Archbishop: Lambeth 'for bishops not laity'

The Archbishop of Canterbury has put that 'Lambeth letter' that Bishop Wright talked about up as a video on YouTube! You can read our online news report here.

Here's the transcript:

Every ten years the Bishops of the Anglican Communion worldwide meet for the Lambeth Conference. They have been doing it like this for over a century now. It was an idea which one of the Archbishops of Canterbury in the 19th century had as he recognised that what had begun simply as the Church of England and the Church in other bits of the British Isles and in Ireland; that Church had become something rather different. It had become an international body drawing in people of many, many different languages and cultures and it was growing very rapidly in Asia and above all in Africa because of the efforts of heroic missionaries.

The Archbishop who began the Lambeth Conference, Charles Longley, was somebody who had a vision of the Anglican identity, the Anglican way of being Christian, as something that was no longer just confined to the British Isles or to North America but that was in principle becoming a universal reality and he wanted Bishops speaking for those new communities, those different Anglican communities across the world, to be able to share with one another what their priorities were, their concerns and their hopes, and that has always been at the very heart of the Lambeth Conference.

It has never been a legislative body, though it has made decisions and recommendations. It has never just been a talking shop. It has been a place where Bishops come to pray together, to read the Bible together and quite simply to help one another to be Bishops.

This year's Lambeth Conference has a very special focus on just that. We want to see this year's conference as an occasion when Bishops learn how to be better Bishops; and because of what we believe about the Church overall, we believe that Bishops learn to be better Bishops when they are learning from one another - learning from people working in very different contexts with very different ideas and challenges to deal with.

We've focused this years planning on equipping Bishops for their mission that means that we've had a think quite seriously about the way we do our business this year. That is why we have created a number of different levels at which Bishops will be able to meet; the small Bible study groups where people will we hope feel safe enough to share some of the most intimate things about their faith and their situation, the middle sized groups for discussion of larger issues.

We have given these the African name of indaba groups, groups where in traditional African culture, people get together to sort out the problems that affect them all, where everyone has a voice and where there is an attempt to find a common mind or a common story that everyone is able to tell when they go away from it. This is how we approached it. This is what we heard. This is where we arrived as we prayed and thought and talked together

And of course there'll be the occasions when the whole conference meets together to consider what it wants to say as a whole to the world and to listen to the speakers we have invited from the world of politics and international affairs, from other Churches and so on, what those other people have to say to us.

At the heart of the whole Anglican Communion is relationship. We have never been a body that is bound together by firm and precise rules and that is often, as it is at the moment, a matter of some real concern and some confusion in our life as a communion.

We don't want at the Lambeth Conference to be creating a lot of new rules but we do obviously need to strengthen our relationships and we need to put those relationships on another footing, slightly firmer footing, where we have promised to one another that this is how we will conduct our life together. And it is in that light that at this year we are discussing together the proposal for what we are calling a covenant between the Anglican Churches of the world. A covenant. A relationship of promise. We undertake that this is how we will relate to one another; that when these problems occur, that this is how we will handle them together, that this is how advice will be given and shared and that this is how decisions and discernment can be taken forward.

That is a very a big part of what we will be looking at this year but it is not everything because no covenant, no arrangement of that sort is worth the paper it is written on if it doesn't grow out of the relationships that are built as people pray together and share their lives together over tow and a half weeks. And to try and underline, we have also decided that this year we are going to begin the Lambeth Conference with a couple of days of retreat, of quiet prayer and reflection. There will be addresses. There will be a lot of open space and open time where people can just be alone with God, to think deeply about what they want from the conference and perhaps have the opportunity to talk quietly with one of two others about their hopes and fears.

What I would really most like to see in this years Lambeth Conference is the sense that this is essentially a spiritual encounter. A time when people are encountering God as they encounter one another, a time when people will feel that their life of prayer and witness is being deepened and their resources are being stretched. Not a time when we are being besieged by problems that need to be solved and statements that need to be finalised, but a time when people feel that they are growing in their ministry.

And for that to happen once again, we are going to need the prayers and the support of so many people around the world. Yes this is a conference for Bishops, not for Bishops with their clergy and laity as so often happens but primarily for Bishops. A recognition that Bishops just do have distinctive responsibilities in the Church and that they need to think about what those special responsibilities mean, but all of that will only make sense if those responsibilities are exercised with and for all the Christian people of the Communion. And that is why I have encouraged people across the Communion to prepare for the Lambeth Conference not only by praying for Bishops as they gather but also by sharing some of the material that has been provided for Bible study at the Conference- sharing in reflection on St John's Gospel - so that Bishops and their people and their clergy will in the months ahead be going through the same kinds of processes of thinking and praying around St John's Gospel that will lay the foundations for what we hope to achieve at the Lambeth Conference.

So please pray for the Conference and please share in that process of preparation, that reflection of God's word in the Gospel of John that will open up to us the horizons that we need in order to be better Bishops for the sake of a better Church. Bishops who are more deeply bound together in Christian fellowship so that their Churches may be more deeply bound in Christian fellowship; Churches that are bound deeper in fellowship so that they can witness more effectively, more convincingly, more transformingly in the world around.

Comments

[David Cohen]

How ironic, to give it African names, when most self-respecting African bishops will be giving a wide berth to a conference where "men marry men".

It will soon be seen that 1998 was the last Lambeth Conference.

[Peter Kirk]

If this video is really "that 'Lambeth letter' that Bishop Wright talked about", then Wright was badly misinformed about its contents, and needs to correct his claim "No skullduggery involved either at Lambeth or with me". See my blog post about this.

[John]

David Cohen:
So, is it your contention that most bishops at Lambeth support gay marriage? You won't even find all the US bishops supporting that! And when you include the bishops from the rest of the Communion, you really are reaching too far to declare that Lambeth is "a conference where 'men marry men'"!

I add my prayers to those of ++Rowan and many others, that this conference will bring some peace and true understanding of each other.

pax et bonum

[saint]

There is nothing wrong with what Williams said although it doesn't seem to match what Wright said should be expected.

I doubt it will entice those not going to change their minds (doesn't even read like it was meant to) nor discourage Gene! The Musical from opening his June bridal exhibition down the road.

Dilemma for Malcolm-plus: no demands, no ultimatum, and end of Anglican Communion coming your way. Who can he blame now?

[Malcolm+]

"It [Lambeth] has never been a legislative body, though it has made decisions and recommendations."

Despite the false assertions of "conservatives."

[Christopher Johnson]

Decisions and recommendations that liberals have treated as so much toilet paper.

[Susan Russell]

So I guess I missed the "ultimatum" part ... this sounds like "let's all come together and pray and learn from each other" not "stay home unless you're willing to 'comply' with the Windsor Report!

(rg writes: Good to have you here Susan, thank you for commenting. Yes it is a puzzle isn't it!)

[David Palmer]

Actually, a lot of what the ABC says is good.

At the basis of everything is relationship. Our God is a personal God (contra Islam's god), He invites us to share in the relationship of love that Father, Son and Holy Spirit share. We who believe become partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), a text dear to Orthodox as well as orthodox hearts.

Perhaps if the ABC had drawn out the Trinitarian aspect of relationship, the en Xristo aspect, that might have indicated the problem for Lambeth, the existence of Gafcon, etc.

For where two are not agreed how can they walk together? I do find this very sad.

[robroy]

The Communion is in its direst crisis. So let's have a meeting where nothing substantive can be discussed, where the Delphi technique can be used to make the appearance of consensus, where nothing divisive like taking a stand for the Gospel. This format seems expressly designed by the American Episcopal church to ensure that there will be no consequences of its heresies, vile lawsuits, trumped up depositions, and other persecutions of the orthodox. Defender of the faith? I think not.

[David Cohen]

John, you need to consider what kind of company you endorse by association. There is no sign that the TEC bishops plan to criticise, let alone discipline Gene Robinson, and many of them either assented to his consecration or took part. But they have all been invited.

It appears that those who are planning to attend Lambeth do consent, however tacitly, to Gene continuing as a bishop, even "married" to another man, as he will be by July.

Read what the African bishops think:

www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/04/23/kenya-bishop-says-gafcon-not-lambeth-is-anglican-provinces-choice/#more-3345

They represent 70% of the world's Anglicans. A pity some of the so-called orthodox bishops in the west don't share their courage.

[Malcolm+]

No demands, and rightly so, "Saint."

And the Anglican Communion continues. Minus those who choose to leave.

I hope Akinola et al don't let the doorknob hit them on the way out.

[saint]

Nope. Whatever Wright said, this video really just reiterates Williams' vision for Lambeth as per the conference website. Nothing to see here, move along.

I just wonder if the final Anglican crack up will be with a big bang or a long, drawn out whimper.

And yes David, I am not sure about the African cell group theme, given one of the biggest problems facing the African church (be it Anglican, Catholic or otherwise) is tribalism, and indaba tends to refer to Zulu-Xhosa conferences, i.e. tribal divisions.

Maybe he wants to conjure up its more generic sense of 'meeting' without the tribal references.

Then again maybe Lambeth will be just be a scout indaba, where you just learn how to tie even fancier knots, and complete with assorted neopagans paying homage to Nkulunkulu, the Zulu creator god who is above intervention in human affairs.

After all, there will be no Africans of the calibre of Cyprian, Athanasius or Augustine there.

[John]

David:
"They represent 70% of the world's Anglicans. A pity some of the so-called orthodox bishops in the west don't share their courage."

In what sense are the African bishops more "courageous" than the US ones? They aren't standing against their own culture - they're upholding it. They're not standing against the majority - they are supporting it.

Notice that I'm not saying here that the US bishops are more courageous, nor that courage itself is the most important thing. I'm just saying that you're missing the point rather.

You say that "There is no sign that the TEC bishops plan to criticise, let alone discipline Gene Robinson" but fail to show why they must do so. Such an action would go far, far beyond the requests of the Windsor report (which, remember, wasn't and isn't any sort of legal document in any case). The US bishops have, however, made an apology, as asked for by the WR, and promised not to elect any more openly gay bishops. What is notable by its absence is any adherence to the other strictures of the WR by those who label themselves 'orthodox'.

The point of ++Rowan's message is precisely that making demands and passing laws is not what's needed. What the bishops need is to learn to be bishops together. And this can only be done by learning and praying and worshipping together. Condemning someone for going beyond what you consider acceptable is easy. Following Christ is hard.

pax et bonum

[David Cohen]

PaxEtBonum, the US bishops have only issued an "apology" for any discomfort they may have caused - not for their actions. They have stated that they cannot prevent another diocese electing another Gene Robinson, and they continue to allow the blessing of homosexual unions in the churches of their dioceses.

They ignore Lambeth 1.10. They ignore the Windsor Report. They depose clergy without trial, and seize churches belonging to congregations. It is all the lawlessness of the Wild West.

But few here have the courage to call their bluff, as the Global South has done. The Abp of C appears to be colluding with TEC's stated aim of "converting" the rest of the Communion to their denial of God's law, by failing to take any action, not even withdrawing their invitations to Lambeth.

What the bishops need is to be reminded that they are servants of the word of God. Not to get together at enormous expense in order to take a trip up Mount Ego.

Since nobody has taken any notice of Lambeth 1.10, successive primates' meetings, the WR, or the convoluted qualifications of archiepiscopal utterances, and because Lambeth is going to be a media feast for the Robinsons, the GS bishops have quite logically concluded that they no longer belong to an organisation which approves of men "marrying" men.

The Anglican Communion has been broken by the failure of its leadership, and in July all will be laid bare for those who are still unable to grasp that the Communion is already defunct.

[Malcolm+]

Other unrescinded Lambeth resolutions condemn boundary crossing. Akinola, Venables et al ignore those resolutions.

Why is that perfectly okay, David? You're the one falsely claiming that Lambeth resolutions are binding. Why is it only some Lambeth resolutions are binding. Rather a hypocritical position, wot?

The Windsor Report condemns boundary crossings. Akinola, Venables et al ignore the Windsor Report.

Why is that perfectly okay, David? You're the one falsely claiming that the Windsor Report is binding. Why is it only some parts of the report are binding. Rather a hypocritical position, wot?

Lambeth 1.10 called for an intentional process of listening to the experience of homosexual persons. Several of the "conservative" provinces have refused to engage in any such process - and in Nigeria, the Church proposes that all homosexuals and anyone who advocates for their civil rights should be jailed.

Why is that perfectly okay, David? You're the one falsely claiming that Lambeth 1998 1.10 is binding. Why is it only parts of 1.10 are binding. Rather a hypocritical position, wot?

[John]

David:
"Lambeth is going to be a media feast for the Robinsons"

Given that Gene Robinson isn't even invited, that's hardly true. And what's vexing about the GS bishops is not that they have left the Anglican Communion but that they are claiming that everyone else has abandoned it and that they are the faithful remnant. (And, let's not forget, these are the same 'defenders of morality' who demanded and got a concession that Christians in their churches could have multiple wives - even bishops. In direct contradiction to Scripture. These men cannot claim 'christian tradition' or 'scripture' as their sole guide, despite what they often claim.)

You seem to be more concerned with maintaining purity than seeking justice. Perhaps some are more concerned with justice than purity. And perhaps the true path lies in between.

But one thing seems very clear to me - whatever else Christianity is, it is not and cannot be a purity religion. If we start to say that the letter of the law rules, or that purity is equal to sanctity, or that being in a right relationship with God precludes error or sin (and, conversely, that the discovery of error or sin proves damnation) then we have departed radically from what Jesus Christ said and did.

pax et bonum

[Mike Homfray]

Given that clearly the Lambeth Conference does not support 'men marrying men', and gene has not been officially invited, one can only assume that the headbangers just can't countenance coming to a meeting in a country where civil partnerships are legal, and so the aim is to relocate the communion away from the UK.

I simply don;pt get it. Who in their right minds would want to be in communion with this bunch of premodern bigots? The only answer is a split - let people believe as they wish rather than try and create unity where none exists.

[David Cohen]

The boundary crossings are happening because Christian doctrine is vastly more important than conventions about boundaries.

The first priority for a Christian whose bishop becomes immoral or heretical is to look outside the diocese for a faithful bishop, and that is what American and Canadian Christians have done.

This did not happen when bishops like Griswold and Ingham remained within the doctrinal boundaries set long ago, and it would not happen if they and their churches returned, as invited by the Windsor report, to the faith of the Church.

But TEC's General Convention, and the recent General Synod in Canada, have both failed to repent, or to discipline Ingham or Robinson or any other of those bishops and clergy promoting lifestyles which are contrary to biblical teaching. On the contrary, they are deposing clergy and seizing the churches of those who refuse to conform to their brave new world.

You have made it very clear that you have a higher regard for your "local option" than you have for the faith of the Church. In the end there will be a choice to be made, between provincial autonomy and belonging to a wider Communion. It is quite evident that you have made up your mind for the former.

[David Cohen]

PaxEtBonum

I don't know what you have been smoking, but your allegation about polygamous bishops is as offensive as it is untrue.

Gene Robinson has not been invited to the Conference, but he is coming anyway, along with his "husband" following their ceremony in June - he has announced that he always wanted to be a June bride.

It will be the sideshows that the media cover, not the Conference itself, and Gene will be there, with Changing Attitude, Integrity and all the other campaign groups.

Purity and justice are both part of the Christian religion. It seems you have been disregarding your bible.

Jesus said that he had not come to abolish the Law, not one jot or tittle of it, but to fulfil it. He died on the Cross in order to atone for sin. He didn't deal with it by abolishing the Law.

[George Parr]

David Cohen, what gives Christians the right to judge other human beings?

'Failing to repent', bishops that 'become immoral' - it really is little wonder that churches are now falling into the massive void that they have for so long been utilising to justify privilege and to maintain social control. Just what aspects of openness, tolerance and free-thinking even love, were involved in convincing you that people should be sifted and categorised, not through their deeds, integrity and worth, but via their (presumed) God-given sexuality? To create a social order in which notions of medieval piety are employed to grade and judge people on this one aspect is the most presumptuous attack on human rights imaginable.

Religions based on human beings exercising their collective imaginations to create 'divine' boundaries on society's behalf deserve all they get. They can clearly be seen for the anachronistic ideologies and the repressive and stunted thinking they represent.

Give your ingrown muddled souls an outing and stop impacting on the wider community.

[Phil Martin]

David Cohen is absolutely right. I would like to pitch in for him.

The ABC says that Lambeth is not about making rules. I think this is symptomatic of his reluctance to submit to the dictates of scripture, and I would say that clever and well-meaning as he no doubt is, he is not fit for leadership of God's people.

Far from guarding the "good deposit" (2 Timothy 1:14) he's effectively abandoned it, replacing it with a load of nonsense and vague indecision.

[Rick Beekman]

George Parr;

You asked David Cohen; "What gives you the right to judge other human beings"?

Here's the answer George; John 7 V 24 "Judge not by appearance but Judge righteous judgement ye judge."

Righteous judgement is by what the word of God says George...Amen

[Malcolm+]

David, thank you for admitting the facts.

The demand that the Windsor Report, Lambeth resolutions generally and Lambeth 1998 1.10 be binding applies only to those you disagree with. Those you agree with are allowed to make up their own rules as you go along.

A coherent position. Certainly not Anglican. Probably not Christian.

[pendennis88]

I believe I've lost the thread, and I am, I suspect, not alone in that.

Is this truly the missive N.T. Wright referred to? If so, how did he get it so wrong? (That's actually a question for you, Ruth.)

After all the stuff said above, why should any orthodox bishops bother to travel all the way to Lambeth just to have a lot of open space and open time? Can't they have that where they are?

And if all provinces are auonomous, what is wrong with border crossing, anyway? (Setting aside, incidentally, that the orthodox bishops all believe that the Windsor Report, Dromantine and Dar es Salaam all quite clearly state that adequate alternative oversight acceptable to the orthodox was a prerequisite to the ending of border crossing.)

And does the Archbishop of Canterbury really want to stop all the lawsuits and depositions in the US and Canada? (Certainly the widespread belief in the American Episcopal Church is that he winks at it.)

Maybe the whole point is that the orthodox bishops will go to GAFCON, perhaps endorse a new North American province, and just continue to meet separately, while other bishops will go to Lambeth and study John, though to take a leaf from Wright, they might be better advised to study either First or Second Corinthians.

And so Lambeth becomes a minor event, so low profile that no one notices when it just peters out, the orthodox bishops just go out and evangelize and hold their own meetings, and the Archbishop sits in his palace. Everyone ignores each other, at least after the lawsuits end, and all call themselves Anglicans. As near as I can tell, that is the Archbishop's plan, if you can call it that.

Now you, though, George Parr, might just be bishop material in the States. So watch it, or you'll get invited to Lambeth, too. I already see an episcopal sermon in your last sentence.

[David Cohen]

You are not a member of the Church, Mr Parr. Your notions of right and wrong are irrelevant to deciding what is appropriate for Christians.

[robroy]

The letters of the ABC are still not sent says Lambeth palace. What is the the matter here? Is Canon Kearon revising it yet again? Will this suffice?:

"Acceptance of the invitation is an affirmation to engage in mindless banter and most explicitly not to criticize the the reckless, er, no, the innovative American church."

[George Parr]

No Mr Cohen, but I am a member of the human race, in a world that crazy and immutable religious positions are playing a significant part in dividing and destroying.

If I were to say that political and social comments by bishops in the legislature, or from the mouths of other voluble clerics, only applied to Christians and not the wider community I would be similarly pilloried.

Your rather trite point is seen for the fundamental nonsense is actually is, since Christians themselves clearly viciously disagree over what is 'right' or 'wrong' in too many areas to quantify.

And what assumptions are you making Mr Pendeniss, in your remark about American bishop material? Are you assuming that everyone who opposes Christian intolerance to human rights must be homosexual? If so, what other dire, false assumptions inform your worldview and greatly assist in it not being taken seriously?

The hypocrisy is palpable at a time when the greatest of all human rights is under attack - the absolute right to live in peace and to embrace freedom of thought, without becoming a casualty of religious violence or a victim of someone else's dogmatic insistency.

[David Cohen]

Malcolm-minus, you can always be relied upon for standing on your head!

I hope that when you next receive a speeding ticket, you hand it back to the RCMP with the advice that you don't believe in the law, so it does not apply to you.

[George Parr]

Mr Beekman;

Try supplying a rational point of view without The Book. You are attempting to repair a Ford by consulting a Mercedes manual.

[David Cohen]

Mr Parr, you do insist on trolling on a religious blog, the subject of which is the appropriate range of beliefs and morality for Christian leaders. You are not in a position to advise the Church what its teaching should be.

Nor do you have any right to exclude Christian or other religious viewpoints from the public forum. In a free society we must all contend for what we believe, but you seem to prefer the sort of regime which prescribes in advance what opinions may be advanced in public.

A very large proportion of the UK still identifies itself as Christian. It would be my contention that we should pay greater heed to Christian teaching than has been the case during the postwar period, which has created a remarkably unattractive society whose only morality is to make money and enjoy it.

[Rick Beekman]

George;

Same Old George; Show Him Proof Of Something And He Demonizes The Sourse As Irrelavant or False. No Proof However Just Your Carnal Non-Spiritual mind Rambling on. George I Believe you'd Complain if Somebody were to hang you with a new Rope!!

[Malcolm+]

Laws passed by the Canadian Parliament are binding in Canada - and those passed by the provincial legislatures are likewise binding in their respective provinces.

Lambeth resolutions have never been binding on anyone. Lambeth resolutions are not binding on anyone. I do not expect Lambeth resolutions will be binding on anyone any time soon.

I hate to cloud the issues with facts, David, but your analogy is, like most of what you post here, a tissue of tripe.

[John]

David,
"I don't know what you have been smoking, but your allegation about polygamous bishops is as offensive as it is untrue."

Calm down, please! I made no accusation about bishops being polygamous. I stated the recorded fact that Lambeth 88 made exception for polygamous converts in African churches, as requested by those African Primates. In direct contravention of the NT instructions on marriage. That is, there is no longer a restriction on polygamy in converts to Christianity in Africa.

Despite this huge exception being made for them, catering for the "specific situation in Africa", these same bishops are adamant in defending "orthodoxy" by refusing to accomodate the "specific situation in America" with respect to homosexuality.

This is hypocrisy - demanding that moral exceptions to be made for oneself, but refusing to make them for others. And this means that these African bishops can make no claim to be defending "historical orthodoxy" when they have got themselves excepted from that orthodoxy when it suited them in the past, and are now defying that orthodoxy by crossing borders. Whatever justification they feel they have, they cannot deny that such a practice has never been accepted in the Anglican churches.

The Americans were wrong in the way they went about ordaining Gene Robinson bishop (although they obeyed their own rules and regulations when so doing, they did not take sufficient notice of the wider Communion - that is, they obeyed the rules but strained the bonds of friendship). The Africans and neo-conservatives are wrong in the way they defy the structures and rules of the Anglican communion whenever they feel that their morality or their particular interpretation of the Bible has been contravened (that is, they breach both the letter of the law and strain the bonds of friendship).

Two wrongs don't make a right, I was always taught.

pax et bonum

[Mike Homfray]

I think that George has every right to express his view.

Having once been a religionist, my own view is now that religion (all religion) will really have to inhabit only the private sphere and that the state must be secular, which is actually the view of the majority of people in practice.

[George Parr]

Oh well done Mr Cohen, what a litany of contradictions! Your last ably demonstrates the self-reverential importance invested in your own viewpoint. You may opine within a coterie of like-minded chattering souls, whilst others are excluded.

In Cohen world, this particular forum is to be restricted to back-slapping Christians posting confidence-boosting endorsements of their own particular perspectives and in this maelstrom of self-interest other views are not allowed. Pluralism does not exist. Discussion over belief extends only to those embracing a Christian ideology, which, naturally is always right in its doctrinal assertions and the ways in which they impact on society.

It goes without saying that Christian leaders never consult widely and cannot possibly be informed in any way by the views of the profane, and that faith groups are possibly the only remaining entities within human society that must not be challenged either morally or socially. A general terror possibly exists regarding the loss of the much cliched 'high ground'.

Since 'in a free society we must all contend for what we believe' please demonstrate why, in what you correctly identify as a public forum, my particular beliefs should not be posted. Everyone advances opinions Mr Cohen, my concern is how religious groups, arguably as closed-minded collectives, affect certain human rights issues. And is 2000 years a long enough period for rigid notions of sexuality and gender issues to have been 'prescrib[ed] in advance', presumably for the pious to repeat ad nauseum as opinion?

Gloomy and depressed Christians continually define the society they form part of as unattractive, holding up cultures of money-making as a significant cause. There are of course no rich Christians, only morally superior arbiters of human behaviour, all living the life of St Jerome.

I fail to see why cultural positivity, shared morality and civilised behaviour regarding human rights should be mutually excluded by some people's insistence of continual decadence. You are of course entitled to your opinion but, unfortunately, 'Christian teaching' has demonstrably not been revealed historically as promoting harmony and moral rectitude in society, only within a dubious context of scientific ignorance, the retention of wealth, the exercising of power and the class-specific, lethal authoritarianism required to maintain it.

[George Parr]

Same old Rick!

Who has no proof, you or me? It's not me who is claiming that there are jealous gods, devils, hell, judgment, evil-spirits, burning marl and infallible instructions over sexuality and gender. Moreover, you appear to have no idea about the concept of spiritualism. Yours is rote-learnt!

[David Cohen]

Dear PaxEtBonum,

Now you say you made no accusation about bishops being polygamous - but this is what you DID say:

let's not forget, these are the same 'defenders of morality' who demanded and got a concession that Christians in their churches could have multiple wives - even bishops.

It's bad enough to see you perpetuating racist slanders - worse to find you denying it just inches down the same thread.

For the record, the African bishops asked what was to be done with people converting to the Christian faith, who had previously been married polygamously. To require such a person to remove from his household a woman who had become economically dependant upon him, perhaps having one or more children, would be harmful and cruel in the extreme. The principle adopted was that nobody should be required to do so, but that as Christians they would not be permitted to take additional wives after conversion.

[David Cohen]

You can pontificate all you like, Mr Parr, but the Church is a voluntary society which determines its own rules of membership and leadership, according to the teaching of the word of God.

Your association with the ideologies of atheism and secularism is exemplified by so many brutal, totalitarian regimes in the past century. The disrespect which results from utilitarian calculations about human life in a monetarist world equally typifies the position you hold. You inhabit a world given over to hedonism and to death.

Of course you can bang on all you like about the Brave New World you imagine will result from the abolition of religion. As I said, speech is free in the UK - although increasingly under threat from your fellow-travellers.

But it won't convince those who live by the word of God to adopt your value-free platitudes and the corrupt society which results from them.

[John]

David,
Now back off! I made no racist comment - I didn't come near to bringing race into it! And I don't deny what I wrote. But don't read into things more than they say. I never said "Bishop X is a polygamist", nor even "some of these bishops are polygamous". What I said was that they petitioned for and received permission for Christians in those Anglican churches to be polygamous. And that there was (as far as I know) no additional prohibition attached to exclude bishops from that ruling.

So, no, far from your accusation, I stand by what I wrote. All I deny is a distortion of that. Do you deny that these bishops requested and received an exception to "orthodox Christian morality"? Or that they now orate grandly on how they are the true defenders of "orthodox Christian morality" within the Anglican communion? Or that this is hypocrisy?

And, please, keep crude accusations of racism out of sensible discussions and avoid ad hominem attacks. And that applies to your vilification of George Parr, too. If you have something useful to say to him, do so. But if all you can do is hurl abuse then I'd suggest that a dignified silence might be more Christ-like.

pax et bonum

[George Parr]

Mr Cohen, where are you getting this from? You appear to be responding to someone else. I am not arguing about how the church operates internally, its membership or its arcane rules.

I am not an atheist. I am not a hedonist and, since presumably you subscribe to cloud-based ideals of immortality, it may just be that death actually worries you quite considerably.

If, through spouting the usual conservative Bible-Christian line which associates hedonistic homosexuality with death, you are making the assumption that I am a homosexual, you are also wrong. Incredibly, Mr Cohen, it is not a requirement for those who argue in support of human rights, but it does serve to illustrate the way in which some 'religious' people apportion human value, divinely separating themselves from those regarded as 'other'.

I have not suggested a Brave New World. I have not described the possibility of a world without religion, or its abolition. It is wholly arrogant and impolite to suggest that someone else's concerns are value-free. I would have expected nothing less of course.

Free-speech is more likely to suffer under the manic totalitarian confines of dogmatic 'faith' than through any liberal ideas or open-minded views that I may possess.

And it is a nonsense to suggest that corruption within society results from the efforts of those of us whose concerns are not in fact designed to disrupt the cosy liturgical notions of faith groups, but are roundly centred on achieving and maintaining human dignity. If imagined opponents are thoroughly demonised and the unacceptable social policies of faith groups continually haemorrhage into wider society, faith groups can expect to be challenged.

Quite how you arrived at the misleading and inaccurate rubbish you have just posted I cannot imagine. Happily, I do not believe that your seemingly inverted thinking is typical of the Christian mainstream.

[J Pearce]

"Hedonism and death"?

Didn't the scrupulously Catholic Spanish bring back syphillis from Latin America? Didn't they rape, pillage and murder veritable thousands of native Americans in the name of the Pope? Isn't the Catholic Church responsible for several million dollars worth of law suits regarding the sexual proclivities of its employees? Didn't the Puritans have a rather "scorched earth" policy towards native North Americans?

Mr Cohen, I have noted various pro-Christian contributors on these threads bemoan the passing of some mythic golden age of Christian society. Can you please tell me, where and when such a society has ever existed and whether you can personally vouch for its impeccably holy and benign day-to-day activities, before you disparage our current society.

To be honest, David, I'd wager a small amount of my corrupted, value-free monetarist income, that such a Christian utopia has never seen the light of day. But, being so clearly holier-than-thou, I'm assuming that you don't partake in capitalism and therefore have no money? A humble potato instead, perhaps?

[John]

PaxEtBonum

You are the one who singled out the African churches for defamation, which is why I regard it as racist as well as offensive.

And you are the one seeking to distort the perfectly reasonable question of what to do with a converted polygamist, into permitting polygamy for African bishops.

I think you owe a retraction and apology to Christians who are facing very considerable hardship in their mission to parts of the world where polygamy is practised by those who are now coming to Christ.

[David Cohen]

You have not read my reply to your objectionable claims.

I invite you to name one clergyman, let alone bishop, in the entire Anglican Communion, who is either polygamously married, or has sought to be.

It is a slur put about by those in the TEC who wish to discredit orthodox Anglican Christians. You will not find one, because it is cruelly untrue.

You will however find numerous American clergy and bishops with multiple marriages on their CV, including one bishop in TEC who is now married for the third time.

[David Cohen]

What a joke, Mr Pearce, the usual line is to accuse the Spanish of taking syphilis to Latin America.

As a Christian I know of no golden age of the kind you erroneously infer, only this world which varies from place to place and from generation to generation in the extent to which it attempts to live according to the word of God.

The present generation in the UK sadly lacks the respect for life which was embodied in the culture of just fifty years ago, when abortion was restricted to medical emergencies, when children had a reasonable expectation that their parents would be married and remain so, when sexual hedonism of any kind did not fill the newspapers and media every day, accompanied by detailed accounts of the drug and alcohol abuse of "Celebs", when governments largely observed promises in their election manifesto...the list is too long for a blog.

The greater influence then of the Christian faith meant greater respect within society at large, for wholeness of life and for life itself. What we have now is not progress, but a wasted opportunity to use advances in technology and medicine to improve life - rather than take it away or commercialise it.

Without the moral framework of a divine order, such decadence is inevitable, or worse, results in government by secular ideology as espoused by Stalin, Mao, Burma, North Korea and modern China.

[David Cohen]

George, it is the deaths of 200,000 unborn children a year which troubles me. I don't suppose it concerns you at all that they don't have the right to life in the UK. Your notion of human rights does not allow for that.

I have no idea what kind of sexuality you profess and not the slightest interest. If you would like to know what the Christian teaching is about the use of sexuality, I can recommend some reading to you, if you ask for it.

Your assertion that faith is bounded by "manic totalitarian confines" reveals your incomprehension of the subject with which you are apparently obsessed to the extent that you spend so much time here. You need to get a hobby.

While you insist on choosing to be here to make silly assertions about what the Church should or should not do, you can expect to be challenged.

Why not propound your theories on the NSS blog? I am sure that you will win many plaudits there.

[Malcolm+]

David is actually correct here. I'm sure it's only by accident, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

There have been numerous reports that one or more African bishops have more than one wife. These reports have never been substantiated.

[Mike Homfray]

Then you can go ahead and live according to your beliefs, David. Just don't try and force them on those of us who don't wish to return to the repression of fifty years ago.

[John]

Once again - I never said that any of these bishops were polygamous. I said that they had asked for and received an exception to orthodox Christian sexual morality and that Christians in their regions were allowed to remain polygamous. Is there a specific bar in these regions to a polygamous convert subsequently becoming a bishop? There's no specific rule anywhere else about this, because no one is allowed to be polygamous. And saying "None of them is polygamous" isn't an answer here. I am asking about their rules - is there anything to stop such an event, beyond "it would never happen"?

So, _pace_ David, I owe no one an apology for what I said because I made no accusation. But if anyone misinterpreted what I wrote as an accusation then I am truly sorry that I wasn't clear enough. In my defence, it never entered my head that anyone would rather focus on a tangential detail than the main thrust of what I was saying.

And, David, I still hear no comment from you on that main thrust: that these 'defenders' of orthodoxy are from the same churches (and are often the same people, I think) who got themselves this exemption. And yet they refuse a similar exemption to others, with much vituperation and condemnation.

pax et bonum

[George Parr]

David, having introduced another subject, again you have no real knowledge about my views on abortion, other than I mentioned it as one of the salient issues upon which Christians have a view. Your comments are made therefore through inaccurate supposition. And the notion that Christian 'teaching' is required, in order to categorize and explain the 'use' of sexuality which, for sentient beings, is recognized as instinctual, renders it as mechanical and is frankly risible. So I will not be pleading with you to inform me of the tortuous logic contained within the very well-known biblical texts on the subject.

There is also a wide spectrum of evidence, from Vatican rigid moral directives bound up with threats of excommunication, to Islamic claims to eradicate non-believers, beheading them as necessary, that religion, for itself, seeks to exercise unacceptable levels of control. You may be confused, but one faction trying to control the thoughts and actions of others through insistence over personal belief, or by maintaining a system of guilt or fear is generally regarded as wholly unreasonable in a civilized society.

A small example of my point might be Christians like you, with pompous notions of ownership, seeking to control the views of those who disagree with them by suggesting they leave this forum. Scraping the bottom of the barrel of double standards is ably demonstrated by the multiplicity of views expressed by you on numerous threads, whilst frowning upon my presence here and seeking to control what I write and where.

Within itself, I do not care one way or another what 'the church' chooses to do. You surely must realise that I believe in a general freedom to discuss reams of abstruse litugical twaddle (my view) until the cows come home. But I am entitled to disagree with how religious policies impact outside of the faith groups generating them.

You have an overbearing style, which reeks of self-importance. The forum is a public one and does not operate solely for you to denigrate the views of others. Possibly, your obviously belligerent attitude to dissenters serves to re-inforce the needs of rational people to seek to homogenize cultures to a certain extent in order to eradicate divisive and aggressive influences found within some faith groups.

Since proselytization figures highly in the Christian faith you might take a leaf out of your own book and include the NSS blog as a forum for your own crazy ideas, rather than taking the soft option of preaching to the converted and then becoming precious with anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. That also signals another difference between us.

[David Cohen]

The have been numerous slurs that one or more African bishops have more than one wife.

Once again, Malcolm Minus, provide some evidence that any African clergyman or bishop is a polygamist.

Otherwise you are simply indulging in a disgusting racist smear campaign against African Christians.

[J Pearce]

"What a joke, Mr Pearce, the usual line is to accuse the Spanish of taking syphilis to Latin America."?

I'm so sorry David. I suppose in your books, its perfectly acceptable that those God-fearing, Pope-loving Catholic Spanish just happened to actually be a bunch of sexually incontinent, pox-ridden murderers and rapists. But hey, that can't be right, Christians don't do those sort of things, yeah?

"As a Christian I know of no golden age of the kind you erroneously infer…"

Well, may I humbly suggest you drop the whinging miserabilism about modern society - until you Christians can put your money where your mouths are, I wouldn't go making grandiose claims about how wonderful a "Christian" society is, until you can prove it (and hey, you've had 2000 years so far to get it right, how long do you want?!).

This fixation with the post-war period that some Chrsitans seem to have is just utter garbage. We had an equal amount of societal problems then, its just that they were brushed under the carpet by those in positions of power - most notably the Church and the media. To hold up the 50's as some kind of social utopia is fantastical wishful thinking.

"Without the moral framework of a divine order, such decadence is inevitable…"

Oh dear Mr Cohen, are you still labouring under the illusion that Christianity has anything to do with God? That would explain alot. Christianity is a human-invented prescription for societal order, in the same way that communism is. The difference is, the former requires submission to a mythic sky-God entity whilst the latter requires submission to the concept of the "the good of the people".

Only we know that it doesn't actually work like that in communism, in much the same way that Christians like to slavishly follow a whole load of "canononical law" devised by people, rather than any provable interdictions from any God-like being.

By the way, I note your distaste for secular communist societies. I haven't seen any non-religious contributors on these threads even attempt to justify or support communism, so using those examples are rather pointless, don't you think? And wasn't the Cold War supposedly won by our increasingly secular, western, liberal democratic societies? Mere trifling historical footnotes, if we are to believe every charge regularly levelled against secularism by the likes of you, Mr Cohen.

Do you actually enjoy anything these days?

[David Cohen]

George, You have an overbearing style, which reeks of self-importance.

If you were here to discuss rather than to pour scorn from an imaginary lofty height, you might be able to engage with the religious issues which are the subject of this blog.

But you have once again made plain your contempt for religion of all kinds. So why keep returning to it?

[J Pearce]

This is fantastic! We have Christians on this thread hijacking the methods used by their most despised opponents - PC liberal-lefty types - in order to conduct a smear campaign against fellow Christians who's opinions happen to contradict their own!

Let me get this straight - according to John "Not PaxEtBonum John", no-one is allowed to use the behaviour of African Christians in an argument because it is by definition "racist". A stance heartily endorsed by Mr. Cohen. Wow! Is this some sort of Christian version of 1984 or something? Is one of you Ken Livingstone in disguise?

To recap, Christian A calls Christian B a racist to cover up the fact Christian A is a homophobe.

I swear, you couldn't make this stuff up!

[John]

Erm, David, try reading the comments you're replying to. Malcom was saying that you were right and that there is no evidence that any African bishops are polygamists.

There have been no slurs or accusations about any bishops in this thread except those you have imagined.

To repeat - no one here has made any accusations of polygamy.

The closest that anyone has come is my statement that the African churches asked for permission to allow polygamists to become Christians and remain polygamists, but this is NOT in any way an accusation against any bishops. Given your apparent joy in finding offence where none is intended, I shouldn't have used the word "bishops" in the original comment but what's done is done. I did not intend to cast any aspersions, as I hope was clear from the context and should certainly be abundantly so from what I've written since!

pax et bonum

[George Parr]

David, it's really rather silly to keep on mimicking my words in an attempt to construct a ping-pong like exchange. But then I suppose some nodding-dog Christians are hard up for original thought, hence the slavish reliance on scriptwriters...

Where on earth were you living fifty years ago (if indeed you were!)? I can now reveal the high point of 1958 - On February 17th Pope Pius XII declared St Clare to be the patron saint of television; divinely endorsing the nascent celebrity culture you mention.

The ongoing cold war, nuclear proliferation, the Mau Mau uprising, Cuba, Kruschev brought out of retirement; and what a wonderful religious ethos predominated in post-war Britain! Unthinking working-class parents were continually grateful and accepted everything that dull clerics and severe bosses reinforced; doctors were male upper-class miracle workers arriving in Daimlers and relied on patients' lack of knowledge and self-confidence; house ownership was class-specific and women knew their place - in the private sphere - just like modern day Saudi! Dixon of Dock Green exemplified law and order, the BBC was colonised by old Etonians and no job worth having was occupied by anyone not possessing a public school accent.

Poverty, austerity, smog, TB and innoculations David; there was no golden age. 'Family values' have never been identified as existing and are an ambiguous concept anyway. Abortion, drunkenness and venereal disease was prevalent in proportion, and only the social stigma and cost of divorce temporarily stemmed the flow of separation in miserable and unhappy marriages. Most of all aspirational hope for betterment among working classes was still a few years away from being realised.

So what do miserable Christians like you want, a return to rickets? Or as we all suspect a thoughtless harking back to an ideology where rigidity, class, race and religious privilege ensured that churches could enjoy being part of a draconic system of social control. Dream on David.

[David Cohen]

"a mythic sky-God entity"?

J Pearce, this, and variations of it crop up so often in your comments and those of your associates, that one can only assume it appears in some NSS briefing for those appointed to troll on religious blogs.

Like so many of your stock assaults on the Christian faith, it really does belong to the playground rather than to serious debate.

If you are interested in debate, why not find out what Christians actually believe and think, rather than reiterating the contents of tired old pamphlets?

[David Cohen]

Dear PaxEtBonum

There is no mistaking the intended inference of your intervention about African bishops, but I am glad to see you acknowledge that the situation is only hypothetical.

It is not even hypothetical, however. Nobody would be ordained, or permitted to continue in ministry, in a case of polygamy.

So far as I know the question of how to deal pastorally with a convert who was previously polygamously married has not occurred frequently in western provinces of the Anglican Communion, but it might well become more commonplace as people convert here in the UK, and the answer would be the same.

It is not, as you call it, an "exemption" to Christian morality but a practical solution to the needs of one or more women and their children who are dependent upon a man who has married polygamously. Upon becoming a Christian he would not be permitted to take another wife, and would be expected to provide for his family as it is.

All part of the principle of "Go, and sin no more" - applied to the tragic reality of polygamy.

[Malcolm+]

Perhaps, David, if you weren';t so wrapped up in inchoate rage, you could spare a moment to pay attention.

What I said was, "There have been numerous reports that one or more African bishops have more than one wife."

This is, again, a simple statement of fact. And despite your well established hatred for facts, it is one you have even asserted yourself. It is an accusation that has been made.

I then wen;t on to say something else - something you were apparently unable to read, presumably nto your eyesight being affected by your blind irrationality.

I said, "These reports have never been substantiated."

Indeed, I began the post with the uncharacteristic observation that you were actually right on this particular point.

But because you are so driven by hate, you couldn't even nnotice I was agreeing with you - if only on this one small point.

Perhaps it's time you consulted your physician. This anger management problem of yours must surely be having a negative affect on your health.

[Solidus]

David:
"There is no mistaking the intended inference of your intervention about African bishops"

Well, there obviously is, because you insist on mistaking it despite my oft-repeated statements that I meant no such thing. Can we please leave the accusations behind?

From what I read in your comment, you provide no indication that it couldn't happen beyond "nobody would be ordained..." That you don't think it would doesn't mean that it won't. Not (again) that I believe that it is happening. Unless you yourself are an African bishop, or at least a member of one of these African Provices, your opinion is nothing more than an assumption. (Not, again, that I believe that these churches are preparing an onslaught of polygamous bishops - but that I do not know that they have excluded the possibility.)

And, despite your protestations, it certainly is an exemption from orthodox Christianity - why otherwise would these Privinces have had to make the request to allow it? And, still, I see no explanation of why the African churches should be allowed an accomodation to local circumstances while the American church should not. Except, of course, that you like the African churches and dislike the American one. (Or, rather, agree with the one's hermeneutic and disagree with the other's.)

pax et bonum

[David Cohen]

Try reading the thread, George. I said at 28 Apr 2008 19:43:22 that I do not believe there was ever a Golden Age.

But nor do I see the present age as being an improvement on the world I remember fifty years ago in Britain. Some material things are better, some are worse.

The values which modern society espouses do not make Britain a better place, in my estimation. The exploitation of workers, women, children, sex, environment, media and politics for profit has merely meant that a few have become immensely rich, while most are poorer in any number of significant senses.

[John]

(Odd - my last comment came through with a different name. "Solidus" is John, though. Sorry!)

[David Palmer]

I see the (marshmallow) vultures gathering around David Cohen.

Isn't it a great thing that the fruit of the western Christian missionary enterprise of the 19th and 20th century, whether African or Asian, now turn around to encourage Western Christians to renewed devotion to our Lord Jesus and fidelity to his Word. I say thank God for our African brothers and sisters!

[robroy]

"There have been multiple reports of African bishops having more than one wife." Bearing false witness whether directly or indirectly is wrong.

PaxEtBonum states there are no injunctions against polygamist bishops. Balderdash, read 1st Tim 3:2: "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife." Unlike the Americans, African Christians have integrity.

[David Cohen]

Malcolm, your prose is so hostile that I took it to mean the opposite of what you now say.

First of all an aside about a clock being right twice a day - followed by the phrase, "never been substantiated".

"Nover been substantiated.....but?"

[George Parr]

No David, you said that there was no 'golden age' that you could identify - and then went on to mourn for one from fifty years ago. My point is that the ideals you describe never existed; ergo religion, far from being responsible for social harmony and domestic stability, was actually part of a repressive, class-specific authoritarianism later to be exposed and changed in the 1960s by counter-cultures in Europe and North America.

Christians brought up towards the middle of the 20thC often cite the post-war period as a desirable religious paradigm. There is also a general presumption of decadence within successive generations, a fear of the future leading always to a harking-back to notions of childhood utopias.

For my part, I see massive improvements in human communication, medecine, caring for others, charity, equality, quality of life and general life expectation - compared with the 1950s.

I also detect a general gloominess from some members of faith groups who, from a position of assumed moral rectitude and bound up within rules they can't keep, remain consistently unable, through religion, to solve the issues they cite as evidence of decay.

To my mind, faith groups can only ever address problems by adopting strategies based on retrospection, with nothing new under the doctrinal sun. Simple issues, involving recognising gender equality, for example are therefore not easily solved.

Experiencing failure on a monumental scale is possibly the result of heavy reliance on a backward-looking interface which hovers between reality and an imaginary, or (I would say)constructed ideal.

[George Parr]

A massive vacuum of reasoning now hangs in the air over the legacy from the victims of self-assured or arrogant western missionaries - Mr Palmer's assertions, presumably from somewhere near the centre of it, demonstrates a willingness to promote cultural stasis, addressing issues from a dearth of progressive ideas.

[J Pearce]

"Unlike the Americans, African Christians have integrity.

Your taking the p*ss, right? They're even more a bunch of medievalists than some European Christians. And thats saying something.

And how many stable, productive, democratic African states can you name?

[J Pearce]

Mr. Cohen,

You appear to be suffering from "Dave" syndrome, whereby you appear utterly incapable of answering a decent argument and prefer to offer up thinly disguised personal insults instead.

Must be your age?

I am actually flattered by the use of the term "playground" arguments - becuase that is exactly what they are. It doesn't take a Dawkins-level intellect to expose the gargantuan hypocrisies and chaotic, ad hoc nonsense that passes for Christianity today.

It is indeed a truism, that even a child can divine the comfort blanket fantasies you choose to indulge in. I understand that might be a tad embarrasing for the likes of you at your age, but do at least try and maintain a level of educated discourse, OK?

[J Pearce]

Mr Parr,

Exceptionally insightful analysis. I would humbly add that in my opinion, where religious faith is of maximum benefit is in the realm of the personal, that is, it offers some a spiritual succour that they do not find elsewhere (although given some of the vituperative comments on this thread, one wonders whether some people are beyond even spiritual salvation…).

But outside the realm of the personal and in the realm of the political, as you rightly infer, religion offers little in the way of progress, merely harking back to inflexible, prescribed strategies which history has proven to be of limited benefit anyway.

[George Parr]

Thank you JP! Not surprisingly, few have accused me of writing anything meaningful on this forum!

I thoroughly concur regarding the benefit gained by many who clearly achieve spirituality through embracing a gentle faith. From the reasonances in her writing I think that the much-maligned, but brilliant and open-minded Kate is one. In the unlikely event of being judged, I would certainly line up with both of you than the Beek or the Daves! But as I think you might agree (in the face of constant accusations of having no idea what spirituality might consist of) faith is not the only medium through which a spiritual dimension can be approached.

I remain constantly amused that 'they', entrenched in a slough of guilt and misery, think that we are the humourless ones! Toodlepip!

[Malcolm+]

So, David, your essential argument is now reduced to "I don't like you so I shall deliberately twist everything you say." Rather pathetic, really.

And yes, "never been substantiated." That is a significant thing. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative with 100% certainty. That is why the courts place the onus on the prosecution rather than the defence.

It is amusing, though, to see you whinging about hostility given the consistent venom of your posts.

Oh, and Lambeth resolutions have never been binding, and still aren't.

[David Cohen]

J Pearce (and Mr Parr) I used the term "playground" arguments because you have not moved on to adult arguments, in an area of discourse in which you clearly have no expertise, but simply come here to post insults. If you think Christians take you seriously you are much mistaken. I have heard all your debating points, literally in the playground, and indeed better ones from teenagers.

It is evident that neither of you has engaged in any kind of serious theological study, for if you had you would realise just how juvenile your position is.

From the very beginning, with St Paul, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, through two millennia of interaction with the world of secular thought, Christian thinkers and apologists have encountered both serious discourse from the secular world, and the childish sneering of those who think to use the opportunity for some kind of amusement.

Both of you fall directly into the latter category.

[David Cohen]

Malcolm, "never been substantiated" is indeed a term which leaves open the possibility. I suppose it is possible that you have Canadian bishops with four wives, or four husbands?

After all, TEC has at least one serving bishop now married for the third time. One more wife should not make too much difference.

[George Parr]

Dear Mr Cohen, thank you for displaying your encyclopaedic knowledge of the origins of Christianity. What is required for humanists like me to engage theologically in any form of 'serious discourse' with Christians, is faith.

Since I see no evidence, from nearly forty years of philosophical study that God or gods exist, it is fairly pointless, if not tedious, to engage in discussions over apochrypha. You must not however assume that those who do not discuss church fathers such as Irenaeus, his links with John the Evangelist, or his place within the scriptures, know absolutely nothing about the subject. To do so displays mind-boggling presumption and ignorance on a gigantic scale.

I should keep out of the playground if I were you, just in case open-minded children in their formative years either become infected with your one-dimensional religious views or begin to believe that all adults are are rude as you appear to be when confronted with those who disagree with you.

There are many examples on these threads where free-thinking Christians and humanists agree over human rights issues and where there is demonstrably common ground. In no case does it involve the puerile attitude that you seem to advance. Your 'arguments' appear to be ending up in flames, fuelled by the logic of other Christians, let alone forming part of any meaningful debate with me or J Pearce, if I can speak for him.

[David Cohen]

Dear Mr Parr,

Since you have concluded from nearly forty years of philosophical study that there is no evidence for the existence of God, why do you waste your time and ours by posting the same things incessantly on blog threads concerned with Christian issues?

There can be no common ground concerning Christian faith and teaching, between Christians and those who are here to deny the very existence of God and the authority of the scriptures which we hold to be his word.

Will it take you another forty years to work this out?

[Mike Homfray]

Then don't read George's posts, David. It may have escaped your notice, but people from a number of different belief positions post here.

[George Parr]

Mr Cohen, whilst I appreciate that you have a myopic view of the protocols of public forums, you appear limited when you imply some sort of Christian ownership through using words such as 'ours' on this one.

In common with other unreasonable members of your faith you seek control, both over social issues and who posts here. You cannot grasp that I have the same right to express opinions as you do. Some of us are concerned over the religious issues which permeate wider society and even may feel a duty to express them. The punctured egos of the pompous souls who consider their religious worldview infallible, and themselves above criticism, are a matter for them and of no concern to me.

Even though have little to say of an unbiased nature I'm sure that you do not consider that you are wasting your time. You may take it from the remarks of numerous contributors other than me that others think you are rude.

[Malcolm+]

The suggestion that there might be a Canadian bishop with mulitple spouses has never been substantiated. I know several personally, and I know people who know all of them, so I'm pretty sure it isn't so.

The suggestion that there might be Nigerian bishops with multiple spouses has never been substantiated. I don't know every Nigerian bishop, and I'm far more than two degrees of separation from several of them. Therefore, my degree of certainty is a little less. Personally, I'm inclined it isn't true because if it were the people who float the accusation would probably have produced "a smoking gun" by now.

I also think it unlikely that Ruth Gledhill has multiple husbands, but I can't really say for certain.

Likewise, I don't know that you are heterosexual, David, though I think it likely. Any suggestion to the contrary has not been substantiated.

[David Cohen]

Precisely the same question can be asked of you, Dr Homfray: since you have frequently posted on this and many other blogs to advise us that you have rejected the Christian faith, why keep coming back to the subject?

Except, of sourse, to make hostile comment - which seems to be the sole motive for your interventions. I am sorry you have lost your faith, but can't you find something more constructive to fill your time?

[Kate]

"Unlike the Americans, African Christians have integrity."!!

What! ALL African Christians are imbued with "integrity"; ALL American Christians are corrupt?

Orthodox/conservative obsession with unqualified, and 'unquantifiable' certainties is a self-interested, knee-jerk approval of the un-knowable.

Akinola and his friend Robert Mugabe pass the the litmus test for Christian 'orthodoxy' - they are anti-homosexual crusaders - ergo ALL African Christians are possessed of 'integrity'.

I recommend Sartre - 'Being and Nothingness' - before indulging in such meaningless 'absolutes'.

Freedom to change e.g. from pagan to Christian, is limited by facticity i.e. the environment and place into which we are 'inserted' at birth. In every instance, and most specifically, the fundamental relationship to the Other, that is, anyone who is not me, is determined by our personal facticities.

In the face of centuries of Christian proselytizing and 'Otherness', African tribal culture sustains itself as a specific African facticity.

The predominant feature being a hierarchical society. The 'Big Man' i.e. the Chief, his family, relations and servants, all exhibiting chronic psychological introversion and viewing the 'Other' - ALL others - as subordinate adjuncts of the Big Man’s power.

It is further compounded by an almost idolatrous ‘worship’ of the wisdom of Chiefs no matter how brutal - check out 99% of African states.

Orthodox Anglicans world-wide stroke the ego of just such another African 'Big Man' - the exotic unknown.

"Akinola saunters amiably around ... English and American evangelicals have been dancing attendance on him. If there is manipulation going on, it is not clear who is on the receiving end."

BUT: "... later one white primate told me he had been shocked to overhear Akinola telling his colleagues about Williams: "He'll do what we tell him."? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/
feb/14/religion)

Ummh? The Christian orthodox, validating Akinola "... riding around in his chauffeur-driven, bullet-proof Mercedes, rubbing shoulders with the rich and the powerful of Nigeria" are condoning the worst aspects of African facticity, Christian or otherwise.

"I was brought up by the Jesuits and I’m most grateful,” (Mugabe). Mugabe is a professed Christian? It was hoped that newly installed Archbishop Ndlovu of Harare would be a strong critic of the president - this has not happened! Where is the vaunted African Christian integrity?

At the height of the dispute over 'ownership' of the Cathedral in Harare, Akinola invited Kunonga as 'speaker' at a bishops' meeting. 'Integrity'?

"Bishop Kunonga ... became the first priest openly to help himself to TWO of Zimbabwe's best equipped white-owned farms... [he] then promptly arranged for party militia to brutally evict 40 families of workers from their dwellings in a village on the farm." (http://www.sokwanele.com/ thisiszimbabwe/archives/334).

The pathology of the African 'Big Man' in the face of centuries of Christian 'mission' is still brutal self-interest and is evidenced in 99% of 'free' African states. Yoweri Museveni (Uganda) is now called the “new Mugabe”.

Visiting Harare, Museveni said: "I don't see how anybody... Europe or outside Africa ..... can demonise the leader... These are the founding fathers of Africa, you can't demonise these people".

No, because, in an era of post-colonial guilt and anti-intellectual 'relativism', to do so would 'racist'. Yup. Black dictators are exempt from all humane moral codes; from all evolutionary thought because, they are BLACK. Evidence that there is something inhumane in the psyche of all Africans who have gained power must be IGNORED.

Thabo Mbeki's "personal belief" condemned to death thousands suffering HIV/Aids. Mbeki refuses, not only to condemn Mugabe, but by constant references to the dictator as Zimbabwe’s ‘saviour’ - the language of Christian religion.

That 'saviour' is murdering and starving his people. While, at the same time, the righteous ‘exemplar’ Akinola, has his anti-colonialist, anti-white racism fuelled by American and British Anglicans drowning in their own rigid sexual 'facticity'.

These orthodox, ignoring centuries of Jewish and Christian exegesis, are the enemies of a Communion that has nurtured the eccentric and 'different' in sure knowledge that Christ, the Jew, brought a message of God's Love for ALL his children.

As an Anglican, baptised, confirmed and a regular communicant, I am shamed by association. Arrogance and bloated self-righteousness is foreign to everything I have ever known in the Anglican communion of Ireland.

[John]

Arrogance and bloated self-righteousness is foreign to everything I have ever known in the Anglican communion of Ireland.

Such as its many Orange Lodge members? Such as the annual confrontations staged at Drumcree Parish Church? Such as the virulent no-popery which continues to pervade many homes and churches? I have been told by one CofI rector in Dublin that "Catholics don't wash, you know". I don't think he is the only one with such a mindset.

[David Cohen]

Mr Parr, of course you have a perfect right to express whatever opinion you like. But that does not ensure that it is relevant, or that it will be taken seriously.

If you want to engage in dialogue then I suggest you phrase your comments accordingly. But your contributions are largely confined to dismissing the phenomenon of religious belief, and arguing that it should be excluded from public life.

Why are you surprised that contributors on a religion blog might wish to contradict you?

[George Parr]

Mr Cohen, you are wholly unable to grasp that the 'religious blog' is a public forum. Unlike you I have absolutely no problem with others expressing their views, or disagreeing with me. If you thought that the blog was expressly for conservative Christians - through the length and breadth of diverse comment it attracts you are clearly mistaken.

Your pomposity knows no bounds. You address contributors in a superior and patronising tone. You have no right to ask others, like me, or Mike Homfray, what they are doing here. What has it got to do with you? You might try ignoring the posts of those you clearly find irritating. What you will not succeed in doing is silencing those whose opinions do not exactly accord with your entrenched totalitarian views.

You are still presuming ownership then; defining a like-minded mainstream who may or may not deign to take the views of others seriously; what utter presumption and small-mindedness. Is it possible you own a very big dog, or wear a bright red hat? How tall are you?

What do you want - your own version of religious reality, hived off as a closed shop that non-members cannot possibly relate to; from where you alone are able to subvert laws or make unchallengable policies affecting others? And yet at the same time, through loudly hollering complaints of marginalisation, you are seen to resist attempts by the many who deem it sensible and democratic to separate your privileged 'private' club from 'public' life.

[David Cohen]

Dear Mr Parr, you have made it clear that you would like the Church and other religions to be confined to the private sphere, but that is not going to happen.

The Christian faith remains firmly in the public forum, and will continue to contend for a society which acknowledges the values which shaped it in the first place as part of Christendom.

[Kate]

"I have been told by one CofI rector in Dublin that "Catholics don't wash, you know". I don't think he is the only one with such a mindset."

What extraordinary and one-sided ignorance you display. I am tempted to give you a breakdown of Irish history but will restrain myself. This is precisely the shocking gutter level of debate to which I object.

I have NEVER heard 'No popery' preached in any Anglican Church in Ireland - North or South. I have never heard an anti-gay sermon either. Nor one advocating schism. Nor one bitterly critical of other provinces.

What you quote is beyond belief. Clearly you do not understand specifically Irish humour. Yes, historically there was a belief that poverty-stricken Catholics didn't take baths. Another one that Protestants could be identified by their 'eyes' or eyebrows.

Those ideas are now related, between Catholics and Protestants as JOKES. ONE rector? God be good to him - he clearly imagined he was speaking to someone with a sense of humour.

Judging by the rancour displayed here however, I imagine 'humour' is not involved in your particular 'facticity' John.

My comments on my Church are ALWAYS prefaced by 'this is my experience'. I am 58 years of age. I have NEVER encountered such horrible, patronising, rule-obsessed self-righteousness in any congregation in Ireland and I have, over the years, been in many.

A bit like Africa perhaps. You can only know the reality if you have lived it. Long ago in the midst of a riot, I hid behind a large gravestone in the company of an elderly Catholic priest. We talked about the churches role in 'reconciliation'. I have never forgotten his words: "They're stuffed-up, constipated with man-made rules girl. Just look at the faces, they forgot about Christ long ago".

[George Parr]

Dear Mr Cohen,

If you assert that 'the Christian faith remains firmly in the public forum' you must put up with those who challenge some of its social attitudes. Since it remains in the public sphere those who have a view on its arcane workings are fully entitled to comment. This makes a complete nonsense of your recent uncharitable posts which centre not on any arguments they may advance but simply attack the relevance or 'right' of others to post their views on what you clearly see as a conduit for reinforcing your own personal dogma.

All the while thinly-disguised bigots, basking in their self-reverential magnificence, think they have an important role in informing society's values, others will oppose them.

[John]

Kate, I have no idea what your experience is, but I have told you a little of mine. I could tell you much more about the mindset of Anglicans I know in N Ireland whose attitude went a long way to explaining why the Troubles took place; and some of the enmity had to do with the way Anglicans elsewhere conduct themselves.

[Kate]

Apologies John - I've been away for a few days. I am saddened by your "experience" of members of my Church, yet, what you 'heard' may not 'mean' what you have taken it to mean.

Old habits die hard, particularly where 'divide and rule' was for many years, an axiomatic 'truth'. Too often, words are 'tailored' to the expectations of the stranger.

'The colony's so old it's out of touch ...

But strangers from the mainland, eager men
the latest jargon lively on the tongue,
still make their way among us ....

stuffing their satchels while we stand and gape,
so drilled in old obedience we lend
the stranger's voice authority and awe,
and have among us some who seek to APE
his accent, ...

Yet we have seen them come and watched
them go
Their flashing names forgotten in a year,
with not a shred of evidence to show
by what manoeuvres they achieved their score,

while out of that old superstitious fear
we greet the newest comers to our shore,
no whit the wiser than we were before.'
(John Hewitt, 'Colonial Consequences')
[my capitals]

Hewitt believed Protestantism meant 'protest' as Christ himself 'protested'. In his poetry, Hewitt confronted the divisions and absurdities of his own tradition.

Those who 'stuffed their satchels' and profited' in Ireland, were always those with allegiance to the dogma of the 'outsider', whether British or Vatican. These are they, who 'aped' the stranger.

I doubt it is appropriate to present a CV; suffice to say I have long experience of work with numerous clergy dedicated, sometimes 'off-script', to peace and reconciliation.

I suspect I have been 'lucky'! The teaching of my formative years offered a message of inclusive love. A 30 year terrorist war and 'engaged' life experience proved the validity of that message. I have no identity with those who posture and rebuke as the righteous 'guardians' of my Faith.

[John]

Thank you, Kate, for your latest comments. All I can say is that the things I have heard and seen had unmistakeable meaning. While some CofI members (especially those I know in the South) exemplify the virtues of Anglicanism, some (including senior clerics I have known) have demonstrated a sectarian mindset indistinguishable from their Free Presbyterian brethren.

I do hope the peace in Ireland can hold and prevail. The sectarianism there has been a blight on the name of Christianity for a generation and more, even if tribal loyalties ultimately lay behind it all.

[Kate]

WOW!! "... some (including senior clerics I have known) have demonstrated a sectarian mindset indistinguishable from their Free Presbyterian brethren."

What a mammoth allegation John. I know well that several members of CofI (readers of this blog) are simply WILLING you to NAME the names!!

It should be said, I am not of that number. I have little interest in 'private' sentiment. What I AM however is extremely proud of the tireless efforts of that most ethical and Christian of men, Archbishop Robin Eames: “Persuasion is more important than legislation – that has been my background. Persuasion and influence far outreach legislation.”

That is also my experience and we were dealing with the men with guns, NOT just American 'liberals' or African fundamentalists.

Again, in the context of sentiments such as you relate, the history of the Church in Ireland should be understood. You appear to have no knowledge or perhaps, no interest, in the segregation practised by the RC Church in Ireland; no opinion on the discrimination against Protestants in a 'Free State' wherein the 24% Protestant population prior to 1916 was reduced to 10% by 1924. It now stands at 2-3%.

We in CofI are majority 'low' church. A very small number, self-identified Anglo-Catholic, have already defected to Rome.

There is, in my personal experience, little concern amongst CofI 'pew-fillers' for what is perceived as the "odd priorities" of English (or African) Anglicans. Likely something to do with the 'Troubles' don't y'know!