So, it looks, if I read it correctly, as if:
The Anglican Church has a duty to work for respect for the human rights of gay people;

but, if, any part of the Anglican Church actually does incorporate respect for the human rights of gay people into its way of conducting itself, then it has gone too far;

therefore, TEC needs to have some heavies sent in to give the leadership a good talking to;

and nothing will happen to the leadership of the Province of the Southern Cone, so it can go on making new bishops, except they may not get invitations to the tea party next summer.

Is this what it comes down to? Because, if so, I think it is unlikely to be of much help: the issue of just treatment for gay people in the church is not going to go away simply by trying to ignore it.

Curious how Rowan completely ignores the recent actions of San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Pittsburgh. If he wasn't attempting to put those actions in context--or at least speak of them in some way--why has he waited until the third week of Advent to release this letter?

TEC is out. Slap on the wrists for breakaways and border crossers, but they will be gathered in. Teaching is by majority and not consensus, so all the prophetic minorities are out with TEC.

Sounds like the death knell of the Anglican Communion to me. And it won't do the Church of England much good either.

I'm surprised.

As a gay Episcopal Priest I have utmost respect and gratitude for the ABC as a theologian and as the spiritual leader of our Communion, even where I cannot agree with him. This is a complex statement, but then so is the situation.

I do question what may sound like the continued characterization of my and others' reading of Scripture as a "Radical change in the way we read." Is it so radical, or are we simply insisting on applying the same standards of responsible and faithful scholarship to the "clobber verses" that we apply to other, similarly tangential comments in the Bible?

Our readings may be PERCEIVED as radical, but if so, what does that say about those who are perceiving them in that way?

Furthermore, I find it very odd to say that these readings of the Bible are "determined by one group or tradition alone." Is there a way to isolate a group or tradition here that is not question-begging?

These readings are shared by faithful scholars from all sorts of traditions and confessions. It is no longer a radical innovation to view the Bible as a diverse collection of quite fallible human testimonies to a God who dares to come to us on our terms and draw us into a common life. It was a major shift in understanding at one time, but not now, and certainly not for the ABC.

And once that shift is made, no one should be surprised if some of us do not see a scattered assemblage of tangential remarks as especially binding when we are making sense of relationships rooted prayerfully in mutual love.

There is nothing radical here, only a perception of radicality.

Just a few points that concern me:

"The common acknowledgment that we stand under the authority of Scripture as 'the rule and ultimate standard of faith'," is not the same thing as "a common reading and understanding of Scripture." The first has indeed been a "first condition of recognisability;" but when did the second become the necessary expression of the first? When indeed did standing on the Summary of the Law and the calls for justice in the Prophets cease to be standing "under the authority of Scripture?"

I'm somewhat relieved to finally hear 1998 1.10 described as "the only point of reference clearly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the Communion," and not some sort of new "canonical" statement. Not that anyone has ever really treated it as such: those most concerned that The Episcopal Church has not properly heard the first clause have clearly not properly heard the second. At the same time, if "The Instruments of Communion have consistently and very strongly repeated that it is part of our Christian and Anglican discipleship to condemn homophobic prejudice and violence, to defend the human rights and civil liberties of homosexual people and to offer them the same pastoral care and loving service that we owe to all in Christ's name," how can even those participants hold Lambeth 1998-1.10 as a critical "touch point," without having circumscribed what constitutes "the same pastoral care and loving service?"

How are we to stand with "The common acknowledgement of an authentic ministry of Word and Sacrament" as a standard when in large parts of the communion there is disagreement that "his Word also calls men and *women* in other contexts and raises up for them as for us a ministry which can be recognised as performing the same tasks?" (emphasis mine) There is indeed division as to whether God might call women to "the same tasks," not only between provinces but within provinces.

I hear his intent for further consultations. I think we in the Episcopal Church should participate. However, I'm not hopeful that in the short run (between now and Lambeth, and perhaps the 2009 General Convention) opinions will change; or that in the long run the Communion-as-we-have-known-it can be salvaged.

badman - I didn't read it as saying TEC is out. I read it as saying come to Lambeth, let's work out a covenant that determines what Anglicanism stands for, then we'll see who is out and who is in. Schismatics are just as much at risk of being out as TEC.

But the bottom line is Rowan doesn't want the appearance of he, himself, making the calls. He wants it to look like a "real" consensus. He's going to continue to use "panels" and "meetings" through which to channel his desires.

He was clear that TEC's take on the inclusiveness of gays was not necessarily a Communion breaking position - there is clearly no consensus that it is. But until the AC can come to some sort of consensus as to who or what speaks for the AC - sorting out whose in or out is simply not possible and he's NOT going to have a go at it himself.

Finally, his veiled language as to who get's to call themselves Anglican - I think is a direct shot at schismatics in general - and Common Cause in particular. The more they go about touting themselves as the real Anglicans - the less likely that he will be interested in full communion with them at some later date.

"The Instruments of Communion have consistently and very strongly repeated that it is part of our Christian and Anglican discipleship to condemn homophobic prejudice and violence, to defend the human rights and civil liberties of homosexual people and to offer them the same pastoral care and loving service that we owe to all in Christ's name."

Yet not a word on the proposed Nigerian legislation, not a word on Uganda and Rwanda, not a word on Homophobia in Africa in general, and not a word on the situation in Central Africa and Kenya re Zimbabwe.

Only the dissing of TEC General Convention, talk about "Windsor" bishops, and the mumbo jumbo of a Covenant.

This letter does not persuade me there will be a Lambeth Conference next year.

Krystallnacht.

Now Anglicans are to be true to the injunction not to make windows on men's souls. They will just be smashed instead. Unless you are pure enough to join the New Covenant Party, that is.

I am surprised how hurt I am by the ABC's letter; it is pain that comes from a conviction that much abuse and oppression will be set free by this. I also honestly believe that this will be a matter of bitter remorse for him one day.

May God have mercy on us all.

Fr Mark wrote: "So, it looks, if I read it correctly, as if: The Anglican Church has a duty to work for respect for the human rights of gay people; but, if, any part of the Anglican Church actually does incorporate respect for the human rights of gay people into its way of conducting itself, then it has gone too far"

You are miss-reading. ++Rowan is, I think, working on the basis of "love the sinner, hate the sin". Equality of Human Rights should not just be on the basis of equal approval. Otherwise Human Rights will just become another means of decidiong who is more, or less, equal - rather than maximising freedoms and equality for all.

But there is no place for judgmental attitudes within human rights.
Indeed, those rights absolutely must be based on equal parity. Thus, if the Anglican church cannot accept full equality, then their claims to support human rights for gay people are meaningless and hollow. Bogus, in fact.

The best place for gay men and lesbians is OUTSIDE the Anglican Communion. I want TEC to positively break away and start something new. This is simply not reformable whilst conservatives still believe in their vile and harmful religion.

people have talked a lot about this man's holiness. well, i've seen some holy people in my time, and often they were rough around the edges, risky, uncomfortable, and on the edge of acceptablity. RW seems to me to be the sort of person that non-christians like to think of as holy - warm-looking, smiley, soft-spoken, with a puzzled look. but when it comes to standing up for the oppressed and the hurt he is nowhere to be seen. i don't think you get high office in the church by being holy, but by looking it. the bishop of hereford was awarded Bigot of the Year for one small error in making an appointment. RW has systematically made life more difficult for gay people over and over again, and has tried to harden the mind of the church against them. this letter ought really to be enough for him to take the title away from the bishop of hereford.

I want to read this several times; as I think of a comment there is something bugging me, either in the detail or what it all means.

My immediate thought (that needs other thought) is that this is just a little too late for events. There is too much of if this then that but if that then this - how it can go from a position where TEC seems to be in to a position where it can be out again.

This sort of merry go round, nip and tuck, has passed. Canada is not mentioned, and yet it is under the same assault. The cracks are opening now all over the place, even down to a few bishops in England.

To me, again as an immediate reaction, the Anglican Communion is too weak, and it is not the body that can do this, and efforts to strengthen it will just weaken it further. We even have Rowan Williams questioning the qualified episcopacy of TEC - well if that is also a very serious concern (as the bishops will wait for the General Covention and is decision making) then perhaps this whole exercise is wasting its time.

The Bible view is flawed, because it is heavily towards the literalistic, and the Communion view is, as I think there is his not quite Freudian slip somewhere, too much an "Anglican Church". The real flaw may be, then, that this Anglican Church lacks the means of a Church - it does not have the necessary hierarchy to itself, that would maintain a unity and would prevent crossing borders. This is where the whole thing does not add up.

If so, then the issue is how the Anglican Church will live with the differences and the cracks and the duplications, rather than one massive sticking plaster that cannot possibly hold the thing together, and for which the main players have no intention of having put over themselves.

The letter suggests to me that +Rowan is maintaining his commitment to non-violence in the context of relationships of communion. With many voices urging him to act he seems committed to holding open the possibility of peaceful communion and discussion, even and paerhaps particularly in the presence of disagreement and dissent.

I don't thing that his position on what Anglicanism is will logically allow him to do anything else, for any attempt to forclose the debate is an attempt to foreclose the discursive identity of the communion and to concede to a polity of power. Short term this is very difficult, but when has an Anglican way of discipleship ever been easy, or indeed quick?

Responses on this thread have been largely predictable. It might help everyone to read it again and try and work out what he is actually saying. I find Craig Uffman's comments on covenant-communion.com to be perceptive and well worth a read.

The best place for gay men and lesbians is inside the Anglican Communion. There is much to be said for being the seed growing secretly and the leaven in the lump. We are more likely to discover the pearl of great price that way. Don't go! There is much support.

David Wh: it is utterly illogical to claim to be in favour of human rights for gay people, and then to also be in favour of maintaining overt discrimination solely on the basis of sexual orientation (as happened to Jeffrey John, famously). A child could see that, I think, but apparently not a conservative churchperson. It doesn't add up, it doesn't convince, and it makes the church look like it doesn't think things through. How does that attract the unchurched?

What I most recall is Ephraim Radner's statement on a comment on the blog Stand Firm: "Lambeth can be whatever Lambeth wants to be". He followed up with let Lambeth 2008 finish what 1998 began and then noted, that by such witness the Church will be able to recognize the work of the Holy Spirit.

I saw his comments as majority and history of the majority (aka "tradition") wins. But I was certainly uneasy in his implication that this is how we discern the work of the Spirit. I fear the tyranny of the majority, its ability to oppress, not matter whether its right or left that "wins"

I am worried about the Lambeth agenda, by whom will it be created and how will either the left or right try to steamroll it? There is no question that the right was very successful in 1998. (Lambeth 1.10 was a floor resolution, and as noted by Brooks and Shields of The New Hours Hour, a 20% minority, well organized, can seize control of any democratic legislative body and bend the will of the majority to its will.) How will be safeguards be put in place so that, such as what happened at Dromantine and Dar-es...the steam roller effect, doesn't happen...?

+Rowan is trusting, as I expected, to hold the Communion together until Lambeth and, then rely on the development of a covenant. Clearly +Cantuar is showing no inclination to boot the great majority of TEC bishops out of Lambeth. By contrast, he is putting those adventuring in other provinces and those who ordain them to this service on notice that, at minimum, those who so serve extra-provincially aren't to be invited....Questions: Who of the TEC bishops have said they will not comply with the moratorium, additionally? Windsor? Are they at risk to have their invitations revoked? Who among the cross-provincial raiders and consecrators are at risk of having their invitations revoked.?

And where are +Schofield, +Duncan, +Iker, + Beckwith, +Atkinson in this?

It will be interesting to see how +Akinola et al. react. He has said if all his bishops aren't invited, none will be coming. +Williams has made clear, +Minns and +Anderson are unwelcome. +Abuja drew a line in the sand and it looks like +Rowan has jumped it cleanly.

>Indeed, those rights absolutely must be based on equal parity. Thus, if the Anglican church cannot accept full equality, then their claims to support human rights for gay people are meaningless and hollow. Bogus, in fact.

Amen.

And, Human Being (second class)this middle aged, white, straight female is also hurt. Hurt because the Church that I freely chose as an adult is becoming something other than the inclusive, joyous church that I joined.

Also distressing to me is the disrespect of the polity of TEC --

"A somewhat complicating factor in the New Orleans statement has been the provision that any kind of moratorium is in place until General Convention provides otherwise. Since the matters at issue are those in which the bishops have a decisive voice as a House of Bishops in General Convention, puzzlement has been expressed as to why the House should apparently bind itself to future direction from the Convention. If that is indeed what this means, it is in itself a decision of some significance. It raises a major ecclesiological issue, [snip] Once again, there seems to be a gap between what some in The Episcopal Church understand about the ministry of bishops and what is held elsewhere in the Communion . . ."

Having come from the Roman Catholic tradition it is precisely the TEC's understanding of the role of all the Church in discerning the will of God that called to me.

"love the sinner, hate the sin".

Do you seriously think anyone takes this pious mumbo-jumbo seriously? Come on, no-one on the Right has ever shown anything other than hatred as great for the sinner as for the sin. You do not love us. That is abundantly clear. Stop trying to make us believe what is patently a lie. You(plural) might think we're stupid enough to believe you, but that's your problem. I assure you, I and any other gay person can see through you. Anyone could. It's not hard to see that someone doesn't really have your best interests at heart when they are kicking your face in. You love us so much, you see nothing wrong with jailing someone who councils us to accept ourselves rather than killing ourselves. You love us so much you are willing to spread falsehoods against us. Yeah, right. Some love for the gay sinner in conservative Christian circles. How stupid do you think we are?

The Archbishop and many others seem puzzled (see the discussion going on over at Episcopal Cafe) that the HOB condition their responses on future acts of the GC. As the HOB are a house--the _junior_ house--of the Convention, it seems difficult to see how they can say, "we won't agree to this now, but GC may say differently": if they continue to not agree to it, GC by definition can't say differently. So it looks as though the Bishops are avoiding their duty as teachers of the faith. Let me propose, though, a different way of looking at it: suppose, during a time when the Congress was not in session, the Senators met and decided that, on the basis of their considered judgment, they would simply not entertain any proposals from the House on some topic. I don't know of anything that would prevent them from doing so, but I can also imagine that the House might conclude that this was only one step away from collusion. They are Bishops as part of the One Holy and Apostolic Church, but they have dioceses, jurisdiction, and a vote in GC, only by action of the GC (just as +Rowan has diocese and jurisdiction only by action of the Crown): they are, at once, overseers of the Church Catholic and creatures of the General Convention. So a bishop might honorably and rationally feel that his duty as a GC legislator was at least to be open to participating in the legislative process, rather than to foreclose that process on the basis of his understanding as teacher of the faith.

C.B. I would love it if the ABC did not mean that TEC is out.

But!

He says you can't come to Lambeth UNLESS you sign up to the Windsor Report - "acceptance of the invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the Conference's agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant." If you think Windsor is just a report, or a process, you can't come. You can only come in order to implement Windsor.

The Lambeth conference is not "merely a general consultation" (merely, indeed! How mere is consultation for a Church, for Christians?) The Lambeth Conference is "seeking an authoritative common voice". If you're not seeking an authoritative common voice (clarified elsewhere as set by majority, not consensus), you don't belong there, according to the ABC.

The ABC is going to convene a "small group... to consider whether in the present circumstances it is possible for provinces or individual bishops at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion to participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including ecumenical bodies." So the exclusion of North Americans from, for example, the ACC is likely to continue.

Oh, and in case that's not clear enough, TEC's fundamental polity, which pre-dates its re-connection with Canterbury, and long pre-dates the Lambeth Conferences and other Anglican Communion bodies, is not allowed. That's what the ABC implies by "a major ecclesiological issue... about the understanding in The Episcopal Church of the distinctive charism of bishops as an order and their responsibility for sustaining doctrinal standards."

I'm sorry, I really am sorry, but the ABC is hanging TEC out to dry.

"The best place for gay men and lesbians is OUTSIDE the Anglican Communion. I want TEC to positively break away and start something new."

It KILLS me to say this . . . but I'm coming to agree w/ Merseymike.

Once you get past the UNBELIEVABLE SPIN that is "the 1998 Resolution is the only point of reference clearly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the Communion" (Exsqueeze me?! :-0 The "overwhelming majority of the Communion" are LAY PEOPLE---who weren't asked---thank you very much! And AS IF that +++Carey-manipulated Instant Disaster could replace TEC's *decades* of prayerful discernment???), there's (rather directly) this:

" puzzlement has been expressed as to why the House should apparently bind itself to future direction from the Convention. If that is indeed what this means, it is in itself a decision of some significance. It raises a major ecclesiological issue, not about some sort of autocratic episcopal privilege but about the understanding in The Episcopal Church of the distinctive charism of bishops as an order and their responsibility for sustaining doctrinal standards."

Rowan, "autocratic episcopal privilege" is EXACTLY THE ISSUE!

The AC, since Lambeth '98, has been all about the *acceleration* of "autocratic episcopal privilege" (or even totalitarian PRIMATIAL power-over!)

*Nowhere* does the ABC acknowledge "left" dissent (as, horrified, I discovered in the context of the entire letter): either in TEC, or within the AC as a whole.

Least of all, does he respect left LAY (and clerical) dissent---whereas (after the mess that was B033 at the last GenCon) TEC's House of Bishops, thankfully, DOES.

(concluded in subsequent post)

Rowan’s suggestions that radical change cannot be determined by one group or tradition alone refutes basic biblical principles.

As he wrote "The coming of Christ in the flesh… was not a matter of human planning and ingenuity, nor was it frustrated by human resistance and sin. It was a gift whose reception was made possible by the prayerful obedience of Mary..."

Look also Jesus’ parables e.g. the prodigal son’s father arranging celebration, not waiting for the jealous sibling. The wedding feast filled with the riff-raff and the elite excluded because they snubbed the bridegroom (and thus his bride).

See other offers of covenants and fruitfulness e.g. to foreigners and eunuchs (Isaiah 56:3) or to the disabled (Isaiah 35:5-6).

The Old Testament ends with Malachi 4:1-5 "…All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble… But for you who revere God’s name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall… See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before... He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.”

The next passage is Matthew, heralding Jesus. God does not wait for the synagogues' approval, nor the ruling Pharaohs to be ready. God moves when God moves because it is God's time.

If parents of GLBTs in the US wish to openly acknowledge their children and provide for their emotional and spiritual well-being that is their right and their duty. If others wish to insult their GLBT children and deny their own, that is their choice. But any parent who attacks another parent's children or criticizes their acts of love is merely demonstrating the paucity of their faith. Aggression is not found on the Highways of Holiness to Zion.

Jesus was SENT by God “It was the LORD'S will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering…After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many… because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:10-12)

Merry Christmas

(conclusion, from previous post)

Part of Rowan's whole "acceptance of the [Lambeth '08] invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the Conference's agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant" seems to be BASED upon reifying "autocratic episcopal privilege" as an AC-wide LAW.

Don't get me wrong. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: TEC's bishops (especially INCLUDING +GR!) should show up, ready for "prayer, mutual spiritual enrichment and development of ministry."

But they should do so, with the expressed intent of RESISTING "the Conference's agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant" (the Gomez Covenant, which we've seen, and *thinking* Anglicans have rejected!)

...and if TEC's bishops take such (direct) action, then why not the rest of us Great Unwashed (except in baptism!), which Rowan Cantuar apparently has such difficulty in acknowledging?

This is the AC's LAST CHANCE: either the nonviolent resistance of thinking, LOVING Anglicans take up the cords of Christ---to drive worldly power out of GOD'S HOUSE---or the AC IS dead, and time for Episcopalians (et al of the Faithful Remnant) to be reborn, worldwide (and continuing until the Second Coming) from of its ashes.

Come, Lord Jesus! :-D

For the moment, after reading RW's Advent Letter, I do not feel all that encouraged. The language of repeated basic respect for queer folks' civil and human rights rings hollow and empty. If Lambeth and other talk of human rights hasn't made all that much difference in worldwide Anglican church life, what makes RW formulas any different?

Besides. RW talks civil right and human rights, but he never speaks in faith as ABC of the sure scriptural foundations laid/revealed in both the great Summary of the Law and Prophets we have from the NT Jesus of Nazareth, nor of the OT prophetic witness to civic justice for strangers, outcasts, orphans and widows (any of whom in many ancient near eastern tribal cultures was as demonized and fearsome an omen as modern queer folks are today, to the leading cons evo believers.)

Thus realignment spin always responds by dissing rights as if that were faddish modern talk which always falls short of their special sort of cons evo holiness yadda yadda. Loving the sinner while hating the sin has historically justified all manner of violence on all manner of levels. It is failed ethics: Being gay isn't any more instrinsically disordered than being straight. And so far at least, its justification in ethics and theology rests mainly on flat earth presuppositions which just do not hold up under best practices empirical and hermeneutic scrutiny.

Furthermore, if RW isn't careful, he may well end up with a realigned worldwide communion which talks human rights without really bothering with them inside church life. If a society manages to get there without Anglican assistance, he and the rest of Anglicans will all claim credit while not having lifted a finger. If a society doesn't quite get there, or falls far short of human rights, oh well Anglican church life has other holiness fish to fry, namely celibacy and exclusive traditional heteronormality.

I am weary of trying to persuade blind and deaf cons evo folks of any good that God has brought into my modern queer life, at any level. Oh well.

I need to get on with life, doing service, living witness, and praising God. Realignment is besides the point for me, no matter how many cons evo partisans vote for it. No matter how much RW bows down to worship it as the living Word.

But the bottom line is Rowan doesn't want the appearance of he, himself, making the calls. He wants it to look like a "real" consensus. He's going to continue to use "panels" and "meetings" through which to channel his desires.'

Just like Wotan in Wagner's Der Ring --- and look what happened to him ...

( & his 'Communion' !! )

Not for the first time I find myself wondering despairingly if our spiritual leader isn't actually Sir Humphrey Appleby in a pantomime beard. Mind you, having ploughed several times through the verbiage, I can well understand why he might not want to say plainly what he appears to be suggesting so elliptically.

If I understand the narrative it goes something like:
1. This is a beastly mess.
2. It's all the fault of the American liberals - and they haven't apologised nearly nicely enough.
3. Splitting TEC is OK, but not in an "uncontrolled" way.
4. Clergy and laity don't count. In all matters ecclesiological Bishops have the "decisive voice". (Subtext: And Primates trump Bishops.)
5. The sacred Book of Windsorreport (now to be found tucked into the flyleaf of the NT) decrees that our way to salvation lies through a covenant, and so a covenant we shall have.
6. Meanwhile, we must all continue to pretend to be nice to gays in public, while acknowledging quietly among ourselves that Leviticus 20.13 is still our "standard of faith" on the matter.
7. If we all pray very hard through Advent perhaps it will all have gone away by Christmas.

There's no English word that adequately describes how I feel: the Scots word is "scunnered".

Overall, I think, a very reasonable (if barely readable) attempt to express the current situation fairly while acknowledging the honest (and sometimes less than honest) concerns of either side.

However, one line has me enraged.

"I have underlined in my letter of invitation that acceptance of the invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the Conference's agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant."

The Windsor Report PROPOSED an Anglican Covenant as a way forward.

Rowan's comment here presupposes that participating in Lambeth means accepting a Covenant as a given.

Yes, it allows for any number of views about what such a Covenant ought to say.

But Covenant there shall be.

Who in the hell does this guy think he is?

I've been convinced from the start that the proposal for a Covenant is a piece of well intentioned stupidity. If we can meet, no Covenant is necessary. If we cannot meet, no Covenant will help.

(As per my blog posting: http://simplemassingpriest.blogspot.com/2007/11/irish-draft.html )

I'd like my bishop to stand up at Lambeth and say to hell with this Covenant silliness. Or, if not my bishop (who seems to disagree with me) then at least SOME bishop.

But +Rowan seems to be saying that an anti-Covenant position will not be allowed.

Merseymike
It may very well happen, though it will likely be an expulsion rather than a leaving. As a member of a fairly conservative TEC diocese I can tell you there is no drive to move backward. The people who wanted that have already left. It is a matter of bringing our bishop on board with the lay people. And his heart is in the right place, he just needs the courage. If the ABC thinks we are going back, he needs to think again. If he thinks we are going to become fundamentalists who interpret scripture all one way, he needs to think again. If he thinks he can expel us without expelling Canada and others, he needs to think again. Frankly, I don't know what he is thinking. But we are not going to turn back on our gay and lesbian Christian brothers and sisters. Those of you in Britain need to put pressure on the ABC and inform him that TEC is not the C of E. And no one, NO ONE, tells us how to interpret scripture.

Well, Malcolm, the Bishop of Lincoln chairs the Modern Churchpeople's Union, and it is against the Covenant. I don't know if he is. It is beginning to feel like that unless you knuckle under the dictates of the one who has no authority, that you are regarded as out.

I'm wondering how to work out my place in a local church and participating, because I rather like the place, the people and the activity, whilst saying that the Church of England and me might just part company. I mean, I know what my views are, and I tell anyone, and I am thinking boundaries have been drawn in (again) that are going to exclude people except the conforming and the passive. I don't think I've quite managed two years.

Still thinking.

"love the sinner, hate the sin".

Isn't that a quote from Ghandi the noted conservative evangelical?...

Stonewall's "Bigot of the Year" award is given to "an individual who has gone out of their way to harm, hurt or snub lesbians, gay men and bisexuals in the last 12 months"

The way things are going, they'll have plenty of nominations for this honour until at least Lambeth 2018.

What a beautifully straightforward, succinct statement, Phyllis. One that the ABC should read if he really wants to understand how TEC will react at parish level at this point. Thank you.

4 May 1535+ said "if they continue to not agree to it, GC by definition can't say differently. So it looks as though the Bishops are avoiding their duty as teachers of the faith."

I think the point is the present HoB has no mechanism whereby they can bind the hands of a future gathering of the HoB. They can't say "we won't ever do this," all they can say is "we won't do this now." Future meetings of the HoB, including as part of GCs, will have different memberships and be facing different situations. What would it mean for the present HoB to promise not to let GC do this or that, when they have no mechanism to enforce such a promise? Without changing the constitution and canons, which would require the other house of GC to concur, they promised as much as they could.

Further on 4 May 1535's analysis:

The current members of the HOB can do nothing that will bind any future makeup of the HOB. That THIS particular group is of a certain mind is not to say that future group--made up of somewhat different individuals--might vote differently at a future meeting.

David Bayne on Friday, 14 December 2007 at 10:44pm GMT --
I am sorry, but I think your remarks extremely unfair to the Cabinet Secretary -- it seems to me that we are seeing something far more like the civil servants' description of how politicians act in a crisis:

"1. We must do something!"
"2. This (i.e., The Windsor Report") is something!"
"3. Therefore, we must do this!"

What was that?

Lambeth Palace Breaking News (and Episcopal Church faceslapping directive)
by +++Rowan

Is Archbishop Rowan carefully blocking out the incoming information regarding the dangerous hate/fear mongering at the Anglican Communion in Africa?

Does the ABC realize that hate/fear and exclusion/outcasting in African/beyond often results in the demoralization, torture, rape and DEATH of LGBT people (a very sick kind of disease that morally endangers the inflicters as well).

Do individual LGBT Christians/others deserve to be ignored/abominated at The Body of Christ?

Does the ABC realize that each Christian/other is responsible for OUR own personal character/sin (both in and outside of Church)?

I've rarely read anything so distracting that also tries to glue weak/checkered and BIASED "Windsor" logic/participants patterns/suggestions in my life!

Was that a Advent letter or another distanced/weak "crackdown" The Episcopal Churches ability to LOVE and nurture ONEANOTHER?

Reality is helpful...it may just take the ABC a little time to clear his boggled mind, readjust and grow into what really going on...btw, WHERE is the minority ANGLICAN COMMUNION view regarding including LGBT people and heterosexual women at all levels of Anglican Churchlife?

Does the ABC only *listen* out of both sides of his mouth?

Quiet everyone...the sky is blue and we are expecting a miracle...it's Advent.

"love the sinner, hate the sin"

...makes about as much sense as "don't ask, don't tell"

And we know what a famous success that has been.

"RW has systematically made life more difficult for gay people over and over again, and has tried to harden the mind of the Church against them. this letter ought really to be enough for him to take the title away from the bishop of Hereford."

But it's not spectacular enough to be noticed by those that haven't followed this closely...

"The Windsor Report PROPOSED an Anglican Covenant as a way forward.

Rowan's comment here presupposes that participating in Lambeth means accepting a Covenant as a given.

Yes, it allows for any number of views about what such a Covenant ought to say.

But Covenant there shall be."

It's called "buying the pig in the canvas" in Swedish.

Thank you Cheryl!

Phyllis on Friday, 14 December 2007 at 11:04pm GMT --

I think this sums it up very well indeed -- even if you wanted to get the toothpaste back in the tube (i.e., the gays in the closet) it simply can't be done!

"If the ABC thinks we are going back, he needs to think again." serves as an excellent motto!

There are some very good comments here. In my view Malcolm and David Bayne accurately capture the tone and content of the piece – for my own money (looking at that tone) I would say that large sections were drafted by Tom Wright.

Overall it is a fairly desperate last attempt to salvage something from the failed Windsor Process. But threatening to nail people to the wall if they aren’t pro-Covenant seems as silly as the suggestion there is only one acceptable theology of episcopacy. Nothing but further trouble will come of this.

From what I hear there are a large pile of responses to the draft Covenant – including some radical alternatives – indicating a deep discomfort with the present direction and speed of the present “process”. I would continue to urge individuals, parishes and groups to continue submitting their views and alternatives and follow up how the “reception process” deals with these submissions.

I am most definitely FOR a Covenant, as I have said before - my Church has facilitative Covenants with other Churches and we have a better defined relationship with them than we do with our fellow Anglicans. But I would not want ANY sort of Covenant NOW.

"The best place for gay men and lesbians is inside the Anglican Communion."

I agree. We have done more to change people's views by simply living openly among them than I could have imagined.

But a number of our friends and family have been so disappointed by the church's official treatment of gay people that they have abandoned their already frayed loyalty to the church. They truly cannot see why we still hang around.

There are only a few people here who find it strange that we're a happy open family. There are even fewer who understand why we still bother with the church.
While the 2 of us are still there, our 4 children have firmly left.

You just need to look at that interview with those teenagers. Rowan was asked lots of questions about homophobic bullying, gay partnerships etc. all things that concern the kids in their daily lives. What he chose to answer was a question about gay priests instead, mightly important to us on the inside but deeply irrelevant to those looking for meaning in their lives and real answers from the church today.

Does anyone take the effect all this is having on the wider community into account?

Pluralist wrote: “To me, again as an immediate reaction, the Anglican Communion is too weak, and it is not the body that can do this, and efforts to strengthen it will just weaken it further. We even have Rowan Williams questioning the qualified episcopacy of TEC – well if that is also a very serious concern (as the bishops will wait for the General Convention and is decision making) then perhaps this whole exercise is wasting its time.”

I find it extraordinary that Dr Rowan cannot get his facts right about TEC’s ecclesiology, promenading an ecclesiology which seems more Roman than Roman.

His answer to his own question “How then should the Lambeth Conference be viewed? It is not a canonical tribunal, but neither is it merely a general consultation.” is more of the same. The Lambeth conferences have always been “a general consultation”. There is nothing “merely” about it.

Pluralist wrote: “The Bible view [of Dr Rowan] is flawed, because it is heavily towards the literalistic, and the Communion view [of Dr Rowan] is, as I think there is his not quite Freudian slip somewhere, too much an "Anglican Church". The real flaw may be, then, that this Anglican Church lacks the means of a Church – it does not have the necessary hierarchy to itself, that would maintain a unity and would prevent crossing borders. This is where the whole thing does not add up.

Saying “Anglican Church” about the Communion instead of its members is to my mind one of the most serious flaws in this letter. It’s like the Bishop of Rome in his superbia declaring other churches than the Roman un-authentic.

Pluralist wrote: “If so, then the issue is how the Anglican Church will live with the differences and the cracks and the duplications, rather than one massive sticking plaster that cannot possibly hold the thing together, and for which the main players have no intention of having put over themselves.”

Well, there is always the choice between Good faith, Bad faith, and Evil faith… Some of “the main players” in this Parlour game are not even into Bad faith, but a kind of PSA. If they don’t get their little Revenge on Life, their punishing of the first comer, their substitutionary suffering of whomever they think they can lay their hands on, they’ll go into strike.

They will never “recognise that other local churches have received the same faith from the apostles and are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments.” It would destroy their only argument.

What enables this is, of course, Dr Rowan’s co-dependency and aggressive-passive Jesus-complex, manifested in the shocking statement: “And this is also why I have said that the refusal to meet can be a refusal of the cross – and so of the resurrection.”
I agree with what Poppy Tucker said: “People have talked a lot about this man's holiness. Well, I’ve seen some holy people in my time, and often they were rough around the edges, risky, uncomfortable, and on the edge of acceptability. RW seems to me to be the sort of person that non-Christians like to think of as holy – warm-looking, smiley, soft-spoken, with a puzzled look. But when it comes to standing up for the oppressed and the hurt he is nowhere to be seen. I don't think you get high office in the church by being holy, but by looking it.”

I am more appalled than I can say. By all means go to Lambeth (if there’ll be one) but don’t play into this man’s little games.

You're welcome, Goran.

Thank you David B for referring us to the Scottish word "scunnered". Hopefully this link will remain valid and other an apprecaite the breadth of your emotions http://waf.eps.hw.ac.uk/Word%20of%20the%20Week%20pages/SWOW%20archive%20page%203.htm

Got to love the Scots. They stopped the Romans in the tracks, and July 7 Gleneagles with the attempted diversion in London did more to heal the religionS of the nationS than any intervention by God could.

I'm with those who query the validity of Rowan's obessions with a proposed covenant. For two main reasons. Firstly, it refutes the basic covenants put forward in the bible as being sufficient. Secondly, it denies the "grace of God" factor.

There are some who purport that Jesus' sacrifice gave them "gate-keeper" rights. They have as much control over where the Spirit of Grace manifests as they do over where a rainbow manifests.

For example, God has never been confined to the Abrahamic religions. God's grace and stewardship is over all of this planet and all its occupants. The Abrahamic religions refer to the Spirit of Grace, the Hindu's (and thus Eastern religions) are already familiar with the concept of Shiva. Shiva is phonetically the same as Cheva and known to both strands, Shiva/Cheva, the mother of all things, brings the Spirit of Grace to all of humanity and intervenes to transmute the karmic cycles when humanity's very existence is threatened.

That makes Shiva/Cheva unpopular with some scribes, but then the Daughter of Zion aka Sheckina aka Earth Mother has never been bound or obessed by masculine approval. She moves to nurture all her children, irregardless of their ancestry or denomination. She also acknowledges Jesus' divine role but reminds Jesus and his priests that they do not control where Grace is bequeathed, they are merely advocates and not the Judge.

Prior Aelred, re Cabinet Secretary.

I take your point, and am suitably contrite. I was remembering that Sir Humphrey's principal attribute in a crisis was the ability to unleash a torrent of officialese of such ferocious complexity as to deprive it of any meaning whatsoever, or alternatively, to allow it to mean anything he might thereafter wish it to mean. Remind you of anything?

The sad thing is that, while Sir Humphrey was a creation of comic genius, this is for real.

Pluralist - I sympathise with your views, and am not at all persuaded by any Covenant that would turn us in my view into a confessional church. I do not yet see any significant opposition to the Covenant process on the ground from priests or laity in the CofE - due simply to ignorance. There is passionate opposition from me because I read TA - but surely I would not be the only priest to resist/ignore/reject any Covenant by the time one is forced on the CofE? I have not been consulted at any level at all - and neither have the laity.
Have we not for some time had to live with an anomalous situation re the CofE's official line and practical outworking on the ground? Ridiculous statements like Lambeth 1.10 do not command significant authority, and when bad laws are made, people simply take authority to themselves. Or rather, appeal to a higher authority. I am sad the ABC is so prevaricating. He must surely have an idea about how that 'higher authority' - our loving God who creates his LGBT children - would wish them fullness of life, love and joy. An odd thing in the statement is to omit any reference as to how modern understanding and scientific evidence MIGHT mean the Church needs to revise its untenable moral position. In other words to leave the question open. Would the ABC have written a similar letter about the abolition of slavery?

Erika asks "Does anyone take the effect all this is having on the wider community into account?"

The answer is: no. I don't suppose the majority of people in the pews, let alone the much larger community of nominal Anglicans, give a toss about our insular ecclesiastical strife. ABC may be right to say "It is too easy to make the debate a standoff between those who are 'for' and those who are 'against' the welcoming of homosexual people in the Church", but to the wider world this it is exactly what the row is about, and a clear matter of justice for those who increasingly affirm gays and lesbians as relatives, friends, neighbours and colleagues.

We pour scorn on the oft-repeated yet insincere refrain: "The Instruments of Communion have consistently and very strongly repeated that it is part of our Christian and Anglican discipleship to condemn homophobic prejudice and violence, to defend the human rights and civil liberties of homosexual people and to offer them the same pastoral care and loving service that we owe to all in Christ's name", because we know the evidence over the last decade points to a firm refusal on the part of the Instruments to practise what they preach.

Unlike the Covenant with the Methodists and other such agreements, which assume equality between two churches, the Gomez-Covenant is a game of chess designed to exclude minority churches and points of view. Liberals should try to scupper this illiberal proposal, imho.

"Would the ABC have written a similar letter about the abolition of slavery?"

He is defending the Institution against a perceived threat of destruction looming...

How would he have done any different 150 years ago?

OK Neil:

Suppose the Communion had a dominant view about slavery, that it was biblical, and suppose that Anglican Churches via their primates had rushed a resolution so that no blessings could be given to freed slaves and no slaves or ex slaves could be in the ministry.

Then the archbishop would, on those terms, have said that the human rights of non-violence and better living and indeed freedom should come to slaves, but that the resolution was the mind of the Communion (because bishops lead and determine), that nevertheless there can be no such blessings or ministry (local Churches needing to do what other Churches expect of them - the principle of unity), and this is because we submit to the Bible and the Bible is read the resolution only.

See how each links to the next. Of course: the Bible is *not* only read this way, nor is it a function of the Communion to say how it is read; nor is there an expectation that, beyond some core issues, rather than any issue generating enough noise, are local Churches expectational identikits of other Churches; nor in Anglicanism do the purple shirts decide everything, nor can they be forced to a Covenant.

As regards the Covenant, surely the InclusiveChurch position is now bust: the Covenant will depend on the view that the Bible can only be read one way, according to the Communion, as according to Lambeth 1998. Therefore the Covenant has to be restrictive. The liberal supporters of the Covenant had better look up.

As said by someone else, we need a few English bishops not go to Lambeth simply on the basis that they reject the condition of supporting the Covenant with its narrowing of the boundaries. They would be important reference points when the Americans and Canadians, Welsh, Scots (and on) cannot sign up to such a Covenant, whilst the hard line evangelicals will have formed their own communion anyway. Chaos not unity, from a Covenant.

"Suppose the Communion had a dominant view about slavery, that it was biblical, and suppose that Anglican Churches via their primates had rushed a resolution so that no blessings could be given to freed slaves and no slaves or ex slaves could be in the ministry."

Note, that in the 13th centurythe Swedish church did the very opposite to this. It married thralls with the Mass, declaring them free.

What Williams should have done was to postpone the Lambeth Conference sine die.

By forcing people to choose whether or not to attend (and there are problems for both "sides" in deciding whether or not attendance is appropriate) he has ensured that this will be a broken conference, without any authority for the future development of Anglicanism.

We will soon see at least one alternative communion being formally declared, and perhaps several.

I was not surprised one bit that when Williams started behaving less like an activist and more like one who is under obedience to what the wider Church believes, many of us on this admittedly liberal list cried "betrayal."

So Williams is isolated--both conservatives and liberals do not like him now. The former accuse him of not going far enough, and the latter of going too far with regard to ECUSA. (I come from a country where we also have an Episcopal Church, by the way.) I think those responsible for leaking his nomination back in 2002 are now regretting that their move would lead to this. (Who was the other bishop on the list? Was it +Roffen:?)

However, I think that given the pressure under which this particular holder of the see of Canterbury is being faced, particularly by people on this list who delight in calling him "Rowan the Spineless," every Anglican activist of every stripe ought to be ashamed of themselves. They may think they are doing God's will, as Jesus said of the future persecutors, but in fact...

If Archbishop Rowan becomes a victim--not out of God's will but of purely earthly desires for power--the blood remains on the hands of the pressure groups. I honestly have had enough.

I would much like to know the meaning of "Anglican Church" Is there, an "Anglican Church"? If so, how did it come into being and when? Who are its members? Is it co-terminus with the Communion? Are those in communion with Canterbury its members? Are those in Communion with the Communion (?) its members?

Does being in "full" communion mean being in "communion"with Canterbury,AND "the communion" , OR one, the other, or both? And how does the term "Anglican Church" relate to all this? +Cantuar has asserted that just because a group may call itself "Anglican", doesn't make it so. What does make it so?

If Lambeth 1.10 is the only point of reference we have on a current theological understanding, I am assuming that the Lambeth invitation is the only point of reference we now have for who is and isn't a member of the Communion. That invitation is predicated on a willingness to work through Windsor and to work through a covenant. +Rowan has made some pretty clear decisions after reviewing all the instruments of communion about who isn't....the extra-provincial consecrated bishops. It is unclear who is. So, given his letter, we can assume Windsor compliant bishops are. Their invitations are pretty safe. Are those HofB bishops who have conformed by word and practice to the relevant resolutions passed by GC and the HofB in? Maybe Are those who have transgressed those boundaries by word or deed out? Maybe? Yes, it sort of looks like a return of the panel of reference to make the call, but...

Maybe we could carefully look at Windsor ...as a process and some ideas of covenant we all support as a starting point?

Regarding Ren Aguila's comments.

It is Rowan Williams who is putting the Church first, as an institution, not the people first. He is the one who is burying vital human principles, not taking them to "the cross", but subjecting them to whether the majority of a Communion approve. He is creating a price to be paid.

If, on the other hand, he followed his own thoughts expressed on Channel 4 (The Protestant Revolution) about the dynamic of schism, expressly about the present, then he might still offer means for reconciliation but realise a looser tactic is needed. He is adding even more centralisation to try and patch this up - a small group of primates, and a counselling session for TEC - when the various actors are going about their own business already.

He is adding to his own stress. Of course the job is impossible, and he has already compromised himself, but he is having to lay down price lists for reconciling that make the reconciling less likely not more.

The Communion is not a Church, and until he gets off this misunderstanding he will go on beating himself about the head. And in any case, these consecrated bishops put into other territories are not going to go away. Nor is the thruist of TEC, Canada and many other provinces. A divided Anglicanism, institutionally, is the most likely: he may have to make it loose in the future in order that anyone speaks to anyone else across the new divide.

Perhaps it would be best if the Archbishop gave up trying to have a supra-national church chairmanship role (something he is evidently not up to anyway) and just settled for trying to be a good chief pastor in England. Gay-friendly modern Britain needs some appropriate spiritual input, not merely avoidance tactics.

I think Leonardo very aptly described the consequences of taking an intolerance to GLBTs to its full manifestation aka parts of the African conTinent.

Pluralist's parallel of primates rushing through "a resolution so that no blessings could be given to freed slaves and no slaves or ex slaves could be in the ministry" was simply genius.

The global Anglican Communion has no moral authority to bind the US TEC to the 1998 Lambeth conference. They weren't invited, they were slandered and vilified and resolutions passed to justify why the haters had excluded them. If they wanted them bound by 1998, they could have made them part of the process. They weren't, so they can do whatever they want, Lambeth 1998 has no relevance to US TEC polity.

The big discussion is whether the "global Anglican" church is still broad-tent or has now formally become conserv-evo. Some had thought it had and played their cards accordingly. In playing their cards, others have been able to observe how their theology manifests and found it downright tyrannical and repressive. It's all very nice to have tea and smiles, but it's not nice when you know they are planning your (character) assassination behind the scenes. Nor is it just the US TEC that is within their sights, they'll gun for women, catholics, non-Christians as well. Actually, they'll take down a whole planet if they thought they could get away with it, they are priests who worship death and desire (cultural) extinction.

I think Goran's understanding of their passive aggression is right on the money "If they don’t get their little Revenge on Life, their punishing of the first comer, their substitutionary suffering of whomever they think they can lay their hands on, they’ll go into strike."

God sent Jesus specifically to refute theology of accusations and death-mongering through the law. When I look at who these souls have sent to hell, and with whom they associate, and how they speak and deport themselves; then I am quite happy to be going to hell. There's going to be some very nice people there and I look forward to catching up with most of you in due course! It will be so pleasant to not be listening to their passive-aggressive hate mongering and violence apologetics.

"but surely I would not be the only priest to resist/ignore/reject any Covenant by the time one is forced on the CofE? I have not been consulted at any level at all - and neither have the laity"

So how does that work in pratice. Your bishop is invited to Lambeth on the condition that he engages in formulating a convenant. He accepts the invitation on that basis. A convenant results.
Are you genuinely not bound by it?
If not - what's the point of all of this?

ABC specifies what documents will be discussed at Lambeth. Curiously, there is no mention of the Listening Process, although this forms an integral part of Lambeth 1:10 and the Windsor Process, paragraph 146.

If delegates believe reason is still part of the Anglican three-legged stool, it will be fascinating to hear about reactions to the Galileo-style submission by the Royal Society of Psychiatrists.

I do not agree with him on everything, but I think Pluralist is pretty consistently spot on in his analysis.

My belief that a significant part of the Advent letter was drafted by Blessed Tom has now been confirmed over at Fulcrum. Their “interpretation” of its contents is just so full of unalloyed glee, I found it pleasantly charming.

It was Blessed Tom I first heard talking about “The Anglican Church”, but it was several years earlier that I stumbled upon the manufacturing process that was building TAC. I suppose we all know some (if not all) of what’s been going on. The draft Covenant seeks to legitimize most of the process up to know, and some.

The leadership of TEC was/is a keen supporter of the process – as were/are (I now find) nearly all our leaders.

Then take a look at the work of the Anglican Communion Office particularly their ecumenical department. A small dedicated staff doing the most extraordinarily skilful job, in many ways we already have many of the trappings of a single entity. It is because of this Canterbury is treated a world faith leader, and the pressure is on to make that single entity more of a reality. Apart from the staff at the ACO there are the others at Lambeth Palace who are part of the “great game” and want to see their status enhanced not diminished.

All this without an adequate (IMHO) internal reception process, or perhaps more accurately “All this BECAUSE there is no adequate internal reception process” - leaving those who want to take control to do so.

Well I've read it, thought about it, and written it alternatively, reordered for its logic (I hope) and in boiled down form, and then suggest an attitude of resisting what Rowan Williams intends.

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/12/resist-canterbury.html

That goes to the webpage too, where all parts are contained. Here is from the blog and my webpage:

Boiled Down Summary

What is being proposed by this Archbishop of Canterbury is a massive centralisation of the Anglican Church to the Instruments of Communion (via a Covenant), and that the Communion is the centre of power and authority, rather than the local Church, if the local church wishes to be regarded as Anglican within this Communion. This does not simply allow, on a Catholic principle, the ability to change doctrine by Communion-wide agreement, which is its potential, but change is prevented because Lambeth 1998 1:10 is the fixed mind of the Communion and indicates the way to read the Bible. A local Church that reads it otherwise risks the common ministry (because it falls outside expectations of the local Church by other local Churches) and may be regarded as a failed local Church, and it is for the Communion to decide to cross boundaries over a failed local Church. However, whatever local Churches decide, individual bishops and dioceses faithful to the Communion can stay in full recognition of the Communion - a local (normally a national) Church is then bypassed.

This is followed by An Alternative Strategy: Resistance to Canterbury

a significant part of the Advent letter was drafted by Blessed Tom has now been confirmed over at Fulcrum... Martin Reynolds

I'm still to look over there. There is some sort of smell about this isn't there.

It is though a bit like the horse has bolted the stable for a new one down the road, gladly assisted by that stable down the road, and in response the stable owners here are trying to get the various parties to agree to a spot of decorating, when the horse is settling in elsewhere.

Pluralist,

It is helpful to think things through with different possibilties in mind. If you are saying we need to weigh them that is important. But if we abandon any clear reference point then we have no way to go on (like a compass without true North we have no direction). There is a difference between interpretations that seek to hear and express the text of scripture and those that intend primarily to subvert it (whether doing so blindly or glibly).

What I hear from some is "we need some definite boundaries" and others "it is not the place of the communion to deal with boundaries" (on communion wide issues if not in council together then where?). R Williams says that the last time we met in council this is what we came out with on the matter (Lambeth '98.1). Others say no walk away from that; the question is, if we disagree can we not keep faith and take it up again in council?

Ben W

It is one position not to take up Lambeth 1998 1:10 all over again in order to prevent going round in circles, but it is another to try and use it to create a sole way to read the Bible, to use this as the basis of one local Church measuring the faithfulness of another, and for then the basis of centralisation to Instruments of Communion so that it can be the arbiter and actor of all, to whom the bishops primarily seek recognition.

It is an international takeover of matters held by local Churches and on the most narrow and horrible basis. There is no requirement to be faithful to this. If this is a new requirement of membership, then either it is a matter of resistance or walking through the exit.

Solomon demonstrated his wisdom in that he only THREATENED to cut the baby in half! Whereas ++Rowan has rather shown that he loves the AC to death.

So, Pluralist, are we to conclude that +Cantuar is so detatched that he doesn't even right his own letters?

And that the muddleness in reality comes from +Dunhelm and the subsequent re-workings and adjustments of staff?

Pluralist,

The point is Lambeth 98.1.10 cannot be ignored. It is what the AC did and said the last time out in council. It hardly means it becomes a closed affair - these it seems to me are exagerated fears. If there are new questions or challenges they can be taken up in fresh council. The question of boundaries is real and have to be dealt with in order to move through this chaos.

Ben W

I don't know if the Archbishop of Canterbury writes his own letters or not. I do, and I have written a small number here and there asking about responses to the Advent Letter given the narrow basis it sets out. There should be responses to this Letter from Accepting Evangelicals, Inclusive Church and the Modern Churchpeople's Union and there are bishops associated with these. I don't suppose any of them considered not going to Lambeth, but the terms and conditions for a Covenant are now so narrow that they are being asked to participate in something opposed to the fundamentals of their own positions.

Communion wide issues are one thing, but trying to centralise on an increasingly narrow basis in order to slow down the activities of some schismatics is another matter entirely. I may be outside the boundaries anyway, but with this Advent Letter I know I am and so are very many more who thought they were not.

My response to Changing Attitude's response to the Advent Letter (and good they have responded - waiting for other bodies to do so):

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/12/response-and-waiting.html

Changing Attitude still don't get it.

The only way of getting the sort of church they want is to accept that there will be a split, and that there will be a liberal denomination which may or may not be affiliated to Canterbury, and a conservative (correction: probably a number of conservative) denominations, of which Canterbury may or may not be affiliated.

really, Canterbury has made itself irrelevant - they couldn't have been more inept if they had tried. Williams really is an incompetent.

The liberal denomination which will be gay-affirming can then organise itself in provinces where conservatives dominate.

Changing Attitudes wishy-washy compromising and ineffectual toadying to the useless Williams have done precisely nothing to advance gay rights in the church: everything I told them when they threw me out for having a different view has actually happened!

So, get ready for the inevitable, CA. The split. And welcome it as a great opportunity!

Ben W wrote "The point is Lambeth 98.1.10 cannot be ignored."

The point is Lambeth 1998 can be ignored. The sins of Lambeth 1998 rest with the participants of Lambeth 1998, no one outside the conference is bound to their decrees, and participants who were signed up by duress or deception have the right to repent.

Lambeth 1998 means an awful lot to a group of miserly priests who don't even undertand the grace of God or that Grace led to Jesus birth; and was never dependent on Jesus' words or works.

Jesus has as much ability to decide who or when grace will be granted as Noah does over when a rainbow will appear.

Grace comes through what Jesus is, not what Jesus or his priests choose.

If they want a nice little heaven unperturbed by the rest of Creation, we will give them what they want, but that doesn't mean the rest of Creation ceases to exist.

Cheryl,

It would be great if we could speak to the point. Agreements do not matter? Bishops that represented their people can all be dispensed as nothing - after all we have God's grace? I think the apostle's question is apropos here: "Shall we continue in sin that garce may abound?"

If later people dissent and want to rethink an issue fine. But lets grow up and keep faith with what was agreed, by the great majority in this case. If it was the other way and the majority had gone the other way what would you now be saying? Grow up and take it up again without simply taking your marbles and walking away.

Ben W

"Agreements do not matter?"

Could someone on the Right acknowledge that "agreements" like Lambeth '98, which, contrary to what conservatives seem to believe, is made up of more than one passage, actually seem to mean little to either side? Can you at least admit that the Right has been just as willing to abandon "agreements" that don't suit them as the left has been?

"Bishops that represented their people can all be dispensed as nothing - after all we have God's grace?"

Given that there are only two provinces where the laity have any say in the choice of their bishops--TEC and Canada--saying that "bishops represent their people" is a bit of an over-reach, isn't it?

Especially since the ABC seems to be questioning TEC's polity now.

The point is, Ben W, surely, that the Anglican Communion is of several minds, and cannot be represented as one thing. This is where it is going wrong. Clearly the minds of TEC, Nigeria, England, Wales are different by degrees and even kinds.

If centralisation is forced, then a division is clearly healthier and better for all. Changing Attitude seems to harbour too much wishful thinking that the logic of the Archbishop rejects.

"there are only two provinces where the laity have any say in the choice of their bishops--TEC and Canada"

Is that correct?

How are bishops selected in Australia, New Zealand, Scotland? It appears that in much of the Global South new bishops are chosen by the current bishops. Is that true everywhere in the GS?

Pluralist,

I agree with your post as far as it goes. The question of boundaries has to be addressed. Most are with RW on that.

I think to call this "centralization" is a prejudicial term, the covenant could (and hopefuly would) set some directions or reference for dealing with differences and set up ways to work through conflict. How do we go from here? Unity and finding ways to encourage unity is important, but you are right it is getting late in the day for that!

Ben W

Ford,

You say that right and left have both been ready to abandon agreements and that Lambeth 98 agreements "actually seem to mean little to either side."

I am not sure what you might have in mind (easy to make this generaliztion), it might be important to see this in context. If it is a question of the crossing of boundaries from one province to another that raises serious issues. Patience and perseverance it seems is hard to come by in this setting! Still, what is behind that? There was an abandonment of a key element/understanding in Lambeth 98. People have been reaching for alternatives apart from simply being co-opted.

Further, even if you say neither side has honored this, what is the way forward? Learn nothing from this and persist doggedly in a wrong-headed way?

Ben W

BenW,
That's part of it, but how about the fact that Lambeth conferences have since '78 encouraged us to listen to gay people. This has been consistently ignored by conservatives. TEC took it seriously, then realized that we are indeed human beings, not some faceless sickos. As to whether or not they acted properly in dealing with our manifest humanity, well, that's the debate, but the point is that they did. It appears that conservatives who ignored Lambeth are now accusing others of ignoring Lambeth when these others are acting out of information they gathered by obeying Lambeth in the first place. I would suggest the way forward is to be found in actually behaving like Christians. The lying must stop. The misrepresenting must stop. The dishonesty must stop. The scheming must stop. And that's just what the Right has to do. We must all put aside our conviction of our own rightness/righteousness/faithfulness/prophetic calling, and treat one another like human beings. +Akinola could at least acknowledge that it was a shameful thing for him to flinch from the touch of any human being, as opposed to being proud of the fact that he shrunk from a gay person. He could stop calling us cancers and animals. The right could stop spreading malicious propaganda about us. Why is it so hard for those who claim such righteousness to actually behave like Christians?

Ben: the "wrong-headed way" for a diverse organisation operating on every continent is clearly one which tries to narrow or tighten central power rather than loosen it at the moment.

Malcolm+ says:

"there are only two provinces where the laity have any say in the choice of their bishops--TEC and Canada"

Is that correct?

How are bishops selected in Australia, New Zealand, Scotland?

Kennedy writes:

Here in Scotland the electoral college which chooses a bishop consists of (basically) the Diocesan Synod (ie both clergy and lay reps) although there is a preparatory committee who produce the list of candidates which has input from the College of Bishops.

For the gory detail see:

http://www.scotland.anglican.org/media/organisation/boards_committees/files/sec_code_of_canons_2006.pdf

Lay folk are involved at all stages of the process - and the monarchy and politicos aren't. (Unless they happen to be a Lay Rep!).

Ben ; whatever way you look at it - people are not going to change their minds nor accept the correctness of the others position.

So, the only real choice is - do we accept diversity, or agree to split, because neither side is going to accept the view of the other.

"there are only two provinces where the laity have any say in the choice of their bishops--TEC and Canada"

Not so. In the Church of Ireland bishops are elected by an Episcopal Electoral College in each province (Armagh and Dublin). Each is comprised of the Metropolitan, 3 other members of the House of Bishops, 12 clerical and 12 lay representatives from the vacant diocese (elected by the diocesan synod), and 2 or 3 clerical and 2 or 3 lay representaives from every other diocese in the province (elected by their diocesan synods). Election requires two-thirds of the votes of each order present and voting, and approval by the House of Bishops. If after several votes no-one receives the required majority, the College may vote to pass the nomination over to the House of Bishops. Thus clergy and laity of the diocese both have a voice, as do clergy and laity from the entire province.

"there are only two provinces where the laity have any say in the choice of their bishops--TEC and Canada"

Shurely shome mishtake?! Certainly here in Scotland - in "the" Episcopal Church - Bishops are elected by their dioceses. I possess a great wealth of ignorance about other Provinces, but had always thought that, with the obvious exceptions, most Anglican Bishops are appointed by an electoral college of some sort.

I hope, Moderator, this isn't too far off the point of the current thread, but it does seem to me that in our present pea-soup of mutual incomprehension, an oft-missed issue is the different models of episcopacy evident across the Communion. It's inevitable that a Bishop nominated from within the Diocese and elected by its presbyters and laity stands in a different relationship to his/her people and office from a Bishop appointed by an external authority. That greater sense of mutuality is enhanced when the Bishops operate as a single house in a Synodical Church. Put crudely, it's the distinction between episcopacy as high responsibility and as high promotion.

I had rather hoped the latter was dying out, but here's some alarming twaddle around at the moment peddling the notion of monarchical episcopacy - "episcopus ecclesia est" - that needs to be stamped on before we find ourselves back in the Middle Ages. If Scottish Bishops begin to show signs of prelacy, someone quietly reminds them of the fate of Cardinal Beaton and Archbishop Sharpe............

In his Advent Letter, +Cantuar appears to fall into this trap (which also snares the Primates' meetings) of assuming that Bishops are essentially free agents whose collective decisions become the mind of the Church without reference to the rest of the laos. Even his own General Synod might have something to say about that.

My apologies to the Scots. Clearly the laity have a role there as well. Is there anywhere else?

To add to Kennedy's comments--bishops are also elected by clergy and laity in the Episcopal Church in the Philippines. And within the British Isles themselves Wales and Ireland have small electoral colleges that include laity.

But what is the difference? In the US, people have to campaign to become bishops, openly. Isn't it the tradition that a bishop should be someone who does not want the job?

Just a thought.

Ford,

There was the call to listen, and all the people that listened came to see homosexuality as you do? Perhaps you are leaving out some who listened but in the end did not agree? Your note seems to assume that is all there is to it. I know some people who have dealt with the matter in their own families and come to understand, and continue to love their children, but have not simply changed their understanding of Christian teaching on this!

On the second point I am with you, deception misrepresentation must stop! But even on this list people want to tell me why I think what I think and how I feel (he is "homphobic" and so on, you can see there is no listening to why or the context of this from me - I thought this was supposed to go both ways!). I do not know Akinola's situation and can not be accountable for him, I can only try and deal forthrightly with you and others in my setting.

Ben W

Ren: I think that in England there is the problem that the bishops are not at all accountable to the faithful: they are also above the law (employment law, at least, for which Rowan Williams, to his shame, secured an opt-out for the C of E from Tony Blair). So, they can be as inept as they are with no checks on them (as long as they are not gay, of course), and everyone in the pews (and vicarages) is supposed to be loyal to them. So a bishop can speak in as plainly stupid a way as the Bishop of Carlisle; break the law like the Bishop of Hereford; write in support of extra-territorial incursions elsewhere like the Bishops of Rochester and Lewes, and no-one has any come-back, any way to express dissent or censure. You can try emailing them, for example, and you'll never get a reply, because they don't feel they need to be accountable. Email a British politician, for example, and you'll get a reply straight away, because they understand their role is to appear, at least, to serve the public. The bishops still seem to understand their role as being rightly to rule the public rather than serve it.

Ben ; I am very clear that the listening process is a waste of time. There can be no compromise with what I view as conservative homophobia.

Fr Mark

I disagree that the bishops are above the employment law of the UK.

Various pieces of UK legislation provide specific exemptions for religious bodies, and that includes employment law relating to gender, religion/belief, and sexual orientation. But in each case, the exemption is quite limited in scope.

I do think that there is evidence, e.g. the Hereford case, that some church lawyers, and some church officials including a few bishops, have still not come to terms with what the law now requires of them.

"But what is the difference? In the US, people have to campaign to become bishops, openly. Isn't it the tradition that a bishop should be someone who does not want the job?"

I think "campaign" is the wrong term. They make it known they are available for the position. It's not like they're on the stump, making speeches and holding debates with opponents.

Ah I see what you mean. But I think there is a case that some form of election is desirable, with the caveat--coming from the principle that a bishop should not be seen wanting to be one--that the nominees should not dare openly campaign.

Which is why, in a very timely way, Kennedy pointed out the Scottish procedure. That's as close to the ideal as I can think of.

Simon: you are quite right. I defer to your expertise and linguistic precision. As a priest, though, one certainly sees that the Church authorities get away with poor practice when it comes to equal employment opportunities.

Mersymike,

Are we surprised? You are good at summing people up in a phrase or a line. And now we know why, you do not have even to listen to people to know what they think or why they think what they think, you know that before they do!? Amazing

Ben W

"There was the call to listen, and all the people that listened came to see homosexuality as you do?"

Not what I said. My point is, if they had listened, they would actually know what our lives are. The things they say about us show that they manifestly do not. Ergo, they have not listened. Agreement with me is not the criterion by which I judge their having listened, rather it is their willingness to sdee me as a human being. Calling me "inhuman" then is pretty clear evidence of not having listened. Not speaking up against a Primate of the Anglican Church who makes such a claim is tacit agreement, as is choosing to be led by such a man rather than suffer the indignity of being in a Church that, somewhere remote from one's own diocese, has a gay bishop.

"I do not know Akinola's situation and can not be accountable for him"

You do not know that he is a bishop ion the Church of God? Are you trying to say that there is some acceptable social situation in which a bishop, a Primate of a national Church, no less, would be justified in calling other people "inhuman" and a "cancer on the body of Chrict"? Are you saying there might be a situation in which a bishop would be justified in supporting a law that would jail for 5 years someone who councilled gay person to self acceptance? Talk about following the trends of the world and allowing society to dictate your morality!

So, The US, Canada, Scotland, Ireland, Wales and the Phillipines - at least. Oddly enough, all places where the Primates have rejected the schismatyical behaviour of certain intolerant extremists.

Anyway.

As to "campaigning" for episcopal office. There will always be those who "campaign" to be bishops. But in England, Canada and Nigeria, they will campaign to different electorates - to a committee of political appointees in England, to diocesan clergy and lay delegates in Canada, to the current bishops in Nigeria.

I don't know about how blatant campaigning would be seen among the Crown Appoiontments Commission or among the House of Bishops in Nigeria. In a diocesan electoral synod in Canada, blatant campaigning by a candidate would pretty much be the kiss of death.

Malcolm: quite so. Some of the English bishops have spent many years "campaigning" in a more or less genteelly indirect, but nonetheless highly focused, way, before being "happened upon" by the Crown Appointments Commission.

Ford,

Jumping to conclusions can wear you out -:).

If you go back to the earlier message you said Lambeth has since '78 encouraged the church to listen to gay people. You then make the point that "this has been consistently ignored by conservatives." You go on to say TEC because they listened came to a "true realization" (are the conservatives not also part of TEC?), and then you lump the "conservatives" together again as those "who ignored Lambeth."

Let's see, you have the TEC who came to "true realization" (who agree with you) and you have those whom (you know - all of them) who have not listened and ignored Lambeth. How did you come to have such absolute knowledge of this? It seems fairly clear your underlying assumption is represented in my question to you : "There was the call to listen, and all the people that listened came to see homosexuality as you do?"

As for Akinola, I simply said, "I do not know Akinola's situation and can not be accountable for him." I know he is a bishop in Nigeria,I did not hear him say these things, or if he did in what context (if you say he did I will accept that sometime somewhere he said it). The question is have I used language to denigrate you? I have not justified abusive language toward anybody here, we can leave Akinola out of this, I have enough to take care myself.

Ben W

Ben: the listening process will not move us on any further because the areas of disagreement are absolutely fundamental to those who strongly believe in those views.

I have been involved in this sort of process. I sat on a diocesan commission group looking at the topic for two years.

We did get to understand each other more. But, ultimately, no-one changed their minds. And we were still left with the practical issue: that given that neither side would agree to the others wishes, is there a way in which we can co-exist other than by agreeing to let the other do that which we disagreed with?

I am quite sure that both sides have listened but that the outcome of that listening is the same: so, if you are then suggesting that 'the majority should rule', then you see no place for the integrity of liberals within the church.

I can't see, given the strength of feeling, how the two sides can co-exist anyway. I know the conservative view well, I still find it as harmful and wrong as when I first heard it. Conservatives regularly say exactly the same about liberal approaches.

Listening may help us to understand why people think as they do. But it will not bring people closer together in itself. I can only speak from experience: and your own contributions do not suggest that you are open to your mind being changed either.

On the subject of employment regulations, Simon is correct. I think the Hereford decision came as quite a shock to the Church. The exemptions are indeed narrow and cover very few posts other than clergy. Even those posts which might have been covered are not immune from being found guilty according to the new laws. The judgement, as much as conservatives tried to spin otherwise, was disastrous for the church which is why they realised that appealing was a waste of time.

Ben: you do have the problem, though, that Akinola is the leading voice for your side in the current debate, and he thinks gay people should be put in prison, and has been supporting the proposed change in the law in Nigeria to that effect. I think he has also been caught on camera trying to exorcise them too. So, you do perhaps need to say to what extent you distance yourself from those in the Church who agree with him: merely saying you are unaware of his words is probably not enough here.

Ben W,

Are you claiming that you yourself has been listening?

I ask, because the number of horreurs you have been throwing about here at Thinking Anglicans in 10 days certainly belie it.

"a "true realization""

I thought I was pretty clear that I don't think their conclusion was necessarily the correct one, hence my statement;

"As to whether or not they acted properly in dealing with our manifest humanity, well, that's the debate"

"How did you come to have such absolute knowledge of this? "

Those who speak most loudly on the Right often make claims that are untrue, yet which they claim are scientific. Furthormore, they often make claims that are simply hateful. This is proof they have no love for us. It is also pretty clear from some of the glaring misconceptions they have that they have not listened.

"I know he is a bishop in Nigeria,I did not hear him say these things....we can leave Akinola out of this,"

I'd suggest Google, or perhaps a reading of Anglican news organs over the past ten years. Willful ignorance is no defence. I'd suggest you inform yourself about him. You ask how I can know the Right has no love for gay people, yet you claim ignorance of one of the most prominent leaders of the side you defend? Do you not see how this affects your credibility? And no we can't leave him out of this. He is one of the most prominent voices in this debate, indeed, he is actively encouraging schism in TEC. What he says is extremely important. You might not have informed yourself on the man, but surely those in CANA have. That they are willing to follow a bishop who calls gay people inhuman, who supports a draconian anti-gay law that even criminalizes those who are kind to us, says an awful lot about their Fishtianity, and is pretty good evidence that for them, these kinds of things are secondary to opposition to gay people. So, where's the love?

Fr Mark,

Is it a question of "sides?" I was thinking and speaking about this probably before either of us heard of Akinola. My point was simply that I have not heard him say these words, did you? I have read some of what is going on there, and there have been heated exchanges in all directions. As we noted here before, in their situation in the face of Islam they are trying to come up with a system of laws that cover different forms of immorality that includes adultery and so on. They are not singling out homosexuality, if the history and conviction on the basis of scripture is of this as immoral then it becomes a challenge of how to include things like adultery or homosexuality in law. So simply to think without regard for their context and to take a few words, out of context, and become the judge in this matter is for me a bit premature! Without some care on our part, it will quite rightly be perceived as a hangover of colonialism.

Ben W

Ford,

For most of what I need to say read my note to Fr Mark.

As I said there has been language of denigration from both sides around this for a long time. I try not to be part of that. What I think we do not hear or understand about someone like Akinola, who is a leader in the church called to be a faithful shepherd to and for his people and convinced on the basis scripture and the history of Christian teaching about this, it cannot be a matter indifference. Does not mean this is "the" way to deal with it.

Ben W

Merseymike,

That is a helpful response, I understand more where you are coming from.

I agree that simply repeating the call to listen may not be useful. Without having some directions or basis for talking and listening to each other it may in fact polarize and harden positions. Like the abortion debate, it can just become a night battle in which people clash (although on that front after much skirmishing there have been some advances at long last).

I think part of what RW is trying to do is get people to reflect on what we have in common that might be the basis for constructive conversation. Is there a common and coherent allegiance to scripture to serve as a clear reference for discussion? What does the scientific info actually add up to? Unless we get to basic questions (or assumptions) we will continue going around in circles.

Ben W

Ben: you have a very benign take on Abp Akinola. Would you not want to distance yourself from him in any way?

I think he is someone who is not fit to be a Anglican leader, because he calls for the persecution of gay people (whereas our own dear Archbishop has recently reminded us of the Anglican Church's absolute duty to combat discrimination against gay people). Saying that there are even more hard-line Muslims in Nigeria, therefore the Christians have to be hard-line strikes me as rather peculiar logic, and a capitulation to the purely worldly way of doing ethics that the illiberals usually accuse the rest of us of.

I think part of what RW is trying to do is get people to reflect on what we have in common that might be the basis for constructive conversation. Is there a common and coherent allegiance to scripture to serve as a clear reference for discussion? What does the scientific info actually add up to? Unless we get to basic questions (or assumptions) we will continue going around in circles.

Ben W

You 'keep going around in circles' because your thinking IS circular. It's your choice. It is your loss. Alas ...

Ben; I think the answer is actually 'no'. I think that the views held by liberals and conservatives about both interpretation and authority of the bible is miles apart. The scientific/medical/psychological views expressed here are plain enough. And they are not sympathetic, at all, to the conservative case.

The thing is that I think all this is already known. It seems to me that the question is: yes, we can continue to listen, but what in the meantime?

My ecclesiastical teeth were put on edge when +Rowan has bishops as "the primate's bishops"
See my reflection at
http://www.liturgy.co.nz/worship/matters_files/archbishopcanterburyadventletter.html

Fr Mark,

I think I have said what needs to be said. I do not justify the language of denigration toward anyone. I have said nothing like "there are hard-line Muslims in Nigeria, therefore the Christians have to be hard-line." I have simply said to form these quicky judgements without regard to context etc is premature.

I do not only look at what you and others here raise I also look what people in Africa seek to affirm. In light of the order in creation (e.g. the very form and structure of male and female human bodies) and in the light of Biblical and historic Christian teaching on marriage we do not equate the homosexual relation with this.

So we should keep a few things in view here: Most of the societies of the world see this point. In African societies there is a struggle over how to implement appropriate marriage law. I think some are prepared to speak to that as there is opportunity (RW is I think trying to do that). With all the abuse, distortion, exploitation and decay in this area of life in our own societies we should not be surprised if they want to do their own thinking on this!

Peace,

Ben W

But, Ben, sexual ethics in many African societies are in a terrible mess, because there are still such taboos about articulating certain aspects of sexuality. Ask anyone who works in the AIDS field in Africa. I had the experience, when I lived in Africa, of regularly having my bottom pinched by leering African men, while at the same time being told that homosexuality is a white man's disease that does not exist in Africa - so please don't try to claim there is a higher standard there: there's just more hypocrisy.

There is no order in so-called 'creation', Ben. Christian myth. There is diversity within humanity, though, and evidence that sexual orientation exists. And the bible is simply wrong because it has no understanding of sexual orientation, thus what it has to say about gay relationships is somewhere between non-existent and contextually irrelevant.

Fr Mark,

I am not saying that sexual relations in Africa have been "perfected." They do have serious matters to deal with. I think in light of what we see in our societies we need to do a "rethink" ourselves and in some ways have at least as much to learn from them as to teach. Especially in the case of Christians trying to recover in their societies the better way of gospel hope and life.

Just today as I open The Chriatian Century (Nov 27, '07) what is headlined is a piece called, Sold into Slavery. The reality is, there are at least 12 million slaves (and perhaps as many as 27 million according to some estimates). And of this 87% involves women and childen being trafficked and forced into prostitution. Recently the Vatican has declared that human trafficking in our time is a greater scourge than the 18th century slave trade.

Perhaps that will put some of our concerns in perspective and spur us to find a moral base from which to name and address the evil around us. A basic point made is that in many places communities for generations esteemed virtues that supported virtues and relationships that transcended the pull of material accumulation. This has been eroded (in "globalization") and given way to the almighty dollar, increasingly anything can be commodified (13 billion dollar industry!). We need a new Wilberforce and those with real Christian conviction who will respond.

Peace,

Ben W

Merseymike,

I think in much of what we have is confusion and very little light. Ideology, as all through the 20th century (one "ism" after another), hard at work with some elements of truth but predominantly rationalization, so that whole societies and generaaations lost their way or were to a great extent destroyed!

You say about Biblical teaching and the formation or development of human sexuality "The thing is that I think all this is already known." In truth this in great part is more ASSUMED than known. Not that there is not solid information out there, but with all those with "vested" interests out who can only see things from their there is indeed very little light. I have worked with the best and the most recent in Biblical interpretation, it is quite clear certain hypotheses put out over the last decades and still waved around here at times, have really been shown up to be ideology ( they persist and hang on like a bad cold - with elements of truth and more rationalization). The deadly earlier "isms" were just as sure as you are "creation" is myth and that the Bible is irrelevant - indeed for the most part they "knew" God was irrelevant!

Ben W

"I also look what people in Africa seek to affirm."

But, Ben, what Africans "seek to affirm" is often tied up with postcolonial politics. It isn't difficult to see a kind of anti-colonialism in what +Akinola says. I understand where he's coming from, and I respect the parts of it that are about Africans taking control of their own destiny and rejecting the inferiority complex that comes with having been colonized. But there is also the tacit acceptance of the attitude many Africans express that homosexuality is not African, or worse that it was dreamt up by the Whites to oppress Africans. +Akinola may not have said this, but other African bishops have. There is also the fact that he relishes the idea, and this is also quite plain in his public statements, that the descendants of the maltreated colonized are now bringing the Gospel back to the descendants of the colonizers who have abandoned the faith of their fathers. He has said so, in nearly those words. He feels he is getting his own back, and, vicariously, wreaking vengeance on the descendants of those who enslaved his ancestors. I'm not saying their attitudes towards gay people are entirely about opposing, even hating, the former colonizers, I know it is part of their culture. But to appear to paint them out as some stalwart defenders of the Gospel truth, not sullied by cultural and political baggage is a bit of a stretch.

Yes, Ben, and I learnt a huge amount from being in Africa. But how to be a well-functioning society when it comes to sexual ethics wasn't one of them, and I'm surprised at how naive some of the Anglican illiberals in the West are about that. I think they are clutching at straws: they are just desparate to find some part of the world where people share their ignorance about homosexuality. The fact that this might go hand in hand with backwardness in other areas hasn't become clear to them yet. It will do, though, in time.

"The deadly earlier "isms" were just as sure as you are "creation" is myth and that the Bible is irrelevant - indeed for the most part they "knew" God was irrelevant!"

I just tuigged to this. I see what you did: if one is not a Creationist, one believes the Bible is irrelevant. Is this an accurate assessment of what you think? This is an interesting insight into your atittudes, actually. Not your creationism, but what it says about how you view scientific investigation. I make no wonder you seem to think there is no science that shows homosexuality to be something other than what you wa