"Division is of the devil" says church leader. Latest on TEC.

"Who is responsible for that which has happened? Without prejudging the conclusions which the Holy Synod will come to, having studied the testimonies collected by the Commission which has been appointed for that purpose, I want to speak of that which is perfectly clear: division stems from the envy of the enemy of the human race, who, finding support in human weakness, seeks new means to wound the Church.  Just as unity is from God, division in the Church is invariably from the evil one. At this point, it would be most helpful for each one of us to look into our soul and to ask our conscience: did we give opportunity to the devil (Eph. 4:27)?  Did we show impatience, lack of attention, insensitivity, from which the schism gradually developed?" Who is the speaker here? Not an Anglican. For his identiy, see below.

Meanwhile, at Columbus, Ohio the resolution on moratoria has failed and so has an alternative. Classical Anglican is reporting: "Bonds of affection snapped." Yet the surprising truth seems to be, there might not be schism after all. See the end of this post for the possible reason why.

The words at the top are those of Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow, writing in connection with a split in the Russian Orthodox Church community in London, the subject of much discussion on another post. As The Episcopal Church seems reluctant properly to listen to Anglican warnings from around the world, maybe an Orthodox voice, from the "Third Rome" no less, will help. Or maybe it will just strengthen their apparent determination to "walk alone".

Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Schori, at a media conference, drew upon her experiences as an oceanographer when asked how she'd reconcile with those who oppose her ordination and episcopate. While researching the living habits of worms, squid, octopus and shrimp 30 years ago, "a cruise captain wouldn't talk to me because I was a woman," she recalled. "That lasted about 15 minutes. We got over it. My training as a scientist has given me the gift of looking at the world carefully, and investigating. I take delight in the incredible diversity of creation, delighting in the view from several thousand feet above the earth."

And from an LGBT blogger's perspective, Fr John Kirkley writes: " The joy of Bishop Jefferts Schori election as Presiding Bishop-elect seems short-lived after a grueling day of legistlative debate today in the House of Deputies." He continues:  "The first resolution, A160, passed with an amendment that progressives proposed. It now reads as follows: "Resolvedbreaching the proper constraints of strainingthe bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of communion one with another." Even though I voted for the amendment, I voted against the final resolution. I could not in good conscience ask forgiveness for something I don't believe was wrong. Still, the amendment was an improvement. It makes clear that relationships in the Communion are strained, but not broken. It expresses regret for the pain others experienced, not for the actions of GC 2003 themselves. And it gets rid of the language of "constraints" that implies the Windsor Report has an authority that it does not have. True, true, and true: and it is still disengenuous. Let's see how the bishops tinker with it."

On resolution 161, he wrote: "The debate on this resolution so far has been painful to hear. So-called liberals like the Rev. Dr. Ian Douglas would have us believe that LGBT people must fall on their swords for the sake of the Communion, so that we can continue to serve the poor in the Third World. As if our oppression helps to liberate others. As if a number of those poor are not themselves gay men and lesbians (as I testified this morning on a resolution calling for support of LGBT asylum seekers). Rebecca Snow, a long-time, openly lesbian deputy and, like Douglas, a member of the Special Committee that proposed this legislation, spoke of the pain she felt in calling upon gay men and lesbians to bear this burden for the Church - to bear the marks of Christ crucified for the sake of the Body. I could feel her soul shriveling up as she spoke words that must have seared her conscience. Jesus said, "Go and learn what this means: I desire compassion, not sacrifice." I guess we still haven't learned what this means. At least, we are certainly quite ready to sacrifice gay and lesbian people for the sake of a unity that couldn't possibly be called Christian, rooted as it is in the dynamics of scapegoating. One 18 year-old deputy saw right through the duplicity of it all. He noted that the last resolve apologizes to gay men and lesbians for the actions of this resolution, and pointed out that if we need to apologize for it, why are we doing it in the first place? Indeed. Why, if we believe that the election and consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire was of the Holy Spirit, are we apologizing for that? Bishop Doug Theuner was right in 2003. The issue here isn't homosexuality; its honesty."

Many people in The Episcopal Church feel as Fr Kirkley does. Meanwhile, many conservatives also opposed the resolution because for them it did not go far enough in the direction of Windsor. The convention even voted down a motion to reconsider the resolution, leaving new primate Bishop Katharine Schori without a response to Windsor from The Episcopal Church when she attends the next Primates meeting in a few months.

The new resolution that was proposed, and accepted by the chair, and which was in full compliance with Windsor, also failed. That motion was reported on Anglican Mainstream as is the failure of the original. You can still follow the debate live with blogger Matt Kennedy. The reading in the Ecusa lectionary when all this happened was Romans 1:16-25: "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie." Gregory Venables, Primate of the Southern Cone and one of the Global South leaders likely to be providing alternative oversight in the new realigned Anglican church, told CTSix.org: "The Anglican Primates, indeed the range of instruments of unity across the Communion could not have been more clear in what the Episcopal Church has been asked to do. The election of the new Presiding Bishop has provided us with abudant clarity of the commitments and direction of ECUSA."

So where does that leave the Anglican Communion?

The rejection by The Episcopal Church of calls for moratoria on gay consecrations and same-sex blessings represents a failure to comply with the demands of the Windsor process. This process was set in train by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, in an attempt to resolve the crisis after the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. There is a small chance, that the bishops in the US will resurrect some resolution on moratoria on Wednesday but this is unlikely. So whether or not the the Anglican Communion now descends into a process of formal schism depends entirely on the response of Dr Williams. The ball is totally in his court.

The problem at the General Convention in Columbus, Ohio was that radical liberals felt that anything seen to be a step backwards in their embrace of the gay agenda would be to sacrifice gay and lesbians on the altar of the Anglican Communion. This they were not prepared to do, and from the perspective of standing up for what they believe in, it has to be conceded that this was commendable. But the consequences of this will be regrettable, as even the Americans are likely to admit. Bishop Jack Iker, leader of Fort Worth diocese, who has already appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates for alternative primation oversight, will be followed by a number of other dioceses. Parishes will seek alternative episcopal oversight if in disagreement with their diocesan bishop.

Some new administrative structure, free of the bounds of diocese, parish and province, will have to be found to retain even a semblance of unity in the Anglican world. The most likely structure to emerge will be a form of federation, with the Archbishop of Canterbury as the focus of unity. The strategy of leaders of the Anglican church at Columbus had been to engineer the moderate middle ground to be Windsor-compliant, marginalising the radical liberals and the orthodox, for the sake of unity.

This strategy failed.

In the end, the key resolutions were too liberal for the conservatives or too conservative for the liberals.

Liberal line has all along been that they are still at the table and in conversation. The Global South will say that they The Episcopal Church has not responded as was needed. The rest will say: “To your tents O Israel.”

But all is not lost. A kind of schism might result, but it will not be schism as generally known. Anglicans are great at fudging crises, especially liberal ones. The fact is, none wants to leave the Anglican table. Already, the conservatives are saying: "Teaching gospel will come first, issues of ecclesiastical order second." This response in the language of the Gospel suggests that there is hope still for the Anglican Communion.

All Rowan Williams has to do is apply his formidable intellect to the question of how both sides can be kept at the same communion table, albeit at opposite ends.

And let's face it, this is a man whose never balked at reconciling the apparently irreconcilable. See his book on Arius as just one example of how he accomplishes this difficult task, and how he analyses others, such as Arius himself, who failed to do so. It all comes back to the Trinity really. Arius failed on that one, at great cost to himself and the Church. But if Rowan Williams can, possibly uniquely, truly understand the concept of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in one God, then it shouldn't be beyond him to reconcile catholics, liberals and orthodox into one communion. The fascinating thing will be just how he does it. I await developments with interest.

Comments

[Neil Manthorpe]

"Division is of the devil" says church leader. begins this blog. Of course, If Patriarch Alexii II is correct - and who am I, a Methodist layperson, to question the Patriarch of Moscow - then it is all of us who are not Orthodox and who have broken away after the Great Schism in 1054 that he condemns whether we are Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists or of any other denomination that is not a canonical Orthodox Church. As far as the Patriarch is concerned, we have all sought division, even if his comment is about the current local difficulty in the Russian Church in Britain. It takes great discernment to know what is of the Devil and I would hesitate to suggest that any person (or their actions) is "of the Devil" - misguided perhaps, mischievious possibly, but I am not sure such condemnation is ours to give. Though I've always had the secret desire to "anathematise" other churchgoers who do not exactly accord with my own views!

[James O'Connell]

I apologise for the length of this note but I have, in fact, shortened it almost to the point of oversimplification.

The controversy over women bishops stems from a sacralisation of clerics that stems from sources other than the New Testament. I realise that within the Roman Church - and historically within the Anglican/Episcopalian Church - apostolic succession has for long been seen as a continuity through bishops. Given that Catholic scriptural scholars like Raymond Brown have argued that putting monarchical bishops back into scripture is unhistorical and that 'supervisors' or bishops and 'elders’ or priests were used interchangeably in the Pauline churches, the theology that supports an ‘historic episcopate’ has always been weak. If there was a renewal of episcopal theory within the Roman Church at the time of Vatican II, it was in good part as a reaction to over-centralisation. Since the Council the Roman bureaucrats have seized back the powers that then seemed to be floating away from them.

What is essential in the Church is the continuity of community and faith. The organisation and government of the community have changed from one period to another: diffused in the early Church, feudal in the Middle Ages, princely in the Renaissance, and, centralising, especially in the Roman Church, in our time. Interestingly Roman theologians have always accepted that a lay person may be elected pope. Yet let me add that from the beginning the role of Peter and his successors is crucial in the community. Abuses in its role should not obscure the fact that the papacy has helped during centuries of societal fragmentation to consolidate the faith of scattered communities and that it has in more recent times served as an external norm to confirm Protestant and related churches that share a broad faith but not an organised structure with the Roman Church. Even where it is manifestly wrong as in the case of homosexual behaviour or banning contraceptives it acts as a brake that evokes further reflection and discussion but will give way before thought and time.

Holding that ministerial ordination is limited to bishops stems from scholastic theory which insisted on a kind of physical causality in the sacraments. A reductio ad absurdum of this theory faces the Church in Ireland. A maverick priest has obtained valid but illegitimate episcopal ordination. He has now the power - in scholastic theory - to ordain priests and bishops at will; and he can do all this without reference to the community. The Church with its present views has no choice other than to accept the validity of these ordinations.

Negatively another point can be made. It is highly possible that historically there have been unbelieving bishops who ordained other bishops without faith or proper intention, and so invalidly. One could then have a succession of invalid ordinations. The only way around this is to insist on community validation for ministry.

James O’Connell

[Nersen]

Dear Dr Lancaster

You wrote: " I am surprised, however, that you know what Peter and Paul ate, but archeology has come a long way in the last 2000 years, and maybe their left-over suppers have been discovered. "

I think you are probably joking but in case you are not, both Peter and Paul made it explicit that food laws no longer apply. I am glad your clergy friend respect your dietary preferences, nonetheless.

Paul was definitely a Jew and not creating his own religion - he just believed Jesus when he said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." As you will know better than others, Jesus was not talking like a normal Rabbi - he was definitely mad, bad or God.

Have a good time in Israel

N

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

Nersen, thank you very much for your response and of course we wouldn't dream of telling any other religion what they should and shouldn't eat

I am surprised, however, that you know what Peter and Paul ate, but archeology has come a long way in the last 2000 years, and maybe their left-over suppers have been discovered.

However, the Last Supper is supposed to have been a Passover meal, so I doubt bacon was on the menu (although the latest scholarship considers that it might have been the autumn Succot festival, but that is another story).

Forgive me for saying so, but I always thought that Paul founded a new religion, after Jesus, later called Christianity and therefore was no longer Jewish.

But if you want, I will check with my clergy friends who are holding a party for me soon before I leave for Israel. And being the considerate people they are (and the fact that they live opposite a whole row of Jewish shops), the meal that they will be providing will be ecumenically kosher.

But seriously, Judaism holds that as long as people who are not Jewish keep the 7 Noachide laws they are to be considered as truly remarkable. And these laws include not murdering etc., but also setting up law courts and treating animals kindly.

Which I am sure you can accept as reasonable.

[Nersen]

Dr Lancaster

I think we Christians need to remember our Jewish roots more becaues there is great wealth in our common heritage but your points re moral v ceremonial laws and forgiveness may be right in Jewish thinking but the New Testament clarifies all of these for Christians. We are given permission to have bacon sandwiches (from Peter and Paul, nice Jewish boys both) but the NT still condemns adultery, thieving etc

Forgiveness, of course, is found in the cross of Christ), according to Jesus and other Jews like Peter, Paul, Matthew and, of course, Isaiah (I know you will interpret Ch 53 differently to me but you know what we think)

Jesus was the Jew who said, "I am the Truth...." (John 14) so I am not expecting you to agree with me unless you agree with him.

[Nersen]

Gerry - your amusing last comment made me laugh (trust that was your intention!)

I was pleased to see humour in the debate becaues the "conservative" aim is not to hurt or cut off anyone....just to have the Bible as the foundation of the church's teaching, as the ABC now seems to agree and accept that not all are willing to accept this.

Sure, there is no list of "moral" sins but, as you say, we know which are moral and which are ceremonial (thankfully, Peter (St) told us about his dream.

[Christopher]

Dear Irene

Thanks for that clarification which is fascinating. I hadn't realised the letters originally represented vowels. When the word Jehovah got coined it was based on the misunderstanding that they were consonants and then pointed to get a pronouncable name. Bad news for Jehovah's Witnesses, then!

I'd be very interested in the book in view of what you say. I wonder if I can find a copy on Amazon's second-hand section?

PS I clicked on your email but got your website - I couldn't see how to send you an email.

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

Dear Christopher

The term that you use is an Anglicised approximation (from the German) of a sound that cannot be pronounced in the original Hebrew, as it contains letters which were all used as vowels before the onset of vowels in the 6th-8th century CE.

I like your description of the Jewish depiction of this word very much. The idea of 'becoming' is not the same idea as 'Lord', which entered into the game probably through the first translations into Greek and then Latin (dominus, related to 'dominate), which were then translated into all the European and other languages, including English.

The whole point is that this becoming cannot be pinned down in human terms, and according to the greatest Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, can only be described in negatives (this idea influenced Thomas Aquinas, by the way). So what holds Judaism together are structures based in oral Torah, as interpreted through the ages by learned rabbis, open to argument, but based on great knowledge, and grounded in the covenantal relationship the Jewish people believes it has with this becoming, a concept increasingly being used in the Church of England regarding the relationship of all its different churches, as clarified on Ruth's blog about the Archbishop of Canterbury, which you can access above.

The Hebrew Bible is not regarded as reifying, because it is read in Hebrew, and when it is read and interpreted, it is taken for granted that this becoming cannot be pinned down, though still acting throughout history,if you see what I mean.

May I recommend my husband's book, Elements of Judaism, as one of the best books on this subject and which explains the whole question both profoundly and simply.

You can contact me at my e-mail address if you are interested, as it has gone out of print.

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/

[Christopher]

"I AM WHAT I AM."

"Yes, we are all what we are. That's a tautology (something that is always true, no matter what). It is therefore meaningless. All of Christianity (which is, unlike that tautology, meaningful)"

Hi Nersen

Isn't that what YHWH is supposed to mean - I am that I am? - Irene please confirm. Do you think "I am who am", if that's what it signifies, is ultimately meaningless or is the Hebrew tetragrammaton trying to convey something not to be reified, like Emptiness for Mahayana Buddhists? But unfortunately it/he has been reified and turned into a character in the narratives we call collectively the Bible.

[Gerry Lynch]

Hi Nersen,

to quote Betjeman "he seems to think we're simply fools who've never been to Sunday schools".

I obviously know there's a difference, but I'm trying to find out where Paul says which things fall into which category. I've read Acts, Corinthians (both of 'em!) and Romans many times but can't find any such simple list. It seems to me that all this calls for a much more complex process of discernment which doesn't really ever come to an end. But then I'm only an oul' poofter so what would I know?

[Dr Irene Lancaster]

I am really sorry to be a pain in the neck, but it is not 'I am that I am' (no present tense of the verb 'to be' in Biblical Hebrew), but 'I will become what I will become': a very different, non-Greek, Hebraic approach. What God is saying to Moses in the burning bush is that He will be with His people at all times and in whatever place and whatever guise they need Him in.

And before you ask, there is no gender implied, but we have to use human language.

And sorry again, this differentiation between ceremonial and moral does not hold water at all either. They are concepts which do not exist.

And finally, the fact that Jesus forgave sinners does not mean that he gave up on Jewish teaching. Forgiving sinners is part of Jewish teaching, but what forgiving means may well be open to interpretation.

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com

[James]

Here's a short answer there, Rev. Gibson:

"I AM WHAT I AM."

Yes, we are all what we are. That's a tautology (something that is always true, no matter what). It is therefore meaningless. All of Christianity (which is, unlike that tautology, meaningful) - is about changing you into something you aren't - a Christ. You can decide to continue being what you are (a sinner, like me), or you can sign up to be transformed into a Christ. It's your choice (same old, same old).

"Why should Christian people be excluded from specific roles and opportunities on the Grounds of Sexuality?"

Because engaging in perverted sexual acts reduces you to less than what you were meant, by God, to be. And further, promoting and glorifying and normalizing perverted sexual acts harms our children (and others) - and very bad ways. Finally, promoting perversion in the name of God is a bold and harmful and evil lie that no true Christian will tolerate.

James

[Nersen]

Gerry - if your question is serious, the answer is very simple because the new testament explicitly frees Christians from the OT food and circumcision laws but the same new testament reinforces the moral laws (just read Acts, Romans, Corinthians to get the message in context)

Paul Gibson - you quote the Bible but then express views and ideas which completely contradict the Bible.....I am afraid that I must say to you that the Lord Jesus was always consistent in saying "Go and sin no more" while of course being kind and compassionate to all different types of sinners- this is the genuine Christian response.

[Revd Father Paul Gibson]

The recent debates about whether Bishops can be Gay and indeed, as I recall in the past week there were even debates regarding the Blessing of Relationships, has the Anglican Communion lost the plot? Of Course it has...........

I find myself repeating the same words time and time again in recent weeks, Gods love is Inclusive and Not exclusive. We should all be able to worship in Unity and not be placed on a podium. Just two weeks ago, I preached to a gathering of 1000 Christians regarding the Pride events that take place across the world this time of the year, and echod those infanous words

I AM WHAT I AM.

Why should Christian people be excluded from specific roles and opportunities on the Grounds of Sexuality? I am sure that the Anglican Communion is breaking every rule in the book regarding equaly opportunities, and I am suprised that no one has challenged it as yet.......

This is the time of year - June, July, and August - when people from the LGBT communities are invited to gather together to celebrate Pride. From all walks of life and from all parts of the
country `queer' people join together in shows of solidarity in places like Brighton, London and Birmingham, Moscow, Maspalomas,America…………

They join together to have fun, to make a statement; they join together as a sign of unity, waving flags of freedom in the face of a world that does not know how to accept the diversity of humanity -a humanity in which the world would rather tear down the colourful body of Christ than rejoice in the multi-faceted complexity of God's creation.

Once a year we are invited to belong. Once a year we are encouraged to celebrate who we are. Once a year we are allowed to prove our existence.

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't think once a year is enough!

And I'm damn sure that once a year isn't enough for God either!
Do you know why? Because we are God's people, we are God's creation
and God wants us to be ourselves and to be proud of who and what we
are in any given time or situation.

God wants us to come out from under the rocks of oppression we have
hidden under and to claim our rightful place in this world. It doesn't matter if we regard ourselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered or straight - or if we prefer to avoid any of these
labels - what does matter is that we let our light shine.

Let your light shine: Jesus gave us this instruction. (Matthew 5:16)

So that means we have permission to be free and not hide ourselves in the closet. It means that when we discover who we are we can genuinely be ourselves and can stop beating ourselves up because society has been trying to tell us that we don't fit the norm.

For many of us the road to finding ourselves has been difficult and perhaps still is. Robyn Shanor in `Finding Common Ground' writes from a transgender perspective: From an early age, we are told that we are not who we perceive ourselves to be, who we know we are. In many ways, our very existence seems in conflict with `reality' itself. Since one's gender role is so relentlessly defined and reinforced by others, it may take years for us to even realise what we are experiencing. Like many who are gay or lesbian, transgendered people often spend years in self-denial and suppression, struggling to fit in and be `normal'.

There's that word again - normal. Let me tell you something - there is no such thing as the norm. My norm is not necessarily the Archbishop of Canterburys Norm Bishop Gene Robinsons norm is not necessarily the leader of the Anglican Church in Nigerias norm.

What there is is authenticity - simply the divine right to be.
There comes a time for most of us when we reach a point where our denials, our masks - the things we hide behind - fail us, and we set out on the search for our true selves. This is when we are called to present ourselves before God in our full authenticity.

There is the sense that fighting battles against ourselves has meant us moving further away from God, rather than closer to God.The moment that we acknowledge what is true about ourselves is powerful in ways that are both frightening and uplifting. I believe that moment is one of great spiritual power and importance because it signals the time when we choose the search for our authentic selves over the other issues in our lives. The spiritual focus goes inward to discover who we were created to be and who we are.

It is impossible to know just how many gay, lesbian or bisexual people throughout the generations have prayed at some time or other to be made `straight'; or how many have prayed for the burden of gender dysphoria to be taken away; or how many people have prayed to
change an intrinsic part of themselves in order to fit a mould prescribed by others. I have learnt, as so many have learnt, that those sometimes-desperate prayers were a waste of time. They were a waste of time because God is hardly likely to answer prayers that assist us in the process of self-rejection. The prayers that God wants to hear from us are not prayers of self-denigration, of self-annihilation, but prayers that help us search for a path that leads to true authenticity and the ability to be what we are.

Many of us, because of experiences through the traditional church, our family of origin and/or society, have faced, like the Exodus Hebrews, the challenge of journeying into the wilderness - seeking a place free from oppression. Our places of wilderness can be both positive and negative for it is here where we hunger and thirst,where we fear, where we struggle with who we are but, on the other hand, it is also the place of covenant, the place of God's sustaining power, the place of self-revelation, of spiritual renewal and transformation.

The Exodus story reminds us that we are all on a life-long journey that is both dangerous and exciting. What is more it directs us to visionaries and prophets of our own age who have worked most of their life trying to bring freedom to others. None of us would be part of the Inclusive Community of St Sebastian's if God hadn't called us to create a new, welcoming and vibrant fellowship.

God, through each of us and many others, has established a Community that is truly meant for all people; for those who are deemed different by virtue of their sexuality or their gender; for those
who find it impossible to hear God's word in their lives because of marginalisation by church and society.

I have always believed that God `doesn't make things up'; he has always believed that it is the right of all of God's people to have access to God through church; he has always believed in liberating people to be who God intended them to be.

If we look around us now, what do we notice? What do we think and how do we react? Do we, as a people of faith, look around and observe in the ordinary things of life, the wonders of God's
creation?

Imagine if we as a people of faith declared: `this is better than we thought! People come in even more varieties than we thought, many more than we were told there were - many colours, gay, straight,lesbian, bisexual, men, women, those who see themselves as no gender, those who cross genders, transsexuals, monogamous, polygamous, nonmonogamous, people with many ways of loving, people who are celibate, old, young, ageless. God must be even greater than
we dreamed!'

And God is greater than we dream - because God don't make misfits! We all have various and varying perceptions of ourselves - but I don't see no misfits within the community today. What I do see is a group of God's chosen people who are all on a journey both collectively and individually, who are all seeking to be their authentic selves and whom are all engaging in a process of transformation.

I see a group of people striving to be the people they are meant to be; I see people who are focused on bringing health to their lives and to the lives of others; I see some who have found healing and wholeness and others who are on the brink of discovering the truth.

I see people who have been hurt by the unenlightened and who are fearful of what may be around the next corner. And to all of these people - to you - I would like to say - remember that you are loved by a God who transcends all your problems, fears, quirks and difficulties. You should never, ever be ashamed of who and what you are and indeed, you can hold your heads up high because of, not in spite of, who you are. It is better to be yourself even if that self is sometimes bad, than to be artificially good, because God loves you just as you are.

Those who dare to be themselves, who work at being themselves, are accompanied by Jesus every step of the way. Therefore, do not be afraid of being who you are. Accept the glory and the grime, giving thanks to God for your fear and your courage, for your tears and your laughter, your frailty and your strength and for all the things that make you the unique person that you are.

I'm amazed at how much has changed in our world over the past few decades - all because so many people have refused to deny our own existence in exchange for peace and quiet. If you are serious about living a liberated life, one of the most important things you can do
with your life is to be yourself and to live your life with openness and authenticity. All external change in our world begins first with internal change and internal acceptance. And we will never end the external oppression in our world until we first end our internal oppressions.

Suppressing, or oppressing, who we are causes great psychological and spiritual suffering. Acceptance of who we are, on the other hand, is a truer and much easier path to take. Each one of us is sacred because we are created in the image and likeness of God.

Each one of us is special and unique. Each one of us is made different in some way because that is the way God intended it to be.

This world is not a place we should have to hide in. God's church is not a place where we have to hide our differences in.

Do not be invisible - do not be silent.
Be proud of who you are - not just once a year but for every day of your life.

As a part of this community let us be proud of our diversity - for many colours, many designs make an intricate and beautiful pattern. As an individual let us each be proud of being a child of God - a unique being created for God's purpose and pleasure.

As christians let us ensure that our light shines like a beacon so that others may be welcomed into God's house.

As individuals let us ensure that our light shines so that others may know they do not travel alone.

Let each one of us rise up and declare, `I am what I am' in the sure knowledge that God has chosen and created us to be this way.

Finally then, with the understanding that we cannot love God unless we love God's creation, including ourselves, If you love the Lord say Amen. Amen!

It is time to put the end to exclusive Churches worldwide and develop a truly inclusive church for all people just as we are throughout the UK as well as Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, Togo, Ghana, South Africa, America, United Kingdom, Indonesia, Malaysia, Koreoa, Canada, Argentina, Peru, Nepal, philipinnes, Malta, Poland, Russia, Spain.........

Revd Father Paul Gibson BA
Presiding Bishop and Founder
The International Inclusive Ciommunity of St Sebastians

www.stsebastiansgc.ik.com
www.stsebastians.btik.com

Church House
35100 Maspalomas. Gran Canaria

[Gerry Lynch]

Peter (as in the apostle) had to learn the hard way that there is a difference in God's eyes between OT ceremonial laws and what we are now called to obey.

Sure. Now point me to the bit in the bible where it says which are the ceremonial and the moral laws?

[James]

"The distinction between the ceremonial and moral laws is key - and not made by me but by Jesus and his apostles."

---

Indeed, Nersen.

James

[Nersen]

Gerry,

I just thought it was ironic that you quoted Romans when I guess you do not accept all that it says.

Peter (as in the apostle) had to learn the hard way that there is a difference in God's eyes between OT ceremonial laws and what we are now called to obey.

The new testament model, from Jesus and his apostles words and actions, show clearly that bacon sandwiches and prawns and fancy fabrics are ok but adultery is still a sin.

The distinction between the ceremonial and moral laws is key - and not made by me but by Jesus and his apostles.

[Gerry Lynch]

Gerry Lynch - you cannot pick'n'mix what you want from Romans to attack people!

-----

Nersen,

I wasn't picking and mixing anything. It just struck me as a rather apt description in a rather serendipitous way. You know, the sort of thing conservative Christians usually claim is an act of the Holy Spirit or a message from God or whatever...

As for not being able to pick and mix the bible... you can't not pick and mix the bible. Everybody picks and mixes from the bible, unless you can find me a sect that still executes people for wearing cotton-polyester knickers? If you try and read the bible like an instruction manual (and let's face it, even Japanese car manuals are more comprehensible than, say, much of Chronicles) you're going to drown yourself in a mass of contradictions.

I mean, which creation account is right, Genesis 1 or Genesis 2? Which account of the passion is right? Did Saul's companions hear God's voice or not? Or those are not against us with us, or are those who are not for us against us? I mean, if God wanted the bible to be his inerrant word wouldn't he have made sure it didn't have quite so many basic errors in it.

The letter kills but the spirit gives life.

[James]

"It is also what a lot of bigots do to prove they are right."

---

Only God is right, Christopher. And insinuating that I'm a bigot doesn't affect me. You can do that to your heart's content.

James

[Christopher]

"The Devil quoting scripture ?"
---
Why, Christopher, would Satan do that?"

James

It comes in Matt 4: "The devil then took him to the holy city and set him on the parapet of the Temple. 'If you are Son of God,' he said, 'throw yourself down; for scripture says:

He has given his angels orders about you,
and they will carry you in their arms
in case you trip over a stone.'"

It is also what a lot of bigots do to prove they are right.

[George Martin]

An observation on "Division is of the devil" and the statement "division stems from the envy of the enemy of the human race, who, finding support in human weakness, seeks new means to wound the Church. Just as unity is from God, division in the Church is invariably from the evil one." I agree with this and its application to the current problems in the Anglican Communion. However, it could and should be applied to the many divisions that have occured over the many years of Christian history including the bloody one that divided the Catholic and the Anglican churches.

George

[James]

"The Devil quoting scripture ?"

---

Why, Christopher, would Satan do that?

James

[Christopher]

"Does anyone else think that Romans 1:28-32 contains a perfect description of Peter Akinola and Bernard Malango?"
---
Good grief. These two stand up for what is taught to us in Romans (like: "Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.")

The Devil quoting scripture ?

[Nersen]

Gerry Lynch - you cannot pick'n'mix what you want from Romans to attack people!

You gave James an easy goal, right into the back of the net!

Sorry, World Cup clearly affecting me...

[James]

"Does anyone else think that Romans 1:28-32 contains a perfect description of Peter Akinola and Bernard Malango?"

---

Good grief. These two stand up for what is taught to us in Romans (like: "Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.")

James

[Gerry Lynch]

Does anyone else think that Romans 1:28-32 contains a perfect description of Peter Akinola and Bernard Malango?

[Nersen]

Rowan Williams is a clever man.....but even he cannot convince people that apples and oranges are in fact exactly the same fruit.

I think his intelligence is leading him to see the futility of trying to create unity by coercing people with very different views to stick together in an organisation which makes nobody happy, it seems.

[Hugh Pratt]

Well done Ruth,

The key question is for what purpose or how is God's Kingdom extended by buggery or any non reproductive sex?

I fear for Christians who go against God's clear will and under certain conditions can become reprobate and thus loose their salvation.

Hugh

Hebrews 6:4-6 (ANIV)
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, [5] who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, [6] if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

1. once been enlightened,
2. who have tasted the heavenly gift,
3. who have shared in the Holy Spirit,
4. who have tasted the goodness of the word of God
5. who have tasted the powers of the coming age

Become reprobate

Titus 1:16 (KJV)
They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Titus 1:16 (ANIV)
They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

Romans 1:28-32 (KJV)
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, [30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, [31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: [32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Romans 1:28-32 (ANIV)
Furthermore, since they did not think it worth while to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. [29] They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, [30] slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; [31] they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. [32] Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practise them.

[Elena Thompson, OP]

Now the cheerleading dies down and the work of the church carries forward, and for that alone there must be rejoicing in heaven.

[Al Raithel]

The missing factor throughout these discussions is the recognition that "The Church" is not "our Church". IT IS THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST.

In the end, no matter what we do, His Will will be Done.

May God keep us steadfast in the faith.

[phillip carpenter]

"All Rowan Williams has to do is apply his formidable intellect to the question of how both sides can be kept at the same communion table, albeit at opposite ends."
This comment makes no sense. If Williams and the Primates were intent on keeping the unbelieving "new religion" episcopalians at the communion table then it would seem that the Windsor Report and the Communique from the AAC will have been for nought.
Quoting from the NLT translation of 2 Corinthians, Chapter 6, Verses 14-18 and Chapter 7, Verse 1, "Don't team up with those who are unbelievers. How can goodness be a partner with wickedness? How can light live with darkness? What harmony can there be between Christ and the Devil? How can a believer be a partner with an unbeliever? And what union can there be between God's temple and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God said: 'I will live in them and walk among them. I will be their God, and they will be my people. Therefore, come out from them and separate yourselves from them, says the Lord. Don't touch their filthy things, and I will welcome you. And I will be your Father, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.' Because we have these promises, dear friends, let us cleanse ourselves from everything that can defile our body or spirit. And let us work toward complete purity because we fear God."
I have been an Episcopalian for over 20 years. My wife and I were married in the Episcopal church and all my children (4 beautiful ones) were christened in the same parish where we were members until October 2005. The false teachings in that parish were overwhelming-we had to leave. Was it easy? No, it was not easy to leave a place that you once called Holy and to cease worshipping with life-long friends. However, that's just where many of us find ourselves in the United States. We are desperate for an Anglican form of worship that will be true to the teachings of Christ. We wish to be in communion with other Anglican Christians in other parts of the world.
I ask specifically that the Anglican Communion embrace a new coalition of Anglican Christians in the United States. What you have now is not the genuine article.
We have been waiting. It is now time for Canterbury and the the AC to throw us a life raft.

[J. A. Frazer Crocker]

Back in 2003 Rowan Williams published a book
"Silence and Honey Cakes". In the US it was
published in 2005 under another title "Where
God Happens", with forward by Desmond Tutu.
The US version is out-of-print, but the UK
edition is still available. In that book he writes:
" As time passes it will be harder to think that the
church in the future will take one clear and uniform in-
stitutional shape across the globe or even throughout local
communities. In some areas, the church is already begin-
ning to exist in parallel lines, not in sealed compartments,
but in different styles and idioms and with real inter-
change. This actually puts more rather than less of a bur-
den on those called to leadership or pastoral oversight.
They have the job of orchestrating these difference into
something other than competition and disharmony. I find
that a significant part of my daily work as a bishop.

I strongly believe that the promise that the church
will not fail can be relied on. This is because the church is
the community of those whom Jesus calls to receive the
Spirit and to share the relation that he has to his Father,
the source. Jesus does not stop issueing that invitation, and
so the church does not stop existing. That, to me, is the
bottom line."
Is there some clue as to how he may respond in these words??

[Bill Channon]

Female Bishop? That's not the reason fror Fort Worth's request for oversight. It may well be a 'final straw' but the root causes are far, far deeper than WO. A church that rejects a resolution (as ECUSA did today) that affirms that Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of God, that He came to save us from our sins, and that He truly is "The Way, The Truth, and The Life .... and that no-one comes to the Father except by Him..." cna by no measure be called a christian church. A church that views the Scriptures as quaint, obsolete, full of error can't possibly consider itself to be a christian church. Call ECUSA something else such as "The Anything Goes As Long As It Suits Us Church" or TAGALAISUT.
I personally have no problem with women bishops but what the Episcopal Church is evolving into beggars belief. Mike Homfrey, we've talked a bit on Titus One Nine and while theologically (etc.) You and I are far apart, for the most part I do agree with you that The Episcopal Church and the AC are incompatible and should acknowledge this and go their separate ways. I suppose that the same can be said for the CofE.

[Amused]

Tim, be sure to send complaints to the Texas Environmental Center, Telephone Electronics Corporation, The Topographic Engineering Center, and a few others.

[Fr. David allen]

"Teaching gospel first, issues of ecclesiastical order second." I wonder if Bishop Iker buys that and I wonder if the Global south primates would agree to that. That of course is the classical Anglican dodge, which has got us in this mess and which we are trying to address. Not everyone who cries "Gospel, gospel' will enter the kingdom.

[Arthur Pendennis]

I beleive one of the posts above illustrates a common misunderstanding of the episcopal church in America. It is not the election of a woman primate that is causing the division. That was simply a last minute distraction, given the small number of anglo-catholics in the US. What has been leading to this all along has been the ongoing effort by the left and institutionalists in ECUSA to disenfranchise evangelicals, many of whom do not oppose women's ordination. The evangelical episcopal churches have been the source of much of the growth in ECUSA, and probably represent about 25% or more of Sunday attendance, though only about 12% of membership on paper. Several evangelical parishes are the "megachurches" you read about. Liberal bishops, seeing them as a threat to their power, for years have been refusing to allow evangelical priests to replace other evangelicals, demanding funds, limiting growth by refusing the opening of missions, trying to tie up property and so forth. In some cases, they have deposed priests, removed vestry, and come with sheriffs at dawn to change the locks on the doors, all for the insolence of making public their opposing theological views. All that ever had to be done to avoid much of the pain was to create an alternative province in the US where the evangelicals, and the smaller anglo-catholics, could be free to exist without threat. The Windsor Report called for it, and the biggest mistake both Rowan and ECUSA have made is to ignore it. The institutionalists in ECUSA have never been willing to afford the evangelicals any protection. To their credit, many lay liberals would have been happy to let the evangelical parishes go, but those whose salaries come from ECUSA and were calling the shots were never willing to relinquish the least bit of control.

So now where are we? I think Gledhill is right that Rowan still has an opportunity. He can create a safe space for the evangelicals and the anglo-catholics in the US. Sure, he has no earthly army to impose it, but he should try simply telling ECUSA what it should do, and not limit himself to what he has the power to enforce. If he creates a second province of some sort, I seriously doubt that ECUSA will do more than grumble and give in. And his time is short and he has used most of his tricks. If he fails to act quickly, I suspect that other bishops will take their own action, and present him with the choice to go along or not.

Finally, Rowan might consider getting some American communicators for his staff. The American church does not understand diplomatic language. Like their President, they only speak Texan.

[Marion R.]

' "a cruise captain wouldn't talk to me because I was a woman," she recalled. "That lasted about 15 minutes." ' Katharine Schori

Funny thing: SHE is now the cruise captain.

She has 15 minutes.

[Dave]

Although Mike Homfray and I are in opposite camps, I think he is right that it is good that these resolutions have been defeated. ECUSA/TEC have decided against fudging over their beliefs, and pretending to want to be in Communion with conservative (and moderate) Anglicans. Now that they have stopped pretending that unity is possible, maybe a reasonable resolution can be found for the American dioceses and parishes that can't go along with the new-Episcopal Church. Up 'til now they have been treated by ECUSA as if their dissent is illegitimate... but they are now clearly the one's that believe and teach the normative Anglican beliefs on sexual behaviour and the authority of the Christian Scriptures - as defined by all Anglican authorities from the CofE's GS in 1987, HoB in 1991, the Lambeth Conference in 1998, and the Primates meeting (and ACC) in 2005!

[Alistair McBay]

Well, I said in another topic that this Holy Spirit character gets around, and now I find Satan can't resist being a copycat. A couple of weeks ago Satan popped up in Africa, wedging himslef (herself?) between the Bishop Gladwin of Colchester and Archbishop Nizimbi. Now the crafty old devil has apparently popped up in Moscow, and by implication in Ohio.

I've seen references in these topics to the gay community being called scapegoats in the pitched battle between Anglicanism's liberal and traditionalist tendencies. Seems they are not the only convenient scapegoats in the mix!

[Christopher Johnson]

Sorry. Rowan Williams doesn't have a fudge from the TECkies this time. My gracious lord of Canterbury didn't get a weak resolution that he could hallucinate, er, intellectualize into TEC acceptance of Windsor. Dr. Williams got nothing at all out of GenCon; all TEC gave him was outright defiance. If he permits the TECkies to remain at the Anglican table, he forfeits all credibility, probably loses the bulk of the Anglican world and becomes the insignificant head of a western liberal pseudo-spiritual debating society.

[David]

I suspect Patriarch Alexei II wouldn't approve of his words being lifted out of context and applied to the context of the TEC. The differences between the Russian Orthodox situation and the Episcopal situation are appples and oranges. The first is a division over adiaphora (debatable things which should not divide) and, possibly, personality conflicts. Such divisions are always tragic. The second (the Anglican situation) is not a matter of adiaphora or personality conflicts-- it is a matter of separation from heresy, which is necessary and mandated by Holy Scripture.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (whether in its Eastern or Western expression) has remained Christian only because it expelled those who espoused what Scripture refers to as "doctrines of demons" (1 Tinothy 4:1). Thus the Cerinthians and the Marcionites were anathematized-- so too the Docetists and the Arians. This kind of division does not come from the evil one; it is commanded by Scripture. *This* is the kind of division that is unfolding in the Episcopal Church at this moment-- necessarily-- and Alexei II would agree.

[Mike Homfray]

I think its a good thing that these resolutions have been defeated. For me, they went one step too far.

Some sort of federation is a possibility, and at least it shows us that there is a liberal model out there for the many people who would like to see the CofE embrace such radical ideas.

[Thomas Jackson]

So it has come down to this: the election of a woman to the largely ceremonial post of Presiding Bishop provides an excuse for splitting the Anglican Communion.

The three dioceses in America that still cling to the medieval notion that women are less worthy to serve God than men continue to be the tail wagging the other 97 Episcopal dioceses in this country.

Only now this horrific affront to the holy men who want to keep “their” church a boys only club somehow justifies breaking the American church apart and allowing America’s good old boys to have, in effect, their own province?

This so-called “solution” has been rejected time and again by the Church’s General Convention but now it is justified by the “anarchy” enveloping the Episcopal Church in America?

Time for a reality check.

The overwhelming majority of American Episcopalians support ordaining women as priests, consecrating them as bishops. Electing a woman to serve as Presiding Bishop is a big deal to a tiny minority of American Episcopalians. That’s why the three dioceses that refuse to ordain women have made such a big deal out of gay issues: they know they can’t win if they fight ordination of women. Somewhere between 3 and 10 percent of “the church” seems to be upset about the women/gay thing. That is hardly enough to constitute “anarchy,” in fact that term has been used first and foremost by the British Press. While it may be true that the election of a woman as Presiding Bishop in America has thrown the English Church into a dither, that is nothing new for the Church of England. They have, after all, not yet managed to see their way clear to ordain a single woman bishop.

The experience of the American Church in dealing with the three non-conforming dioceses suggests that any attempt to accommodate these good old boy clerics will only lead to intensifying long term conflict. The American Church would have been better off to simply depose those bishops who – after say 10 years – still refused to ordain women or allow women clergy to serve in their diocese. To allow these bishops to continue disobeying church law does irreparable harm to our people and our church.

Some members of Parliament have noticed that the Church of England still enforces a stained glass ceiling by refusing to consecrate women bishops. If the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the name of unity at all costs, breaks apart the American church to rescue a few dioceses from a woman primate, then he sets a precedent that would also apply in the United Kingdom. And that could permanently condemn British women to second class status in their national church. The specter of this continuing injustice could well force political leaders to remind the Church of England that they are the nation’s church and not the private preserve of club populated by tired old white men clinging to pseudo-Victorian values.

The fight – or ‘anarchy’ – in the American Church has never really been about gays. The neo-conservatives have been lathered up for more than 30 years, since women were first ordained in our church. The election of our new Presiding Bishop simply makes clear their true colors – and priorities.

[Fr. Greg Blevins]

C'mon, +++Alex, it ain't a SCHISM. You ARE still in communion with Constantinople, no? However, you are correct in that you did, apparently, show "impatience, lack of attention," and "insensitivity" and are now paying for it by having lost Vladyka Basil and his indigenous British flock to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Kinda like certain Popes at various points in history.

Regarding TEC and the lectionary reading: it is a shame that the pericope in question did not include the rest of Romans Chapter 1. My, my.

[Tim]

Ruth:

In North America, 'TEC' is a recognised abbreviation for a movement variously called 'Teens Encounter Christ' or 'Together Encountering Christ'. This is a very positive movement through which the Holy Spirit has worked in the lives of thousands of young people (for information about our Edmonton Diocesan TEC movement, see http://www.edmonton.anglican.org/tec/). It grieves me to see this acronym now being expropriated by the Episcopal Church in the USA with no thought or consideration for a movement which has used it for decades. I'm not sure if you originated it, or if American Episcopalians did it themselves. Either way, as a Canadian Anglican who has been involved in the TEC movement, I would like to protest most strenuously about this.

Sincerely in Christ,

Tim Chesterton
http://timchesterton.blogspot.com

[James]

Good grief. How has this happened? Jesus tells us:

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

The desire of God is against the selfish and lustful and prideful desires of the world. God seeks to transform us into Christs; we resist.

The gate to heaven is narrow, not wide. That is the ultimate division of all.

James