Comments: Making decisions

In Rowan's 1998 speech I don't see an explicit quotation of Wittgenstein. Yet Andrew Brown cites it. What am I missing? Is Rowan drawing on some ideas of Wittgenstein? Is Brown misremembering? Or is there another speech Rowan gave at Lambeth 1998? Or am I just not seeing it?

Searching around I see that Rowan explicitly quotes or references Wittgenstein in other addresses. Or others have made something of Wittgenstein being a philosopher and a gay one, and that Rowan would bring Wittgenstein's ideas to conservative bishops.

Posted by John B. Chilton at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 10:35am GMT

I wonder if ++Tutu has made the link that listening to what God says in the bible would have prevented HIV/AIDS being an epidemic amongst his people

Posted by NP at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 11:40am GMT

Well, I was there, and I remember it is the only thing I can say. Perhaps there are other records.

I wonder if NP has ever made the link between listening to what Jesus says in the Bible about pharisees and almost everything he has ever written here.

Posted by Andrew Brown at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 12:55pm GMT

Dear NP - do you mean the bit in the Bible where God expects a man to impregnate his childless widowed sister-in-law in order to beget children, as if from his brother? There are so many 'directives' in Holy Scripture about how to order nuclear and extended family life, aren't there?

Posted by Commentator at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 1:38pm GMT

"I wonder if ++Tutu has made the link that listening to what God says in the bible would have prevented HIV/AIDS being an epidemic amongst his people"

NP, really, this is quite below the belt, even by your standards. I wonder why you haven't made the link between what God says in the Bible about hospitality and kindness to those around you and the sort of animosity you sometimes provoke from other posters here...

Posted by kieran crichton at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 1:38pm GMT

Well, I for one is not sure what you are goning on about, NP, but on the other hand I am sure you could point out the verses that forbid the mixis of the races?

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 1:49pm GMT

NP - "I wonder if ++Tutu has made the link that listening to what God says in the bible would have prevented HIV/AIDS being an epidemic amongst his people"

WHAT UNMITIGATED TRIPE!

Would listening to the bible prevented the women contracting AIDS when raped, babies being born with AIDS or those who contracted AIDS through contaminated blood products and medical procedures?

Is your God really so full of vengence that babies die just so His "plague against homosexuals" can reign?

Posted by Stephen Roberts at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 1:52pm GMT

"I wonder if ++Tutu has made the link that listening to what God says in the bible would have prevented HIV/AIDS being an epidemic amongst his people"

---------------------------------------------------

And what does this have to do with African homophobia?

Nothing, of course. Another red herring to avoid the unpleasant truth that the Church is again targeting innocent people merely to prop up its sad prejudices and bad theology. Two thousand years of persecution of Jews based on "what it says in the Bible" wasn't enough, apparently.

Posted by bls at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 1:56pm GMT

You mean God wrote the Bible NP?
Picking and choosing!!!! :P

Posted by choirboyfromhell at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 1:56pm GMT

When Rowan was nominated to be bishop of Southwark the story goes that he was summoned to Lambeth Palace by George Carey, he was taken into a room where some of his writings on homosexuality had been laid out on tables the contents of which highlighted why Carey did not think he would make a suitable bishop in the Church of England. Rowan left the meeting and told the committee he would not accept the nomination.

Now it seems that Rowan will be playing the role of Dr Carey with bishops of the Anglican Communion whom he deems may be too welcoming and friendly to gay people …. It makes you smile doesn’t it...?

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 1:58pm GMT

NP: Are you raising the idea that HIV/AIDS is God's punishment of homosexuals?

Posted by Paul Davison at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 2:10pm GMT

John B Chilton
The answer is here, in the Church Times of 17 Sep 1999.

http://copies.anglicansonline.org/churchtimes/990917/feat.htm

"ROWAN WILLIAMS, the Bishop of Monmouth, is one of the few bishops who had an interesting failure at the Conference: he gave a keynote talk on making moral decisions. It was a lecture of considerable subtlety and some substance, which, for all the effect it had, he might as well have delivered in a motorway service station. Afterwards, he said to me: “Wittgenstein said that the most important thing a philosopher can say to another is ‘Give yourself time’. The question is whether we can, in some sense, bear to keep talking to each other.”

The answer seemed clear enough: the missionary Christianity that came back from the South no more wanted to know how Northerners reached moral decisions than the missionaries of the last century had wanted to know how the religions of the South worked..."

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 2:44pm GMT

"It makes you smile doesn’t it...?"

No. Weep.

Posted by Erika Baker at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 2:51pm GMT

"I wonder if ++Tutu has made the link that listening to what God says in the bible would have prevented HIV/AIDS being an epidemic amongst his people"

NP, how would you enforce the kind of behaviour you are advocating? I agree, if everybody were monogamous, then there would be no way for HIV to spread. Not everybody is going to obey the Church. People will do what people will do. So, either the Church makes Her teachings into law, which would mandate criminal punishment of the promiscuous, or we can acknowledge that not everybody is a Christian, that even Christians go astray, and that the Church can only tell people what God wants, they have no requirement to obey. So, if they do not obey and get HIV, what then? Do we simply turn our backs on them, since they are now earning the wages of sin? Not a very Christian thing to do, is it?

Posted by Ford Elms at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 2:53pm GMT

All of you who criticise NP's post, don't you know he is referring to the well known bible verse "thou shalt use condomns".

Posted by Erika Baker at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 2:54pm GMT

Sayeth NP: "I wonder if ++Tutu has made the link that listening to what God says in the bible would have prevented HIV/AIDS being an epidemic amongst his people"

Uh, NP, you *do* realize that HIV/AIDS in Africa -- including in South Africa -- is overwhelmingly an epidemic among *hetero*sexuals, don't you? Rather up-ends your pious (and gleeful?) pointing out of God's vengeance on those nasty unclean homosexuals, doesn't it?

Posted by Viriato da Silva at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 2:54pm GMT

Martin Reynolds: 'The story goes...'.

++Rowan himself said that such accounts are urban myth on his Desert Island Discs appearance. There's been so much uncharitable and frankly malicious rubbish written in the comments of Thinking Anglicans recently (not by Martin, I hasten to add).

Just for the sake of fairness now. NP, was your comment on Tutu and the Aids pandemic really justified, necessary and truthful?


Posted by Andrew Carey at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 3:02pm GMT

Petre's article strikes me as a spin on the ABC's bare words. JP cites only the rejection of Robinson, not of Minns. Might it not be equally likely the ABC is referring to bishops who violate the border crossing aspects of the Windsor Report, doing things he as referred to as "unhelpful"?

Personally, I think he should practice Jesus policy on invitations: invite all, allow those who are offended by the other guests to withdraw, and meet to celebrate -- not to legislate.

Posted by Tobias Haller at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 3:18pm GMT

Why anyone would respond to a posting by NP is quite beyond me. Doing so only encourages more of the same and makes us deserve what we get, endless rubbish. May I suggest simply ignoring him/her for a time? Please?

Posted by BrantinLA at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 3:25pm GMT

Getting back to the real issue that should be of concern is the effect that dis-inviting "pro-gay" bishops from attenting Lambeth will have and the message that it will send.
It will send a message that "pro-gay" bishops simply want what they want and that they are not operating out of an awareness of what they ought to be doing from both a theological and spiritual foundation. Does Rowan think that these bishops (and the synods that support them in North America) have not done their theological homework and prayed about this at great length?
The effect that it will have will be to remove from Lambeth that voice in the conversation and so make Lambeth a one sided and hence totally useless activity. It certainly will have no role any longer as an "instrument of unity" and it long ago lost any sense of being a "bond of affection".
From a North American viewpoint this is a stiffling of the very conversation that is called for in the Windsor report. If the bishops can't "lay it all out and enter into the conversation" then don't expect any one else to do so.
Seeking unity through uniformity will be the death of both the Communion and Anglicanism and Rowan will be a chief celebrant at the requiem.
To use a phrase common here in Canada, it's time for Rowan to wake up and smell the coffee.

Posted by Rae Fletcher at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 3:29pm GMT

Hello Andrew Carey.... yes, I think it was a justified comment.....if I see an Archbishop opposing the teaching of his own church (let alone the bible) on a particular subject and then saying we should be concerned more with human suffering like HIV, I think it is worth pointing out that various people rejecting the bible's teaching is a huge part of the problem.....so, maybe the Archbishop would do more good by teaching people to follow the bible rather than to reject certain parts of it....

Ford - obviously we cannot enforce anything but it ain't such a radical position to expect clergy to teach people what the bible says....God's "rules" for us are, after all, for our own good (Psalm 19)

Viriato - I do indeed realise that...you illustrate that the issue is not about a specific group but the authority of scripture and applies to all

Posted by NP at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 3:40pm GMT

"I agree, if everybody were monogamous, then there would be no way for HIV to spread."

Unfortunately, that is not true. HIV is spread primarily sexually, but it is also spread through unsanitary medical procedures (like reusing needles--a common practice in parts of the world where medical supplies are limited) and blood products.

HIV is a virus--quite possibly the most ruthlessly efficient virus humankind has ever encountered. It doesn't care how it is transmitted---it exists solely to take over and destroy your immune system. Even a completely sexually pure society would have been at risk for HIV---sex just helps it spread faster.

Posted by paigeb at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 3:45pm GMT

Well, Andrew, NP's comment was neither justified nor necessary and it was certainly not truthful. It was malicious, bigotted and dishonest.

AIDS in Africa has little or nothing to do with homosexuals. It is almost universally a straight disease.

The literature and statistics on this are not the least ambiguous.

Those who argue that the spread of AIDS in Africa or elsewhere in the two-thirds world has to do with homosexuality are spreading lies - and bigotted lies at that.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 3:50pm GMT

NP-

"He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool." (Proverbs 10:18).

Isn't it fun how much the Bible has to say beyond sex?

Thomas+

Posted by Thomas+ at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 3:56pm GMT

After slogging through all the detail, nuance, and five-handed threadwork in the tapestry of the Rowan Williams talk to Lambeth, I remain a bit puzzled. The bottom line is that he seems quite dedicated to community and to a slow-wise transparency and to critical thinking in discernment. He proclaims himself in quite a well-read, modern way, as a serious son of the Elizabethan Settlement.

Yet he seems not to have much of a clue about how to identify and confront all the most virulently destructive and malicious aspects of our conservative realignment campaign, with its self-serving spin of holiness, righteousness, and rescuing all of us from having to live with exactly the hot button tensions and dilemmas Rowan Williams describes or at least mentions in his talk.

He can look back - from an entirely safe modern distance, one might add - at believers who justified slavery. Then his task becomes one of trying to understand what it means to be in communion with them. But he cannot easily see how he could take an effective stand against slavery if he were suddenly faced with such a Christian slaver, alive and in person and quoting scriptures to justify the inferiority of people of color.

This is pretty much the hot button dilemma we face, isn't it? Ordinary good conservative believers who believe entirely flat earth and nasty things - about queer folks, or women with large vocabularies, or progressive believers - to name three of our most disputed target groups.

Posted by drdanfee at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 3:57pm GMT

Andrew,

I grew up with a father in the public limelight and I know how hurtful it is when public exposure results in uncharitable criticism.

On the other hand, please understand that what for you and the majority of Christians is a mere theological issue, is for us a deeply personal conversation about our lives, our morals and our loves. We have a much greater stake in the conversation and cannot shrug off the bile directed at us as easily as Christian detachment might call for. Forgive us if we are not as charitable at times as we might be.

Also, I value TA especially because of the truthfulness of most of its correspondents. I am therefore grateful that you clarify the "urban myth". But I'm sorry you say there had been much "malicious rubbish" written recently and I would be really grateful if you could substantiate that. Could you not clarify the truth and remove misunderstandings whenever they arise, please?

Posted by Erika Baker at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 4:26pm GMT

drdanfee - I can agree with you up to a point.... "he seems not to have much of a clue about how to identify and confront all the most virulently destructive and malicious aspects of...." our liberal campaign for individual rights in the AC.

He and ALL the primates did ask TECUSA not to tear the fabric of the communion...he did ask nicely - but he got a clear reply and has just got another in the TEC HOB NO statement. He has no idea how to keep everyone at the table but is determined to do so....I just fear he will try adn try until the whole church has self-destructed

Posted by NP at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 4:29pm GMT

Thank you Andrew, I fully agree with you about the malicious rubbish masquerading here as fair comment – it is a shame.

As to the story about your father and Rowan, isn’t this the same account your father gives in his autobiography “Know the Truth “ – this was not my primary source but it makes for good confirmation!

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 4:30pm GMT

"Why anyone would respond to a posting by NP is quite beyond me."

Because I'm not a Calvinist, no-one is beyond redemption. Some of us (me) like to use as a cover for what I really get out of it, if I am honest with myself, a chance to go aboard of a stereotypical Conservative Evangelical. It also keeps me from acknowledging the fact that such people are, actually, relatively rare, and how would I hold on to my bigotries then?

"it is also spread through unsanitary medical procedures"

You are indeed right. Which, of course, I know, being a lab physician with training in Hematology and blood transfusion, so I should be ashamed of myself for saying this! I do tend to engage my mouth (or fingers) before putting my brain in gear. My face is rather covered in egg right now!

Posted by Ford Elms at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 4:38pm GMT

Malcolm - in your rush to attack me, you do not even notice that I did not once mention any particular group.....


I know some here give more authority and respect to ++Tutu than to Lambeth resolutions and TWR but ....... it is obviously true that following what the bible says would have massively reduced HIV in Africa and the rest of the world.....and, sorry, it is radical I know, but I would like to see clergy teaching people what the bible says.

Posted by NP at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 4:40pm GMT

"Hello Andrew Carey... yes, I think it was a justified comment..."

You see? NP is never wrong.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 4:40pm GMT

The Daily Telegraph story is a non-story. Here is the important phrase: 'seek assurances that they can abide by the broad principles of the Windsor Report'

That was the case before, and 'broad' implies a nod at this stage.

Andrew Brown should realise that whereas one (narrowed) group call the other "religious liberals" who are part of "virtually another religion" (Nazir-Ali) the same discourtesy is not given the other way around.

Tutu on Ekklesia: 'Tutu says: "Why doesn't he demonstrate a particular attribute of God's which is that God is a welcoming God?"' Indeed - answer because the imagined structure comes first, the imagined, centralised Church of the Communion, instead of a Communion.

Posted by Pluralist at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 5:27pm GMT

Why do so many of you insist on responding to such obvious trolling? You people are like Pavlov's dogs--NP rings his tinny, worn-out bell for the 10,000th time and you all drool on command. It's just silly.

Posted by JPM at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 5:33pm GMT

Dr Danfee's recent contribution is very interesting.

I am particularly grateful to him, he offers me some fresh thinking.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 5:57pm GMT

Simon,

Thanks for the clearing up the mystery. The author of the Church Times piece of 1999 is Andrew Brown. What I did not understand from the Guardian piece of the other day is that Rowan's quote of Wittgenstein was made privately to Brown after Rowan had made his address.

Posted by John B. Chilton at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 7:15pm GMT

A major vector for the spread of AIDS has been the US Armed Forces, for in every port call they bring friendship and leave a legacy of their intimacy. The first graduate from my high school to catch AIDS was married to a husband who, unbeknownst to her, made soldiers welcome. Perhaps if there had been less devotion to standing armies, partners would have been at home with their mates.

Petre’s article is based on conjecture. We should all remember that there are some conservatives who have already proved they are prepared to overstate the case and to claim their position is represented by others. It is possible that some souls close to Rowan might be contemplating how to exclude the "unsavory" elements since they haven't manage to exclude the whole TEC. Rowan has not yet played and he still has time to show whether his is a puppet for the “authoritative teachers” of his generation or true to the intention of the gospel.

Daniel 11 seems appropriate. We have leaders whose hearts are bent on evil, who sit at the same table and lie to each other. They worship a false king who exalts himself above every god and says unheard-of things against the God of gods. They show no regard for the gods of their fathers or for the one desired by women.

It is no surprise that we have not captured the imagination of the most “authoritative teachers” of the law in this generation. John the Baptist could reach the tax collectors, but not the teachers - whom he despised e.g. Matthew 3:7 when he "saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?"" Similar rebukes from Jesus can be found at Luke 12 & 23.

Both were referring to Isaiah 59 "They hatch the eggs of vipers and spin a spider’s web. Whoever eats their eggs will die, and when one is broken, an adder is hatched. Their cobwebs are useless for clothing; they cannot cover themselves with what they make. Their deeds are evil deeds, and acts of violence are in their hands… Their thoughts are evil thoughts; ruin and destruction mark their ways. The way of peace they do not know; there is no justice in their paths."

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 7:51pm GMT

"Why do so many of you insist on responding to such obvious trolling?"

I said only a couple of days ago that for me the main reason is not to engage with NP, which I know is impossible, but to challenge or reassure lurkers on this site that there are indeed credible answers to the tosh he keeps posting. I believe this to be important because his views are widely shared by a large number of consevos. If he was an isolated occurrence I wouldn't reply.

But you're right, it has got a bit much lately and I will try not to take the bait for a while.

Posted by Erika Baker at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 7:52pm GMT

"in your rush to attack me, you do not even notice that I did not once mention any particular group"

Malcolm might or might not have gotten your point, NP, but I did: a Biblical sexual ethic protects us from sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. It's a good point, though not an absolute one, since HIV isn't only transmitted sexually. In your rush to be the valiant little True Believer fighting agaist the EHBLs, you seem to have missed my point: what is the appropriate Christian response to those who do not follow a Biblical sexual ethic and get HIV?

Posted by Ford Elms at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 8:15pm GMT

Well, NP, the liberal or progressive believer campaigns are not so much about abstracted notions of individual rights as they are about corrected and improved notions of community, neighborhoods and neighbors, work teams, and church life networks. We both know that what drives realignment campaign believers screaming from the larger and more diverse Anglican premises is the notion that any orthodox believer should have occasion inside church life (or outside in social life?) for rubbing shoulders with any of the targeted out-groups. That is, a queer person, a highly educated woman who knows more than you or I might know in this or that domain, or a progressive believer or even an unbeliever.

But even if the realignment campaign succeeds wildly in its specious efforts to invade progressive to moderate Anglican communities, laying claim to anything and everything that could possibly matter - we will all still be here, rubbing shoulders on a small blue green planet as we continue to suffer a mass extinction of plant and animal species not seen before in recorded history.

So far, your remarks clearly suggest you would make a threadbare keeper of the well-being of anybody who happened to belong to any of your favorite target groups. So we have to keep talking individual rights and/or human rights, because the way you talk, nobody in the favorite realignment campaign target groups actually has any rights of inquiry or conscience or worship and witness which could conceivably matter from your own closed point of view.

Our rights narratives are not innate evidence that we are mistaken, just evidence that we have been listening seriously to you every time you say something nasty about one of your scapegoats. We continue to worry that such talk could become dangerous, because we are all aware of how tense and conflicted the realignment campaign has pitched every modern difference among Anglican believers. Psychiatrist Eric Berne would have called the realignment campaign, yet another round of playing, Let's You And Him Fight.

Conservative believers cannot succeed in blaming modernity on us - we ride the empirical tiger, too. If the topography of human embodiment is not flatly nothing but opposite sex attracted and related, then that is just happens to be the factual case. We learn, we adjust, we keep praising God and following Jesus of Nazareth as Risen Lord.

Posted by drdanfee at Monday, 19 November 2007 at 8:29pm GMT

I find Tutu's remarks timely. I have to be honest and state I have been lurking on this blog for sometime. I must say up front I am gay and am an active lay person in my parish here in the Diocese of Chicago. I have read with increasing dismay at the responses to NP and his(surely) ilk. NP statements remind me of a quote from RWE (Emerson)and I paraphrase: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds: beloved by philosophers, politicians, and divines. Tutu is loved by most until their own agendas are challenged by his statements; as is proved in this blog. Tutu is reminding us all; that we need to listen and then act in regards to the needs of the world about us, and which the Holy Spirit is calling all of us to attend. We cannot therefore move to respond to those greater challenges, which are all about us, until we truly act as if we truly believe the baptismal vow which states that we respect the dignity of every human being.

Michael

Posted by Michael J Lewis at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 5:24am GMT

Ford says "...a Biblical sexual ethic protects us from sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. It's a good point..."

Thank you, Ford....exactly my point but better put....maybe others will get it now. The appropriate response to HIV is to give education to prevent it as far as possible and healthcare to those who have it but also to tell ALL people ALL of what God has said for our own good.


drdanfee says "Conservative believers cannot succeed in blaming modernity on us..." This really is taking playing the victim too far! Take blame never attributed to you and then attack those who victimise you! Brilliant, doctor. Sorry, but I am not fooled - the issue is still the authority scripture.....most of us in the AC have problems condoning what our bishops consistently say is "incompatible with scripture".....this affects many people in various ways (i.e. it's not all about you, doctor)

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 7:20am GMT

Michael - I respect ++Tutu's bravery in fighting apartheid.....but when he contradicts John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 or says the church must condone behaviour most of our own Anglican bishops consistently say is "incompatible with scripture", I cannot agree with him. If that means fitting with what you say (" I paraphrase: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds: beloved by philosophers, politicians, and divines"), so be it.....but the Church of England and the AC have not changed their position and I believe that Lambeth 1.10 is right in its interpretation of scripture whatever insults you may wish to throw.

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 9:40am GMT

NP wrote: ”John 14:6 and Acts 4:12”

Acts 4:12 is the Gospel rejection of Legalism and the Works ethic based “salvation” of all Heathen Philosophies, John 14:6 is the Gospel promise: Through me!

Tell me NP, you say that AB Tutu has contradicted them – When? Where? How? Why?

Quotes, please, not evasions.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 12:31pm GMT

very interesting content re the ABC's thinking from Andrew Goddard....

http://anglicantheologyethics.blogspot.com/2007/11/rowan-williams-decision-making.html

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 12:34pm GMT

NP - "he contradicts John 14:6 and Acts 4:12" and "says the church must condone behaviour most of our own Anglican bishops consistently say is "incompatible with scripture""

Not what I read from the interview:-

+Tutu "God must be weeping looking at some of the atrocities that we commit against one another. In the face of all of that, our Church, especially the Anglican Church, at this time is almost obsessed with questions of human sexuality."

He says there's more important stuff to worry about, and he's absolutely right.

I suggest that in the absence of any real substance to your argument, you are caricaturing +Tutu to fit your own prejudices and cyclical argument.

(sighs and waits for the un-holy trinity of Lambeth 1.10, Dromantine and TWR to be trotted out in response)

Posted by Stephen Roberts at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 1:12pm GMT

"The appropriate response to HIV is to give education to prevent it as far as possible and healthcare to those who have it"

Education to prevent HIV/AIDS requires frank sex education. We have seen conservatives on this very board claim that sex education is a bad thing! AIDS doesn't only affect gay people, but we are one segment of the at risk population. How can anyone educate this population if they will be cast in jail when they come to receive information, and when you will be cast in jail as well for frankly discussing unsafe sexual practices with them? Would you really want to risk 5 years in a Nigerian jail for teaching people about safer sex?

Posted by Ford Elms at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 1:20pm GMT

It is obviously the case that sticking to biblical standards on sexual behaviour is an extremely good and obvious way of avoiding STDs. What is controversial about that?

Posted by Christopher Shell at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 1:25pm GMT

The responses to NP tend to be less about him/her/it/them, per se, as the constant attempts to make sure that the constant repetitions of the Big Lies of the Donatist/Fundagelicals do not go unanswered.
The simple facts remain that Lord Carey pulled a fats one and saddled the communion with the awful Lambeth 1.10 in order to keep some of the Africans, operating at least in part in concert with wealthy First Worlders, happy. As for tearing the fabric f the communion, that was done with the creation of the AMiA which happened at a time when most of us would have still said “V. Gene who?”
The Dar Es Salaam statement was written specifically to make one primate happy, which only shows just how sick the situation is.
When will we grow up and just say that these people have left the bounds of the orthodox faith in order to preserve their “purity” and their idolatry of the Bible?

Posted by John Robison at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 1:42pm GMT

NP:

One of the problems with consistently saying the bishops say that same-sex relationships is incompatible with scripture is that one is then making them infalible. Mistakes in interpretation have been made in the past.

Actually when you use the phrase "incompatible with scripture" the one thing I can say with certainty is that I don't believe they are. If one takes the scriptures as a whole rather than just the few isolated verses, same-sex relationships are not incompatible. As a matter of fact, there are a number of relationships that I have observed that are very compatible with scripture and a good many of them are same-sex. It is the reading of scripture (especially the gospels) and the observance of relationships which has led me to total acceptance of same-sex relationships. To move backward from what I now understand in the light of the scriptures would be to deny Jesus's teachings and I cannot, in good conscience, do so.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Posted by Ann Marie at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 2:05pm GMT

NP - I was staring at the letters TWR for a full five minutes before I figured out what you were referring to. Could you possibly refrain from your madcap use of TLAs (Three-Letter Acronyms)?

Posted by MRG at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 3:09pm GMT

Martin wrote: "As to the story about your father and Rowan, isn’t this the same account your father gives in his autobiography “Know the Truth “ – this was not my primary source but it makes for good confirmation!"

I was almost certain that this wasn't in his autobiography but I checked the index to confirm it. As I thought, it doesn't seem to be there.

Posted by Andrew Carey at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 3:40pm GMT

"It is obviously the case that sticking to biblical standards on sexual behaviour is an extremely good and obvious way of avoiding STDs. What is controversial about that?"

The fact that not everybody will comply. Also, the fact that it makes untrue assumptions. I am, according to you, living a life that is not in accord with Biblical standards. Yet I am not at risk for STDs, because I am in a monogamous relationship. It is the monogamy that prevents the spread of STD to me, not whether or not my partner is of the opposite sex. I am a pathologist. My colleagues are all heterosexual. Any of us may contract HIV/Hepatitis C, or other blood borne(note that, NOT sex borne) infection at work. They all live, I assume, lives "compatible with Scripture", at least sexually, but could pass that on to their partners. Why do you make the assumption that everybody will want to live by the moral code of YOUR religion? If you were Hindu, would you think it perfectly reasonable to require everyone else to refrain from eating meat? Furthermore, what is your attitude to those who do not follow what you see as the Bible's moral laws WRT sex? Given things you've said earlier, I rather suspect you'd think an STD was the wages of sin, and they deserved it. If I'm wrong, correct me. And if you want to live by the Bible's "rules" on sex, I hope you are prapared to marry your brother's widow so as to give him heirs. Oh, right, we aren't allowed to do that, what with our unBiblical rules about monogamy and marriage of kinfolk.

Posted by Ford Elms at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 3:50pm GMT

"It is obviously the case that sticking to biblical standards on sexual behaviour is an extremely good and obvious way of avoiding STDs. What is controversial about that?"

Nothing in itself, provided that:
- “biblical standards” does not mean “no sex for your horrible gays”
- pointing to biblical standards isn’t done with “tut tut, I told you so” condescension
- there is real compassion and help for those who do contract illnesses and not the more conventional “you deserve all you get mate” judgementalism.

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 4:01pm GMT

"It is obviously the case that sticking to biblical standards on sexual behaviour is an extremely good and obvious way of avoiding STDs. What is controversial about that?"

Ummmm. I can stick to biblical standards of sexual behavior, but unless my spouse does so as well, I am still at risk for an STD. Remaining unmarried, chaste and celibate provides even greater protection until a rape occurs.

The only real protection is for *everyone* to stick to high standards of sexual behavior *all of the time* which just seems to unlikely to expect.

Posted by ruidh at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 4:35pm GMT

"It is obviously the case that sticking to biblical standards on sexual behaviour is an extremely good and obvious way of avoiding STDs. What is controversial about that?"

It's only effective if you can be certain that your partner has obeyed the same rules. In a diverse population, that's a pretty tough call. What would you do, demand a notarized affidavit?

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 4:35pm GMT

Stephen Roberts - no eternal value for the person in poverty and suffering if we dare not be honest about what Christ says in John 14:6 or St.Peter says in Acts 4:12....

Ann Marie...ok, but most of us in the AC think our bishops got it right on what scripture says and means....so how can we with integrity tolerate some clergy teaching the opposite?

John Robison - very amusing....I see, so the AC has been torn apart just to please a few Africans.....so, why are the Lambeth Palace bureacrats and the ABC moving to remove Lambeth 1.10 and why do they still ignore the huge Anglican majority that you think agrees with you in order to please "fundagelicals"??

Ford - I do not have to answer for what others post or do. I told you what I think should be done....and I have told you before that I would fight against laws such as the one which was proposed by (pls note) the Nigerian govt (not any cleric!) which would criminalise some of my friends and family.

You are so funny sometimes, Ford....you can says "...a Biblical sexual ethic protects us from sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. It's a good point..." but when Christopher says the same thing, because a conservative has made the point, you have to take him up on it!!

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 4:54pm GMT

Sorry NP realignment campaign drum beats won't do:

Our differences are not mainly about the authority of the scriptures - but rather about hermeneutics, or the arts and sciences of textual interpretation.

If the ancient texts which we read so differently in some cases were not taken as revelation, our controversies would hold, mainly in scholarly journals, academic conferences, and local departmental politics at the university where we might both teach, despite holding opposite or varied views of the right textual hermeneutics.

Once you pledge the texts as a source of revelation authority, as we all do so variously yet in common, the controversies rise high.

Hence two traditional, historic Anglican vitamins used to reliably come into circulation, that is, (A) agreeing to disagree while we come together to the Lord Table, and (B) having at least some shared bridge space that stems from firstly acknowledging the different hermeneutics at work, along with secondly sharing an honest pledge to best empirical practices.

Both of these historic Anglican vitamins are now up for grabs, thanks to the constant hollow drum beats of the realignment campaigning's scriptural authority sound bites. Thanks to this media blitzkrieg, too many average unchurched citizens casually think that the truth of the scriptures is that they are antigay, misogynist, and associated with past horrors like slavery and justifying wars.

Misleading us by drummming is still false witness against us, however. You shall not post conservative realignment presuppositional lies about my beliefs - even if you are uncritical enough to sincerely believe the things you mistake about me - without my noticing in public.

My mention of the difficulties of modernity points towards two things.

Firstly, at least in USA, the same conservative forces targeting TEC are more or less also attacking evolution and the new biology. The same USA believers who already know everything negative about queer folks, say, also preach so-called Intelligent Design or Creationism. This is simply a social-economic set of USA facts. You play ball with these USA campaign sweeps at your own intellectual peril.

Secondly, the empirical shifts in understanding are still true. Biology will continue to test and demonstrate new data about human embodiment. How do we think we can get by in our witness if all we do is keep uncritically pledging some ancient, mean-spirited meme from the allegedly certain theological anthropology of past church life?

Posted by drdanfee at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 4:56pm GMT

Why on earth has this thread allowed itself to become dominated by posts responding to Nps infantile post at the beginning of the thread about Desmond Tutu, God, the bible and the HIV/AIDS pandemic?

We allow the extreme and Un-Anglican opinions represented by NP to set the agenda on TA too often. He successfully diverts us from pursuing our own conversations in a creative, Christian way.

If +Rowan has said anything remotely like the ideas reported by Joanthan Petre, there are serious implications for English bishops, as I have indicated on the Changing Attitude website.

If the Archbishop Canterbury really is proposing to withdraw invitations to the Lambeth Conference from bishops who are seen as being “pro-gay” (according to the definition of conservative Anglicans) he will have to withdraw the invitation from every bishop who is a patron of Changing Attitude and from every English bishop who has participated in the registration or celebration of a civil partnership for one of their clergy or who have accepted partnered gay clergy in their diocese. There are a significant number of English bishops who quietly support LGBT people contrary to the principles outlined in the Windsor Report.

Posted by Colin Coward at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 6:35pm GMT

NP,

If I were to flip the coin, I would say that believing those bishops to have it wrong and the bishops who speak for inclusion have it right, I do with integrity tolerate what they are preaching. My own bishop would agree that same-sex relationships are incompatible with scripture and I think he and I manage quite well together without either of us losing our own integrity. It's not that you have to agree. It's about listening and speaking with openness and respect. It doesn't mean that one has to say that the other is right - it is about allowing that there is a possibility that there is more to this than previously understood. It's about accepting and respecting that as much as we disagree, neither of us is acting on a whim but rather from positions of prayer and study - that each of us sincerely believe (out of our understanding of and faith in God) that this is truly what God desires.

I have a friend who is totally against the blessing of same-sex relationships and one who has come out and said he will no longer say no if asked to bless a same-sex marriage (we live in Canada -eh). I will fight tooth and nail for both to be able to maintain their integrity and act according to what each sincerely and devoutly believes. I don't believe that I have lost integrity within myself by doing so. I am at peace with myself and with God in supporting both. (Doesn't mean that I won't continue to dialogue with the one about the possiblity of moving a little closer to my understandings just as I don't silence him in his attempts to do the same with me.)

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Posted by Ann Marie at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 6:37pm GMT

You're right, of course, Colin.
But it's difficult to talk constructively about this thread as there is nothing but speculation. It's astonishing that noone else has reported this or officially commented on it since, so maybe that can be taken as confirmation. But if...maybe...presumably we'll know for sure soon.

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 7:11pm GMT

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002742.html#c1010558

On this other thread Ford made a psoting regarding whether or not eating bacon put one inside or outside of grace. Ford's comments parallel some of the the apostle Paul's papers about eating food that others might consider to be holy/unholy and offending others sensibilities (e.g. Romans 14).

It is particularly insightful example as it indicates in Paul's time culinary practices were seen to be capable of putting one inside or outside of grace, whilst some today believe sexual practices in and of themselves can put someone in or outside of grace. At the moderate level we ask whether souls are being too obsessive and or judgmental of others on one hand, or too relaxed and overly tolerant on the other hand.

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 7:20pm GMT

Colin,
one question - the church officially accepts civil partnerships for its clergy provided the relationship is celibate.

Would that not mean that bishops who have participated in the registration or celebration of a civil partnership of one of their priests have nothing to fear, provided there was no religious rite involved?

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 7:37pm GMT

Colin,

Not to mention about 1/2 the Canadian House of Bishops considering the closeness of the vote this summer.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Posted by Ann Marie at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 7:43pm GMT

I had written: “Acts 4:12 is the Gospel rejection of Legalism and the Works ethic based “salvation” of all Heathen Philosophies, John 14:6 is the Gospel promise: Through me!”

Now you say to Stephen Roberts “… no eternal value for the person in poverty and suffering if we dare not be honest about what Christ says in John 14:6 or St. Peter says in Acts 4:12...”

Who is being dishonest, NP? You?

You also said that AB Tutu has contradicted them – When? Where? How? Why?

Quotes, please, not evasions.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 8:08pm GMT

"And so they assume that the dispute in the Anglican Communion is really about gays."

Which begs the question, what is the dispute about if we don't give a damn about theology?

Could it be to do with the survival of the denomination as a cultural meme, operating independently of morality, and of its followers? Successful religion relies on full-to-the-brim churches with happy fertile couples having lots of children who will grow up in the faith to produce more offspring. Our dispute hinges on whether there are in fact strong ethical grounds for including gays as equal participants. Market forces are much more important to this than so-called biblical morality.

Religion was an essential ingredient in the evolution of tribes of modern homo sapiens. In a pluralistic globalised age, we ask whether we need religion any more, yet we can't quite shake off that very human need for ritual and belonging.

Posted by Hugh of Lincoln at Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 11:44pm GMT

Goran - I cannot be bothered with your amateur, eccentric translations.... there are plenty of real, respected acacdemics who do not agree with your musings (your not yet regius professor, are you??)

I have posted a link from South African Anglicans re Tutu's moves away from classical Anglican positions - did you see it??

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2007/11/20/anglican-mainstream-sa-press-release-disappointed-by-desmond-tutu/

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6958

I mentioned "eternal value"...... on the last day, I would not want to be the one to say to the Dalai Lama or anyone else that I thought he was such a great man (which he is, I met him at the Cambridge Union) and such a joyful person despite his suffering that I did not tell him that Christ makes many statements which call everyone including him to repentance and faith. I would not want to say to the Dalai Lama that he was so good that I did not bother to tell him what Christ says in John 3:36 or Luke 13 or what Paul says in Eph ...... I would not want to be the one to tell him that I thought he was so great that he did not need the gospel....

Posted by NP at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 7:37am GMT

You need the Gospel too, you know...

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 7:52am GMT

NP
Oh my God, you will still be doing all the talking on the last day?
When will you let God get a word in edgeways?

Posted by Erika Baker at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 8:17am GMT

NP: accusing people of not being Regius professors doesn't help your argument. Marilyn McCord Adams is Regius Professor at Oxford, and a vocal and eloquent advocate of equal treatment for gay people in the Church. So is Keith Ward, former Regius Professor. If you are really at Cambridge (something I doubt, given the very limited level of your skills in argument), then you should take yourself along to King's or St John's Chapel regularly for Evensong, sit back and absorb the wonderful spirituality that is classic Anglicanism.

Posted by Fr Mark at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 8:23am GMT

I do find it hard to remain silent when NP, having praised Dr Tutu for the courage to oppose apartheid, which many Christians of 'traditional' and biblical fundamentalist principles have considered as a position INCOMPATIBLE with Scripture, uses the same fallible fundamentalism to condemn Dr Tutu for adopting his position on the issues of homosexuals in Society and the Church. NP may wish to continue with this illogical and ambiguous method of self justification and so my prayer has to be that others who may be considering their future committment to Christ and are attracted to this site by its name, will not reject Christ and His People as result of NP et al.

Posted by Commentator at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 8:39am GMT

Erika points out that the church (of England) officially accepts civil partnerships for its clergy provided the relationship is celibate and asks if that means that bishops who have participated in the registration or celebration of a civil partnership of one of their priests have nothing to fear, provided there was no religious rite involved.

The acceptance of celibate lesbian and gay relationships and of civil partnerships (which is in reality for many bishops not acceptance, but tolerance or intolerance) is the official position according to ‘Issues’.

The campaign against Jeffrey John showed this to be a fragile position. The conservative are intolerant in England of any relationship between lesbian and gay people, and do not accept ‘Issues’.

Neither do many parts of the wider Communion tolerate the official position of the Church of England articulated in ‘Issues’, which as we all know is a discussion, not a policy document.

The Church of England is now also subject to the ‘official’ teaching of the Anglican Communion expressed in Lambeth 1.10 and the Windsor Report. In the real world, the conservatives who repeatedly advocate these two documents as the official teaching of the Church, at the same time ignore the parts that don’t suit them and condemn us for doing the same.

The extremists, represented on this list by NP, don’t accept the official documents, despite claiming adherence to them. They want so-called ‘Biblical teaching’ which for LGBT people means no place for us as people of love and intimacy in the Church but institutionalised prejudice and intolerance.

Stop fuelling NP’s obsessive prejudiced energy, friends. Let’s focus where WE want to be in the church and discuss what is of concern to those of us who wish for real change and the advent of the inclusive Kingdom of God.

Posted by Colin Coward at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 8:41am GMT

NP pointed at an article from “Anglican Mainstream South Africa” (which doesn’t seem to have a website, only an e-mail…) at one of the Secessionist’s sites saying: “The present crisis … is about the centrality of the Bible to what members of our church believe (our doctrine) and how we live out that belief in our daily lives (our moral standards). Sexuality is merely the presenting issue.”

This is about the CLAIM of 16th – 20th century Calvinism to be “biblical”, no less. But it is not. You don’t even spell “biblical” with a capital…

In reality (Gods very good Creation, you know ;=) you have no idea what the Bible says. You don’t know the difference between the Bible (the Gospel) and Hellenist Philosophy (pretended “Ethical” Legalism).

You don’t speak Greek, you don’t speak Hebrew, you don’t know any Latin. You have no case. You’re just rude and insolent.

As it happens there seems to be at least 2 Professors Regius who don’t agree with you, or the “consistent” power play and propaganda from (some) Anglican bishops, or your version of the Lambeth 1998 Tea & Cakes. And that say so publicly.

But how would you know, would you. Checking things is the last thing you do.

The South African (if be) article is interesting because it shifts focus from the presenting issue to (preposterous) Doctrinary CLAIMS about Anglicanism, historic and present, as Calvinist.

The obviously political CLAIM that TEC and mainstream Anglicanism is Unitarian, if not un-Christian.

Sorry. All this (what you say as well as what you don say) shows you have no case. Only the CLAIM. And Maverick Assistant Professor Gagnon, butchering his references, and Maverick Dr Cameron, mixing medicine and folk lore.

And, of course, American and Roman late Modern anti Modern Social Policies…

As to your "eternal values" and you rant on the Dalai Lama, I don't care. They belong in Indo Greek (= Alexandrian) Philosophies, such as Buddhism, and I am not into that.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 8:48am GMT

The Dalai Lama reads the bible and is familiar with its core issues. He has gone on public record stating that souls are not required to convert to Buddhism and that he does not advocate attempting poaching into the Abrahamic religions as theirs is a jealous God. The Dalai Lama has also acknowledged there is a supreme intelligence that transcends all other intelligences which is consistent with the Abrahamic religions understanding of a transcendant God of gods.

Those who attempt to claim that Jesus is all of God are ignoring Jesus' own words and acnowledgment of God. That makes them more idolatrous than even a Hindu who recognise the Ultimate Creator who is over all other gods.

Abrahamic religions who cross the line of idolatry and then purport that their violence or deceit is being done in "God's" name get their wrists spanked, and their religious teachers (whether that be rabbi, iman or priest) are also firmly rebuked.

God does not die and God has not changed.

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 8:56am GMT

NP wrote: ”John 14:6 and Acts 4:12”

Acts 4:12 is the Gospel rejection of Legalism and the Works ethic based “salvation” of all Heathen Philosophies, John 14:6 is the Gospel promise: Through me!

Tell me NP, you say that AB Tutu has contradicted them – When? Where? How? Why?

Quotes, please, not evasions.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 8:57am GMT

Oh -- thanks to Simon for running down the source of that comment. It shows what a blur memory can be. I remembered the speech; I remembered the conversation: what he said seemed to me to so fantastically at odds with the temper of his audience that I must have assumed he said it in front of them. Interesting how memories edit themselves for dramatic clarity.

Posted by Andrew Brown at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 9:10am GMT

Yet again a thread that makes me wonder at the title "Thinking Anglicans". It reminds me of a gaggle of geese scrapping.

Posted by MG at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 9:37am GMT

Colin Coward - "We allow the extreme and Un-Anglican opinions represented by NP to set the agenda on TA too often. He successfully diverts us from pursuing our own conversations in a creative, Christian way."

Agreed. I give up on trying to reason with the unreasonable.

I think +Cantaur would find it pretty difficult to exclude "pro-gay" English bishops from Lambeth, not only would it start the mark of schism in CofE, but it would be difficult to find a bishop who hadn't ordained homosexual clergy since 1998.

Posted by Stephen Roberts at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 10:25am GMT

Ann-Marie....I am afraid many of us in the AC cannot see there is integrity in the AC in both saying certain things are "incompatible with scripture" (as our bishops consistently say) and at the same time condoning the same things..... TECUSA in 2003 has forced the AC to make a decision by presenting the AC with a fait accompli and I hope that decision comes soon as we have wasted 4 years already fighting internally while many leave in the US and the AC's fabric is further torn.

Conservatives have compromised in the AC with those who disagree with Lambeth 1.10 and many parts of the 39 articles..... but could do so given the official teaching of the church remained biblical. What TECUSA did in 2003 was to reject the calls of ALL the Primates and to reject Lambeth 1.10..... while most of the AC believes certain things are "incompatible with scripture", is it really tenable that one or two provinces should teach the same things are good and holy and no bar to the episcopate? Maybe you are are wonderfully tolerant person but I am afraid that position does not make sense to me if we are to be a real communion with genuine unity...

What do you think, Ann Marie, of those who preach "tolerance" but show little tolerance when it comes to ++Carey or +Duncan having views consistent with most of the AC?

NP

Posted by NP at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 10:54am GMT

Let's be totally clear about this NP. It is your considered opinion, then, that:

1) the Dalai Lama is destined for the lake of fire and brimstone unless he explicitly embraces Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour

2) Archbishop Tutu, despite having embraced Jesus Christ as his Saviour is likewise bound for the lake of fire and brimstone because he is a false teacher, in that he believes some parts of the Bible to be culturally conditioned.

Yes or No answers would be appreciated, rather than your usual persiflage. Remember Matthew 5:37.

Posted by cryptogram at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 11:03am GMT

Stephen
"I think +Cantaur would find it pretty difficult to exclude "pro-gay" English bishops from Lambeth, not only would it start the mark of schism in CofE, but it would be difficult to find a bishop who hadn't ordained homosexual clergy since 1998."

I know there is a fear of the bullies getting their way, and I do share the concern about +Rowan. It would be a bad sign if he disinvited any pro-gay bishops at this stage.
But I'm not actually sure who he could disinvite in practice, other than those who have participated in the consecration of Gene Robinson and the patrons of Changing Attitude.

After all, no-one else is on public record supporting LGBT people, whatever their private views may be. And ordaining homosexual clergy is officially acceptable in the AC provided they are celibate.

Posted by Erika Baker at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 2:52pm GMT

crypto.... I do not push my "opinion". On such questions, I can only go by what Christ and his apostles matters to God in judging people.

When I look at the Parable of the Sower or the Great Commission, I wonder why some think people have hope apart from Christ....he certainly did not seem to think so but encouraged us to share the gospel with all, calling them to believe in him, and he did not only talk in terms of his love but also of God's wrath (eg John 3:36)

Some Anglicans still believe this, you know......

XVIII. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ.
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

Posted by NP at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 2:57pm GMT

Persiflage, NP

Yes or no?

Posted by cryptogram at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 3:36pm GMT

Erika "But I'm not actually sure who he could disinvite in practice, other than [...] the patrons of Changing Attitude."

Colin / Erika: I'm not sure what grounds exist for disinviting bishops supportive of Changing Attitude. As I see it, if he were to cut the invite list then it would have to be cut at both extremes of the pro/anti-gay lobby. It is extremely unlikely that +Rowan could disinvite English bishops supporting of gay inclusion without disinviting most of the TEC HoB.

Posted by Stephen Roberts at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 3:39pm GMT

"For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved."

Which means the Church baptises to the Name JC.

This being in contrast to:

"They also are to be had a c c u r s e d that presume to say,

That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth,

so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature."

Meaning those whose Name instead is Sect and the "Natural Law" of Scholastic Philosophers, are "accursed".

Whatever that is ;=)

Reformation Rhetoric was not meant for the un-lettered or the functionally illiterate.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 4:37pm GMT

Again, NP, I am impressed that you can quote the 39 Articles. But how exactly do you get around that one which rejects in principle the governance of the Church by foreign prelates?

Posted by Malcolm+ at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 4:40pm GMT

"I wonder why some think people have hope apart from Christ"

Let me get this right: explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. Unless one is a Christian, one is going to Hell. But it is not enough to be a Christian, one has to believe certain things only and reject others. So the Incarnation is only for a select few. God PRETENDS to love everybody, but that love is conditional on our obedience to a Law He falsely tells us He sets us free from. So God is lying to us when He claims to love us. Right. Where do you get this stuff? I though you were a Reformed Christian.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 5:14pm GMT

Basic confusion

That we are apart from Christ.

No soul is apart from Christ because Christ is part of God and God is not apart from Creation.

Plus Cheva has vouched for all her children and acknowledged Jesus and his authority, which means all her children are covered (she is the mother of all living things, after all).

All this is done so that salvation comes about by God's unilateral grace and not human endeavour or priestly idolatry.

The Baptism Covenant is like Noah's Covenant. Be a member of this planet and be covered by the covenant, none of us chose to be a descendant of Noah but we are, none of us chose to live on the planet that Jesus incarnated, but we do.

The priests who seek to deny the Baptismal Covenant through Jesus would logically refute every other covenant ever made, thus they have no alliances with any other representative of this planet.

Their prayers are to be taken to a reality where the rest of Creation has been expunged thus, as requested, their hand has been cut-off. A dismembered hand can no longer feel and thus describe the face of the body from which it came.

What God can graft in God can cut off and God can regraft back in that which was cut off. God will call God's peoples whoever God wishes to call God's peoples. Deny God's grace and authority to others and it shall be denied to yourself.

Judge as you wish to be judged.

Personally, I'm trusting God to remember all his covenants, especially those through Jesus.

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 7:55pm GMT

I would say that as far as I know - no one has prevented Carey or Duncan from either having their specific beliefs or from expressing them. However, we have had some problems with their actions because they negatively and intimately affect other people.

This whole tolerance thing is such a red herring by the the more exteme elements. First "liberals" get accused of being too tolerant and called down for that. Then we show that we do have lines that cannot be crossed because to cross them results in harm, we get called down for not being tolerant. You can't have it both ways.

The fact is that those of us who disagree with Lambeth 1:10 are being Biblical, it is just that others aren't allowing for that fact because it would throw things into question. I reached my support of full inclusion through the study of the Bible, not separate from it. I remain committed to that support through continued reading and through studing the theology around relationships and blessings. But originally, my understanding is just about entirely biblically based (I say just about because I am aware of the the underlying basis through which I read those scriptures which was based on the theology of how we are created in God's image and a certain locally well-respected priest's understanding of that.)

Unity does not mean we have to be in full agreement on everything. It can mean that we have a common purpose or goal. Full inclusion does not hinder that common purpose or goal and therefore should not be a dividing issue.

Love and Prayers,
Ann Marie

Posted by Ann Marie at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 8:15pm GMT

"What do you think, Ann Marie, of those who preach "tolerance" but show little tolerance when it comes to ++Carey or +Duncan having views consistent with most of the AC?"

Who has shown them intolerance? I know of no one on my side of this disagreement who has called for ++Carey or +Duncan to be removed from office for their views on homosexuality. (There have been calls for Duncan's removal because of his actions regarding his diocese's membership in TEC, but those are a question of specific acts in violation of his oath of consecration, not matters of his faith.)

I know of no one who has called for the dioceses of Duncan, Iker, et al to be kicked out of TEC or the AC. I know of no one who has called for the GS provinces to be kicked out.

Who's being intolerant of other views here?

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 10:44pm GMT

Stephen,

I don't think I'm making my point very clearly.
There IS not "both end of the spectrums" as far as I can see. There are a lot of bishops who violate the rules by border crossing and actively condoning the persecution of gays.

But there is only Gene Robinson and those who consecrated him who can be said to be on the other end of the spectrum.

All other bishops, including the patrons of Changing Attitude as you rightly point out, are perfectly within the bounds of canon law, Lambeth, Issues, the Windsor Report or any other document someone might believe is relevant.

I just have this feeling that this whole news item is a non-issue. Unless someone can explain to me who might, in practice, qualify for being disinvited from Lambeth at this stage.

Posted by Erika Baker at Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 8:58am GMT

"What do you think, Ann Marie, of those who preach "tolerance" but show little tolerance when it comes to ++Carey or +Duncan having views consistent with most of the AC?"

I think we might have to set up an elementary literacy class.
Tolerance, like listening, does not mean agreement or having to keep silent about one's own views.

Intolerance, on the other hand, means not being content with having and expressing a different view, but feeling the need to make those who disagree conform or push them out altogether.

Posted by Erika Baker at Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 10:31am GMT

crypto - you are an Anglican....what answer do you own articles give to your question? Don't worry about scoring a point or what NP thinks....what does your Anglican church, your bible and your Lord say on the matters you raise??

Ann Marie....sorry, but many people in the AC do not agree that rejecting Lambeth 1.10 is taking a biblical position - even Rowan Williams persuaded few that the bible really means that sex outside of the marriage of a man and woman is good and holy in the eyes of God.

Hello Malcolm.... thanks.... I find it interesting how some people insist they are Anglican but reject so much in the 39 articles....but as to your point, it is obvious that we are not precluded from teaching the gospel in areas where there is no faithful biblical witness..... and you will not be surprised to know that I do not feel that all TEC bishops are faithful to the scriptures. So, I would not support CANA setting up in the dioceses of Pitssburgh as there is no need.....but some American Anglicans in other dioceses have asked CANA and Amia and the SC for help and where the bishop is deviating from the bible or the 39 articles in serious ways, I think helping them is legit. I suspect the ABC has come to agree with this given ++Venables says he has spoken with him before offering help in the US.

Surely you would not argue that we should never go into another area regardless of what is being taught there?

Now, we all "talk" so often.....is it not obvious that the AC contains at least churches?
It contains a western liberal church (maybe about 5-10m people) and an evangelical/traditional Anglican church (maybe 35-45m)....... the ABC and his bureaucrats devises shemes and avoid calling Primates meetings in the hope of creating some flimsy "unity" but the reality is that a split, with good grace and sharing assets, would be better for us all now.....we have had 4 years of internal focus - let us part in a friendly way and have churches with a real unity of beliefs which can live together. Going from what Augustine says, this is not "schism" as there are clearly radically different beliefs held between the 2 main groups in the AC.

Posted by NP at Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 2:35pm GMT

"what does your Anglican church, your bible and your Lord say on the matters you raise??"

Let's see....Oh yes:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven,
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth,
Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted,
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled,
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy,
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God,
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the Children of God,
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven,
Blessed are you when folk shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake,
Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in Heaven.

Unless you want me to snort my tea, don't try to claim "righteousness" is about who is or is not "fit" to be a bishop based on what he does with his naughty bits.

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 11:56pm GMT

"Surely you would not argue that we should never go into another area regardless of what is being taught there? "

You just quoted St Augustine of Hippo saying the very opposite...

Rembember?

(You lot really want the monies desperately, don't you?)

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Friday, 23 November 2007 at 5:40am GMT

Wonderful quotations, Ford. Now, you would not want to commit sins of omission.....you would not want to ignore other scriptures, would you?

"Unless you want me to snort my tea," Ford, pls dont try and pretend that the bible says the life and teaching of our leaders does not matter.

And pls don't come up with the "do not judge" red herring.... because the Lord and Paul both warned us to judge teaching and avoid wolves dressed as sheep (as you know, of course)

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=titus+1%3A5-11


Posted by NP at Friday, 23 November 2007 at 7:57am GMT

NP: that's fine. You just go off with your Puritan friends and start a Continuing Church of the Last True Homophobes. I have no problem with that. Just don't tell me I can't be an Anglican, when you are the one who clearly has so little sense of what the Anglican tradition is. When your Puritan True Belivers have gone on to divide amongst themselves umpteen times, and thrown up a fresh hellish witch-burning sect or two, then you'll see we were right all along.

Posted by Fr Mark at Friday, 23 November 2007 at 9:35am GMT

Whether or not people put 'tolerance' centre-stage at all is a good barometer of whether one has one's agenda set by the priorities of the present age or by our betters.

'Tolerance' has been oft-criticised: DL Sayers called it 'despair'; it has been compared to apathy and to laissez-faire; it has been questioned why something so inactive can be seen as a quintessential virtue when the prime Christian virtues such as love are such active things.

It is so obvious why people want to make tolerance the prime virtue: because then everyone else will be forced to tolerate whatever they get up to, and they can consequently get up to whatever they like, and shout 'intolerant' if anyone points out what they are actually doing.

Posted by Christopher Shell at Friday, 23 November 2007 at 12:46pm GMT

"you would not want to ignore other scriptures, would you?"

God forbid! Wouldn't want to leave out the condemnations and damnation of whoever I can convince myself Jesus was talking about! Interesting that when you, as you habitually do, quote anything that condemns or seeks to exclude, while ignoring anything that speaks of the love and compassion of God, you think yourself an Evangelist, but when I quote one of the most eloquent statements of what the Gospel is, you accuse me of ignoring the bits of Scripture I don't like! An efriend of mine muses on the fact that court challenges of the US consitution in order to publically post the Ten Commandments are commonplace, but no-one ever tries to force the government to allow them to pubilcally display the Beatitudes. Is that simply because there's a lot more self-justification in saying "Thou shalt not...." than "Blessed are...."? I mean, why are you in love with God's wrath? I have never heard you quote or cite anything that speaks of God's love. The best you can do is suggest that it is shown in what you believe to be God's torturous death in order to let criminals get away with their crimes like some kind of corrupt masochistic judge. Why is it so important to you to see God as condemning others than yourself? So much so that you cannot see that not only your behaviour, but your very understanding of religion, God, and how God wants us to live are far more like the people Jesus railed against than they are like the things He taught us? You even distort the very teachings we have received in order to justify yourself, all the while accusing others of disrespecting Scripture.

Posted by Ford Elms at Friday, 23 November 2007 at 1:33pm GMT

"It is so obvious why people want to make tolerance the prime virtue: because then everyone else will be forced to tolerate whatever they get up to, and they can consequently get up to whatever they like, and shout 'intolerant' if anyone points out what they are actually doing."

Now, what shall we call this kind of talk?

Facile... ?

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Friday, 23 November 2007 at 3:03pm GMT

"the prime Christian virtues such as love"

"It is so obvious why people want to make tolerance the prime virtue: because then everyone else will be forced to tolerate whatever they get up to"

And the second quote follows from the first quote in that.......?

Posted by Ford Elms at Friday, 23 November 2007 at 3:10pm GMT

It used to be that it was Rome which demanded groupthink, while Anglicanism respected dissent.

In the unlikely event that Pete Abuja and NP get their wish, we we would be left with a narrow, hateful and arrogant Anglicansim which made Pio Nono look a raging liberal by comparison.

Spew your selective venom all you want, NP. You do not speak the gospel.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Friday, 23 November 2007 at 8:25pm GMT

Vienna appointed Pio Nono because they believed he was liberal.

some dissappointment :-(

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Friday, 23 November 2007 at 9:33pm GMT

Hi Ford-
How else are we to interpret 'righteousness'in the Beatitudes other than with reference to purity of life? It is not being used in the technical pauline sense here. Jesus goes on to say: 'Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees, you will not (or by no means) enter the kingdom of heaven.'. This kind of righteousness was still a major emphasis in the communities to which Matthew and James bear witness.

Posted by Chirstopher Shell at Monday, 26 November 2007 at 1:08pm GMT

"How else are we to interpret 'righteousness'in the Beatitudes other than with reference to purity of life?"

The issue is with the definition of "purity", in that case. For some, it seems to mean adherence to a specific set of rules governing sexual behaviour. Odd that it is only sex that is seen to taint, thus rendering someone "impure", and thus, "unrighteous". I'd suggest the rest of the Bestitudes give an indication of some aspects of righteousness that have nothing to do with sex. Poverty of spirit instead of arrogance, meekness, mercy, peacemaking, longsuffering. Are you saying one can be righteous as long as one keeps onesself sexually "pure" while at the same time being spiritually arrogant, merciless, seeking division?

Posted by Ford Elms at Monday, 26 November 2007 at 2:03pm GMT

Mark - I went to Kings Chapel once....nice if you like old music but I preferred the ANGLICAN churches in Cambridge which attract HUNDREDS of students each week because they preach the gospel and do not mislead people on what God calls sin.

Ford - I am not "in love with God's wrath" but we have to tell the truth to people about what Christ and his Apostles said about it..... no point us missing out what they say on sin, judgment and holiness and giving people a false sense of security. This applies to various issues - we should not make up what is acceptable to ourselves.... God is not fooled.

As I have said, if it were up to me, I would have zero problem with gay marriage or the sex. But it is not up to me....or you....or TECUSA. WE have to tell people what God says, right?

Posted by NP at Monday, 26 November 2007 at 4:18pm GMT

I must comfess myself bemused at this conflating - indeed collapsing - of Righteous with Pure.

Not the same religion, lads.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Monday, 26 November 2007 at 6:24pm GMT

"false sense of security."

Security from what? I've asked you before, please answer, why be a Christian?

Posted by Ford Elms at Monday, 26 November 2007 at 6:54pm GMT

"WE have to tell people what God says, right?"

And you have the hubris to believe you know the mind of God in all things?

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Monday, 26 November 2007 at 7:10pm GMT

NP You wouldn't appreciate "old music" at Kings; as has to mean you'd have to sit down and listen for once and not have some self-sanctimonious retort ready.

An old chorister once confided to me that the preacher can get them all stirred up, but we can make them cry.

Posted by choirboyfromhell at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 12:55am GMT

choirboy... I am a musician and very familiar with "classical" music (won my school's A-level prize, actually)..... but if you read the gospels, you will see that Christ and his apostles did not go around putting on fine musical events.... the point of the gospel is not intellectual discussion, fine music, robes or ceremonies..... these can all be distractions and seem favoured by some who want us all to ignore certain things which are very clear in the bible.

The point of the gospel is not even social justice, you know.... at least, that was not Christ's priority as you can see in Mark 1:38

(note I said "priority".... before some go off the deep-end, looking for anything to attack)


Pat - I believe we have God's word, inspired by his Spirit...... and I do not dare to tell people that it is fine to indulge in certain sins which are clearly, as our Anglican bishops say, "incompatible with scripture" ..... do you?

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 10:28am GMT

Whatever religion NP is into, it represents a betrayal of evangelical Christianity.

It has revealed itself as precisely that illegitimate, hermeneutically incoherent fundamentalism so brilliantly exposed by the late James Barr - but I note that for all his acid comments to Göran, NP shows no great wish actually to take notice of Regius/Lady Margaret/Dean Ireland profs. when they don't fit in with his thinking, a phenomenon noted by Barr 30 years ago whereby fundamentalists happily use scholarship - as a figleaf, when it suits them.

The greasiness of dealing with the word 'day' by so expanding its meaning to render it meaningless in a recent posting on Genesis is a classic example of infallibilist/inerrancist thinking. There have been many others. We may not go along with Popper entirely, but what NP's mentors have done is to render their faith incapable of falsification. Meaningful content thus = zilch.

It's not NP's fault: s/he's been sold a pup. HTB is corrupting the soul of Anglican evangelicalism and no-one seems to notice. As Alcuin might have said, 'Quid Rushdoony cum Christo?'

(Been offline for a bit because of personal circumstances - now returning to obscurity!)

Posted by Mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 11:46am GMT

yes mynster.....and the academics you mention have convinced most of our bishops that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong that certain behaviour is “incompatible with scripture”….. but it is just a few mad fundamentalists who do not get it, right???

mynster, before you criticise a church or its ministry, look at your own and how God has used it....... do not criticise others if God has given them thousands in England to minister to and work all over the world to do ....it is his prerogative to bless people as he will……

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 2:00pm GMT

"I do not dare to tell people that it is fine to indulge in certain sins"

Yes you do! You even twist the Gospel to justify it. Again, why be a Chirstian? And what IS the point of the Gospel?

Posted by Ford Elms at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 2:20pm GMT

NP: So going from town to town to preach you INFER that Christ's main mission was to just "talk".

That's evangelical protestantism for you, while the Anglio-Catholics were feeding, loving and giving hope to the poor, oppressed, and reviled among us, you evos were just talking.

You miss the point even in your own scriptural quotations.

PICKING AND CHOOSING!!!!

Posted by choirboyfromhell at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 3:23pm GMT

"Pat - I believe we have God's word, inspired by his Spirit...... and I do not dare to tell people that it is fine to indulge in certain sins which are clearly, as our Anglican bishops say, "incompatible with scripture" ..... do you?"

Since the Anglican tradition is that I have as much right to follow my own conscience in such matters as the bishops have to follow theirs...yes, I do. MY conscience tells me that the bishops in question--and allow me to note it's not ALL of them--are wrong.

And, again, the scriptures are not "what God says" except in the cases where his words are in quotation marks, or the equivalent. Certainly nothing Paul said is necessarily what God says.

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 3:44pm GMT

"....it is his prerogative to bless people as he will……"

Finally something we can agree on!

"...his Spirit..."
The implications here are either:
a) the Spirit is not God, or
b) the Spirit is only a part of God.

Either of these sound kind of Unitarian to me, NP. If nothing else, they show a heterodox, revisionist understanding of the Trinity.

Posted by Ford Elms at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 4:51pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.