These nine joining in a doleful chorus of "Come, Thou Long Expected Schism!"

:-(

* Noting that +Malango is retiring---so it soon could be 9 minus 1?

* "Most Rev Dr Mouneer Hanna Anis (Jerusalem and the Middle East)": particularly sad. TEC (et al, among *thinking* Anglicans) need to decide how we're goint to direct our traditional Good Friday "for the Church in Jerusalem" collection: I don't want it going to him.

Lord have mercy!

Their point 3 shows they have never really understood Anglicanism, at least not the Anglicanism that made a stand against slavery or distinguishes between might and right.

It is thus not a surprise to see the "accommodating" churches adopting the Millenium Development Goals earlier, or being more practical in how to slow the spread of AIDS e.g. respect women and stop stigmatising AIDS victims. Superstitions and prejudices make souls fearful to confess they are infected and thus it is not properly managed. Particularly where a confession could lead to their losing access to jobs or an education (e.g. university degree) that would enable them to purchase medicines and condoms.

They quote Jude 1 "We are urged to contend for the faith as entrusted to all the saints and prophets." Let's see what else is in Jude 1 "…these dreamers… reject authority and slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael… did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation… but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand… They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion. These men are blemishes… eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain…These men are grumblers and faultfinders… they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.”

John 12:41-50 There were those who had seen Jesus' glory but "...because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved praise from men more than praise from God. Then Jesus cried out, “When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me... I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. “As for the person who hears my words but does NOT keep them, I do NOT judge him. For I did NOT come to judge the world, but TO SAVE IT. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me…”"

WOW!

Cancel (OK, "postpone") Lambeth & have (another) emergency Primates Meeting (those always do so much good) so the primates can immediately impose an Anglican Covenant on the rest of the Communion!

Talk about who is ignoring the Windsor Report!

So 9 of the 30 some Primates are up in arms.
If you add the Southern Cone (mysteriously not there) you get 10.
Almost all of the Primates who signed come from one continent, but don't represent all of it.
The deafening silence of the other Primates, except for the support from Scotland, Ireland and (as I recall) Brazil is telling.

Yes, JOhn R, I agree: why on earth can't we hear some progressive voices loud and clear from some of the sane primates? They are far too timid, just hoping the crisis will melt away without them needing to stand up for justice.

JCF --
Bishop Anis is actually Bishop of Egypt -- the (new) bishop of Jerusalem is Suheil Dawani (a Palestinian) -- Bishop Anis was consecrated by Bishop White of Milwaukee a few years ago & only recently has become primate -- I don't understand their system (the previous primate was Bishop Handford of Cyprus and the Gulf).

No disrespect meant to +Anis, but I'm curious as to his CV - http://www.dioceseofegypt.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=40

Was he only ordained a priest in 1999 and then ordained bishop in 2000, and is now a Primate? And are his only theological qualifications really:

"1999 – Present
Presently studying for Preliminary Theological Certificate by Correspondence at Moore Theological College, Sydney, Australia. Subjects completed and passed are: Introduction to the Bible; New Testament 1; Old Testament 1; Doctrine 1; Romans; Doctrine 3."

I'm happy to be corrected.

I think only 9 signed because only 10 went (see original story).

I'm fairly sure John R is right, you can add Southern Cone; probably West Indies too, and Kenya and Tanzania I would guess; maybe Myanmar also; and the new Southern African Primate I wouldn't be surprised; and one or two from the sub-continent off past form; and others too I have no doubt.

They seem to think that the Primates' meeting has a level of authority that it has never been given. In fact, even Lambeth is credited with authority that it does not have. As I recall, it is the Anglican Consultative Council that has at least some authority in the Communion.
When will someone tell the Primates that they do not run the church alone?

"We are saddened that all the decisions and recommendations made at the several meetings of the Primates since 2003 and the Windsor Report have not been duly respected."

Well, they were respected, but not necessarily agreed with (though perhaps rather too much agreed with in terms of what TEC agreed to in its pausing).

Mark / John...... we have heard liberal Primates - have you not noticed the powerful squeaks from Wales and Scotland?

Anyway, yes, just 9 have signed this document....but what do they represent?

Say they do split from the AC because the ABC insists on invitig those who "tore the fabric of the Communion" and flagrantly promote disobedience to Lambeth 1.10 as having some sort of integrity? What would that mean for the AC?

Say the AC has 50m people (not counting the CofE as 26m, given that is a joke, but being more accurate and giving the CofE its actual attendance of under 2m...... if these 9 Primates lead their provinces away, the AC becomes 10-15m and declining....... now, is the ABC willing to lost most of the AC for the sake of making VGR happy as he feels he has a right to be a bishop regardless of Lambeth 1.10 and the clearly, repeatedly expressed views of most of the bishops of the AC?

Maybe the ABC is willing to preside over the collapse of the AC for the sake of those who have broken church order, ignoring various requests of ALL the Primates of the AC.......but I doubt it, given his record in the last 4 years of delays followed by more delays.

Can the AC afford to lose TECUSA or the GS??
One has inherited some cash and can buy friends...... but is declining according to its own numbers. One is large and growing but does not have much cash...but seems to think biblical truth is more than inheritance...........

NP: I should have guessed you would have tried to impress us all with how large a majority there is for nastiness, therefore we should all be nasty. Seems very strange logic to me: you could justify all sorts of ideological unpleasantness by that. Have you heard of Athanasius contra mundum? If it weren't for him, the Church would be Arian now.
I think the point is that Gene Robinson IS a bishop. If he goes to Lambeth, he will not be the first gay bishop to have done so: there have always been English bishops who have been gay, and yet they have always been able to toddle along to Lambeth. The hypocrisy of it all is stupefying.

Mark says "NP: I should have guessed you would have tried to impress us all with how large a majority there is for nastiness..."

Oh Mark.....at least when drdanfee plays the victim, he does it with some sophistication.
Nobody is being "nasty" to you or anyone else, Mark.....the problem is that most people in the AC believe it is wrong to condone behaviour which is "incompatible with scripture"....radical eh?

Anyway, while many people, including Rowan the Procrastinator, have failed for decades to make a compelling theological case and most AC bishops still believe certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture"....the CofE and AC will not change in order not to be "nasty" to VGR or anyone else....so, asserting the AC debate is caused by "nastiness" is not a strong argument.....it is about scripture what is compatible and incompatible with it.

"...the problem is that most people in the AC believe it is wrong to condone behaviour which is "incompatible with scripture"....radical eh?"

Once again, until someone polls the laity and clergy of these provinces, we don't know that. What we know is that the BISHOPS of these provinces "believe it is wrong...etc."

Since--unlike in the TEC practice that NP has previously abhorred--these bishops are not elected, we have no idea if they really represent the thoughts of their population as a whole.

Then 'Scripture' is wrong, and revision is needed.

The “Global South” which have claimed to be 20 Primates (though never ever able to gather more than 18 Primates, or “representatives”, on even ”neutral” occasions, such as the “Global South” meetings on Economic development and education) after years of yellings since Kuala Lumpur meeting in 1994 finally – in the new China suffocating from pollution, of all places – muster 9 Signatories to their agenda of a new radical Calvinist communion cum discipline covenant (= the power to expel), that is 25%...

Pathetic.

Pat - quite happy to have a vote of all Anglican priests or all Anglican people..... like many others, I am sick of the AC being disrupted by a tiny minority who reject certain scriptures

So, we disagree with these nine persons in a fundamental way. I was brought up in a church where I was allowed to think, to explore, to believe or not, to question, to doubt, to seek God in my own way. It is that church in which I desire to continue to worship and serve. If I wanted to be in a church where everyone had to sign on to certain unchangeable beliefs or suffer the consequences, I have any number of other choices than the Episcopal Churches in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Connecticut, U.S.A. where I have lived and worshipped. But that is not what feeds me and leads me to abundant life; the Episcopal Church is of, all of the options, the best for me.

I once thought other Anglicans enjoyed the same freedom in Christ which I enjoy. Now I see I am wrong about other Anglicans. Where I am delighted to let them believe what they want, and remain in the same communion with them, this is anathema to these nine, and others. Anglicanism, to me, is freedom of thought, belief and practice. Now some want to change Anglicanism into something it is not, and destroy the great gift we had to give Christendom: A safe place for people who aren't sure, who doubt, who even challenge God.

I want to stay in the Anglican Communion that was. I will not be part of a communion that forces me into a Covenant determined only by bishops, and only a handful of bishops, at that. That is not Anglicanism. It is something else. So why do those who do not want Anglicanism want so badly to change it into a carbon copy of the Church of Rome? What is it about Anglicanism that is so important to them that they must try to do this? I am perplexed.
Lois Keen

"Presently studying for Preliminary Theological Certificate by Correspondence at Moore Theological College"

Itself a cause for concern in some quarters!

"Have you heard of Athanasius contra mundum? If it weren't for him, the Church would be Arian now."

Yes, he has, it's been pointed out several times, by many people. Others have also pointed out that, by this argument, Islam with its growth must be true, or Roman Catholicism, having always had greater numbers, must have been true at the Reformation and must be true now, and on and on. No response, though. It is so hard, though, not to say the same things over and over in hopes of a response, no? I light a candle every week, but OLW seems to be taking Her time on this one. Almost makes one believe in Predestination.

(I realize this has been said before, even by me—but perhaps this will be a different angle.) Benedict XVI thinks he is a bishop, primate, metropolitan, and patriarch in Christ's one holy catholic and apostolic Church: and no one this side of Ian Paisley seriously doubts it. The Pope doesn't have to make an argument to show the validity of his position, other than the argument that his predecessors have been there at the "threshold of the Apostles" since the time of the apostles themselves. We could say something similar of Patriarch Bartholomeos, and of Fr. Glenn and Archimandrite Theodosius at the RC and Orthodox churches in my neighborhood.

Now, +Peter Abuja and his colleagues also think themselves bishops and primates in Christ's one holy catholic and apostolic Church, as does +Rowan Cantuar: and like Glenn and Theodosius, I think myself a priest in that same Church. But unlike Benedict and Bartholomeos, Peter and Rowan do have to make an argument for the validity of their positions. Peter Akinola is a bishop, Rowan Williams is a bishop, I am a priest, _if and only if_ the sixteenth century English were correct in asserting (1) that the Christian church in each sovereign nation ("empire") is sovereignly independent of the churches in every other nation and (2) that the supreme authority over the independent Christian church in a sovereign nation may be vested in lay persons (specifically, the King), rather than in bishops. If those two claims about polity are wrong, then the English Reformation was an abominable schism, torturing and killing those loyal to the Church; Anglican orders are indeed "absolutely null and utterly void," as _Apostolicae Curae_ declared; and Peter, Rowan and the rest of us are merely pious gentlemen laboring under the misapprehension that we are priests. However much international discipline for wayward members of the Anglican Communion may seem like an appealing concept, those who insist on it face the inherent contradiction that to grant the need for it is at the same time to grant the invalidity of their own orders and of the Communion itself.

Just a passing thought about NP and other con evo believers who constantly throw census numbers into posts as if that meant something triumphant for their arguments. (And yes, the dilemma for such realignment con evo believers is to sufficiently demonstrate to the rest of us, that their commitment to the traditional negatives can delicately hold back in any number of daily life domains, from having to get nasty to make its way among us.)

Anyhooo. I am reminded of Jesus parable about the kingdom of heaven - you know, leaven in the loaf. TEC has never been all that large numberically anyway. The USA Baptist and Southern Baptist conventions dwarf it numerically, and probably always have in USA religious history.

So, NP and others of realigned con evo mind and heart: What do you do, exactly, when you have to work productively with professional team members in complicated assignments, knowing that those people are neither straight nor realigned con evo? What do you do when such people are your neighbors, living just down the street, perhaps with their children attending the same school as your children? What do you do when that family or those people show up, having been elected to a non-profit organization board on which you also happen to sit?

Do tell us how you keep your traditionalistic negatives from having to get nasty. Is all the traditional nasty trash talk about queer folks like me, just so much hot air that blows away in the clear light of day? Or do you have serious plans to hinder, target, force, and disenfranchise people like me - from full, equal civil citizenship?

Re my alleged victimhoods, I will have to post later. Busy day, and all.

I think it is too bad that Anis (Jerusalem and Middle East) signed this. Some of us have been looking at more charitable giving to the Middle East in view of many African Anglicans saying they didn't want our money. Personally I am going to revisit this, especially the Good Friday offering. Maybe we need to think more locally.

NP: I'm sorry, but I think that the tradition of Christian homophobia, which in Britain meant the execution of people for being gay, until that was finally altered first to life imprisonment and then prison with hard labour in the 19th c, was nasty. It was also supported by the C of E, for which the church should now repent.

"Personally I am going to revisit this"

Please don't. The poor are still poor, the destitute still destitute, those who suffer from war still suffer from war, orphans are still orphaned. Witholding money from the work of the Church, no matter how you feel about Her leaders, is never a good thing.

"Pat - quite happy to have a vote of all Anglican priests or all Anglican people..... like many others, I am sick of the AC being disrupted by a tiny minority who reject certain scriptures"

And would you accept the result if it came out in a way you don't like?

Clearly no--since you object to the vote that put an openly gay man in the cathedra of New Hampshire.

"Posted by 4May1535+ at Thursday, 8 November 2007 at 2:12pm GMT"

That's a *powerfully logical* post, 4May.

Though I still believe that Rome is in schism from Canterbury! [They excommunicated us, after all: not the other way 'round]

Thanks, JCF, and I take your point--if our actions weren't schismatic, but rather (as we claimed) the just reasssertion of the historical independence of _Ecclesia Anglicana_, then the schism that's actually here starts on the Roman side. But in any practical terms, there's surely enough blood and guilt to go around. I'm fond of, or hopeful for, that Eliot passage about these men and those who opposed them acepting the constitution of silence....

NP: there is a rumour going round TA that your church is Holy Trinity Brompton. Could you confirm or deny this before making any more postings?
Because if it is the case that the church you are continually holding up as a paragon to be imitated everywhere is the church attended by the most exclusive social set in London, then I think all these innocent Americans need to be told.

Mark - your question was answered months ago...
Have you been or are you just spouting prejudice?

Now, say we had a church which was exclusively made up of aristocrats which happened to agree with most of the AC that Lambeth 1.10 was correct .... would that suddenly make what the CofE bishops have consistently said is "incompatible with scripture" holy and good?

Mark - yuo're looking for a smokescreen.
The issue is the authority of scripture.
You do not get the AC to drop Lambeth 1.10 by saying, "Look, they are posh!"

By the way, Mark, I would completely agree with you that the CofE should repent of past sins, including support for the old legislaton you mention....and I am not in principle against SORS etc (as long as it does not stop free speech or religious freedom)

I vote Labour... does that me a bit nicer?

I say these things because I do not want you constructing some right-wing enemy to argue with but I want you to realise that for most of us in the AC, the issue is the authority of scripture......maybe that is why your brilliant old lecturer Tom does such great work in support of Lambeth 1.10

NP: I think you should stop posting all these aggressive comments telling everyone they just have to be like Holy Trinity Brompton. That church is full because all the young Arabellas and Camillas need to find their Olivers and Edwards somewhere, not because of hard-line doctrine. Come off the high horse: your church is nothing like typical. It is famous as a high society meeting place. I mentioned innocently earlier that Con Evo churches tended to minister exclusively to the wealthy, and you were strangely silent. Now I understand why. If you continue making all these postings belittling everyone else's churches, I will make sure yours are followed each time by a rider from me warning the Americans not to take your comments at face value.

Prevarication, NP!

Fr Mark is a relatively new poster and doubtless has better things to do that to trawl the archives reading your corpus epistularum. Tell him, unless you are ashamed to admit that you really go to a pentecostal tabernacle in Hoxton.

I really don't get why NP is so reluctant to talk about his church. After all, if you're proud of what your church does, wouldn't you want everyone to know about it? Wouldn't you want to invite people to speak to your leadership team, to see you in action in order to learn? This is bizarre!

But here are the relevant posts from the archives:

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002585.html

Hey, NP, how about letting us know what "booming" London evo parish you attend?

Posted by: Kurt on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 at 2:53pm BST

Kurt - Mynster and others worked that out long ago

You heard of HTB?

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 at 3:09pm BST

Mark - you display some prejudice and snobbery.....as I have said, nobody is going to drop Lambeth 1.10 because a few of the people for it may be posh.....some churches in Kensington are liberal with rich members - so what?

Erika - I do not speak for any church, not being clergy or employed by any church. Just a chap talking to you here. So, that is why I do not claim to speak for any church......and also because people (see above) will want to avoid the issues of what the bible says and what the AC bishops have said is "incompatible with scripture" by saying, "They are posh! They are rich"........very weak arguments but it does distract from the main issue which is the authority of scripture and what is compatible with holy scripture.

NP knows that if we knew the actual makeup of his parish congregation, they would immediately be discredited for being rich. Wealth does not in and of itself discredit anybody, however.

NP, the thing is, if a person is smug in his wealth, scorns the poor, seeks Scriptural justification for behaviours anyone can see are not Christian, and such like, then when that person supports a position, everyone else is going to wonder if that position is something Christians should support. I mean, if they can't live the Gospel themselves, how can they be trusted to know what's God's Truth? So, in answer to your question, whether or not the support of HTB for one particular piece of a much larger document is valid or not depends entirely on how the people of HTB show the Gospel in their lives. Now, you're the only parishioner of HTB I have ever met. It isn't right to judge from you alone, but I have to say, if you are representative of what the congo there thinks, then I wouldn't trust thier judgement on the "Gospel compliance" of anything. You're a poor witness to the Gospel, NP, I don't care how many people you can frighten into getting saved.

It's not just the question of NP's church, Erika. It's also the question of unsubstantiated assertions regarding his circumstances or past that are thrown into posts to justify statements he has made or to stop the individual against whom he is posting dead in their tracks. I experienced this a few weeks when I commented on a perceived nostalgia on NP's part for the South African Apartheid regime. His response - that he and his family had been active opponents of Apartheid in South Africa - naturally brought this line of thought to an abrupt halt. On reflection, however, it occurred to me that NP had made the assertion without any supporting evidence whatever, yet I had accepted his claim at face value, without question. Ought I to have done so? I do not question the truth of NP's statement, but when I make a claim, here or elsewhere, which I expect to bring the "opposing" individual to an abrupt halt - at least, if they have any sense of shame - I attempt to offer sufficient circumstantial evidence, or reveal enough about myself in my comment, to indicate that the claim I am making is a true one. And when/if I have failed to do that, I will certainly back-up an assertion when called on it. And yes, when NP informs us that his family suffered for their opposition to Apartheid, I expect, when this is used as a factor in argument, to hear a little on how and why this happened and to be certain in my own mind that his tugging on my strings is legitimate, not just the effective use of an age-old legal ploy.

I once walked innocently into a "hand-waving" Church at Shepherd's Bush (somewhere west of Kensington) and was appalled at the usual neo-evo antics, not to mentioned shock at discovering this sort of thing existed in the UK. All what was missing was the overhead projector with the bouncing ball.

My vote is for Shepherd's Bush.

Oh, and not all of us rich, snobby, low church & traditional types are anti-LGBT. (Really nothing in common with what is called in the U.S. "charismatic" churches) Let's (at least most of us, NP notwithstanding) be careful now! Some of us are Trevors looking for Tristans!

I know, choirboyfromhell, I'm sorry if I sounded anti-rich: it's not that at all, just that NP can't see how his experience of a church with such a narrow tranche of London society in it is not a good platform for smugly criticising everyone else's way of being church, which he seems to do non-stop. God loves Tristans too (and so do a lot of the rest of us...)

No offense taken whatsoever Fr. Mark. I now agree that your hunch may indeed be correct. Look at the first names of the Vicar (Rector?) and his wife at HTB.

The question that needs to be asked (and continually gets ignored) is why do the NP types focus so much disproportionate emphasis on a tiny part of scripture to condemn others? It is un-Christian being as it underlines a great sickness to control others and live in fear. It also lays claim that one already knows all about the Creator, and His (It's?) motives. That's scary. Those types here in the U.S. have gotten us into a pretty sad quandary, in terms of international (or lack of) relationships.

And NP's claims to being a part of the labor party fall in deaf ears, as many Southern Baptists here in the U.S. still claim to be Democrats, yet have voted with and for the present Republican candidates who obnoxiously pander to their fears.

I just took a look at the HBT website and I'm confused. Maybe it's a difference between US and UK usage, but what exactly is meant by an "informal service"?--the term used to describe all of HTB's Sunday services?

I have difficulty imagining anything that could possibly fit into Anglican tradition or liturgy as being "informal".

"The question that needs to be asked (and continually gets ignored) is why do the NP types focus so much disproportionate emphasis on a tiny part of scripture to condemn others?"

I suppose a possible answer would be that if you genuinely believe that people need to live certain lifestyles to be loved by God and to be "saved", and that no being saved means literal damnation (as someone posted here not long ago), then you would feel compelled to keep pointing their awful sin out to them so they can repent and be saved too.

In practice, of course, it always ends up with people feeling saved and superior sinners, while hating those who don't follow their rules.

The sad thing is that they are clearly absolutely incapable of seeing their own hectoring and reviling as sinful and thus requiring change.

Ford says "NP, the thing is, if a person is smug in his wealth, scorns the poor, seeks Scriptural justification for behaviours anyone can see are not Christian, and such like, then when that person supports a position, everyone else is going to wonder if that position is something Christians should support."
-very judgmental, Ford....but we will both me judged by the same Lord.....so, please worry about yourself, not judging me or congregations you admit you know little of. You are, of course, right....as St James says, our actions shows our faith.

Lapin - I can easily pour doubt on what you say too and ask for evidence. Fact is I do have family who went to jail for ANC membership....but now do not vote ANC as they envisaged a new South Africa in which the poor benefited rather than socialist ANC leaders becoming rich..... you might like to read some of what President Mbeki's own brother rights on the injustices of ANC led SA - a country in which my friends in Soweto say they are worse off than they were 10 years ago.....
but whether you believe me or not, this is all distraction..........I keep on asking people not to attack people or their churches or their politics but to deal with the issue ripping apart the AC………

This is the issue: most people in the AC believe Lambeth 1.10 is right that certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture".....so, the question is, must we all be forced to accept that it is a legitimate position for clergy and bishops in the AC to teach, condone and even live in a way which is "incompatible with scripture"?

This is the issue - everything else is smokescreen, trying to avoid the issue because convincing theological arguments have not been made in the last decades to convince many AC bishops to ditch Lambeth 1.10....or that would certainly be on the agenda…..but it ain’t.

Please note, Lapin, that it is not just conservative or charismatic Anglicans who cannot accept , VGR, TECUSA HOB NO reponse or the JSC fudge acceptance of it…… the very large, strong, influential mainstream of Anglicanism (eg Fulcrum and +Durham) are on public record as wanting to keep to the current mind of the Communion on the presenting issues and not accepting the fudge and duplicity we have all suffered from for years now.

Pat: I fear that "informal" could well mean "not using the authorised Anglican liturgical book" here.
Erika: I think that for people like NP, it is not actually anything theological at all that motivates them, but something pyschological. I don't know enough about psychology, but there are obviously quite a few men around in churches who are deeply challenged at some primal level by the existence of other men who are gay (they rarely seem to direct the same level of hatred at lesbians, oddly). There appears to be a need to define oneself by being part of the majority "in group" of winners (straight people) and radically distance oneself from the ones who are the minority "out-group" of losers (gay people). Christian anti-Semitism in Europe operated in the same way for centuries. Strange, isn't it, because I don't see how you could read the Gospels and not see Jesus as someone who spent his whole time with the "out groups", the losers of society, rather than the winners.

"I have difficulty imagining anything that could possibly fit into Anglican tradition or liturgy as being "informal".-Pat O'Neill

That's because they aren't Anglican. A charismatic church I happened on once outside of Jacksonville, FL, didn't use the the Hymnal 1983, and ignored most of the rubrics of the BCP. I didn't make it to the communion (walked out in disgust, God knows I tried) to see if they used the words of consecration.

This church left TEC two years ago, it was obvious that they never wanted to have anything to do with us, as it showed in their liturgy.

Fr Mark
"Erika: I think that for people like NP, it is not actually anything theological at all that motivates them, but something pyschological. "

Quite. Different psychologies are attracted to different theologies.
That doesn't mean that the theologies don't have some extent of rationality and reasonableness about them if examined in their best possible light.

Every so often it is possible to meet someone who is caring, kind and genuine but who has been convinced by this kind of belief system. Not everyone is as completely rigid and without any kind of empathy as some posters here.

The ones who aren't are those evangelicals who genuinely participate in a Listening Process, not just with regard to homosexuality, but who are compassionate towards all human circumstances.

Of course, I personally can't help but feel deeply sad about the picture of a strict, judgmental and moralistic God they carry around with them, that colours every aspect of their own lives even more than it can colour their judgement of others.

Mark and choirboy:

Thanks for the clarification; I suspected as much.

If you're not going to follow Anglican tradition as to service and liturgy, what's the point of calling yourself Anglican? Other than the possible societal benefits, as in "all the best people are Anglicans"?

Far be it for me, of all people, to leap to the defence of HTB or any other quasi non-liturgical parish, but . . .

The comment that what goes on there is outwith the limits of Anglicanism was a comment oft applied to most of what would now be considered standard Anglican liturgical practice, from coloured vestments to weekly (or even daily) eucharist to the use of altar candles and unleavened bread to the simple act of elevating the host. Indeed, the NPs of the day tried very hard to have the state outlaw such innovative "departures" from the authorized liturgy. And many Anglo-Catholics gave credence to the prejudice by abandoning the BCP for the English Missal.

I haven't got the first clue what HTB means by "informal." Last Sunday I engaged in a stage whisper conversation with an infant throughout most of her baptism. That was pretty "informal." I've been known to preside with just a stole, and last summer did a wedding in clerical shirt, walking shorts and stole. Quite informal, actually. At Holy Trinity, Eaton's Centre in Toronto (quite the opposite of Holy Trinity, Brompton in just about every way) I have seen people wandering in for Sunday mass sipping their latte while a most informal service proceeded with no apparent presiding celebrant - until the offertory, at which point a retired priest who was visiting slipped on a stole and one of the resident lesbian deacons likewise and they stood behind the altar while the rest of us stood in a circle round it. Almost too informal for me.

All of these services were certainly different degrees of informal. Yet all of them were, at some level at least, recognizably Anglican and recognizably liturgical.

I personally believe there is much or interest for a psychiatrist to be found in both Church and Sect.

Much more than elsewhere.

But the present un-pleasentness seems to me to be something else. A question not of w h a t is right, but of w h o is right.

Who gets to ask the questions, who gives the answers, who gets to decide, and so on...

It's shift of Paradigm.

And Patriarchy (and even more Hierarchy) is loosing.

Pat: you could have hit the nail on the head there... not just the "best" but the "most powerful/influential" perhaps.

Hi Lois, it's great to see you posting, I've been praying about you and hoping all is well.

I loved your comment "...the great gift we had to give Christendom: A safe place for people who aren't sure, who doubt, who even challenge God."

A beautiful prophetic gift that oozes through many parts of the bible. I love Abraham's debate with God about whether or not God is really just and how little/much it would take to save Sodom and Gomorrah. Similarly, I love the confessions from many of the prophets about whether or not God really wanted them to do these works and the antics that follow, ranging from Gideon's wet fleece/dry ground to dry fleece/wet ground, to Jonah being swallowed by the whale, to Moses many antics and relying on Aaron to be his mouth piece because he was too embarassed about his stutter.

One of the really cool things about the bible is how God always gets what God wants, but there is often weaving and dancing as the prophets try to work out how to do God's will without seeming too crazy, getting themselves killed too quickly, or really driving home the point that God really wants them to make.

There is something really cool about a church or people who are trusting that God really is just and would never punish souls unfairly, who are prepared to challenge God and ask that if Jesus' sacrifice was successful, then why are priests still justifying tyranny and accusations? Or if Jesus promised gentleness, then why do some souls seem oblivious or even scornful of the covenant of peace?

When I said "I do not question the truth of NP's statement", I meant precisely that, NP. In responding to my observations on a personal rather than a dogmatic level, you reveal far more of your own humanity than shows through in your more dogmatic, staccato posts. I find this far easier to relate to - I imagine that others do as well - and now I also now know precisely where you were coming from on the Desmond Tutu's mansion business which seemed to be, but on the basis of what you have now said clearly was not, purely mean-spirited. Thanks, NP.

Thanks, Rabbit.....short comments here can mislead re tone and intention (talking face to face would eliminate that as we would be dealing with real people)

Re the whole money thing, people have wrongly assumed I would be soft on greed or that certain London churches teach it is ok to be greedy....

In London, as well as Cape Town, I do not justify anybody's materialism and greed and I do challenge friends and family on the issue....it matters that we listen to Christ on this most respectable idolatry just like on everything else - greed is a sin (just as bad as any other) and incompatible with a real Christian life (1 John Ch 3 v 15-17) so we must teach each other the truh of what the bible says on it. The key, as always, is sticking to God's word.

Hope you have good carrots this week, Rabbit

Sorry - I meant 1 John 2 15-17 above

But the 1 John 3 verses happen to be relevant....in a world of so much want (horrible contrasts in places like Cape Town and huge inequality in London even with our social services etc), rich Christians are to react to the needs of the poor......but we are certainly not to love the world in any sense or think we can get away with excusing sin......no need for the cross if God was open to excuses re sin

Oh dear, NP, what a depressing Calvinist view of the essential depravity of the human person lies behind your theology! Calvin thought that grace annihilates depraved nature: whereas Aquinas held the much more healthy view that grace builds on weak nature. Thomas' view leads you to a far more balanced sense of the world around you. Calvin's leads to fear of contamination by the evil world, while Aquinas' leaves us able to see good at work throughout God's created order. Isn't that better?

We are not told to love the world
We cannot get away with
God hates
God condemns
Some people are not my neighbour
We must judge
The others are faithless

You know, NP, you sometimes accuse some of us here of playing the victim card.
It is becoming abundantly clear that you are the only true victim of your faith.
What a terrible world in traps you in, what a cold, loveless and harsh place!
Ruled without compassion and mercy by a stern judgemental God.

Wake up, NP, allow your heart to melt. Come alive!
There is a beautiful world out there, full of compassion, love, forgiveness, mercy and joy.
Its God is the one John calls "Love".
He is like the Jesus who said "Neither do I condemn you".
His judgement is more forgiving and fuller of understanding than that of the best human parents (for how could God be less than anything humans can achieve!).

Trust him!

Erika - it is very dangerous to make your god in your own image....the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not tolerant of sin at all.....you can see that in the cross and you can see that in his commands......

Romans 6:1
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=rom+6%3A1

Hi Erika-

The source from which you learn that God is love is the same source from which you learn that God has high standards; that Jesus speaks more about hell than anyone - and various other things.

The reason you accept the one and reject the other is that you want to make God in your own image.

But a God made in our own image is not God. It is a projection of ourselves, our own core values etc..

"you can see that in the cross"

The Cross shows God's intolerance for sin? I thought it showed His unbounded love for us. Silly me. Oh, right, PSA. Nice Pseudorthodox doctrine, that!

See, NP, your problem is that you see it all in terms of crime and punishment. Let me ask you: why be a Christian?

"Jesus speaks more about hell than anyone"

To me, the kind of faith you espouse and the kind of stifled life it leads to is just the hell Jesus warns against.

Ford - it is ridiculous to try and claim that PSA is not found in the old and new testament.....it is not the only meaning of the cross, but it is central....as a carpenter from Palestine said himself in Mark 10:45

Also see Eph 2:13 (we were studying the chapter last night)

Erika - do you just ignore all the stuff you do not like in the bible? The Lord spoke of hell, sin, judgment, the necessity of faith in him for salvation....we have to stick to God's word, not various new gospels which reject inconvenient teachings.....

Well, then NP, what do you do about "the stuff YOU don't like in the Bible?" Do you stone gays/ adulterers/wearers of mixed-fibre garments to death? Do you tell women they are subservient in marriage and to keep silent in church? Do you denounce the modern banking system and tell Christians they are not allowed to lend or borrow at interest? Do you expend as much energy on denouncing the remarriage of divorcees; those who marry their deceased wife's sister; or those who are "living in sin" as you do on attacking gays? The list could be a long one. It is not possible, nor wise, to try to live as if you were in Palestine over 2000 years ago. What we (ALL) do is to take certain principles from the Bible and apply them in our own time. That's not new, or terribly liberal - it's the only sensible way, surely?

NP,
You constently ignore all the stuff you don't like in the bible. Every reference to compassion, mercy, love, kindness for example. It leads to the terrible kind of God you believe in.
I don't believe in that God at all.
I know about sin - it means things that are harmful to you or to others and we're rightly encouraged to recognise our sins and grow out of them.
I know about hell, it's being stuck in one's failings and not being able to grow through them into a full loving life. And it means to remove oneself from the healing love of God.
And I know about judgement. But genuine judgement is more than looking at facts. It's always about looking at the whole person and taking their limitations into account. It's also about mercy, compassion and forgiveness.

What do you and your terrible God know about love, compassion and mercy, NP?

Erika,
NP's God is our God too. I have fallen into the trap of hyperbole like this too, will again, no doubt. But just because NP has chosen to believe a model of God that is very much like himself and has gone astray in the process doesn't mean he isn't a Christian. I know, he makes the baby Jesus cry, but we all do that from time to time, if not with such gusto! I'm still getting over the idea he came up with yesterday of the Cross as punishment and warning. I mean, the epithets like "rampart set about the Church, Invincible weapon of Godliness" and on and on that can be found in the Orthodox Festal Menaion, which I can't find online, show us the Church's ancient imagery of the Cross. Not at all the Pseudorthodox distortions that NP comes up with. He takes something beautiful and warps it into something hideous and deformed, but he's still a Christian, for all that.

Thanks Ford....although, you stretch things to try and paint me as "Pseudorthodox" when I say things consistent with the creeds......in which you will find PSA, however much you dislike its clear presence in the scriptures.

Mark - not very strong arguments re fibres and stoning. You mentioned the woman who was caught in adultery......we are set a model not of stoning (since we are post OT) but of calling people to repentance in Christ i.e. "go and sin no more"..... we are never given a model of tolerating sin. As for OT food and ceremonial laws, they are dealt with by St Paul and St Peter.....but they never give us reason to doubt Lambeth 1.10 when it says certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture".

Erika says "I know about sin - it means things that are harmful to you or to others”

- not really, in the bible it is better defined as rebellion against God, disobeying his word (eg Gen 3);

Erika says "I know about hell, it's being stuck in one's failings and not being able to grow through them into a full loving life." and "And I know about judgement.....It's always about looking at the whole person and taking their limitations into account. It's also about mercy, compassion and forgiveness."

-not according to Christ..... pls see Matthew 13 v36 "Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

Still waiting for an answer to Fr. Mark's 0843-13th GMT letter NP.

Of course, you're right, Ford. The poblem is, though, that the Spanish Inquisition was run by Christians too. As was apartheid South Africa...

Ford,
of course you're right and NP's God is the same as mine. I didn't want to give the impression that I believe NP isn't a Christian.
I suppose I kept thinking about a conversation I had recently with my brother and sister about our father. I was astonished that we have all grown up in the same household and yet have such a totally different view of him that he appeared to be at least 3 different people.

And when I talk to my partner about the children we sometimes see them so differently that I have to double-check we're talking about the same girls.

I do believe that NP and those like him are Christians and my neighbours and brothers.
But I also believe that they are misguided and have compeltely the wrong understanding of God because they emphasise only the stern and leave out anything loving.

"you stretch things to try and paint me as "Pseudorthodox" "

Let's see: you claim the Eucharist is nothing more than a memorial meal, you mock prayers to the saints, you scorn the ancient traditions of the Church as "the teachings of men". You place all authority in Scripture. You scorn liturgical worship. You show no love for your fellow man, you judge and condemn those different than yourself, you twist the Scriptures to justify your own sins while accusing others of the same thing, you show no love for the poor and the oppressed, indeed, you defend those who would oppress the Children of God. You have no humility. So, I agree I am stretching things in calling you Pseudorthodox. To do so is to imply that there MAY be something about you that IS orthodox, and that's a huge stretch. As to the Cross, look up the Orthodox Festal Menaion and read the texts for the Feast of the Universal Exaltation of the Precious, Holy, and Lifegiving Cross (note those terms). You will find it called the Invincible Weapon of Righteousness, the Terror of the Demons, the Rampart set about the Church, the Gateway to Paradise, the Ladder that leads to Heaven. Nowhere will you see it called a punishment or a warning. The Scriptures tell us that Christ took an instrument of shameful death by torture and turned it into a sign of hope, the means by which we are redeemed. You have turned it back into an instrument of fear and torture. I can't think of any better example of denying the salvific effects of the Crucifixion. And where's the PSA in the Creeds? There's penal elements in Scripture, but the extent to which modern day Evangelicals have taken it is just blasphemous. I mean that. Blasphemous.

Fr. Mark, I am consistently at NP about his denial of the Christianity of those he disagree with. I, like Erika, have referred to the God that people like him worship, as though he does not worship the Christian God. I was trying to encourage Erika not to fall into that too familiar trap.

Well, NP, how pleased I am to hear that at least St Paul was present at Lambeth 98 (even if God was too busy too attend).

Ford - citing lots of stuff the Lord and his apostles did not do, say or teach is hardly going to convince me that I should change.....

I use the word orthodox to mean "orthodox" and not "Orthodox", as you know.

Authentic Christianity is what Christ and his apostles taught and lived.

Human traditions, especially when they are not supported by the bible, are just that....traditions of men. That includes praying to or through the Lord's mum or thinking we are eating him.....he just never taught those things and the disciples did not eat him at the last supper......nor did they put on fine robes and carry the bread about etc etc

Tell me your "clobber verses" do not mean what they say, Ford. Show me that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong that certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture"......then will be interesting and will have a greater chance of convincing the bishops and Primates of the AC that we should accept those who flagrantly defy it, even at the cost of tearing the fabric of the communion.

"he just never taught those things and the disciples did not eat him at the last supper."

"This is my body which will be given up for you...this is my blood, which will be shed for all men..."

Did our Lord not mean those things when he said them? I'm not a big believer in transubstantiation myself, but clearly if we are to take Jesus' words at face value--as you seem to take everything else in the bible--that is precisely what he intended.

"Authentic Christianity is what Christ and his apostles taught and lived."

Indeed! That was my point!

"That includes praying to or through the Lord's mum or thinking we are eating him"

Why is it that the only Bible passages that you Fundies DON'T take literally is "This is MY Body, his is My Blood"?

"Tell me your "clobber verses" do not mean what they say, Ford."

The clobber verses do not mean what you say they say. That's as far as I can go. They use two words, one of which refers to temple prostitution, the other is of unknown meaning, has been translated "homosexual" yet in one of the few instances in which it occurs outside Scripture, it is used of a man who is going out to seduce women, therefore cannot mean homoesxual. There. Happy now?

Well, NP, how pleased I am to hear that at least St Paul was present at Lambeth 98 (even if God was too busy too attend).

Posted by: Fr Mark on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 at 9:09pm GMT

I have a sad feeling G-d wasnt invited.

"I have a sad feeling G-d wasnt invited."

There's a joke about this and the Second Vatican Council, a variant of the one about the Trinity going on a holiday to Rome, since They had never been there before!

Ford - pls see the 39 articles for the explanation of my "fundametalist" position on this.

When the Lord gave bread and wine to his disciples, it was obviously not actually his body and blood....
When ST Paul describes what the sacrament means in 1 Cor 11, it is obviously not actually his body and blood....

I think they knew what they were talking about

I find the concept of Transignifcation does it for me !

On the other hand to me all life is sacramental

Ford,

As you know, those interpretations do not convince many.

You may find these articles interesting

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=63

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2005/20051103goddard.cfm?doc=55

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=223

Hope you at least find these interesting - even if you do not agree.

(I am trying to be constructive.)

NP wrote: "As you know, those interpretations do not convince many."

But you cannot speak for "many". How about speaking for yourself?

Do these interpretations convince you?

If not, Why?? What's wrong with them???

“In the first place, in relation to hermeneutics, we have to take what Scripture says about God's will for the use of our bodies seriously and approach it with due reverence for its authority. But in our attempts to interpret texts we will always be willing to ask questions, explore contexts, examine root meanings of words, and bring all the resources of the mind to the task. We will not be content with what seems to us to be the 'plain meaning' of the text, unless that has been arrived at through rigorous thinking. Even then we will be willing to keep our interpretations provisional and open to other perspectives.”

Only, you do not do any of this.

“But faithfulness to Christ will recognise that he did not abolish the law, but he did give it fresh meaning in the light of his coming and sought to change attitudes rather than lay down laws (eg Matt 5.17ff). Discipleship thus becomes first a matter of the heart and secondarily a matter of obedience to certain precepts. Thus in teaching on sexuality Anglicans will always strive to avoid legalism or a strictly prescriptive approach.”

Very funny : - (

“Thirdly, in relation to worship, Anglicans will recognise that in the light of Christ all our differences are relativised. Whatever labels or human identities we carry with us do not prevent us from recognising our unity in Christ (Gal 3.28), whatever imperfections we may perceive in each other. Anglicans come together as sinners round the Lord's Table. We acknowledge that we are obliged to remove the log from our own eye before we try to take the speck from our brother or sister (Matt 7.5).

We will recognise also however that worship carries with it a discipline which Christ taught his disciples, so that standards of holiness do matter in his presence and all are open to the convicting presence of the Holy Spirit as we come before Him in worship. Tradition will help us to formulate policies of discipline at the level of the Church.”

Words, words, words…

“There is the question of how central sexuality is to our understanding of the gospel. The Scriptures put it into the wider context of holiness in relationships, so that issues of justice, respect, mutual love, attitude to possessions and money, are all important. The gospel is first of all about the totality of our human predicament, so sexuality must be seen in that perspective. In relation to Tradition, again it has its place, but it is never prominent in doctrinal formulations or discussions. In relation to Reason, we might argue for a holistic understanding of our humanity which once again avoids the twin errors of ignoring the need for sexual wholeness on the one hand, and on the other hand affording it too much prominence and in so doing following the contemporary cultural obsession with sexual issues which becomes dehumanising. In relation to Christ's teaching we have to admit that sexual morality was not a major focus of his teaching, and was generally formulated in response to questions. All this points to the need to get things in perspective, without ignoring what the Bible or Christ actually do say that we cannot afford to ignore.”

Well, it’s a start NP. Sad that there has been nothing of this.

Only late Modern Social and Ecclesiastical Policies from the US of A.

"Culture".

"it was obviously not actually his body and blood"

Let's see, God says it IS His Body and Blood, you say that it is is obvious that it is not. In what way is it obvious? Some say, you see, that it is obvious that Paul was not talking about committed monogamous relationships when he used words that we THINK might mean 'homosexual'. So, how is the clear meaning of Christ's words not obvious when the somewhat obscure meaning of Paul's words is clear? Tell me, how do you decide what Jesus and Paul "obviously" meant?