Schism looms, Exeter warns US bishops

The Bishop of Exeter, Michael Langrish, has delivered an extraordinary speech to Ecusa bishops which makes me believe for the first time that schism might actually be a possibility. Fundamentally, he has told the US bishops that if they consecrate another gay bishop or authorise same-sex relations, the Anglican Communion will break apart, Arcic will be finished and inter-faith dialogue with the Muslims will be at an end.

(*Update 29 April. The full text of Bishop Langrish's address can now be found via Anglican Mainstream at the American Anglican Council here.)

Two things give this speech added weight. One is that Langrish was speaking at the episcopal retreat of Ecusa's house of bishops in Kanuga as the representative of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. So we can assume the views stated here are Dr Williams' own, which rather supports the inferences that many have drawn from his Guardian interview. The other significant fact is that Langrish is one of the bishops invited to the meeting at Lambeth Palace 24 April, discussed here, to discuss the "critical" stage the Anglican is at in the light of the General Convention in June. There are blogs discussing this here, here, here at Titusonenine for a really good discussion and likewise here at Thinking Anglicans for a good debate. And for an invaluable insight into how Langrish's address is being 'received' by grassroots US episcopalians, read this long but worthwhile discussion here at Titusonenine.

It seems to be that Anglican leaders are gearing up for possible schism, but also letting Ecusa know this in what might be a game of ecclesiastical brinkmanship. Maybe, by spelling out how serious things have got, Ecusa might do more than 'regret' and rediscover what it means to 'repent.' It is the season for it, after all. So publicly, Lambeth Palace is playing down talk of schism, hence this comment, regarding the meeting of 24 April: “As you would expect, this meeting is by no means the only consultation that is happening; there is at the moment a considerable amount of thinking and talking, consulting and listening going on, with the emphasis firmly in favour of listening. The meetings that will be taking place over the next weeks and months are intended to provide as wide a range of views as possible in order to gain a proper perspective into the challenges and possibilities for the future of the Anglican Church here and elsewhere.” But maybe schism is the wrong word I am using here. If for example Ecusa as it presently is was expelled or invited to leave after the ACC amended its rules, presumably another body such as the ACN, held to be representative of orthodox Anglicanism in the US, could then be invited in. So that wouldn't really be schism, just 'realignment'...As for the material resources held by Ecusa, they don't count anyway, as they would all disappear in the ensuing court battles over pensions and property.

The Bishop of Exeter's address was long and doesn't appear to be online anywhere. It has taken me two days to get hold of it, having heard numerous reports of its significance, but I finally managed to obtain a copy a couple of hours ago. Because it is so late, and I am frankly exhausted, I am just going to post the relevant passages here and let you judge for yourselves. There really is no need on this occasion for me to add any comments of my own. I think you will see that Langrish is capable of speaking for himself.

He began by setting out his credentials. Although he does not know the US well, he has worked for three years in Nigeria, his diocese has strong links with Cyprus and the Gulf and Kenya and has travelled widely as a trustee of Christian Aid. He has also got to know the church in Australia and the South Pacific well in his role as chairman of the Melanesian Mission in the UK. He also displayed his grasp of the jargon-filled liberal-speak of the ecclesiastical intelligentsia, using phrases such as 'dialogical table', 'commanding contextual paradigms' and 'meta-narrative'. The US bishops must have been lulled into a truly meta-sense of security when he started going on about the bigger context in Christ, the 'meta-narrative' that encompasses us all, and the 'teasing out' of the question from the Nigerian bishop: 'You brought us the Bible, why do you not now believe it?' But maybe even they felt the earth begin to shift a little when he suddenly mentioned the 'tectonic change or betrayal' that must have been brought about in Africa by the 'paradigmatic shift' of the 'presenting culture.'

He then went on to talk about the work of the special commission set up to report on the issues arising from the Windsor Report, primates and ACC and that will report to Convention in June. He did not doubt that the bishops would try to do what was right. 'Yet, when you do come to a decision about what is right, that decision, whatever it is, will have consequences and almost certainly very profound ones.' From his remarks, it is clear that the US bishops have been working hard, for example, to address the concept of Covenant in the Windsor report. He sees a three-dimensional aspect to the US commission's work: 'structural/canonical, doctrinal/confessional, missional/relational.' (All sounds very Griswoldal to me.)

Langrish continued: 'However, to speak honestly, and I am sure that you would not wish me to do otherwise, there were elements in the proposed report and resolutions which, in the language we were asked to us, give me pause for concern. In particular I have real anxieties about the language being suggested for the proposed resolutions concerning future consecrations to the episcopate... As I listened I heard real concerns about both the ambiguity of the language and also the subjectivity of what was being asked for. It is also my belief that the wider Communion will feel the same, although probably for different reasons. It is not at all clear to me what extreme caution may mean, how it would be judged and who would decide. Can you exercise extreme caution and still act in a way that injects further difficulty into the life of the communion? I believe that many will have similar questions about what constitutes a challenge to the communion, or construes whether there are challenges that are acceptable and those that are not.'

This took him close to the 'heart of the difficulty' that much of the Anglican Communion, including his own province, had with Ecusa's actions in 2003. He went on to cite a conversation he had earlier in the week. Someone on the retreat said to him: 'I do regret I caused you pain, but I cannot regret that I voted for something that brought so much hope and joy.' Langrish told this person that he did not want regret.

'It's something different from regret that is at stake here... in our response to the Windsor Report, the English House of Bishops sought to strengthen the language of repentance, which we believed to be more appropriate than regret. ... let me be clear, we were not seeking repentance in punitive or scapegoating terms, rather as something more clinical and precise - that seeing of an action or behaviour in a new light, the light of new circumstances under God.'

The two actions that needed to be seen in this new light were consecrating a bishop with the intent of creating a bishop for the church catholic without seeking the assent of that wider church catholic, and also ordaining someone to the episcopate 'who was in a relationship not liturgically sanctioned by the Church, and to that extent at least irregular.'

He said he sees the Anglican Communion threatened by two fault lines, the first being the issue of same-sex relations with the focus on Lambeth 1.10 and the second the nature and future of the communion, with its focus being on Windsor and Dromantine.

'I suppose one of the major challenges for the Episcopal Church now has to do with whether there are enought of you to stand broadly on the same ground, holding a range of opinions on Lambeth 1.10 but firm in carrying forward the Windsor vision of a strengthened and enabing communion life. This, I believe, is the key question rather than questions about whether the Episcopal Church will either be pushed out of the Communion or consciously walk away. Let's be clear. On the one hand, noone can force another province or diocese either to go or remain. We are not that kind of church. Yet equally, no diocese or province can enforce its own continued membership simply or largely on its own terms.  There has to be engagement There is no communion without a shared vision of life in communion. So it does seem to me, as I listen to those other parts of the communion that I know best, that any further consecration of those in a same sex relationship, any authorisation of any person to undertake same sex blessings, any stated intention not to seriously engage with the Windsor Report, will be read very widely as a declaration not to stay with the communion.'

He believed he had heard at the retreat a desire for 'shared life in communion'.

But if that was not the case, the implications were serious, not just for the Communion, but for interfaith and ecumenical relations too.

'It would immediately become impossible to claim that there was one body that spoke for the Communion as a whole, and several existing relations would be irrevocably altered. All the signals seem clear that for example there would be no further round of Arcic and that the dialogue process with Al-Azhar [with Muslims] would end.'

Finally, at the grass roots, life goes on as normal, as you can read here.

Comments

[Mike Homfray]

One can only hope that he is right. The sooner the church splits and we can look towards progressive people working together without the baleful and malevolent influence of harmful, conservative superstitious nonsense, the better it will be for all of us.

[Otis Page]

The Communion's schism is the invention of ECUSA's apostasy.
The witness of bisexual Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire,serves as the international icon for ECUSA's pansexualism and the repudiation of Scripture's clear and unambiguous indictment of the manifestation of today's homosexuality.

[Sean Preston]

It is inevitable. Newman predicted the disintegration of the Anglican church under the liberal onslaught. I hope that the African Anglicans now come home to the Catholic Church

[John McIlray]

As a cradle Episcopalian, and an employee of a parish in the ECUSA, I find some mystification in the newest "tempest in a teapot". When Gene Robinson was elected Bishop, a member of the parish where I work asked the Priest what he thought of the Church having its first gay Bishop. His reply was most amusing. "My dear lady, he's not the first, nor will he be the last." Apparently, that which the Anglican Communion seems to be most afraid of is honesty. As for the fundamental conservatives, perhaps they would be more happy if they returned to the archaic Church of Rome, or became Baptists. I find the honesty and frankness of many of us in the ECUSA a breath of fresh air. Should we be barred from the Anglican Communion, it would be a pity, but not the end of the world. We shall survive and flourish, and most likely increase in number by comparison to those "appalling old waxworks" who are stuck in the previous century.

[Bill Channon]

"...the baleful and malevolent influence of harmful, conservative superstitious nonsense..."

I'm assuming that by 'superstitious nonsense' Mike Homfrey is referring to the claims of the Holy Bible and to adherence in the belief that Jesus' statements that 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life and that NO man comes to to the Father BUT by Me'. I presume also that the writings of the apostles that follow the gospels are, according to Mike, also full of superstious nonsense.
Umm ... perhaps Mike is looking forward to an ECUSA has rid itself of the nonsense that has guided the Church for 2,000 years.

[Sergeant Rajendra Joshi]

Dear Ruth,

It's been a hard days night and I've been working...Anyone as old as some of us will remember the Beatles and by God does my old shift still play the Beatles Greatest Hits on a late shift. And after a long shift I often come home to read the faith blog here.

I don't though quite understand this, "and inter-faith dialogue with the Muslims will be at an end."

Are we to continue to generically lump the Muslim community as one. They are peoples, they are individuals if I may say!

Is the Bishop suggesting that inter faith dialogue with "the Muslims", (peoples), will end over the position the Church takes in relation to same sex relationships? Are there then no Muslim gay people? Is the Bishop not then condoning homophobia?
If a faith cannot see true diversity what is the point of that faith? And why do some Church and faith leaders believe that their view is right for today's world? They after all are not God, but messengers? Indeed, would God treat Gay people with the inadvertent hatred one feels exists?

Dialogue between the extreme in the Church and the extreme in other faiths may end, but is that such a bad thing for a forward thinking people of this country?
These people, that hold extreme views void of love might find that when the time comes the gates to heaven might actually be padlocked if they fail to move from their position on some issues.

Anyway may I return to "My sweet Lord...," as was so eloquently sung by George Harrison and GARETH GATES and the KUMARS I think. And did THEY not sing this so beautifully? Isn't Sanjeev wonderful? Can the words, "My sweet Lord" not be applied to Lord Jesus, or Lord Buddha or any other Lord as well?

Hey ho maybe tomorrow we will listen to the King, no no, not the future King, he says alot anyway, I mean Elvis!

[Simon Ferguson]

'The sooner the church splits', & we can 'look forward (sic) to progressive people working together..without conservative superstitious nonsense'!

Well. I could not call you spiritual but worldly? One lord One faith One baptism?
Oh dear....

[alleypal80]

Oops! Another area where the Muslims have caused a rift! Now the Anglican Church is in a quandry. Is this a Muslim ploy? Is this a carefully crafted and sly attempt to split off good friends from one-another? Do not put it past the followers of Allah to seek an example of Dhimmitude once more. Each time you act like a Dhimmi, the stretch to complete dhimmitude becomes shorter.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

The most worrying aspect of the Bishop of Exeter's speech is his concern that certain actions by the Anglican Church might might lead to the possibility 'that the dialogue process with Muslims would end'.

Recently, to coincide both with the 350th anniversary of the resettlement of the Jews to England and with Holocaust Memorial Day, the ABC put out the following statement: 'from a Christian perspective the dialogue between Christians and Jews is not only historically the most senior, but also theologically distinct'.

So what is more important for the Anglican Church, dialogue with Jews (as the ABC has stated), or with Muslims (as appears to be the reality)?

Maybe we can glean something of an answer to this question. For immediately after the ABC's public statement reiterating the very close partnership between the Anglican Church and the Jewish community, Synod voted overwhelmingly to heed the the call from Palestinian Christian, Bishop Riah of Jerusalem, to overturn the Church's own Ethical Investment Advisory Group's decision and to divest from companies in Israel. The Archbishop of Canterbury was one of those who voted in favour of divestment.

It must be well known to the ABC and others that Bishop Riah's view is that: 'We [the Palestinians] are the true Israel ... no one can deny me the right to inherit the promises, and after all the promises were first given to Abraham and Abraham is never spoken of in the Bible as a Jew.... He is the father of the faithful'.

Riah has recently welcomed Hamas' victory in the Palestinian elections. Hamas' stated goal is the destruction of the State of Israel.

I wonder if fellow bloggers can help me here. Next Monday, I am guest speaker at the AGM of Southend CCJ on the subject of 'Jews and Christians facing the future together in the UK and the future (if any) of Jewish/Christian Dialogue'. The title itself demonstrates the fears and concerns of the organisers of this event. After that, in May and June in Manchester, and in the wake of 7/7 (in which four well-integrated Muslims from the Leeds area blew up Londoners), I am chairing three dialogue sessions on 'Interfaith Dialogue in the 21st Century' at Manchester Metropolitan University.

It appears to me, however, both from recently talking to, and experiencing the behaviour of, various Anglican Bishops, interfaith advisors and interfaith workers, that the attitude of the Bishop of Exeter is the present reality in the Anglican Church and that this attitude is growing.

Despite all the fine words and poses, including the latest smiling photos of the ABC with the Chief Rabbi at a dinner to celebrate the 350th anniversary of Jewish resettlement to this country, in reality the Jewish community is being ignored, cast to one side and their scriptures, teachings and contributions to civilization scorned.

This trend even appears to have taken hold at grass roots level. The training of Anglican clergy now emphasises Islam rather than Judaism and the 'Old Testament' is increasingly being dropped as an option (whereas education on post-biblical Judaism seems not to figure at all). Is it possibly felt by those in the Anglican Church, I wonder, that Judaism did not give rise to Christianity? Or is it that their dislike for those in the Anglican Church who do emphasise the OT (often in their own image, I should add) has thrown them into the arms of Islamicists like Riah? Because, I very much regret to say that that is what it seems like to me.

Years of careful Christian scholarship on the subject of Jesus' Jewish roots and parallels in New Testament teaching with that of other, contemporary, mainstream Jewish sources, have been thrown to the winds. Popular radio programmes, such as 'Thought for the Day', from which the average person now gains their religious education on the way to work and school, echo this new attitude to Jesus as divorced from his Jewish roots. Sorry, this is not a completely new attitude: it was of course there in the replacement theologies of contempt towards Jews and Judaism of the early Church Fathers, continued in the Middle Ages and was made use of by the Nazis and their stooges in countries such as Poland and Lithuania during the war.

I look forward to hearing what fellow bloggers think that the future of Anglican-Jewish dialogue is (if there is a future at all), bearing in mind that last year physical attacks on the Jewish community in Manchester (whether religious or not) increased by 40% and are a cause of great concern to the local police. According to local newspaper reports, many of these attacks have been attributed to the words and behaviour of Ken Livingstone, who apparently feels that he can get away with insulting anti-Jewish gibes which most would have thought more typical of the neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups.

My question to your bloggers is therefore this: is it worth giving talks on dialogue between Anglicans and Jews, and if so, in what can this dialogue consist if the Church heirarchy prefers to agree with Bishop Riah and other Islamicist apologists and no longer believes that the Jewish community has any claim to their own Bible or teachings, either in their own land or in the diaspora?

I hope that fellow bloggers will be moved to reply and I hope I will be able to use some of their thoughts in my forthcoming lecture and dialogue series.

[Rev. Claudio Bocca]

If ECUSA does not repent changing radically its liberal and revisionist agenda the only solution is that ECUSA must be expelled out the global Anglican Communion !! I do not see another solution !! Why Anglican Communion should have to pay a shameful and huge price to keep ECUSA within itself !! The Anglican Communion does not need ECUSA at any cost !! Please do not forget that ECUSA is only the 3 o 4 per cent of the Worldwide Communion said in other word it is nothing !!

Revd. Claudio Bocca +

[Alan Marsh]

It is not worth giving talks based on incomprehension, paranoia and a vast conspiracy theory. Anglicans are not about to jettison either the Old Testament or Christian-Jewish relations, but damage will be done by false assertions like this.

[Chris Webb]

My church - the (Anglican) Church in Wales - currently enjoys 'full communion' with a whole host of worldwide churches, such as the Philippine Independent Church and the Mar Thoma Syrian Church. We have a covenant with the Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and others. We're in partnership with Nordic and Baltic churches through the Porvoo agreement. ARCIC (with the RC's) seems back on the rails, and the Anglican-Methodist dialogue is very warm and friendly right now. We've got good relationships with Jewish leaders, Muslim communities, Sikhs and Budhhists and more.

In fact, it seems the only folks we Anglicans have trouble getting on with right now is ... well, Anglicans.

[Malcolm Bowden]

In response to Irene's posting, may I urge her to persevere. There is always a tendency amongst the hierarchy of the Church of England to chase after whatever may be the latest fashion. It comes I suppose from being part of the Establishment. "Understanding Islam" is one such fashion. "Integration" is a key concept and how better to encourage this than by suggesting that "we're all the same really" and appealing to the umbrella notion of "Abrahamic faiths" which is the age-old shibboleth of some distant golden age when all was sweetness and light.

But it won't do. Hard though it may be, the post-Biblical Jewish background to Christianity is key. You don't hear much about it in sermons, although there are noble exceptions. By and large, I suppose, it's too "difficult" both for preacher and congregation. However, as Geza Vermes has shown in his work, the New Testament is threaded through with strands of Jewish thought and practice and with the evidence of early struggles between shools of thought amongst Christians. The central story of Christianity, that of Easter, and its central ritual of the eucharist cannot be properly understood without reference to Passover and the Jewish ritual surrounding it. The Jewish connection is there every week staring the Christian in the face, yet it seems almost like some kind of elephant if the living room, not to be mentioned if at possible, but quietly manoeuvred around.

Which is why those of us who feel the continuity with Judaism must speak up wherever we have the opportunity. We owe it to our religion and, dare I say, to Western civilisation.

[Irene Lancaster]

Thanks, Malcolm, for your encouragement. Talk of 'paranoia', 'conspiracy theories' and 'false assertions' is what we in the Jewish community have been used to for 2000 years now, so it is actually like water off a duck's back. From working in schools, I have found that some even still think that we have horns.

Encounters with different Christian communities and thinkers lead to me to the conclusion that you are correct in your assessment. Judaism is a huge embarrassment to the majority of Christians, which is why they tend to engage with 'safe' Jews, who do not challenge them at all, or prefer to dialogue with Muslims, to the exclusion of the Jewish community.

However, there are exceptions, like the brave souls in Southend and Dr. Andrew Shanks, the Canon Theologian of Manchester Cathedral, who has helped to organise the forthcoming dialogue series. People like Andrew know that there is a real problem in Anglican-Jewish relations at the moment because they have experienced this sad state of affairs for themselves.

What is more, some Anglicans are even bearing witness to the situation by preaching sermons on the subject of the ever-persistent and growing Anglican anti-semitism in this country.

Now that is really brave.

[Alan Marsh]

I stand by my assessment, if Dr Lancaster thinks that Anglican efforts to have dialogue with the Muslim community are a threat of some kind.

I wonder to what extent she is engaging in dialogue with Muslims in the UK? And if not, why not?

[Frank Salmon]

In the matter of the same sex debate he Church of England, with its rapidly declining number of communicants, and an episcopacy that remains unelected and excludes women, provides little 'moral' credibility to the American Protestant Episcopal Church. American parishes on the whole remain far more vital than their British counterparts.
For centuries, the Church of England has succeeding in alienating the vast majority of English people from its regular worship, primarily because it has practiced, if not preached, a gospel of social exclusion, for far too long.

[Keith Downer]

There were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon and fourteen from the exile to the Christ (Matthew 1:17); Mary and Joseph were Jews; Jesus was a Jew; His disciples were Jews, His upbringing, education and heritage was Jewish. As a young boy, he sat amongst the teachers in the temple courts, listening to them and asking questions (Luke 2:46). If Jesus came amongst us today, He would seek dialogue with those of other beliefs such as Islam but can anyone doubt the joy and happiness He would feel and share, the affinity and identification He would have with those of the Jewish faith?

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

Alan as the Christian religion states that one should hate the sin, but love the sinner, I will overlook your hostility and try to answer your question, although don't you think that it takes two to tango?

If you care to look at the postings on this blog and on others, you may discover that Muslims sometimes do not want to have dialogue with anyone, least of all Jews. When 'dialogue' has been attempted, the experience of myself and quite a few others in the Jewish community has been that Muslim 'dialogue' often becomes a rant.

I am sure you will agree that dialogue implies a two-way process where you listen to and learn from the other person. Jews are trained in that way from childhood. We are lucky like that: other traditions, it seems, do not train like that. Ever heard of Martin Buber and the I-thou relationship? That was there already in the Talmud and other classical Jewish teachings.

As for my own input in the 'dialogue', as you ask, I believe that my book on the three monotheistic religions is selling quite well in the Muslim world, probably because I devote a large part of the book to Muslim philosophy. Whether Muslims are as interested in Jewish philosophy as I am in Muslim philosophy is another question.

Even more debatable is whether I would be allowed in to some of those countries, or practise my religion there, or whether I would be foolish to attempt it if I value my life at all, even though my life, like all lives, is merely 'a corridor to the world to come'.

So yes, I am sorry to disappoint you and to dispel your prejudices, but in fact I've had 'dialogue' as you call it with Muslims and taught Muslims. And of course all will be welcome to participate in the MMU dialogue series.

I note that a recent dialogue series I helped to set up on the different religions attracted people from every religion and none, except for Muslims. I wonder why. A glimpse at Ruth's recent 'Bahai' posting might give you a clue.

The fact is that because of attitudes such as yours many members of the Jewish community are leaving this country and emigrating to Israel.

And who could blame them?

However, I am extremely grateful for your postings, because I will be using your views, posted without shame, in all my forthcoming lectures.

[Charles Hohenstein]

"The Bishop of Exeter's address was long and doesn't appear to be online anywhere. It has taken me two days to get hold of it, having heard numerous reports of its significance, but I finally managed to obtain a copy a couple of hours ago."

How can the rest of us obtain a copy? Would you please either post the whole thing here, or give us a link to it? Thanks very much.

[Chris Butler]

I am mystified when i read in several British papers that Bonnie Perry is as good as elected to be the next bishop of the Diocese of California. I am one of the delegates to the electing convention, and am acquainted with quite a few others. It's clear to me the the current leading candidate is "I haven't made up my mind". The press would do us all a service to refrain from reporting speculation as fact.

[Alan Marsh]

Dr Lancaster will no doubt make use of whatever material she chooses in her lectures, but the assertions she makes about Anglicans bear no relation to the reality of the Christian community in which I live, or to the high esteem in which all Anglicans I know hold both the Jewish faith and its members.

[John McIlray]

It was most interesting to read the response by Father Bocca. The ECUSA has no need to repent, Father. And, as for expulsion from the Anglican Communion because we represent a mere 3 to 4 percent, I would ask this. Just how many Anglicans are there in Italy, Father? It seems as though the good father is practicing that old adage "When in Rome...."

[irene lancaster]

Alan's sounds like a really remarkable and unusual Anglican community and I am sure that many bloggers would genuinely like to know where it is. I for one certainly would and I will then recommend it as an ideal place for harmonious co-existence.

Meanwhile, all I can see is that here in Manchester at least, one of the largest Jewish communities in Europe is losing people to Israel at a rate of knots and there are so many 'for sale' signs up that it is somewhat depressing in many ways: the end of a 350-year era, maybe.

A case in point is the women's choir I belong to. It does a lot of charity concerts in order to raise money for various worthy causes. Last night, for instance, we proved our ecumenical spirit by belting out the 23rd Psalm in a synagogue to the tune of 'The Vicar of Dibley'. We will be five down out of 15 members by the end of the year.

And that will be, in the main, people in the prime of their lives with young families and not the retired.

This demographic reality is symptomatic of Jewish communities throughout the rest of the country too.

Maybe blogs like this is what we need, because it appears to me (a lecturer in RE) that this blog is doing what a good university department should be doing, i.e. questioning accepted entrenched ideas about 'the other' and admitting when we are wrong.

Maybe a modern replacement for the confessional and much cheaper than the psychiatrist's or analyst's couch.

[Alan Marsh]

I am a member of the Church of England - which despite the bad press which some seem anxious to give it is a broad and welcoming community accustomed to dialogue both external and internal as a first principle of its calling of service to the whole nation, not just its members.

I can see the attractions of living in Israel rather than Manchester even as an Anglican!

[irene lancaster]

Dear Alan

Thank you very much for your kind words about Israel. May I assure you that many wonderful Anglicans live in Israel and contribute to the inter-religious debate there, as do Christians of every other denomination, Muslims, Buddhists, Bahais (see Ruth's blog on that subject), atheists and agnostics.

You and fellow bloggers will be very welcome to visit me when I emigrate to Haifa, home of the Bahai faith, in August, as I am one of the five choir members I mentioned in the previous blog.

Although I am overjoyed to be in the very lucky position of being able to emigrate to a country which is truly inclusive religiously and in which Jews are not treated as a pariah, may I add that Manchester has nothing to do with why we are all emigrating.

Manchester is a glorious city with a fine history and wonderful surrounding countryside. It is the place which welcomed my Holocaust-survivor parents, who met here after the war, after most of their families were slaughtered in Poland.

I for one love the English temperate climate, the food, and the many many friends, students and colleagues (especially the many Anglicans whom it has been my privilege to teach at university and their own training colleges, as well as in churches for 30 years),and others of all religions and none who I hope will visit me there in Einstein St, near the Bahai Temple and Gardens and also in the proximity of two first-class universities and the wonderful sea.

However, there are factors in the UK which are most disturbing to the tiny Jewish community which still remains here, and which have recently been highlighted on Ruth's blog by the Chief Rabbi.

For instance, has it occurred to you that I appear to be one of the very few members of this community who dares to publicise our views on this blog? I mean, really, Jews are not known for their reticence! Why not contribute more fully to this blog? Let me give you some possible reasons: fear of 'putting your head over the parapet'; someone has to do it; I know that I am going; and most important of all, very brave journalists who are not Jewish have tried to highlight the situation for the Jews in this country and have then received abusive e-mails as a response, which they have sent to me.

I for one just could not sit idly by and let them have to take this without comment.

So, as I said, it is sad that so many are leaving Manchester and other places, because diaspora has been part of Jewish life since the Babylonian exile or even before and it also happens to be the 350th anniversary of Jewish resettlement here under Cromwell. But the UK is becoming exceedingly uncomfortable for many members of the Jewish community and for some, the usual self-deprecating shrugs and humour are no longer enough. We do have a homeland, even if tiny and despised. But this has always been the fate of the Jewish people, to be tiny and despised. It is truly wonderful for me to realise that soon I shall be living on Elijah's Mount Carmel, the home of the 'still, small voice' of reason, despite all the difficulties and drawbacks that will undoubtedly be part of the experience.

And I would like to say that I think that Ruth is one of the very few 'angels' who has seen the situation for what it is. I wish her all the best for her forthcoming marriage and hope to continue contributing to her blog, even when living in Israel.

[Stephen Taylor]

A fundamental weakness of ECUSA’s rhetoric is that it avoids referring to the core of the matter, i.e. sex, the sexual act, the physical coupling of two persons of the same sex. It is the sexual act, the sexual conjoining of two persons of the same sex, and NOT their mental, philosophical or spiritual union, that is contrary to God and nature. It is the moral and biblical legitimacy of the homossexual sexual act that needs to be debated and, by those who hide behind euphemisms, openly defined.

A posting on this blog by John McIlray, Saturday 25th March 2006, criticizes the Church of Rome for its dishonesty, as he sees it, by not blessing homosexual bishops with ecclesiastical legitimacy. His reasoning is somewhat weak. Whether a bishop be a declared or undeclared homosexual is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Church of Rome, by NOT giving such blessing and by adhering to the teaching of the Holy Bible, teaches that ordaining a homosexual is a sin, while ECUSA teaches, contrary to the Holy Bible, that it is not. ECUSA distorts and manipulates by preaching that social norms are one and the same as biblical norms. They are NOT.

I agree with John McIlray’s sentiment “I find the honesty and frankness of many of us...”, however, he and ECUSA need to understand that this honesty in revealing a sexual preference or any other state of sin, in no way lends moral or biblical legitimacy to that state.

[Alan Marsh]

Irene, I wish you well in Israel and rather envy you the prospect of living in close proximity to so many of the places we both hold in awe as sites well known to us in the scriptures.

I must add that hostility to Jews, deeply deplorable and offensive, is increasingly also a shared phenomenon for Christians in the UK. Not only the offensive and ignorant sniping of secularists, but violent attacks upon our clergy, identifiable by their "uniform" and by the places where they live and work.

I suspect that it is not so much deliberate anti-semitism which you are reflecting in your postings (the present generation is so secularised that I doubt whether it is capable of making the identification) as generalised hostility and violence towards religion, accelerated by public anger in response to 9/11 and 7/7.

All the more important, therefore, for us all to be seen to engage in dialogue with all faiths, so as to ensure that the principal message of peace is heard above the ravings of the fundamentalists.

Pax tibi.

[Este Macgregor]

I feel very sad that Dr. Irene Lancaster is leaving although given the current anti semitic climate in many parts of the media and Church I can understand why. I have really appreciated her important and honest contribution to these debates. God bless her.

[Keith Downer]

I applaud Stephen Taylor for the concise, direct and unambiguous analysis he has provided where homosexuality and the position ECUSA has taken are concerned. No decent, fair-minded person has any concerns about the "mental, philosophical or spiritual union" of people of the same sex. What unquestionably raises serious doubts and concerns is when that union involves sexual acts.
Why people of the same sex find themselves in a sexual relationship is confusing and at the present time, there is no clear explanation that can contribute to a definitive determination on what the attitude of society and the Christian church should be. Obviously, unless the law has been broken, there should be no persecution or prosecution and homosexuals should be treated with love and respect, especially those in long-term caring relationships.
God created men and women in a certain way and it is only through their union that His creation can continue. Same-sex relationships cannot fulfil this objective and are therefore it is reasonable to assume that they are not natural, not what God intended. In time - if scientific or other means of research and investigation removes the confusion regarding homosexuality - this assumption may be shown to be incorrect but given the situation as we understand it today, there is no justification for any misinterpretation or manipulation of Christian teaching by ECUSA. Society and the Church cannot formalise homosexual relationships or elevate people who practice homosexuality into positions of authority.

[Chris Sugden]

Charles Hohenstein (comment Tuesday 28 March 1.25) asks where a full text of the Bishop of Exeter's speech can be found: here - www.anglican-mainstream.net

[Frank Salmon]

Following the logic of Keith Downer (Weds. 29 March 2006) if 'the Church' cannot elevate those who practice any 'sin' (Mr Downey listed homosexuality as the only 'sin' that would disbar one from elevation) into positions of authority, then the Church should get out of the elevation business entirely, because all are sinners. Personally, I would rather as a first step that the Church of England 'elevate' people who are honest about themselves rather than dishonest. See http://www.snapnetwork.org/snap_statements/2006_statements/allegations_against_bishops.htm ), regarding factors that have already cost the US Catholic Church a billion dollars in abuse suits.

[Frank Salmon]

Mr. Downer, I find it somewhat comical to think that God's creation can only continue through the sexual union of male & female (Downer: 'God created men and women in a certain way and it is only through their union that His creation can continue'.) After all, if God is omniscient and omnipotent, God's creation is hardly inhibited by whatever we poor mortals do or do not do. So why are we trying to control Her?

[bananabrain]

i maintain that the point of interfaith dialogue is to build relationships. what one then does with those relationships is a different matter. what i have observed from my eleven years in this field is that it is not practical to expect everyone to talk to everyone all the time about everything. we cannot necessarily expect muslims who consider homosexuality "evil" to talk to christians who have rejected this idea. likewise, it is unreasonable to expect ultra-orthodox jews to engage in dialogue with ultra-liberal christians on the subject of, say, settlement in the west bank. what i learn from this is the need for internal as well as external dialogue. it is always possible to ignore a voice from the outside, but much harder to do so when the challenge is coming from inside one's own camp. thus, as a traditional jew, i can't expect to engage with a fundamentalist wahhabi - but i can engage with someone less closed-minded, who can engage on my behalf. the idea is to humanise and personalise the "other" - seeing people as part of a labelled and homogeneous group is the first step to removing their humanity. thus, when i see comments talking about "christians", or "muslims" or "jews" or whoever, i can't help thinking that the commenter is building windmills to tilt at...

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Stephen Taylor]

Mr. Salmon - I think you will find that Mr. Downer is basing his definitions on the teaching of the Holy Bible. It should give you a little bit of insight into God's thinking, if you take some time out to read It. Check out the colourful bit on Sodom & Gomorrah - hence the English word "Sodomy", with all its implications.

[Keith Downer]

I have read and re-read my contribution to this debate several times and nowhere do I find any mention of "sin" in any context; neither can I find any suggestion that homosexuality is the "only" condition which would bar someone from being elevated to a position of authority. I recognise that there are several characteristics or conditions that could be considered sufficiently disturbing to prevent someone occupying a position of authority at the present time, homosexuality being just one. Any debate involving the meaning, definition and implications of sin is for another time.
Although, as Frank Salmon pointed out, we are all sinners and part of the responsibility incumbent upon our leaders in the Church is to consider and determine who - amongst us sinners - is suitable to occupy positions of authority. It is the very result of these determinations in relation to homosexuals - made by leaders in ECUSA on one hand and opposed by the leaders in the rest of the Anglican communion on the other - that is the subject of the current controversial debate.
I must confess to some bewilderment where Mr Salmon's second posting is concerned. God is certainly omniscient and omnipotent. He created men and women and I readily acknowledge that if He chose to do so - as in the birth of Jesus Christ - the involvement of both a man and a woman is not a necessity.
Is it a serious suggestion that God might enable a man in exclusive sexual union with another man - or a woman with another woman - to produce children or that we will start to see human hermaphroditic conceptions where only one person is involved? Are we to consider conception in a Petri dish or surrogating as an acceptable manipulation of God's original design - so same-sex couples have some involvement in the continuance of humanity?
Since there is no scriptural authority to indicate that God might intervene with an alternative to continuing His creation other than through the involvement or union of a man and a woman, unless someone can come up with more conclusive reasoning, I stand by the comments in my original posting - comfortable and content that at least they gave Mr Salmon something "comical to think" about in the midst of this serious debate.

[Stephen Taylor]

Mr. Salmon – I was not aware that the Church was in business (in your contribution of 29th March, you refer to “the elevation business”, which I thought was more the domain of conjurers and the airlines). But with slight cerebral strain, I do see what you are trying to say. Your logic, followed to its simplistic conclusion, would have the Church hierarchy follow degrees of honesty, with an Archbishop being more honest than a Bishop, who in turn would be more honest than a Dean, and so on. An interesting scenario and one which would open a complicated, but interesting debate, namely, how to define “honesty”. Fortunately, we do have help here, in the form of God’s Word, conveniently presented to us in written form in the Holy Bible, which I have previously suggested that you read. Any member of mankind promoted or “elevated” to lead, in whatever walk of life, needs to know all the “rules” of and be a role model within the parameters of that particular walk of life. In the Christian context, or more specifically, that of the Anglican Church, we are fortunate, for, as alluded to above, we have the Holy Bible which contains “our rules” and parameters, including those pertaining to honesty, morality and social norms, as the latter should be, even if in modern society they are not. Based on this, ECUSA’s “elevation” of homosexual or even alcoholic clergy, would seem to be contrary to what you are maintaining. It is patently dishonest to “elevate” to a position of being one of Christ’s earthly representatives anyone simply because he/she is “honest” enough to admit his/her sin. As you concede, “all are sinners” . ALL who go to church are honest, within your definition of the word, for each, by his/her presence in God’s house, is admitting his/her particular state of sin before God. What would make the ordination of a homosexual “more honest”, if there can be such a thing as degrees of honesty, would be if an openly-declared homosexual ordained, let us say, as a Bishop, were then to acknowledge to his pastoral flock his/her homosexuality as a sin against God and nature and help others not to stray as he/she has done. This might be an “honest” context for the ordination of a homosexual. Regrettably, this is not the case, as homosexuality is being actively and aggressively encouraged, in such a way that ECUSA is in the dubious position of promoting not only a schism within our Church, but of promoting sin itself.

[Frank Salmon]

Thanks to other contributors to this 'blog.'
Mr. Downer's anthropocentric view that the purpose of God's creation was related centrally to mankind is a perfect example of the traditional male-dominated view of 'God and His' creation. Given science's propensity for achieving the unexpected it is not inconceivable that conception might even occur where no person is sexually involved. Bur this is digression from the topic.
BACK TO THE ISSUE, which I believe is C of E REACTION to whatever happens in the Anglican diaspora in the USA, Canada, and South Africa. Most of the elderly, who constitute the majority of C of E pewsitters, are not particularly concerned about the issue and couldn't care less if so-called evangelicals want to ride whatever the currently fashionable sexually-obsessive hobby horse of moral rectitude might be. The elderly just want to maintain the social traditions and stability the institutional 'Church' provides their lives. They've turned a blind eye to 'naughty' clerical reprobates for millenia, and have no need of change.
However, the world outside this cosy little bubble has begun to intrude: there, double standards (i.e. tacit perpetuation of closeted clergy, bishops, etc.) are now seen as the same sort of woeful dysfunctional dishonesty as that of political parties which would award peerages based not on merit but on a willingness to provide the political parties secretive loans.

[Frank Salmon]

Mr Taylor fails to see that it is courageous individuals within ECUSA who are challenging other Christians to realize that homophobia rather than homosexuality is a sin, and that homosexuality and homosociality are in fact gifts of God. Furthermore these individuals have also challenged the traditional C of E/Catholic (“Don’t ask – don’t tell” ) policy.

[Keith Downer]

I would be more inclined to spend further time considering that homosexuality might by a gift from God if, for example, it become apparent that a genuine, genetically influenced physical basis exists for homosexual tendencies - a basis that might even require a new classification of gender.
With the information currently available however, I think it more likely that homosexual curiosity is part of a natural process that can occur during puberty but which is sometimes amplified and imprinted into a behavioural pattern by social and environmental factors where - for some reason - alternative heterosexual influences are diminished or excluded altogether, (the public boarding school comes to mind).
As I have readily admitted in previous contributions, we don't understand why some people are exclusively and sexually attracted to members of the same sex. While this uncertainty exists, we should be aware that the majority of people do feel confused and uncomfortable with the suggestion of sexual activity between same-sex partners and maintain a policy which accepts and loves homosexuals but does not formalise their relationships.

[Stephen Taylor]

Ref. Mr Frank Salmon’s comments of Sunday, 02 April 2006, it is clear that Mr. Salmon continues to miss or deliberately avoid the point. He needs to read and understand the Bible. This is absolutely not an issue of homophobia or homosexuality per se. It is about what the Holy Bible, the foundation stone of our Anglican Church, has to say on the matter. Mr. Salmon talks of courage, but the courage he mentions has nothing to do with Christian courage, which would entail following, preaching and defending the teachings of the Bible, in defiance of the likes of ECUSA’s and all its financially-dependent and thus weak-kneed satellites’ [such as the Province of Brazil (excluding the Diocese of Recife)] hypocritical attempts at using what is socially acceptable as a smokescreen for lulling the unsuspecting and/or ill-informed into believing it is the Bible’s message, and thus creating a serious schism in the Anglican Church, while deliberately and aggressively promoting sin and hypocrisy.

Much of ECUSA’s very tenuous argument rests the issue of how to translate the two original Greek words "arsenokoi" and "malakos". The New Testament Greek Lexicon, as based on Thayer`s and Smith`s Bible dictionary, which in turn is linked to Kittel and the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, and the NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries, determine the meaning of "arsenokoitηs" to be “one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual”. I find it most interesting to note that the doubts as to the validity of centuries of erudite and consistent translation coincide with the last 30 years or so of the homosexual “revolution” driven by social whims.

[Stephen Taylor]

Ref. Mr Frank Salmon’s comments of Sunday, 02 April 2006, it is clear that Mr. Salmon continues to miss or avoid the point. He needs to read and understand the Bible. This is absolutely not an issue of homophobia or homosexuality per se. It is about what the Holy Bible, the foundation stone of our Anglican Church, has to say on the matter. Mr. Salmon talks of courage, but the courage he mentions has nothing to do with Christian courage, which would entail following, preaching and defending the teachings of the Bible, despite the likes of ECUSA’s and all its financially-dependent and, as a consequence, weak-kneed satellites’ [such as the Province of Brazil (excluding the Diocese of Recife)] attempts at using what is socially acceptable as a smokescreen for lulling the unsuspecting and/or ill-informed into believing it is the Bible’s message, and thus, while deliberately and aggressively promoting sin, creating a serious schism in the Anglican Church.

ECUSA’s argument, being based on no more than confusing what is acceptable in modern society’s terms with what is acceptable in biblical terms and on the semantics of the Greek words "arsenokoi" and "malakos", is tenuous indeed. The New Testament Greek Lexicon, as based on Thayer`s and Smith`s Bible dictionary, which in turn is linked to Kittel and the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, and the NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries, determine the meaning of "arsenokoitηs" to be “one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual”. It is most interesting to note that the doubts as to the validity of centuries of erudite and consistent translation of these two words coincide with the last 30 years or so of the homosexual “revolution” driven by modern, permissive society’s whims.

[Richard Haggis]

I seem to be a bit behind the times, but if it's worth anything, I have been wondering what "communion" actually means. ECUSA has women bishops, and many Anglicans throughout the world are not in communion with women bishops. We have similar diversity over here. The Archbishop of Nigeria and many like him are not in communion with gay Anglicans anywhere. For decades, Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals have avoided communion with each other. Does "Anglican Communion" actually mean anything at all? The only test of communion I can think of is who we share the Lord's Supper with. Jesus shared it with Peter, Thomas and Judas, so anyone who wants to operate a veto on the guestlist had better have a good case or they may find themselves dining alone.

[Otis Page]

Sin must be understood in the context of the instruction provided in 1John 1:5-10.

To hate the sin and love the sinner does not dismiss the obligation to confess and repent of sin either by the sinner or the Christian observing the sin in another.

Homosexuals will not admit their sexual practices (gay, lesbian and bisexual) are sinful. They even believe their promiscuous sexual practices are not sinful -- such as bisexuality which by definition is a promiscuous activity.

So, even though we appear to love the sinner, this attitude does not apply to sinners who deny their sin is sinful!
For to do so, one crosses the line in expressing love to condoning evil and, thereby, making Christ a liar. (1John 1:10)

Anglicans everywhere should understand Scripture's lessons on the doctrine of sin as a part of being guided by the BCP.

[Frank Salmon]

Otis, the Bible, disparate writings collected for the first time by Pope Jerome, is not a rule book. If it were, many things you do today are in serious contradiction of the Levitical laws it quotes. For example, if you had an infection or boil did you observe the following?

'The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying:

2 When a person has on the skin of his body a swelling or an eruption or a spot, and it turns into a leprous* disease on the skin of his body, he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests. 3The priest shall examine the disease on the skin of his body, and if the hair in the diseased area has turned white and the disease appears to be deeper than the skin of his body, it is a leprous* disease; after the priest has examined him he shall pronounce him ceremonially unclean. 4But if the spot is white in the skin of his body, and appears no deeper than the skin, and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest shall confine the diseased person for seven days. 5The priest shall examine him on the seventh day, and if he sees that the disease is checked and the disease has not spread in the skin, then the priest shall confine him for seven days more. 6The priest shall examine him again on the seventh day, and if the disease has abated and the disease has not spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only an eruption; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. 7But if the eruption spreads in the skin after he has shown himself to the priest for his cleansing, he shall appear again before the priest. 8The priest shall make an examination, and if the eruption has spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a leprous* disease.' [Leviticus 13)

[Irene Lancaster]

If you read the Bible and especially bits like the one from Leviticus, not in its original Hebrew and without commentaries, yes it sounds like gobbeldygook and so do the Hindu scriptures in English and others that I daren't name in case I am accused of racism (yes although the Jewish community is protected by law from racism, that is interpreted as being racism from nasty right-wing types and not from nice trendy lefties and others who tend to dominate the media).

And yet, it is only the 'Old Testament' that comes in for such ridicule and bashing.

In order to understand the Hebrew Bible, as we call it, you have to read it in Hebrew with rabbinic commentaries and even then there is discussion and argument between experts about what passages really mean.

Very few people learn languages in the UK to advanced level any more and very few indeed learn Hebrew at training colleges for clergy, so understanding of the Hebrew Bible is at an all-time low. Believe me when I say, therefore, that it is impossible to understand Leviticus or any other biblical book properly if you don't have the proper tools. Just as, if you were not a surgeon, I would rather you did not operate on me.

Actually, the first and only time in my life that my husband visited a Church, the inspirational vicar asked him to give the sermon, which he did in the end. And yes, as a psychologist trained in understanding psycho-somatic diseases like the leprosy as described in that biblical passage, which happened to be the reading for the biblical reading for that Sunday, my husband completely wooed the congregation of that ancient, pre-Norman church, most of whom were, like us, on holiday in beautiful South Pembrokeshire.

I asked the vicar (who looked like a Druid) what he would have done if the sermon had been dreadful and he said that he was inspired by God to ask my husband (an Orthodox Jew) to give the sermon and it had 'all gone right on the night'.

As for me, I teach Hebrew all the time to vicars and lay Christians in my area, and they have all said that this has revolutionized their attitude to biblical passages such as the one in Leviticus.

By the way, Jerome's Hebrew was appallingly bad because the Church Fathers had passed a law at the time prohibiting intermingling between Jews and Christians on pain of death.

And his legacy has therefore been not translation, but misinterpretation.

Any takers for Hebrew lessons out there?