11 days. And I thought that the Global South objected to the cost of attending Lambeth....oh, but of course, they're not paying for this one!

I was under the distinct impression that Jordan had also categorically rejected hosting GAFCON, from the royal family downwards. Have they actually got a venue booked?

Also, is it really true that there won't be any bishops' husbands present?

Merseymike -- I thought the same thing - who is footing the bill on this thing? Transportation costs alone must be enormous!

MerseyMike...they objected to Lambeth because they didn't want to pay for a conference that doesn't DO anything ..like discipline TEC and pass enforcement resolutions. But then again, in the minutes recorded of +Akinola's meeting with +Jerusalem, when accused of planning GAFCON with a political agenda, +Abuja said no.

But of course it is poltical and has always been so, if not, whynot just skip Jordan complely and just have the pilgrimage?
Jordan, Part 1...invite only the right "orthodox" ...the party faithful the "leadership"...Strategy and planning for Lambeth, maybe a new communion? ..2. The pilgrimage?, an opportunity to evangelize the sheep with the message and strategy that only their self-nominated and self-selected "shepherds" were allowed to create. (especially if they're going to Lambeth) Should be just about perfect. One possible bump in the road: Assuming that only the Jordanian attendees get to determine and define leadership, will there be any wolves among the sheep not happy with the shepherds or, will any of the shepherds not be content if the size of their flock is perceived as too small or their influence to little?

"Participants will include bishops and their wives, key clergy and laity."

This sentence alone says so much.

Too many generals and no guarantee of any large armies that will follow this rump into the Rumpdom!

EPfizh, you beat me to it. As soon as I saw it, the thought that went through my mind is that the Jordan component is going to have a very tightly controlled guest list (and probably a communique that is already in the process of being drafted by an even smaller cabal).

The question is whether GAFCON shifting into Jordan meets Dawani's objection - he said, "Go to Cyprus." It is probably the minimum move to develop again some sort of relationship with the rest of the Global South.

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/02/is-it-far-away-enough.html

As Pluralist says how Dawani will respond to GAFCON simply moving a part of the meeting to another part of his diocese we may soon discover.

I must say I am surprised they have all the logistics in place for this complex set of meetings – am I correct in thinking they are expecting something near 1000 people in Jerusalem?

It sounds more like a “jamboree” than a pilgrimage, with three days given over to “sightseeing” – but perhaps its just a misunderstanding and “sightseeing” just means all are to be taken to visit the sacred places for prayer and reflection, if there are a 1000 that will be a mammoth event in itself.

Is this the week of Jerusalem Pride, I think it might be, how sensitive, how thoughtful of the design committee….

Merseymike and Prior Aelred as who is footing the bill.

As if we didn't know.

Ahmanson et al.

Participants are paying for their own travel and accommodation. Not in the lordly style of TEC bishops, but as pilgrims visiting Jerusalem.

"Participants are paying for their own travel and accommodation. Not in the lordly style of TEC bishops, but as pilgrims visiting Jerusalem."

We're still talking about, what, about $1000 in airfare, another $1000 in hotels, maybe $500 in ground transportation per person from Africa? For primates of nations where the average daily wage is under $5?

John posted: "Participants are paying for their own travel and accommodation. Not in the lordly style of TEC bishops, but as pilgrims visiting Jerusalem."

Oh, of course, the GAFCON crew are paying for it. Well, yes, for perhaps a few, but for most I'd suggest if is more like the following scenario:

Ultra right wing and ultra rich "X" says to me, why not create an anti-Lambeth, and gather all of the ultra "orthodox" (i.e., Puritan fundamentalists) in Jerusalem (or Jordan, or Bournmouth), and here's the check to cover your costs. So. I deposit that check in my account, and then charge the flights and hotels and meals and bar tab on my credit card, and pay the next bill from my checking account. So, I did "pay for my travel and accommodation" with my credit card, but really now, John, where did the funds come from to cover that?

Even travelling in the modest style of pilgrims, I'm quite sure my Lord of Abuja has outspent the total travel budget of a dozen Episcopal Church bishops several times over.

Or rather, I'm sure that Ahmonson has paid that amount out on Akinola's behalf.

"..travelling in the modest style of pilgrims"

Only First Class for Abuja "He is the only one!" a fellow Primate tells me

1. You can't say they aren't fast learners.

2. Are they paying the bills, or their diocese, or behind-the-scenes funders?

A trawl of bankstatements with insies and outsies recorded might leave an interesting audit trail. Some souls' ability to travel so extensively on their "modest" income is laudable. Their wives must be real whizzes at managing the family budget to keep a roof over their heads, and their chidlren clothed and fed.

Today's Church Times advises us that GAFCON will end on 29 June with a "keynote speech". As it is the feast of St Peter and St Paul, I wonder who will be acclaimed as the Peter on whom the Lord will build his purged church. Will is be +Peter Abuja or +Peter Sydney?

I wonder if Paddy Power is offering odds?

Some revealing responses. You are certainly accustomed to judge others by your own standards, conspiracy theories - and methods.

For the record, the invitation to Gafcon is just that. No blank cheques, no hidden subsidy from Trinity Wall Street. I will be paying for myself.

You are one of the invited, John?

Question 2

Is the pilgrimage in Israel a pilgrimage or a conference?

Question 1 was whether Jordan is far enough away to satisfy Bishop Suheil Dawani.

Yes, wholly unsubsidised and at my own expense. There is no 815, TEC, or rich US diocese to sponsor me.

Shocking, huh?!

Congratulations John. Good to hear.

You are not all the participants and your good deeds do not absolve others of their responsibilities.

Ezekiel 18:4 The Lord says “every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.”

Ezekiel 18:20-25 "The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him… Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, O house of Israel: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust?"

Ezekiel 22:12-19 "In you men accept bribes to shed blood; you take usury and excessive interest and make unjust gain from your neighbors by extortion. And you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign LORD. “‘I will surely strike my hands together at the unjust gain you have made and at the blood you have shed in your midst... I will put an end to your uncleanness. When you have been defiled in the eyes of the nations, you will know that I am the LORD.’ ” Then the word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, the house of Israel has become dross to me… Because you have all become dross, I will gather you into Jerusalem.”"

Ezekiel 33:30-33 "“As for you, son of man, your countrymen are talking together about you by the walls and at the doors of the houses, saying to each other, ‘Come and hear the message that has come from the LORD.’ My people come to you, as they usually do, and sit before you to listen to your words, but they do not put them into practice. With their mouths they express devotion, but their hearts are greedy for unjust gain. Indeed, to them you are nothing more than one who sings love songs with a beautiful voice and plays an instrument well, for they hear your words but do not put them into practice. “When all this comes true—and it surely will—then they will know that a prophet has been among them.”

John,
The conservatives in this started by making it about "the gay thing". Now, at least here in Canada, the Network is saying it is about a more general trend to distort and deform Christianity into some postmodern liberal construct. I appreciate that, I once felt the same way about reforms in the Church, and didn't go anywhere for 18 years, because I felt the Church was too liberal! So I appreciate the firmness of your convictions. My question is: how comfortable are you with the actions of the GS leaders? I mean, all blog mud-slinging aside, there is a level of vitriol coming from the Right that, to me, destroys their credibility. Surely they can hold to their beliefs without claiming that gay people are animals, a "cancer on the Body of Christ", jailable, and inhuman. Surely they don't need to cite anti-gay propaganda, and at times what almost constitutes hate literature, to make the point? Surely they don't have to lie about us. Is it necessary for them to claim that TEC is being overrun by faithless pagans trying to destroy the Church? And on and on. I know there has been bad behaviour on both sides, but I see nothing on the Left that can equal the bile, anger, and unChristian behaviour of those on the Right. You are willing to pay your way to GAFCON, so I assume these things do not disgust and dismay you like they do me. Why? Is it that you don't see their behaviour as unChristian, or that you feel desparate times deserve desparate measures, or what? I hope this doesn't sound condescending, I really want to know, since, me beiong no theologian, I can't argue Scriptural interpretation and which Father said what when. I have my misgivings about gay marriage. The only way I can look at this is "by their fruits shall you know them" and I honestly cannot see the fruits of the Gospel in the actions of the Right. It seems obvious to me that they have abandoned the Gospel in their zeal to defend it. You seem to see it very differently, I'm wondering how.

John, it is a bit much, really.

The "conservatives" routinely go Karl Rove all over anyone - and especially any honest conservative - who dares dissent from their arrogant absolutism. Dr. Poon should shut up and remember his place. Bp Wright is a racist. Bp Dawani has been bought.

But dare anyone question the moral purity of this gang of bigotted bullies, then the real rage starts.

Jahn, have a little integrity. Present me with evidence that the Episcopal Church in the US or the Anglican Church of Canada have EVER used their financial support to sister churches to enforce a particular position on either polity or doctrine.

Unlike the wealthy right wing extremists financing GaffeProne (and that money trail has been well established, sir - http://www.edow.org/follow/part1.html), the Canadian and American churches give without condition.

Ford, I don't often visit this web site precisely because of the vitriol level I find here.

To attempt some answers,

1) The "gay thing" as you call it is an innovation within the life of Anglicanism to which those whom you characterise as conservatives are responding, rather than leading.

2) Such an innovation is not consistent with Anglican moral teaching as understood hitherto but has been permitted in N America by the church authorities, who have sought to justify it on secular grounds.

3) Evangelicals perceive this as rejection of the authority of scripture, which explicitly forbids sexual expression outside Christian marriage (one man + one woman). Attempts have been made to reinterpret, redefine, reimagine, and to overturn the scriptural teaching of both OT and NT, but none of these have been remotely persuasive. Some N American leaders and theologians have explicitly rejected scripture as a source of authority. TEC has claimed a special revelation from the Holy Spirit, akin to the Council of Jerusalem.

4) Catholic Anglicans (and Roman Catholics, and Orthodox) also point to the tradition of the church both past and present which rules out such an innovation without the general consent of the church. This has not been forthcoming even within the Anglican Communion. In fact the authorities within the Anglican Communion, such as they exist, have not only not consented, but have asked the N American churches to withdraw from this innovation.

5) Because I believe as an Anglican that the truth is to be found in the scriptures, and that the word of God does have authority in teaching us how to live, I wish to identify with those who hold to this understanding and who are labouring to maintain it as the basis of Anglicanism. I believe it to be also the basis of Catholic and Orthodox teaching.

The priority for Evangelicals (and many Catholics) is the Great Commission, and Gafcon, as I see it, is a gathering of those who share common beliefs and priorities, to consider how best our common life and faith may be strengthened for missionary service in the face of challenges from islam, from the secular world, and from those who are actively seeking to undermine the authority of biblical teaching which is the very basis on which we as Anglicans share in one Communion.

"4) Catholic Anglicans (and Roman Catholics, and Orthodox) also point to the tradition of the church both past and present which rules out such an innovation without the general consent of the church. This has not been forthcoming even within the Anglican Communion. In fact the authorities within the Anglican Communion, such as they exist, have not only not consented, but have asked the N American churches to withdraw from this innovation."

Let me point out that the Anglican Communion is NOT a church, but rather a brotherly/sisterly grouping of autonomous churches with a common history. As such, the election of Bishop Robinson HAD the general consent of the only church that matters in this instance, The Episcopal Church.

"The priority for Evangelicals (and many Catholics) is the Great Commission,"

And the priority in MY life and for most other progressive Christians I know is the two Great Commandments. I don't see how you can love your neighbor as yourself if you keep telling him he isn't worthy to share in the same rights and obligations you enjoy.

Pat, it all depends where you lay the stress: on "autonomy" or on a "common" life.

And I would ask whether the Summary of the Law is an invitation to dispense with either the first Commandment - with its expectation of conformity to the will of God - or with any part of the Law.

If you have already dispensed with the concept of sin, then the question becomes redundant.

Vitriol here?

Of course, Virtue and the rest of those slander-sites are all sweetness and purity I suppose.

"Pat, it all depends where you lay the stress: on "autonomy" or on a "common" life."

Our common life is in the belief of Jesus as savior and baptism as entry into his kingdom. The rest is just details.

"And I would ask whether the Summary of the Law is an invitation to dispense with either the first Commandment - with its expectation of conformity to the will of God - or with any part of the Law."

Well, I thought Jesus rescued us from the Law, and that our salvation was through faith, not adherence to some code of conduct. As for "the will of God" I am not so hubristic to believe I know it in full and that others may not have different...and equally valid...views of that will and what it means for them.

Perhaps I was being over-optimistic in hoping for a reasonable discussion.

"The "gay thing" as you call it is an innovation within the life of Anglicanism"

So was the acceptance of divorce. Why one and not the other?

"sought to justify it on secular grounds"

Really? I have heard many arguments, but secular considerations have been way down the list. Show me where the major justification is secular, and not an attempt, perhaps misguided, to understand the issue from the mind of Scripture.

"Evangelicals perceive this as rejection of the authority of scripture"

And they are wrong. I perceive Evangelicalism as slavish legalism.

"Some N American leaders and theologians have explicitly rejected scripture as a source of authority"

Who and when? And don't come back with Spong, he's quite peripheral and not supported by most of the pro-inclusion people I have corresponded with.

"tradition of the church both past and present which rules out such an innovation"

Divorce?

"the authorities within the Anglican Communion"

There aren't any above the diocesan bishop. I suspect this is actually the issue: fear of the lack of overarching control.

"I believe as an Anglican that the truth is to be found in the scriptures, and that the word of God does have authority in teaching us how to live,"

This hardly makes you special, so do I, so does practically everyone I have corresponded with. And you have given me a list of the issues as seen by conservatives and the priorities they give these issues, and why. You have not addressed their behaviour in responding to these issues. you have not addressed the name calling, the salnder, the untruth and half truth, the scheming, the spin, the creation of a persecution myth. It is profoundly hypocritical to claim adherence to the Gospel, and in the next breath call your fellow Christians animals, worse than dogs, and faithless.

"Perhaps I was being over-optimistic in hoping for a reasonable discussion."

Is that a reaction to my last response to you? I fail to see what was unreasonable in my words.

Pat, thank you for your reply.

For a Communion to exist there does need to be a common life, and it seems the differences in underatanding what that means have become irreconcilable.

For example, Jesus provided two sacraments, not just baptism. I could not dismiss Holy Communion as a detail.

I used to think as you do about law and grace until I really got down to studying Romans, which opened up a whole new perspective for me.

For example, Jesus calls for repentance as a precondition of entering the kingdom. If there is no Law and therefore no sin, metanoia becomes a rather vestigial concept.

Jesus did not come to rescue us from the law but from the judgement set against us because of sin. In the Summary of the Law he affirms two main principles, one of which represents the First Commandment. He does not say anywhere that he regards the Decalogue as being superseded, but rather he provides the Beatitudes to illustrate the spirit of the law. And it is well-known that when challenged, he stated that he had not come to abolish even the tiniest part of the law - but to fulfil it.

This evangelical understanding of the relationship between law and grace, Old Testament and New Testament, is not an optional extra or a detail for those who believe that the kingdom of God has laws, both now and in the world to come.

I will be very much surprised if the damage to the Communion can now be repaired, given the divergence of opinions which are now antithetical towards one another. TEC has made it plain that it is not willing to return to the historic status quo, and without a common life and a common faith there can be no koinonia.

"Perhaps I was being over-optimistic in hoping for a reasonable discussion."

In what way has this discussion not been reasonable?

"For example, Jesus provided two sacraments, not just baptism. I could not dismiss Holy Communion as a detail."

Nor could I. But the Eucharist is not required for entry to the kingdom. It is a blessing, a gift to use from Christ...but receiving communion is not a requirement for salvation.

"For example, Jesus calls for repentance as a precondition of entering the kingdom. If there is no Law and therefore no sin, metanoia becomes a rather vestigial concept."

Law is not required for there to be sin. Sin is a separation from God...and one need not transgress some specific code to be separated from God. One can indeed follow the code to the letter and still be a sinner (as Jesus so often pointed out to the Pharisees).

I'm not surprised that you came to your conclusions after studying Romans. It is always seems to me that most Evangelicals could more accurately be called "Paulists" than Christians.

Ford, I was responding to someone who wanted to drag in the Virtue website and others. I am glad to see tonight that his is a lonely voice.

Pat, neither of the two dominical sacraments is "required" for salvation in the kind of framework which you posit. But the Catechism (which is part of the English Formularies) regards both as being "generally necessary to salvation" and I prefer the soteriological framework set out there.

The great value of Romans lies in making for Christians the connection between OT and NT and the transition from law to grace. It is not possible to have the NT without the first Testament which provides the grammar for Christian believing.

Sin does exist apart from the Law (and apart from law) as you point out but that does not mean to say that for Christians there is no moral law, or that the scriptures have nothing to teach us.

All of this illustrates what I was saying at the beginning, that a great gulf has grown up between those who hold to a classical understanding of Anglicanism, and those who have moved away from it. If the OT has no authority any longer, if Paul's work can be dismissed effectively as unchristian, this leaves little ground on which to stand, let alone stand together.

Ford, I took the time to give some answers to your question about why I will be attending Gafcon, but you respond by saying: "You have not addressed their behaviour in responding to these issues. you have not addressed the name calling, the salnder, the untruth and half truth, the scheming, the spin, the creation of a persecution myth. It is profoundly hypocritical to claim adherence to the Gospel, and in the next breath call your fellow Christians animals, worse than dogs, and faithless."

Such accusations bear no relation to reality amongst those with whom I live and work and pray.
They are part of the mythology which exists unfortunately on websites such as this.

It seems to me that enough has been said to illustrate the irreconcilability of liberal western Anglicanism with the requirements for a common life set out, for example in the Windsor Report, or at Dar-es-Salaam.

Some of us take a back seat and look at what "repentance" means and who is forgiven for what.

When they set the precedent of what they will forgive for their peers, they set the precedent for what can be forgiven in others.

It's no use crying about opportunism or incomplete repentence amongst non-priests, non-Christians, non-humans. The "pure" Christian priests have shown they are just as greedy, opportunistic, hypocritical, deceitful, aggressive and accusatory as those they wish to denounce. Failing to be without sin themselves they are in no position to cast stones at others, nor are they in any position to interfere with God unilaterally granting grace to those they would condemn.

Isaiah 48 "Listen to this, O house of Jacob,… you who take oaths in the name of the LORD and invoke the God of Israel—but not in truth or righteousness— you who call yourselves citizens of the holy city and rely on the God of Israel—the LORD Almighty is his name: I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them and I made them known; then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass. For I knew how stubborn you were; the sinews of your neck were iron, your forehead was bronze. Therefore I told you these things long ago; before they happened I announced them to you so that you could not say, ‘My idols did them; my wooden image and metal god ordained them.’ You have heard these things; look at them all. Will you not admit them? “From now on I will tell you of new things, of hidden things unknown to you. They are created now, and not long ago; you have not heard of them before today. So you cannot say, ‘Yes, I knew of them.’ You have neither heard nor understood; from of old your ear has not been open. Well do I know how treacherous you are; you were called a rebel from birth. For my own name’s sake I delay my wrath; for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you, so as not to cut you off. See, I have refined you… I have tested you in the furnace of affliction. For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another."

"Sin does exist apart from the Law (and apart from law) as you point out but that does not mean to say that for Christians there is no moral law, or that the scriptures have nothing to teach us.

All of this illustrates what I was saying at the beginning, that a great gulf has grown up between those who hold to a classical understanding of Anglicanism, and those who have moved away from it. If the OT has no authority any longer, if Paul's work can be dismissed effectively as unchristian, this leaves little ground on which to stand, let alone stand together."

I never suggested the OT has no authority, only that its authority must be examined in light of Jesus' life and words. I will admit to not caring much for a lot of Paul's work, because I find him (or his translators, or those who claim to have written under his name) to be a man entirely of his time and place, with so much of his commentary on gender, sexuality, and even slavery to be limited in understanding to the circumstances under which he lived, rather than to our own greater understanding after two millennia of scientific inquiry and discovery.

"Such accusations bear no relation to reality amongst those with whom I live and work and pray.
They are part of the mythology which exists unfortunately on websites such as this."

Actually, John, they exist as documented comments from Archbishop Akinola and others. And the only mythology I've seen at play is the persecution myth trumpeted by a handful of "conservatives."

BTW, John, I am no lonely voice. You posted a fatuous comment about the level of discussion here and I challenged it. You have subsequently conceded to Ford that, overall, the discussion here has been generally reasonable (excepting only my audacity in pointing to the bad behaviour of so many of the "conservatives").

I contrast that to the sites in the "conservative" Anglican blogosphere, where any slander is permitted against liberals, but where liberals are routinely banned and their postings removed.

While discussion at this site certainly can get heated, no conservative or even "conservative" poster has ever been banned to my knowledge.

The genius of Anglicanism from the Elizabethan Settlement onwards, has been the capacity and the deliberation to accept diversity of view. Elizabeth did not seek "windows into men's souls," nor did classical Anglicanism.

Actually, Malcolm, I was responding to your intervention. You do seem to have something of a difficulty with what appears on other websites.

I am interested in discussing Gafcon with Ford Elms and Pat O'Neill.

But I wholly disagree with your estimate of "the genius of Anglicanism" and the Elizabethan Settlement.

Elizabeth shared the religious conservatism of her father and sister, but took a principled decision, for the peace of the realm, to set limits to the Reformation at both ends of the spectrum, and she lived to see the settlement enforced. Neither the Marian bishops nor the Puritans were able to survive in the Church of England: diversity has its limits, which is what the Windsor Report indicated.

Her settlement was enforced by an Act of Uniformity which was robustly non-negotiable, and further reinforced by the 1662 Act of Uniformity, which expelled intruders and dissenters from the benefices of the Church of England and imposed severe punishments on transgressors.

The Act was not repealed until the 1970s when its provisions were transferred to the General Synod.

I am afraid your ideas about the Settlement are no more than mythology.

Pat I agree with what you wrote here "I never suggested the OT has no authority, only that its authority must be examined in light of Jesus' life and words. I will admit to not caring much for a lot of Paul's work, because I find him… to be a man entirely of his time and place".

Can I also say that without a good grounding in the OT much of the symbolism from either Jesus or Paul escapes the readers' notice.

For example Hebrews 9:5 “Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.”

Those well-read in the Old Testament know of the significance of the Cherubim of the Ark. The throne of the Lord is seated between the two e.g. Isaiah 37:16, 1 Samuel 4:4, 2 Samuel 6:2, 2 Kings 19:15, 1 Chronicles 13:6. From where the Lord speaks (Numbers 7:89). The Lord rides the cherubim e.g. Psalms 8:10 or 2 Samuel 22:11. The Cherubim who shelter or destroy, who bring upon powers to do miracles e.g. Joshua 3 & 4.

Nor do the Cherubim always remain in the ark e.g. 2 Chronicles 5 & 6. The dark cloud that entered the temple (2 Chronicles 5:13 to 6:2), hung around Mt Sinai Exodus 24:15-18, who hid and sheltered the Israelites in exile (Deuteronomy 1:32-33), from whom the Lord spoke at Jesus' transfiguration (Mark 9:2-8).

Without this OT understanding, there is a diminished appreciation of Jesus becoming and transforming the role of the high priest (see Hebrews 4:4 to 5:6).

Further, the elect angels are still respected in the NT e.g. 1 Timothy 5:21 or Jude 1:14 or 1 Thesolonians 3:13. The elect angels and holy ones do not want to be worshipped they, like humans, are servants before God e.g. Revelation 19:10.

Some show complete contempt for souls that would come to help Jesus save this planet. There has been a gross injustice done to the scriptures, and it has been at the expense of all occupants of this planet. If this planet dies, it won't just be human bottoms that get spanked. Don't be surprised at unexpected alliances.

Evicted demons go on to create more mischief. Yet every soul has an ordained purpose, if you want to stop squabbling instead of evicting souls, tell them to return to that which they were ordained.

Apologies, John, for not taking serveral pages to post a nuanced view of the Elizabethan settlement, but the fact remains that the settlement did provide - and did for centuries thereafter provide - room for Anglicans to hold a range of opinions. Conformity was to the authorized liturgy, not to som e particular party line on biblical interpretation.

I notice, however, that you have decided to ignore the other salient points: especially that the outrageous comments and actions of Akinola are documented parts of the public record and not "mythology."

If you choose not to engage with me because I had the audacity to point out that you comment about venom was tripe, that's no loss to me.

Malcolm, most of what you wrote was unworthy of comment.

And the terms of the Elizabethan Settlement did not and do not allow for what is happening in parts of the Anglican Communion at present. It is anything other than a blank cheque.

"It is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written" Article XX - part of the Settlement and still part of the Church of England's formularies.

For examp[le, the actions of TEC in consenting to the election of Gene Robinson and in consecrating him fall within that proscription, in the view of the primates' meetings, the Windsor Report and the Archbishop of Canterbury.