Anglicans: an ABC of schism

Rowan Williams has at last issued his letter to the primates in the wake of The Episcopal Church general convention, as TimesOnline reports on its front page. Never again can anyone accuse him of failing to give leadership, or of not speaking plainly. Read the six-page commination for yourself or listen to the audio. We expected the letter a few days ago but the delay, sources tell me, was due to the Archbishop working hard to get it exactly right. No lawyers were involved, Lambeth Palace is keen to reassure me. The issues of property and money that will arise from this are not even mentioned in passing in the letter. But what will happen to the US funding that keeps the Anglican Communion office afloat, or to all those fantastically valuable properties and portfolios in the hands of the Episcopal Church, is anybody's guess. Lawyers in the US might not have been involved, but they will get rich out of this as the Anglican Church gets poorer, I prophesy. But as Rowan Williams points out, and as I've always known in any case, "The nature of prophetic action is that you do not have a cast-iron guarantee that you’re right." I like this picture of our Archbishop because, instead of showing him looking troubled, as we in the msm normally seem to do, it shows him looking the fearless man of faith we actually know him to be. It was taken on Saturday at the St Alban's festival, where he joined 3000 pilgrims paying tribute to the first British martyr, beheaded for his faith. Someone he must identify with at this present time but who's the lion, the Global South or TEC? Any revelations?

The letter has made the splash in Wednesay's paper and we are also running a leader. Compare and contrast with Jonathan and the fried-egg analogy of Telegraph leader, a bit scrambled compared to our own thoughtful and considered offering, and Stephen.

The thrust of the letter, an intense and passionate theological teaching document for any who are prepared to listen, seems to be that episcopalians in the US and anywhere else who are unwilling to sign up to a covenant setting out Anglicanism in its orthodox and traditional, biblical form will be consigned to "associate" status. They will no longer be full Anglicans. Instead, their relationship to Canterbury and the rest will be comparable to that of the Methodists. Ironically, this comes just as the Methodist church is moving closer to full unity with the Anglicans. So will the Anglican Communion lose The Episcopal Church and its allies just as it consecrates women bishops, and the Methodists in this country consecrate bishops, enabling them all to re-unite? And if the Methodists and Anglicans rejoin, will that include the US Methodists? Goodbye TEC, hello Methodists. "Your pain is my gain," as they say.

The Archbishop says: "What is the current tension in the Anglican Communion actually about? Plenty of people are confident that they know the answer. It’s about gay bishops, or possibly women bishops. The American Church is in favour and others are against and the Church of England is not sure (as usual)." Brave man, keeping his sense of humour intact at a time such as this. As one blogger puts it: "The Africans pray, the Americans pay and the British get to write the resolutions."

The Archbishop continues: "Unless you think that social and legal considerations should be allowed to resolve religious disputes which is a highly risky assumption if you also believe in real freedom of opinion in a diverse society there has to be a recognition that religious bodies have to deal with the question in their own terms. Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching. And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about ‘inclusion’, this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures."

It is all incredibly complex, and I tried to explain some of the background canonical context on an earlier blog. Not surprisingly, the American  Anglican Council has applauded the letter.

The Archbishop says: "What most Anglicans worldwide have said is that it doesn’t help to behave as if the matter had been resolved when in fact it hasn’t. It is true that, in spite of resolutions and declarations of intent, the process of ‘listening to the experience’ of homosexual people hasn’t advanced very far in most of our churches, and that discussion remains at a very basic level for many. But the decision of the Episcopal Church to elect a practising gay man as a bishop was taken without even the American church itself (which has had quite a bit of discussion of the matter) having formally decided as a local Church what it thinks about blessing same-sex partnerships."

In reference to comparisons with Ecusa going ahead with women priests and bishops, here is where he really raps TEC on the knuckles: "But (as has often been forgotten) the Lambeth Conference did resolve that for the time being those churches that did ordain women as priests and bishops and those that did not had an equal place within the Anglican spectrum. Women bishops attended the last Lambeth Conference. There is a fairly general (though not universal) recognition that differences about this can still be understood within the spectrum of manageable diversity about what the Bible and the tradition make possible. On the issue of practising gay bishops, there has been no such agreement, and it is not unreasonable to seek for a very much wider and deeper consensus before any change is in view, let alone foreclosing the debate by ordaining someone, whatever his personal merits, who was in a practising gay partnership."

He spells out the nature of the respect that should have been accorded: "Institutionally speaking, the Communion is an association of local churches, not a single organisation with a controlling bureaucracy and a universal system of law. So everything depends on what have generally been unspoken conventions of mutual respect. Where these are felt to have been ignored, it is not surprising that deep division results, with the politicisation of a theological dispute taking the place of reasoned reflection."

And just in case TEC still hasn't got the message, he hammers it home a bit more. "Thus if other churches have said, in the wake of the events of 2003 that they cannot remain fully in communion with the American Church, this should not be automatically seen as some kind of blind bigotry against gay people. Where such bigotry does show itself it needs to be made clear that it is unacceptable; and if this is not clear, it is not at all surprising if the whole question is reduced in the eyes of many to a struggle between justice and violent prejudice. It is saying that, whatever the presenting issue, no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions – and sacramental actions in particular - just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches. It isn’t a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences – and that actions believed in good faith to be ‘prophetic’ in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences."

I am sure the Archbishop does not need me to tell him however that TEC is not totally inclusive to everyone. This is just one of the resolutions rejected by the General Convention. On another one, the first half stating that the Bible is at the centre of Anglican life also failed, although the second part, affirming the authority of a triune God, was passed. And still there are some out there who imagine that TEC might sign up to a covenant? Some bishops even dissented from the final, desperate attempt by Frank Griswold to get something, anything, through that would appear to comply with Windsor and save the Archbishop of Canterbury from having to do precisely what he has done in this letter.

Perhaps this helps explain why the simple solution, of dissolving boundaries so that every church could do what it thinks right, is not an option. This would only reduce serious division to the local level, and who would the poor parishioner in the pew appeal to then?

Anglicanism, as he says, is neither a tightly centralised body nor a loose federation. "We have tried to be a family of Churches willing to learn from each other across cultural divides, not assuming that European (or American or African) wisdom is what settles everything, opening up the lives of Christians here to the realities of Christian experience elsewhere," he says. "But what our Communion lacks is a set of adequately developed structures which is able to cope with the diversity of views that will inevitably arise in a world of rapid global communication and huge cultural variety. The tacit conventions between us need spelling out – not for the sake of some central mechanism of control but so that we have ways of being sure we’re still talking the same language, aware of belonging to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ. It is becoming urgent to work at what adequate structures for decision-making might look like. We need ways of translating this underlying sacramental communion into a more effective institutional reality, so that we don’t compromise or embarrass each other in ways that get in the way of our local and our universal mission, but learn how to share responsibility."

He believes the idea of the Anglican Covenant, proposed in the Windsor report, is the best way forward. "It is necessarily an ‘opt-in’ matter. Those Churches that were prepared to take this on as an expression of their responsibility to each other would limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness; and some might not be willing to do this. We could arrive at a situation where there were ‘constituent’ Churches in covenant in the Anglican Communion and other ‘churches in association’, which were still bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources, but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion, and not sharing the same constitutional structures. The relation would not be unlike that between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, for example. The ‘associated’ Churches would have no direct part in the decision making of the ‘constituent’ Churches, though they might well be observers whose views were sought or whose expertise was shared from time to time, and with whom significant areas of co-operation might be possible."

Many immediate unanswered question come to mind. What happens to the Network in the US, the orthodox in liberal provinces and the liberal in orthodox provinces. Where will the Scottish Episcopal Church go? Or New Zealand, or Canada? If boundaries are not going to be dissolved, as the Archbishop states, this could all present a bit of a problem for, say, the supporters of Jeffrey John in the CofE. They might not be too happy themselves to remain in a TEC-less church. Would there be a mechanism for them to align themselves elsewhere? Will parishes be able to dissent from the covenant, will it be done by two-thirds majority and what will happen to the minority who disagree? Are we talking tyranny by democracy or authority by ecclesiology? The Confessing Reader has attempted to answer some of these. (Interestingly, The Episcopal Church is effectively a creature of the Scottish Episcpal Church, not the Church of England. The online encyclopaedia Answers.Com tells me: "The Episcopal Church was formally separated from the Church of England in 1789 so that clergy would not be required to accept the supremacy of the British Monarch. When the clergy of Connecticut elected Samuel Seabury as their bishop, he sought consecration in England. The Oath of Supremacy proved too difficult a problem, so he went to Scotland; the non-juring Scottish bishops there consecrated him in Aberdeen on Nov 14, 1784, making him the first Episcopal bishop outside the British Isles. The American bishops thus descend in the Apostolic Succession through the non-juring bishops of Scotland, and to this day the nine crosses which symbolize ECUSA's nine original dioceses in its arms form a Saint Andrew's Cross, commemorating the Scottish link.)

It will all be fought over at the next Lambeth Conference. I would guess, from this, that everyone, possibly even Gene Robinson and his consecrators, will be invited, because they will all be entitled to have a place at the table of argument over this. But first it will be discussed by the Primates'  standing committee, and then the Primates themselves next February. Read Thinking Anglicans and Anglican Mainstream for more links and debate. And for those who dispute the theological quality of Dr Williams' response, Irene Lancaster has explained for us the biblical precedent for a binding covenant on a people. As America wakes up, reaction is coming in fast, as Kendall on TitusOneNine shows us.

Oh what a lot of fun and hard work, ecstasy and agony, lies ahead for the likes of me, Jonathan and Stephen. Just some of the issues confronting those of us who blog as well as report in these increasingly tense times have been raised by Terry Mattingly for Scripps Howard. Thank goodness I've got most of August off to get ready. And as for my church in Kew, what are we? We are most definitely Anglican, thank you very much. And we are most liberally high and catholic too, and will remain so even in the event that we vote to get rid of our resolution A. To missquote Alexander Pope: "We are Her Majesty's church at Kew. Pray tell me sir, whose church are you?"

Comments

[Alistair McBay]

Anne, remind me, what is the Tenth Commandment?

And what about all the peaceloving Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc in thw rold. How do they get by without ever having seen the TCs?

[Anne Lee]

I intend to remain with the traditional form of my religion. I do so, having witnessed firsthand the day to day management of the cultlike environment which surrounds the gay community. I have witnessed so many young people being drawn into this community not by some genetic code, but rather by the skillful management of rhetoric.

Secondly, I am disgusted and terrified by the tactics I have witnessed in my own diocese. Any strategy, any act committed by the leadership,was morally acceptable as long as it removed from the pews any and all parishoners, who did not accept the new liberal theology. Threats, shunning by priests, manipulation of meetings, mis-representation of intention,and facts, were all actions considered deserving of a "well done" by the new feminist/lesbian leadership in my diocese. I choose to remain true to the Anglican tradition, not because I am homophobic, but rather because I have witnessed the true reality of what happens when we abandon the Ten Commandments for a philosophy of Relative Ethics--it is a terrifying step toward Fascism.

[Alistair McBay]

"...what we know about God (from further revelation)".

What, James, like the one to Mohammed (PBUH), where God, thru Gabriel, said the Christians and Jews had it all wrong, because there is no trinity, Jesus wasn't divine and didn't die on the cross, and thus wasn't resurrected? And, indeed, that he won't be coming back?

Just think, James - that is what you woould now passionately believe and argue for had you been born to Muslim parents and grown up in a Muslim setting.

Or is it simply that you are content to play good ol' Revelation Pick 'n' Mix when it suits the line of your argument?

[James]

"You won't admit it, but Dawkins has studied these thing and you haven't."

---No, actually that is not true Christopher.

"You would LIKE Genesis to be true and ergo! it IS true."

--- NO - things don't become true because one wants them to be. (You know - things like: not wanting to believe God exists...) I was just pointing out that Genesis corresponds in a deep way to what we know about science (the creation of the universe), and to what we know about ourselves - and to what we know about God (from further revelation).

"That's just childish and your answer on Dawkins just petulant."

---No, Christopher. Dawkins looks at our amazingly put together universe, and at the miracle of life, and forces himself to see no design. The opposite is actually true - there is abundant and overwhelming evidence of design.

---As for being childish and petulant, Christopher, I will look to you for guidance on how not to be.

James

[James]

"Why can't you accept that Genesis is a POETIC evocation..."

---

I do accept that, Christopher. But it is a poetic evocation (actually, a deep poetic parable) that contains great truth about us, about good and evil, about the creation of the universe, about human pride, about male and female, about God, etc. etc. And it corresponds in a deep way to science, to what we know about ourselves, and to what was later revealed about God.

James

[Alistair McBay]

As Tom Harpur said in a column in the Toronto Star last year (entitled "Creationist arguments are damaging to Christianity") :

"Looking in the Bible for a scientific account of origins is like looking in the phone directory for a recipe for angel cake."

No doubt James will tell us next which Yellow Page we'll find the recipe on!

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

Ive just seen this exchange between Christopher and James, and have to say that the Jewish view of Genesis, based on knowledge of the original Hebrew, plus commentaries, would also accept scientific progress and certainly does not, for instance, take the idea of 7 days literally.

This is why successive Chief Rabbis, for instance, have been keen on scientific research, planetary exploration etc. And why those who redacted the Talmud (the rabbinic commentary on the Bible and midrash) stated that whenever science and medical opinion contradicted the words of 'the sages', science and medicine should be followed.

And this was in the 7th and 8th centuries in Babylon, i.e. Iraq.

This is all in my book, Deconstructing the Bible, by the way.

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com

[Christopher]

No James, you've got it wrong. Just a couple of examples taken from the two conflicting accounts in Genesis - First Account: Genesis 1:25-2 says humans were created AFTER the other animals: "And God made the beasts of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image."

Meanwhile in the Second Account: Genesis 2:18-19 humans were created BEFORE the animals: "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

The creation account in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite.

You won't admit it, but Dawkins has studied these thing and you haven't. You would LIKE Genesis to be true and ergo! it IS true. That's just childish and your answer on Dawkins just petulant.

As an admirer of Catholicism you don't seem to have understood at all that the Catholic Church accepts evolutionary theory and is against fundamentalist creationism. Why can't you accept that Genesis is a POETIC evocation from the viewpoint of the pre-scientific mind when even the Pope can? Or, as usual, James, you know better than your religious leaders, let alone world-respected authorities in the field. Man, you are showing yourself an ass...(I mean that in the English sense, of course!)

[Alistair McBay]

James, promise me you will try to get in the Big Brother house next time around?

It would be the first time ever that I would actually watch a BB show, and I would be breaking a strict personal code of dignity to do so, but it would be well worth watching!

Best wishes

[James]

A quote from Richard Dawkins:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

---

I am pitilessly indifferent to this (which would make Dawkins happy, right?)

James

[Alistair McBay]

"The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution."

James, can you tell me then at which point in the biblical creation story God made the fossils, and why?

And can you also tell me how Noah got two of every dinosaur in the ark?

[James]

"Why should I believe the biblical account of creation, as opposed to the Hindu one, or the ancient Egyptian or Greek one? Or, indeed, any one of the countless creationism myths threough time and cultures? "

---

Sure, Alistair. I'll be happy to answer that. Here's why:

The account of Genesis accords with what we know from science - in the deepest way. The universe was created with great order (indeed almost infinite order) out of nothing - ex nihilo - which is what both science and Genesis tell us. Stars were formed and became illuminated with the fires of nuclear fusion (science); Genesis says - Let there be light. The animals and the plants and the things of the sea and the creepy-crawly things were formed prior to man. (Both science and Genesis.) Man was created - and unlike all the other living creatures - had a conscience - and knowledge of right and wrong - and a capacity to know God. (All things we know about ourselves.) Man had an inherent desire to ignore his conscience and to be drawn to evil and selfishness. (Again, something else we know about ourselves.) Man is capable of overcoming those selfish traits - with God's help. (Something else we know about ourselves...) Etc. etc. etc.

In short, Alistair, Genesis squares (in its parablic way) with both science and with what we know about ourselves (and about the nature of pride and good and evil).

Finally, Genesis assumes a Creator. Science is coming to show the same thing (entropy and fine-tuning studies of the universe, questions about evolution, the information content of DNA, etc. etc.).

None of the other creation accounts do all this.

James

[Christopher]

"The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. Our makeup does not support it. And of course, what we know about ourselves does not support it."

And what are your qualifications, James, to opine on the subject? A doctorate in a relevant biological science perhaps?

[Alistair McBay]

James

Why should I believe the biblical account of creation, as opposed to the Hindu one, or the ancient Egyptian or Greek one? Or, indeed, any one of the countless creationism myths threough time and cultures?

See for a good guide the A-Z of Creation Myths, by Professor David Leeming. But I warn you - in his Biography of Belief book, Leeming says: "Those who will cling steadfastly to the old stories, resisting changes in thinking, and insisting that their myths be taken literally, defying all logic and scientific progress, would be more comfortable steering clear of this one." I see you there, clinging steadfastly, James........!

[James]

"He does a little more than that, James, and I suggest that it would repay even someone of your intellectual powers to give him serious attention."

---

His primary thesis, Christopher, is that we are just freak random mutational accidents.

He goes to extraordinary lengths to try to convince people of that - yet without even addressing in a serious way certain of the scientific (not religious) disputes now swirling around the theory of evolution.

He is a storyteller - not a scientist (as, by the way, are all evolutionists).

The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. Our makeup does not support it. And of course, what we know about ourselves does not support it.

James

[Christopher]

"Isn't Dawkins the guy who runs around screaming that we are all freak random mutational accidents and nothing more?"

He does a little more than that, James, and I suggest that it would repay even someone of your intellectual powers to give him serious attention.

Richard Dawkins was educated at Oxford University and has taught zoology at the universities of California and Oxford.He is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. His books about evolution and science include The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, and most recently, Unweaving the Rainbow.

You can access his unofficial website at http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/index.shtml

Dawkins himself says of it "I have no official web site. John Catalano has an excellent unofficial one which does everything I could possibly do if I had a site of my own, and much more".

[James]

"Maybe we can ask Richard Dawkins to be Master Po......"

---

Isn't Dawkins the guy who runs around screaming that we are all freak random mutational accidents and nothing more?

James

[Alistair McBay]

James, if they ever remake Kung Fu, we need you to be the new Kwai Chang Caine so you can have a go at Master Po direct!
Maybe we can ask Richard Dawkins to be Master Po......

[James]

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."

---

In other words, to be wise you have to believe religion is false; to not be a dreaded 'common' person, you must not believe religion is true.

(Good heavens, we'd never want to be like the common Joe Schmo on-the-street, or like the washerwoman, or like the shepherd-on-the-hill. We're sooooooo much superior...)

I'd rather be a common person any day (and, well, truthfully, I think there's great wisdom in that).

James

[Alistair McBay]

James

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

Said by Seneca the Younger (though I'll remember a quote from Master Po in a minute)

[James]

"Atheist morality is not "whatever anyone feels like""

---

Yes, of course it is, Alistair. Who is forcing you to choose what you think is moral or not? It's purely your choice.

James

[James]

"Atheist morality is not "whatever anyone feels like" - it comes from shared human values, worked out together by human beings living together and making this world better for now, not on some vain hope there may be another one."

---

No, Alistair. Claiming that such makes the world "better" simply means you have a personal morality which defines what that 'better' is - but it is still just your personal preference. Stalin had an idea of what makes the world 'better' just as Napolean did, just as Lenin did, just as Neitzsche did, just as Hitler did, just as Elton John does (which includes making videos of boy scouts as objects of lust), etc. etc. etc. In short, it's meaningless. Morality just becomes whatever people want - for whatever reason.

What the Bible tells us - and it is abundantly true - is that when people get together to make a society based on whatever they want (instead of what God wants) - the society degrades into the celebration of coarseness, lust, perversion, abortion, infanticide, revenge, the lust for power, materialism, hedonism, etc. etc. etc.

All of Christian morality is based on agape love - wanting what is truly best for the other - where that best is to become a truly loving and unslelfish creatures (like Christ). You can reject that basis for morality if you want (as millions do) - but the consequences are always, but always, the same.

James

[Alistair McBay]

James

Atheist morality is not "whatever anyone feels like" - it comes from shared human values, worked out together by human beings living together and making this world better for now, not on some vain hope there may be another one. Thus humans were able to work out that slavery was wrong, even though the Bible (the source of your morality) says it's ok. Thus humans were also able to work out that abusing children sexually is wrong, another subject on which the Bible remains silent. You mustn't boil a kid in its mother's milk, though, I'll give that one to Biblical wisdom.

Incidentally, I read your desription of the third set of bloggers with some interest. You say:

"The third sort actually believes what that force from elsewhere says, and can see why what that force says is most truly loving, meaningful, beautiful, and right. The third sort also trusts that force with regard to what is required for eternal life in heaven, and the third sort actually finds a great joy in living life in the way prescribed by that force."

I know they don't blog here (but they might, who knows?) but nonetheless well done you for describing Bin Laden, Mohammed Atta et al.

[Keith Downer]

Even as a Christian, for many years I found it difficult to reconcile the Catholic practice of giving and receiving absolution. It appeared to be a means by which an individual could have their cake and eat it (to paraphrase another contributor).
One of the problems of believing in Christ is that you cannot divorce yourself from the realities of life and go and live on a cloud somewhere. Consequently - and realistically accepting that rarely does a faith bring automatic protection from temptation and immunisation from sin (unless you are the Pope or your name is James or course) - you have to realise that to varying degrees, you are going to do things that you know are wrong in God's eyes.
I believe that is where most Christians find themselves in their day to day lives. I ask for God's forgiveness regularly and in that sense, Catholic absolution is not really that different.
Realistically accepting the world we live in and the people we are is one of the few benefits of growing older. It allows us as Christians to recognise the flaws in ourselves and in the world, to treat subjects such as homosexuality and women priests with a degree of experience, a reflection of maturity which emanates from the faith and trust we have in God.
Referring to the people who contribute to this blog, it has been suggested that "There are three sorts of people here". Judging by the descriptions provided, thankfully, I think there are more than that.

[Brian]

Dear Ms. Glendhill,

If you think the Archbishop's statement really "raps TEC on the knuckles" then may I humbly suggest that you have a future writing UN Security Council resolutions..."If you (insert dictator's name) don't behave then we will really, really be mad at you - and we mean it, sort of..."

The Archbishop's suggestion of two levels of "communion" is as clear as mud. One is either in or out of communion.

The problem is that most modernist Anglican "believers" are prisoners of their own "inclusive" rhetoric. They are so inclusive that there cannot be any distinctions. But if there are no distinctions, then what distinguishes Anglicanism from the rest of Christianity?

Nice robes? Large, beautiful, but empty churches?

[James]

"Nersen, it is my job to give you that discerning mind!"

---

Dear Alistair,

What you do not understand is that billions upon billions on this earth honestly discern that God exists, and billions upon billions discern that Christ is of that God. I do. I am not an unintelligent person, as vast numbers of Christians are not. Indeed, all of Christianity is about deep truths which must be discerned - and which are not immediately apparent.

In one of the famous fairy tales, the prince disguises himself as a beggar, to see if the love of the maiden is true. Yet the maiden chooses him - as she is able to discern his true nature through the disguise.

Christians believe they see and discern something you don't - something which has been somewhat disguised (and for good reason). I'm sorry you don't, for what Christians discern is something very good, and very powerful, and very loving and very beautiful, and very, very meaningful.

That's why all the various freedoms you want and continue to demand (even though you have them already, man!) - to murder yourself, to murder unborn babies, to have sex with whomever or whatever, man, woman, beast or object, to adulter, to divorce, to ascribe no meaning or purpose to anything (sex, marriage, life, nature) - are completely unattractive to serious Christians. Those freedoms aren't worth more than a hill of beans compared to what they see.

And it's sad that you can't see what so many others do - for until and if you ever do, your cherished desires will rule you. (And Christopher, and Robin...)

James

[Alistair McBay]

"Alistair - why are you so bothered about what "religious" people, beliefs?"

Nersen, it is because people need to be dissuaded, deprogrammed even, from the dangerous frequently obnoxious drivel that constitutes organised religion, peddled in its extreme form by folk like you and James. The human race needs to be freed from the fear induced by being forced to believe as fact the myths, prejudices and superstitions of primitive tribespeople who thought the world was flat and that thunder and lightning were signs of a supernatural force being angry with them.

For as Master Po says:

"The undiscerning mind is like the root of a tree--it absorbs equally all that it touches--even the poison that would kill it."

Kung Fu: Episode 19

Nersen, it is my job to give you that discerning mind!

[James]

It's truly funny reading this blog.
There are three sorts of people here.

One sort wants to believe that we're all here by accident, that we have no particular purpose, and that morality is whatever anyone feels like (the atheists), and it disturbs them greatly that others believe real truth, and real morality, and real love, and real beauty, and real meaning, and order in our universe, and yes, the possibility of eternal life, come from elsewhere.

The second sort wants desperately to believe that it is under the rubric of that which comes from elsehwere - while having a self-indulgent personal morality (divorce, fornication, homosodomy, abortion, etc. etc.) are all super-de-duper) - and where sex, in particular, must be morally good, because it is what one wants. The second group wants its cake, and to eat it too. (No surprise there; humans have always been like that.)

The third sort actually believes what that force from elsewhere says, and can see why what that force says is most truly loving, meaningful, beautiful, and right. The third sort also trusts that force with regard to what is required for eternal life in heaven, and the third sort actually finds a great joy in living life in the way prescribed by that force.

Of course, the three sorts have existed from the beginning of humanity (indeed, such is described in the Bible from beginning to end).

And of course, one has the freedom to be in whichever group one wants. The Bible tells us why, and the Bible tells us what the consequences are as well of choosing which group.

All we have to do is decide which one we'll be in. And the only reason Christians could possibly care about groups I and II is because they are trying to love them (and are required to so do), but obviously, many in groups I and II don't want that love.

Same old, same old; same old, same old.

James

[alistair McBay]

Warner Brothers were the producers, as I recall. As many mutational accidents as brothers, I suppose.

There is even a lesson for Anglicans from Master Po:

"Accept the ways of others. Respect first your own."

Deep, huh?

[Keith Downer]

I give James 10 out of 10 for trying and leave it in God's hands whether he is "doing good and bearing Christ's light in this world". Personally, his manner and approach bear little relation to my understanding of how a Christian treats those whom God has created and his insistence on hijacking each and every debate with an onslaught of rhetoric has cast long shadows over the attempts of the more moderate Christians to participate.

[James]

"Religion is the crack alley of the intellect. People just go down it for comfort not understanding"

---

As St. Augustine said:

"Seek not to understand so that you will have faith; have faith so that you will understand."

James

[Nersen]

Alistair - why are you so bothered about what "religious" people, beliefs?

If I believed religion was made-up nonsense, I would spend my time on other things.

[James]

"Ah! Glasshoppah....! "

---

Now, I wonder what sort of freak random mutation could have caused this?

James

[Christopher]

Ken
I am sympathetic to your position. I too, had to leave the church to gain my self respect and integrity. Professor Peter Atkins said on the Today Programme on BBC4 yesterday, "Religion is the crack alley of the intellect. People just go down it for comfort not understanding". That is all very fine and dandy for people who think it gives them a hope or reason for living. Where I take issue is when religion demonises a sexual minority or treats women as less than equal to men, excoriates unbelievers with threats of hellfire or sometimes with physical harm, then I think it becomes something malignant. Religious people who want their comfort blanket should also be aware of the damaging effects that religious prejudice can have on other people's lives.

[Alistair McBay]

See, Ken? James and Nersen have all the answers, just like I said.

James is excelling himself, too, giving us a faux-pious quote from someone who apparently wrote with "the certainty and humility of a Christian mystic." Given James' obsession with sodomy, it's refreshing that he has given us a quote from "the Red Virgin".

It's a great quote too. It's just the sort of thing you can imaging that Master Po would say to the young Kwai Chang Caine!

Ah! Glasshoppah....!

And James (and Nersen) have a look at this link to get you foaming at the mouth:

http://www.tuc.org.uk/equality/tuc-12065-f0.cfm

[James]

"James hasn't posted in the last five minutes; do you think he is ok? Is he trying for the Guinness Book of Records or just something simple, like sainthood?"

---

C'mon, Keith. Christ calls us all to be saints - me, and you too. We each have our own gifts; we each can attain sainthood (and heaven) through the vastly different ways of doing good and bearing Christ's light in this world.

James

[James]

"I have decided that I can no longer consider myself a Christian."

---

Dear Ken,

As Simone Weil said:

"The danger is not that the soul should doubt whether there is any bread, but lest, by lie, it should persuade itself that it is not hungry."

James

[Alistair McBay]

Welcome aboard the atheist bus, Ken.

No doubt James and Nersen will tell you soon enough where you have gone wrong!

[Nersen]

Ken Anderson - I am sorry to read your post.

If you had spent the last 20 yrs in a church which believes and teaches the Bible, I suspect you will not have lost your faith...because the faith has foundations in the Bible.

ECUSA is shrinking because it destroys faith, having no foundations, rejecting the Bible when it suits.

[Keith Downer]

Ken, I am openly opposed to homosexuals assuming positions of responsibility and accountability in our Church but would never condone or support anything that treats homosexuals in stable relationships as "animals" or with less than the respect and consideration due to all God's creation.
As a human being, I can understand your feelings and feel sad that your faith has diminished because of the current debate. Where homosexuality is concerned, we do not have the insight and information to understand the contradiction that such relationships present where our understanding of Christ's teachings and God's Word are concerned. Maybe that will come in time, maybe as a result of the debates taking place and hopefully, soon but in the meantime, the stability and consistency of the Church's framework must be protected.
In your case, it sounds like a cliché (and I assure you that I am far from being your normal, conservative Christian); you may leave God but He never leaves you.
James hasn't posted in the last five minutes; do you think he is ok? Is he trying for the Guinness Book of Records or just something simple, like sainthood?

[Ken Anderson]

I have been a member of the Episcopal Church USA since I was 23 (am now 42), and after much intellectual and emotional struggle, I have decided that I can no longer consider myself a Christian. There are numerous reasons for this - the primary one being that I simply cannot find any compelling reasons for believing in the existence of a deity, much less one who came to earth in the form of a person. I always had my doubts about a lot of the literal dogma, but never found that to be a big issue in the Episcopal church, although that has changed in recent years with the increase in fundamentalism that seems to be sweeping the US. I think anyone who is intellectually honest would have to admit that there is no logical reason for believing the claims of any one revealed religion over another, and that people adhere to them for a mixture of complex reasons that have little or nothign to do with their actual truth. I think that I would have eventually come to this point regardless, but it was certainly hastened along by my experiences as a gay man in the church. I won't bore you with a litany of things you've all heard before, but I will say that the turning point for me was realizing that large numbers of Anglicans around the world (Bishop Akinola being primus inter pares on that score) don't even really consider me to be a human being. I find it incredible that the US church is asked to apologize for ordaining a gay bishop when Akinola has never been asked to apologize for saying that gay people are lower than animals. I can't imagine why the US church would want to remain in fellowship with someone like Akinola, but it is a great relief to say that I no longer care. You can all continue on merrily with your "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" arguments, while I continue to live my fairly happy and contented life with my partner. While I am sad to be leaving an institution that at times has meant a lot to me and provided me with some genuine solace, I am also confident that I will find much better uses for my time and energy than arguing with a bunch of people that just plain don't like fags and don't even have the courage to admit that and instead hide behind outmoded interpretations of the Bible. Have fun wasting your time for the next 50 or 100 years arguing about this and good luck dividing up the money and property which is ultimately what it all really comes down to!

[James]

Judging by many of the comments here, the Church of England may have to apply for associate status in the new Anglican Communion.

James

[James]

"This row about homosexuality is a smokescreen because the liberal and conservative wings do not have the courage to debate the reall issue...the resurrection!"

---

Sheila - I do not suffer from such fear. You can debate with me anytime about the Resurrection.

James

[James]

"James, I came to Christ when you were in your nappies."

---

Good, Gerry. I hope to meet you in heaven one day (and I mean that).

James

[James]

So, Father, I want to get jiggy with this beautiful woman not my wife. Is that OK?

---

Well, son, it depends. Perhaps I can offer you our associate church, which says that that's fine.

---

But, doesn't the Bible say no?

---

Good heavens, son. Our associate church doesn't follow the Bible!

---

What about the Church of England?

---

Well, here some would say it's bad; some would say it's OK. That main thing is, you wouldn't want your wifey to find out - such would hurt her feelings. That would be wrong no matter what.

---

Well, Father, we're not getting along too well anyway. What about divorce?

---

Son - there's nothing wrong with divorce! Both our associate church and the Church of England say so! So, if that's what you want, go for it.

---

But what about the words of Christ? Isn't he the Son of God?

---

No, no, son, you don't understand. We're much smarter than Christ.

---

But doesn't Christ have to do with true love, Father, not smarts?

---

Well, son, for that you'll have to go to the despised and evil Anglican churches of the Global South. They actually believe what the Bible and Christ say. (Those Neanderthalic reprobates...)

---

But then I couldn't bang my new woman friend, right?

---

Nope. Not if you're in that part of the church. I mean, you could, but they'd make you feel guilty about it. They're not progressive, you see.

---

I have to think about this, Father.

---

Sure, whatever.

[Sheila Kinsella]

I have two comments. This row about homosexuality is a smokescreen because the liberal and conservative wings do not have the courage to debate the reall issue...the resurrection! Most scholars now believe this not to be a physical reality, but because it has been forced on congregations as dogma for centuries, how do they now admit they were mistaken? Secondly, in Britain, this Government has been more proactive in its 'equality' legislation than any previous one, is the State/Queen (who sanctioned these Acts of Parliament) now going to side with the Conservative, homophobic clerics? What a fine mess! Did we ever have an enlightenment in Europe?

[Gerry Lynch]

Come to Christ, man.

----

James, I came to Christ when you were in your nappies.

[John Logan]

The Archbishop’s letter is full of interesting reflections. He points out with some perspicacity that the issue is entitlement to separate decision-making.
Interestingly, the American civil war is usually stated to be about the
liberation of slaves. But in real fact it was about the political and legal right of the South to secede, that is, to take fundamental decisions independently of the rest of the country. That doesn’t detract from the psychological centrality of the slavery issue. Similarly Williams skirts somewhat – though not entirely – the gay issue which gives venom to the current divisions.

There are three factors crucial to understanding the Archbishop’s stance. First, he argues for patience. There is an interesting parallel here with the social situation of Catholics in Northern Ireland. They have been for long years discriminated against in jobs, not least in public service jobs. Were they to insist on immediate justice, namely, access to public and other jobs in proportion to their numbers in the Province, they would alienate Protestant families and make life difficult for Protestants now coming on the job market. The gain in justice would be more than offset by a growth in resentment and violence. Fortunately the Catholic leaders have exercised patience and restraint and generally have argued for gradual, if firm, changes in access to jobs – with the exception of the police where it was accepted in the Good Friday agreement to divide new recruitment equally among the groups. The Archbishop is surely right to argue for time to take its course. While basic rights should not be denied to gay persons, while their sexual behaviour should be accepted as decent and good, and while they should be taken as full members of the Church with basic rights equal to all others, they and their supporters may be asked to be patient in waiting for full rights in access to the episcopate. There is some injustice in this but it is a lesser evil if it prevents a serious split in the Church.

Second, while in terms of numbers a majority support the position against gays (and indeed women bishops), these numbers are in some measure offset by the quality of those who support gay rights. For that reason, and indeed for other reasons, these churches and persons (the Archbishop recognises that the split is within churches as well as between them) should not be given a secondary status. They may be given a status that is minority and apart but not secondary. It would seem egregious if one of the most scholarly incumbents of Canterbury were to side with those who seek to apply scripture to situations it was never devised for. Homosexual orientation is a new concept; and we can no longer think that homosexuals are heterosexuals behaving badly which is what St. Paul’s tradition would have thought. For such reasons Canterbury is in danger of being theologically dishonest as well as being expedient in an ugly way.

Third, it seems such a pity that the Archbishop’s hesitations, his lack of courage, and his concern for unity over truth has helped to land the Church in its present predicament. If I may make a practical judgment based on a knowledge of the Nigerian Church, I venture to say that there is a strong element of bluff in Akinola’s posturings. He could organise most of his clergy but act without the general support of all but his older laity. Without the worldwide Anglican Church he has nowhere to go. Conservative Americans are no long term support.

In a sense the dilemma of all Anglicans is what an international and cross-cultural Church can amount to. Built into the dilemma is the nature of authority within Anglicanism. At least the Americans have opted for democratic decision-making. This Anglican dilemma was concealed while its clergy in England came from a relatively homogeneous social order, and while its adherents outside England were in some awe of Canterbury. When political uniformity (the Tory party at prayer) has gone and colonial subservience has been rejected by the new attitudes of independence, there is nothing left except a traditional Anglican search for truth that is flanked by tolerance and good sense. It may have the weakness that Newman eventually saw in the Via Media but it has great riches within it.

John Logan

[Tom Edwards]

This is all getting a little confusing to a simple Christian like me. Isn't this just a case of a small number of members of the Anglican Communion wanting to move in a certain direction - which they believe is prompted by the Holy Spirit - but the vast majority of Anglicans throughout the world believe that is wrong.
ECUSA therefore have 2 clear courses of action; fall in line or leave. At this point in time, everyone seems to be going round in circles but, for once, the ABC has made his position and that of the Communion perfectly clear. For that he deserves our support and praise.
The strength of the Anglican Communion is that the right decisions may not be made all the time but such is the size and widespread nature of it's membership that eventually, God's intention will become clear.
Until that happens, we head in the general direction unless - like ECUSA - you become isolated from the collective wisdom and support of others, get lost in the wilderness and then it may take a long time to find your way back.

[J Pearce]

I am the only one who can see what RW is really up to here? Its obvious!

Come Lambeth 2008, he'll stand up and renounce the liberals by telling them to get stuffed - cue round of thunderous applause from the conservatives.

Then, as the sound of applause fades away, he'll tell the conservatives to get stuffed as well - cue general falling off of chairs and pin dropping sounds.

THEN he'll announce to all and sundry that he's tired off the same old schtick and he's off to become a Pagan, where people at least get on with each other - and have a bloody good time doing it.

Cos lets face it, with that beard, he'd make a fine Druid.

We live in hope.