By definition those who think that an anglican spirit is more important than a Christian spirit (as though the former were the set and the latter the mere subset) are putting the cart before the horse. To mix one's metaphors.

A splendid reflection -- since the C of E gave up trying to prosecute "thought crime" it has displayed generosity of spirit (as any truly "catholic" institution must -- of course the objection that an Anglican spirit is more important than a Christian spirit is an "have you stopped beating your wife" observation)

You might say that, Christopher Shell, but you are not an Anglican, are you? Anglicans do not believe, as you imply, that an Anglican spirit is not a Christian spirit. Nor does the author of this article say that.

This article deserves a much less glib response than this one; let's hope the comment thread isn't derailed by your cheap shot against Anglicanism.

So define a Christian spirit, Christopher. Is it a spirit that derides those whose beliefs are different, that demands separation from one another over such disagreements, that makes false statements about those with whom one disagrees, that uses falsehood dressed up as fact to demonize a group of people, that hypocritically denies a process of Biblical interpretation if used to justifiy acceptance of a certain group of people while allowing that same process to justify other things from which those having that "Christian spirit" can benefit? Is it to be found in disrespect, dissembling, scheming, plotting, reviling, and dishonesty, or is it to be found in those who seek to truly love their neighbours as themselves? Granted, the Right does good while the Left does bad, but, come on, where is the Christian spirit more evident?

"The division, however, is not really between conservatives and liberals at all. It is much more serious than that. It is a division between, first, those who are willing to say that other Christians, who have different views or lifestyles to themselves, are still, nevertheless, Christian, and have a Christian integrity that must be part of the Church; and, second, those who think that this simply cannot and must not be the case."

Archdeacon Oakley is spot on here. Spot on. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one party, group or side in current discussions that refuses fellowship with those who disagree with them.

Fortunately, there is also a lot of very healthy Anglican soulfulness in the Communion. Perhaps it could even be said that most of us are indeed willing - happy - to live with (and into) diversity and join at the altar with brethren with whom we might disagree on some issues. If so, our shared future will be bright.

Christopher,

I believe Mark O makes an important point. In context, generosity and consideration for people who differ from us is basic to Christian identity. So you say we are willing "to live with ... diversity and join at the altar with brethren with whom we might disagree on some issues." So far so good. We agree.

The issue overlooked here is, are there any differences that are so contrary that they deny the meaning of Christian confession or life? (it might be something like a married man regularly expecting to go to another woman for sexual relations and simply justifying it as "this is what he needs." Is that a "difference" that matters - calls for repentance and renewed expectation?). It seems this is the kind of issue Mark O would not recognize if it stared him in the face, never mind dealng with it.

As has been said in AC context, partly in jest, at some times not much was asked when a man was up for appointment as bishop but good to ask something, and a question did still occur to someone, "Does he believe in God?" I would think there are some other pertinent questions in the light of historic Christian faith! The reflection of Michael Kinnamon on faith and unity after a lifetime of ecumenical participation, recently appointed to head the National Council of Churches in the US, is telling: He says he has been greatly disillusioned about possibilities for Christian unity among mainline churches. The basis for action and relations has largely become a matter of pragmatism (what serves our interests or organizational manoeuvres and advantage etc) and not real faith. He says there is more evidence of subtantive faith among Roman Catholics, Evangelicals and Charismatic groups that might still be impetus toward and basis for Christian unity.

Ben W

I think the Noah's Ark imagery was insightful and appropriate for these times. After all, on the fractal scale of global realities, we are all going to have to give a bit to make space for the refugees from global warming: rising sea levels and desertification of previously agricultural land.

"It is not so much that the Bible neatly answers all our questions, as that it questions all our answers."

God, I love that phrase. Sometimes people accuse me of bible mining - a fair accusation. What they don't sometimes realise is that when I put up the alternative intepretations it's not so much to refute all of the other passages, but rather to hold up examples of alternative passages that moderate or put into context other interpretations.

For example, one can romp through the bible and say that God loves death and violence and go off and murder a whole lot of souls and quote lots of biblical passages to justify it. But then there is a plethora of other passages where God rebukes those who are prepared to sacrifice children.

Just as some struggle to become "the" holy people that God loves and forgives, whilst hating and attacking the heathen. Yet, when you read the bible you see God going to extraordinary lengths to affirm God's love for all of Creation: "the" holy people as well as the gentiles, broken and non-human.

Perhaps it is true that the Anglican spirit comes before the Christian spirit. Christianity evolved long after Jesus died - it was first named by Paul when he engaged with the Greeks. Anglicanism is more consistent with the spirit of the Pentecost and its Old Testament legacy and wisdom than Christianity as CS knows it. It's actually a compliment, it tells me Anglicanism is closer to its roots that CS's endorsed Christianity. CS might boast over his branch of Christianity but he would do well to read Romans 11 "consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you."

And then Isaiah 11 "A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit... He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth."

It is a very sad fact that the warning of the Primates, given so long ago, was not heeded by those who had the choice over whether to divide this communion or not. We have all paid for their failure.

If his [Robinson's] consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of Communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA).

Those believers who still fear VGR's election and consecration, thanks above all to the Diocese of New Hampshire who knew him, tested him, and discerned him as their own - are still living in a shadowy folkloric world where queer folks are dirty, dangerous, and above all, other than the good pure folks themselves.

Those straight believers freely give themselves in marriage, but high and mighty, forbid queer citizens to do so. Those holier than thou believers praise and proclaim their own strictness from the rooftops, while repeating all manner of slanderous false witness, categorically claiming that queer folks - or any believers who might disagree with their views - cannot by definition be allowed oxygen and space inside Anglican global to local institutions.

With their own strict words, such believers are judged - if the NT witness is correct, even in a glimmer, about these modern day sectarians. Then, after all is so meanly said and done, we discover that we all still live together, here, on this small and functionally endangered planet.

What self-regarding, overly-strictured, purist religious guff. The welcome of all to the Kingdom Feast cannot and does not include some exclusive right to give certain children invited from the highways and byways, stones instead of bread. Yet these servants loudly complain while the Lord of the harvest rewards all according to God's pleasure and rightness, so different from our own at our meanest and most pure and most puffed up.

Alas. Lord have mercy. Thanks to Archdeacon Oakley for telling some truths that ring clear as a bell in our Anglican-Episcopalian heritage.

Believers worldwide who live in conservative houses may now vigorously throw stones, please.

Margaret:

Why is the consecration of an openly gay bishop anymore of a Communion-breaker than the consecration of a female bishop? Why is it that the provinces that refuse to even ordain women--let alone consecrate them as bishops--can consider themselves in communion with the ones who do either or both...but not with a province that consecrates a gay man? What's the difference? Both are disagreements over the prerequisites for episcopacy. Why is one more a problem than the other?

One other question that nags at me...would it have been as big a problem if it had been "Jean" Robinson, an openly gay woman in a committed relationship, that had been consecrated?

Ford,

It does seem at times like you want to turn this into some kind of contest (why the question about who shows more of the "Christian spirit?" And you are very sure about who does!).

With the end of March I did not respond to your last post. You said, "I agree that society determines what's normative, and sexuality is not a simple genetic trait, though genetics obviously plays some role." At least on the second part then we seem to agree. The first part "that society determines what's normative," is often too much the case, but for Christians who confess that Jesus Christ is Lord I want to say there is an even higher call. Further, I do not know why you think you need to put yourself in the place of judge and presume about what I do or do not do about standing up for homosexual people? On the same basis I might ask you what are you doing about the children who die of hunger every day and when will you start doing something about them? (Not to say you may very already be doing something!).

Ben W

"are there any differences that are so contrary that they deny the meaning of Christian confession or life?"

I recall that candles on the altar was once deemed to be one of those issues.

Be W wrote (to Ford Elms): "On the same basis I might ask you what are you doing about the children who die of hunger every day and when will you start doing something about them? (Not to say you may very already be doing something!)."

Then, on the other hand, why are you asking the question?

Malcolm,

That is just the kind of thing I had in mind. Unless we are rooted in the gospel and in the longer history of Christian faith we may lack discernmeent about what are "weightier matters" (e.g. Matt 23:23,24) and what are simply matters of preference.

RW put it on the table in reflection on the thought of Bonhoeffer: time to think about what are matters of "difference" and what matters of "apotasy."

Ben W

Goran,

Do you read what you respond to? My point to Ford was precisely that I am in not his judge and am not the one to to ask the question. It is simply an example of a parralel kind of question to the one he asked me!

Ben W

Seems to me that the present issue is MORE important than candles on the altar and LESS important than the plainly heretical sacramental theology emerging from Sydney.

And then it's free?

"I do not know why you think you need to put yourself in the place of judge and presume about what I do or do not do about standing up for homosexual people?"

When you use the same language as those conservatives who are now reviling not only gay people, but those who seek to show compassion to gay people, when you defend them, then I, perhaps too hastily, assume you think like them. It isn't up to me to "be in communion" with anyone other than my bishop. But, I am very disturbed that no-one wants to break communion with those who behave in such an obviously unChristian manner as we see in those who speak for the Right. What that says is that lying about others (they are faithless/pagan/Unitarian), etc. etc. are acceptable in Christian leaders, while being honest about being gay is not. Jesus tells us to that we can tell the false teachers from the true ones, "by their fruits shall ye know them." Well, what brings out the fruit of the Gospel more, trying to be compassionate to every human being, perhaps sometimes going too far, if that's possible, or the bile and venom coming out of the Right? The Right has constructed this myth of the poor faithful remnant being persecuted by the evil pagans trying to destroy the Church. They call themselves "orthodox" when their behaviuor, and some of their beliefs, are anything BUT Orthodox Christianity. I am not at all comfortable with the proSSB theology, as far as I know it. If that were the only issue, I'd probably side with you, in all honesty. But that isn't the only issue. I am not a theologian. All I can do is see who looks most like a Christian. "Love thy neighbour" is the Second Great Commandment, after all. Where's the love of neighbour in any of the actions of the Network? I admit the Left is not guiltless either, so I am forced to choose between two imperfect sides. I choose to side with those who seem most to exemplify the values Christ taught: Love God, Love your neighbour, 'inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me.' What amazes me is how the "orthodox" manage to square "love thy neighbour" with the kinds of things they are saying and doing. God's honest truth, if there were a real Orthodox Church here, I go get myself Chrismated and get away from all this mess.