"On the contrary, the issue has led to quite possibly the deepest acrimony known in the Church and has brought us to the realms of schism."

And THAT is the real problem...why has this issue, so peripheral to matters of faith, become a stumbling block--when far more weighty matters, such as veneration of the saints or the Real Presence, have not?

If the concept of "reception" had been used for ordaining both people of color and women, we'd still have a lily-white and all male hierarchy.

The plain fact is that unless _someone_ takes the lead in an area where prejudice and injustice hold sway, _nothing_ ever changes.

"And THAT is the real problem...why has this issue, so peripheral to matters of faith, become a stumbling block--when far more weighty matters, such as veneration of the saints or the Real Presence, have not?"

Because those for whom these form important aspects of the faith see no need to insist that everyone else agree with them. Those for whom these are either NOT key matters of faith, or who specifically reject them, and implicitly the doctrines behind them, DO feel it important to only be in communion with those who agree with them. What I find most frightening about this is, were they to have their way in the Anglican communion, when would they go after these other things? Once the fags are safely back in the closet, how long will it be before they turn their attention to what they see as idolatry and a suspiciously Roman looking understanding of the sacraments? I suspect we'll find out as soon as the realignment is finished and they start to turn on themselves.

Perhaps it is time, however unlikely, for the Communion to follow the current approach of both American presidential candidates of avoiding the issue. Neither the Democrats, who favor gay rights, nor the Republicans, whose "base" is evangelical, are very interested in this subject now. They have bigger problems: the economy and war. In the same sense, Anglican Christians have bigger problems: poverty and faith. Putting the issue away for a while is what ABC is advocating.

Ford Elms writes: "Once the fags are safely back in the closet, how long will it be before they turn their attention to what they see as idolatry and a suspiciously Roman looking understanding of the sacraments?"

It is not insignificant, I think, that the 1662 Prayer Book has been held up as a unifying standard among these folk. Which leads to the frequently asked question: how long can an alliance between places like San Joaquin and the Southern Cone survive?
OFW

I agree Ford. The issue of blessing same-gay relationships or ordaining GLBT priests is only the tip of the iceberg.

The debate at a fundamental level comes down to is this planet and its occupants a result of the "original sin" and formed by a petulant and wrathful god? Or is this planet and its occupants desired and ordained, and our presence here a sign that God wants us to learn and grow from being here?

The former involves denial, shunning, rejection, recrimination, accusations, and repression. The latter involves acceptance, compassion, hospitality, forgiveness, mercy and nurturing.

Even if I speak only for myself, I desire the promised vision of peace that is promised in the bible for all beings in Creation. That comes from loving this planet and helping all beings to be brought into peaceful relationships. It necessitates rejecting the paradigms that lead to war, famine, plague and tyranny.

To paraphrase 1 John 4:16-21 "We know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them... There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because God first loved us. Anyone who says, “I love God,” yet hates GLBTs, is a liar. For anyone who does not love GLBTS, whom they can see, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. Jesus gave us this command: Whoever loves God must also love GLBTs."

Why is there still no list of GAFCON signatories...that is the hallmark of the fraud that it is...and why is the Headquarters of a boasted 50 million ( according to Canon Sugden Mathematics), 97 per cent black African in Sydney?

"The debate at a fundamental level comes down to is this planet and its occupants a result of the "original sin" and formed by a petulant and wrathful god? Or is this planet and its occupants desired and ordained, and our presence here a sign that God wants us to learn and grow from being here?"

Cheryl, I disagree with you on this. First, Creation is not a result of original sin, neither was it formed by a petulant God. It was created good. Whatever the allegory of Genesis refers to, something happened on the way from earlier primates to Homo sapiens that profoundly altered our relationship with each other, creation, and God Himself, and that was our doing, not God's. We are still in that broken fallen state, but God has come to be one of us, by becoming a part of His Creation to restore that Creation to its original pure state. We can't fully perceive it now, all the same. Jesus gives us the chance to take part in this restoration of Creation. The evils you mention are a direct result of the Fall, and each one in some way or another comes down to a basic human failing that is, itself, a result of the Fall, and indeed, is something of the cause of it: selfishness.We deny so as not to accept truth that might make us look wrong or bad, we shun because we think others deserve it ie that we are better, we reject people and things we think aren't good enough for us, we recriminate to get our way and make ourselves feel better than others, we accuse for much the same reasons. we repress those we think inferior and somehow deserving of our judgement. The Fall and Original Sin have impact on everything we do. Jesus calls us away from that. I try, but it ain't easy. There's an old saw that says that to make the sign of the Cross on yourself is to make an "I" and cross it off. Hokey, but a good thing to remember.

"The core issue for Anglicans is that the consecration of bishops and the ordination of clergy in active same-sex relationships and public rites of blessing of same-sex relationships are all simply so lacking in consensus within Anglicanism"

"The core issue for Anglicans is..."?

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel that the tone (if not implication) of the above, is that LGBTs are not ***faithful Anglicans themselves***? (Rather, that we're just a problem for the rest of y'all)

And *spare me* from the "mission creep"! The (proposed) moratorium speaks ONLY (partnered gay) BISHOPS, not (any other) clergy!

Lord have mercy...

"why is the Headquarters of a boasted 50 million (according to Canon Sugden Mathematics), 97 per cent black African in Sydney?"

Obviously because 97% of Sydney is black African. And wherever the headquarters is 97% of the money is American.

I really liked what you had to say Cheryl. It's almost Buddhist. Maybe God put us here to find "enlightenment." What i find difficult to grasp with conservatives and evangelicals is the belief that God has nothing new to say.

'But experience has surely shown that within the Anglican Communion there is currently no positive, general reception for the consecration of bishops and the ordination of clergy in active same-sex relationships and public rites of blessing of same-sex relationships. .........
....but the GAFCON Primates’ communiqué illustrates a very stark consequence.'

This statement from the Church of Ireland Gazette certainly indicates the reality of the situation at the moment - where the Gaffe-Con Movement has decided on its own response to the Reflections from Lambeth. Despite the eirenic overtures of the WCG, the GAFCON Secratariate - led by Abp. Peter Jensen in Sydney - has declared its hand.

As the C.of I. Gazette is suggesting here, GAFCON's response is tantamount to an incitement to schismatic activity on the part of those who will go forward with the re-alignment process of TEC and AC.of C. dioceses and parishes with foreign jurisdictions under GAFCON Primates.

For individuals to choose to realign, this could be considered to be an issue of private conscience. However, for bishops or parish priests to encourage their flocks to depart from their established Church affiliation, on the grounds of the non-compliance of the parent Church with a questionable 'holiness code' determined by the local leadership, might be in danger of incitement towards the greater 'sin' of disunity in the Body of Christ.

Ford

You haven't sat through the sermons I've sat through. Trust me, I've seen enough "up close" of the conservative faction behind GAFCON, they have a fundamental scapegoating paradigm, with Eve (aka Cheva) at the top of their list.

Your sentiment is correct.

That does not change that there needs to be an insight into why some camps would rather tear apart a global communion than be nice to GLBTs. Nor why they move from one repressive deceitful strategy to the next.

Another fundamental world view. Those who resort to accusations, repression, censorship, elitism, greed, tyranny and corruption have a belief that the ends justifies the means. Others have an awareness that the means shapes the ends.

God understands this. Consider the rebuke in Zechariah 7:9-14. “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress... In your hearts do not think evil of each other.’ “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen... ‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the LORD Almighty. ‘I scattered them... The land was left so desolate behind them that no one could come or go. This is how they made the pleasant land desolate.’ ”

Contrast this to Isaiah 62 "For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent,for Jerusalem’s sake I will not remain quiet, till her righteousness shines out like the dawn, her salvation like a blazing torch. The nations will see your righteousness... as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you. I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night... Prepare the way for the people. Build up, build up the highway! The LORD has made proclamation to the ends of the earth:“ Say to the Daughter of Zion, See, your Savior comes!... They will be called the Holy People, the Redeemed of the LORD; and you will be called Sought After, the City No Longer Deserted.

Pity Simon hasn't posted Ephraim Radner's latest article yet, as it is very relevant.

He's come to the conclusion that the Communion needs a split. He reckons that the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships in some parts of the Communion (ie TEC, ACC and, quietly, in the UK provinces) has raised the stakes too high for liberals to ever consider the possibility that they might be wrong. (I'd love to hear folk's comments... my gut feeling is that he is right...)

Hence most liberals might say that they believe in listening and dialogue, but in fact nearly all of them are being disingenuous. There is NO WAY that the would ever, in ANY conceivable circumstances, accept that such relationships are inherently sinful and to be rejected. They are closed. As Ephraim points out, that means there is no possibility of true dialogue!

Now I'm sure that most TA's gut reactions will be to not admit their own closedness to dialogue, and instead to attack conservatives for being completely intransigent... But then if you are too, you are not in any position to criticise intransigence!!! So, if Ephraim is right on this, and liberals can't change their beliefs, and conservative can't (I would say that is well nigh on impossible, given that the NT's writers consistently put same-sex sex in their sin lists. NB neither charging interest, nor eating shrimp appear on any NT writer's sin lists... neither does being a woman leader, or a slave!).

Hence Ephraim argues that there is little point in talking. We don't agree, we can't agree, so we can't dialogue! We can just play politics 'til one side manages to dominate the other, which might involve something akin to mutually assured destruction, or we can split in a Christian manner - respecting each other as far as we can.

Unfortunately, I think he is right.

Unlike the liberals Gafcon is a loose coalition of disparate groups..who are theologically poles apart. This ice can only remain solid for a certain amount of time.

davidwh: interesting post. I'm up for helping C of E parishes align to a post-split more liberal grouping. The sooner all these wound-up insecure-male-dominated 1950s-idealising Con Evo churches go, the better.

Is that what you had in mind?

Yes Dr Radner's latest paper is published on the Anglican Institute website and also available at Fulcrum.

It is magisterial in its recognition of the realities of gay families, gay partnerships and the church and civil embeddedness of gay people now -- protected often civil laws and the force of sheer decency.

A very fairminded and non-abusive approach - so different from the mindless bile that constitutes so much of T19, SF., Vitue etc.

However, the conclusion he draws from the evidence is somewhat surprising to me; and would appear to be based upon some kind of dogmatic appraoch unrelated to his evidence.

It seems the realites he evinces so clearly, make him feel, a litle out of sorts. I hope he will feel better soon.

DavidWh
No need to get so excited, this isn't new.
Of course conservatives are not going to accept homosexuality, and of course liberals aren't ever going to call it sinful. If that's what listening is about for you, there really is no point.

Listening has to mean understanding why the others have come to the view their hold, accepting their integrity and that they, too, are moved by what they perceive to be the calling of the Holy Spirit.

If we can do that for each other, we can live side by side, just like we have done in the case of all other issues that nearly split the church in the past.

Ben said yesterday in another post that the communion could not hold because there is no centre.
He's right.

If we take the two immovable positions and recognise them as immovable - can we still find a way of living together or not.
That, surely, is the only question.

I think those who are liberal on gay issues (and I include myself) have to accept that the majority of the worldwide Anglican Communion (and I mean those at pew level) do not agree with us on the issue. (That is a fact that has nothing to do with whether or not we are right on the issue). So we in the minority have to decide whether it is worth staying in the Anglican Communion to change peoples' minds or whether it is better to get out of it and form our own 'communion'. If we get out we will have the immediate benefit of a more congenial environment, but we will also have less influence on those left within the current organisation, influence which we might use in order to try and change their minds.

So it depends whether you think that ordinary Anglicans all over the world who are currently hostile to gays might change their minds. If you think that they are all irredemable homophobes, then there is no point in staying in contact with them. But if you believe that people can change their minds on this issue, it is probably worth staying in to encourage people to do so. I personally think that many people do change their minds on this issue, not so much for intellectual reasons as from seeing loving gay Christian relationships in practice and the fruits of the spirit within them. How do liberals who argue for getting out of the current structures plan to change minds in the Anglican Communion from outside, or do they think this is not worth trying to do?

Davidwh:

There's intransigence and there's intransigence: Tell me, which "intransigent" group is the one that refuses to share the Eucharist with the other? Or even to sit in the same pews?

Fr Mark,

If I am right you are speaking more out of pain at the difficult situation we have entered than anything else, so I will not simply respond to your put-down of evangelicals.

It is the saddened recognition from the Bishop of Winchester himself, Michael Scott-Joynt, that people are now thinking and largely talking at cross purposes. With Radner I think at the very least, "It is this kind of admission that should spur us to hard thinking." Does the bishop just speak for himself?

The language or key references as Radner shows now regularly get in the way, what is needed is realism about where the Anglican Communion is and and so address the issues before us. What we see at times - repeatedly here - in the name of love certain lines of teaching are simply sidelined, or the meaning of texts is directly subverted (e.g. Genesis 19:1-11 on this list just yesterday)against the abiding witness of the original texts and authorized translataions in various languages.

That was at the core of my earlier question: "Can we still affirm some clear lines of teaching in scripture or in historic Christian teaching? Or do we simply walk apart?" Not that we start out agreeing, but is there a real basis for thinking together? Without meaningful reference to scripture and historic Christian teaching what is the basis for thinking and holding together as a communion? Can there be reconciliation? Not clear - it may mean taking some distance in order to speak directly and with care to one another in the reality we now face.

Ben W

Fr Mark

I prefer to think of the heretics who are causing division leaving to try to form a nice new liberal church. I think it wouldn't "fly" 'cos liberals depend too much on the rest of us for income and people-power.

Erika,

'Listening has to mean understanding why the others have come to the view their hold, accepting their integrity and that they, too, are moved by what they perceive to be the calling of the Holy Spirit.

If we can do that for each other, we can live side by side, just like we have done in the case of all other issues that nearly split the church in the past.

Ben said yesterday in another post that the communion could not hold because there is no centre.
He's right.'

Your first two paras seem to me exactly right. Moreover, they apply even within individual churches everywhere.

The third I don't accept. The 'centre' is the broad essentials -interpreted, admittedly, elastically from place to place, from church to church, from individual to individual. There's no need to 'split the church'.

Magistra
"So we in the minority have to decide whether it is worth staying in the Anglican Communion to change peoples' minds or whether it is better to get out of it and form our own 'communion'"

The point is that we cannot actually get out and leave pure churches behind us. Gays are born every minute, at a steady percentage of the population, and some will be brought up in church families, some will become Christians later in life.

I mean - this whole debate about ordaining gay priests and bishops only comes about because there is a continuous stream of gays feeling called to the priesthood.

Those of us worn out by the debate can leave, but it will not change the situation for the churches we leave behind. All it will do is worsen the climate for those who come after us.

John

I personally agree with you. There is absolutely no need to split the communion.
But that strikes me as a liberal position because we tend to be very willing to live side by side with those we don't agree with.

In my own church there is a very broad centre, but its voice isn't heard in the debate.
In the CoE there is a centre, but it's characterised by being equally silent.
In the AC there is, presumably, a centre, but you wouldn't know from the gathering of 650 men at Lambeth who is part of that centre and what their thoughts on the situation are.

To a very real extent the centre is writing itself out of the equation and leaving the debate and the whole process to the passionate.

If the conservatives really do believe they cannot find a way of co-existing, then all our liberal belief in co-existence are not going to have any effect at all, and a split will happen.

"So we in the minority have to decide whether it is worth staying in the Anglican Communion to change peoples' minds or whether it is better to get out of it and form our own 'communion'."

You know, for all I have said in the past about Evangelicals, I don't want a schism with them. We need them to pull us out of the clouds of idealism we can fly up into. Basically we need the balance between the legalism and judgementalism of the right and the idealism and fuzziness of the left. And, the world needs to see a Christian witness that people of differing beliefs can actually co-exist without hating each other to the point of breaking apart. Different people come to God in different ways. If we are all the same, then some aren't going to get to God. We are not doing a good job of this, and it is because each side needs to be right, by God! We can each blame the other, I see most of the blame falling with the right, davidwh sees it exactly opposite. Who's going to stop being right first?

Erika, Rev Roberts

I think the problem in Ephraim's mind is that same-sex sex is sinful, not just novel. He isn't being narrow-minded, quite the opposite, he is thinking through both sides and realising that no way forward is possible together.

He's realised that any form of open reception (ie where you do what you want and we do what we want, and we all see how it goes) is effectively a one way street. we've already seen how this works (or rather doesn't) in TEC and ACC. It would be just the same anywhere else.

Trying to pretend that either "side" could accept a compromise is just being blinkered.

Ben

The question is where we draw the line in terms of the basic parameters we need to share.
I will never accept that the evangelical position represents “historic teaching”, I will never accept that there is such a thing as “authorised bible translations” if that implies they are faithful to the first originals as they were compiled and edited before they became Scripture, and if it means they were not influenced by the culture the translators have been working in. I will never accept the way evangelicals emphasise Scripture over Tradition, Reason and the continuous prompting of the Holy Spirit.
I am not an evangelical, and if being one is the sole criterion for remaining in the church, I have to admit defeat.

I do believe in the moral authority of Scripture, although not in every single word as absolute truth.
I value Scripture enough to want to get to its truth. That means I will revise my reading of it in accordance with the latest discoveries of translation errors etc.
I believe in the teachings of Jesus as expressed in his stories and in how he lived his life.
I believe in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as discerned by the whole church.
I believe the Holy Spirit is continuously prompting us towards greater awareness of the human condition, and that this means being prepared to change our views at times.
I would never do or accept anything that I consider to be against the will of God.
I accept “Jesus as Lord”, although I suspect that means something different to me than it does to you.

I can worship with those who support the death penalty, although I believe it to be against God’s will.
I can worship with those who deny global warming, although I believe they refuse to take good stewardship of the earth and are therefore not following God’s will.
I can worship with those who reject me, because I know God does not reject them.

Is sharing those parameters enough?

If not, what, precisely, do we have to share for you to agree to remain in the same church as me? Where, exactly, do you draw the line?

"I prefer to think of the heretics who are causing division leaving to try to form a nice new liberal church. I think it wouldn't 'fly' (because) liberals depend too much on the rest of us for income and people-power." - Davidwh -

It all depends, dwh, on what you think of as 'heresy', and who exactly is 'causing division' in the current situation.

Is sexual actitivy a bigger sin than refusing to sit at the Lord's Table with a fellow Bishop? is sexual activity a bigger sin than judgementalism and self-righteousness? - I think you should read the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee and learn exactly who was 'justified' by Jesus, who alone is our justification and Sanctifier.

If salvation were to be secured by our freedom from sinning, who would measure up to the standard that God requires? This was the constant message of Jesus to the Scribes and Pharisees.

So who then, dwh, is the heretic here? The one who admits their need of God, or the one who thinks he has it all sewn up and would separate himself from the contamination of what he sees as the sins of other people? Answer me, if you can.

DavidWh
You're still missing the point.
Compromise never means one side giving in 100%. Compromise always means both sides giving about 50%.
My question to you was what, given the immovables in this debate, would you be willing to give?

Davidwh: "liberals depend too much on the rest of us for income and people-power." David, that's simply not true. In the English deanery where I was based until a year ago, we had 13 parishes. Only 3 of them were what you would regard as kosher: the rest you would regard as liberal. There had already long been a situation in which the Conservative Evangelicals would not work collaboratively with their colleagues from other traditions, so there was no sharing of resources at all, beyond paying quotas, which the Con Evo clergy regularly threatened to withhold whenever they disagreed with the bishop or area dean on anything. The "liberal" churches tended to pay their quota in full. The ones that had most problems raising money were the very conservative anti-women Anglo-Catholic parishes, not the liberal ones at all.

So, in short, the dynamic in much of the C of E is not one where everyone's terribly pleased to have these lovely Con Evos to work with. Rather, it is an atmosphere in which a very sectarian mentality had been developing for some years now, in which Con Evo parish priests (who, in my experience, are always very dominant men) often grandstand and bully and behave imperialistically to their deanery colleagues. It doesn't make them many friends, I can assure you.

The root of it is whether you think that Anglicans who do things a different way, even believe a different way, have just as much right to be there as you do. I thought of the Con Evos for a long time, as most people do, as people who are often naive about many things, not least in the areas of doctrine, spirituality and church history, but essentially harmless nonetheless. However, recently, many of them seem to have become very aggressive to anyone who does not share their premises. This, I think, is actively harmful, and needs to be resisted, firmly.

"I value Scripture enough to want to get to its truth. That means I will revise my reading of it in accordance with the latest discoveries of translation errors etc."

Erika, there is a school of thought within Evangelicalism that Scripture has somehow miraculously been transmitted so as to accurately reflect God's words on every point. In the extreme, this manifests as "If it ain't King James, it ain't Bible." Seriously. For such people, there can be no translation errors, any earlier texts are either in error or the work of the Devil, or both. I hvae no idea how much this attitude infects Anglican Evangelicalism, but it IS out there.

Fr.Mark, I keep trying to understand Evangelical vs. Fundamentalist, since I didn't even know there were such things as Anglican Evangelicals till a few years ago. For me, fundamentalists were offended by that word and Evangelical was the politically correct way to refer to them. The past few years has been a relatively futile exercise in trying to learn the differences. I don't know if the doctrines are different, but this behaviour is certainly typical. I'd also agree with your comments about their naivety about spirituality, doctrine and especially Church history. I know it's wrong to stereotype, but there are so few examples of evangelicals who do not fit.

Ford Elms: "I didn't even know there were such things as Anglican Evangelicals till a few years ago." Ignorance is bliss, my dear.

"some will become Christians later in life."

Erika, I doubt many will be willing to accept a religion that preaches hate againt them and pretends it is only saying what it says about everybody else. They see very clearly that conservatives who won't rent them a room have no problem renting a room to usurers or remarried divorcees. Hypocrisy like that is quite visible, and after coming to terms with one's sexuality in the face of virulent opposition from a Church some of whose leaders want to imprison them, they are primed to spot it and mock it.

"Ignorance is bliss, my dear."

And believe me, enlightenment can be truly shocking! I was never used to this among Anglicans. To be honest, I arrogantly thought we were "better" than that! I realize now how bad that attitude was, but I was young, what can I say? I still am not completely over it, as is evident from my posts.

Ford
"Erika, I doubt many will be willing to accept a religion that preaches hate againt them and pretends it is only saying what it says about everybody else"

But that's what has happened throughout the ages.
Homosexuals have heard God's call and have entered the church, at all levels.
They have remained closeted but the condemnation shown by the church hasn't stopped them from following God's call.

Ford
"Erika, there is a school of thought within Evangelicalism that Scripture has somehow miraculously been transmitted so as to accurately reflect God's words on every point."

I know.
But you see, Ben keeps asking what we can affirm, and whether there is anything we share.
Well, I personally think we share a lot, and so I thought I rise to the challenge and list what I can and cannot affirm.

I was rather hoping that Ben would reply and indicate whether there is enough for him to compromise, or whether he will only ever accept died in the wool evangelicals despite all the talk of compromise.
I'm not surprised that he has not risen to the challenge.

"They have remained closeted but the condemnation shown by the church hasn't stopped them from following God's call."

Erika, I can't help but think that there are those out there thinking "Well, if that worked for 2000 years, if gay people have been answering the call anyway, why change it now?" :-)

I used to think that "Love God, love your neighbour" was a good ground for agreement, but I am now waiting for Ben's response on the other thread as to what he thinks is an "appropriate context" for loving one's neighbour. I think I'm being unfair to him all the same, but, like many other things, I think our understanding of the context of this is quite different. I mean no slur when I say I think it is a nuanced question for him, like "Are you saved?" is for me, likely to do with the way one's love of neighbour is shown, ie sometimes punishment is actually love, that sort of angle. Take +Akinola's statement that "we" can't just let homosexuals go on thinking their sin is acceptable: "We must love them more than that." The external meaning of this is that concern for a gay person's redemption is more important than helping us feel good about ourselves, or however he'd put it, in this world. But then he turns right around and advocates jailing not only us but those who are nice to us! Either he is a colossal hypocrite or he honestly believes that jailing gay people will somehow help us towards redemption. Or maybe he thinks that those who are so incorrigible in their sin that they actually let themselves be seen "gay" in public or defending the rights of gay people are lost and jail terms will frighten others away form the same sinful behaviour and they at least will have a shot at playing in God's sandbox after they die.

Ford
"Erika, I can't help but think that there are those out there thinking "Well, if that worked for 2000 years, if gay people have been answering the call anyway, why change it now?" :-)"

Because they actually hate the idea of simply not telling. A number of posters here have in the past spoken of wanting to root out the don't ask don't tell culture and to cleanse the church. The witchhunt is stronger now than it ever has been.

And that brings me to your question on another thread - why do you keep trying to talk to these people when they absolutely refuse to hear what you’re saying?

Because we have a responsibility here. Even if it seems pointless, we cannot allow our voices to be silenced. The battle for hearts and minds is real, and it can be lost. But it must be fought until the end.
I keep saying that I'm not actually talking to the evangelicals on this site. They never truly engage. Just witness Ben avoiding your question about what it means to proclaim Jesus as Lord yet again, as well as avoiding my question of what he can affirm and where we might be able to compromise. It's a system employed by all consevos we have ever talked to on TA.

But there are the lurkers who might believe there was no answer to consevo rhetoric if people like you suddenly stopped talking.
And, theologically speaking, we keep insisting that we are not the ones walking away, that we are willing to worship side by side with those who will revile us.
To prove our point, we must not walk away from the conversation with them here either. I will continue to deplore what they are saying and doing, but I will continue to respect their faith and I will continue to talk to them to show what I believe to be the true meaning of “love one another”.

"why do you keep trying to talk to these people when they absolutely refuse to hear what you’re saying?"

Sheer, well I don't think Simon'd let me use the local phrase, let's just say scrappiness. Venting of long repressed issues. Smug superiority. All sorts of motivations unbecoming in someone who can make himself look so idealistic at other times.

"But there are the lurkers who might believe there was no answer to consevo rhetoric if people like you suddenly stopped talking."

Maybe this is the flaw in the logic. Maybe we need to stop being an answer to the Consevo rhetoric, defining ourselves by what we are not, and just confidently proclaim what we are. Not, "We are not like them" but "We are like this". It's just that I get such reflex anger at some of the things they say! All I need is to read the phrase "Bible believing" and I just lose it. And I shouldn't, but what can you do? I find Evangelicalism cold, uninspiring, and fearful, but others don't, and might even find in it the way to God. I find sacramental, mystical, Patristic catholicism absolutely breathtaking. There's stuff I find so cool. There's a traditional figure in Spanish manger scenes, the 'cacagenar', a peasant relieving himself, complete with the results at his feet, in the stable! Because that's part of our redeemed humanity, even Jesus did that at least once a day! Jesus wore diapers, and had to be spanked, and everything that it is to be us, God did Himself! How cool is that! Do you know the hymn 'When Jesus was a Baby"? A line that gets me every time: "remember that a better brow than ours was often wet." I can't even type that without choking up! I need to find how to express that without some smugly superior comparison to Evangelicalism, whose followers probably get the same way as I do about stuff that leaves me cold.

Ford
“Maybe we need to stop being an answer to the Consevo rhetoric, defining ourselves by what we are not, and just confidently proclaim what we are. Not, "We are not like them" but "We are like this".

I agree, it is high time non-consevos (not just libbruls) defined loud and clear what we stand for!

On the other hand, you are one of the few people who consistently do just that.
Yes, you react to what they say about us, but it is also a fact that within the Anglican Communion, they and their narrow views are de facto setting the agenda. We all have to react to that.

At least you don’t react by shouting, ad-hominem attacks and just saying no-no-no, but always by giving positive and constructive answers that explain your own position very clearly.
Keep doing it! We need you!

Erika wrote

""why do you keep trying to talk to these people when they absolutely refuse to hear what you’re saying?"

Sheer, well I don't think Simon'd let me use the local phrase, let's just say scrappiness."

Another word for it is chutzpah. Jesus had it in stripes (as did John the Baptist). Not only did they stand up to the corrupt priests of their day (brood of vipers was John's favorite expression) but they went to their deaths.

Between Jesus chutzpah against the Pharisees, and his boldness of overtures to the Daughter of Zion (Matthew 21 & John 14:12-19), Jesus was rewarded.

It's a pity Christians chose to become the Pharisees rather than keep Jesus in context: a consented member of the Trinity whose overtures of gentleness were accepted on the understanding he was going to be gentle and fulfill the visions of Isaiah 11.

Hey Ford,
I for one-probably considered a lurker-enjoy your witness on these pages. Keep up the good work.
You raise the question about the distinction between evangelicalism and fundamentalism. F is a radical offshoot of E which arose in opposition to the modernist developments in the 19th C. It is most often identified with Darby's ideas around dispensationalism. Rather than take up a lot of space here, check out Wikkipedia under F. That will get you started.

As for other issues being raised here, I agree with Erica. We need to define who we are for ourselves rather than saying what we are not. I know the risen Christ to be my personal saviour, and I know in me deepest spirit that I am loved as a person manifesting homosexual attractions. The Holy Spirit continues to work through my brokeness to share that love with others. I love the sacred Scripture which gives me hope in the God who never abandons us and from whom we cannot be separated. I also love the community of the body of Christ and will never reject anyone with whom I disagree, nor will I leave the vehicle of Christ's love in the world. If others cannot abide me and cast me out or leave me, I know that I am in good company with Jesus.

Blessings on you my brother.

Bob

"F is a radical offshoot of E which arose in opposition to the modernist developments in the 19th C. It is most often identified with Darby's ideas around dispensationalism."

I guess I'm asking for a practical rather than ideological differentiation. F has the following properties:

1. Demands a literal interpretation of Scripture, leading to denial of evolution, interpretation of the Bible as history, and elaborate attempts to justify this position.
2. Delusions as to the origins of their doctrine as "traditional". This usually goes to the extent of denial of the Christianity of others and elaborate reconstructions of Church history.
3. Specific rejection of many aspects of traditional Christianity as "the traditions of men" but which are actually expressions of some of the basic beliefs.
4. Highly emotional, even hysterical worship.
5. Strong desire to feel as persecuted as the Early Christians.
6. Denial of the mystical, manifesting as denial of the Real Presence as anything concrete: "He's there in our fellowship" kind of things, rejection of baptismal regeneration, scorn for meditative prayer, etc.
7. A legalistic understanding of redemption as merely getting away with crime, as though God is some sort of corrupt judge Who can be bought with an appropriately gruesome sacrifice.
8. PSA as at least central to an understanding of atonement, if not an exclusive understanding of it, coupled with elaborate attempts to justify the untrue claim that such an understanding goes all the way back to the Apostles.

With the possible exception of #4, about which I remain agnostic for the most part, I don't really see any difference.