This seems muddled to me:

"We seek to affirm both biblical orthodoxy and Catholic order, but a Catholic order that will serve the Catholic faith, not the other way around. Were Catholic faith to serve Catholic order, there would never have been a Reformation"

He must have written this very quickly.

The point about meeting in a different place with a select group of people is to come up with a different select result, probably one pre-arranged, just as the website was pre-arranged before the Nairobi meeting that a few select enjoyed.

Why would the CT publish this rubbish, is beyond me.

'Bishops and their wives, and clergy and laity, including the next generation of young leaders, will attend GAFCON. It will bring together Anglican leaders from around the globe, who are committed to the accepted teaching of the Bible, of the Church throughout the ages, and of the Anglican Communion.'

So any bishops who happen to single or female are by definition not invited and by implication are not committed to the accepted teaching of the bible, of the church, or of the Anglican Communion.

Very convenient.

Kennedy

What Pluralist said -- I found the entire article confusing -- I have always seen the "Broad Church" tradition as the one holding the "High" & "Low" together -- GAFCON seems to be exalting the extremes without a middle -- it is all most perplexing!

Leonel, think of it as being in the same category as this earlier item from July 2003:

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=20653

Does anyone else find it very revealing of the "orthodox" mindset that this meeting was planned without consulting the local bishop and is going ahead over his strong objections?

As Simon is I think saying, there are times when we simply need to give them enough rope....

The reports seem to indicate that GAFCON was planned by Minns et al overriding the local bishop? Hope they don't drink Coke at the meeting.

I am glad that the Church Times publishes such things. It allows the neo-Puritans the space and time to articulate their ideas clearly, so that when it is pointed out how deficient in "Catholic Order" and "gospel values" their project truly is, they can't turn around and say: "I was misquoted/taken out of context/misconstrued". Publish and be damned, I think someone once said.

JPM, is the local bishop considered "orthodox"? If not, then I'm sure they feel quite justified in ignoring him. If not, then they probably feel his "orthodoxy" would mean unquestioning support. See how easy everything is when God is on your side?

"the central and unchanging historic Anglican faith."

Unchanging? On what planet is Anglicanism "unchanging"?

"Those who wish to retain biblical standards, especially in the area of sexual ethics"

The "especially' is interesting, and telling. Other kinds of ethics are secondary to sexual ethics, at least in so far as concern for such things unites the GAFCONers.

"We want to ensure that our relationships in the Anglican Communion reflect gospel values."

The time is long past for them to start reflecting Gospel values. They have had all their lives to reflect Gospel values. They might once have done so, but they obviously abandoned the practice when they took up this fight. Why would they start (?again?) now?

"biblical orthodoxy"

No such thing.

So, to summarize, driven by a fear of change, they have defined sexual ethics as their main unifier and, seemingly, have decided that one's opposition to what one might think of as a modern sexual ethic or lack thereof is a key Gospel value, the expression of which, to judge by their behaviour, overrides any responsibility to abide by other Gospel values like truth, mutual love, respect, forgiveness, forebearance, humility, oh, the list of those Gospel Values secondary to a particular sexual ethic seems to be longer than I realized when I first started this sentence. They then invent the concept of "Biblical orthodoxy" to define this rather peculiar interpretation of the Gospel.

Prior Aelred: exactly. I can't imagine the two extremes will have a long and happy marriage together.

The rhetoric is beginning to sound like young children trying to explain bad behavior, e.g., "I didn't want to do that but you made me," and "I didn't steal that because it was never really yours." I wish the group would either give an honest explanation or quit trying to justify their actions.

"GAFCON will... build a network of co-operation..."

That means they're going to huddle themselves into a separatist sect. Those who cooperate get to stay in the loop. That's simple schismatic abandoning communion with the non-networked. What else can it mean?

I loved the cartoon. You know, if you keep turning right, you end up going in circles, or at least squares.

Kennedy

Your observation is valid. There are some that purport that women can not and should not be teachers or ministers, let alone bishops or primates. They are the same souls that say that the world looks this way because of something Eve did so many millenia ago.

Rubbish. God can use women to do a Job or a Jonah as easily as God can use a man. In fact, God being what God is, if God is annoyed God is most likely to confront and confound them with exactly what they say can't be done. So if they say a woman can't be a prophet, God will send them a female prophet. If they purport that a woman can not teach them anything new about the bible, God will use a woman to do exactly that. If they claim that a woman can not trust in God and go through the tribulations such as Job and still retain their faith in God, God will use a woman to specifically prove that it can be done. If they purport that a woman could not get the masses to repent and leave the legacy of Jonah (no church in the prophet's own name), then God will use a woman to get billions to repent.

1 Corinthians 1:25 The foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

The joy of the last few years is all these "orthodox" Christians who purport to worship the eternal all-encompassing God foolishly decided that God was no longer capable of intervening in history nor sending prophets.

Like some foolish Jews before them, there are some Christians who foolishly think that because they are "beloved" by Jesus as all of God they can be rude little snits. Nope. It's not okay to desecrate covenants and Creation, by anyone whether they be Jew, Christian or secular.

You want peace? Give peace. You want kindness? Give kindness. You want forgiveness, compassion, mercy and gentleness? Give them. Do unto others as you would want done unto you.

"This is one of God’s ways of ensuring that Churches in the West are not overwhelmed by the power of their surrounding culture, because they are in fellowship with and accountable to Christians in other cultures and contexts."

Since the Province of the Southern Cone has made such an effort to enter fellowship with Christians who were actually born and raised there and promote them to leadership positions...

"Gospel values" hmph! Sounds more like Torah Values (without the benefit of the Talmud) to me.

Biblical Orthodoxy...when Gafcon participants can't agree on the meaning of baptissm, the eucharist, salvation, heterosexual marriage and divorce et al.

That Captian Jensen has a lay presidency time bomb in the hold, should preclude any genuine Anglo-catholic bishop who upholds the Catholic view of Holy Order, getting on board.

Self deception par excellence....and the bar of orhodoxy is reduced to homosexuality.

Lets hide our divisions and bash up the gays.

"Why hold a conservative Anglican conference? The gathering is vital to ensure that Churches are not overwhelmed by Western culture, argues Chris Sugden"

Phooey. "Conservative Anglicanism" [sic] is MORE Western than any other form of Anglicanism, past or present! [The FACADE of "Global" or "Global South" tacked onto a creation by white, male, Western REACTIONARIES (Also heterosexists . . . but not necessarily, ala +Horsham, heterosexual! ;-/)]

Birds of a feather..... It would be refreshing if they would just say what's really on their minds. The world is changing in many places, patriarchy is losing some of its' appeal, women are gaining a more equal footing in the church with men, and many people simply don't give a damn about what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Their focus on sex is a sickness, if Jesus thought it so important why didn't he speak to it and put it in its' proper place. Hating gays isn't any difference than hating Jews or blacks or hispanics or anyone else who might be different. Lord have mercy.

Thanks loads Mike, I, too, was beginning to hear the voices of children excusing their own pecadillos by loudly focusing on other peoples' alleged shortcomings. If you and I are not being viciously named as the problem because this or that or the other hot button litmus test doesn't pass us through to Akinola's feast, then that bugaboo called modernity or the modern age or the fashion of modern society will do nicely. Yeah, right, bishop.

The best thing about this realignment campaign so far is how much of it has been boldly and mischievously carried on, right in public and right in broad daylight so far as media and internet publications go. Akinola's piece is priceless, simply because he apparently thinks the whole matter is resolved by definitional and presuppositional party lines - as if there were not one solid shred of contrary data. I guess in a more everyday sense, we can safely conclude that Akinola has never personally spent much time with any competent-ethical queer citizen, currently alive and thriving in any of the modern democracies. That is Akinola's loss, no doubt about it. So why should it become our deficit as well? Or why should it be laid down as an absolute law, mandating worldwide deficits in all Anglican believers?

The rest of us can then base our provisional evaluations on what Akinola or some other heated campaign leader has said or written, instead of just how they sounded on the surface of things from one or another modern (and often empirically based?) framework.

Trouble is, the more you listen, the less and less and less you hear. I now think the summary tag of antigay nicely and accurately sums up almost all of the legacy positions I hear being preached to explain and justify - and yes, make threats against the rest of us? - in this unfortunate realignment campaign which is supposed to conform the planet to this utterly special (and new) pattern of conservative Anglican religion.

Gospel? Well, no, not so much - not so far.

""We want to ensure that our relationships in the Anglican Communion reflect gospel values."

Except, of course, for that part of the gospel that talks about specific kinds of people being blessed....

And, for that matter, can anyone point me to a condemnation of homosexuality in the gospels? I remain unaware of one. What they really want to ensure is Paulist values.

When the GAFCON Primates talk about their Anglican 'Orthodoxy', what precisely are they exoecting us to understand by that appellation?

Surely, 'orthodoxy' means right belief and action in a given contaxt - in this case the historical tradition of Anglicanism. The Global South Primates' action in overseeing the 'ordination' of bishops and clergy for infiltration into another provincial area is surely not 'othodox'?

As one of the promoters of the GAFCON meeting, the Archibishop of Sydney cannot surely consider himself to be 'orthodox' - while at the same time promoting the introduction of 'lay-presidency' at the Eucharist. It seems to me that the use of the 'orthodox' word has a very loose connotation in the world of the Global South version of Anglicanism. I hardly think that our traditional Anglican 'inclusivism' can be expected to stretch credibility so far.

Another problem I see on the horizon for GAFCON is the unlikely amalgam of the 'anti-women' and the 'ultra mantane' factions that are being asked to attend the Gathering. It sounds a bit like trying to match Calvin with Cardinal Newman. How on earth - or even in heaven - are the competing claims for 'orthodoxy' going to be satisfied by Archbishop Akinola and his cohorts?

Amongst all the gay bashing reports, visitors to Anglican Mainstream will note the efforts to show TEC, Canada and England as deviating from the narrow "gospel". I see that Anglican Mainstream calls this report:

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7500

Another straw in the wind: The installation of the bishop of Nevada.

It might be lost amongst all the homophobia around it. I rather prefer the reports I've highlighted, of a blessing of the bishop and of the same school and students in Nevada

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/01/we-are-praying-with-you.html

that I have contrasted with the small minded people at Padiham in little England

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/01/were-not-praying-with-you.html

which includes a couple of good, robust comments.

To Ford: In case you didn't read it on Thursday's thread re Bishop Don Wimberly, I referred to you in my post as "Fred." I apologize for misnaming you.

When the GAFCON Primates talk about their Anglican 'Orthodoxy', what precisely are they exoecting us to understand by that appellation?

Surely, 'orthodoxy' means right belief and action in a given contaxt - in this case the historical tradition of Anglicanism. The Global South Primates' action in overseeing the 'ordination' of bishops and clergy for infiltration into another provincial area is surely not 'othodox'?

As one of the promoters of the GAFCON meeting, the Archibishop of Sydney cannot surely consider himself to be 'orthodox' - while at the same time promoting the introduction of 'lay-presidency' at the Eucharist. It seems to me that the use of the 'orthodox' word has a very loose connotation in the world of the Global South version of Anglicanism. I hardly think that our traditional Anglican 'inclusivism' can be expected to stretch credibility so far.

Another problem I see on the horizon for GAFCON is the unlikely amalgam of the 'anti-women' and the 'ultra montane' factions that are being asked to attend the Gathering. It sounds a bit like trying to match Calvin with Cardinal Newman. How on earth - or even in heaven - are the competing claims for 'orthodoxy' going to be satisfied by Archbishop Akinola and his cohorts?

They are defending Cultural Taboos (the last one on Marriage was the "equal" birth, incl. skin colour, of the bride - which determined the status and ability to inherit of the children, remember) and false translations.

As such Taboos, being cultural constructs, never have a demonstrable base in Law or Gospel, they are angry and upset. Who wouldn't be?

For me the most interesting aspect of comment here has been on the possibly new alliance between high and low. e.g.

"I have always seen the "Broad Church" tradition as the one holding the "High" & "Low" together -- GAFCON seems to be exalting the extremes without a middle -- it is all most perplexing!" (Prior Aelred)

While I share Fr Mark's question about whether the marriage will be long and happy I'd also be interested to hear why people think it so obvious that the Broad Church/ liberal wing is the middle between the two. To me, all three seem both to overlap in different ways and to differ significantly from each other. And all three can manage to be extreme on bad days. Is the new alliance any more surprising than any of the old ones?

...Venables, said: “...Our pastoral responsibility to the people that we lead is now to provide the opportunity to come together around the central and unchanging tenets of the central and unchanging historic Anglican faith. Rather than being subject to the continued chaos and compromise that have dramatically impeded Anglican mission, GAFCON will seek to clarify God’s call...

...Jensen, has written: “...Those who wish to retain biblical standards, especially in the area of sexual ethics, want to move on together with the gospel of Christ’s lordship, a gospel which challenges us and changes lives."

The "orthodox" try to stop the world itself by finding purchase on a specific and (they would claim) necessarily invariant sexual ethic. Their project is doomed from the outset. Nothing has changed more rapidly in the social ethic of industrial cultures over the past century than sexual and gender relationships and their attendant sexual ethics. These progressive changes are deeply set now and continue apace. Fewer and fewer will take seriously an religious ethical hermeneutic that does not take them into full account. Almost certainly, the grandchildren of the orthodox in many provinces will someday soon think them lovable old cranks.

There is such a thing as biblical orthodoxy, and as Christian orthodoxy. If there were not, then the terms 'biblical' and 'Christian' would have no meaning. Anyone who believes that these two words have meaning (ie all of us) also, by definition, believes therefore that there are certain things which they include within their semantic range and certain things which they (wickedly?) exclude from that semantic range.

It is often clear what the biblical (or at least the New Testament) united position on a given topic is. Even where it is not, it is always clear that certain possible positions are always going to be excluded from the range of possibilities.

"I can't imagine the two extremes will have a long and happy marriage together."

Oh, but divorce is OK:-)

"Gospel values" hmph! Sounds more like Torah Values (without the benefit of the Talmud) to me."

I agree. No disrespect to my Jewish brethren and sisters. I have often made reference to the old hymn "Free From the Law, Oh Happy Condition". It used to be a popular Evangelical type hymn around these parts. Is this concept of freedom from Law forgotten because Evangelicals have abandoned their musical heritage (enjoyment of which is something of a guilty pleasure for this Anglo-catholic. Sanky Rules!)in favour of the mindless panEvangelical Pap (or MPEPs)that seems to pass for hymnody where-ever one find a "Praise Band"?

GoSane+

No problem. I kind of thought it was me, but you were so laudatory, I thought it presumptuous to respond. Thank you for the comments. ANd ford isn't all that common a name elsewhere, I'm used to being called Fred, or Dr. Ford.

Now I get it! They have made a Gaffe and now wish to Con the rest of the Church.

Orthodoxy keeps changing. Nineteenth century churchpeople would not see the present range of expressions as orthodox, and eighteenth century folk would be even more baffled. One reason the Unitarians never got off the ground in the Netherlands was because their 'mainline' Churches were quite liberal to start with. Here they argued for positions now readily accepted as orthodox. Today biblical interpretation and understanding of the tradition, never unified, is wide open. Orthodox is even losing its meaning, and being turned into something else by a sectarian party that can only get what it wants by separating. It's just a dead loss of a game, Christopher Shell. You can't maintain it or impose it, only purify by association.

"There is such a thing as biblical orthodoxy, and as Christian orthodoxy. If there were not, then the terms 'biblical' and 'Christian' would have no meaning. Anyone who believes that these two words have meaning (ie all of us) also, by definition, believes therefore that there are certain things which they include within their semantic range and certain things which they (wickedly?) exclude from that semantic range."

As far as I am concerned, true Christian orthodoxy is summed up in the two great commandments. Everything else is, at best, commentary, and, at least, irrelevant.

"It is often clear what the biblical (or at least the New Testament) united position on a given topic is. Even where it is not, it is always clear that certain possible positions are always going to be excluded from the range of possibilities."

Really? Then what is the "clear" NT united position on same-sex unions? Please give chapter and verse.

Ah yes chum Christopher S but we still have wide Anglican differences in how closed we think our distinctions and discernments are, whether as thought or feeling or action or ethics or theology or canon law or polity or ...?

One of our key underlying Anglican differences involves the huge continuums, from open to closed.

Another might easily be seen to be: Our huge continuums from empirical-hypothesis-testing minded to empirical-hypothesis-testing disdainful.

Yet another? Maybe, our Anglican hermeneutics. Do we not hugely vary in hermeneutics?

To the point that some Anglicans do not even acknowledge that they have hermeneutics? Replacing an honest examination of hermeneutics by loud claims to be nothing but biblical or orthodox, say?

As if scripture or orthodoxy were just the sort of divine understanding that puts God's thought, whole, into the human head and heart? All, unprocessed by any meaningful operations of reason? Or unprocessed by core orientations to human empathy, heartfelt, affiliative in a social animal sense, incarnate or embodied, emotional, and oh so precious and wise?

Now.

If we Anglicans effectively and honestly talked long and hard, not about take it or leave it realignment thinking, but about our real differences – then surely our talk would involve something besides a wholesale acceptance or rejection of Anglican conservative realignment.

One clue? We might examine together the nuances, ins, and outs of key hermeneutic (or presuppositional?) terms, like biblical or biblical orthodox?

Then we might get somewhere. Even when we did agree, we might understand one another better, and be better able to agree to disagree.

Then could we rediscover the profound wisdom of historic Anglicanism? Letting God work among US through our differences as we prayerfully discern while keeping ourselves open together to God in Eucharist?

Alas. Nowadays the conservative realignment Anglican believer gets highly offended that their weird new conservatisms do not dominate and trump us right from the beginning to the middle to the end of all possible understanding. The rest of us still remain, a little surprised, after they have left the Anglican room in a terrible huff.

Then the committed realignment believer comes back into the room, telling the rest of us we must leave or conform. God really gave the room, only to their sort of Anglican.

You expect all Anglicans who matter to quietly fall in line without asking serious questions from available alternate intelligent, heartfelt Anglican means?

There is such a thing as Christian orthodoxy. Those involved in GaffeConJob are impacably opposed to it, preferring their own petty hatemongering.

Two things struck me about Sugden's Screed.

First, he completely ignores the fact that the Bishop with Jurisdiction (who, yes, is deemed orthodox by these pushy buggers) has told them they aren't welcome.

Second, I don't think I've read such badly written crap since the death of Enver Hoxha.

""Gospel values" hmph! Sounds more like Torah Values (without the benefit of the Talmud) to me."

I found this sentence bemusing. One of my intriguing insights in the last few years is that how some evangelicals portray Judaism and what Judaism is actually bears very little correlation for most parties.

Even more amusing has been watching the antics of the priests who cover themselves in violence purporting to be saved by Jesus' grace and thus blessed and unable to make the same errors as their older Jewish cousins.

Rubbish. They've made a bigger botch of it than the Jews did.

The other thing about the Torah and Old Testament is that it is really worth going back and reading them independently of any scribes' bible study manual. It is simply amazing how some incredibly beautiful and inspiring passages have been glossed over as though they were never even written. Go find them for yourselves, it is a joy. Particularly pertinent and inspiring passages can be found in Zechariah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Hosea, Malachi, Habbakuk, Micah.

It also doesn't hurt to remember that the New Testament was pulled together by a Catholic scribe under instruction from his pope. It is the editing and compilation of one man from the perspective of pulling together Christianity in a framework that underpinned Catholic chuch paradigms. This brings in subjectivity and personal agendas and thus filtering. Thus the New Testament is biased at its foundations.

They did what needed to be done at the time but the overly cautious (or overly selfish) sometimes think it is more "complete" than it actually is. Thus there is room for growth and diversity. Which God likes, so I don't have a problem with that.

And sorry, but to tout that you have the successful paradigms for the last 2000 years is not a compliment. To be on the "winning team" when the world has gotten into such a mess is not a compliment, souls should be ashamed and blushing about such loathsome conduct and outcomes.

Congratulations on your Albanian, Malcolm+!

Will Sydney explode the lay presidency time bomb in the hold of the " goodship" Gafcon...?

If so , please advise Bishops Iker, Schofield and other Anglo-catholics to take a life raft with them.

Bishop Iker claims Joining the Southern Cone will help Fort Worth preserve its "Anglo-Catholic heritage."

How ironic when one considers it was the anti-Catholic South American Miisionary Society which was the proime mover in setting up Southern Cone.

Futhermore Southern Cone was the first Anglican province to debate and nearly approve lay presidency.

Furthermore presiding Bishop Venables has never prayed for a dead soul in his life, let alone claimed to offer Mass for one.

Yet they are all off to GAFCON!!

With thanks to Robert Ian Williams for making a clear contrast again. Sorry to repeat a question but I'd love people's thoughts on it.

I can see the potential for comedy in 'anti-catholics' and 'anglo-catholics' meeting together. But if we're labelling people that starkly can someone explain why that's intrinsically more ludicrous than e.g. Anglo-Catholics and the sort of liberal who might be happy with the label anti-tradition? or evangelicals and anti-Paul liberals (several friends here come across as anti-Paul at least some of the time.)
I'm not sure this new (if it is new) grouping/alliance is any more surprising than the ones we've lived with for the last 200/400 years.

Critical tradition not anti-tradition. Sometimes anti-Paul but usually anti the Paul that turns out not to be Paul but someone else who thought Paul would think this or that.

But Sydney is resolutely Protestant and on his web site Doctor Peter Jensen boasts how he refused to attend a Roman Catholic Mass. That is why the GAFCON criteria is amazing.....will he allow Iker to swing the incense at the opening Holy Communion Service of GAFCON?

For +Jack Jeo Iker the gay issue trumps all other issues--except women's ordination.

>>>will he allow Iker to swing the incense at the opening Holy Communion Service of GAFCON?

It will not be a Holy Communion service, Robert, but a Memorial Meal consisting of Ritz Crackers and Welch's grape juice, served from a folding card table and distributed by a layman (not laywoman!!!!!) dressed in shorts, a Hawaiian shirt, and flipflops.

I don't think that incense is allowed at this sort of thing, so Pope Jack Leo I of Fort Worth and All Else That He Surveyeth will have to content himself with spritzing some Febreze around.

The sad thing is that JPM is spot on!

You know, JCM, aside from the grape juice and Ritz, and the unorthodox theology (am I supposed to start calling them apostate and faithless and heathen for their beliefs concerning the Eucharist?) that sounds like a lovely Mass.

JPM. Not JCM. Sorry.

"aside from the grape juice and Ritz, and the unorthodox theology (am I supposed to start calling them apostate and faithless and heathen for their beliefs concerning the Eucharist?)"

What is it about the grape juice that gets people so upset? Is it SO wrong to use "fruit of the vine" in order to include our alcoholic brothers and sisters?

"Sorry, Jesus wants us to use alcohol only, so you can't be part of this great feast"....doesn't sound Christian at all.

"What is it about the grape juice that gets people so upset? Is it SO wrong to use "fruit of the vine" in order to include our alcoholic brothers and sisters?"

A lot of it is political baggage, I grant you: fervent Evangelicals getting all condemnatory of those have even the slightest whiff of alcohol. That's my sin. Thus, the using of grape juice in worship seems to be as often about it NOT being alcohol as it is about any concern for alcoholics. Second, Jesus used wine. There is powerful symbolism in the use of wine, for that reason, for the reason that His first miracle was changing water into wine, because it links the Eucharist through the Last Supper to the Jewish antecedents of the faith, and so on. I have no problem making provision for alcoholics, Erika. I ask this as a serious question, because I don't know the answer: is there a serious risk of relapse for an alcoholic having a small sip of wine at Mass? If so, by all means, us non-alcoholic substitutes.

Ford,
the honest answer is that I don't know 100% because I am not a recovering alcoholic.
I have been a recovering smoker who had tried to give up many times, some times even successfully. The first drag on a cigarette always seemed to set off all the "I want I want I want" signals, and however disciplined I tried to be, I always went back to smoking. I finally managed to stop when I was pregnant with my first baby - pregnancy has its own way of helping you along.

My judgement is also informed by having grown up with an alcoholic father who kept trying to battle his illness. He would succeed for months at a time but eventually always start again. He would kid himself that "this time" he'd really cracked it until his doctor pointed out that he always got thrown out in the same curve, so how could he say he'd cracked it while he was still on the straight approaching the curve?
He spent some time in clinics and then in the AA, but while he kidded himself that he could still have the odd sip and still be alright, he invariably succumbed eventually.

Finally, when he hit absolutely rock bottom in every respect you can imagine, he stopped for the last time - and has now been dry for 12 years.

Is it all an attitude thing, could he now drink the odd sip? I have no idea. But I know that he won't risk it. I know that he scans the parish magazine pages to find out when Holy Communion is with juice rather than wine, and that he makes a point of going then.

I know that my brother, who is in a similar position, will no longer eat anything that has been cooked with wine even if all alcohol has evaporated in the cooking process.

Are they right to be paranoid?
I don't know. But I know that they are and that they may well be right to be.
That alone matters to me.

In some of my Dad's churches they have wine some Communions, juice at others. In other churches, they bless wine and juice and serve both in individual goblets. It loses the meaning of sharing one cup, but so does sharing one body when lots and lots of individual pieces of "bread" have been blessed.

Erika:

I don't know how it is in CoE, but here in the US, there is no obligation to receive the Eucharist in both forms. Why can't an alcoholic simply take the bread only, as many children do?

For heavens sake, it doesn't matter if it is wine, water, or juice.

Paul wrote at length about dietary restrictions and whether or not they mattered.

1 Corinthians 8:9 "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak."

Serve up a non-alcoholic option and your conscience is clean.

Those who choose to exploit or expose a soul's weakness are condemned by their own sanctimonious cruelty. Remember Noah in the tent and Genesis 9, the souls who choose to expose and gloat over another's weaknesses are the souls who are condemned to slavery. They already personify slavery by not being able to forgive and transcend the circumstances.

Interstingly the draft for the Anglican covenant calls for the sacraments ministerd in the elements ordained by Christ.

Pat
It's about common courtesy, and about including people as fully as possible and on the same level as everyone else. It's about the subliminal messages we're giving out - all Christians are equal but some are more equal than others.

Taking the wine is an important and integral part of Holy Communion, otherwise why would we do it in the first place?

Of course we can treat recovering alcoholics like children. We're good at patronising people who aren't quite up to our standards, be it their gender, their sexuality or, in this case, their own fault for not being able to join in "properly".

But is that truly what Jesus stands for?