Hmmm.

In essence, "We abhor you, but we're going to stick around to make life difficult for you."

That works BOTH ways, West Africa.*

[* Though I merely abhor their homophobia and (nonAnglican) fundamentalist Biblical interpretation]

Lord have mercy!

JCF,

They get it. You can't seem to. Every word here is important. "That we are resolved to continue to be in communion with the See of Canterbury as we unequivocally and unambiguously remain in the Anglican Communion."

They are Anglican and they intend to remain faithfully what they are. Who after all is calling for departing/new interpretation of scripture or of historic Christian teaching? And of course through your lenses you can only see all this as homphobia! I hope the day comes when even on this list they are recognized appropriately and are allowed to speak in their terms for themselves!

Ben W

The rejection of homosexual practice as immoral - and therefore inconsistent with a Christian ethos - does not make one "fearful" of homosexuals. Likewise, holding to a 2,000 year-old tradition of interpretation of Holy Scripture (actually much older if we count the Hebraic tradition) does not mean one necessarily shares the sentiments of a particular 19th century theological movement. So, enough with the name-calling already. (Is ad hominem the best you can do? Really?)

West Africa has affirmed their catholic witness within a framework of charity; that should be appreciated not ridiculed.

Conservative certainly. But clearly rejecting both the organizational tactics of the schismatics (Akinola, Venables et al) and the rhetorical tactics of the StandFirm / VirtueOnline school of slander.

And no mention of the completely un-Anglican border crossings of the folks on their side.

Ben and Joe: when your marriages, and by extension your loved ones, are called "abhorrent" by "religious" leaders from thousands of miles away, you'll have the right to "correct" people like JCF who object to this kind of language.

As it is, you - like the Bishop of West Africa - really just don't know anything about this topic, I'm afraid; you are completely outside it. At some point, you really ought to stop repeating the same tired statements about "new interpretation of scripture" and "homosexual practice" and start recognizing that there are flesh-and-blood PEOPLE and FAMILIES involved.

You are the ones who "don't get it." If anybody used this kind of language against your own family, I have no doubt you wouldn't be sitting on your hands nodding and smiling. Nor should you, nor should anybody. Wake up!

Its historic Christian teaching which needs to change....and this takes us no further forward, other than to display that there are irreconcilable differences.

bls,

You have read earlier statements from me here I presume. And what I quoted from the West Africa statement does not put anyone down but affirms what they are and stand for. In that I affirm them.

I am sure I have things to learn, but on whether one is simply removed or knows something about this matter, are you not perhaps being presumptuous?!

Ben W

BenW and Joe: it's sad, really, that you're so locked into your self-image of "we've ALWAYS thought this way", that you can't see one can't have a millenias-old scripture or tradition CONDEMNING something, that didn't exist millenias ago! (namely, the concept of sex between two homosexually-ORIENTED persons).

Nevermind: I pray that God-in-Christ grants us ALL More Light. Come, Holy Spirit, Come!

JCF quoted: “"That we are resolved to continue to be in communion with the See of Canterbury as we unequivocally and unambiguously remain in the Anglican Communion."”

But is this loyalty? I suggest it’s all to novel a phenomenon “to remain faithfully what they are” or “historic Christian teaching”, but novel Inerrantist in-readings mixed with late modern Social Politics and well trod coercion into sub ordination – clue, what happened again just recently in Austria.

Joe wrote: “The rejection of homosexual practice as immoral – and therefore inconsistent with a Christian ethos – does not make one "fearful" of homosexuals. Likewise, holding to a 2,000 year-old tradition of interpretation of Holy Scripture (actually much older if we count the Hebraic tradition) does not mean one necessarily shares the sentiments of a particular 19th century theological movement. So, enough with the name-calling already. (Is ad hominem the best you can do? Really?)”

There is nothing like this in the Hebraic tradition. It is anti Modernism, late modern Social Politics, based on Philosophical and Gnosticist Hellenist teachings straight out of the Alexandrian Museioon. And most certainly 2000 years ; = ) But never Christian.

Individuals, such as Maître Pierre Chanteur of “The Church Apostate” fame, have subscribed to similar Social Politics individually, but it’s never been the “historic Christian teaching” of the Church.

Ben
"I am sure I have things to learn, but on whether one is simply removed or knows something about this matter, are you not perhaps being presumptuous?! "

You keep making these sensible statements, but then you sabotage yourself by speaking of people deliberately sinning (on another thread), which displays absolutely no knowledge of those you disagree with at all. And that's the kind interpretation, the alternative would be that you DO know and understand this but deliberately lie about people. I don't want to believe that.

But don't forget, your posts are being judged in the light of everything you have been saying on this forum.

Having said that, I have no problems with African churches continuing to affirm that homosexuality is sinful and calling those of us who believe differently to repentance. I do the same, after all, believing their views to be deeply un-Christian and hoping they will change them.

If they can do this from within the Communion and without actually trying to stop other churches in the Communion from following their understanding of where the Holy Spirit takes them, the Communion will become truly worth having again.

Actually, this might well reflect the very best one could hope for: the highest degree of communion possible amidst disagreement.

Worth noting nonetheless is the bottom line: According to the Province of West Africa, partnered GLBT Christians and their families must not be given "acceptance by the Church of God." Instead, they must be treated as being in need of pastoral care.

Surely our West African brethren will understand if many of us answer this way, as our discussion within the Anglican Communion continues:

"We shall continue to abhor such" marginalization of fellow human beings "and, therefore, appeal to those members to reconsider their" treatment of their lesbian and gay sisters and brothers and the unintended sanction and encouragement they offer those who perpetrate violence of all kinds against them "in the light of Biblical Teachings and Christian Principles."

Christopher,

I think that is why we need the "covenant process," there is no way just to leave things as they are (that ends in chaos).

It cannot impose a solution but it can be a basis for some sorting out, establishing some understandings for relating, or distance (based on some understandable reasons) between different parts of what has been the AC.

Ben W

From the statement: “"That we are resolved to continue to be in communion with the See of Canterbury as we unequivocally and unambiguously remain in the Anglican Communion."”

Goran asks: "But is this loyalty?"

In general, a statement like this might seem odd. Asserting you are staying if there has been no talk of going would seem to raise up the alternate prospect.

But given the exceedingly disloyal talk of others, a statement unambiguously asserting the intention to stay is loyalty, I think.

The blandly pharisaical quoting of Romans 1 shows how deeply entrenched and how terrifically oppressive this demonization of homosexuals is in Christianity. These bishops have learnt nothing, except perhaps to be practiced hypocrites.

I'm with +christopher on this one. I see this as a declaration to remain in communion, even with those that they disagree with profoundly ( I second JCF's statement that the profound disagreement goes in both directions).
No, I do not see this as a call, explicit or implicit, for a covenant process with inquisitorial powers, and for primates with curial authority beyond national autonomy. I see the calls for such things as nothing more than a thinly disguised determination to break communion with the North American Churches (and maybe with Brazil and a few others). I read the statement as a determination to preserve the Communion; and NOT by booting out or punishing national churches.
If the West Africans want to share the Altar with me no matter how much they may loathe me, then I'm happy to meet them there.

Counterlight, I'm with you - I'm happy to meet anyone at the altar. In fact it's our privilege to meet anyone at the altar.

Are you all men discussing this? A mother sees it differently. I have yet to meet one who rejects her own gay/lesbian child.

Julian,
To his eternal credit, my father hasn't rejected me either but welcomed my partner with open arms.

And Counterlight, I repeat what I have said here often before. My ray of hope for the Anglican Communion is our own village parish where the evangelical fundamentalist disagrees heartily with everything I say or do, but kneels side by side with me at the altar, welcomes me to his house for prayer breakfast and never forgets to exchange the Peace with me.

These bishops deplore name-calling, by which they mean names like "liberal" and "conservative". How Christian of them, as they mash gays with their boots.

"Who after all is calling for departing/new interpretation of scripture or of historic Christian teaching?"

Ben, I agree with you that stating clearly that they will remain in communion with those with whom they have profound disagreement is a good thing, but I point out that resting all authority in Scripture, claiming it can never be reinterpreted, espousing a Reformation era Protestant sacramental theology (denying baptismal regeneration, for instance, or promoting lay presidency), approving usury and remarriage after divorce are actually "new" things. The attitudes of Evangelicals to these things are no more than 500 years old, and in their day represented a far greater departure fromt traditional Christianity than anything that is currently being proposed. Evangelicals cannot claim their positions are "traditional" Christianity. They are part of the Christian tradition, but a very new, and radical, part. That's why their use of the word "orthodox" is so humourously hypocritical.

Agreed Erika, a lovely vision that could be attainable if some would get their heads out of their collective you-know-whats. Perhaps Canada, as mentioned in a later article, has come up with the ultimate solution. Perhaps we do need to worship together and stop acting like children.

Indeed, that is a lovely thing to contemplate Erika. If we could only have that on a larger scale across national and sectarian boundaries, then we would all be just a few inches closer to the Heavenly Kingdom.

I find it a truly striking contrast that the much maligned +Gene Robinson cannot imagine an Anglican Communion without ++Peter Akinola, while ++Akinola cannot imagine a world with +Robinson.

Ford,

I think we go around and around the same thing much of the time.

To begin with, why not let the West Africans speak for themselves (instead of your "reinterpretation" of them). They stated, "That we are resolved to continue to be in communion with the See of Canterbury as we unequivocally and unambiguously remain in the Anglican Communion."

They see the departing/new interpretations as the threat to unity. But they are not schismatics and have no intention of being anything other than what they have been to this point - faithful Christians and Anglicans.

You emphazize that "I point out that resting all authority in Scripture, claiming it can never be reinterpreted" etc are "new" things. Do you recognize the difference between faithful interpretation in various contexts and coming up with "your thing" and using scripture as ideology to justify it? I have myself emphasized that we do not think we can just pick up scripture and come up with "our interpretations," we need the history of the church to learn in context, that for early Christian teachers was in large part the point of "tradition" (it is the "reinterpreters" who treat scripture like a wax nose to give it whatever shape they prefer).

Precisely in loyalty to scripture many evangelicals are rethinking the meaning and place of the sacraments. And who do you know that thinks divorce is a good thing or wants to bless it and therefore are simply encouraging the idea of remarriage? This position of remarriage in some way means failure and recognizing it as such. I thought we covered this but you keep just reasserting the old line!

Ben W

Still distorting, Ben W?

And yet (at the same time) claiming: "I think we go around and around the same thing..."

I cannot see that we do.

Ben, I agree the West African statement is a good thing, how is what I said a "reinterpretation"? Second, WRT Scripture, you seem to be coming from the assumption that Scripture is the basis of the faith. It is not. The faith is a Tradition handed down to us. It is a metanoia, a changing of the mind, from the earthly to the Heavenly. The Bible is merely the user's manual for that Tradition. There were Christians long before there was a Bible. Just because something does not accord with Scripture does not mean it is not from the Spirit. Take the veneration of images, or even the Trinity. We were led to understand God is a Trinity, then we found the Scriptural explanation of it, in a process that I suspect, had you been alive then, you would have felt was using the Scripture to justify our own ideology. So, your phrase "faithfulness to Scripture" is loaded with incorrect assumptions. It is the faith, not the Scriptures, to which we should be faithful. A further problem is that you start with the assumption that those who are not Evangelicals actually believe nothing, and are merely justifying their preconceived ideas. Why not start by assuming they are people of faith working out their salvation in fear and trembling like yourself? I have huge issues with most aspects of Evangelicalism, but I would never claim you are faithless because you believe things I find at best dodgy, in some cases repugnant, and, in at least one area, close to blasphemy. Don't you see that when you voice that assumption of those you oppose, all your other claims to have respect for your opponents and decrying the inflammatory language of the Right just goes out the window?

Ford,

Again, one assumption after another!

To start with the statement of the West Africans, it was a refreshing and clear affirmation. I think you saw something important but missed the deep issue here. In your "reinterpretation" instead of a clear affirmation we have another "political" statement of accomodation ("we will remain in communion with you even though we disagree" - we will play nice).

The most flagrant assumption: if you go back to what I actually said in my previous post you see that I certainly was not talking about scripture apart from tradition or the church. Though even the Catholic Church would not want to be so "rootless" as you seem to be as to lift tradition above scripture or to separate it from scripture (what after all is the meaning of CANON in history or for us now?). You want to choose between "the faith, not the Scriptures?" Of course faith in God's work in Christ is the basis, and the gospel or this faith was inscribed in scripture for us! I would suggest reading the great book by the R C theologian Hans Kung on The Church might disabuse you of these simple illusionary dichotomies.

Ben W

Ford,

I will pick up one statement that makes me question whether you actually read what I say. "A further problem is that you start with the assumption that those who are not Evangelicals actually believe nothing." Assumption and distortion of the worst kind!

That would not be true even of how I think of bs Spong, though he may not believe much of original Christian faith! I have worked together in Church relations with various groups you could name here, including a thoughtful RCC leader of a representative church association who was chair and for which I served as executive secretary. I appreciate fully the faith we share in Jesus Christ.

Ben W

"Assumption and distortion of the worst kind!"

A very natural assumption in the experience of most.

Why so snarky, Ben W?

Ben,
"I will pick up one statement that makes me question whether you actually read what I say. "A further problem is that you start with the assumption that those who are not Evangelicals actually believe nothing." Assumption and distortion of the worst kind!"

So what does this mean, then:

"Do you recognize the difference between faithful interpretation in various contexts and coming up with "your thing" and using scripture as ideology to justify it?"

or this:
"it is the "reinterpreters" who treat scripture like a wax nose to give it whatever shape they prefer"

That's just from this thread. I don't have time to search through other threads for equivalent statements, but you say these kinds of things all the time, Ben. If such statements do not reveal an assumption that those who are not conservative Evangelicals, or at least conservatives, are making it up as they go along, then what DO they indicate?

Ford,

That is a simple one, I think we have a lot of people "making it up as they go along." Bs Spong will even tell you at times when he's doing it ("I know this is traditional or this is NT teaching, but I can't/won't believe it, it is too unmodern etc. Here is what I say" etc).

And it has to be said there are people as well on what you call the cons side at times making it up. Why do you think there is such disarray and such loss of credibility in the Christian church? If this is not one of the main reasons what is?

Ben W

"I think we have a lot of people "making it up as they go along." "

So what I said wasn't assumption and distortion after all!

Why is Spong the conservative bogeyman? He doesn't have much influence afer all. The extreme left wingers I know actually practice a faith grounded in the Incarnation, and they find Spong's writings pretty uninspiring. I have to say, his concreteness and mistrust of things mystical are more reminiescent of the ideas of Evangelicals than of anything I can relate to.

As to why the Church is in disarray, that's easy. Most people I know are sick and tired of being ruled by self righteous hypocrites who sit in smug judgement on everyone else, condemning others for things they are guilty of themselves. That's been a pretty constant theme in my posts, actually. If you want to be respected as a Christian, you have to behave like one. Even non-believers know that lying about and slandering people just isn't Christian. In what way can the public statements of the Right in just this one issue within Anglicanism be said to obey the Second Great Commandment? Multiply that a thousand times over about umpteen issues. Why would anyone give credence to someone who vehemently defends his right to lie about, slander, insult, and demean others while claiming to be a Christian?

Ford,

You are letting your language run away with you again. You have picked some strong language from people in Africa and want to tar all people on what you call "the right" with this brush. What is that? A form of misrepresentation certainly or even slander?

Have I used the language of hate against someone here? Have you heard former Ab Carrey or in Canada J I Packer slander or put down people?! Now these are actual people and notable evangelicals, are you saying they or people associated with them, are doing this? Let's talk about real people and actual cases of language in our context where we know what is going in specific terms, otherwise you yourself become the slanderer.

Ben W

Ford,

Your assumption about me that I simply hold to a view that someone who differs in some way I simply discount is merely false.

But you still trot it out it out once again, "those who are not Evangelicals actually believe nothing." (You should should have put that horse to rest long, ago he can't run, can't even stand!). I have spoken to this clearly and from life experience. One who is intent on blindly holding to a particular view even in the face of direct evidence is condemned to it even if it is basely false.

Ben W

@Ford Elms:

I think the reason +Spong is the main conservative bogeyman is that he represents the liberal-progressive extreme, and embodies the fears many conservatives have about the direction faith is taking in the Episcopal Church.

Of course, I find his ideas deeply unsettling, too (more so that such a person became bishop), but it's the same kind of guilt-by-association that we had recently comparing conservatives to Fred Phelps. It's an attempt to divide the church into cleanly liberal and conservative camps, and you're either with us or against us (and are guilty of everything "your" side does). Seems to be the spirit of the times, sadly.

Regarding the choice of language, that goes into what I just wrote. Anyone on the other side of the aisle is automatically in league with everyone else on that side of the aisle and guilty of the same sorts of things, and under every rock and behind every tree lurks conspiracy. The problem is that both sides preach tolerance, but fail to deliver. Yes, it's hard to be tolerant of someone saying things that cause us personal pain, maybe even make us feel like second-class Christians. But we have to develop a thick skin and try harder to see things from their point of view. Benefit of the doubt. Walk in their shoes. (I'm good with clichés, what?)

++Akinola once described the consecration of +Gene as a "satanic attack" on the Church. Ironically I'd actually agree there is a satanic attack on the Church, but the attack is far more subtle and nefarious than merely having an openly gay man in a pointy hat. The attack is there in making us attack each other over things that never were historically central to our faith. A community of love is destroying itself as people fight fire with fire in a house full of gaasoline, and Satan is laughing with delight as the house burns down.

Walsingham wrote: “I think the reason +Spong is the main conservative bogeyman is that he represents the liberal-progressive extreme, and embodies the fears many conservatives have about the direction faith is taking in the Episcopal Church.”

Wherever do they get this from? Networking?

Walsingham,

I appreciate your effort to try and understand.

Someone asks where did this come from - Spong as your so-called "bogeyman." Strange this, I referred to him because I read his work (I think that is a good reason, but I have also referred to bss Ingham and Jenkins, and others could be named. But what is the point, instead of dealing with the matter in question we get diversion).

Like you I find it amazing that someone like Spong became a bishop. In some ways this is inherent in the point, Spong became an influential bishop and therefore cannot simply be compared to Phelps, this sideshow without serious connection to any larger Christian church, who for his own reasons cannot be said to represent authentic Christian faith.

Ben W

"In some ways this is inherent in the point, Spong became an influential bishop and therefore cannot simply be compared to Phelps, this sideshow without serious connection to any larger Christian church, who for his own reasons cannot be said to represent authentic Christian faith."

Whoops, you've just proved my previous point again.

But what I find truly astonishing in this sentence is that you judge someone for their peaceful yet unconventional views much harsher than you judge someone who preaches hatred, pickets funerals and shouts at mourners that their loved ones will go to hell.....

Ben, please please tell me that you can see a difference!

It's never what people think that is the problem, it is alwasy what they do.

@Göran:

Well, consider that us lib'rul folk also network -- IntegrityUSA, for example, or Affirming Catholicism. In TEC at least, to be quite blunt right now we pretty much rule the roost, so we have less acute need to formally network. The ACN and so on are largely defensive measures from a group that feels under siege, and we've done everything we can to encourage that (whether intentionally or not).

@Ben W:

Glad to oblige. I hope that this sort of conversation becomes more common in the runup to Lambeth.

@Erika Baker:

To be honest, the reason I see +Spong as being a serious danger is because his views, while peaceful, feel like a Trojan horse to gut the Church of its entire meaning. He more or less openly is trying to create what feels to me like a group of atheists or agnostics who show up on Sunday to play church pantomime.

Yes, he's a peaceful and well-meaning man. I don't doubt that. His ideas are challenging and definitely worth debating. That too is beyond doubt as far as I am concerned. But as a *bishop* charged with maintaining the catholic faith and the unity of the faithful? I can't get my head wrapped around that idea. We may as well ask Richard Dawkins to be bishop -- a fine and decent man, I'm sure, but hardly bishop material.

Certainly I wouldn't place him anywhere near Fred Phelps (not even on the same page) in terms of a short-term problem for us that needs to be addressed vigorously, but we also have to be *much* more careful in choosing our own leaders. Bishops are not popularity contests; they should be consensus-builders, and above all Titus 1:5-9 comes to mind as well.

"are you saying they or people associated with them, are doing this?"

"Associated" is key here, Ben. If people are willing to break communion with Gene Robinson but be in communion with +Akinola, they must consider the behaviour of the latter to be more acceptable than that of the former. People who do not wish to be in communion with either would have far more respect from me. Do you see my point? I admit I often fall for the same thing I am accusing you of: tarring all "them" with the one brush. You, and now walsingham, call me back from that, and it is appreciated. But following +Akinola, whether you see it as going into schism or defending the tradition, is a public statement that he is seen as a more fit bishop. They obviously don't see his statements as a barrier to communion. You need to realize that he isn't the only one. If people like Packer don't agree with his venom, they should be far more vocal in oppposing it. Instead, by their actions, they give it tacit support. As I said in another post today, anyone can "affirm" anything publically, but actions speak louder than words. You seem to think that people like Packer represent a more moderate voice. You may well be right, but it is certainly a very quiet voice.

Ford,

It is good to see that you recognize the unfairness of some things you have said here.

You also forget what is going by way of legal interaction in Nigeria is the not the priority issue it seems to be for you and others! One piece I saw referred to it in the context of moral legislation that dealt even more with adultery. In a context where they have a very different history, different people groups (Islam with an emphasis on ceratin standards of public morlaity), what do people here think gives them the right to determine how they should work this out? It may be in part that people see the moral decay in many places in the west that makes them more determined to follow a different path on this (certainly not to say that they would say they are in all respects a shining model!).

Ben W