The author has gone to great depths to give a fair and reasoned discussion. The thyroid versus adrenal gland model is useful. He points out how things can happen in other dioceses without even a murmur, yet a singular act in the US can create pandemonium. Probably because the adrenal gland of many conservatives insists on a fight, even if that exhausts the whole body.

He comments on the realization that no one in the US is above the law e.g. a sitting president going through an impeachment process. He wrote: “ As I watched all of the proceedings on television, a light bulb went off in my head for the very first time. No one was actually above the law in America. All power and authority, sooner or later, was accountable to the law, at the end of the day.”

New Orleans has had such a powerful impact because it showed that no regime or system is above the law. All powers and authorities, sooner or later, are accountable to God.

Yet, Twinamaani suggests “…our American Anglican brothers and sisters, in effect, do seriously and severely cheat the rest of the communion, by not paying the steep price of providing stability and hope for the culture in which they exist, and rather leaving this price to be paid by the civil legal base of their context.”

In this, I would disagree. I think the churches that rely on being the “saviour” of the people do a disservice to their communities. They give the “leaders” a license to act with impunity as if there is no accountability.

The millennium of peace is not possible if peace is only available for those within a sanctified enclave. The responsibility of creating and nurturing peace is bestowed upon all humanity, from the monarchs or leaders of the governments, to the armed forces (who should be spending more time helping with disasters than fighting anyone), to teachers and healers, to mothers and fathers, to priests and the average citizen.

This position is biblical. http://www.torah.org/learning/lifeline/5759/shoftim.html opens with "Judges and officers shall you place for yourself, in all of your gates which HaShem your G-d gives you..." ...each person is first obligated to judge and correct himself, before judging others.

There’s a plethora of teachings available on this matter at www.torah.org using "judges" in the search engine.

Well, I've been wondering where Benjamin Twinamaani is. We served together in Delaware (U.S.A.)from whence he received the title of Canon. (And I remember the driving ticket incident!)I was ordained priest in the cathedral in which we served together. It was Benjamin who ran through the halls to be the first to the sacristy to have my newly-ordained hands laid on his head in blessing. It was Benjamin who taught me the warrant for Uganda's ordination of women before many others did so: that in his culture it is the women who are the bearers of the holy. It was also Benjamin who taught me so much about his culture that made Christianity make sense to them. I have missed him and regretted losing touch with him.

I appreciated Benjamin so much, and I appreciate his essay and am delighted to "hear" his voice again in the words he chooses. He only lost me when he got to the "pedophiles" and then for sure lost me when he wrote of women and lgbt persons seeking ordination on the grounds of civil rights. Benjamin knows I never used that ground for ordination, and I don't personally know one women Episcopalian (U.S.A.) priest who views her ordination on the grounds of civil rights. Like the first commenter on the "Covenant" site, I appreciate what Benjamin writes, but the last part is arguably problematic.

Benjamin, if you're reading, hi, and thanks! And to everyone else, regardless of whether or not we agree with the content, it is worth it to hear his voice.
Lois Keen

Canon Twinamaami's article is very interesting, especially when it says that a Ugandan bishop allowed polygamous marriages in church in his diocese without there being any outcry!

Andrew's is full of his usual delight in classifying everything into -isms and sub-isms, but, just by addressing honestly and intelligently some of the expressions of the hyper-conservatives' rhetoric, he seems to have provoked up their ire, which must be a work of supererogation.

One one level Leander Harding may have a point. Goddard writes from an English perspective where there may be a fair few people in the middle. In the US, far less so.

But I think he is kidding himself if he thinks that a realignment would be only within the US. If it happens, then it will be global, splitting provinces apart.

I think that would be ultimately beneficial.

Roughly speaking I agree with the mapping, though the terms are a bit awkward - reassess, reassert (needs to be more obvious - but I would say that each should have four groups. The inclusivists are not one, as some are more Catholic and some Protestant in emphasis - emphasis on the diversity of the Communion and its constituent Churches and those who are primarily interested in Churches including liberal interpretations of beliefs. Therefore there will be those of the more Catholic side that will say yes to a Covenant, so long as it emphasises diversity and autonomy of the Churches, and those who will say no to a Covenant because what matters is what Churches and people believe, that diversity is the first principle and uniformity derives from an acceptance of diversity.

re: Polygamous marriages.
As you all probably are aware this issue has regularly come up -- usually in the context of claims that some Anglican Bishops are polygamous. Despite repeated requests for names and details, to my knowledge no substantiating information has ever come to light.

I agree with Fr Mark above that this reference is significant, if only because it is the first that I have seen that gives details of place and time and Bishops. But it raises two questions that I wonder if anyone knows the answer to:

1. Does it still go on with the blessing of this or any other Bishop?

2. If it was eventually stopped, who stopped it and why?

I think the important point here, which there should be clarity about before anything else, is that there is an ecclesiastical quarrel.

Now, that quarrel is not anything in it self "objective" or "neutral", it is w i l l e d.

No analysis should try to evade this point.

No "solution" can.

There is an ecclesiastical quarrel because some want Schism (preferably with some appearance of legality/justess/Righteousness).

The quarrel has now been going on for 10 or 15 years, if not since the Ordination of women began.

It will continue until WO is no longer an issue, either "naturally" through death, or artificially through a Cut/separation (in which case death will come later to the separatists ;=)

Only, I cannot see Dr Rowan holding the ax.

My read is that Sarah Hey doesn't think Goddard is helpful because he identifies a split within the conservatives which likely will end up with a small group going the route of schism and the other the route of "collaboration." In other words, there's no longer a single front with which the progressives must contend - but a divided front that must contend with it's many selves. I can see why she might not want anyone to know.

I think The Rev. Canon Twinamaani may be referring to Bishop Christopher Ssenyonjo (I see his name also spelled Senyonjo, Senyono).

Compare two quotes (from different perspectives but clearly talking about the same thing):
"Bishop Senyono already had a reputation in Uganda as a radical bishop. In 1979 he argued that the Church should look again at its prohibition of polygamy, as a response to the urgent need to provide for widows in the aftermath of the tragedy of the Amin years.68 The fact that he also advocated for more positive understandings of Kiganda69 traditional religion, in which the old gods, the Balubaale, might be viewed as "angels," did not endear him to more conservative Church leaders."
http://tinyurl.com/3xpb3b

"Rev. Canon George Njogi told the meeting that Ssenyonjo used to preach in favour of polygamy and traditional evil beliefs."
http://tinyurl.com/35kqvx

Neither of these says he actually performed polygamous marriages, only that he argued in favor of it. I haven't spotted anything more definitive.

Retired Bishop Ssenyonjo appears to be involved in Integrity-Uganda. He was defrocked and/or excommunicated by ++Orombi, in March 2006. I wasn't reading the blogs then, so I don't know how much of a splash it made at the time.

Margaret, I don't know about bishops, but Lambeth 1988 passed Resolution 26 permitting inclusion of polygamists in the church . See here for the text. http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/downloads/1988.pdf

The Canon's way of thinking brings to mind two further points.

(1) In the US, if one refers to "The Queen," the assumption is that one means Elizabeth II and not, say, Margrethe II. There's a cultural bias toward the UK that isn't there toward Denmark. But except in so far as there may be a specific treaty with one or the other, the UK doesn't actually carry any more weight than Denmark, at that level of reliable law that the Canon refers to. Our reflexive sense that "Queen" = "nice lady with the corgis" is sentimental, but no more than that. My impression is that she has _some_ greater role (though not perhaps a very great one, in absolute terms) in nations that became independent of the UK more recently. This is, I think, why +Cantuar has not been able to articulate in terms that make sense for Americans precisely _how_ the Anglican Communion is actually different from other "full communion" arrangements such as our agreement with the ELCA, the Porvoo Communion, et al. He's Elizabeth, they're Margrethe. Other than sentiment there's no reason yet shown why he (and the ACC) should carry more weight than Bishop Mark Hanson (and the ELCA). Hence for at least some Americans, his "moral authority" is a good deal more tenuous than it may be in other lands. Hence, too, the confusion some of us feel over the fact that he is concerned about practices in TEC that don't seem to bother him in Porvoo churches

(2) Conversation based on the Windsor document has made much use of "autonomous" as distinct from "sovereign"; in some other contexts, the words are synonymous. Americans are aware of both senses, but it's my impression is that the second meaning is more natural for us. When I was in school, the use of "Autonomous" for subunits of the USSR was taken as one more example of Soviet newspeak, like calling the party newspaper "Pravda," "Truth." We enshrine the "Declaration of Independence" and learn from childhood Washington's warning against "foreign entanglements." Members of TEC clearly disagree about just _how_ independent the American Church was before the ACC began to develop in the 19th century; but I doubt if many people who voted to put the language of "constituent member" and "fellowship" in the preamble to the PECUSA constitution understood it to mean "autonomous" in the Windsor sense.

Sorry, in my previous post I used "ACC" when I meant "AC"--the Communion, rather than the Council.

4th May: interesting point about the Queen. Perhaps, as well as being Head of the Commonwealth, HM should be Head of the Anglican Communion rather than the Archbishop, thus freeing him up to act appropriately as chief pastor to liberal English society.

4 May 1535+ on Sunday, 2 December 2007 at 4:13pm GMT --
Good points -- I have sometimes said that attitude of many in the ACC (conscious or otherwise) is it is some sort of continuation of Victoria's Empire -- consequently, TEC just doesn't fit in properly!

I do think an unconscious assumption very like this seems to underlie Canon Twinamaani's essay (but see the comment of Rev. Lois Keen -- much to ponder there!)

Re: polygamy -- no link (death right there, right) but over three years ago the BBC online had several comments about Gene Robinson from several Nigerian Anglicans who were polygamists & their wives (all properly outraged -- polygamy is Scriptural, after all) -- all laity, though.

Prior Aelred: good point about Empire and Communion. And the Con Evo churches in England are very much run by the kind of people whose grandfathers would have been missionaries/ agents of the Empire in its farther-flung outposts: hence their obsession about ecclesiastical links with Africa (and comparative disinterest in continental Europe).

In the 19th century Colonialism was a branch of Liberalism, just as in the 17th to 18th centuries Liberalism was a branch of Calvinism.

Mission on other Continents was an integral part of the Colonialist packet.

Pete
Thanks for the link to the Lambeth 1988 resolutions, but they do not really fit the situation at all. If you read Resolution 26, it is about people who convert to Christianity when they are already in a polygamous relationship not the blessing of polygamous relationships for people who are already Christians. Indeed the resolution specifically states that "This conference upholds monogamy as God's plan ..." and for any christians who do contract polygamous relationships it seeks a sharing of information to develop "the most appropriate way of disciplining and pastoring them ...' which is a world apart from blessing and providing ceremonies for them.

Also a big thankyou to Riciah who provided those two very interesting links. The information supplied by them suggest that the original article here may not have fully and correctly interpreted the situation. In particular it does not appear that the statement that "No one paid any attention to this innovation; there was no crisis in the Anglican Communion, not even within the Uganda province." It would appear that something provoked the Lambeth decision in 1988, and that the lack of crisis may reflect the general agreement that pre-Christian polygamy was to be handled in this way rather than any approval of the practice of polygamous rituals by this or any other bishop.

I would continue to be interested in any other information that others know about this area. As I said in my earlier comment the practice of polygamy by Bishops has more than once been claimed as a precedent for homosexual acceptance (or a sign of hypocracy by African bishops) but to my knowledge every request for names, dates and places has been met with resounding silence by those who use the argument.

There is clearly a significant difference between the hardliners who inhabit blogs like Stand Firm, and those in the more moderate evangelical centre - notably their view as to whether this is a first-order issue or not.

The problem is that despite the almost hysterical level of hyperbole on such blogs, they resolutely refuse to see themselves as most others, certainly in Britain , would view them, as fringe fundamentalists.

As for polygamy, its another smokescreen. Stable Gay relationships should be accepted for their own qualities, which are akin to heterosexual coupled relationships of a permanent and committed nature, unlike polygamy. Different issues.

"The problem is that despite the almost hysterical level of hyperbole on such blogs, they resolutely refuse to see themselves as most others, certainly in Britain , would view them, as fringe fundamentalists."

I'm trying to tease this out on another thread.
Are they fringe or are they more and more mainstream?
And if Cheryl is right numbers don't matter because of the impact even a smallish group can have provided they're determined enough.

I'm always astonished at how little the "Anglican in the pews" i.e. my friends, knows or cares about all of this and how little they appreciate that it's about to tear their church apart.

Yes, Merseymike, you're right that polygamy and the gay issue are quite different ethically. But I suppose the interesting question here is, which issues are thought to be worth breaking communion over? Before the gay issue and women's ordination, the last big doctrinal furore I remember in the C of E was David Jenkins' appointment as Bishop of Durham. He was generally regarded by Conservative Evangelicals at the time as not a real Christian, yet I don't remember this degree of hysteria. I am too young to remember the Honest to God controversy (or indeed Lux Mundi!), but wonder whether the conservative reaction was in any degree similar or not, and if not, why not? What has changed, and why?

I've got to agree with Margaret on the polygamy issue (I know , Margaret, I'm a bit shaken too:-)). My understanding is that the African economia on this is to accept those who are in polygamous marriages when they convert, since asking men to repudiate second, and more, wives would put these women and their children in severe hardship. One may not enter a polygamous marriage if one is already a Christian. If this isn't the case, I stand to be corrected. That is quite different from "the gay issue". All the same, it is a bit churlish for people who benefit from such a bending of the rules to be so adamant in their condemnation of others, IMNSHO.
It would also be well to note that traditionally, and one can see this in numerous stories of the saints and the Fathers, when couples have decided to put their spiritual lives above their marriages, both tended to take vows, entering into the monastic life. Might I suggest this might be a better solution than the approval of an obviously sinful state. Husband becomes a monk, wives become nuns, and the church can look after any minor children. Or, the polygamous marriages could stay together, with the spouses taking vows of celebacy till the kids are grown, then they all enter monastic life. There would be no question then of the church approving an anomalous marriage, and the resultant increase in the number of religious could only be a benefit to the spiritual life of the Church in Africa. And lifelong celebacy isn't in any way a hardship, after all, they certainly demand it, on pain of jail, for 10% of the population.

Canon Twinaami's offering is interesting, and clearly offered in good faith. However, there are aspects of the American scene that he clearly did not understand, despite his experience in the United States.

First, he seems to describe the context, both within and without the church, in which "laws are enforceable" as unique to the American scene, and (perhaps) compelling only for American Anglicans. However, this situation could be said safely, I think, to obtain for Anglicans in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom; and perhaps in other provinces.

It is also worth noting that all of these nations, and the Anglicans within them, have been faced by issues of civil rights for minorities of race, national origin, or immigrant status. Those issues have also been important in such "Global South" nations as South Africa and Brazil. The dynamics he describes of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States are hardly as unique as he presents.

He contrasts the legal arguments for expanding rights to more minorities with theological arguments for restraint in some circumstances. He fails to recognize how important in American (and other) contexts have been the Biblical and theological arguments for Civil Rights for all people. Indeed, in many ways the Movement was driven by the Biblical arguments for freedom articulated by the African American churches. His failure to consider such arguments now reflects his failure to recognize such arguments then.

He clearly appreciates the stability and security enjoyed by American Anglicans, both within and without the Church. He somehow doesn't consider how Global South churches might pursue such benefits for members in the wider society (something that a number are certainly pursuing), or within the Church. Perhaps he simply has no hope that the Church might embrace such internal change.

"... but wonder whether the conservative reaction was in any degree similar or not, and if not, why not? What has changed, and why?"

Three little words: The Age of Bush, Cheney and Rove. The new Political, Economic and Social Anarchism, benefitting from two generations passing since last time (we never learn, do we?)

Hi Erika

Your posting here reminds us how numbers can be important.

There is a qualitative issue of whether aggression is acceptable. As posted elsewhere, it only took one to kill Abel. Proverbs 26:21 "As charcoal to embers and as wood to fire, so is a quarrelsome man for kindling strife." Or to paraphrase other proverbs "Better to live on a corner of a roof than with a quarrelsome spouse, or be in the wilderness than in communion with quarrelsome priests."

Thus there is a qualitative issue that it is not appropriate to deny grace and deprive access to the Sabbath to any consenting soul: whether they be male or female, Jew or Gentile, healthy or afflicted. It is not acceptable to abuse the least lest the precedent is set to abuse the "best".

That said, your posting reminds us that quantity can change the dynamics of how much damage is done. For example, a society that has embraced racial purity and the "final solution" for the afflicted and outcastes will launch into mass scale genocide. A church that condones the suppression of unpleasant voices can inadvertently nurture lynch gangs such as the Klu Klux Klan. A church that espouses the superiority of men and the silent submission of women is risks having a higher rate of unreported domestic abuse against its female parishioners or other vulnerables.

This highlights why Isaiah 49 and the secular state. Morality and justice do not belong to one individual or priestly caste. Outside witnesses protect the vulnerable within the communities as well as acting as a check to stop aggressive thinking becoming too embedded and leading to hate societies.

The anti-vilification legislation in the UK is a logical response to lovers of aggression who attempt to incite acting out hate thinking. We don't want Christian males persecuted so in kind we must protect all other members of society, including those some would attempt to dis-enfranchise.

Armageddon is meant to be the end of the world. God's way of doing Armageddon is using the bible as a scalpel to neuter rogue bull priests who sought to rape and plunder this planet into extinction. Human males go for the biggest bang; God goes for the best results. It is the end of the world as they knew it, nearly 2000 years of misogyny and tyranny is quite enough.

Fr Mark asks, "What has changed and why?"

What I have been told is that the Evangelicals are more powerful in the C of E than was once the case & are exercising that power (or attempting to).

Marshall Scott makes a good point -- while civil corruption might be the norm in Africa, certainly one hopes that there are some places besides the USDA where the expectation is that the laws will be enforced regards of a dictator's whim (although some of us in the States are crossing our fingers on this one ...)

I really find Twinamaani's essay stimulating. But I do think he gets a few angles pretty off-kilter.

His take on civil rights digs into things as citizenship matters of equality, and rather misses the religious importance. Just one example: Many believers, Episcopalians included, became active in the USA Civil Rights Movement exemplified by Dr. MLK JR., and that experience - including being killed under suspicious circumstances in the Deep South during voter registration drives and the like - had tremendous mystical holiness impact.

Suddenly as these things go, on a wide scale, being for the excluded neighbor was as holy as, say, forgoing sex might have been - in the second century CE. Just as risky, just as radically committed, just as revelatory of a new way to live. This can be skewed and tilted by emphasizing individual rights, only if one forgets that equal rights by definition apply to all, for all, from all to all. Your freedom to genuinely discern for yourself is my freedom to genuinely discern - we may be quite different, but we depend upon our basic human space to be, to think, to prayer, to weigh anew, and to change for the better.

The I have a dream speech is for all, not just about African American civil rights.

Twinamaani cannot quite grasp that this had gospel depths: Judge not, that we be not judged - in the same, small, narrow minded doctrinal manner.

There is, therefore, in the equalities and hunger for justice of the American DNA a profound hunger for God - prophetic, just, and committed to a free organicity of the church as the body of Jesus in the hurting world. If USA Anglicans discern a message in VGR and New Hampshire, the message is a familiar one: We have met the enemy, and the people we have called Enemies are our own sons and daughters. This has been such a recurring inter-generational lesson for the past several decades of USA life that one is amazed to overlook its touchstones - leeway, agreeing to disagree, and freedom of considerable conscience and discernment held balanced inside common life in worship and witness. The queer folks are us then, our children, our own family, our friends, our coworkers, our neighbors raising children just down the block.

Ford Elms said:
"I've got to agree with Margaret on the polygamy issue (I know , Margaret, I'm a bit shaken too:-)).'

Actually Ford I am not in the least surprised that we agree. What has surprised me in the last few days has been what has been read into my posts. I have repeatedly stated that people are finding things in them that were not written there -- but that has been dismissed as disingenuous.

I have been very disappointed to discover the way people here interact with those who they perceive as the enemy. It would be an understatement to say that it has not been a pleasant experience.

Such is life!

RE the Mapping:

Honestly, I think that if there is a scheme Strongly against, Lightly against, Lightly for, Strongly for on homosexuality, there must also be the same 4 for ecclesiology – and corresponding criteria…

As is obvious, some like the Episcopal trappings of funny hats and Right Reverends without actually caring two pence about the Church as organization, or the Territorial issue of Dioceses from Nicea, being Congregationalists at heart.

And then there is the question: Is this important enough to break the church asunder?

As we know, anything that comes handy would meet that requirement, for some.

I have been very disappointed to discover the way people here interact with those who they perceive as the enemy. It would be an understatement to say that it has not been a pleasant experience.

Such is life!

(Margaret, 8.30 am., yesterday)

Margaret bach

Do you think you may have had a hand in this, in some way, yourself ? I know these things are very complex. Especially via this impersonal means of communication, with its limitations.

I may have added to your woes, myself. Regretably.
Perhaps a new start of some kind may be possible ?

I am known informally as Robert in some circles and will sign off , using this name, to avoid just a (now too formal it feels) family name,

Robert

Goran Koch-Swahne: "Three little words: The Age of Bush, Cheney and Rove. The new Political, Economic and Social Anarchism, benefitting from two generations passing since last time (we never learn, do we?)"

Wasn't there a junior minister in the Republic of Germany that likened Bush to Hitler? And this was before 9/11/Iraq/Iran.

No, we never do learn. And we need to take our enemies seriously. Religious extremism is alive and well in the good 'ole USA. I don't think our friends on the other side of the pond realize how powerful the fundamentalist/"religious right" is over here. Somebody remarked about military recruitment drives going on in these "churches". I'm anything but surprised.

Margaret - its been a soft ride for you in comparison to how I was treated on some conservative sites!

Ford Elms said, "My understanding is that the African economia on this is to accept those who are in polygamous marriages when they convert, since asking men to repudiate second, and more, wives would put these women and their children in severe hardship."

Fair enough -- this sounds like a charitable compromise. My question has always been how (before Lambeth) this compromise was arrived at. Did they check to make sure western Anglicans would not be offended? How did they determine this?

Goran said, "Three little words: The Age of Bush, Cheney and Rove" to explain the strength of the conservative response this time compared to previous controversies.

How about three little letters: "www"? Nowadays some church in Seattle has a study group on "Astrology and the Magi" and mouths start to foam all over the world within minutes (see Titusonenine yesterday). I think conservative episcopalians honestly have come to believe that the mainline TEC church down the road has incorporated Hindu, Muslim, astrological and God knows what else traditions into the BCP liturgy (as I believe the bishop of Rochester recently suggested) because they've heard so many horrified one-off reports. (If they'd had an internet in the middle ages, would they have allowed the development of the Sarum Rite?)

Merseymike

Just to remind you of WHY you were treated the way you were:

"As a frequent visitor here and occasional poster, I often find myself quitting reading a thread of comments as soon as I see a MM post. It’s not that I have anything personal against him or his ideas, it’s just that his interjections usually mark the end of any useful comments about the original post and the comment thread, more often then not, gets side tracked into a discussion centered around his comments"

I couldn’t agree more, and that’s why I just banned him. Spirited dissent from revisionists is one thing, but monopolizing every other thread is another. If he wants to get his own blog where he can monopolize the conversation, they’re available for free at Blogspot. Adios, Mike. "
Standfirm banning Merseymike.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4502/#83686

By contrast I have commented more than once only on a couple of threads in the last ---- well probably six months but I haven't counted carefully --- and I have tried to be polite, concise and to the point, and only raised issues when I thought they were extremely relevant and significant.

But then again I have only been treated as the enemy not banned so I supposed that is alright ...

Just to prove that I might be guilty of monopolising after all ....

Mark, you asked:
"Fair enough -- this sounds like a charitable compromise. My question has always been how (before Lambeth) this compromise was arrived at. Did they check to make sure western Anglicans would not be offended? How did they determine this?"

What makes you think that this compromise was worked out before Lambeth --- I got the impression that that was why there was a Lambeth decision, to reach a common view after discussing it with everyone? Why do you think otherwise?

Mark wrote: “conservative episcopalians honestly have come to believe that the mainline TEC church down the road has incorporated Hindu, Muslim, astrological and God knows what else traditions into the BCP liturgy (as I believe the bishop of Rochester recently suggested) because they've heard so many horrified one-off reports.”

Must be pretty horrible to feel what not being “out there” ready to get you. OMG! Killer tomatoes attack! But no, I wasn’t thinking of the web, the networking, but the lying, the Propaganda (learnt in big books from the 1920ies, never in disrepute on the other side of the Atlantic, it seems). The constant lying over un-necessaries.

I can understand with people lying when they are cornered, or in a jam to get away. But I still think it is stupid and contra productive, but this constant irrational lying as a Tool, as Method…

: - (

I wondered that too, Margaret.

I think Mark is thinking of 1998 as t h e Lambeth, making Lambeth 1988 b e f o r e...

(that's how I read it)

Margaret quoted from Stand Firm: “As a frequent visitor here and occasional poster, I often find myself quitting reading a thread of comments as soon as I see a MM post. It’s not that I have anything personal against him or his ideas, it’s just that his interjections usually mark the end of any useful comments about the original post and the comment thread, more often then not, gets side tracked into a discussion centred around his comments.

I couldn’t agree more, and that’s why I just banned him. Spirited dissent from revisionists is one thing, but monopolizing every other thread is another. If he wants to get his own blog where he can monopolize the conversation, they’re available for free at Blogspot. Adios, Mike."

This is very typical of the attitudes permeating that unmentionable place. And very insolent.

Moreover; there is nothing in the post which allows the reader to verify the content. And I think this is the significant difference.

Bad attitudes – Verification. But no look, no see.

Have you no response to my sincere olive branch, then, Margaret ?

May be you missed it. Easily done, I know.

I hate to say this, but if I recall correctly Merseymike was also banned from the Ship of Fools message boards, hardly a bastion of conservatism.

From my research he was banned for crusading against evangelicals. Crusading is considered anathema on the SoF boards. It's likely that the same behavior got him in trouble on Stand Firm.

Just so it doesn't appear he's been a victim of persecution.

Margaret says, "What makes you think that this compromise was worked out before Lambeth"

I was just curious about the back-story. Was there an expectation that this issue had to be run past an international body before the national church could act, or is that a post-98 expectation? Was the decision at 88 Lambeth seen as a pastoral presentation to the churches of the AC or a binding decision? Did the national churches appeal for a ruling before acting? That sort of thing.

"It's likely that the same behavior got him in trouble on Stand Firm."

Could you provide some evidence for this rather than just assume a certain likelyhood?

Respectable blogs have proper searchable archives and don't just delete old postings they don't like, so it should not be too difficult.

I hate to say this, but if I recall correctly Merseymike was also banned from the Ship of Fools message boards, hardly a bastion of conservatism.

From my research he was banned for crusading against evangelicals. Crusading is considered anathema on the SoF boards. It's likely that the same behavior got him in trouble on Stand Firm.

Just so it doesn't appear he's been a victim of persecution.

Posted by: Ren Aguila on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 11:22am GMT

The ship of fools would appear to be run by a bunch of control freaks, unfortuantely.

"The ship of fools would appear to be run by a bunch of control freaks, unfortunately." - L Roberts, 2005 hrs GMT
L. Roberts, the question of moderation on that site and indeed on any other message board is always a controversial thing. Some decisions to suspend or remove someone can always receive protest. I am certain that this has happened, but since some people have concerns about assertions without proof, I won't go there for the moment.

As a counterexample, I know that a Sydney Anglican was thrown out of the ship within the year for, well, picking a fight with a number of people, including the moderators/hosts. Of course, a decision like this would divide a group.

My point is, when Jesus spoke about taking the log out of your own eye, the principle is that before we make judgments on others we first judge ourselves. And we cannot deceive ourselves into thinking, all the time, that the "enemy" is wrong if they don't do something we don't like. Perhaps it is us who are wrong.

So as with the Ship of Fools or Stand Firm, it is so with the Anglican Communion. People get excluded from different circles for different reasons; I think the best reason is that the activists/extremists on both sides have yet to learn to "think."

What if one day God revealed to us that indeed heterosexuality was God's will for humanity's survival, right alongside caring for the environment? If the Bible is actually silent, maybe God will have to speak up at some point. Or what if it were that God revealed that it was not a divine concern as to whom one slept in bed with?
What would happen? I know that the finger-pointing, witch-hunting, and so on will continue.

And the rest will live their lives as if God is dead.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

"As a frequent visitor here and occasional poster, I often find myself quitting reading a thread of comments as soon as I see a MM post. It’s not that I have anything personal against him or his ideas, it’s just that his interjections usually mark the end of any useful comments about the original post and the comment thread, more often then not, gets side tracked into a discussion centered around his comments"

I couldn’t agree more, and that’s why I just banned him. Spirited dissent from revisionists is one thing, but monopolizing every other thread is another. If he wants to get his own blog where he can monopolize the conversation, they’re available for free at Blogspot. Adios, Mike. "
Standfirm banning Merseymike.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Of course, using that standard, old NP (and a few others) should have been banned here months ago.

So, Margaret, rather w eek proof for your argument that this liberal board is no much less tolerant than your sine qua non "conservative" boards.

L Roberts
You are quite right - I missed it -- as you may or may not have noticed I don't come each day (a sign of a large job and having a family of four children I suppose) but rather every few days if life is not too hectic.

Thanks for the olive branch.

More generally to listers here (ie not specifically talking about L Roberts):

Could I try to gently suggest that those who oppose your views do not have horns, nor cloven feet, but they do have sincerely held views that actually do have an awful lot of support in the church universal, by people of great intellect as well as those of small.

Perhaps it might be worth occasionally trying to hear what they are saying -- rather than reacting to what you think they are saying. There is an awful lot of fighting of your own carefully created straw-folk going on!!!!

Margaret "[...] those who oppose your views do not have horns, nor cloven feet, but they do have sincerely held views [...]"

Hear, hear.

Unfortunately, it is far too easy to label ourselves and others (look at Andrew Goddard's latest Fulcrum newsletter as a good example). So much time is spent rallying behind campaign banners that we lose sight of Christ (myself included). I feel the individual and honest testimony from posters trying their best to live as Christians is lost beneath the accusation of "reasserter" and "reassessors" - in doing so, we lose sight of our spiritual North in Christ.

"Are you the Judean People's Front?

**** off.

What?

Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea"

"Could I try to gently suggest that those who oppose your views do not have horns, nor cloven feet, but they do have sincerely held views that actually do have an awful lot of support in the church universal, by people of great intellect as well as those of small."

May I gently suggest the same to many of those on your side of this fence, Margaret?

Margaret: "Could I try to gently suggest that those who oppose your views do not have horns, nor cloven feet, but they do have sincerely held views that actually do have an awful lot of support in the church universal, by people of great intellect as well as those of small."

Amen to that, Margaret.

You might want to make that suggestion to some of your friends at Stand Firm, Virtueonline and cetera. I, for one, have grown tired of having them lie about me.

Margaret: I suppose that gay Anglicans are feeling rather embattled. But then, that is not surprising, as we have been talked about, talked past, and talked out of existence as decent human beings by the dominant loud voices in the C of E, relentlessly, for several years now. What has happened is a pastoral disaster for the Church of England: no group of people should have to put up with being spoken about endlessly as, at best, a "problem", and, at worst, inclined to some unique "evil."

Margaret
"Could I try to gently suggest that those who oppose your views do not have horns, nor cloven feet, but they do have sincerely held views that actually do have an awful lot of support in the church universal, by people of great intellect as well as those of small."

You can "gently" suggest, thank you.
And in that spirit we might all be much more inclined to listen.
I agree, emotions often run away with us here.

So can I please ask for a little understanding? Many of the conservatives here post with little comprehension that they are talking directly to the same people they criticise in the strongest words, often with barely concealed hatred. We have developed a rather strong sensitivity about this and don't always find it easy to be polite.

Please, whenever you post, remember that what for you is a mere theological issue, however passionately you feel about it, is for us a public debate and judgement about our very lives. It is intensely personal and we are intensely vulnerable. That does make us an ill tempered lot at times.
If you can be extra gentle with us I'm sure we can rise to the challenge. Read every post before you send it and imagine that you are saying it directly to me over a glass of wine. If you would employ a different tone then, change your post.

I will try to do the same.

..."for us a public debate and judgement about our very lives."-Erika Baker

Please remember this. This is why we cry so easily. While watching a church fracture just because one of our brothers choose not to lie.

Choirboyfromhell said "Please remember this. This is why we cry so easily. While watching a church fracture just because one of our brothers choose not to lie."

If this is your diagnosis of the current dispute, I strongly suggest you are fighting a straw-person. This is not about honesty -- nor about publicity -- not about church divisions, though all of those may be an outcome of the dispute.

It is far more basic than that. It is about how it is determined what is right and what is wrong for Christian behaviour. That is why the dispute is so serious, and that is why the consequences for the church universal are so significant.

(PS by the church universal I mean the consequences are far reaching -- not just confined to the Episcopal church, nor the Anglican church world-wide, but rather this dispute within the worldwide Anglican church will have ramifications for every denomination and will have consequences for future generations not just for this one.)

Margaret
"It is far more basic than that. It is about how it is determined what is right and what is wrong for Christian behaviour."

What makes you think that it is not about that for us?

Margaret:

If opening up the sacrament of matrimony (a misnomer, I admit) to the LGBT brings a population closer to stable, loving long-term relationships, then I guess I would agree with you that this could be construed a behavioral re-adjustment. The Christian Church could well lead the way in encouraging this group to lead better lives of it, but instead, reacts with fury.

Certainly the fundie" (as we call them in the U.S.) or evangelical attacks on the Church in it's moves towards accpetance of LGBT people certainly bespeak lack of "Christian behavior".

Yes, I agree, behavior is something that many adults have lost sense of. Perhaps it begins with treating others as you would treat yourself.

I certainly do not look to 'church leaders' to make this determination on my behalf...

When so many from the 'top down' lie and deceive, it isnspires little confidence.

But when one is totally transparent and is vilified and hounded for it, with his family, then it is ahrd to find words for such a disgrace.
Churchmen (sic) should hang their heads in sahme, every time the media refer to Bishop Robinson as " the openly gay bishop." The media know there are many others too afraid to speak out or come out. They can expect no support from their colleagues--c.f. the case of othe Dean of St. Albans.

What can such people possibly offer us ' about how it is determined what is right and what is wrong for Christian behaviour' ? !

"f this is your diagnosis of the current dispute, I strongly suggest you are fighting a straw-person. This is not about honesty..."

Dare I suggest it's about dis-honesty?

"It is about how it is determined what is right and what is wrong for Christian behaviour."

For me, Margaret, it is as much about the ability of those doing the determining of what is right and wrong to actually do that. When someone demands a strict adherence to certain Biblical passages that arguably refer to what we today call a homosexual relationship, then turns right around and ignores Biblical dictums that are even more clear, but that uncomfortably apply to him, then what credence can I give him? When someone claims to be standing up for the Truth, then lies about gay people having shorter lifespans, or being pedophiles, or being able to change their "chosen" sexuality, how can he be said to even know what the truth is, let alone defend it? When someone claims to be a Christian, yet calls other human beings inhuman, tries to jail them, and claims that anyone who disagrees with him is a "cancer on the Body of Christ" and is faithless and doesn't even read, let alone believe the Bible, how can that person be said to be showing forth the Gospel in his own life, let alone be able to teach it to others? This is why the issue is so important for me. I look at the behaviour of people like Peter Akinola, Jack Iker, Don Harvey, Bob Duncan, et al, and I am convinced that, whatever my discomfort with the theology around gay inclusion, the "other side" cannot possibly be right. If they were right, if they actually understood the Gospel, they would show it in their lives, and, whatever the failings of the Left (and I think there ar some doozies), I am forced to conclude that the Right does not actually represent the Gospel in the world. Where-ever the Gospel truth is on this issue, it is not too be found in the conservative camp. Not saying it's in the liberal one either, but it is far more difficult to discount the Left than the Right, since the Left is actually trying to embody the Two Great Commandments, the Right seems to be unaware either of them exists.