Primates: Schismatics to be "pruned from the branch"

"There are many in America who are trying to have their cake and eat it, who are doing the schismatic thing and then accusing those who object of being schismatic." This is what Bishop of Durham Dr Tom Wright told me in a wide-ranging discussion we had on the forthcoming Primates' Meeting in Tanzania. He was quite unequivocal. He said too many in TEC are guilty of "doctrinal indifferentism." The Covenant Design Group in Nassau successfully produced a good document, he said. The Primates have little choice but to follow Windsor at the meeting next week. And if Windsor is followed, then Gene Robinson and those who consecrated him should voluntarily absent themselves from the councils of the Communion, including the Lambeth Conference, unless they express regret in the terms set out in Windsor. Only a Windsor-rooted response in Tanzania can save the Communion from schism. "Almost everybody involved  with this question recognises that there is no way forward from here without pain. It is painful for everybody. There are not going to be winners and losers. There are going to be losers catergory one, two, three, four and five." In reading his words, it is worth remembering that not only is he the intellectual equal of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the two men are good friends. So I reckon this gives us a good idea of how events might unfold next week.

Tom Wright said: "For the last three years, every meeting has looked like this is the make-or-beak one. There is a bit of this now - yet one more time round the tracks. However, the film is gradually unwinding and we are closing in on the fact that something has got to happen soon. By the end of 2007 the Archbishop of Canterbury will have had to send out invitations to the Lambeth Conference. One way or another, the decisions he has to make in relation to that are bound to have some kind of effect in various parts of the Anglican Communion.

"That is a way of saying that by this time next year, we will certainly not be where we are now. Some lines will have hardened, one way or another.There is so much sound and fury in many different directions that it is a matter of several different pressures from several different corners  - trying to hear them and listen to the voice of God in the middle of it all and make some sense of it.

"The question is, is there any solution that a solid central ground will assemble around? My view is that it would be a solution based on the Windsor Report and what has flowed from it. It is the only thing on the table. If we are going to scrap that we would have to go back three years to start all over again.  The solution would consist of the Primates accepting what the Covenant Drafting Group did in Nassau. The word is they made good progress at that meeting. I assume that means they will have something to put before the Primates. Then the question is how far that can be taken and how soon. I assume the immediate plan is to take it to Lambeth 2008. There is also the question of what the provinces will say about it.

  "The more sharp-edged question is who is seen to be speaking for the American evangelicals. Rowan has invited to Dar Es Salaam two of the leading Windsor bishops, the ones holding the ground around the Windsor report, who are not secceding and going to Nigeria but who are not going to waver in the terms that Ecusa got it wrong and it is still getting it wrong and needs to be called to order.  The question is how that is going to be resolved in the first few days of the meeting. I do not have a game plan on how that is going to work.  Rowan is head and shoulders above all of them in terms of his wisdom and ability. He listens extremely carefully to everybody and then goes away and prays about it. He is never an uncritical listener. There is noone who Rowan will allow to tell him what to do. He will think and pray through everything that he hears. His commitment is to work for the unity of the Church and the advancement of the Gospel. Those who want to go and do their own thing do not like it when the Archbishop of Canterbury says the unity of the Church means you cannot."

He referred to the recent controversial correspondence initiated by the ACO's Kenneth Kearon. "For Kenneth Kearon to accuse Rowan Williams of fostering schism is quite extraordinary. That is like someone in a house that is on fire accusing the firemen of ruining the book collection because they have sprayed water on it. It is quite clear that the split is coming from those in the  American church who are insisting on doing something that the Lambeth Conference and the rest of the Communion had asked them not to do.  To accuse Rowan Williams of fomenting schism is really projecting onto Rowan the schismatic actions which happened in 2003 when the Americans first gave acquiesence to Gene Robinson at their General Convention and then went ahead and consecrated him. In October 2003, the Primates said clearly that if this action goes ahead it will tear the fabric of the communion at its deepest level. The Americans went ahead and did it. All that has happened subsequently is the rest of the Communion saying we really hope you did not mean that but if you did, have you thought through the consequences? There are many in America who are trying to have their cake and eat it, who are doing the schismatic thing and then accusing those who object of being schismatic. That is the bizarre thing."

He cannot see how the Primates' Meeting will play out. "I wish I had a glimmer. Obviously my hope would be that the recommendations of the Windsor report will be followed through and will have their effect in terms of renewing The Episcopal Church rather than splitting it. But there will be lots of people who won't like that renewal, if and when it happens. If the Windsor report is not followed, then we do not have another apparent standard. We have to remind ourselves that the fact that the Windsor Report was being written through 2004 was what enabled us to hold together when otherwise things would have split apart. We have got to stick with it, otherwise we have wasted our time.

"If the Anglican Communion, and particularly the American church and others like it, can be renewed according to the pattern of the Windsor Report, which is of course according to the pattern of Scripture, then those who are looking to foreign jurisdictions will find a way to come back into the fold. Then there would be a sigh of relief all round. In American there are dozens of breakaway bits and pieces, it is confusing and very messy. It is very American. But it is very unhelpful to the cause of the Church and the Gospel. As for what would happen to Gene Robinson? Pass. I really do not think there is a good answer to that one. The Windsor Report quotes the Archbishop of Canterbury himself saying in 2003 that if Robinson were in most other provinces of the Anglican Communion, he certainly could not be a bishop. As a priest he would be under discipline because of what has happened in terms of his marriage and partnership. In most provinces he could not have been a bishop. Therefore to ask other provinces to come to Lambeth and accept Gene Robinson as one of their number is a very big ask.

"The Lambeth invitation list is entirely up to the Archbishop of Canterbury. I think if the Windsor report is followed through then we have to say that those who have taken certain actions and who have not expressed  regret in the way that Windsor requested should voluntarily absent themselves from the councils of the Communion."

So why was Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori going to Tanzania? "At Dromantine the Primates said they wanted Ecusa to answer some questions. Ecusa did what they did last summer, which was not to answer the questions. They gave half an answer to two of them, and no answer at all to the third, which was about authorising blessings. Bishop Jefferts Schori herself authorised same-sex blessings in her former diocese in 2003, so she is one of the bishops who did what Lambeth specifically asked not to be done. Whenever she has been asked to comment on that, she says she stands where she always did. That is a real problem.  That is the real issue. The fact that she is a woman is not the point."

But not inviting her was not an option. She has to be there, to explain the actions of General Convention, as requested by the Primates at Dromantine.  "The Primates next week are receiving a report on what Ecusa did at General Convention. That has to be discussed. That is why Rowan Williams has invited two bishops to represent the solid, Windsor-rooted centre of the American Church. We are not talking here about dissident conservatives. These are people who are not dissidents."

His outlook is pretty bleak. "Almost everybody involved  with this question recognises that there is no way forward from here without pain. It is painful for everybody. There are not going to be winners and losers. There are going to be losers catergory one, two, three, four and five.  When there is some kind of parting of the ways it is always painful for everybody. But I do think there is hope that the rootedness of the Anglican Communion in Scripture and tradition, that by doing its reasoning work wisely, this will enable it to come up strong after this crisis. Even if it means a bit of pruning, the plant will be healthier for it.  And I rather hope that anything that needs pruning will not be lost but grafted back on sooner or later."

He quoted Romans 11:11-26, about the pruning of the olive tree, and John 15: "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit." Dr Wright continued: "I rather hope that anything that needs pruning will not be lost, but grafted back on sooner or later." It is significant I think that  he does not think TEC will be cut away, merely pruned back a bit. He said: "There are some people in The Episcopal Church who dig themselves very firmly in and talk about rights and justice in the gay lobby. I do not see any way they can be reconciled with those in the Windsor position firmly committed to the truth by which Anglicanism lives today. My sense is that there are a lot of people in America, ordinary folk in the churches who have not really caught up with what is going on. Part of the difficulty is that there is a myth about in some circles that historic Anglicanism has no particular doctrine and is just a matter of worshipping together and believing what you like. If you go back to the 16th and 17th centuriesm who will find them arguing in great detail over the Articles of Religion which became the Thirty-Nine Articles. They were hugely important. The idea of doctrinal indifferentism is a very recent idea which has sprung up in some parts of America."

He ends by quoting the last paragraph of Windsor. "If we finally discover we cannot walk together, we may have to learn to walk part. None of us wants that."

He's right, none of us does. Outside my front door in Kew is a cherry tree, budding unseasonally in the January sunshine. Soon it will need pruning. I cannot bear to do it, and will ask a gardener to do it for me while I hide inside. But it will have to be done, if it is to flower as beautifully again next year. I guess, from what Tom Wright is saying, that Rowan Williams will be taking a pretty fine set of shears with him to Tanzania next week, newly sharpened, nice and polished. I wonder who, or what, the shears will be, and who will be the gardener he gets to wield them. And whether either, or both, will be of this world, or the next.

digg this

digg this also

Update: Reaction to this interview has been strong.

StandFirm bills it as extraordinary comments. Anglican Scotist has labelled it Wright's Fallacy. Daily Episcopalian hass Tom Wright chooses sides. Father Jake has Durham lobs 11th-hour charge - again. Nasty, Brutish and Short blogs For those wanting to get up to speed on the Anglican crack-up. Caught by the Light has Doctrinal Indifferentism. All Saints Lakeland Florida calls it a view in a crystal ball.  Transfigurations blogs it straight. As does Gadget Vicar. Preludium has Bishop Tom going for the body blow - and missing. Raspberry Rabbit homes in on the choices to be made. Episcopal Chaplain at the bedside has Bishop Tom not wrong, just misinformed. Big Bulky Anglican has Tom Wright meets Ruth Gledhill - or should that be the other way round. Vocatio has What church will we choose? The interface looks at the General Synod story, linked via Digg above.

Comments

[TonyAllen]

To the Irresponsible and Lazy Fred Glynn,

I'm so happy you posted your non-contextual, non-historic, and slackness-full personal "parroting" that God, and Jesus, are fairytale characters that can't possibly be whom they said, and say, they are, based upon your repeating of a pulp urban legend version of a historical account of Egyptian occupation of the Canaan region. Your weak and poorly made argument is an indictment on the time frame in which Moses lead the Hebrew people out of Egypt into a geographic region that consists of modern-day Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, plus adjoining coastal lands and parts of Jordan, Syria and northeastern Egypt known as "Canaan".

Its absolutely true that Egypt ruled the "Canaan Region" during the 1600 BCE timeframe, and earlier points in history; however, they lost their grip, and their rule, well before the timeframe for the Exodus period, approximately 1400 BCE timeframe. Your quoting of 1 Kings 6:1 is irrelevant in that this specifically maps the time of the beginning of building Solomon's Temple which was finished in 960 BCE and took seven years to build.

I would also track back to your ill presumption, based upon flawed logic and non-fact, that Moses didn't exist, hence the Torah is not divine, but that would be using your false dogma as a basis for proving a truth and this chat is probably better served for you to resume as pub talk on your next crawl.

And...Mr. Glynn, you have obviously not spent as much time, as I am sure you are capable of, in regards to Jesus Christ. Its clear by your own statements you're struggling with understanding who Jesus said he was and is, MIND YOU, not whom the world, the church, or you, says he was and is.

I wonder if you realize that Jesus was the ORIGINAL liberal? I wonder if people that make a quick judgment of Christ, are capable of challenging themselves , by study and reflection of that study , to not put Jesus in the same class and category as Greek philosophers, Eastern mystics, or modern day cults ?

You seem to be, based upon your theology, hand in hand on a wide path with those whom make themselves into Bible experts without ever thoroughly reading or studying the Bible in which you speak. As the late Will Rogers said, "Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects."

In closing, for those that want to verify that the esteemed Mr. Glynn is a victim of his own disinformation on the "Egyptian Occupation Proves God and the Bible as Mistaken-Urban Legend" you can start by visiting this interesting, though subjective, link on historical Canaan at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan

BEST!!!

-TAC

[Fred Glynn]

There are those who feel comfortable by continuing to believe things that can not possibly be true. One such thing is the idea of the violent conquest of Canaan by the descendants of some 2.5 million Hebrew/Israelite men, women, and children who had fled from the Egyptian delta circa 1263/2 BCE (Exodus 1:11) or 1441 BCE (I Kings 6:1) after having been held captive for over 400 years in the Egyptian delta. Since Egypt had gained control of Canaan around 1550 BCE, upon their expulsion (and apparent annihilation) of the Hyksos, and maintained that control until 1141 BCE when Rameses VI withdrew Egyptian troops from Canaan and Midian, it becomes obvious that no such conquest could have taken place. It becomes obvious, too, that the exodus (which was said to have preceded the conquest) could not have taken place, either. And it becomes obvious, too, that without the exodus, the story of the 400-year captivity in Egypt could not have taken place. Without these three things, the biblical Moses is an impossibility, as well. And, without Moses, the Torah records the making of laws not by Yahweh (as told to Moses) but as the work of men who were no more than human.

As for Jesus, which Jesus are we talking about? Are we talking about the benevolent Jesus who fused the philosophy of the Greek Cynics with that of Buddha and created the pithy sayings the Q1 document recorded? Or are we talking about the militant Jesus created by Paul as the foundation of corporate Christianity? It's far more likely that the benevolent Jesus would side with Christian secularists rather than with Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals.

There can be no doubt but that Heaven, for Paul's Christians, existed physically in the skies above the earth where they would have died due to a lack of oxygen.

All things evolve. Even the Word of God.

[Allen Khodabash]

Is this really just about homosexuality? I don't think so.

Of the two dozen or so Episcopal priests and ministers I know in the United States (in New York, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and California), only two or three actually believe in the divinity of Christ and His resurrection. Most discount the idea of "Heaven" or "bodily resurrection" or "eternal life." None accepts the binding authority of the scriptures or the traditions of the church.

In practice, they use their positions in the Episcopal Church for the almost exclusive purpose of promoting various left-wing social causes ("justice", of course), relying on their positions of authority to sway the opinion of the dwindling band of Episcopalians who actually believe what's stated in the Nicene Creed.

The sorry truth here is that this isn't really a disupte among Christians. It's a dispute between Christians and secularists who control a substantial amount of real estate.

[J Pearce]

Brian,

What a fantastic advert for Christianity you are! Your life must be overflowing with joy! It shines through like a beacon in your posts!

[Brian]

Dear J Pearce,

I did not remember you asking me about "tradition" so I am not quite sure of your point.

Your basic moral system, from what I can gather, is that its up to you to determine right from wrong. Sorry, that system will not endure.

Its not a matter of "black or white"." Its a matter of whom do you follow...your own personal voice or something or Someone else.

You said: "I have to say, the tone of your last post is particularly negative. I think this is a reflection of the limits of what Orthodox Christianity is capable of offering the world today, at least in societies such as ours."

Its so nice to know that when in doubt, ad hominem is so easy a response.

Speaking of "tones," the "tone" of your original post was insightful..."Humans parroting various interminably long-winded, obscurantist and rather pointless religious doctrines at each other..." You held up your opponents sincerely held views to ridicule.

I guess your sarcasm is fine but my negative tone is a "no-no." So much for "grey" moral areas...its black and white when I say something that you don't like.

Lets not talk about each others motives or tones, lets talk about the facts. As one who has said that he has the "facts" on his side you should stick to your strong point.

You said: "Think about what Orthodox Christianity offers people - a retreat into the past. The safety of a rigid, narrowly defined set of moral codes...

The problem is with your argument is that when it suits you, your moral "code" can be so rigid it would make any decent puritan blush.

Look at your attitude toward gay adoption. There is nothing more rigid then your governments new rules in this area. And woe to those who defy it.

At least try to be consistent.

[Christopher Rigg]

In consternation, I read the BBC World Service report (14 February on Internet) of the leaders of the Anglican Church starting to gather in Tanzania. The report reports the danger of schism, describes Dr Rowan Williams as “The head of the Anglican Church and Archbishop of Canterbury” and Archbishop Peter Akinola as “The head of the Anglican Church in Africa …, who leads 37 million Anglicans.”
I am confused. Since 1562, the guideline of Anglicanism has been the Book of Common Prayer, including the Articles of Religion, in which Article 34 states
“Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.”
Surely the same principle applies to ethical matters.
Article 37 states: “the chief power in this Realm of England … , whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, … is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.” Civil government is now linked in Parliament with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and some civil powers now rest with the European Union. However, no ecclesiastical authority outside England has authority over its Church. If any national Church interfere in the affairs of another national Church, it is ‘trespassing’. Likewise, any local Church may accept or shelve recommendations by bishops at Lambeth Conferences.
Refreshingly, the BBC describes the Archbishop as the ‘head of the Church’, though he has no ecclesiastical authority outside England. More usually, the BBC describes the Queen as ‘head’. The only head of the Church of England, of the Anglican Communion and of “the Anglican Church in Africa” is Jesus Christ. Who is giving the BBC such strange information? News services here on the Continent take over such BBC misinformation without question. Can anyone put them right?

[J Pearce]

Brian,

"And J, you didn't answer my question about your moral system."

And I note that you didn't answer my question about Tradition…

"My" moral system is what one might call post-Christian, mostly secularist. I guess. Its not a particularly easy task to summarise an entire society and culture in a few sentences! I honestly don't think I can do the sheer complexity of the question justice (especially in such a limited sphere). That’s not an attempt to dodge the question - its more a recognition that its infinitely more complex than the "black and white" view you appear to have.

I have to say, the tone of your last post is particularly negative. I think this is a reflection of the limits of what Orthodox Christianity is capable of offering the world today, at least in societies such as ours. What I would like to see is Christianity to take a "leap of faith" itself, in that it should revise itself root and branch to make it more relevant to the world we live in today. I think that is what we are beginning to see in certain parts of Anglicanism. Think about what Orthodox Christianity offers people - a retreat into the past. The safety of a rigid, narrowly defined set of moral codes. If Christianity is dying in our society, perhaps it is because in its current form, it is incapable of addressing the social and moral issues thrown up by our society. I believe that those in our society who choose to hide behind "Tradition" are actually frightened of change. The problem is, change is inevitable.

Maybe that’s why the Africans prefer the fixed moral certainties of Orthodox Christianity - their society is, lets be honest, much simpler. Perhaps an Anglican split is the best thing for all concerned - the Africans get to keep their simplistic moral ethos, whereas the more advanced countries get to embrace a more sophisticated version. The "one size fits all" approach clearly doesn't work.

The religious ethos of a people is a reflection of the culture in which it is practised, would you not agree?

[Brian]

Dear J Pearce,

You said: "...but give me that over a freedom-crushing theocracy any day! At least in my flawed, secular society, I get an opportunity to voice my opinion and replace the state ideology once every few years."

Tell that to the person who was arrested passing out anti-gay tracts...peacefully. Tell that to the Catholic agencies that can no longer foster adoptions because of an odious law by the state. How about that Canadian teacher who was stripped of his teaching certificate solely based on a letter to the editor of a local newspaper opposing gay marriage?

Look around you. Where are there state laws requiring you to believe anything OTHER than this secularism drivel?

Nobody is advocating a state religion, except the Muslims, which will soon be a majority in Merrie Old England in a few decades, which really makes our discussion almost moot (for you, if you live in Londonistan).

My use of "freedom of choice" is very accurate. I am referring to religious adoption agencies that had the "choice" to operate said agency. The choice is now gone.

And J, you didn't answer my question about your moral system. You hemmed and hawed...because you don't really have an answer to the question. No wonder Christianity is dying in England and Europe...you have no real faith to offer as an alternative to militant Islam, or really anyting else for that matter.

If you do live in England, you great grandchildren will be fleeing for the new world just as the Christians are fleeing the Middle East. If you think the religious culture in England 50 years ago was somehow oppressive, wait till you see Sharia law in practice.

[J Pearce]

"To your point about "special dispensations," I think you fail to realize the logical result of your position, which is state control over personal beliefs and ideologies."

I suppose it depends on which system of control you want to have in place. The secular state may not be perfect and I accept its glaring flaws - but give me that over a freedom-crushing theocracy any day! At least in my flawed, secular society, I get an opportunity to voice my opinion and replace the state ideology once every few years. I don't get to vote out the religious elite, and more's the pity. A little more democracy in the religious hierarchy might make it more responsive to peoples real concerns.

Also, do you consider it to be morally acceptable, that a child might be denied a place at his/her local state funded school, because his/her parents don't happen to worship the right God? This is the kind of dispensation I am referring to - where the religious demand special treatment, so that they can perpetuate their own elitism.

Your comment about "freedom of choice" in adoption is bizarre. I have consistenly argued on other threads, that adoption agencies should not be allowed to discriminate against potential adopters on the basis of sexuality, as well as race or religion. If more potential adopters are welcomed and subjected to vetting, it stands to reason that there will be a greater pool of potential adopters in which children can be placed. The child will therefore, potentially, have greater "freedom of choice" in choosing the family they would like to stay with. More potential adopting families = more children removed from social care. How does a child "suffer" as a result of this?

Yet it is the religious who are claiming special exemptions in this area, in order to perpetuate their own discriminatory agenda against homosexuals. Now that’s what I call bizarre.

"Your comment about "Christian doctrine" being "updated" is fairly ignorant of the history and understanding of doctrinal development in the Church."

You've just contradicted your own argument, Brian! By your own admission, "doctrinal development" (your words) has occurred. Yet you appear to be arguing that "Tradition" is immutable. So, which one is it - has "Tradition" remained unchanged since the inception of Christian doctrine, or hasn't it?

"What "coherent" moral system do you like? Marxism-Leninism? That was really "fit for purpose." Ditto to fascism. What coherent moral system are you appealing to other than your inheritied Christian one modified significantly to fit your own criteria of what is right or wrong?"

This is a complicated issue, but I'll try my best to summarise it. Bottom line, Christianity claims to represent the "ultimate" (for want of a better word) moral system, simply because it is (allegedly) a product of the "ultimate being" (God). Yet two thousand years have passed since JC walked this earth and there is scant evidence to show that Christianity is any better, or worse a moral system, than any other that has been and gone. I would have thought that the very fact that Christianity is still engaged in "competition" with other ideologies is proof enough to show that as a moral system, it has failed to live up to its own hype.

I don't disagree that the value system bequeathed to us by Christianity, is deeply ingrained in our western culture. But I think we are now starting to see the limits of a purely religious doctrine and Christianity - more specifically, Anglicanism - is starting to split at the seams because of its inability to embrace the modern secular world.

[Brian]

Dear J Pearce,

The comment about "social organizations" was meant in the context that when you have a group of people meeting, you are going ot have various opinions.

To your point about "special dispensations," I think you fail to realize the logical result of your position, which is state control over personal beliefs and ideologies. Like the athiests which penned the Soviet Constitution, "freedom of religion" is only meant to mean freedom to have a worship service, and that grudgingly. Anything else that goes against the state is verboten!

Unlike fish stairs for trout breeding, sexuality and the attitudes thereof cannot be divorced from the culture in which it arose, including religious belief.

What is the end result of your thought control? Catholic agencies who placed children in loving homes for adoption will no longer be able to do so. So much for "freedom of choice." The children suffer so you can proclaim an enlightened, politically correct state.

Your comment about "Christian doctrine" being "updated" is fairly ignorant of the history and understanding of doctrinal development in the Church.

You said: "For a coherent moral system that is supposedly derived from an omnipotent, omniscient being, it hasn't really proved itself "fit for purpose", has it?"

This statement doesn't even make sense. You start out by talking about religion's failure at explaining "phenomena" and then you end up talking about the moral sphere. Which is it? Galileo's observations were not moral, but scientific.

What "coherent" moral system do you like? Marxism-Leninism? That was really "fit for purpose." Ditto to fascism. What coherent moral system are you appealing to other than your inheritied Christian one modified significantly to fit your own criteria of what is right or wrong?

[Brian]

Dear Frank,

I think you are confusing Old Testament "traditions" (as you put it) with the Tradition of the Church. These are NOT the same thing.

The problem with your position is that you say that since some practices in the OT like slavery, genocide, etc. have changed then anything can change. But you have no basis on which to determine what is normative other than your own personal ideas. This is making Christianity in your own image and likeness.

The "ongoing revelation of Christ" has a lot more to do with an individual's hankering for his own personal view on how things should be than with any "revelation" from Christ.

You too can be a Pope. Pope Roger might be a little upset, though, as you are a usurper of his legitimate claim.

:)

[J Pearce]

Brian,

If religions are "just like any other social organisation", why should the religious be allowed to claim special dispensation in law (as has been amply demonstrated by the Catholic Church in regards to schooling and adoption in recent times)? Why are Christians represented in our legislative process (Upper House) and as such, can influence the laws of this land - but the Womens Institute or The Salmon and Trout Association are not represented?

Your comment "…if tradition can change, then its not a tradition" appears to ignore the fact that Christian doctrine has been updated and revised since its inception. It is not immutable, despite the fact you puport it is. I rather think that it is your temporal understanding of "Tradition" which is frozen like a mosquito in amber.

Finally, I am not an atheist, but I would point out that religion has tried to explain rather a lot of phenomena - then been proved spectacularly wrong on many occasions. For a coherent moral system that is supposedly derived from an omnipotent, omniscient being, it hasn't really proved itself "fit for purpose", has it?

[Kate]

Alan: "... the decision as to whether or not ECUSA (or even the Church of Ireland) is properly to be regarded as Anglican any longer rests with that international gathering ...."

Sorry old boy, the Church of Ireland traces its origins back to the missions of Saint Patrick. Historically the Church of Ireland is OLDER than Anglicanism, directly evolved from the Celtic Church in Ireland. WE chose you, not the other way round.

The Church of Ireland has been part of the Anglican communion since 1536. It has survived Disestablishment, and 50 years of covert discrimination and persecution by your friends in Rome. The C of I and its holy orders have emerged united, with honour and respect from a 30 year war. We are NOT riven asunder - as is the Church in England.

Lord Eames as Archbishop of Armagh proved himself the Good Shepherd. I thank God that such as HE held Armagh through terrible times. I am grateful that such as you did not. You demean yourself yet again.

[Frank Schnittger]

Brian - I think you will find that old testament traditions re: genocide, fratricide, murder, stoning, slavery, divorce, usury, Sabbath observance etc. have changed, and even new Testament and subsequent traditions re: the position of women, divorce, torture, burning at the stake, the bastardisation of illegitimate children, the combining of temporal secular and religious power, the understanding of evolution, Science etc. have all changed. In fact the only constant in living history and tradition is change.

Only death remains unchanged, and the ossified fossils of those institutions and people who have died - spiritually or physically. You deny the possibility of the ongoing revelation of Christ when you deny the possibility of change. Your faith is the faith of the dead - not the living - if all you can see is the recapitulation of the past.

[Christopher]

"Perhaps Frank is unaware that his hero Lord Eames spoke out strongly against this in the House of Lords debate on the NI regulations?"

But did Lord Eames actually vote against them, Alan? I think if you check Hansard you'll find he didn't.

[Brian]

Your All Holiness,

Despite your infallibility, you should know that if tradition can change, then its not a tradition.

Your obedient servant,

[Frank Schnittger]

Alan - I have now argued on several occasions that the British Government went further with the SORs than required under the Convention – and suggested that did so because it reflected a broad consensus in British politics. A one-size-fits-all approach would be for each Governement to implement the minimum requirements of the convention in exactly the same way - something I have never advocated.

We have also previously discussed Lord Eames' concerns re: the manner of their introduction in Northern Ireland. Basically he confirmed my earlier theory that Hain was introducing them with little consultation ahead of everywhere else in the UK because he wanted to provoke the DUP into agreeing to devolved Government – not a very good reason, I think you will agree - and Lord Eames was right to express his concerns.

This has NOTHING to do with TEC or the Windsor Report. As chairman of the Commission which produced it, I think it is reasonable shorthand to describe him as its chief author. If it does represent a consensus amongst Anglicans internationally, as you suggest, then how can it be used to exclude TEC if they are part of that consensus, unless they choose to leave of their own accord?

[FunnyBone]

The Presiding Person going to sit down with Real Christians? How funny is that? Anglican bishops should not listen to anymore of her dribble. This is why TEC is in the mess it's in today: too much talk. PB Frank has handed his standup comedy routine off to her and gotten out of town… PEOPLE of the Anglican Church: QUIT TALKING TO THESE USELESS TYPES. Get on with the Church business at hand. Wash your hands of this… this… “person” and what she stands for. She has won the hearts of Hollywood. She will have a movie made about her. I still think that Kofi Annan will be offered the roll of her character; they’re both pink (or red) and who will notice If Kofi doesn’t do it they’ll get some Elgin “john”* to play the part of the “puppet”. If there is any good that I can find about her it is the laughter she provides when she opens her mouth to speak. She could have her own weekly comedy hour… I’d pay to see her, but I would NOT get her remarks confused with religion. That’s not the business she is in. What she calls religion has a lot fewer Commandments, In fact, there may just be the one: Thou shalt not covert thy neighbor’s gerbil. Hee hee hee; too funny.
FunnyBone
*Elgin, IL

[Alan Marsh]

Lord Eames is not the author of the Windsor Report. Nor is that document a formulary in any sense comparable to the Reformation's 39 Articles. But it does represent a consensus among Anglicans internationally that there are limits to the wide freedom enjoyed by provinces of the Anglican Communion, and that there comes a point beyond which they can not reasonably claim to be Anglican, or to share in the councils of the Anglican Communion.

The European Convention on Human Rights does not require the UK government to act as it has - other states in Europe are taking a less restrictive attitude, which recognises (as the Convention does) that sometimes rights clash, and that a one-size-fits-all approach (as advocated by Frank) results in injustice - as is now happening in Northern Ireland.

Perhaps Frank is unaware that his hero Lord Eames spoke out strongly against this in the House of Lords debate on the NI regulations?

[Frank Schnittger]

Roger 1 - eminent and all as you may be, I believe His Eminance is the correct form of address for a Cardinal. You will have to achieve Holiness if you want to make it to Pope! You might as well get used to the protocol...

[Roger Upodaca]

I commend Oliver's irenic post above. He was able to articulate better than I a view of Christian Tradition as a living entity.

While this has been a most instructive conversation, it seems to me to not have progressed beyond (a) "Christian Tradition can change" and (b) "No, it can't. At least not when it comes to buggery."

Now, if you'll forgive me for bowing out, I simply must be off to the tailors to be fitted for my new papal appointments. My rabbi is going to be so surprised.

His Eminence,

Pope Roger I

[Frank Schnittger]

Oh dear! Where does one start, or does one even bother?

Firstly the 299 to 13 vote I referred to passed the regulations into law in Northern Ireland. There the debate is over. In relation to Britain the Prime Minister, Tony Blair has also said there will be no religious opt out - but has given the Church some time to prepare before the full regulations are implemented.

Secondly, I do not live in Britain, so whether or not I support the Government there is irrelevant. As it happens I opposed the invasion of Iraq (and Ireland's involvement in Rendition flights) and support measures to outlaw discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexual (and religious) orientation.

Far from denying the freedom of religion to Churches, I am an enthusiastic exponent of such freedom. However I do not believe such freedom extends to discrimination against particular groups of people in the secular sphere. They too have rights, something Alan is rarely willing to concede to others.

Alan is also mistaken in his understanding of the European dimension. Firstly I commented on this extensively on the previous thread, so why I should repeat it here, I’m not sure.

Secondly it has nothing whatever to do with a European Directive as stated by Alan, but is a case brought against France in the European Court under certain provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. (European Directives are instruments of the EU, an entirely different body to the European Court or the European Convention on Human Rights).

Thirdly, I actually argued the point made by Alan – that Britain had gone further than required under the Convention. It did so because there is an overwhelming political consensus in Britain that discrimination against particular groups because of their beliefs, origins or orientations is wrong. In seeking to perpetuate such discrimination, Alan, and those of similar views, are driving the Church to the margins of British society.

Having sought to elevate the Windsor document to the level of the 39 Articles – as THE defining expression of Anglicanism – Alan is now faced with the awkward reality that the chief author of that document does not regard it as a charter for excluding TEC. He takes refuge in the fact the Lord Eames has recently retired. However his successor has given no indication of a different view.

Perhaps Alan is right, and TEC will ultimately be excluded. I do not have a crystal ball and do not make any prediction either way. However the “Anglicanism” which would remain after such an expulsion will not be the Anglicanism we know today. Having successful encouraged the trend towards the marginalisation of Anglicanism in the U.K., no doubt Alan wants to achieve a similar “success” on a global scale.

We have seen what narrow sectarianism and the attempt to discriminate against others has done in Ireland. Please pardon us if we do not wish to travel that road on a Global scale.

[Brian]

Dear J Pearce,

You said: "I think it’s a bit sad that after all this time, religions cannot get their act together."

This is kind of a silly statement, isn't it? Its sad that political parties in democracies cannot "get their act together." Its sad that economists cannot "get their act together." How about the lawyers?

Well, I will concede to you the lawyers.

I am not sure where it says that religions have to agree. Religious ideas, like political and social ideas, are varied. What is wrong with that? I don't understand the argument that all religions should agree.

Churches are also made up of people, just any other social organization. And just like them factionalism is rife. This is the result of our fallen nature, not necessarily of the group that we associate with.

You said: "Well, I don't see much wisdom in the perpetual state of warfare that exists (and has existed, since the year dot), both between competing religious ideologies and within religions themselves."

Right. Lets ban political parties, free speech, economists, and lawyers because they don't agree, either.

Well, I will concede to you the lawyers.

You said: "I should also point out, that when atheists argue, at least they don't rely on justifying the precedence of their argument by referring to an unprovable, ethereal, uncontactable uber-entity. Dare I suggest, that their arguments are more centered in the real world?"

You can dare, but you would be as wrong as you are on other matters.

You should consider that atheists are no more centered on the "real world" than Christians.

The problem with atheism is that it cannot explain a lot of phenomena. It cannot come up with a coherent moral system OTHER than basing it on the person or persons trying formulate one. In this case, the individual becomes the "uber-entity."

God bless you.

[Brian]

Dear Roger,

You said: "So once again, I raise the question, what is it about proscription of same-gender genital acts that it cannot be re-evaluated in light of Tradition and Scripture?"

If a "tradition" can be "re-evaluated" (i.e. dispensed with) then it is no longer a tradition in the Christian sense. Its just a custom that can be changed at whim. You can "re-evaluate" anything you want...and end up with Sola Scriptura plus Sola Traditio. The result is the same...anyone is able to use any hermeneutic to get the result they so desperately want.

I think you are trying to have your theological cake and eat it, too. You seem to want tradition when it suits and to reject it when it doesn't.

You are trying to fit something that is not traditional into a paradigm of tradition. It just won't work.

Its best to be honest. If this is your point of view, just say the Bible and Tradition got it wrong and you have it right. We can then anoint you as Pope Roger I.

God bless you.

[Alan Marsh]

Misrepresentation as usual from Frank, whose grasp of Parliamentary procedure, like his theology, is somewhat tenuous and subjective.

We have yet to see the final form of the Regulations which he mentions, although if you read his post uncritically, you might imagine that all has been settled.

Nor does he mention that for some reason the UK government has chosen, unlike other European governments, to be prescriptive beyond the requirements of the relevant European directive. Frank approves of denying freedom of religion to the Churches, so he is an enthusiastic supporter of the London regime.

Lord Eames has indeed made some unguarded remarks in ECUSA about the Windsor Report, but it appears that he supports the ECUSA agenda, so it is hardly surprising that he should encourage ECUSA to persist in its disastrous course towards self-imposed isolation.

Eames however is no longer one of the Anglican primates, and the decision as to whether or not ECUSA (or even the Church of Ireland) is properly to be regarded as Anglican any longer rests with that international gathering - not with ECUSA itself, not with Lord Eames, and certainly not with Frank.

That is the whole point of the Windsor principle: individuals and even provinces are not Anglican on their own terms. The definition is made by the worldwide church, and we are about to see the principle carried through, between this month's meeting of primates in Tanzania, and the international Lambeth Conference in 2008.

[J Pearce]

Oliver,

Thank you for the considered post. I am struck by the phrase "betray the past". Surely any kind of change from received "Tradition" is a "betrayal" of what has gone before? And change can happen incrementally. As Christian doctrine has been tweaked and amended in small ways over the centuries, I'm sure that what is now understood as "Tradition" is very much different from what it was hundreds of years ago (although, obviously, this would be hard to prove).

Also, where is the wisdom of God defined? Is it not the Bible? Has that not itself been passed through word of mouth, then set down in script, revised, translated and re-translated over the centuries? I find it hard to believe that so many people are fixated on the Bible as the invioable "word of God", when as an artifact, it has undergone an organic growth all of its own.

[pendennis88]

It was said "the Bishop of Durham is living in a fantasy world if he believes that these two bishops [Duncan and McPherson] represent the "centre" of the Episcopal Church. At most they might represent 15% of Episcopalians."

I believe the official count from spokespersons for ECUSA as of 2003 was 18%. However, that was based on membership, not aveage Sunday attendance, known as ASA. As evangelicals tend to appear somewhat more regularly in church on Sundays, and give more money, they are believed to be somewhat more than that, 25-30% in actual ASA and giving, though that is obscured by the recent departures and that giving has been redirected in the last few years. The diocese of Olympia, being in the northwest US, probably does not have many evangelicals.

What I would describe as a fantasy world is that ECUSA thinks it can continue to suppress and drive out the Anglican evangelicals in its ranks, suing them all as they go out the door, show the middle finger to Williams and the other primates on a daily basis, and yet continue to be a part of the Anglican Communion in peace.

[Oliver Nicholson]

I am no theologian but it seems to me that what Anglicans mean when they invoke "Tradition", J. Pearce, is not that they wish to repeat the past, but rather that they hope to face the future in a way which does not bettray the past, rather as Anglo-American Common Law grows organically from precedent: as the twig is bent... This requires a whole pile of prayerful discernment, rather than an end-run appeal to some authority less than God (which is why Anglicans might accept Newman's notion of development of doctrine but not his Bekehrung nach Rom). This is not so much a matter of reflecting the Wisdom of God, rather of reflecting on it (with quite a degree of fear and trembling).

[Frank Schnittger]

Roger Upodaca: "Time will tell. A little humility is order all around, though, I think."

If you are looking for humility, Roger, you are looking up the wrong piehole! Alan has frequently lectured all and sundry who might dare to disagree with his pronouncements on all matters - most recently the British Government's introduction of regulations outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Even in Britain he has lost every argument. The House of Commons passed the regulations by a margin of 299 to 13 and Alan was supported in his view only by the small, sectarian, party of Dr. Paisley in Northern Ireland.

In his bitterness he often turns to racial abuse or the sarcastic put down. But he does not speak for all in the Anglican Communion, not even in Britain, and certainly not in Ireland. He has been as dismissive of Archbishop Robin Eames, Chairman of the Lambeth Commission which authored the Windsor Report, as he has been of you. You are in good company, and TEC does not travel alone.

[J Pearce]

Alan (and to a lesser extent Brian),

You haven't really understood what I've said. When I said "microcosm", I wasn't just referring to the history of Anglicanism, I was referring to the history of religion, full stop.

I think it’s a bit sad that after all this time, religions cannot get their act together. Remember, all religions claim to be the mouthpiece of God - this will be the God who Created Everything, He Who Is Infallible etc etc - and those who preach whatever religious doctrine they happen to be preaching (or whatever flavour of that doctrine they happen to be pushing), always justify the precedence of their doctrine over all others, precisely because they purport to be preaching "the word of God".

They assume the mantle of reflecting the Wisdom of God, yes? Well, I don't see much wisdom in the perpetual state of warfare that exists (and has existed, since the year dot), both between competing religious ideologies and within religions themselves. Where is God in all of that?

I should also point out, that when atheists argue, at least they don't rely on justifying the precedence of their argument by referring to an unprovable, ethereal, uncontactable uber-entity. Dare I suggest, that their arguments are more centered in the real world?

(I also note the argument being put forward, regarding the importance of "Tradition" within Christian belief. Good grief! If mankind had based all its decisions on the importance of following "tradition", the invention of the wheel would have been rejected for being far too radical. I mean, its traditional to walk everywhere, isn't it? That’s what God gave us legs for, right?!)

[Alan Marsh]

"Shut your piehole" seems to sum up the attitude of ECUSA pretty neatly!

ECUSA has been pushing these arguments for at least 20 years, gradually distancing itself not only from significant numbers of its own members, but from the wider Anglican Communion to which it professes to belong.

The institutions within ECUSA have been purged of any opposition ("Shut your piehole") but it is finally impossible to compel conscience, which is why large sections of ECUSA have left, or are leaving, or are aligning themselves with other parts of the Anglican Communion.

And the case IS about to be closed: despite frenzied but doomed efforts to buy support in Africa, ECUSA has failed to convince many people that it has been chosen by God to usher in a new revelation, and most have concluded that ECUSA has simply got it all wrong.

ECUSA has had plenty of time and two General Conventions to consider the damage its leadership is doing, and has not only set its face firmly against the judgement of the wider Communion, but elected as its presiding bishop someone whose theology is deeply suspect to non-existent.

By all means try the Gamaliel Test, but within 20 years there may be nobody left in ECUSA to ask about the result.

[Roger Upodaca]

...the document has not passed the test of acceptance by mainstream Christianity, and ought to be withdrawn.

Ah, well, then, case closed, right? So that's how revelation works -- take your best shot and it's a straight up and down vote by "mainstream Christianity" and, if you lose, shut your piehole.

I'm being facetious, of course, but I really don't think this issue will be resolved during the lifetime of anyone reading this blog.

If TEC wants to be prophetic, then they need to review the Biblical record - yes, some of them own and read Bibles - of what happens to prophets. Getting kicked out of the Anglican Communion should be the least of their worries if they truly believe what they are doing is of God. The "Gamaliel Test" will proceed apace.

But those who oppose the direction of the TEC might find that God is, in fact, doing not so much a new thing, but the old thing in a new way. It's not unprecedented.

Time will tell. A little humility is order all around, though, I think.

[Alan Marsh]

The Episcopal Church presented such a case in the document "To Set Our Hope on Christ"

Indeed it did, but the document has not passed the test of acceptance by mainstream Christianity, and ought to be withdrawn. It has been vigorously debated in a wide variety of fora (it is not exactly a new argument although the claims put forward for a unique revelation to ECUSA are somewhat startling) and it has been found to fall short of the basic standard of compatibility with holy scripture as the wider church understands it.

[Roger Upodaca]

That is why tradition is so important. Its easy to make an argument based on the Bible. Anybody with a Bible who has a rudimentary education can do this. Its not so easy to make an argument when one is doing so within the constraints of the tradition of the Church.

Thank you for that cogent response. It addresses nicely the fallacy of "sola scriptura".

However, the question then becomes "How do we distinguish between Tradition and tradition?". The Vincentian Canon (all things believed at all times in all places) is often cited as the standard, but I would aver this represents more of an ideal than an actual description of the doctrinal life of the Church.

For example, most of the world's Christians, at one time, subscribed to an Arian understanding of the nature of Christ. In a more contemporary issue, "penal substitutionary atonement" is, at least among evangelicals, considered a fundamental article of faith, yet for the first thousand years of Christianity (until Anselm), that view was not articulated, much less believed.

Issues of Christology and soteriology can hardly be classified as "shellfish" adiaphora, can they? Yet we've seen substantial change and development in these areas of Tradition.

So once again, I raise the question, what is it about proscription of same-gender genital acts that it cannot be re-evaluated in light of Tradition and Scripture?

I would contend that there is a case, illumined by Scripture and Tradition, that same-gender convenanted relationships are not only permissable, but can serve as an example of sacramental grace for the Church and the world.

The Episcopal Church presented such a case in the document "To Set Our Hope on Christ". Whether this document adequetely articulated a position supported by Scripture and Tradition is, of course, debatable and should be vigorously examined.

But the oft-repeated charge against the Episcopal Church is that she has never considered Scripture and Tradition, but only been concerned with issues of secular rights. This is demonstrably untrue and those who continue to repeat it bear false witness.

I encourage those who sincerely seek a deeper understanding of these issues to read that document as a starting point for further discernment.

On a less abstract level, I have found it insightful to visit www.gaychristian.net and see mutually respectful discussions between Christians who identify as gay, some of whom believe they are called to holiness through celibacy and some who believe they are called to holiness through convenanted relationships.

[Brian]

Dear J Pearce,

Humans parrot a lot of things. They parrot various interminably long-winded, obscurantist and rather pointless political and philosophical doctrines at each other.

Its a neat way to marginalize one's beliefs, no? Just say that they are parroting various interminably long-winded...etc.

Have you ever heard a politician speak?

How about atheists parroting various interminably long-winded obscurantist and rather pointless arguments? Heaven forbid!

Oooppss...I shouldn't have said "Heaven forbid"....I should have said "Historical Process Forbid!" Sorry.

[Nigel Taber-Hamilton]

This is classic Modernist thinking on the part of the Bishop of Durham.

It will always produce winners and losers. It's also typical of the Bishop of Durham's cultural blinders, that are so huge that I'm surprised he doesn't trip over them!

Apparently the good bishop also diasgrees with the chair of the Lambeth Commission, Archbishop Eames, who - on more than one occasion - has stated his belief that TEC has, indeed, "express[ed] regret in the terms set out in Windsor."

When two members of the Lambeth Commission disagree about the response of the Episcopal Church whom are we to believe?

Durham also reveals a total lack of awareness as to what the Bishop of Pittsburgh is actually up to - scheming to split the Episcopal Church, supporting the crossing of Diocesan boundaries, proclaiming other Christians to be "heretics, aliens, foreigners": this can hardly be described as being "a Windsor Bishop".

This insulting lack of knowledge is revealed even more by the following comment: "That is why Rowan Williams has invited two bishops to represent the solid, Windsor-rooted centre of the American Church."

"The solid, Windsor-rooted centre of the American Church"? For one thing, what are our Canadian brothers and sisters? Chopped liver?

More deeply, however, the Bishop of Durham is living in a fantasy world if he believes that these two bishops represent the "centre" of the Episcopal Church. At most they might represent 15% of Episcopalians.

With such uninformed and thoughtless commentary coming from an otherwise very bright bishop it is small wonder that the Anglican Communion is in such trouble at this time in its history.

Fr. Nigel Taber-Hamilton
Rector, St. Augustine's-in-the-woods Episcopal Church, Freeland WA, Episcopal Diocese of Olympia
www.staugustinesepiscopalchurch.org

[Alan Marsh]

OK, JPearce, perhaps you can show us a few examples of secular organisations which never have internal debates - preferably ones which have some 2 billion members and a 2,000 year history?

[Martin]

"Nobody in Nigeria (where I come from), is interested in joining up with Rome."

Well, you should be - for if you are not in communion with Rome, you are outside the Church.

[J Pearce]

Would it be unkind of me to point out, that all this internecine warfare is merely a microcosm of the history of religion, since the dawn of time? Humans parroting various interminably long-winded, obscurantist and rather pointless religious doctrines at each other, arrogantly assuming that their version is the only version worth living by (and by extension, forcing upon others)? Then ostracising and vilifying those who don't agree?

It all seems wearily familiar.

Somehow, I just don't think that this was what God intended.

Assuming he exists at all, of course...

[Brian]

Roger,

You said: "I'm not suggesting that it's "anything goes" doctrinally or morally or that all interpretative approaches are equally valid."

But that is precisely what you are suggesting. You can't have it both ways. You cannot appeal to Nicea and other early councils and then reject the canons produced by those councils, some of which deal with this very topic.

It has been the unbroken Christian tradition that people are to be either celibate or to be married. There is absolutely no question that this has been and is the traditional teaching of the Church.

You then say: "But surely there must be a unassailable hermeneutic behind the rejection of homosexual acts on scriptural grounds in light of the fervency of those who advocate such a position."

There is no such thing as an "unassailable hermeneutic." One can use the Bible to support whatever one's particular hobby horse happens to be. One can use it to buttress racism, facism, socialism, democracy, monarchy, Freudianism, free love...whatever.

That is why tradition is so important. Its easy to make an argument based on the Bible. Anybody with a Bible who has a rudimentary education can do this. Its not so easy to make an argument when one is doing so within the constraints of the tradition of the Church.

The TEC and others don't give one whit about tradition. They want to remake the Church in their own image. Any "hermeneutic" which gets in the way is rejected a priori. Any person who holds to these traditional positions, especially clergy in the TEC, is vivesected with glee in much the same what that "Bishop" Scary vivisected her first octopus.

By rejecting the wisdom of the Church, they reject the Church.

[Maduka]

This is slightly off topic.

I just don't get this desire to be in communion with Rome. Nobody in Nigeria (where I come from), is interested in joining up with Rome.

Is anyone listening to the voices of people outside the West - we don't give a d_mn about Rome!

[Alan Marsh]

Roger Upodaca asks for a "discernment process" and he might like to consider the principle, "securus iudicat orbis terrarum" put forward by St Augustine - best translated along the lines of "the safest judgement is to be found in the consensus of the universal Church".

John Henry Newman became convinced that this meant the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, which is a considerably greater portion of world Christianity than the tiny and dying Episcopal Church USA.

But even as Anglicans, if we seek to know the mind of the Church within the Anglican Communion, it is quite clear that the great majority of members and scholars do not support the revisionism of TEC and its leadership on this issue.

The best guide to interpretation of the scriptures, it is argued, is to seek the mind of the Church, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox.

It is on this basis that the scriptures are not understood to require circumcision, or the strict dietary laws of the Old Testament. Equally, the Church as a whole (RC, Orthodox, Anglican) regards the model of male+female in Genesis as the only model for sexual relations between human beings in marriage, and continues therefore to regard the prohibition on homosexual intercourse contained within both Old and New Testaments as expressing the truth.

Of course this is just one instance of the Church determining what is morally right or morally wrong, no graver or lighter than many others.

But the issue has come to prominence in debate because some are attempting to rewrite the Bible, and turn Christian moral teaching upside-down, by inetrpreting the Scriptures contrary to their evident meaning, in order to pursue a secular ideological agenda.

On this issue the great majority of world Christianity is firmly united: the only place for human sexual activity is within the marriage of a man and a woman, exclusively committed to each other.

ECUSA has been given plenty of time to decide, whether to continue to pursue its secular ideology? or to conform to the authority of scripture and the mind of the world Church, to which it professes to belong?

But ECUSA will not decide and continues to equivocate. The leaders of the Anglican Communion must make the decision for ECUSA. That time of decision has come.

[Flatlander]

I see great hypocrisy of those who oppose the ordination of homosexuals when they allow the ordination of women, both of which the Bible does not allow (1 Cor. 14:34-35). Like the Episcopal Church in America, other provinces of the Anglican Council marginalize the relevance of the scriptures. It certainly appears that the interpretation of God's will and the Word for the contemporary Episcopal Church (and some other provinces) must conform to its preconceived, radical social agendas.

As a result of the policies adopted by the Episcopal Church in the last 30 years, culminating with the advocacy of homosexual ordination, there has been a "precipitous" decline in membership and funds. God will lead His people and direct the necessary funds according to His will and to where it will do the most good.

Greater problems than these will befall those churches that do not repent and abide in the God-inspired Word of the Bible. They have the Good News in their hands, but the arrogance of the leaders of TEC prevents them from attaining it.

[Oliver Nicholson]

A pedant writes:
Dear Ruth,
Constantine was, one feels, a more complex character than your correspondents make out.
The Edict of Milan was not an edict and was not issued at Milan - otherwise the traditional name for it is remarkably apt ! The Letter of Licinius is a more accurate term..
The 'toleration' the Letter proclaimed certainly brought an end to the Great Persecution, but by later making pagan sacrifice illegal Constantine knocked out the keystone of Greco-Roman civic religion - the 'toleration' he implemented was therefore rather one-sided.
The Council of Nicaea does not seem to me an attempt to impose imperial control on the Church but an attempt to be helpful in resolving the Arian controversy. It produced a formula about a matter absolutely central to Christian faith (homoousios), but it took a further half-century of meetings, debate, pain and disagreement before the formula really came to stick. There was certainly no Vicar of Christ to enforce it from on high - even the Roman emperors (e.g. the maligned Constantius II) could not bring about concord. The whole process of decision-making does rather reassure one that Anglicans do indeed follow the rather messy practice of the Undivided Church of the first 4 councils (as e.g. the 1558 Act of Uniformity asserts). The author of the most impressive modern study of the theology of the Arian controversy is one R. Williams. As one prays for him, one is thankful that he has at hand the wisdom which comes from a real understanding of the church's highly bumpy history. .
Yours till Hell freezes over,
O.P. Nicholson

[Roger Upodaca]

This line of long-dead reasoning has been dug up and set in the witness chair quite often dispite that it proves only how far the proposer is from proper, or even cogent, biblical understanding.

An ad hominem rejoinder does not make your point. But, as a honest seeker of truth, I am ready to be instructed by those with a more cogent, proper approach.

Is there something singular about homosexual acts - and especially those within the context of a covenanted relationship - that make their proscription timeless, while other injunctions of apparently equal Biblical weight no longer apply?

What is the discernment process for identifying Biblical material that can be safely disregarded or rationalized and that which must be obeyed at the risk of one's eternal soul?

I'm not suggesting that it's "anything goes" doctrinally or morally or that all interpretative approaches are equally valid. Far from it. Let's assume the Creeds and the authority of Scripture as normative so as not to distract into side issues.

But surely there must be a unassailable hermeneutic behind the rejection of homosexual acts on scriptural grounds in light of the fervency of those who advocate such a position.

[Deacon David Apker]

Some of the remarks I have just read tell me all there is to know about the revisionists, to wit:

* ad hominem attacks

* thinly disguised racism

* adherence to ancient geographical boundaries but never mind about ancient creeds and doctrine.

[simon]

Kurt Hill

Oh Mary, please spare us from this papist hogwash!

We suddenly seem to have people washing pigs. Another one of them said;

WHB

I would suggest that you go read them and when you do you will find that the church affirms the authority of Scripture - in fact - it says that the Church has the authority to interpret scripture. Nothing has changed although the self-proclaimed 'orthodox' like to whine about it because it makes a great headline.

So the "self-proclaimed" are the ones following the Church Jesus himself gave authority to, in the very scriptures these who like to wash pigs claim to accept ? Doesn't seem very self-proclaimed - me thinks they do protest too much! Truth cannot contradict truth.

[Alan Marsh]

in leading the charge of the conservative wing, Tom Wright is making a split all but inevitable Nice try, Frank, but we are not talking about the conservative wing here: the Windsor Report represents mainstream Anglicanism, much though you and others here would wish to relegate it to the margins.

In due course each province will be asked whether it wishes to affirm this definition by signing up to it in a Covenant. The Episcopal Church will have to decide: does it prefer its own self-definition and independence from the Anglican Communion? Or will it turn back from trying to re-write the Bible, the history of the Church and the holy orders which formerly, but sadly no longer, used to unite Anglicans world wide?

It is pretty clear what the answer from TEC will be, which is regrettable, but it is their choice.

[Kurt Hill]

“This is what you get when you turn away from the Vicar of Christ”

Oh Mary, please spare us from this papist hogwash!

[Lutheran Zephyr]

I know this is an internal debate within the Anglican Communion, but when I hear the grand and ultimate declarations, gnashing of teeth over threats of schism, and the grandious titles of Primates and Bishops, I wonder if these folks couldn't benefit from a little bit of perspective - schism has already won the day! The Church is much larger than the Anglican communion. At what point is denominational unity/identity an idol at whose altar we are bowing? Furthermore, at what point are we willing to recognize that ecclesial hierarchies and beurocracies are unable to bring about true unity and faithful mission in the church? Where is the church located - in the local parish pew, or in the throne and miter of a bishop?

Unity and fellowship within a tradition are important - I value the unity and community that exists in many parts of the Lutheran church - but c'mon, Canterbury ain't Rome, and Rome ain't what it used to be. This just seems to be a bunch of disconnected, hierarchical, ecclessial political rambling.