I look forward to the hearings of the Committee investigating Unanglican Affairs. Bishop Tom Wright in the Chair. 'Are you now, or have you ever been, an Arian?' It will be very edifying and will be a powerful instrument of evangelization. NOT!

I'm amazed for two reasons about this crop of stories.

The first reason is the shocking use of the word 'inquisition' - together with a depiction of torture in Ms Gledhill's article - for a proposed commission of guidance. However unwelcome the commission idea might be, that kind of reaction is ridiculous.

The second is more important - they are missing the big story. The really shocking thing about the official communique is the elevation of the deliberations of the Lambeth conference, to an equivalent standing with the primitive ecumenical councils. As it is written, this seems to apply retrospectively as well as prospectively. So perhaps we will see no resolutions from Lambeth, but rather some dogmatic definitions?

Then again, I can't really imagine this set of propositions gaining majority approval, let alone consensus.

Historical comparisons to the Inquisition are perhaps overblown. But more recent history is instructive. As an Anglican, I very much admire Roman Catholic theologians such as Hans Kung - his early book The Church, was very important to me in my theological formation. Now, if a theologian of Kung's stature ends up on the banned list (or think of a number of admirable liberation theologians - from the developing world, please note), this should tell us something.

Institutions like the Holy Office are a large part of the reasons I left the Roman Catholic church in my college years.

To see the Anglican Communion suggest it needs something even remotely like it moves me to tears.

All this tralk of an Anglican 'Inquisition'! Is this what is really needed? Is this what the Roman Catholic Church needs from us before it will think about further talks on 'unity'?

If so, then, in the light of Rome's retreat into pre-Vatican II theology, we Anglicans ought to pursue the more Gospel-oriented aims of the Reformation. Pope John XXIII would never have gone along with a recession into inquisitorial tactics to pursue the cause of the Kingdom of justice, truth and love in the world of our day.

Surely Christ died to set us free from the Law of sin and death. Is this not the basis on which he commissioned his disciples to preach the Gospel? Have we to go back to the preeminence of Law over Grace? Even Saint Paul might find this attempt to legalise the parameters of our faith, ironic.

Semper Reformanda is, or ought to be, the basis of the Gospel enterprise. Jesus said: "They'll know you're my disciples by your love." Are we going to reconstitute the Law of the Scribes and Pharisees all over again? Is any single human being excluded from the redemptive and merciful love of Christ?

If the influence of the puritanical re-asserters is so strong, perhaps we ought to think of letting them go - to follow their own (limited) understanding of the preaching of the Gospel.

If Anglicans think the activity of the CDF since 1978 are something to write home about, they should think again. But perhaps if the CDF had reformed itself as requested by Paul VI at the end of the Council it might approximate to a relatively benign guiding organism and that may be what the Anglican proposal aims at.

The apple of discord among Anglicans is, however, one not very susceptible to a dogmatic resolution. It is also an apple of discord among Catholics and the CDF utterances on it have been found confusing and offensive by very many people.

Nice to see RW talking about environment in The Guardian. This is a more biblical issue than homosexuality, and the Bible has a vision for it. It is good to see that he is not letting the Lambeth conference be hijacked by the frothers, fumers and foamers who gave us the disgraceful spectacle in Dar Es Salaam, where American tolerance of homosexuality obsessed the Anglican primates for a whole week in the midst of a continent wrestling with genocide, poverty and numerous other more pressing matters (including, by the way, the murder of gays, which none of these bishops thought fit to mention).

Even if some sort of punishing/policing Anglican fifth instrument of unity - now there is a conservative Anglican euphemism for us, worthy of its plain doublespeak - really comes to be. Even if such a thing had existed, all it would do, all it would have done - is bring fear, policing, and punishment more centrally into the life of the gathered fellowship of the provincial Anglican churches, daily, on multiple levels.

Such a commission immediately is hoist on fudging its own Anglican standards relative to womens ordination, if not also to key domains of science where indeed change is happening and change has happened and startling change will no doubt continue to flood out upon us. I mean, the modern human sciences.

And it is difficult to accurately imagine a real world in which this No Change commission would be able to stop global inquiry and global change. Call change enlightenment era, modern, post-modern as you will.

As if clinging to some Status Quo will save us believers from having to follow Jesus of Nazareth whose mansions prepared have a zillion generous rooms of which even the New Testament Jesus said he could not speak, because his apostles could not bear to hear of how profoundly unafraid and generous and capable God really was - faced with sin, evil, and death? Yes, those same frail apostles personally chosen and called by God in Jesus, who are often as blind and deaf and dumb as anybody else we happen to know, so far as God's life and God's sweet purposes.

Poor Rowan Williams, how sad to see him even contemplating this trap (a misshapen though always well-meant offspring of pledging penal substitution atonement theories?) whose shapes are all innately violent. And him, the great leader who dares to preach to us that we must bear the sufferings of the cross, now seeking an instrument that will promise to save us from the sufferings of best practices study, and therefore, from the sufferings of opening to change for the better.

I tell you as an Anglican believer, it is all way out of joint. It promises to save the big tent by policing and punishments, however gently framed in euphemistic discourses which will ever be to the effect that, We must now stop rubbing shoulders with you in church life, and see you then down at the office or the lab or the next scientific congress.

Folly.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Some do, it seems. Are there any comparisons to be made with Torquemada and the heresy of the Judaizers? The Holy Office was certainly successful in its collaboration with the State in the political and religious unification of Spain after the Reconquista. Is this our "ecclesial dementia" by not learning from history and taking a sufficiently firm line on gays and gayizers?

On the other hand, do we really need an extra layer of ecclesiastical bureaucracy, with its inquisitors, jurists and theologians? The UK's Equality legislation is bound to run into conflict again with the very narrow exemptions allowed to organised religion bolstered by the introduction of global Anglican canon law. Will Parliament and General Synod allow this?

In any case, will we really want to subscribe to an Anglican identity based on the elevation of Lambeth 1:10 to doctrinal status, enforced by an external council?

It doesn't seem very Anglican.

Interesting to me the the fact that it was conservative-leaning columnists like Ruth Gledhill who were labeling it an Inquisition.

It is, of course, precisely that: a body whose job it will be to root out perceived heresies, searching for Arians under the bed. Yet somehow I suspect it will never take on the overt Donatists who are leading the false "conservative" putsch.

The one positive thing is that an Anglican Inquisition appointed by the present dysfunctional Instruments of Disunity is liable to be feckless and feart. No Tor Quemada here.

I think this is ultimately a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. I have little doubt that there are signficant bishops at Lambeth (whether measured in numbers, or passion!) to "block consensus" about any revision that would change the AC into a binding "majority rule" (w/ accompanying abuses sure to follow).

If Rowan Cantuar REALLY wants to avoid schism, he won't ram through (see re +++Carey and 1.10!) any proposal (ala a "Holy Office") which GUARANTEES it will happen.

Frankly I'm not surprised by the reactions to the proposal given the loaded use of the word "Inquisition" by our friend Ms. Gledhill and company. But if you examine the actual idea, as well as the increasing anarchy within Anglicanism (border crossings galore, ad hoc creations of new provinces, even new "Primates' Councils", etc.) then clearly something has to be done to create at least some sense of order and be able to enforce it, even if only mildly. That goes, by the way, at least as much for the border-crossers as it does for anyone else.

I can hardly think that anyone on the more liberal side really thinks that the status quo is acceptable. Surely some sort of institutional solution is necessary, even if it remains a minimalistic one. The purely voluntary, totally autonomous system we have had up until now is not working in keeping us together, therefore something else must be done.

Why this is automatically parsed as an "Inquisition" or as being targeted solely at ECUSA is frankly a mystery to me. Stop being so paranoid, people, and stop believing anything the Times or Guardian have to say about it. Both are so full of trash now that they are worthless as a useful source of news.

Not surprised by the suggestion.

If they can't win the debate on theological grounds, then use censorship to keep others from learning about that loving generous God that is found in both the Old and New Testament. That one that provides for both Jew and Gentile, male and female, healthy and afflicted, seen and unseen.

Pompous theology that portrays that they worship the only loving manifestation of God rely does rely on illiteracy and ignorance.

It's hard to be credible when it becomes clear they are just as legalistic, manipulative and selfish as the Pharisees who attacked Jesus.

Maybe the Holy Office would like some more training from American authorities? You know the ones who removed nearly all the religious books from the prisons lest the prisoners be given hope and inspiration. Us liberals will take comfort that those authorities were shamed into returning the books.

There is still hope that such Anglican advocates will realise that they think like an irrelevant sect leaders who are terrified of the real world. If they can not cope with diverse theology within Anglicanism, how can they possibly purport to be able to give guidance to broader Christianity or purport to be Jesus' annointed guardians of this planet? To be blunt, if they really are the best parents that Jesus can create, then it is probably better to be an orphan.

"Frankly I'm not surprised by the reactions to the proposal given the loaded use of the word "Inquisition" by our friend Ms. Gledhill and company. But if you examine the actual idea, as well as the increasing anarchy within Anglicanism (border crossings galore, ad hoc creations of new provinces, even new "Primates' Councils", etc.) then clearly something has to be done to create at least some sense of order and be able to enforce it, even if only mildly. That goes, by the way, at least as much for the border-crossers as it does for anyone else."

Because what is being suggested is not described as enforcing rules and traditions of polity and ecclesiology, but of theology and Christology. It is to be used to deny further opening of the church's love to the marginalized, to prevent the church from accepting modern science as regards human psychology and sexuality, just as the Inquisition was used against Galileo in regards to cosmology and astronomy.

Glad we have Pat O'Neil hearing taking good sense. One of the posters I never scroll-down on and skim or ignore.

Thanks

What I fear the most, I think, is that those bishops (invited and uninvited) who are not at the Lambeth Conference) will be rejoicing at this attempt to corral the Communion into some sort of 'Commonality for the Sake of Unity' on the basis of the original 'Windsor Report'.

If Jesus had waited for the Sanhedrin to agree to his controversial proclamation of the Gospel to All Creatures, then his death might have been avoided, but his mission would have been in vain.

Do we have to regress to a pre-scientific and pre-enlightenment (and some might say Pharisaical) understanding of God's intention for Creation? Or do we accept Christ's revelation of the New Creation - based on the Gospel of his sacrifical Love?

Do we need to follow Rome's example of a return to pre-Vatican II theology? Or do we move onwards as the Holy Spirit opens up the way to further enlightenment through the Gospel example of Jesus' New Commandment? Are we seeking renewal or regression into the past?

@Pat O'Neill:

"Because what is being suggested is not described as enforcing rules and traditions of polity and ecclesiology, but of theology and Christology."

In fact, the document says in the closing paragraph:

"The Common Principles of Canon law Project (Anglican Communion Legal Advisers Network) gives a sense of the integrity of Anglicanism and we commend the suggestion for the setting up of an Anglican Communion Faith and Order Commission that could give guidance on *ecclesiological issues* raised by our current ‘crisis’." (emphasis mine)

Once again, I don't see the reason for paranoia on our part. ECUSA isn't the one intentionally crossing borders or being a tad, ah, creative in ecclesiology. (The one anomaly is in Europe, and that is acknowledged as an anomaly that should be tidied up, not as a permanent solution.) Nor should we have anything to fear on Christology. Indeed as +Gene himself has repeatedly pointed out, on that issue he is thoroughly orthodox by any definition.

Whether or not this process is the ideal, I don't know and I haven't taken a firm position on it yet. But to dismiss it out of hand based on what-ifs regarding orthodox theology, when ECUSA *is* quite orthodox on Christology and ecclesiology as well as in the understanding of the priesthood (in stark contrast to, say, Sydney), well, that strikes me as a trifle paranoid to say the least.

I'd much rather be constructive and try to design the process rather than refuse to participate and have it go totally against us.

Walsingham:

Yes, but the document spends far more words lauding praise on the works of the Anglican Covenant and the Primates Meeting, both of which are decidedly negative regarding TEC (including TEC's polity--the Africans especially seem to have no use for an elected episcopate). That last paragraph reads--to me--as an afterthought and an attempt to "make nice" with the Americans.

@Pat O'Neill:

I don't see anything in the current drafts of the Covenant for ECUSA to worry about. (Indeed conservatives have been moaning that it's nowhere near enough for them, which I think is a pretty good sign...) The last Primates' Meeting in Dar-es-Salaam only went relatively badly for ECUSA because of the foot-dragging by Nigeria accompanied by ++Cantaur's almost desperate hope for a consensus document, but ECUSA can play that game just as well as anybody.

I really don't see a reason to dismiss the whole process out of hand or draw comparisons to the Inquisition. Thus far the reports by ECUSA bishops on their blogs (at least those that I have seen) have been quite positive and optimistic, so I take the press reports with a very large hunk of salt. Not to mention the press isn't allowed inside (cue temper tantrums by Gledhill and company) and doesn't have much of a clue as to what is going on aside from a few backstage whispers, while "straight from the horse's mouth" (bishops' blogs, i.e. reports from the participants themselves) things look very different indeed.

Walsingham:

We'll see. My fear is that once such a "commission" is created, its job will grow in leaps and bounds, far beyond what its creators intended.

@Pat O'Neill:

Well, it cuts both ways, of course. It could grow by leaps and bounds -- and take the Communion the way ECUSA, the ACC, Church in Wales, the SEC, the more liberal bits of the C of E, etc. want it to go. Which I think is just why the GAFCON people are so paranoid.

Then again the existing Instruments of Unity hardly seem to have grown in stature at all since *their* creation. If anything their outright impotence is all that I detect. Some argue that that impotence is a Good Thing, but I think it's precisely what has led to the current near-anarchy and frustration on all sides. At least with a Covenant we'd have some clearer rules of the road, even if that clarity means ECUSA ends up going its own way after all (I sincerely hope not, but still, I think clarity is a good thing).