Venables predicts two-tier communion

Archbishop Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone kindly agreed to speak to me about the Primates' Meeting.

We spoke in the little church next to Lambeth Palace, now converted to a museum, just hours before the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed the Church of England's General Synod and acknowledged that to the outside world, it looked as though the Anglican Church was obsessed with sex.

Among what else Archbishop Venables said, which does not appear on the video, was his pleasure at being able to report the freedom at the meeting in Tanzania for everyone to express themselves. 'There was no political pressure,' he said. 'No-one was intimidated by any one Primate. That was significant, and helped the meeting a lot.' He said the communique was 'as good as we could expect from the meeting.'

The Archbishop, who the day before was interviewed by the Sunday prgramme, continued: 'There was a desire to find a way forward but there was a great deal of suspicion and tension. It was polite and cordial, but there was a lot of suspicion and an awareness that there were a lot of agendas.'

He admitted it was unlikely TEC would be able to comply with the September 30 deadline. 'They are just continuing with what they did as a result of conviction. It is extremely unlikely that they will back off. It would be a complete denial of everything that has happened. The problem is, they will use legalese and their ways of following the letter of the law. Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has said over the last couple of days that at no point has TEC been asked to stop blessing same-sex relationships. They have been asked not to authorise rites. It shows that even if they understand the spirit of it, they are not following the spirit.' [Update: Kendall Harmon has done an in-depth analysis of this approach. The sad irony of course, for all of us in England, is that this 'blessing without authorising' is what has been going on here for years, if not decades. It is just not 'official', rarely discussed outside closed doors, and certainly not adopted openly as policy! If TEC tries this and doesn't get away with it, then CofE is definitely in trouble, I'ld say. TEC might have managed it if they had kept schtum and just gone ahead and done it like us, but I think things are looking pretty bleak now. The stable door is open, the horse has bolted. As Shaw said, we really are two countries divided by the same language. And now by the same theologies.]

Venables said the point of the meeting had been to get the covenant sorted out. This meant creating space so that the two vital questions at the heart of the debate could be confronted: do the different parts of the Communion want to be in a relationship with each other, and can they be in a relationship. 'The covenant will help us answer that. We want to live in a relational church, but can we, theologically? People want to belong to the Anglican Communion for all sorts of reasons, but I am not sure they want to live together. There is not a lot of love lost. Were there love there, we would not be doing what we are doing.' TEC wants to be in the Communion because it wants to be part of the larger church, he said. 'Without a doubt, some of them care about the concept of the Church Catholic.'

The one thing lacking, he finds, is a willingness to sit down and talk about belief. 'It is all about strategy.'

So can it all hold together for the future?

'I personally think there is not enough good will, or the opportunities to develop the relationships needed to make it happen.' He believes the States could become a separate The Episcopal Church, and acknowledges there is already a large number who would want to be part of an Episcopal Church. He named Mexico, Central America and Brazil as partners who would consider themselves Episcopal. He sees the  CofE remaining in the Anglican Communion.

Comments

[Bill Channon]

The real problem is the Christians' Bible, I think you mean. You refer to it in the singular and therefore cannot be referring to the Koran and other writings. Since this book fundamentally tells the story of the foundatin of Christianity, it is clear that you areneither a Christian nor therefore an Anglican. I never did understand, merseymike, why you ever bothered with the Anglican Church, why you were so anxious that the Anglican Church separate into two disparate parts. Did/do you see half of the CofE as being the outmoded, orthodox, evangelical church and the other, an atheistic grouping (Anglican Atheists???)? I don't see why you bother with the Anglican Church at all, unless your goal is to destroy other people's beliefs and their religion. The UU believe in anything and nothing .....isn't that where you would be more at home .... than remain on the peryphery of the church that angers you so much? You could then make your own short, little pamphlet.

[Mike Homfray]

The real problem here is the religionists bible. Can I suggest that we all burn our copies of this utterly worthless book. We could remove the parts of it which are of some use, which would perhaps be a small pamphlet, and leave the rest in premodern superstition-land where it belongs?

[Kate]

"Peter Jasper Akinola opined in 'Why I object to homosexuality', Church Times, 4 July 2003 that "God created two persons - male and female. Now the world of homosexuals has created a third - a homosexual, neither male nor female or both male and female - a strange, two-in-one human"."

Perhaps the most offensive and ignorant (uninformed) statement yet to issue from this self-interested example of fascistic, macho, stone-age, megalomania.

Megalomania (from the Greek μεγαλομανία) is a psycho-pathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.... It includes an obsession with grandiose or extravagant actions. It is sometimes symptomatic of manic or paranoid disorders.

My gay son, one of six brothers, is an athlete, a rugby player, a championship swimmer; he is also a polymath, a highly regarded professional, a dizygotic twin and an undeniably handsome MALE person. He is NOT, by any stretch of any fevered and bigoted religious imagination "a strange, two-in-one human".

Thank you Christopher for exposing, yet again, a religious orthodoxy which has survived for centuries (in Christian and Muslim societies) by organising factions and preaching hate of the Other. An orthodoxy (such as Akinola's) which does not hesitate in condemning the different Other to torture and execution.

The RC Church did not officially condemn the torture of heretics until Pope Pius VII in 1816.
Anti-semitism which has drenched the pages of history in Jewish blood is the most potent example of an irrational hatred intrinsic to Islam and Christianity.

[J Pearce]

"They insist one deviates from heterosexuality as a lifestyle choice or even as an act of rebellion against god, insisting that because science has not so far discovered a genetic or biological determinant there is none and there can be none."

I absolutely agreee that sexuality is on a continuum, just as human biological makeup is on a continuum. To purport that human sexuality and biology is fixed on certain definitive types and that there is no deviation from these, is to wilfully ignore hundreds of years worth of verifiable scientific discovery.

But what makes me laugh, Christopher, is the fact that the orthodox religious usually regard science with the same kind of hostility that a cat reserves for a cold shower. However, when it happens to suit their argument, science suddenly becomes the golden calf - hence the loud trumpeting of the fact that no sole biological determinant has yet been discovered for homosexuality.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if science does come up with a definitive answer to homosexual orientation, the sound of the orthodox religious stampeding to denounce the discovery as fraudulant will become deafening. Expect much hysterical Bible waving as well...

[Christopher]

I should add that Dr John Hare says in 'Neither male nor female': the case of intersexuality' in An Acceptable Sacrifice?

"as yet no underlying medical explanation has been found for homosexual orientation in genetically and phenotypically normal males and females".

There are four areas where the outcomes are at present inconclusive: twin and adoption studies - monozygotic (higher than the norm) versus dizygotic (same as the norm), chromosome studies, prenatal hormonal exposure and neuroanatomical differences. Dr Hare says "It must be stressed that none of the studies described above are conclusive, and all are contested. Nevertheless most authorities are confident that a medical explanation for same-sex attraction will eventually be found."

When Peter Jasper Akinola opined in 'Why I object to homosexuality', Church Times, 4 July 2003 that "God created two persons - male and female. Now the world of homosexuals has created a third - a homosexual, neither male nor female or both male and female - a strange, two-in-one human" he was saying something highly questionable as a description of homosexuals but per accidens not unfair by definition, as a description of intersexuals.

[Christopher]

Heterosexuality is a variant - albeit a variant that the majority orient themselves to.

Absolutely true, JPearce. But the sad fact is that Jill and her co-religionists aren't interested in scientific variants or variability in the complex business of setting sexual orientation among human beings, They want it simple. They want it black and white. Jill and her chums in NARTH and Anglican Mainstream, along with Akinola, Venables et al. want to blazon heterosexuality into a banner that we all have to sign up to and pledge allegiance to. (In the case of Akinola imprison them for 5 years to be brutalised and sodomised in an Abuja jail if they don't, in the case of Jill push them back into the closet - same old, same old - as you say.)

They insist one deviates from heterosexuality as a lifestyle choice or even as an act of rebellion against god, insisting that because science has not so far discovered a genetic or biological determinant there is none and there can be none. Nevertheless faced with the fact that there are people who nevertheless find themselves attracted to the same sex they have to find an answer. The Bible is the book of answers for them, right? So it must be there. And indeed it is! "Male and female he created them" (Gen 1:27). Couldn't be clearer, could it? Or could it? Unfortunately "he and she" takes no account of intersexuality, people who are born not obviously one gender or the other but somewhere in between. These are not the same as hermaphadites who have both sets of sexual organs, sometimes both 'usable'. (Even in the twelfth century Peter the Chanter knew about them and legislated that they could choose which organ to use dependent on which organ s/he was most aroused by but could not then switch to the other because that would be similar to the role inversion of sodomy.)

The anglican bishops in their document Issues in Human Sexuality wrote a bit about transexuality, shed loads about homosexuality, but nothing about hermaphroditism and nothing at all about intersexuality. It wasn't as if scientists didn't know about this condition, they did. It seems that sexuality is much more complex than the discrete, he/she, on/off, XX/XY understanding that we assume is the fact - the human race divided into clear males and females. It seems more likely that it is a range, a continuum, with most of us clustered at either end. But the shock comes when you discover the incidence of intersexuality, the people in the middle. It is 2% of the total population. That's higher than the incidence of homosexuality in the population if you still believe the Welcome survey as evangelicals wish to do - the smaller the sample the fewer the problem for justice, eh?

I found this in an article by the Rev Dr John Hoare who was a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, quondam Fellow of Hughes Hall, Cambridge and is now an ordained anglican priest, in a new book entitled An Acceptable Sacrifice? Homosexuality and the Church edited by Duncan Dormor and Jeremy Morris.

Clearly this information creates problems for the uncompromising christian understanding of sex that rests on the rigid interpretation of Genesis into a dualism of "male and female he created them".

John Hare asks:

•Can the rigid division of humanity into male and female still be upheld?

•If the Church is to make certain roles gender dependent, and declare that those who cross these barriers commit sin, how are these genders to be determined?

•If a person has an ambiguous gender should that person be permitted to choose what gender to adopt, or to remain ambiguous? [In Peter the Chanter's terms, imitate the gender reversal role of the sodomite?] - my bracketed remark

•Do these factors have any relevance to the debate over same-sex relationships?

The last must be the burning question for the church and it is time the bishops caught up - one might think they or their advisers had been careless in the composition of Issues in Human Sexuality. Dr Hare reminds us that god in Genesis also said it was not good for man to be alone. God offered to make him a helper as a partner and started off offering the man every animal and bird to be his partner, which the man rejected. God then offered the woman and the man accepted her. But as Hare says "That choice was Adam's, not God's - human, not divine; should it not remain so?"

Indeed

[J Pearce]

Joe,

That’s a pretty convoluted response to what was a pretty simple post! I tend to find that people who can spin such a diatribe out of what was an essentially innocuous remark, have a bit of a chip on their shoulder. I would imagine that whatever I put down, it would always end up "proving" your point…I have found the "logic" of Christian belief allows for all sorts of irrational volte faces, in order to maintain a justification for what the orthodox call "tradition".

Its interesting that you have tried to elucidate the philosophical flaws behind the position you assume I have taken. Given the breadth of material you called upon to quote, I'm not in any position to enter into an argument based on "who can quote more philosphical treatises". My "position", however, is reasonably simple. You said the following:

"Whatever stereotypical things we may have believed over the last few centuries were never allowed to change the substantive content of our Faith."

The problem I have, is that your faith is based on a set of texts (Scriptures) which have been passed down from oral storytelling tradition, through printing, edits and revision over a period of two thousand years. You would have to be extremely naive to assume that the content of the scriptures which you base your faith upon today, have not themselves undergone major semantic shifts duirng that period.

In short, the Bible is a work of partial historical record, partial human fictionalising, partial politcally motivated social engineering, partial ideological propoganda. It’s a work borne of humanity and all its attendent flaws. And if you truly believe that God is the Creator of all things, then how you can associate such a being with a work of utterly flawed, contradictory logic and antiquated moralising, is beyond me. I really don't think God would have anything whatsoever to do with the Bible and the religious belief set that has grown up around it.

Not that you can see this, of course.

As a basis for a philosophy for human behaviour, the Bible is no better or worse than me basing my philosophy of life on, say, scientism and rationalism. The difference is, that scientism can and does get revised. When the facts change, the philosophy changes. You don't get that with religious belief, despite the fact that many "truths" that the orthodox have taken for granted, have been exposed as utter fiction over the past few centuries. The orthodox commitment to "tradition" strikes me as being akin to suffering a form of OCD.

Note how much evil has been perpetrated in the name of your philosophy over the past two thousand years, Joe. I wonder what kind of God would want to be associated with that?

[J Pearce]

Once you make a practice of qualifying the adjective ‘sexual’ by turning it into ‘heterosexual,’ you imply that heterosexuality is but one variant of sexuality, of which homosexuality is another variant.

Err…but isn't that a fact? Heterosexuality is a variant - albeit a variant that the majority orient themselves to. You sound like your trying to deny that homosexuality even exists, Jill - when it is plainly obvious that it does and has done for longer than Christians have been around. I notice in your next sentence you employ the term "deviation from healthy sexuality", which - if were a keen observer of language - would imply to me your continuing use of rhetorical devices to de-humanise homosexuals. Same old, same old, eh Jill?

Hence we arrive at the absurd expression ‘sexual orientation,’ a concept which suggests that individuals have a range of possibilities before them as they consider what is to be the object for satisfaction of their sexual drives.

I think Jill, you really expose the fallacious thinking behind your prejudices here. People don't "consider" what they find attractive - you imply a conscious, deliberate, intellectual exercise at work. People just go on gut instinct - either they find something attractive, or they don't. It is a qualitative decision, not a quantitative one. But making it out to be a mechanistic process is a deliberate way of skewing the argument - it is very much in-keeping with the Christian mentality, which is to label issues in simplistic, black and white moralistic terms. By reducing the complex nuances of human sexual atraction to a set of step-by-step choices, you choose to impose your own narrow moralistic attitudes onto a process which defies such categorisation.

Again, it reveals your penchant for de-humanising that which you morally object to. In this respect, Jill, you share a common history with fascists, despots, murderers and tyrants down the ages. It is so much easier to oppose those who do not have any humanity, isn't it? So much easier to despise those who do not have a face, or a voice; those who are not "human". Isn't it remarkable that those people who, like you Jill, puport to follow Christ, actually end up doing more harm than good in their quest for moral purity?

[Kate]

Christopher: as you know, the term 'satyr' is from Greek mythology. It is interesting in the context of what appears to be 'evolving' into a lexicographical debate, that, in Roman times the word 'satyr' itself evolved and was utilized [by the Roman poets] as 'satire'.

Roman satire is connected to the satyric drama (of the Greeks) through the subversive nature of the satyrs themselves, as forces in opposition to urbanity and civilization.

Dean Swift's definition in the Age of Reason was: "Satyr is a sort of glass, wherein Beholders do generally discover every body's Face but their Own...." (Preface to 'The Battle of the Books).

Ergo Jill: "How right you are, J Pearce, that the ‘language you employ reflects the way you think."

The lexicographical debate here is somewhat confused. Not only are the complexities of the English language formidable, but it also never stops evolving.

For that reason, in 1957, Robert Burchfield was appointed Editor for a new Supplement that would replace the 1933 volume.

Modern English was continuously monitored by the Dictionary's celebrated ‘reading programme’, more scientific and technical terms were added, and the scope of the Dictionary was broadened.

The new Supplement was published in four volumes between 1972 and 1986. The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition was published in 1989 to great acclaim.

This would suggest that anyone relying on a 1944 Reprint of the 1933 edition has missed out on a great swathe of linguistic evolution. We no longer conduct our daily business in the language of Shakespeare or Trollope or even, sadly perhaps, the incomparable prose of that great, erudite and often misrepresented, Irishman, CS Lewis.

[Alice C. Linsley]

Joe, orthodox Christians have more than one source of authority, but none contradicts another and none is forzen in the language of the a particular century. Consider how contemporary these quotes sound:

“Everyone who steadfastly values the old ways above these novelties, and who has preserved unchanged the tradition of the fathers both in the city and in the country, is familiar with this phrase... Rather, it is those never content with accepted ways who despise the old as being stale, constantly welcoming innovation, like worldings who are always chasing after the latest fashion. Observe that country people cling to ancient patterns of speech, while the adroit language of these cunning disputants always bear the brand of the latest trends of thought. But for us, what our fathers said [the received Tradition], we repeat: the same glory is given to the Father and Son; therefore we offer the doxology to the Father with the Son. But we are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is t hat the Fathers followed the meaning of Scripture.” (St. Basil the Great On the Holy Spirit)

Basil also wrote, “Just as a hunter hides his traps, or an ambush of soldiers camouflages itself, so these questioners spew forth elaborately constructed inquiries, not really hoping to learn anything useful from them, because unless you agree with them and give them the answer they want, they imagine that they are fully entitled to stir up a raging controversy.”

St. John Damascene, writing against the iconoclasts said, “I see the Church which God founded on the Apostles and Prophets, its corner-stone being Christ His Son, tossed on an angry sea, beaten by rushing waves, shaken and troubled by the assaults of evil spirits. I see rents in the seamless robe of Christ, which impious men have sought to part asunder, and His body cut into pieces, that is, the word of God and the ancient tradition of the Church.”

Basil also wrote: “The dogmas of the Fathers are held in contempt, the Apostolic traditions are disdained, the churches are subject to the novelties of innovators.” (Letter 90, To the Most Holy Brethren and Bishops Found in the West)

“Every man is a theologian; it does not matter that his soul is covered with more blemishes than can be counted. The result is that these innovators find an abundance of men to join their factions. So ambitious, self-elected men divide the government of the churches among themselves, and reject the authority of the Holy Spirit. The ordinances of the Gospel have been thrown into confusion everywhere for lack of discipline; the jostling for high positions is incredible, as every ambitious man tries to thrust himself into high office. The result of this lust for power is that wild anarchy prevails among the people; the exhortations of those in authority are rendered utterly void and unprofitable, since every man in his arrogant delusion thinks that it is more his business to give orders to others than to obey anyone himself.” (St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit.)

St. Gregory of Palamas, Archbishop of Thessaloniki wrote: “The incarnation of the Word of God was the method of deliverance most in keeping with our nature and weakness, and most appropriate for Him Who carried it out, for this method had justice on its side, and God does not act without justice.”

St Anthony the Great said: “A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, ‘You are mad, you are not like us.'"

None of these authorities sound archaic to me.

[Alice C. Linsley]

Frank, by all means follow Jesus Christ, the only begotton Son of God who died for you and living interceeds for you at the right hand of the Father. Jesus Messiah wasn't about organized religion either, yet HE is the satisfaction of all the heart's desire. May your journey be blessed!

[joe from old oc]

J. Pearce:

Well, there you go again. Funny, your approach is much like that of a hardline protestant fundamentalist - just pick the verse or phrase that you really like and use that to put down the behavior or belief of your (supposed) adversary that most upsets you.

It's interesting to me how so many progressivists think that with some witty jab, they've nailed me to the wall, when in fact, they've merely proved my point. The untested ideological premises behind your words are all that drives your train.

Let's assume, for a moment, that you are correct - that my thinking, or my spirituality, is somehow stuck in the 16th century. And that yours is completely up to date and enhanced by all the recent and sustained trends in philosophy (post-modernism, personalism), hard science (string theory, genetic engineering, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, evolutionary biology), metaphysics (Spongian new ageism (my term)), psychology (subconscious inhibitor theory), theology (process theology, the generous orthodoxy movement, feminist theology), the humanities (Fish's anti-foundationalism), social science (gender studies, multicuturalism), etc. When there is a major shift or discovery in one of these fields that tends to prove a new reality or dimension of reality, or disprove one that you and your enlightened peers had previously based your social and political decisions and spirituality on, how will you do a clear-headed review and restructuring of your belief system to account for it? And how will you know that you're properly accounting for it? You certainly must have a lot of work to do every morning to be true to your first principles.

What if it turns out that the thinking of this generation has been far too deeply influenced by darwinian evolution and concepts that emerged from the thought of Bertrand Russell and later German idealism combined with scientific materialism (and in fact, the evidence against these philosophies and theories is mounting, monthly)? The beliefs of the early 20th-century Fabian socialists in Britain and the Eugenics movement in the U.S. are still very much alive in the doctrines of the Left.

What if it turns out that the thinking of mid-century characters like Dorothy Sayers, C.S. Lewis, Malcolm Muggeridge, Robert Nisbet, and Jaroslav Pelikan (and even Archbishop Temple, though very much a liberal) in all its grotesque traditionalism and horrifying respect for 16th century thought has actually gauged ultimate reality a little more accurately? What if their failure to actually fall in line with any particular philosophical or scientific school of thought turns out to have been the better course? What kind of foundation will you have left to build your life on?

I have to add that, to a degree, I am sad for you. I'm sure that there are authors and poets of centuries past (maybe Milton, Keats, Swift, Herbert) whose works have touched you in some small way. Why is it that you would degrade the philosophy and beliefs behind their writing simply because it is from a different era than the one you live in?

[Christopher]

I enjoyed reading your - I must say, quaint -
lexicographic lesson on the early 20th-century usage 'gay', the 19th-century paramedical coinages 'homo'- and 'hetero'-sexual and revealing your preference for 'sodomite' as a suitable appellation for gay men, Jill. Unfortunately, though, rather than convincing us of your thesis that all this was part of a single-minded ploy on the part of a 'gay agenda' to eradicate bad publicity, I think you have done more to persuade us you are a grey-haired satyr yearning for the golden age.....like all those apoplectic colonels lamenting in the columns of the Daily Telegraph the loss 'of that lovely word gay'.

How about 'faggot', 'queer', 'pansy', 'fudge-packer'? You can have all those back - we'll keep gay, thank you.

[Jill]

How right you are, J Pearce, that the ‘language you employ reflects the way you think. This was picked up on very early in the ‘gay rights’ campaign – first, find yourself a new name, something jolly and happy – ‘gay’, perhaps – so much nicer than homosexual or – worse – sodomite, which conjures up visions of some very unsavoury sexual practices. Then comes the word ‘orientation’ – so much more convincing when used in the context of ‘sexual orientation’ than mere ‘preference’ or ‘leanings’ – I mean, who can imagine framing whole laws around people’s ‘leanings’? ‘Orientation’ makes it sound immutable and innate.

The next step is to label any conscientious objectors. ‘Heterosexuals’ would be a good word. (Bigot and homophobe came later!).

I’m not sure of the etiquette of pinching other bloggers’ posts but I found this on Stand Firm’s blog, and I hope the original poster will forgive me and not sue – as it is a quotation from a book, I imagine he will not.

‘Incidentally, here is another area where changes in verbal habits register propaganda victories for the post-Christian mind. Let us consider the use of the word ‘heterosexual.’ It is not in my Oxford Dictionary. At the front of the dictionary I read: ‘Third edition 1944; Reprinted with corrections 1947.’ There are over seventy words beginning with the prefix ‘hetero,’ and ‘heterosexual’ is not among them. Why?

Because the dictionary clearly represents the thinking of a period in which the compound would have seemed absurd. For the word ‘sex’ and the word ‘sexual’ are defined in terms of male and female: ‘. . .the distinction between male and female’ and ‘. . . relative to the physical intercourse between the sexes.’

What else, on this basis, can ‘sexual’ relationships be but relationships between the sexes?
Thus, although the dictionary certainly defines ‘homosexual’ as ‘having a sexual propensity for persons of one’s own sex,’ it sees no cause to qualify the word ‘sexual’ for general purposes. Once you make a practice of qualifying the adjective ‘sexual’ by turning it into ‘heterosexual,’ you imply that heterosexuality is but one variant of sexuality, of which homosexuality is another variant. The standard has gone. The norm has disappeared. What was once a deviation from healthy sexuality has become a variant as acceptable as the former norm.

Hence we arrive at the absurd expression ‘sexual orientation,’ a concept which suggests that individuals have a range of possibilities before them as they consider what is to be the object for satisfaction of their sexual drives. Shall it be a person of the opposite sex or of his or her own sex? Shall it be a little boy or a little girl? Shall it be a four-legged animal or a corpse? All these have been known to give sexual satisfaction to individuals in the past. Once the individual impulse toward sexual satisfaction by means of this or that object is labeled a ‘sexual orientation,’ it is thereby put in the same category as the normal sexual desires of men and women.

There is, indeed, a ‘sexual orientation’ that drives men to smother women in the act of raping them. Yet nowadays, we are told, no applicant for a given job must have his or her ‘sexual orientation’ taken into account when his or her fitness for a job is weighed. Not if he is a pederast and seeks a job in a children’s home? Not if he finds sexual satisfaction in corpses and is seeking a job in a cemetery or a home for geriatric residents?

The battle for morality and reason is often lost or won when a new verbal usage is accepted or rejected. We hear talk of ‘one-parent families’ or ‘single-parent families’ and we fail to register openly the query that lurks at the back of our minds. We join in conversation where the words ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’ are bandied about, and we fail to recognize that we have yielded ground in giving the two concepts a comparable status.” (Harry Blamires, in the chapter ‘Discrimination’ in his book ‘The Post-Christian Mind: Exposing its Destructive Agenda’ (1999).

Frank, you cannot follow Christ if you do not abide by, or at least acknowledge, His teaching. Forget the power structures, they are just clouding the issue. If you reject the teaching, well, that’s up to you, but then you can’t call it Christianity.

On tradition, I think G K Chesterton had it right – ‘Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.’

That ‘arrogant oligarchy’ seem to think that the future is only going in a more liberal direction, but that isn’t necessarily so, in the longer term. Our secure base, the teaching of scripture, may be deemed old-fashioned by some; well, that’s okay, but we do need to touch base occasionally to stop ourselves spiralling out of control. The arrogant ones also assume that those whom they sneeringly call traditionalists have never been anything but traditionalists – just bear in mind that some of us were up there with the pioneers of the permissive society, but have come to realise that things haven’t turned out quite as expected and hoped, and in same cases have gone disastrously wrong. It’s called ‘growing up’.

[J Pearce]

Joe said:

"We are quite comfortable in the old translations of the language of the ancients and the Church Fathers, and the Anglican divines of the 16th and 17th century as well as the language of our parents' generations."

Some one once told me that the language you employ, reflects the way you think. If the orthdox religious are still thinking like its the 16th century, that pretty much explains everything about them...

[Frank Schnittger]

joe from old oc - One of the great conceits of "traditionalists" is that they always imagine their conception of anything - Science, Religion, Politics - has been around for all time and that it represents some kind of immutable, ahistorical truth.

The reality is that what is now regarded as "traditional" was often very controversial and innovative when it was first created. One need only mention the seething controversies over religion, politics and science that racked post renaissance and post reformation Europe.

What is traditional now was the successful outcome of those controversies and often violent conflicts - history is written by the winners - and in that sense current tradition was proved right. We won't know who wins or what history will judge to be right in relation to present controversies for quite some time.

My view is that in a few decades from now the very idea that you would discriminate against women or gays will seem at outlandish and ridiculous as the past treatment of "witches", single mothers, or illegitimate children does now. You are entitled to differ, and who knows, may yet be proved right. Change is not always for the better, but give me modern Science, Medicine, Democracy, equality and civil rights over feudal forms of existence any time.

My bigger concern is that Christianity used to be at the forefront of positive social change. The abolition of Slavery, the development of democracy, equality, and of Science owes much to the 16th. and 17th. Century divines you speak so approvingly of.

But what does modern Christianity contribute today? It is all too often in league with despotic regimes, at the forefront of resistance to science (e.g. creationism), and in league with regressive elements in society generally. Modern Christians are the first to criticise the advances in secular society and the last to make a positive contribution.

That is why I and many others have forsaken all organised forms of Christianity - in order to follow Christ! Traditionalists will trumpet their victories over liberals within Anglicanism - but they win only because most true believers have long left the Churches behind. The modern churches owe more to the Pharisees and to Roman and Greek forms of worship than they owe to Christ - whose purpose was not to found yet another religion, but to free all men and women from the corruption such idolatrous power structures, in part, represent.

Enjoy your little moment of triumph in Tanzania while it lasts. In a few years it will seem like yet another dying kick of a petrified tradition. Truly regressive, reactionary, and despotic elements in Africa will continue to celebrate their almost paganistic persecution of Homosexuals like some weird satanic cult. The rest of the world will have moved on, and Anglicanism will have become an association of museum curators in advanced societies.

[joe from old oc]

Jean:

Well, it appears that I might appropriately san tou-che (too-shay) to what you wrote, or that I could say "thank you" since "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". But honestly, I can say neither, because in your mimicry, you proved my point rather all too well. As a typical progressivist, you simply reacted, and really failed to notice that to put the language of the progressivist/GLBT advocates and their fellow-travelers in the mouth of traditionalists makes no sense at all. Traditionalists (and their is a very clear distinction between fundamentalists and traditionalists that you don't seem to grasp) don't use the language of modern psychological research and sociology, or of other passing intellectual and pseudo-intellectual trends. We are quite comfortable in the old translations of the language of the ancients and the Church Fathers, and the Anglican divines of the 16th and 17th century as well as the language of our parents' generations. We don't have a need to see ourselves as being in a higher state of consciousness than others, or as having surpassed the supposedly oppressive, unenlightened mentality of our parents and grandparents. We see everyone, including ourselves, as sinners to whom God has given the Church and the Scriptures under the guidance of the wisdom of all generations of the whole Church (not just our own generation's erstwhile wisdom and brilliance, which in two or three generations, might be seen as having been mired in politicized ideology and mass media image making anyway) to check our impulses and our felt need to have our feelings validated. We are willing to allow the thinking of other cultures (even African cultures that we are quite sure don't all use the term "whitey" to identify us) and other eras to critique ours.

Whatever stereotypical things we may have believed over the last few centuries were never allowed to change the substantive content of our Faith. And in believing some of these prejudiced notions, we were not violating our own highest principles. The anti-conservative stereotyping and mythologies of the progressivists are a complete violation of the standards which with they hammer others on a daily basis. And these leftist/progressivist mythologies have altered the very core of their theologies with each new cause that arises.

[Alice C. Linsley]

Read George Congor's report of what happened behind the scenes in Tanzania, found here: http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3105

This explains why ECUSA changed its name last June to "The Episcopal Church" to prepare the way for an alternate Anglican Communion comprised of like-minded provinces, such as Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, and probably Canada.

[Jean]

Your quite right, Prior Aelred, but which Empire do you think represents the future - Queen Victoria's, or the North/Latin American? And of course Nigeria/central Africa doesn't belong in this schema at all.

[Prior Aelred]

"We spoke in the little church next to Lambeth Palace, now converted to a museum..." how apt an opening at describing the current state of the CoE.

I find the suggestion that Mexico, Central America & Brazil would more likely affiliate with TEC interesting -- if the New Covenant Anglican Church is supposed to be Queen Victoria's Empire at prayer, then those bits don't really fit anyway, do they?

[Christopher]

Very Rude,

Meerkat Manor also gives a very good analogy of the behaviour of the 'primates'!

[Jean]

Whether or not there is even the smallest grain of truth in the completely tendentious, judgmental and speculative rant that "joe from old oc" engages in, the idea that such a juvenile categorizing of the world should be considered to be a part of Christian discourse is tragic. Any cursory examination of the facts will reveal that the truth is something quite different altogether.

Here is a paraphrasing of the ugliness that is actually what you are be reading between the lines: "liberals are a lower form of life, and we traditionals do not suffer from pride, egotism, individualism, self-righteousness, ideologically-myopic thinking, and the medieval drive for vengeance as they do. We have had our consciousness-raised since the time of Christ and as we approach a godhood of our own making, we are free to do amateur psychoanalysis of liberals, as we wish, from afar. We are free to treat them as one big "other", separate from us, with a whole range of characteristics that we can simply stereotype. We are free to demonize them, socially and politically (C'mon, what's the difference anyway?) and to treat them as if none of their motivations could possible be good, and to label them with psychological disorders that don't actually exist, such as homosexuality.

Even if none of our ideas or efforts at public policy or church policy have ever proved to be of any lasting health or value to anyone, we are still free to do this because we are just in-touch with reality and God (in a way that they can never be), and we are connected to the power of understanding that emanates from Rome/Canterbury/Nigeria (delete as appropriate), and those who really care about the world.

You will see more and more of this from the traditionals in the months ahead. It has already been revealed in the constant vitriol directed at + Schori and in a number of recent posts on this blog (such as one that described an upset reverend as a particularly sad old Queen). Blatant self-contradiction and hypocrisy is irrelevant when you live among the gods and with an absolute understanding of Scripture. The whole world should know the painful feelings that you've experienced. The lid is coming off now, and we will are beginning to hear the vitriol, violent anger, and contempt that they have had for the rest of us and spoken in private to each other for more than twenty years. Honestly, I welcome it. May God have mercy on their souls.

[Very Rude]

This isn't a wind-up (honest) but do they have to refer to themselves as Primates? It always makes me think of chimpanzees and gorillas. I'm sorry, it's clearly the effect of watching too much David Attenborough.

[joe from old oc]

JPM:

Whether or not there is even the smallest grain of truth in the completely tendentious, judgmental and speculative rant you quote from Thinking Anglicans, the idea that such a juvenile categorizing of the world should be considered to be a part of Christian discourse is tragic. Any cursory examination of the facts will reveal that the truth is something quite different altogether.

Here is a paraphrasing of the ugliness that is actually what you are be reading between the lines: "traditionalists are a lower form of life, and we progressivists do not suffer from pride, egotism, individualism, self-righteousness, ideologically-myopic thinking, and the medieval drive for vengeance as they do. We have had our consciousness-raised to a higher plane for some time now (since the late '60's, early '70's), and as we approach a godhood of our own making, we are free to do amateur psychoanalysis of traditionalists, as we wish, from afar. We are free to treat them as one big "other", separate from us, with a whole range of characteristics that we can simply stereotype. We are free to demonize them, socially and politically (C'mon, what's the difference anyway?) and to treat them as if none of their motivations could possible be good, and to label them with psychological disorders that don't actually exist, such as heterosexism. Even if none of our ideas or efforts at public policy or church policy have ever proved to be of any lasting health or value to anyone, we are still free to do this because we are just in-touch with reality and ourselves (in a way that they can never be), and we are connected to the power of understanding that emanates from the London/New York/Hollywood intelligensia, and those who really care about the world."

You will see more and more of this from the Anglican progressivist wing in the months ahead. It has already been revealed in the recent letter of the Bishop of Maryland to the Archbishop of Uganda, in the recent subtle (yah right) slamming of everyone who doesn't think like him from the Rev. Richark Kirker, and in a number of recent posts on this blog (such as one that expressed that a particular traditionalist was like someone who would simply look the other way during a gang rape). Blatant self-contradiction and hypocrisy is irrelevant when you live among the gods. It is your feelings that are important, and the whole world should know the painful feelings that you've experienced. The lid is coming off now, and we will are beginning to hear the vitriol, violent anger, and contempt that they have had for the rest of us and spoken in private to eachother for more than twenty years. Honestly, I welcome it. May God have mercy on their souls.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Why stop at two tiers.....

If the communique is a victory for Biblical Christianity why does it:

1) Acknowledge the teaching may change if there is a growing consensus!

2) Demand the depostion of Bishop Gene Robiinson.

3) Accept as a valid Bishop and primate a women, with liberal theological views outside the scope of homosexuality?

[Gospel Witness]

The election of +Schori as PB was calculated. It is not a coincidence that the first woman ordained a priest in 1976 in New York was also lesbian. Once ECUSA broke the back of catholic orders, any ordinations could be justified.

[J Pearce]

"Venables predicts two-tier communion" (26th Feb)

For example, if I were to suggest that there should be a "two-tier" Christianity… J Pearce, 22nd Feb (Radicalisation thread)

AB Venables, 26th Feb:

"'They [TEC] are just continuing with what they did as a result of conviction. It is extremely unlikely that they will back off. It would be a complete denial of everything that has happened. The problem is, they will use legalese and their ways of following the letter of the law.

There are enough holes in this [the Tanzania covenant] to keep various vested interests arguing for years - which one suspects is exactly what the plan was in the first place. Rather than bite the bullet, it seems the Anglican hierarchy are relying on its members to initiate a split of their own volition, rather than put the structures in place such that it can be forced it upon them. J Pearce, 20th Feb (Anglican Covenant thread)

Now, I'm not normally one to say "I told you so", but I thought it would be apposite at this particular time. Mr. Marsh owes me a pint :-)

Mystic Meg

[mustang2]

I think that the problem is scriptural authority. There are no posive scriptures in referance to homosexuality. In order to further liberalize the church scripture needs to be negated. Then all the liberal forces have to do is rely on reason and start a new tradition of inclusion. Akinola etc have placed scripture and old tradition to the fore and demand that TEC follow the basic tenents of the creeds. The TEC has formulated a system of belief, that to thier logic, can safely ignore scripture and tradition. The leaders of TEC are suprised that the rest of the world is not bedazzeled by thier brilliance. The liberal Church has pushed the issue to the point that no one can disagree with the liberals with out insulting them and thier intellegence making dialogue impossible. Electing Robinson (hardly the poster boy of virtue) and then further rubbing it in your face by electing +Schori as PB was a costly mistake. The results of Dar es Saalam proved that +Schori was not up to the task. I still don't think she understands the stakes that are being played and how much TEC has lost. +Schori still thinks that the rest of the Anglican Communion will "dialogue" on sexual morality!

[deb]

I agree with Alice. I am married to an Anglican Priest and work in a pastoral role. If someone came to me and said I am promiscous, or want an affair would I say hang on the only issues we deal with are poverty,aids,Etc "get over it ,these are the issues you should be concentrating on". It is o.k for church leaders who maybe havent been in a parish for years to say that this not an issue .....it is! A big one....as well as poverty, marriage break down etc. We have children who are on "the game" at 12 years of age in our area. Their sexuality is an issue and where they could end up. Many people I know of who struggle with sexuality ahve been abused......not an issue. Sadly it is......!

[Christopher]

Ruth

I saw this comment on Thinking Anglicans questioning (and suggesting an answer) why AB Venables is so interested in the gay anglican affair:

>>>Why are Venebles and others so interested in counting my orgasms or lack of them?
Here is my admittedly cynical but, I think, correct answer to that question.
Obsessing over The Gays provides an excellent way for:
1. Irrelevant backwater clerics like ++Cone to become Major Players on the World Stage.
2. Victims of colonialism to stick it to whitey at long last, after all these years, without alienating the Western financial/political establishment.
3. Political reactionaries in the U.S. to wreck the mainline churches, which have traditionally been a principal voice for justice in this country.
4. Fundamentalists in the U.S., Britain, Canada, and elsewhere to impose on their churches by force ideas that democratic processes have rejected again and again.
5. Heterosexuals, with their 50% divorce rate, to focus on someone else's sexual "failings."
6. Those competing with the Muslims, like Akinola, to show that they can be just as "strong" on "morals."
In short, this is not a dispute over theology among people of good will, as Rowan Williams and KJS insist, mistakenly, on viewing it. It is a political dispute in which The Gays have proved to be a very useful tool.

Posted by: JPM on Sunday, 25 February 2007 at 8:00pm GMT

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002239.html#comments

Is this completely unfair, or could there be some grain of truth here?

[wyclif]

Great opening shot of the rood inscription; good choice of site, too. Oh, the irony! Smashing job, Ruth.

I hope you keep doing the quick-to-video format; it's great for the bloggers. The first one I saw was your film of ++Rowan's visit to Rome and audience with the Pope.

I'd love to seed one of these with Bishop Wright on the question of the AC? Wonderful work.

[Tom Jackson]

"The public perception, as we’ve been reminded by several commentators in the last week or so, is that we are a Church obsessed with sex."

It is a simple but effective ploy by those wishing to focus attention away from the fundamentals of a situation to "spin" a perspective that concentrates on misinterpretation of the direction taken by those they oppose.

If a doctor was faced with someone who had a problem with over-eating and concentrated his attention on changing the eating habits of his patient, would we consider that doctor to be "obsessed" with food or simple focussing his treatment on the cause of the problem?

It just so happens that the issue with TEC has a major element with involves homosexuality, persons of the same sex participating in sexual activity with one another. This is something that many Christians believe is contrary to Christ's teaching and to what God intended when He created men and women.

To question and disagree with the TEC policy where same-sex relationships are concerned is no different to the response that would result if they questioned other matters of belief. For anyone to interpret the stance taken by the majority of the Anglican Communion as an obsession with sex would suggest an agenda which seeks to undermine the sincere beliefs and faith of many committed members of the Church.

[Alice C. Linsley]

Doubtless, this will be the compromise. Cuba will want to be with The Episcopal Church also. The Primate of Mexico is a socialist and will feel fairly comfortable with most of the +Schori crowd. Canada presents a more complex situation. The main thing is to set each other free and stop the bashing. Let's get on with teaching and preaching the Gospel and pray that we haven't damaged the next generation too much by our bickering and strife.