I hope people read Dr Goddard's analysis carefully...he is not a nasty "conservative evo" and should not written off automatically as some may be tempted to do......and note that his assessment chimes with VGR's honest words about what happened and VGR says the JSC "MISunderstood" TEC HOB....even if deliberately, they misunderstood.

TA has had criticism of the issuing of GS communiques in the past.....I bet there will be little made of ++Anis and Mrs Paver's experience with the JSC.......

Also, was the jSC report not supposed to be for the ABC and the Primates....why was it published?
And why published in such haste that certain members' views were omitted in the first instance and Mrs Paver misrepresented still?

I know there won't be many objections from some "liberals" to an attempted "liberal" stitch-up....but never mind - very few around the world are fooled.....we have had years to learn to speak "Griswoldian".

The ABC will get positive responses to TEC HOB NO statement from such important provinces as Scotland and Ireland.....

NP - "The ABC will get positive responses to TEC HOB NO statement from such important provinces as Scotland and Ireland....."

Typical arrogance. Is that the HTB mentality - only the voices of the 'important' people are of any value? Is that part of Alpha? I must have missed that. BTW - What's the cut-off point for having your voice listened to? 500,000? 1,000,000? It would be good to know, then those of 'less importance' needn't bother turning up. Doesn't seem to apply to Southern Cone though does it?

MJ - your tone indicates to me that you don't think TEC HOB is going to fool many.....

No, Southern Cone is clearly not one of the most important provinces....just like the small celts.

Numbers do matter in these things....I know it is inconvenient when so many are not persuaded by the "revisionist" agenda but, sorry, numbers do matter.

TEC can claim 0.9m/301m = 0.29% of Americans so it is not only unrepresentative on Anglicanism but can hardly claim to be representative of the US as it tries to force the AC to accept its radical departures from the views of most Anglicans in the world.......the fact that it will have the support of some other small (declining) provinces does not help its case much...........what would help its case in the AC is if many were persuaded that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong and that certain behaviour is not "incompatible with scripture"

NP - "Numbers do matter in these things" ... "sorry, numbers do matter"

How?

It amazes that a man who decries the idea of electing bishops puts so much importance on numbers when it comes to deciding church doctrine.

If it isn't the Spirit operating when a majority at a convention names a bishop, why is it the Spirit operating when a majority decides whether or not an openly gay man can be ordained or consecrated, or whether two gays can have their union blessed?

Can't have it both ways, NP--either the Spirit speaks though such "numbers" in both cases or not at all.

Good to know NP. So it is official - only those provinces with more members than TEC (officially 2,000,000+ despite what NP quotes) are to be considered 'important' - since NP deems both small 'liberal' and 'conservative' provinces as unimportant. That would leave us with Australia, England, Kenya, Nigeria, S. India and Uganda. Please tell all other Primates not be bother attending Primates' Meetings any more - they are not 'important' enough. And bishops of such 'unimportant' provinces may as well stay away from Lambeth too.

I don't know if any of this makes much difference. Presumably the Archbishop of Canterbury is receiving Primates' responses, and there may or may not be any alteration to his invitations to Lambeth 2008, and he might have a view of the "status" of TEC (that could come after Lambeth 2008 as much as before) and then the Anglican Consultative Council may or may not decide membership of the Communion whatever his view may be or not. It may make no difference either.

I would suppose that most people are confused now by the Archbishop and the basis of the Anglican Communion; some are treating it as a higher fellowship of believers which involves beliefs that include and exclude, and others have a different more Catholic view about communion and inclusion via these bishops, if (for many) via national Churches who place these bishops.

Given the confusion I would suppose that national Churches will make up their own minds about with whom they are in communion.

Stephen - numbers matter in a few ways -

1) the revisionist agenda has persuaded few....so, the majority in the AC do not feel compelled to change;

2) the revisionist churches in the AC have decades of decline while even in the US and the UK, evangelicals churches have had decades of growth...this gives evos confidence that God is blessing us;

3) left-wing militants have pushed the AC to accept VGR as a fait accompi (not listening to the voices who prefer covert, slow subversion of the AC) and so now we are being asked in the AC, "How many want to accept what TECUSA has done?" Numbers matter......

Trolls go away when people ignore them.

Being currently studying 'The Church and the Triune God'(2006), an agreed Anglican-Orthodox statement, I was struck by their analysis of the historic process of 'reception' of new dogma or practice within the Church. While written primarily in regards to the ordination of women it is very pertinent for the current issue facing the AC, and very revealing as to how the process is being curtailed and pre-empted rather than being permitted to unfold under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. What follows is an edited summary.

Part 1:

1. "In defining a new dogma the Church has always built upon an already exisitng one. There can never be innovation in an absolute sense: there must always be some continuity with what has been received by previous generations..."

2. "In such circumstances innovation is not heresy... Two attitudes to reception are equally wrong and dangerous. One is the revolutionary innovator who, by appealing to the freedom of the Spirit or the demands of inculturation, refuses to consider whether the new stands in continuity with the old. The other is that of the conservative formalist who rejects the inculturation of the Gospel and its application to the contemporary needs of humanity...True an proper reception avoids both these dangers and,...seeks to respond to new demands of human culture in faithfulness to what has been transmitted from the past."

3. "Faithfulness to the past can be both formal and essential. By formal we mean adherence to the letter of what has been transmitted... By essential we understand the intention and soteriological concern underlying such definitions. At all costs we should be faithful to the latter, while when necessary exercising discretion with regard to the former."

Part 2:

4. "In receiving the truth the Church is called to discern the spirits and exercise a prophetic ministry, which will enable her to see whether the demands of inculturation can be satisfied without prejudice to the soteriological content of what has already been received. This ministry is helped by theology...Its conclusions are finally expressed by the heads of the local churches as the common faith...Until this point has been reached, the process of reception is not completed; we can speak neither of dogma nor of heresy, in the sense of a deviation from the truth which would justify or even necessitate the rupture of communion."

5. "While the process of reception continues, the theological debate remains open. In this process critique, affirmation or rejection are all possible. Discussion of proposed new doctrine or practice will address two concerns. One is whether what is being proposed in response to the demands of culture contradicts whatever has already been received as the rule of faith. The other is whether the challenges posed by culture relate to genuine existential human needs, or spring from motives which are not in accord with the Gospel. Reception is a complex and creative process..."

6. "During the process of reception two further things must be kept in mind. First, all must seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit and submit to it. Secondly, no-one should claim the authority of the Holy Spirit for accepting or rejecting any new doctrine or practice until the process of recption is completed."

NP
With all due respect, I find your dismissive attitude to other provinces within the Communion somewhat offensive. It does sound like part of the body saying it has no need of another part - and we know that the bible had something to say about that.

Anyway, I like being in a small province. It means that I get to meet and talk to +Idris and the other bishops on a regular basis, just in the normal course of things. Quite unlike my experience in the CofE when even a visit from the Suffragan bishop was big news.

Kennedy

"the revisionist agenda "

A convenient construct for you, NP, it enables the reviling I am documenting in these quotes, but you know it doesn't really exist, right, it's all just a myth you have been fed to make it easier for yout oseparate yourself from everyone else.

"revisionist churches"
"left-wing militants"

See, reviling again!

MJ,
Thanks for the posts. It seems to describe something different from what we Anglicans are currently doing, all the same. #2 is bang on. The revolutionary innovators and the conservative formalists have squared off in the Anglican Communion, and no good can come of it. #6 is also insightful. This is a collosal act of penance for me, but it is a Friday, so that's appropriate: While the first part of #6 is what I strongly feel, in so far as the second part of it can apply to TEC, then, wait for it, NP has a point! I think I need to go lie down.

Kennedy - that's fine but why should the vast majority of the 50m Anglicans in the world be forced to accept the contradictory views of a small church in the US?

So often I hear that VGR was duly elected in NH.....so, 50m Anglicans must accept the rejection of Lambeth 1.10 by a some thousands in NH?

People bleat on about democracy as if we are commanded to be democratic in the church....but the same people do not want another vote of all the bishops of the AC on whether we want to stick with Lambeth 1.10 or whether we want to accept VGR.

There is no integrity in pretending we can do both.

I should have kept quiet and then maybe people would have read Dr Goddard's wisdom rather than replying to me.....

Sorry NP, but your theory does not bear examination.

1) The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have bigger numbers than all the Protestant denominations combined - does this mean they are blessed by God? Does their greater membership mean they are more faithful Christians than you or I?
2) Looking to the American mega-Churches and tele-Churches - they have millions of dollars in the bank whilst people across the world starve - is that because they are more faithful? Is that how it works? Does God really hand out material wealth, numbers, popularity and power in return for obedience?
3) Find me a New Testament example (preferably Gospel) where faithfulness is rewarded with gifts on Earth.
4) The logical conclusion of your argument is that all Church leaders should come from the largest parish in the largest diocese of the largest church. They are the most blessed as they are most faithful and are therefore better to lead the Church. Should a CofE primate's vote be worth 30 times more of a TEC primate?

Numbers aren't important - only one man died for all our sins!

"why should the vast majority of the 50m Anglicans in the world be forced to accept the contradictory views of a small church in the US?"

"Now abideth faith, hope, and charity, these three, and the greatest of these is charity." Now, where do I remember that from? And if you try to claim that 'charity' in the KJV means alms, I'll ask someone on your side of the pond to slap you!

Furthermore, since numbers matter so much, Joel Osteen packs 'em in everywhere he goes, so Prosperity Gospel must be right. You'd better get with the program!

Jensen quoted Proverbs 18:17 ‘The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.’

Jonathan Sacks sometime last year commented that when communications technology transforms big upheavals in religious communities usually follow.

The internet has collapsed timelines in terms of the speed and accuracy with which information and concepts can be shared. In both Tanzania and New Orleans, we have witnessed some souls feeling "swept" into a process. New Orleans had more integrity in that they acknowledged it was happening and did not put in names who had not yet responded i.e. they did not purport that souls were signatories to something they were not.

MJ, I loved your second point.

A lot of this debate is about how to grow churches and who will be in control of them as they grow. The traditional strategies involve either winning over an existing church or creating a new one. Yet for these times, that process was doomed to failure. Either you do not succeed, so your enemies could cite that as proof that you do not have God's blessings. Or you do succeed, in which case your enemies would be jealous and attack and eventually the new church would fall into the same corruptions. This is what happened to both Christianity and Islam.

It occurred to me that the solution was to help both Christianity and Islam, and thus all the other faith movements, understand how this can happen, why it happens, why it is a problem and what needs to be done to heal the existing corruptions and mitigate against it happening in future.

The bishops are irrelevant. What is important is whether souls are in alignment with God on the everlasting covenant of peace. If there is repentance on that key point, then all the other problems get resolved because the strategies are either working towards peace and reverence, or they rely on oppression and deceit.

It is best to acknowledge the speed has left some behind and we need to be compassionate about their feelings. It is better than a strategy that says we are not to move forward until the stragglers are ready. There has been war and tyranny for centuries and some souls just like it that way. We don't wait for such souls, we discredit them.

Jonah’s footprint: No new church because the existing is healed.

"the vast majority of the 50m Anglicans in the world "

If there was a Communion-wide plebiscite, it must have been conducted on a Sunday I was not at church.

Our side has to win. The other side breaks the 10 commandments to justify their theology.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me

Those who claim that Jesus is all of God have put Jesus before God, and it is the antithesis of Jesus’ teachings.

2. Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol

It is idolatry to make Jesus all of God, just as it is idolatry to purport the ambitions of the priests as God’s ambitions.

3. Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God

Justifying “holy” wars based on deceit is a misuse of God’s name. Just as is claiming that Jesus failed on the cross.

4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.

This commandment includes an exhortation that the Sabbath is for rest. Not just for the priests, but also for sons and daughters, servants, animals, and aliens. Threatening or insulting souls from the pulpit is not a holy act nor is it giving them rest, it is also a fundamental transgression of the covenant of peace.

5. Honor your father and your mother

Insulting people for how God made them is not honoring their parents.

6. You shall not murder.

Some condone violence, are complacent to poverty and only adopt things like the millennium goals to “buy votes”. They also foster stupid prejudices that exacerbate the spread of pandemics like AIDS.

7 You shall not commit adultery.

There are priests who claim to be “the” bride of Christ and yet still have sex. Some claim to be for this communion but have an agenda to make it a suitable evangelical church like their counterparts elsewhere are doing.

8 You shall not steal.

Depriving souls of the fruits of their own work is a form of theft, as is depriving souls basic legal rights.

9 You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

Misrepresentation is rampant e.g. claims that souls who advocate for GLBTs desire abortions, or how evidence is distorted or ignored if it is an inconvenient truth.

10. "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

Not happy with their own church, they go out to take over others. Some travel over land and sea to win a single convert. (Matthew 23:15)

Meanwhile, a breath of fresh air from all this navel gazing - by Desmond Tutu

http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2007/10/bishop-tutu-is-god-christian.html

I cannot believe how many, many words Andrew Goddard uses in order to come up with the usual formula: gays are, collectively, out of order no matter what.

I notice he's not very interested in thinking about homosexual people as actual people (which I would think would be the first step in the ever-elusive "listening process"); he's only interested in seeing which gay folks have "violated" the rules by making commitments to their partners.

How bizarre many Christians are, really. How backwards. Here are people desiring to commit to one another before God and their communities - and evangelicals can think of nothing except to judge the action unlawful and "noncompliant."

You'll know they are Christians by their legalisms, them?

"Numbers do matter in these things....I know it is inconvenient when so many are not persuaded by the "revisionist" agenda but, sorry, numbers do matter."

NP, if numbers matter so much, why don't you join the Roman Communion? But then you might have to submit to the Church's magisterium, which determines how you read scripture. Moreover, you would have to give up your seat on the right hand of God which you occupy to judge unworthy Christians. You would much rather warm that seat until Our Lord returns in glory.

The next time anyone rails about an orthodox poster claiming to have all the answers, please refer to what Cheryl wrote at 11:21pm BST. One can find plenty of answers in that post.

After several months reading and commenting on TA, I think it's time to move on. I see very little value in continuing with the discussion in this forum as there is precious little to discuss with out accusations or bigotry or hypocrisy flying. Far too often, those posters who claim to be the most tolerant are the most divisive and derogatory to more conservative forms of Christianity.

I've learned about as much as I can here and much of it is discouraging.

Despite our differences, God is big enough to love us all and save those whom He will. I wish God's blessing on you all and pray that all our hearts may be tender and open to reconciliation in the future.

John Henry - there is no need for me to leave the AC as it is made up of about 50m people, most of whom are quite unitied, and we only have a problem with 5-10% who reject certain biblical teaching....why should the 90% leave while Lambeth 1,10 stands??

Stephen asks for a "gospel" quote which shows faithfulness is rewarded (as if that is hard to find!) Do have a read of Mark 10:17-31.
The whole story is important for this debate as it shows that we cannot come with any reservations before God.....we cannot say, I want to come but I will not give X up (whatever X will be for each of us)

Stephen - don't run to the corrupt televanagelists to try and defend corruption in the AC....look at the strong evangelical Anglican churches in the US and England.......within Anglicanism, it is quite clear where there is decline and where God has been blessing ministry for decades. Don Armstrong is not popular on TA but look at the way God blessed his work....same for +Minns. Iknow it is irritating for some that even in the US and even in TECUSA it is the evangelicals who see God blessing their ministry.....but don't worry, TECUSA has inherited lots of money from people who never imagined the current leadership and so 815 can finance a few more years of decline and lawsuits.

Have a read of Mark 10...... of course the rich young man would not have been told to repent by an ancient Griswold....he would have been told that God accepts him just the way he is and that Jesus is so judgmental and just does not understand.....but sorry, Jesus Christ accepts no idols.....you ask for a quote from a gospel - pls sit and read a whole gospel and see the real Jesus Christ in his words, actions, truth, sacrifice and holiness. He is not the anything goes guy that some wish for....he is the Holy God we see in the OT and NT and he died for sins precisely because he cannot tolerate sins - we are not at all in tune with him if we excuse any sin.

Perhaps the Sugden & Minns (S&M)Communiqué issued from Tanzania in the name of the Anglican Primates might benefit from the same highly detailed forensic analysis Andrew Goddard demonstrates here. Such an important piece of research would certainly help put the NOLA statement and the response of JSC into a clearer perspective than he goes on to write of.

I spent an hour talking with Elizabeth Paver about her views and how they were being represented. Canon Paver is very much the sort of person left behind by the present method of argument. It would be easy to recruit this charming lady to anyone’s “side” without in any way really capturing what she actually thinks – at the end of the hour she told me to share freely what we had discussed, such genuine Christian innocence deserves to be remarked upon and protected.

"I notice he's not very interested in thinking about homosexual people as actual people "

There's an interesting 8 page insert in this week's Church Times from the MCU. In response to an invitation to speak at its annual conference next July, Bishop Robinson says "As one who is often treated as an issue, rather than a human being, I look forward to trying to embody this issue in a [sic] person".

Cheryl wrote at 11:21pm BST - I thought it was rather good actually.

Yes, there is quite a chasm now.

MJ

Where do we get a copy of "The Church and the Triune God?" - I'd like to read the whole of it.

Chris wrote: “The next time anyone rails about an orthodox poster claiming to have all the answers…”

NPs opus on Saturday, 27 October 2007 at 11:20am BST certainly has got – if not all the answers – at least all the talking points pinned down in one place…

NP: Conservative Evangelicalism is certainly not going to convert England. Their churches are not always "successful", numbers-wise, anyway. There is a very limited market in England for their hard-line biblical literalism, and they tend to attract people only from within the ever-dwindling circle of people who would have gone to church anyway. All the academic research that has been done on this shows that they are making no impact at all on the unchurched of England. I think that what they are doing now is actually malign because it is polarising religion in England, making the young unchurched much less likely to be attracted to churchgoing at all. Giving out an unrelenting loud homophobic message, which is what they have been doing for the last 6 years or so, in opposing every form of equal rights for gay people, has done and is doing irreparable harm to the C of E's credibility among young people, who are simply not of the opinion that gay people should be treated in a discriminatory way. It's obvious to them, but weirdly not to many Conservative Evangelicals, that the Church should be on the side of human rights and against discrimination. I predict a big fall for Conservative Evangelicalism, the roots of which you have been sowing by simple refusal to live in the real world when it comes to this issue.

Mark Bennet: "Where do we get a copy of "The Church and the Triune God?" - I'd like to read the whole of it."

Email the Revd Terrie Robinson at the Anglican Communion Office - terrie.robinson(AT)anglicancommunion.org. £5.95 + p&p

Well said, Fr. Mark. It would be much easier to attract the young with the truth of the love of God for all, without being crippled and hindered by those with an absurdly (in the eyes of most peopl) narrow message. However - as with apartheid and its abolition - improving a society/liberating it from oppression is only ever the start. We'll never have a perfect church or society. There remains the need for the conversion of us all.

Good luck and God bless Chris, may God bring peace into your life.

Thanks for the link Pluralist, I enjoyed it.

I've just come from a trawl through Jesus' words for another thread.

One thing that struck me is how inclusive Jesus is and how protective of all his charges.

Matthew 25:31-46 is actually a direct warning to the arrogantly righteous. Jesus prophesized that when he returned the righteous would answer him at judgement with ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ Jesus said he would reply with ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Jesus' rebukes are for those who do not do for one of the least of these, as those who do not do for Jesus.

Similarly in Matthew 9:38-41 Anyone who gives you a cup of water in Jesus' name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward. So, if a GLBT ofers you sacramental bread or wine in Jesus' name because you belong to Christ, neither you nor the GLBT will lose their reward.

We've read scriptures, we've read Jesus word and Jesus is for the least of us and if we offer blessings in Jesus' name then we have Jesus' blessings.

Fr. Mark is right: so-called "Conservative Evangelicalism" has done enormous damage.

Here in the U.S., the Religious Right have managed, by decades of constant repetition, to convince the public that they *are* Christianity. The result, not surprisingly, has been to persuade many that Christianity is something they want no part of.

This is reflected in the Barna Group survey that was discussed a little on this site a few weeks back. Barna, an evangelical polling firm, found that young people in the U.S. increasingly see Christianity as judgmental and politicized (http://tinyurl.com/2hnjkd).

Even younger evangelical leaders are turning away from the Falwell/Robertson/Dobson model in favor of an emphasis on justice and environmental issues (http://tinyurl.com/2rszwu).

The kind of crude fundamentalism that the so-called "orthodox" are selling is a dead end that has resulted in little other than Bushism, the Iraq War, and the better part of a generation lost to Christianity.

Mark - liberals have been predicting a fall in evangelical churches for decades yet we have see open, charismatic and conservative evo churches go from strength......

Note in all this AC chaos, starting with TECUSA rejecting the calls of all the Primates of the AC not to "tear the fabric of the communion", it is all evangelicals (conservative, open and charismatic) who have stated they cannot condone behaviour "incompatible with scripture" as Lambeth 1.10 says. Also, note that it is not just evos who do think think TECUSA has done the wrong thing......

Anyway, the Lambeth Palace bureaucrats are too scared of a Primates' Meeting to consider the TEC HOB NO response to call one....let's see if "teleconference" diplomacy can get the JSC fudge accepted in the AC......when I see accepted, I mean whether the ABC will push JSC fudge and see the AC blow up on his watch.
I still doubt he will do that!

South Africa 1987 is well before 2003 and well before Gene Robinson was annointed for his role.

That's just the excuse, the bickering hate mongering has been going on for longer than that, JPM reflects more the truth in this regard.

NP: it isn't "all" evangelicals who are against treating gay people the same way as everyone else, it's their vociferous (nearly always male) leaders. Perhaps they are badly served by their leadership? Abp Carey, I well remember, predicted the end of all family life if the gay age of consent was lowered from 21, but it hasn't happened. Unfortunately, the conservative Evangelicals are not well led on this issue - if they had more women in leadership, maybe they would talk more sense on sexuality/ gender issues.

What the JSC report completely misses is that it is not compromise which will build "unity" in the AC but real, shared conviction on the truth and genuine honesty between leaders and the rest of us in the AC.......see what is requird for genuine fellowship according to an Apostle:

1John1v5-10
This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

NP,
What ways do you not walk in the light? I notice that the translation you use does not refer to "deceive ourselves" but "make him a liar". Interesting, since self deception is a significant problem for all of us, no? Yet you translation avoids the word, making it easy for you to ignore you own self-deception. Here's something to think about: you see me as walking in darkness, the truth is not in me. I see you the same way! Some would say that is reason to split the Church. I would say that if we both behave in humility towards one another, we would acknowledge that our judgements of each other are: a) equal, and b) something we ought not to be doing to each other. Don't bother citing the Pauline verse that you claim gives you occupancy of the Judgement Seat. I don't accept it as valid interpretation of Scripture.

But if we have not fellowship with one another,

we walk not in the light, as He is in the light...

No?

NP wrote:
10 If we say we have not sinned,
we make him a liar,
and his word is not in us.

Ford answered:
10 If we say we have not sinned,
we decieve ourselves,
and his word is not in us.

the Greek:
eàn eípåmen oti oux ämartäkamen,
pseústän poioûmen autòn,
kaì o lógos autoû ouk estin en ämîn.

(no Paragraphs in the original ;=)

which makes:
If we say that we have not sinned,
(but) make him lie,
and his Word is not in us.

Much more direct, isn't it?

So "we decieve ourselves" is not the translation, but the interpretation thereof. A correct interpretations as it is, but "we make him lie" is much stronger than "we make him a liar" by our interpretation...

Accomodation.

Note, that "sins" in the Bible are material, not the sexualizations of 2nd Millennium Academia. The word means "miss" - it's a sports term (long bows).

;=)

Ford says "you see me as walking in darkness, the truth is not in me"

NO - I have never said that, Ford

Please retract

"NO - I have never said that, Ford"

I'm not Ford, but I've heard you say often enough that I'm a deliberate sinner who ignores scripture and lies about what it says. I also belong to the group of people who want to tell God that he's wrong, that don't means do. The group of people St Paul and Jesus would never approve of. The group of people Jesus will judge when he returns.

If that's not saying that the truth is not in me, I don't know what is!

NP,
You continually claim I have an agenda, that you obviously link to the "agenda" you believe the faithless heathens who took over TEC have. According to you, liberals do not believe the Scriptures, do not read them, and are faithless. You have called me a liberal. Your continual exhortations that I "have a read" of this or that part of Scripture indicate that you believe that I have never read them or are not familiar with them. You obviously lump me in with the "liberals" you continually deride. You mock my faith, with your "I hope you don't believe X" and "Jesus didn't tell us to pray to His Mum" which pretty much says that you think that those who do are, what, sinners? Mistaken? Either way, not "walking in the Light". You have never specifically used those words, but the things you say make it pretty obvious that's how you think. So, if I am a liberal who doesn't read Scripture and doesn't believe Scripture, who believes and does things that are not permitted and not based in the only source of authority you acknowledge, then you can't now assert that you believe me to be "walking in the Light".

"Note, that "sins" in the Bible are material, not the sexualizations of 2nd Millennium Academia. The word means "miss" - it's a sports term (long bows)."

Thanks for the clarification, though it negates my haughty pontification on self-deception:-) I'm glad you mention 'sin' being our translation of "miss" in Greek. I had read before ages ago, that sin is 'missing the mark', and not in some "fluffy New Age" thing, to counter the NPs of the world who would accuse me of that, but in a book on the Orthodox Church, the Real Orthodox. So that is Orthodox Christian teaching. Sin is not a breaking of the Law, but a missing of the mark. At baptism, we set our foot on the path that leads to God. Our target is God. When we are deluded by the World, we turn aside off the path and thus "miss the mark". That is sin. Now, how long do we have to wait for someone to accuse us of "innovation", or to claim this is just the "traditions of men" because the Bible is so clear, and after all, if it ain't in the Bible, it ain't so?

Please limit comments to a discussion of the JSC report etc.

The strength of Dr Goddard's evaulation of the JSC report is found in its detail and fairness.

Note he is not a nasty " Reform" member but on the Fulcrum leadership team.....

Ford - pls read Dr Goddard.
Think it is counterproductive me writing to you as it leads to you attacking me (or evos in your past?) rather than dealing with your "clobber verses". I do not want to distract you from those verses.....and if they say you are "walking in the light" and that is fine in your church, then what I think matters nothing. What God thinks is the only thing that matters....and we have his word to show us his desires for us.

"Think it is counterproductive me writing to you as it leads to you attacking me"

I told you all the kinds of things that you have said in the past year that lead me to believe what I said in an earlier post, and which you demanded I retract. Yet again, you ignore the issue. Despite having your own behaviour shown to you, you accuse ME of smearing you!

NP, Thomas Rentz is an Evangelical, he and I do not agree, yet we can have a civil conversation, one in which I can learn about Evangelicals, how they think, and can be given solid things that I can use to counter my bigotries towards Evangelicals. This is a good thing. It is spiritually beneficial for me. Engaging with you just confirms my worst stereotypes and enables me to sit in sinful judgement on "narrow minded, bigotted Evos". Now the former is spiritually beneficial. The latter is spiritually harmful. WWJD? Engage in discussions that will bring spiritual benefit, or engage in those that bring spiritual harm?