"the discussion and debate on the acceptance and adoption of the proposed Anglican Covenant at Lambeth 2008"

Selective reading of the Windsor report strikes again - or are the Provincial Synods not to get a chance to discuss and approve the final draft.

Kennedy

Oh, well, when the split happens they will be off with their 'Global South' fundie mates no doubt

When the split comes... I notice how Andrew Goddard has hardened his position via Wolfhart Pannenberg that it is now one with Conservative Evangelicals. Pannenberg writes some incredible rubbish, that the place to put homophile inclinations is inside a heterosexual marriage, and following this Andrew says that Giles's position is schismatic. This means, therefore, that GAFCON's position is not schismatic. It is a position far harder than previously when I thought his view was no more than cultural, because the Church could change, but then he said no and would have to think why - and his pendulum is the other side now.

They really ought to make up their minds. What they want they cannot have - including SE Asia, which is centralised Lambeth to put everyone in a box. As I told a local group last week, if it does "I'm off" but another, probably rightly, can't see how it can but with an increasingly out of date mantra that Anglicanism stands for tolerance.

I wonder how they are going to break the news to their women folk. After all, Asia was one of the first regions to accept female priests.

A pompous and legalistic response from South East Asia. Not a whiff of the gospel in it.

SEA isn't completely "Global South fundies"; Singapore and Sabah maybe, but that description wouldn't be accurate for Kuching or West Malaysia. I don't think the participation of either of those dioceses was ever in doubt.

We used to think Pannenberg was the bee's knees, the great theologian of the future. But just as in the case of Ratzinger his true colors have long been apparent. He sells out Lutheranism to his drab pseudoHegelian metaphysics, and now to fundamentalism.

But here's something to cheer you all up: http://sebastianmoore.blogspot.com/2007/11/irrepressible-reflection.html

Here is an account of how Pannenberg sells Luther down the river: http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0802828566/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

I tried playing the wordsearch game that is frequently applied by conservatives to statements from Presiding Bishop Schori and other liberals.

The score wasn't too good.

See http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/10971/#198897

Esprit du concile: Thanks for the Sebstian Moore link. It cheered me up to read something that made so much sense of the presenting issue for once.

I can't see why Singapore is involved with the Global South when it has no historical, economic or cultural links with Africa or South America. English is the first language here and, in my opinion, most English educated Christians here will find non-British or American Christianity quite uncomfortable. The Anglican liturgy is so well structured that even changing one word can make a difference and affect one's focus in the worship of Almighty God. Anglican theology is unique.

Thank you, Badman! Your B.P.I. (found at http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/10971/#198897) has a general utility at least as great as that of Sturgeon's Law (http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/s/SturgeonsLaw.html)

"I can't see why Singapore is involved with the Global South when it has no historical, economic or cultural links with Africa or South America."

It's the theology. You might want to find out about Trinity College in Singapore and the kind of stuff they're teaching there.

>>It's the theology. You might want to find out about Trinity College in Singapore and the kind of stuff they're teaching there.

What Theology? Anglicanism is neither Radical Protestantism nor Roman Catholic. In my opinion, they have the best Theology and Liturgy. You have to actually go and experience all the different Protestant Churches to really appreciate Anglicanism. You can't learn such things form a Theological College.

A few questions: are you from Singapore? Have you ever been to the Anglican Church there? I may not have been there, but I am aware that the Anglicans in Singapore are, with very few exceptions, different from the Anglicans around here.

Let me make myself a little clearer. Anglicanism has evolved into several different forms, and one such form is more "evangelical" than the rest. (A point which no doubt many here are aware of.) The South East Asian province happens to generally be in that category, mainly because the people who came to Singapore and Malaysia were of that persuasion. The Philippine church, on the other hand, was visited by those of a more "catholic" persuasion, from the US in particular.

These forms can coexist in the same church, albeit with some tensions, as in England. But the way it has evolved, sadly, these forms have been a source of division. More evangelical and conservative tendencies within Anglicanism have dominated the discourse in the African provinces and South East Asia.

I'm not surprised by SE Asia's move, though. I think they are really concerned that some Anglicans are going too far in expressing how they feel about the Northern liberals. And that concern is always a good thing, now that Easter is upon us and we need to learn how to forgive.

In Anglicanism we have the Low, High and Broad Church. After the 1970s there is also a MCharismatic wing in the Anglican Church. So the Anglican Church can caterer to the needs of many kinds of people. The nice thing about being an Anglican is I can feel High on Sunday, Broad on Wednesday and Low on Friday. An Anglican is free to think for himself and even sometimes disagree with the Bishop or Priest because there is no "infallible authority" in Anglicanism.

In Singapore, the majority of the Anglicans are unaware of the war that is currently going on in the Anglican Communion as far as I know. May be it is a good thing.

There is a whole range of different kinds of Anglican services here an you are free to choose the kind of service you want to go to. There is even one service here where everything is said and done in Shakespeare's English.

I don't believe the current problem is theological because if it is so, they would go and trash it out at the Lambeth Conference with the Archbishop of Canterbury instead of boycotting the Conference. I am sure Dr Rowan Williams will have no problem in taking them on, in theological debates. Theological debates used to be favorite pass-time for the English gentlemen in the 17th century. The Anglican Church has produced some of the greatest minds in the history of the Church.

The current problem is caused by people who want to free themselves from Western Culture. They said so themselves. Hence I see it as a cultural war and I honestly don't see why are fast developing world-class city like Singapore should be involved with such things.

I wish you a Happy Easter.

"Now let the heavens be joyful,
And earth her song begin,
The round world keep high triumph,
And all that is therein:
Let all things seen and unseen
Their notes of gladness blend,
For Christ the Lord is risen,
Our joy that hath no end."

St John of Damascus.

cp36,

Good quote from St. John of D for Easter.

"The current problem is caused by people who want to free themselves from Western Culture. They said so themselves. Hence I see it as a cultural war and I honestly don't see why are fast developing world-class city like Singapore should be involved with such things." Failure to comprehend on more than one level! You say so yourself.

One reason perhaps people in Singapore want to and need to shake off much of "Western culture," it has largely abandoned any rooted connection to the faith represented in the quote. It can be regurgitated as sentiment for Easter but for the moral and practical affairs of life it is the vacuous "Enlightement culture" that is the resort (almost by default - we can only ask why?).

Ben W

Singaporeans don't need to or want to get rid of Western Culture. We know what Western Culture is. English is the first language here and more and more families here are speaking English at home and have full exposure to Western Culture all the time. Many foreigners form Western countries love it here.

What is wrong with the Enlightenment? If it is not for the Enlightenment, Europe will most probably be ruled by the Arabs. They were leading in science and mathematics at that time. Imagine what could have happened if it was not for the Enlightenment. There will probably be no USA.

The Enlightenment freed peoples minds to explore Nature and the world and Anglicanism is based on Scripture, Tradition and Reason. That is why it is the best of all the Christian traditions.

cp36,

The very fact that they are rejecting some things from the West is enough to show they do not want to simply swallow all that is represented by "the Enlightenment" as such.

Yes there are some things that thoughtful people have developed through this time they are ready to receive and welcome (after the 20th century "Enlightenment developments" we need to be able to distinguish between realities represented by things like electric power and the nuclear bomb or people like Ghandi and Stalin). But there are basic realities they affirm (you do not understand - you yourself said so) in terms of human purpose and moral values in family life and community that they seek to maintain. We may need to learn from them!

Ben W

Ben:

You are aware that Anglicanism is very much a part of the Enlightenment?

The age of Enlightenment is over. Now it is Post-modernism and Globalization. These are also Western concepts. The rest of the world, whether they like it or not, have to change with the West unless they want to remain in their poverty.

Anglican Church leaders have to change too if they want to remain relevant or people will switch-off, go church-hopping or leave the church. Merely quoting the Bible and commenting on it will not do anymore. The world has become a very complicated place to live in nowadays.

The fundamental question is what is the Gospel? Five Christians will give six different answers.

St Paul said that it is from creation that the invisible attributes of God, namely his eternal power and divine nature, are perceived so that nobody has any excuse. So there is a lot more to the study of God than quoting the Bible.

Christianity is not a simple faith because it comes form God who is brilliant in mathematics and physics. Regarding some of the strange problems which Christians face and for which they get no answer even though they have prayed about it for years my question is "Does God play dice". It was a question which baffled Albert Einstein and he had problems with the Quantum physicists. Theology and Science are both trying to discover the truths of God. Incidentally, we do have a Quantum physicist who is also and Anglican priest in England. He has written several books.

It is not so simple, in fact quite impossible, to understand everything about God the Father Almighty. What we do know of him, through Jesus Christ our Lord, is that he is extremely kind and of infinite love, grace and mercy. By the deeds of the Law no flesh shall be saved says St Paul and we are justified by faith alone. No one can be more justified than being justified by faith. The Gospel is not about the righteous of man but about the righteousness of God, according to St Paul.

Those people who are so interested in breaking up the Anglican Communion may want to reconsider and use their energy to explore the truths of God as revealed in Nature and the Holy Scriptures.

"Anglican Church leaders have to change too if they want to remain relevant or people will switch-off, go church-hopping or leave the church."

I don't think it's so much about changing to remain relevant, actually. I live in a place that is overwhelmingly culturally Christian, but where Church affiliation has dropped off because of societal changes combined with horrible abuses of power by several different branches of Christianity. In my experience, what is criticized in the Church is not Her lack of relevance, but the manifest betrayal of the Gospel by those who loudly insist everyone OBEY. It is rebellion against "pay up, pray up, and shut up". These people were raised in Christian homes, know what the Gospel is, and see very clearly how the Church hypocritically abandons that Gospel. They judge us all, but conservatives most harshly, since it is they who appear most guilty. All this snorting about being "orthodox" and defending God's Truth is so much hogwash, and the world knows it. Most of these so-called "orthodox" wouldn't know God's Truth if it walked up and hit them. Having it read to them every Sunday obviously has no effect. The world scorns us, not for our irrelevance, but because we shamelessly do not follow the Gospel we claim to preach. And it's not just a matter of not being perfect, that's understandable, it's things like "We can't compromise the Gospel for the evil gays, but, we being straight people, we see no reason why we can't compromise the Gospel so we can get a divorce." That and the rather silly way the latter decision is defended as some theologians prayerfully and thoughtfully considering the relevant "Scriptures" while screaming madly that such thoughtful prayerful consideration cannot be applied to gay people as well. That's what we're scorned for, and we deserve it.

cp36:

I think you're talking about John Polkinghorne. I've read some of his work and it is indeed brilliant.

Pat,

"You are aware that Anglicanism is very much a part of the Enlightenment?" Yes, one reason we are in the terrible predicament we are in now.

The present moral eclipse or the theological reductionism of people like Don Cupitt, J S Spong, or bishop Jenkins did not come out of nowhere! To great extent having followed it far enough it has now begun to refute itself. Postmodernism has begun to deflate the arrogance of Enlightenment rationalism.

Ben W

Ford,

You hit the right note with your point that what is needed is for the church to be true to what it is called to be. The Canadian sociologist Reginald Bibby in some ways stronly makes the same point (see for instance his The Restless Church). On all sides there is need for real repentance.

Certainly this includes change with the attitude still around that "thoughtful prayerful consideration cannot be applied to gay people as well." Considerartion goes both ways.

Ben W

Ben,
I realize it isn't fair to expect you to speak for all Consevos, but what is currently going on is thoughtful prayerful consideration being given to gay people. Why is it that Consevos are so much against it, then? What's more, why trot out the old canard of Spong? Would it surprise you to know that I am on a VERY left wing Anglican mailing list, much of what is said and talked about is way to the left of anything I connect with, and yet they all base their faith on the Incarnate God who bodily rose from the dead? The sacraments are vital to them, and not merely as some act of remembrance, but of clear proof of God's willingness to engage His Creation. They are not the postmodern believers in some vague "I'm OK, you're OK" philosophy, obsessed with the approval of society, that is the conservative stereotype of them. They grieve at how the Church does not follow the Gospel She professes, and they have a very clear understanding of that Gospel. Like me, they see the nastiness with which the Right attacks any who disagree as a clear betrayal of the Gospel. They are much more comfortable with supernatural and mystical things than any Evangelical I have ever communicated with, whose faith to me seems to be about obeying the Law so that God will love you, and don't dare to suggest anything mystical.

""You are aware that Anglicanism is very much a part of the Enlightenment?" Yes, one reason we are in the terrible predicament we are in now."

So, in order to "preserve" Anglicanism, you would deny it the very things that brought it into existence? Anglicanism without the Enlightenment is like the US Declaration of Independence without the Enlightenment...simply impossible to imagine.

Hi Ford,

You hit it right on the dot. We have an Anglican priest who is obsessed with "obedience" as a condition of salvation. According to him you are not a Christian if you don't obey. So he modifies the liturgy and it is absolutely irritating and distracting. It is quite impossible to stay focused on God the Father and Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection, when he is the celebrant. Sometimes it difficult to get through to God even edgewise because he is so boisterous. This sort of thing is quite common in a Fundamentalist Churches but rather foreign to Anglicans.

Not all Anglicans priests seem to appreciate the importance of the Eucharist. The Anglican Eucharist service is neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic. It is more than just a remembrance service or the bread and wine just symbols. The symbolic idea comes from Zwingle and he and Martin Luther never reconciled on the meaning of "This is my body".

Hi Ren,

Yes, you are right. It is John Polkinghorne. I have several of his books but haven't got down to reading them yet. One of them is "The Faith of a Physicist" which is an exposition of the Nicene Creed. Reading his books is not easy and requires a lot of thinking. I have been very interested in why strange things happen to Christians which is not according to our expectation. Why prayers are not answered and what God is really like.

Regarding why prayers are not answered the common answer is you have no faith or your faith is not strong enough. I don't think so. Jesus said all you need is faith like a grain of mustard seed and John Calvin said the very fact that you pray means you have faith in God. I agree with him. So there must be some complicated answers somewhere.

My problem is whether creation is deterministic or probabilistic. In the past they used to think it was deterministic and Calvinism is a form of Christian determinism. But now the findings of quantum physics seems to suggest otherwise.

Quantum theory is beyond most people and I am not pretending that I understand it. It was weired and bizarre even to the scientists who discovered it. Schrodinger said, "I don't like it and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it."

But what seems to make sense to me is Chaos theory. It is about stochastic behaviour in a deterministic system. That would explain why we see creation the way it is. For example, why we have conjoined twins and why a promising Anglican priest would accidently smash his car at the back of a truck and die on his way to church. My question is why didn't God prevent it? My answer is as Christians we are also subjected to the Laws of Probability.

Nature tends to deviate from the normal and a purely deterministic system will mean that there is no freedom for it and it will be boring for God. I believe God being so brilliant as he is, knows exactly what he is dong.

In other words what I am trying to say is God is not like what the Fundamentalists present him to be. They seem to present him like he has lost his creation to the devil and now can only wait for people to turn to him and can do nothing much without them. I don't think so.