Comments: Time for closure in Anglican crisis?

There used to be a saying: human beings think in years, but the Church thinks in centuries. It is precisely haste to resolution that has brought us to this point.

We find this process painful in inverse proportion to our willingness to listen, to learn from one another, and perhaps discover something new. Some processes, to be pursued carefully and with hope for reconciliation, simply take the time they take. It is haste for "clarity," for "resolution." that has allowed a few to elevate issues for discussion to excuses for division.

Posted by Marshall Scott at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 1:48am GMT

It's quite a shallow piece, really. Timing is everything.

The situation is rather like a couple who are in terrible marital difficulties due to their dysfunctional family and, as each week goes by, and the family condition gets ever worse, the counsellor says, "Come back next week?"

So even as they plan a life separately, and set things up for a family divided, they keep turning up for the counsellor's appointment.

Long back it used to be thought that if they cast out a troublesome aunt who did things on her own that the couple would stay together. The trouble is there was an interfering uncle who is just as much a problem in the family. He kept encouraging other uncles. Then they found another aunt doing the same, and realised lots of aunts would follow on. The number of uncles interfering keeps on rising as well.

The counsellor hopes that in summer 2008 there will be a big do where everything can be thrashed out and, without anything binding, they'll decide to carry on, the aunts to stop minding their own business and the uncles to stop interfering.

Rather than deciding to carry on, at this appointment the aunts and uncles might end up doing both their own things and interfering all the more, but now all separated, and the counsellor will either have to join the uncles or join the aunts.

Posted by Pluralist at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 1:55am GMT

I am a gay man. I fully accept those who think homosexuality is a sin--certainly that has been the traditional understanding. I think that a more scientific understanding of homosexuality as an orienation along with a better understanding of the context of Paul's letters leads to the possibility of a new way of looking a gay relationships. I understand those who don't agree, though. I don't want this controversy to end with everybody happily giving a group hug to everyone gay--I simply want those parishes "whose consciences permit" to be allowed to bless the gay couples in their midst. I don't want total agreement--I simply want those on both sides to respect the journey we all have taken to make our decision, and let us all have space to make mistakes before God.

Posted by Ashpenaz at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 6:12am GMT

Absolutely right - it is common sense that two contradictory positions which cannot move will never be reconciled.....unless anyone really thinks the GS or +Duncan or +Rochester or ++Jensen are ever going to agree with Changing Attitude et al....... and they are never going to agree that Lambeth 1.10 is right.

So, those who seek to keep the AC club together are not doing anything for real unity (even though that is the noble aim of some like the ABC) but they are merely keeping the club together.

4 years have been wasted with no decisions being made...... all are being hurt....... the JSC tries to make Anglican fudge with TECUSA HOB but ends up letting down people who believe in "inclusion" and confirming the the mistrust of traditional Anglicans....what is gained?

ABC - pls recognise we do not have groups who believe the same thing splitting....we do not have schism if we work for an amicable split of very different groups creating a liberal Anglican church (let's call it TEC Global) and leaving the Anglican Communion as a church with united leaders who can unequivocally say they believe in the 39 articles and biblcal morality.

ABC - stop forcing everyone to stay in an abusive family..... there is no need to do so..... you are not Solomon deciding the future of one baby....there are at least two churches in the AC (even in the CofE, there is no real unity to speak of on the ground between conservative and liberal) and they would both obviously be better off and happier without each other to fight.....

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 7:34am GMT

Good on her for not pretending to be "in the know" more than she is. Even better, for showing why being "in the know" doesn't really mean that much in the real world anyway. Even better, for showing that prejudices and posturings affect Anglicans as much as they do anyone else; and that far less people are interested in them that some "devout" think.

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 7:39am GMT

Bring back the old Stephen, I say. This piece is shallow, snippy, sassy, defensive, flippant, and bolshy by turns. It reads like it was written by a thirteen year-old girl - which, looking at Ms Butt's picture, is quite possibly exactly by whom it was written. It has none of Bates' quiet irony and measureless, unstated despair. Instead it has a Nike advertising slogan (with "already" tagged on - classic!) and a long whinge about people blaming the media. Well in this case I am going to complain about the media. Grow up, lass, and kindly stop thinking you can tell the Anglican Church what to do.

Posted by MRG at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 11:33am GMT

NP: you will find, though, that the conservative groups go on splitting, even after this issue has been laid to rest, if it ever is, because what they have is a schismatic mentality. The mentality that says "only my interpretation is right: you cannot stay in communion with me if you disagree" will naturally lead to schism on many issues. We can see already that these conservative groupings have little in common except their dislike of homosexuals, so there won't be much to keep them together once they have made their split and left the Anglican Church. They are not all Calvinists like you, NP. And even Calivinists have a terribly schismatic history - look at the history of the schisms within Presbyterianism, for example. Hard-line Protestantism is a naturally schismatising form of religion: Catholicism, at its best, should be naturally broader, because it defines itself by being everywhere, rather than just "here, where I am".

Posted by Fr Mark at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 11:35am GMT

"Good on her for not pretending to be "in the know" more than she is." It's a rare pleasure, but for once I wholeheartedly agree with Cheryl Clough. I think Pluralist is wrong to dismiss Ms Butt's article as "shallow". To some extent, I presume that she will have to "learn on the job" about forms of Christianity with which she's unfamiliar, but I certainly found the article a refreshing and lively read.

Posted by Alan Harrison at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 11:55am GMT

She is right. There isn't going to be a real schism. Five years after the confirmation of Bishop Robinson we are still in one communion however contentious. The only way real schism can occur is if Global South hardliners break with Canterbury or Canterbury breaks with TEC and Canada. Neither of those things is likely to happen. Instead we will have missionary Anglicans in north America--but we have had that since 2000 and the beginnigs of the AmiA. They will create an alternative. Only when two bodies claim the same property is there real trouble and that's what we should aim to negoiate better. If everyone would stop the awful hateful speech insisting that the other is heretical and if we could stop the lawsuits or at least work out a way to mediate them the Communion might get back to the mission of being a church.

Posted by dmitri at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 12:41pm GMT

"ABC - stop forcing everyone to stay in an abusive family." Spot on, NP, though I don't see that anyone's forcing you to stick around.

Second time I've agreed with you this morning (also in Greed).

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 12:50pm GMT

"real unity"

We have had real unity for 500 years. What is being sought now by some is uniformity, or worse, conformity, which we have never had.

"an abusive family"

Abuse as we understand it in relationships involves the systematic dehumanizing and disempowering of the victim. It involves insults, exclusion, verbal and sometimes physical threat, and at times physical harm, even murder. Now who is guilty of insult ("inhuman"), exclusion, verbal threat (we'll "walk apart"), physical harm (if you don't think the words of the Right lead to physical harm, think again), and murder (can you deny that we have been murdered, even recently, in the name of God? +Akinola seems to think passively murdering us by sticking us and those who help us in jail would be fortuitous). Sorry, NP, but if the AC is an abusive family, your words not mine, then it is clearly the Right that is doing the abusing.

Posted by Ford Elms at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 1:07pm GMT

Lapin.... nobody is forcing me to stay around, yes, but I am not leaving while I agree with the 39 articles and Lambeth 1.10 and they still stand..... why leave the AC to people who do not unequivocally support Anglican Communion views?

Ford - TECUSA deliberately breaking an agreement made by our Anglican bishops has caused this "tear in the fabric of the Communion", as you know. TECUSA was begged not to make the tear....it refused, using Griswoldian doublespeak to cover its actions (even though good people like you would have advised it not to go ahead regardless)..... no point pretending the ruptures we see in the AC are caused by anything other than deliberate actions of TECUSA in defiance of the pleas of ALL the Primates of the AC for them to at least wait.....you know this is true.

dmitri - don't gloat about the AC still being together 5 years after TECUSA tore the fabric of the communion - look at the damage that action has caused. And if you do not care about "conservatives" leaving TECUSA, see the state of TECUSA in its own words - http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/7897/
And if you do not care about this, see the fact that the ABC seems to be supportive of the Southern Cone taking under its wing whole TECUSA dioceses! This is amazing..... more has changed than you like to admit, I suspect. Now I wait for the ABC to disinvite some to his Lambeth 08 jamboree....
http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2007/11/at-some-point-archbishop-has-to-resopnd.html

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 1:51pm GMT

For once I totally agree with NP, in terms of outcome.

I am not interested in being part of 'traditional' Christianity and want to see a new liberal denomination without malevolent conservative influence.

I hope it will happen. I think it will mean both sides agreeing to divide in a civilised fashion, though.

Posted by Merseymike at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 2:28pm GMT

I find myself agreeing to some degree with both sides here. The article is rather foolish and shallow. There are some processes that take time and should take time. Still, I can't say that I'm not ready to see an end to the confusion and constant conflict.

Steven

PS-I think the young lady has great promise as a journalist. A little seasoning is all that's needed, and that will come soon enough. /s

Posted by Steven at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 2:32pm GMT

NP:

For close to 500 years, the Anglican tradition has accommodated both high and low churchmanship, differing interpretations of the real presence in the Eucharist, and other matters that are far more significance regarding the nature of Christianity.

You're telling us that differing interpretations as to biblical passages regarding sexuality trump all that?

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 3:30pm GMT

"Ford - TECUSA deliberately breaking an agreement made by our Anglican bishops has caused this "tear in the fabric of the Communion", as you know."

No, actually, I don't know this. You keep saying it, but just repeating something doesn't make it true. This has been going on longer than a few years. The right has consistently ignored Lambeth's request that the Church talk to gay people. Don't try to pretend otherwise. The level of ignorance about gay people that exists on the Right proves it. TEC DID listen to Lambeth. They listened and found we were people after all, people who had been hurt terribly by the Church. They are seeking to rectify that situation. You may think they are doing wrong by making a gay bishop, but what has your side done? You don't even know the sins you have to atone for, since you won't listen to those you have sinned against. You wouldn't know how to go about it anyway, since you think that insult and scorn are valid means of evangelism. You still do the very things that have driven us away, and justify doing them. TEC may well be disobedient, but ignoring the ways in which your yourselves have been disobedient, your side has contributed greatly to the tearing. All this pompous railing against those who "tore the Communion" through their disobedience to Lambeth 1.10 is a bit much coming from people who have been disobeying Lambeth for at least 30 years. I don't expect you to understand how that hypocrisy essentially negates their argument.

Posted by Ford Elms at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 4:36pm GMT

Riazat is fresh to the job, but she's not (that) young, naive, nor stupid. She's hard working and conscientious, trying to get to grips with a situation that makes no sense at all. Of course she'll have to learn on the job, but we all did once.

Posted by Andrew Brown at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 5:00pm GMT

NP, you might do well to read an excellent book by the eminent Roman Catholic NT scholar, Raymond A Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2 Vols (1993).
Read his exegesis on Luke 23:34. Dr. Brown makes the point that the Church has lived with 'universalism' and 'exclusivism' from early on, especially as one focuses on Jesus' crucifixion as presented in the Gospel parallels, Matt/Mark and John.

Pope Benedict XVI, Eschatologie, makes the same point in relation to "universal salvation" and "double outcome" (either heaven or hell), both of which are biblical. Juergen Moltmann, The Communion of God (1996), makes the same point.

The Church, from the beginning, has "carried water in two buckets."

Prot. Evos have always had great difficulties with that since they claim an unambiguous Gospel for themselves. How can the Gospel be unambiguous if God is Absolute Mystery? Can't Prot. Evos leave the outcome to a loving God? Why do they always have to play at being God?

Humility, Mr. NP!

Posted by John Henry at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 5:11pm GMT

Somebody among us might do well to tell the young lady journalist:

The reasons our worldwide Anglican communion is seemingly stuck on the listening and dialogue steps is mostly to do with the realignment conservatives being so deliberate in their blocking of those two customary fire exit doors in historic Anglican life: Closed is the door marked, Agreeing To Disagree, and closed and probably locked is that other door marked, Live And Let Live While Continuing In Common Prayer.

The realignment wishes to offer us two new Anglican doors, marked Policing, and above all, Punishment.

No matter that our three historic Anglican pressure valves are listening and dialogue, agreeing to disagree, and Having Common Prayer Despite Our Heated Differences. Why is it, that these do not still serve us? Because queer folks, you see, are so very, very, very especially, undoubtedly, comprehensively - AWFUL. NASTY. DISGUSTING. SCARY. CREEPY. So very DIFFERENT FROM US? ????

Yes. TEC went ahead with the New Hampshire consecration. It could hardly do otherwise, because from then up to even now, no institutional machinery exists for allowing the other provinces to so high-handedly intefere with the ordinations and church life of one of them. But suddenly the space that existed for, say, variances in ordaining women - could not longer exist because, gasp, horrors, some queer priest in New Hampshire was so well known among his people for several decades that they discerned calling him to be their bishop, confident that their local discernment of what God was doing among them fully belonged inside the spaces of Anglican leeway.

Now of course we are supposed to think that the two Anglican fire exits are blocked either by tradition, or by holy writ.

But clearly the leaders wearing the funny hats and yelling fire at every opportunity may not be serving the communion's best interests, unless the best thing to do with a worldwide Anglican crowd is to brick up the exits while whipping them into a frenzied, Do Or Die Panic.

Pastoral care? Times of spiritual danger?

I wouldn't leave my pet dog with very many of these realignment people for a weekend away. I'd come back to find that the dog asked too many questions, and so they chained the poor animal up in the far barn. Of course my dog asks questions. That’s how we trained him up. Duh, he is an Anglican dog.

Posted by drdanfee at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 7:23pm GMT

How to treat non-celibate non-heterosexuality has been discussed for millennia. Which is why there are biblical passages that some are insisting remain in the harshest interpretations of judgment today.

They forget that not only have we trusted in Jesus and forgiven adultery (from both the male AND female perpetrators), but we have gone on to allow them to divorce and even to marry and to baptize the children from subsequent marriages, even if the relationship was started in adultery.

Humanity and Christianity having already demonstrated the ability to compassionately transmute another "sin" have the ability to do so again. Just as we no longer call epileptics possessed by demons.

There will be the split, because there will be at least one communion that is inclusive and compassionate and at least one other that despises. The latter will continue to snipe and criticize within themselves, the other communion, other denominations, other faiths and other streams. Simply because that is their character - they hate wisdom and love death and long for the death of both this level of reality and all its "riff raff" occupants. They fantasize of a heaven without us, we're giving it to them, it just turns out that their complete heaven appears to be a small box to those outside of their paradigms.

Pluralist's abusive family example is actually a reality still being played in this day and century. I remember watching a fascinating documentary about a nation near Israel last year. There are families where the men do contrive the murder of female members and the women are too terrified to seek help from the authorities. The documentary went into one family where, upon the death of the twelfth female family member, one aunt finally went to the authorities. The police could not find the perpetrators because they consider it to be religiously sanctified and they aided and abetted to thwart the police. That aunt is now also probably dead, or they are keeping her alive and making her life a misery by killing off more and more other female members, knowing how much it is tormenting her.

I don't mind being in a separate religion, denomination or communion to such souls and I don't mind such souls hating or denouncing me. They are the Esau's and Cain's who love violence more than they love life.

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 7:56pm GMT

Riazat Butt does look very young (& I feel quite old), but I do sympathize with her wish that this messy marriage counseling would get on to filing for divorce. Sadly, I suspect that the dysfunctional marriage will continue limp along with increasing misery for all. There is, of course, some consolation in looking at the length of controversies in the early Church (those long periods between councils don't mean that councils didn't continue to meet -- they just didn't weren't generally acceptable & thus didn't resolve anything -- either through reconciliation or division).

Pat O'Neill -- what drives a split is the insistence that others do what you want or, if they don't, you will leave. It has happened in the past over different issues & will continue in the future. Sadly, once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it seems almost impossible to repair the damage (viz., both Rome & Canterbury have signed statements with the Copts saying that the Chalcedonian schism was a misunderstanding -- that has not led to reunion of any of the above).

Posted by Prior Aelred at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 8:13pm GMT

"How can the Gospel be unambiguous if God is Absolute Mystery? "

Because for them God is not absolute mystery. I made the comment a while ago that God is unknowable, not exactly a contentious point, especially when made, as I did, that He is also knowable in Christ. I mean, this has been apophatic theology for over a millenium. Some consevos fell all over themselves to accuse me of making sime kind of "revisionist" claim, denying the divinity of Christ, the truth of the Gospel, the usual accusations! It was quite funny, really. The idea that the Almighty must, by definition, be something other than some all powerful judge in the sky seems to be anathema. Talk about making God in your own image!

Posted by Ford Elms at Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 11:10pm GMT

"Grow up, lass", "thirteen year old", "young lady journalist".... *cough*... Boy, we Christians really know how to listen to the voices of those not raised on our internal squabbles, don't we? To summarise, there seem to be some concerns that Riazat might be young (the termerity of the 20s!), female, non-Christian and relatively untutored in the internecine warfare that gives meaning to so many in the church. "Oh wad some power the giftie gie us, To see ourselves as others see us!"

Posted by Simon Barrow at Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 1:01am GMT

Having done as much damage as possible to traditional Anglican leeway, the USA right wing religious movements are yet again also targeting the United Methodist Churches, worldwide. Is the partly successful template for spin, division, and dissention that was used to take aim at TEC and Canada, now shifting to take aim at our UMC brothers and sisters?

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn54quKe8Dg

The IRD is busy, busy, busy, busy.

Posted by drdanfee at Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 1:58am GMT

Thank you Simon Barrow!

Posted by Erika Baker at Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 9:21am GMT

".....nobody is forcing me to stay around, yes, but I am not leaving while I agree with the 39 articles."

So NP, how would you view the multiple cross-jurisdictional ordinations and consecrations currently being illegally carried out in defiance of Lambeth V.13 and the canons of TEC, in light of Article XXIII - "It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called"?

Or the statement in Article XXXVII of "that prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God" - AKA "the Divine Right of Kings"?

One feels certain, of course, that whichever church you do in fact attend gives the reverence required by Article XXXV to the Second Book of Homilies, and that those 21 homilies are, as required by the Article, read in your church "by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people".

Come off it, NP.


Posted by Lapinbizarre at Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 10:52am GMT

NP, certainly needs to come off it; but he has been taken in and misled by nut-cases like the often-quoted senior professor of Regent College, BC, who advocates a univocal meaning of Holy Scripture and the Gospels and even attacks Karl Barth as 'un-orthodox' and as a stooge of Immanuel Kant

Posted by John Henry at Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 3:18pm GMT

Lapin - it is very difficult to believe that our Anglican ancestors intended us to not go into an area when false teachers have taken it over.... if you want to pretend they did, maybe you need to "come off it"?

Posted by NP at Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 4:04pm GMT

Fudge, NP! Quit changing the subject. What you mean is that you agree with those of the 39 articles which mean, or can be bent to mean, what you are determined to have them mean.

Now, back to your statement that "I agree with the 39 articles" and where therefore you stand on the Global South's flouting both Article XXIII and a properly passed resolution (V.13, which has the same legitimacy as the precious 1.10) of the 1998 Lambeth Conference.

Incidentally, I greatly appreciate your arguing that "it is very difficult to believe that our Anglican ancestors intended us not to ...." thereby admitting that subjective interpretation, not scriptural inerrancy, is the basis of your belief.

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 4:56pm GMT

"... the often-quoted senior professor of Regent College, BC, who advocates a univocal meaning of Holy Scripture and the Gospels and even attacks Karl Barth as 'un-orthodox' and as a stooge of Immanuel Kant "

Mad dogs and Englishmen

tra

la

la

la

la

la....

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 5:20pm GMT

"Unless I’m deaf I’ve not heard the crack of a rupture so it leaves me thinking that this much-hyped schism, which by all accounts should have happened months ago… "

There is no "majority" against TEC and Modernity. Period.

There are no more than 6 or 8 maybe 13 Primates, less and less respected...

So, it won't be.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 5:24pm GMT

"when false teachers have taken it over"

You know, NP, I do regret that no-one took action when the false teaching of Evangelicalism snuck into the Church. We wouldn't be in the trouble we're in if we had properly gotten rid of that error. Even you have agreed that we should have druimmed the Evos out when we had the chance. We have nurtured a heretical asp in our bosom. But we tolerated falsehood. The one thing is that, in Anglican history, falsehood doesn't stick around for long, it goes away then fragments. I expect the same will happen with the current crop of "perfecti".

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 5:47pm GMT

I'm surprised this got into print. Of course it is naive - but her viewpoint is perfectly valid and no better than any other commentators from outside. Nor worse. She is fed up - and who can blame her? Though I am unsure who the 'we' she mentions are meant to be. She needs to be less preachy - though if she were an Anglican, she would at least have the chance of being ordained and able to preach from the pulpit!

Posted by Neil at Wednesday, 28 November 2007 at 11:40pm GMT

Ford says "You know, NP, I do regret that no-one took action when the false teaching of Evangelicalism snuck into the Church"

Would that be with the 39 articles??

You can make lots of clever points, Ford, but your "clobber verses" cannot be erased from your bible

I still await the positive biblical case for condoing what our Anglican bishops consistently say is "incompatible with scripture" (i.e. sin)
(Rowan Williams says there is nothing positive in the bible to make this positive case.... you really need to make that case if you want to justify any sin)

Posted by NP at Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 7:31am GMT

Re: the question of resolution of the crisis I highly recommend the thoughts of The Anglican Scotist:

http://anglicanscotist.blogspot.com/2007/11/hypotheses-on-schism.html

Posted by Prior Aelred at Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 10:14am GMT

"I still await the positive biblical case"

I still await your acceptance of the fact that there is more to theology than mindlessly quoting isolated Bible verses that you don't understand. Even the Devil can quote Scripture, NP.

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 2:04pm GMT

Prior - I read it.... and it seems to me the logical conclusion of what it says is that there should be a split as otherwise we have another 5 years of growing internal conflict to cope with.... I know the strategy of giving the AC a fait accompli in 2003 was based on the idea that Anglicans cannot sustain opposition for long... but as the Scotist says, opposition is still growing at the end of 2007

Also, I found the assumptions behind this statement interesting:
"The fact there is still--after four years--a shouting match that is getting worse and worse serves the Separatist cause. It is in their interest to see TEC continue to be distracted from Mission and to continue to contract while being preoccupied with a never-ending "crisis" increasingly manufactured by the separatists themselves."

So - we have evo megachurhes in the US and large Anglican evo churches in TECUSA..... but the decline of the liberal Anglican churches is nothing to do with their preaching and teaching (it is, of course, someone else's fault that fewer come every year to liberal TECUSA churches......it is the folks who attract hundreds of Americans and many young people and many non-Christians who are to blame for the decline we see in liberal churches, of course)

Posted by NP at Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 2:57pm GMT

Np wrote: "You can make lots of clever points, Ford, but your "clobber verses" cannot be erased from your bible"

One of these days the "translators" will have to acknowledge publicly that they have misled, and that the CLAIMED verses actually adress a range of different matters, but not the late modern category of homosexuality or the late modern category of "sex".

Simple as that.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 4:30pm GMT

"You can make lots of clever points, Ford, but your "clobber verses" cannot be erased from your bible"

Ford didn't talk about homosexuality at all in his recent posts.
Can you please take into account that not everyone has sex on their minds all the time? Your obsession with it and your reduction of every post to it is really quite pathological.

Posted by Erika Baker at Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 5:39pm GMT

"I know the strategy of giving the AC a fait accompli in 2003 was based on the idea that Anglicans cannot sustain opposition for long... "

And how do you know this? Perhaps because those who have the most to gain from keeping you afraid of the threat from the horrible heathen have told you this MUST be the strategy of said "heathen"?

"evo megachurhes"

And you consider the growth of these things to be a good thing? Maybe it's a language thing, but here, "megachurch" refers to a huge complex often with shops, restaurants, and all other kinds of things in one building with a large auditorium type space where patrons are treated to a sound and light show with big screens and a preacher with a microphone and a PalmPilot. They are about the most soulless places I can think of. I'm startled you'd think them good things, since it is the style of "Christianity" practiced by people like Joel Osteen.

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 7:39pm 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.