It should remain so."

AND...thank you for clearing up the Anglican Communion Church deadliness...I can't help but think that NOW would be especially bad time to even think of such a thing when the ABC doesn't seem to know up from down or East/West or North/South.

What a timely reminder, from the Church of Ireland, that the global structure of Anglicanism, though centred upon the founding Province of Canterbury, is not totally dependent upon the Church of England for its strategy of mission. If this were so, then the priesting of women would not have happened in other parts of the Communion when it did - long before the Church of England.

This fact needs to be remembered in any argument about 'discipline' and governance within the separate Provincial Churches of the Communion.

As a member of a former 'colonial' Church myself, in Aotearoa/New Zealand, which helped to bring about synodical government - with lay. clergy and bishops as joint members of Synod (though raised within the Church of England) - I have a natural affinity with the English Church, but no sense of having to remain in a legalistic relationship to it's Canon Law. What I have hitherto admired about our Anglican tradition is its openness to
all, on the basis of the liberality of Jesus.

We in the Provinces of the Anglican Communion have grown up, and that is why we might insist on our own polity and missionary strategies that are relevant to the need to be 'Church' where we are.

In New Zealand, for instance, our civil law now allows same-sex couples to be legally partnered - that is not neccessarily 'married', per se, but still legally partnered. Does the Church have a duty of pastoring such relationships - which are acceptable in and to the local community? Or do we continue to insist on what may prove to be a questionable religious view of 'Biblical' sanctions against such a relationship?

Thanks so very much for continuing to raise this point. Maybe someday we will more broadly begin to hear this Orwellian language for what it is. +Rowan is far too often speaking of the Anglican Communion as an Anglican Church, and he is much too smart for this nuancing to be unintentional. I find it to be both alarming and offensive.

Couldn't have said it better meself.

God Bless Ireland!

As so often is the case, the Church of Ireland and its Gazette leading articles are models of moderation and common sense. The Church of Australia is another Church that is autonomous with its own Constitution. I cannot see how under that Constitution any "covenant" can be formally accepted. But most - even some of us who live in Sydney!- value highly the diverse, world-wide Anglican COMMUNION which can be and is strengthened in all kinds of other ways, just as we value our rich English, Irish, and Scottish Episcopalian heritage and our being in communion with the Archbishop and the historic See of Canterbury.

The Covenant idea is clearly a step in the direction of the Church model. But the trouble is that it rewards the GAFCON people whose model of Christianity is redolent of sect-like fundamentalism and penalizes the TEC who have done so much to be a real Church in creative dialogue with the world of today. Churchhood should be a qualitative rather than a quantitative concept and it should not be determined by a bullying majority rule.

In the first paragraph of the editorian, Dr Williams is quoted: "As Archbishop, I understand my responsibility to be to the declared teaching of the Church I serve, and thus to discourage any developments that might imply that the position and convictions of the worldwide Communion have changed."

If Dr. Williams were to step out into the back alley of Lambeth Palace, he would find a trash bin full of Lambeth resolutions that only survived for ten years, if that. The position and convictions of the WWAC have frequently changed over the years. (Dr. Williams knows a great deal about the history of the church in the fourth century. About Anglicanism since the sixteenth century, apparently not so much.)

Actually, Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10, in its context, is at least "not awful." But Dr. Williams seems not to be carefully reading ALL that it says, or carefully noting what it does NOT say.

The Church of Ireland Gazette's editorial is right on.

Makes me proud to be Irish!

ABP Harper is a good man (buried both my parents) - even though he's English!!!

“The Windsor REPORT,” he said. “It’s just a REPORT. When did it become like The Bible? The COVENANT. Why do we need another COVENANT? We have the Baptismal COVENANT. We have the CREEDS. What else do we need?”

Bishop Martin Barahona, Primate of Central America

Attention, may we have your attention please ++Rowan? We are NOT the Anglican Communion Church...we are INDEPENDENT PROVINCES and gatherings that shares "bonds of friendship"...these "bonds" do not include excluding anyone with loyalty oaths...many of us still believe we ought be personally responsible for our character/sins before God and NOT before the proposed iquisition of the likes of +Akinola, +Orombi, +Venables or +Drexel Gomez or YOUR railroading/continuation of the failed Windsor Report.

Mil Gracias.

I'm proud to be half Irish (not sure which half !).

By the way :

The C of E is no more free than the Church of Ireland. It is firmly bound to the British Constituional arrangements, as it is a 'Church by Law Establsihed'.

Rowan Williams is being disingenuous big time. The Anglican Communion has no offical Teaching on anything.

Lambeth Conference resolutions are simply that.

The quote from Bp Barahona is here:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/lambeth_conference/live_dueling_analysis.html

Go Irish! The editorial put it precisely.
We do not need to create a top-down very hierarchical model where one man's authority carries weight over just about everyone else's and has the authority to impose strict discipline and order against those who go another way. That's called the Roman Catholic Church. I respect their authority to run their affairs their way, but it's not the Anglican model.
If TEC wants to consider part of its ministry to include gay and lesbian people, if it wants to consecrate gay men (or *gasp* even women!) as bishops, that has no effect on how the provincial churches in Africa, Asia, or New Zealand carry out their mission. If African provincial churches want bishops and archbishops whose word is absolute law, and who oppose any kind of role for women or gay people in the ministerial life of their churches, that's unfortunate and alarming in my opinion, but again it has no effect on TEC or the church in Canada.
So Hurrah to the Church of Ireland Gazaette!

"The Anglican Communion has no offical Teaching on anything."

Probably any ABC would find that worrying. An Anglican friend jokes about a former ABC who is supposed to have said: "Well, yes, I do rather think that a CE priest should be expected to believe in God."

The 39 Articles seem to have bit the dust long ago but what about the Nicene Creed?

Are the words Church and Creed not basically good and salutary ones? Why the urge to treat them as oppressive? Why cut off your nose to spite your face?

Ten years between Lambeth conferences is a long time.

If there is not "authoritative" structure, no one can realistically expect a moratorium to last for such an extensive period.

The attempts to create structure with boundaries is an attempt by conservatives to thwart reforms.

If their theology did not lead to the aiding and abetting pedophiles, excusing the abuse and deprivation of women, avoiding responsibility for pandemics, war and famine; then maybe the conservatives theology would be worth waiting for.

Their theology has not visions for healing this planet or providing justice in this realm. They are as bankrupt as the priest of Sodom and Gomorahh, Ninevah when Jonah visited, or the Pharisees of John the Baptists/Jesus' time.

We don't wait for wife bashers to repent of wife bashing. We make laws to make it illegal and then deal with the wife bashers who refuse to repent.

"The 39 Articles seem to have bit the dust long ago but what about the Nicene Creed?"

Interestingly, for the conservatives in the current unpleasantness, the 39 Articles have almost the authority of a Papal Bull. That they have never had the authority outside England that they had within England is conveniently ignored. Yet, the Nicene Creed? Well, not so much, if GAFCON is anything to go by. Now, I'm sure most conservatives would be quite indignant at the suggestion that their support for the Jerusalem Declaration presents problems for their ability to support the Nicene Creed, but that is an alarming indication of how far astray their redefinition of orthodoxy to mean espousal of Evangelical ideas of Scriptural authority and the elevation of heterosexual marriage to the doctrinal level of the Trinity has led them. The traditional definer of orthodoxy is something of which they cannot understand the significance, but then again, their idea that redemption means little more than a "get out of jail free" card closes their eyes to the breadth of the significance of the Incarnation, so they can't be expected to understand how important it is to understand it as much as our finite human minds can. Some of them are quite willing to be doctrinally innovative on that score to keep women out of the priesthood as well, so, for them, and all male clergy is more important than Christology!.

Friend, MY nose is just fine and still where its always been. Yours ?

Of course, we have the Catholic Creeds and many accept the Quakdrilateral too. But after that there is --- as you surely know ? --- greatvariation of faith and practice on Sacraments, Salvation, Theotikos etc etc.

So given this ( the above) I smell a (big big) rat when I am told that the one area of certainty, the one item of Church Teaching trumping all others is so-called Lambeth 1.10 ! Please remember I know its sad sad history of politicing of Geo Carey and bulley boy tactics that forced 1.10 in that form out as a resolution.

READ the Reports of the C of E Doctrine Commission to see if there be authorative offical Teaching ---or no.

The Anglican Communion has no offical Teaching on anything."

Probably any ABC would find that worrying. An Anglican friend jokes about a former ABC who is supposed to have said: "Well, yes, I do rather think that a CE priest should be expected to believe in God."

The 39 Articles seem to have bit the dust long ago but what about the Nicene Creed?

Are the words Church and Creed not basically good and salutary ones? Why the urge to treat them as oppressive? Why cut off your nose to spite your face?

Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II on Thursday, 14 August 2008 at 9:41am

Cheryl,

This is so outrageous that on the one hand I simply want to discard it like rotten garbage, but on the other hand it needs to be named for what it is.

We get preachments here about the language of hate coming from "Evangelicals," and there has been language that does not represent the gospel, but if this had been said in this way about homosexuals I know the list would be up in arms i.e. abusive language, slanderous and baseless/unsubstantiated charges, utter distortion). Time to end the hypocrisy.

Ben W

Ben, I agree, Cheryl's language was over the top, but you have to admit there is a kernel of truth to it. I have spoken with far too much force myself, most recently today, but there is still truth in the idea that conservative positions by and large work to preserve older, abusive power structures. I won't speak to the avoidance of responsibility for war, but conservatives certainly abdicate any responsibility for anti-gay violence, for instance. I can't say they abet pedophiles, but I can say that their attitudes towards sexuality creates an environment of secrecy and shame in which these kinds of things can happen. If you force someone to accept a lie about something so central to their identity as their sexuality, you give them the ability to convince themselves of anything, including that some very horrible things simply aren't happening. That's why the closet is such a horrible place, and why we will not be pushed back into it. War? Well, the IRD in the US is a major conservative Christian organization, and they haven't been all that active in opposing America's wars around the globe. Indeed, the ties between the IRD and the anti-gay movement in the Anglican Church look very much like an attempt to destabilize TEC, which is opposed to much of Bush's social and foreign policy. It's not all about that, of course, that'd be as silly as the conservative persecution myth, but I think there's some truth to it, all the same. Are all conservatives/Evangelicals pedophile abetting war mongering woman haters? Of course not. A few maybe, just like a few gay people are guilty of the things conservatives claim all gay people do. But some of the positions and attitudes held by conservatives don't help. Outside TEC, there are a lot of conservative fundamentalist denominations of whom this would probably be truer, but again, not entirely and it would be unfair to tar them all with the one brush. All the same, what are we to make of the churches who held army recruitment drives after their main Sunday services after 9/11? Abetting war?

"The Anglican Communion has no offical Teaching on anything."

What I take this to mean is that the Communion itself prescribes no distinctively "Anglican" teaching for all member churches. Thus, the 39 Articles are not, the GAFCONmen's claim not withstanding, "official Teaching" of the whole Communion. The only "official Teaching" is not distinctively Anglican, but is the Communion's basic heritage as part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: the Catholic creeds.

Sorry Ben W but if you are going to preach on about how punishment oriented conservative views are an extra special dollop of godliness, called into being by the Holy Spirit to admonish and correct godless people in godless eras - then you start off, marching to a high and higher standard indeed.

Your possible (mis)treatment of the planet, the poor, the lost, and of those current fav hot button target groups - uppity women and uncowered queer folks? - will also be more strongly scrutinized than not.

Why? Because you loudly presume you are so much closer to God than everybody else could ever be, by presupposition as a preferred conservative believer hermeneutic or method.

You cannot claim to be so much better - in almost every way that counts - and then turn around and argue that you must nevertheless only be judged or weighed by less stringent and more generous measures which depend upon Jesus incarnation of God and that mercy which the OT prophets saw as innate to the incarnation of justice in YHWHs kingdom feast.

Either you are better, and so you must stand way taller and way purer and way more spotless according to your own high presumptions about yourself and your orthodoxies - or you are just one of us regular folks, doing the best you can with what you have, and therefore in need of as much mercy and generosity from unchurched folks or liberal believers as you need to offer others, just like them, in daily life.

You cannot selectively occupy a generous live and let live liberal religion paradigm when it comes to how others must treat you, while stepping simultaneously by sheer divine fiat into a self-procalimed holier than thou high position when it comes to your penal rights to police and punish others as if you had special power from God, special understandings of God, special nearness to God.

I we cannot take the heat, maybe we should just get out of the holier than thou kitchens.

I thought Cheryl's view was fair and reasonable. Conservative evangelical Christianity is almost entirely damaging and harmful, and requires opposing in all its manifestations. It has precisely no redeeming features.

This is why there really cannot be accommodation with such a philosophy and why there needs to be a split.

drdanfee,

What does your statement have to do with what I said? Whoever we are we are called as Christians to confess/follow Christ. That does not justify us simply to continue in sin, but we know whatever we are in Christ is of grace.

I thought there was some common understanding about abusive, baseless, generalized language and being aware of its consequences. If you want to justify this you can. I think that says all that needs to be said.

Ben W

"I thought there was some common understanding about abusive, baseless, generalized language and being aware of its consequences"

The point, Ben, is that such language might well be inappropriately generalized, as well as abusive, but, however it might hurt you to hear it, it is not entirely baseless. You have been here for some time now. You have read the kinds of things some say, as well as the fact that I am one of the ones who responds in kind. I haven't been all Christian towards you, for instance. But, put aside the hurt for a minute. I meant what I said above. Can you truthfully deny that I have a point? What about IRD? What about conservatives billionaires funding GAFCON after calling for the stoning of gay people? And, I keep coming back to Nigeria. What about the fact that a Primate of the Anglican communion has done and said the things +Akinola has done and said? Most conservatives here claim his behaviour has no link whatsoever to anti-gay violence. Is that not abdicating responsibility? And that it is defended in the name of Evangelism is just reprehensible. What about the lies and slanders against Davis Mac Iyalla? The Primate of Sudan, a good man otherwise, I understand, lives in a country where women are sold like cattle, and where "there are no homosexuals" because they are so afraid for their lives they dare not be found out. Is he not supporting an older abusive power structure?

Ben W wrote to Cheryl: ”… on the one hand I simply want to discard it like rotten garbage…”

You always do ;=)

Ben W wrote to dr. Dan: “I thought there was some common understanding about abusive, baseless, generalized language and being aware of its consequences.”

It seems to be you, Ben, who doesn’t got that understanding. You just throw your own errors at others. Freudians have a word for it. To me its just childish.

and again: “If you want to justify this you can. I think that says all that needs to be said.”

The same.

Ford,

Thanks for your notes.

You will see that at least in part, with reference to some Evangelicals, I made the point you are making, "there has been language that does not represent the gospel ..." I think it is a matter of what this rhetoric does - poison the very ground for conversation (and the Cheryl herself has been making a point about the damage of hate language for some time). We can become blind to this, as long as its not our group, well, "they had it coming." Then almost anything can be justified. As I stated, "If this had been said in this way about homosexuals I know the list would be up in arms ..."

Ben W

Treebeard, your comment about resolution 1.10 needs minor clarification: Some conservatives raise the “first” section of 1.10 to the status of dogma. The other two sections of the resolution they, well, resolutely ignore. Does anyone seriously believe, for example, that Archbishop, Primate, and Metropolitan of all Nigeria Peter Akinola has truly “listened” to a single gay or lesbian Nigerian Anglican?
As far as Cheryl’s comments, they are harsh, but they contain truth. Some bishops and primates in the Communion refuse to recognize Katharine Schori’s status as bishop, or even priest, and refuse to be in the same room if she’s celebrating communion – solely because she’s a woman. Forgive me, but has there ever been a more self-serving argument than “Jesus appointed only men as his apostles, therefore only men can be priests or bishops”? By that logic, only circumcised Jewish males should be candidates for priests or bishops, because that’s the pool Jesus chose his apostles from.
People have used the poorly translated commandment in Genesis 1, for men (and yes, they meant men in the past) to “subdue” the earth, to do terrible harm to the environment and earth’s creatures. They have used a very narrow view of sexuality to persecute, vilify, and make criminals out of gay men and lesbians. So, yes, Cheryl’s comments are valid, in my opinion.

Minor modification accepted ! What an excellent point ! Thank you.

It is heart breaking that they can treat the PB like that --or indeed any woman minister, Many years ago a dear friend entered Spurgeon's College, London,UK to train for Baptist ministry. She was the only woman there; and in the end her spirit was crushed by the gallant young men and she had to leave the training. Little support from the faculty either.

I find your post very telling. And your last para is moving and honest. Thank you.

'...Forgive me, but has there ever been a more self-serving argument than “Jesus appointed only men as his apostles, therefore only men can be priests or bishops”? By that logic, only circumcised Jewish males should be candidates for priests or bishops, because that’s the pool Jesus chose his apostles from.
People have used the poorly translated commandment in Genesis 1, for men (and yes, they meant men in the past) to “subdue” the earth, to do terrible harm to the environment and earth’s creatures. They have used a very narrow view of sexuality to persecute, vilify, and make criminals out of gay men and lesbians. So, yes, Cheryl’s comments are valid, in my opinion.'

Posted by: peterpi on Friday, 15 August

How many successful lawsuits against how many denominations in how many different countries does it take to prove that churches have aided and abetted pedophiles, colluded in group lynchings (Klu Klux Klan comes to mind), hidden homosexuals, rebuked women for trying to escape abusive relationshiops?

More than one successful lawsuit in any one diocese proves that diocese has a problem. Successful lawsuits across denominations across countries proves there is a bigger, sytemic problem.

That's before we even touch on what has happened in boarding schools, orphanages and theological colleges...

As I said to my daughter this morning, something has seriously gone wrong with some camps of Christianity. It's not that Christianity will ever be free of aggressive souls, misogynists or pedophiles. It's just that they used to be ashamed of such conduct and keep it hidden from public view lest their (and Jesus') reputations be tarnished.

The tragedy of this modern manifestation of Christianity is they have no remorse about their conduct and proceed to use whatever means to silence their voices of conscience (no matter how unscrupulous or cruel their strategies).

Shame on Jesus for allowing Christianity to degenerate this far.

By the way, in one of my many experiences in this lifetime was working for a Treasury policy department that meted out the government's funding. One funding dilemma was whether or not prison counselling worked and was worth the funds invested. Analysis from WA's prison system is that the prisoners who genuinely felt empathy and remorse with their victims were the ones who were least likely to commit further crimes, and that often their crimes were acts of passion in great moments of fear or anger. The ones that did not work were those who had no empathy and only pretended to have remorse so they could get out of the system.

God also distinguishes between the genuinely repentant and those who "play the system" e.g. Jeremiah 6:15 "Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush."

Go ahead, throw my words out as garbage. You have proven you have no conscience.

"I think it is a matter of what this rhetoric does - poison the very ground for conversation"

It does indeed, Ben, but not only that. It also enables people to believe that if they beat us up or kill us, they are doing God service. Just because this isn't said outright doesn't mean that people won't read it into what is said. And I think those who say these things have a responsibility in that instance. If you go on and on talking about homosexuality being "inhuman", which I believe +Orombi is on record as having said, (I stand to be corrected as to who this was, but I know it wasn't +Akinola) you have to expect that someone is going to decide that those who do "inhuman" things are not human, therefor fair game for murder.