including “I will punish all who avoid stepping on the threshold, who fill the temple of their gods with violence and deceit.”

"they come from a paradigm that God hates everything of this level or reality".

You're right, Cheryl, but the idea that Creation is a bad thing and hated by God is pure Gnosticism. Creation is a good thing, fallen and broken, but good. And don't apologize. We had a bit of a heated discussion, but that's OK, it gave me lots to think about and will no doubt shape how I come to think about thethings we were talking about, and that's a good thing. Let's face it, I get rampantly idealistic about things, ideals I can't even follow myself with any consistency. There are places where I wouldn't dream of saying what I said. It would be considered practically heretical and be met with anger. At least we stayed civil!

Cheryl, what you just said struck me, and I must admit that at one point I felt alluded to by it.

I am glad that Ford raised these questions, on which I believe a common ground between conservatives and liberals can be found. "Getting with God's program" does not mean launching a crusade, or feeling an inordinate sense of victimhood. We are all vulnerable, yes. But I realized that over the past few years, there really are things that could not change, even by our efforts.

The traditional family, nuclear or extended, is for better or for worse the best way of organizing society against the possibility of being impersonal automatons in an industrial and post-industrial society. The procreative aim of marriage ensures the very survival of the human species, even if at times that same species destroys the earth that ensures that it survives.

In my "Third World" society, our families are far too important that they have become non-negotiable. Even if God's will demands a degree of inclusivity being espoused by people in the West, it may be that well-meaning people, for reasons far different from how we perceive them, would uphold precisely the attitudes some on this list oppose. If we listen to them, bracketing our own prejudices (as Gadamer argues we all have), we may understand that perhaps, just perhaps, God is speaking through them, not through us.

Indeed, a number of people on this board deliberately provoke to ensure debate, without empathy or anything of that sort. I am sorry if I've been like that. But I wonder at times if you, Cheryl, are candid enough to admit that at times you are wrong--by God's standards. The same goes for you, NP.

That's why I've been trying to find a way out of the dichotomies of crusading liberals and conservatives. That's why I could not cast my lot with either of them.

Think this is worth reading for those who take the "human rights" line:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/20061121radner.cfm?doc=167

cu leitreach - yes, there are verses which encourage "slaves" (maybe similar to modern "employees" in many ways) to act in a godly way....i.e. not to be primarily concerned with their rights but with God's glory.

Ren - I do not deliberately provoke people in order to get a response. If you think I have done that, I am sorry.

I think some people are angered / irritated by anybody who wants to stick to the scriptures and not accept certain revisions, reminding them that a large majority of our AC bishops agreed and still would agree certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture" ....this position and these facts are what is provocative to some.

Ren,
I read your post to Cheryl and I would like to make my own reply.
Of course a family, nuclear or extended, is the best our society can offer. I hope it will never become negotiable! I love my family, we are very very close. I could not imagine a life without our mutual support.
But I do think we can redefine the word "extended" to include the non conventional, provided it fits in the existing moral framework.

My children grew up in a marriage that ended up not being conducive to their positive development. I am not guilt free here, and I admit I got many many things wrong.
For a few years I and the children have been living with my new partner, another woman, who has helped very much to give the children the warmth and stability they so need. We are all in regular contact with the children's father and there are no openly ill feelings, because we have together decided to put the children's wellbeing before our own emotions.

My children are well adjusted, perfectly normal, our house is teeming with friends and family. I genuinely do not see why this should be damaging to them or damaging to society.

We all get things wrong, of course! By God's standards and by our own.
And, ultimately, you're right. I don't want to throw my lot in with particular groups of people either. "Liberals are right, evos are wrong" is as damaging to everyone as "evos have all the answers, liberals are selfish". They're helpful categories in as far as they define a way of thinking, but they say nothing at all about the individual people within those groupings.

There are healthy families and unhealthy ones. There are families that are healthy at times, destructive at others. There are people who get it right some of the time, wrong at others.
We really need to get away from blanket judgments about what is good and what isn’t, as though categories could ever encompass the whole complexity of a human life. But that also means we need to get away from blanket prohibitions and blanket condemnation of particular groups of people.

"I get rampantly idealistic about things, ideals I can't even follow myself with any consistency." Ditto

As time went by, it became clear that the ludicrous folly that God would use me was actually part of God's plan. 1 Corinthians 1: 25 "...the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength." Jeremiah 9:23-24 "This is what the LORD says: “Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the LORD."

Ren, read my postings you will see that I often say sorry, for example in this thread. I make mistakes and apologise to God every single day for my inadequacy and failures. God knows the tears I have cried about being insufficient for this task.

This world demands that you be strong, perfect and infallible, or everything you do has no merit. But I know God and God does not demand more of us than we are capable. God has not changed since Samson or Gideon or David or Jacob. God can still interact the same way and still do the same kind of miracles. My son and I have flown down the side of building, witnesses have seen water pushed back so my son did not drown or me held above the ground so that my face was not smashed in a fall. Witnesses have seen and heard God talk to me in public venues.

Jesus knows exactly who and what I am, as do other "higher" souls. That does not make me perfect or infallible, but it does give me a voice of conscience worth considering.

It is about ending wave upon wave of tyranny and suffering, problems that even the Pharoahs could not resolve.

If I am wrong, humanity will die, if I am right, we are at the beginning of the millenia of peace. I trust God and God would not have done what God has done if God did not want to herald that the time is ripe to evolve into a more peaceful manifestation. If you want peace, reconcile with both friends and enemies.

NP,
I'm not sure why you put human rights in inverted commas as though it was an ambiguous term, but I had a look at your link:

“It is not at all clear, for instance, what the theological value of a category called "homosexual" or "gay" might be,...”

Now that’s an interesting point! We might just come to different conclusions on this, but I'm grateful to the authors for raising the question and making disagreement possible.

“While there is a common sense meaning to the term "gay person" or "homosexual" that most of us both grasp and utilize - as will be done in this paper - such common usage masks a host of usually unexamined and unstable assumptions”.

Ford has been trying to make those points for months!

“but this crisis must not be allowed to obscure the very real duties of the Christian Church to defend the person of all human creatures, homosexuals included, according to some very clear evangelical demands with respect to human rights. At the same time, the very reality of the question itself exposes the compelling demand that we explore and test the need for (and application of) civil constraints upon homosexual behavior”

If the evangelical conclusion is that homosexual behaviour has to be constrained, there is still the question of human rights with regard to the proposed “punishment”.

If you were trying to make the point that human rights have no place in Christian ethics, you’re way off the mark, as the people you quote here confirm.

How wonderful revisionists are!

"Slaves maybe similar to modern employees in many ways."

That's so brilliant, NP. Is it putting "slaves" and "employees" in inverted commas that enables them to be seen as similar, or is this an orthodox Biblical principle that has eluded a radical like me? (Sorry, naughty Colin - I must NOT be cynical).

You like putting things in inverted commas - "human rights" and "incompatible with scripture" for example.

I am also angered by revisionists, by revisionists who want to change 2,000 of years of Christian hermenutics and theology. There is a deep dishonesty about reactionary consevative attitudes to scripture.

This seems to have nothing to do with the thread - sorry, Simon.

What has ++Rowan done in writing the email to John Howe? I felt confused and worried when I first read it. Having read the blogs and comments on this and the subsequent thread, I'm less worried. People are disagreeing with each other. Jonathan posted an elucidation (which didn't elucidate me a great deal) and people took up their usual positions.

If ++Rowan has written something which turns out to be a hostage to fortune and radically changes the structure of the Anglican Communion - well, I would be very surprised - as surprised as finding the proposed Covenant on the statute book or partnered lesbian and gay people totally eradicated from lay and ordained ministry in the Anglican Communion. It ain't gonna happen.

Colin Coward - is it not dishonest to take advantage of "don't ask, don't tell" hypocrisy in the church? Anyway

Not sure you have had much experience of working in the private sector with little job security,Colin, or paying a mortgage etc..... one can often feel like a slave to the employer or the mortgage company....in some countries, the mortgage is even called your "bond".

Maybe I should become a CofE vicar and get a nice house and pension......

"is this an orthodox Biblical principle that has eluded a radical like me? "

NP says things like this and I always wonder whether or not he comes up with them himself, and fair enough if he does, or if these kinds of things are actually taught at Holy Trinity Brompton. I certainly hope it isn't the latter, but since NP is the only avowed Bromptonian here, how can I know? You are in Britian, is it likely that some clergy would actually teach that slavery 2000 years ago was little more than employment as we know it today?

Ford- I did not say slavery and employment were equivalent but I am not surprised that you have chosen to misrepresent what I said above.

What evangelicals have celbrated this year is the great role of Anglican Evangelicals in the abolition of slavery....based on biblical convictions.

"Maybe I should become a CofE vicar and get a nice house and pension......"

You clearly don't know the person you're talking about! If you did, you'd feel so ashamed of yourself now that you'd post a public apology.

Now... who said you shall not judge....?

My prayers to God are that in two centuries time we are celebrating the end of slavery, both to those who fell victims of the black slave mentality, as well as those who decided that all women should be slaves and Jesus' sacrifice meant nothing in terms of their slave status, plus also those eunuch or GLBT who were considered as dry trees with no legal rights to authorise medical treatment for loved ones or bequeath an inheritance for dependants.

I've read all your replies and I'll think about them over the weekend.

In any case, I promise to be more understanding in the near future.

"I did not say slavery and employment were equivalent"

""slaves" (maybe similar to modern "employees" in many ways)"

Nice collection of weasel words, there, so it can't actually be said you claim they were "equivalent". "Similar in many ways" does not strictly mean equivalrent, I suppose, but it's as close as makes no odds. Your protestation to the contrary sounds like the "double speak" you accuse TEC of!

NP, this seems to be getting wildy off the thread, but you write such ignorant and wildly inaccurate comments, so what's a gay man to do?

I am not a CofE Vicar, I do not live in a 'nice' CofE house and I don't have a CofE pension. For 18 months, I have lived without a salary. I am fortunate enough to live in my own house, and I have a pension. I am not poor. But I do not have a regular income and the last 2 years have been very, very difficult for me.

I left parish ministry 10 years ago. I wasn't ordained until I was 32, and I worked in secular employment as an architect prior to that. 10 years ago I had to apply for a mortgage for the first time and survive independently after 17 years on the church payroll.

I am not a dishonest person. I have always striven to be transparent. I have never taken advantage of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. I agree that it is hypocritical. That is why I have always been open and honest with my bishops about who I am, and they have always been honest with me. There is integrity in the Church of England, but I am not finding much integrity in your posts about me, NP.

Now, back to the thread.... (if Simon allows this to be posted - sorry, Simon)

Erika - maybe you are having trouble reading my post from your high horse......have a look, I was talking about myself...I said "Maybe I should become a CofE vicar and get a nice house and pension......"

Then you might look at the context...which was saying how tough most UK citizens' lives are working in the private sector.....very few have the job security or the benefit of a house like clergy.

And...whatever their life, if someone makes a false or weak point, it can be challenged.....New Labour has not banned disagreeing with certain people yet but no dount they might.

Colin, I did not say you had a CofE pension and house...did I? I said, maybe I should so I can get out of the pressure of wage-slavery and mortgage-slavery....and now, I see that you do understnad what that can feel like, the experience of most UK citizens.

Colin - I believe you if you say you have not used "don't ask, don't tell" policies....would you say that nobody should i.e. all vicars and bishops should be honest?
I think VGR is right that there is a lot of dishonesty on this in the CofE.

Also, honestly, I really do not understand how it is possible to be a vicar in the CofE and not recognise the authority of Lambeth 1.10 for clergy....

Come on, there are points of view, but let's not have someone just getting nasty and chucking judgments about.

"What evangelicals have celbrated this year is the great role of Anglican Evangelicals in the abolition of slavery....based on biblical convictions."

What did they do with the aliases Tim/Tim/Tit?

Explain them away???

Oh! I just realized...

They used a translation...

;=)

"New Labour has not banned disagreeing with certain people yet"

No, it seems they're leaving that to the Consevos and the GS, who have admirably taken up the cause.

"Maybe I should become a CofE vicar and get a nice house and pension"

This means that you think vicars have nice houses and pensions. It was further said in a way that indicated a sneer at those vicars who enjoy, you seem to be implying, the benefits of this while doing nothing productive. Now, I know the Net doesn't give much room for tone of voice, etc. and I am also often mistaken because of my rather obtuse way of putting things, but they way you said this certainly implies the things I mentioned. If you did not mean this, the appropraite thing is to say to Colin "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression." It is not appropriate to come back all snotty with "I didn't say it was you, did I?" It shows a defensiveness and lack of humility that is not very seemly. WWJD in this instance, NP?

I am a priest in the CofE (I have Permission to Officiate in the Diocese in which I live) and I do not recognise the authority of Lambeth 1.10 for clergy. I am not alone. I have no difficulty with my acceptace of a PTO and my rejection of Lambeth 1.10.

Goran,

You really sound like a Muslim with this hard line view that once the Bible is translated from Greek it looses its meaning.

Oh no Chis. It doesn't on principle.

It is perfectly possible to translate faithfully - with care...

But not when the object is to justify latter day policies through putting them in the sacred texts.

(how many muslims have you met, by the way?)

Goran says "It is perfectly possible to translate faithfully - with care...But not when the object is to justify latter day policies through putting them in the sacred texts."

So, the AC Primates are just justifying "latter day policies" as they want to stick to Lambeth 1.10 as stated in TWR?

Goran - you can prove VGR would have been acceptable to Moses and Elijah and Paul and Augustine.....you must be able to show when "latter day policies" infected church thinking and changed what was acceptable for centuries into something "incompatible with scripture"?

Ford - I am sure you do not think all clergy are hardworking people. Most are, of course. But some are lazy and get the same benfits as the all the hardworking people. I have sat in synods with the bishop of London when he has said exactly that....i.e. there are some clergy who are "do nothing for years" and just waste resources. This is not new.....we have always had some like that.....

The late Modern prejudices of Lambeth 1998 I0:1 against gay men and women are precisely late Modern Social Policies.

They come from America.

Some in America call them Culture Wars.

Nothing traditional about it. Much less Biblical.

"I am sure you do not think all clergy are hardworking people."

I don't think about it much. I know that most clergy are. They have difficult lives. You may never have been 'on call' for anything. I have. It's quite stressful. Clergy are considered to be 'on call' 24/7, often with no appreciation of how that affects their lives. Now I do not believe priesthood is a 'job', nor that the Church is an employer. I do believe that clergy are human beings, subject to the same stresses as the rest of us, and are often subject to unreasonable demands. I believe the Church has a responsibility to provide for those God has called to priesthood so that they may carry out that calling without adding more stress to their already stressful responsibilities. I do not think it a good thing to sit here instead and disrespect all of them by complaining about and judging the inevitable laziness of a few. It is between them, their bishop, their parishioners, and, especially, God. It is a very bad thing to insult someone you hardly know because you have decided you have the right not only to judge the laziness or lack thereof of priests, but that your judgement therefor allows you to treat all of them with suspicion. Once again, your Fishtianity is showing, and it smells to high Heaven. There are people out there who hate the Church. Like you they believe they can sit in judgement, and what's more, they share your "If one does it, they're all suspect" attitude. For them, all priests are either pedophiles or hide pedophiles from justice. It's funny how their ideas are exactly mirrored in your own, despite your claims to holiness and living a life "consistent with Scripture". You have a very worldly way of seeing and doing things, NP, but you just won't examine yourself closely enough to see it. Yesterday's Gospel was the Publican and the Pharisee. You'd do well to give it a prayerful read.

NP, The more I think about this the more upset I get. At our last synod we had a presentation by the priest in the Parish of Battle Harbour. It is geographically large, with upwards of a two hour drive to get from one end to the other. Two of the congregations are only reachable by boat. Winters are hard because the weather can often preclude travel for days at a time. A snowmobile is a necessity for winter travel. He related these hardships to us in the wake of Essentials' bringing in a ringer that week, sneaking around behind the bishop's back, denying their timing had anything to do with synod, and on and on. My idea was that, idle hands being the Devil's workshop, these comfortable urban priests would do better volunteering to minister to the people of Battle Harbour parish than conniving to sow discord. But, tending the rural flock isn't as important as keeping the fags out of the Church, I guess. The hardships of the priest in Battle Harbour alone would keep me from going on about "lazy" clergy. How do you know those you identify as "lazy" actually are? What do you know of their responsibilities?

Comments on Central Florida? Thank you.