Summer of Schism: Rowan on the 'waterless pit of division'

Sitting here in the magnificence of York Minster, I am hearing the most incredible sermon from the Archbishop of Canterbury. I am going to blog it live, right away. Maybe this is overstating it, but it feels from my seat in the north transept, with my fellow 'sinners' of the press close by, as though he's just saved the Church of England. A few people here are close to tears. The Archbishop always comes over better in the presence than on paper, and never more so than this morning. He has completely justified what the Archbishop of York said in his defence yesterday, as we report in The Sunday Times.

He took as his text the Hebrew Bible story of Joseph thrown into the waterless pit by his brothers. And he asked the General Synod members, facing the crucial debate tomorrow on women bishops and with Lambeth and debates over homosexuality casting their shadows,'What would Jesus do? Where would Jesus be?'

The Archbishop said: 'What would Jesus do is a good question to ask. Where would Jesus be is just as good. Who would Jesus be with is a question the Gospels force on our attention again and again.

'In the middle of all our discussion at Synod, where would Jesus be? Jesus is going to be with those who feel the waterlessness of their position.

'With those traditionalists feeling the Church is falling away from them, the landmarks have shifted. They do not know how what they have heard and taught and been taught can be life-giving for tomorrow.

'He will be with those in a very different part of the landscape who feel that things are closing in, that their position is under threat, that their liberties are being taken away by those anxious and eager to enforce their ideologies in the name of Christ.

'He will be with those who feel that their liberty to question is under threat.

'He will be with the gay clergy who wonder what their future is in a Church so anxious and threatened about this issue.

'Where will he be?

'He will be with those members of the Synod staff and the staff of the university of York and people in the press gallery who are trying to keep their minds on their business while dealing with any number of complex personal issues, who may be afflicted by private anxieties, griefs and losses that will never be noticed by those who take them for granted as they go about their business.

'He will be all over the place.

'He will be with the people we do not much want to sit with because that is the place he always occupies. He pipes for them and they will dance, because in their unprotectedness they are able to meet him at a level many of us cannot.

'Where would Jesus be? In whose company?

'In the company of those who feel less than, who are lost and who are just beginning to see that lostness is the beginning of wisdom.'

He continued: 'Into this darkness comes Jesus to release us from our prison and make us, as the prophet says, prisoners of hope. He comes to be with us so that we may be where he is as he tells us in the fourth Gospel, so that we may be where he is. And where he is, he says in this morning's gospel, is in the presence of the father, seeing and knowing that unconditional depth of love out of which he comes, to which he looks in adoration, to which... by his holy spirit he knows the future, sees the future. And there is no salvation but to be where he is, seeing the creation as he sees and knows, by the gift of his spirit.'

At the end the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, made a speech and presented a cross to organist Philip Moore, who after many years leading worship at the Minster is retiring.

Comments

[George Parr]

PS. Rick, none of my arguments centre on these ancient texts because whilst I acknowledge they exist I do not blindly accept their authority. It is from that position I approach statements from religionists, who appear to rely on them solely for their shaky 'rationale'.

[George Parr]

So Rick, since you can precisely define what this blog is about, what would you like me to do? Would you like me to 'regulate my comments towards humanist beliefs' and not challenge the policies of religions - or within the confines of freedom of expression, which you apparently endorse, express freely the views I hold?

You have no idea of the extent of my biblical knowledge, but would it make any difference to my views if it was little or great? Your definition of 'modifying' the debate simply allows you to continue to repeat biblical texts verbatim.

Explaining the rational philosophies of humanism - why I think you are deluded, fixated and have absolutely no argument - will not change a thing will it? Or are you simply trying to tidy up the blog or purge it of those with views that are different from yours?
If you don't like what I write here, ignore it.

[Marie Blocher]

Wonder how Rowan feels now that the Synod has thrown him in the Waterless Pit!

[Rick Beekman]

George;
The point I was making; Humanism In itself maybe a "Religion" however when your discussing various Churches and their Doctrines This Forum should be about Whose is correct?

Is The Bible correct and what Jesus and His Apostles taught correct? Or should we all accept any old wind of Doctrine and man-made beleifs so we can all be "modern" and "Politically correct" so as not to "offend" those with hidden agendas or trying to appease the "Status QUO."??

You as an Unbeleiver in the Bible; should relegate your comments toward Humanist beleifs rather then constantly attack those like me on here for Quoting scripture or belittling Christian Beleifs. You have the right to do whatever pleases you...I'm all for freedom of expression;

However don't belittle scripture until you have thoroughly studied it back and forth like many on this blog have.
It would be the same if I try and instruct a Medical Doctor on how to treat an illness when I know diddly-squat about what a Medical Doctor knows!

Have a Great and Blessed day!

[George Parr]

Rick, if you were opposed to the views of Republicans, which you believed affected you, and they were expressed on a public forum such as this, are you saying it would somehow be wrong to express yours similarly? What is your view of religion - a closed shop? Anglicanism here is represented, ludicrously, in the government and also infects our education system, Very high-profile leaders continually advertise their one-way views on morality, sexuality et al, for all to see in the public sphere.

[Rick Beekman]

George Parr;
I apologize about me beleiving you were a Christian. You mentioned something in one of your Posts a while ago (I cannot recall the actual thread?)That led me to believe you were Christian. Anyway my Apologies and Now you said you were a Secular Humanist.(Atheist). Anyhow George I will defend the Word of God as Fiercely as you Defend Your Views as well. Have a Great Day.

P.S. If you are an avowed "Humanist" what are you doing on a Religion Blog? Wondering?!

[David Smith]

George Humane-itas:
'Rick Beekman...I have continually challenged your obsessive views over lesbians and gays and the rights of women, and criticised your understanding of reality. I have read your tedious 'arguments' and miles of biblical texts with views that frankly could be better expressed by a five-year-old.'

J Pearce:
'Tom Jackson...given your expressed opinion, I can only assume you are still part of the mud-hutter brigade?'

Still both into lashings of personal abuse, I see.

If you claim to want to practise what George calls 'mutual civilised behaviour' you would do well to take to heart the words of the Christian Registrar in Islington (who has just won her discrimination case against her Council employers for being intolerant of her views on homosexual marriage); of the Employment Tribunal that found in her favour; and of the Christian Institute that supported her.

She said:
"Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully or harass people over their religious beliefs."

The Tribunal described attitudes and words like yours as:
" ..intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive.. "

The Christian Institute said:
"Just because people have got traditional beliefs on marriage does not mean they should be treated any less respectfully."

[George Parr]

Rick Beekman - Very clever! If you think I am a Christian, you have not understood a word I have written during the past year or so.

I have continually challenged your obsessive views over lesbians and gays and the rights of women, and criticised your understanding of reality. I have read your tedious 'arguments' and miles of biblical texts with views that frankly could be better expressed by a five-year-old. I have explained my humanist views to you.

My position could not be clearer. I regard obsessive religion as wholly divisive, injurious to the human spirit, deleterious to the mind, debilitating to the person and a threat to a rational, civilised society and to world peace. Rote-learnt dogma contained within closed minds is not my province.

I believe however that everyone is entitled to their own gentle, personal faith, or no faith, together with freedom of association. Where obsessive religions impact on society, through the legislature or through education I oppose them. Attacks on human rights I try to defend. I believe that human morals are perfectly achievable through mutual civilised behaviour and experience.

For me, it's not the faith - it's the rigid and autonomous nonsense arrived at through generations of pronouncements from (mostly) male hierarchies fuelled by self-interest that I object to - many of which, arguably are on the edge of sanity. Undeniably they have impacted and continue to impact on the rest of us.

Amazingly Rick there are some people who do not need the constructed notions of 'sinning' and redemption in order to exist mutually with one another. But if you wish to live your life through ancient writings, warning others of terrifying armageddon and supporting a life soaked in guilt that's a matter for you.

[Rick Beekman]

Julia;
Don't concern yourself with Geore Parr's Remarks. Mr. Parr considers himself a Christian but likes to argue about scriptures.

This is like saying; "I am a Medical Doctor but I only believe SOME of the teachings in the Medical Books. I "Cherry Pick" what tickles my ears and leave the rest alone..But I'm still a Medical Doctor!?

[George Parr]

Ho Ho Julia! I'm afraid don't buy into the 'sinning' mentality and it is a shame you do - selectively it seems, emphasising one area of wickedness, even naming the Arch Demon, whilst conveniently labelling us all as sinners. This presumably is to display even-handedness or to mask hypocrisy? What you are seeing is a robust response by gays and lesbians, who are fed up with being judged as unworthy by Christians and who are seeking some sort of equality as human beings. How would you like to be reduced to pariah status by a presumptuous faction that claims they have God on their side?

You are not seriously suggesting that Gene Robinson is responsible for the unbridled homophobia we have all witnessed in recent years from some Anglicans? The issue is far wider than the lobbying by one travelling cleric who, in your view, seeks notoriety. So why let that bother you? You, Julia, appear to have fallen for the smaller picture, ratcheted up by those fuelling institutional prejudice.

You be a 'sinner' and embrace relentless guilt if you like, but please don't define everyone else in these religious terms and the dubious, varying standards that goes with them!

[Julia]

George,
I don't buy into the "victim mentality" and never used the v-word; I'm sorry that you, apparently, do.

Are you denying that there are organized GLBT advocacy groups that have made demands on the churches? That many of the same players were also involved in lobbying the government? Or are you asserting that government ministers and, then, church ministers just woke up one day and thought, "Oh, dear. We're persecuting those poor homosexuals so we'd best pass laws."

Take +VGR. (Take him, PLEASE take him. bah-da-bum, ching!) He's spent much of the past five years on tour. I don't know if it's that he's afraid people will forget about him or if he needs frequent attention-fixes but he's out there. Always. Giving interviews, hosting receptions, claiming his life is perpetually in danger but on and on he goes.

And remember how his election and consecration were framed? That he is ONLY the bishop of NH, that the people of NH want him, and that it's none of anyone else's business, that this has absolutely no bearing on the rest of the Communion? Did you fall for it?

Finally, you clearly don't grasp the fact that we're ALL sinners. Time and time again, those you villify have stated such. The difference is that the rest of us don't want our sinful nature to be given a free pass.

[Fr. Van Windsor]

Thank you Ruth for your wonderful article. One senses true emotion when reading it, on your part as a writer, and as you reveal the Archbishop's. I have read other very positive remarks from others as well, but yours convey a sense of being present. I am saddened by the angry tones of many of the commentators on this site, and not just here but on other sites as well (like the Telegraph's). The anger is palpable, the unwillingness to engage, only to judge, breaks my heart, as I'm sure it grieves the Archbishop, as it must the journalists who reported it. Left and right extremists are out to destroy God's Church. And, Rome is having a big day of all of our Anglican troubles (we've forgotten their issues for rolling around bemoaning our own). If I were a cartoonist I would draw a picture of Archbishop Williams looking heavenward and saying "God, my people are revolting," and God answering back, "they certainly are!"

[Rick Beekman]

J. Pearce;
So you are telling us the RCC wrote the Bible Etc?

No Sir all they did was copy the Original manuscripts then "Added" the corrupt Apocyrtha to the Bible. The First Bible waa compiled by them But it was written by People chosen by God under his direction..Not The RCC.
I cannot envision an All knowing God letting a Church as corrupt as The RCC to give his Word too.

The Crusades..The Inqusistion..Political minipulation in World Governments The Endless list.

[Rick Beekman]

George Parr;
to answer your question regarding ministring unto Homosexuals.

I do buisness with several people I suspect are Gay. I do not shove a Bible in their face and condemn them or other things contrary to decency and order. The only way you can ever reach someone no matter who they are..Is they have to want to change first and foremost. Yoi can lead a horse down to the water..but he must have a desire to drink it. For the last time George I do not hate Gays nor anyone else. How could I ever get anyone to seek the Lord Through Hate?

IF A Homosexual were to walk in our church and have a desire to hear the Word of God We would welcome him (her). We see all sorts of people come in our Church some look like the Devil himself but we accept them as they are same way Jesus does. If they decide they don't want to change so be it...they move on.

Regarding The OT scriptures you keep quoting; those old testament laws God gave The Jews have a type and shadow meaning. One about the circumcism; In the New Testament (The Church)God circumsises the Heart of man to cleanse him from unrighteousness when a person truly repents.

[George Parr]

Julia: So now it is the religious who are victims? If you think that this is some sort of gay sexuality campaign - a strategy involving a list of identifiable targets in which homosexuals now have their sights set on churches, you really have got to be joking.

This has been a relentless campaign by some Anglicans who consider themselves above the law, protected by notions of faith and more equal than others, to marginalise and demonise other human beings because of their sexuality. No other section of society needs to seek approval in order to exist, or to defend themselves in an issue driven by their own genetics. No other institution within society discriminates over it.

Painting some people as 'other' and labelling them as sinners, denying them either equal rights or valuing them less is outrageous and wholly presumptuous. It describes the 'holy' perpetrators as elitist, sanctimonious if not ridiculous.

The blatant message is that these people are quite prepared to aggrandise themselves by loudly valuing dubious, selected texts higher than their fellow human beings.

Anglicans are not gods or kings and the sadness is, that in this attempt to defend the indefensible, they cannot see that every harsh judgment and accusatory tone is yet another nail in the coffin.

[George Parr]

"the direction Christ would have us take"

But what direction is that Tom, and who are 'us'? You write as if some form of consensual viewpoint existed within Anglicanism on these issues of gender and sexuality and the divergent opinions currently being expressed belonged to another institution. There is precious little 'alignment'.

On the issue of homosexuals repenting, do you seriously believe that despite the wide-ranging spectrum of human sexuality that clearly exists; from thoroughly heterosexual, to less so, to bisexual and more so, to confirmed homosexual, and all the variations on the theme, that this is simply a matter of sinning or that Jesus generally disapproves of diversity?

Equally, it is not true to say that only those who profess a relationship with Jesus have a reference point regarding depths of faith. Even those who register zero on a scale of supernatural belief can identify degrees of Christian discrimination in those who score higher. And in actual fact it seems highly dubious if 'depths of faith' exist. Christians either believe or they do not. However amongst believers there are clearly those who consider themselves to be more pious than others? Is this what you are saying; those who rely on a literal biblical interpretation and prefer to regard homosexuals as flawed have a greater depth of faith from more open-minded Christians? Is this how depths of faith are judged in your view?

Whether J Pearce believes or not, he is right isn't he? There is no biblical evidence that supports the view that Jesus might ask homosexuals to 'repent'. It appears that all you have done is attempted to malign those with open-minds on the existence of gods, whilst reinforcing your own partial religious views. These, unfortunately, seems to include marginalising gay people, justified by the belief that God in on your side over the matter.

It appears that both you and A.Marsh regularly have access to an arcane 'point' that liberal Christians and everyone else who challenges you are usually accused of missing; this sits alongside the autonomous view that those outside of the faith cannot possibly understand how the elect within it form their views. The onlooker Tom sees a lot.

[Julia]

Indeed, Mr. Jackson. Here, in a nutshell, is the crux of many of our current difficulties: We all agree (and rightly so) that Jesus sat with, ate with, and healed sinners. That's where the liberals stop reading. But He went on to tell the people, "Go and sin no more." He wasn't trying to "be mean" -- He was trying to spare them (us) a world of hurt.

Modern folk's answer to the hurt that accompanies sin is to gain societal approval for the behavior. The homosexual community has succeeded in doing that in much of the West. But they're still feeling hurt; it didn't work. Now, their sights are trained on the churches. Even if they succeeded in getting everything they wanted from the churches, the hurt would remain. Then what?

[Tom Jackson]

I am sure you will correct me, J Pearce, but it is my understanding that you do not share any belief or faith in Jesus Christ.

As on many previous occasions, you have once again missed the point.

As Christians, those of us who have asked Christ to come into our lives, have a responsibility to open our hearts and minds to His teaching and, with reference to our fellow Christians, their writings and wisdom, to align ourselves and our perspective on issues such as homosexuality and the participation of women in Church administration and leadership, with what we personally accept and understand as the direction that Christ would have us take.

Now, if I am right, you as a non-Christian have little to contribute when it comes to that process.

You can, of course, comment from whatever viewpoint you may have but when it comes to examining the depth of faith and belief that comes from a relationship with Jesus and any process by which we then express that relationship in our lives, you have no reference point.

Now, you can be satirical or sarcastic, spinning your comments with references to derogatively images such as the intelligence and reasoning ability of those who inhabit ‘mud huts’ but that really only acts to camouflage the shallowness of your position, the lack of respect or consideration for those who hold opinions which differ from those you hold and a willingness to condemn that which you obviously cannot understand.

Like so many people in your position, you want to follow Christian writing in the same way that a lawyer would refer to the law of the land, black and white, no interpretation or application of experience, reasoning or commitment to a particular perspective that has developed from a willingness to open oneself to the meaning of something rather than the literal translation.

You say there is no Biblical evidence to support what I believe; I say there is. You will never accept that and, unfortunately, never will – not, that is, unless Christ stands before you and gives it to you face to face (and even then you would probably look for some alternative explanation).

That’s ok; you have that right. But don’t be surprised if those of us who look at things differently, dismiss your views.

[Malcolm+]

Theo asks: "Should we not love all and to be truly inclusive include in love those who belong to the "conservative evangelical" wing? It is not true that they do not "love their neighbour" -they are our brothers and sisters. Is it loving to demonize them? Is right for liberals to be intolerant of this group but claim it is not right to be intolerant of any other?"

Yes, no and no.

However, your questions represent a very distorted caricature of the situation.

Perhaps, Theo, you could offer your responses to the following:

Should we not love all and to be truly inclusive include in love those who belong to the "liberal catholic" wing? It is not true that they do not "love their neighbour" -they are our brothers and sisters.

Is it loving to demonize them?

Is right for "conservatives" to be intolerant of this group but claim that they are never to be criticized?

[J Pearce]

Tom Jackson,

There is no Biblical evidence to support your theory (and subsequent delivery into doctrine) of the canard that JC would ask homosexuals to repent.

The entire edifice of Christian homophobia is based upon numerically scant but multiply-interpreted passages, which manifestly fail to reveal JC's opinion on the subject.

The Reformation is built upon the belief that God-given free will enables humans to move beyond petty, inhumane, literal interpretations of the Bible and its subsequently derived doctrinal norms. In other words, it does indeed allow for the posssiblity of re-writing ancient and malign teaching.

So either the Reformation - and the formation of Anglicanism - is a good thing (i.e. endorsed by your Creator) or it is in fact a huge mistake and we should all still be living in mud huts.

I mean, Jesus! Even the Roman Catholics have managed to recognise Darwin and Galileo at last.

However, given your expressed opinion, I can only assume you are still part of the mud-hutter brigade?

[J Pearce]

"God left his Word in our Bibles for we to study and obey it's that simple."

Rick,

Your position is untenable. You've already made it clear how much you despise the political machinations of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet the RCC (as was) wrote the Bible, edited the Bible, revised the Bible.

So - either the RCC is a corrupt and malign organisation dictating the lives of millions using false ideology - or it isn't.

Either the Bible is a book that took hundreds of years to compile, document, edit, revise and define - or it magically appeared overnight through the wave of a Godly hand.

Most theologians - in fact, all theologians ever - all agree that it was the former, not the latter.

Therefore, it cannot be, by defintion, His Word - because it is the word of Roman Catholicism and its servants.

This is yet another example of you failing to use free will to understand the true nature of Christianity. When will you ever learn?

[George Parr]

Rick Beekman: So what success are you having in bringing your message that gays are sinners, or possessed by evil spirits to the gay communities in America? How are you received by them? How real is your 'ministry'. (Fourth time of asking)

Since you are justifying your absolutist position through literal interpretation, what are you doing about this?

Leviticus (12.3) [after the birth of a male child] "And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised."

Or this?

Leviticus (12.6/7) [In order for a priest to make atonement for 'unclean' women who have given birth]

"And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin, offering unto the door of the tabernacle.... This IS the law for her that has born a male or a female."

'Our Lord doesn't change for political correctness', so why have we stopped sacrificing animals, proposing generalised circumcision in Christendom or regarding women as unclean etc? Perhaps you haven't?

[J Blackwood]

I am not a big fan of ++Rowen at the moment.

To be a leader, one must not only have the character, but use the character of leadership.

The Primates of the global south are arrogant and disrespectful. They insist on "their way or the highway" with no room for negotiation. This is not how Christ ministered to his flock, he did not come in and demand that he be followed.

I am an American, I am not arrogant or any of the other "names" that we have been called by those who seek a more traditionalist view. I study the Bible every day and work to understand the various meanings you get from scripture. I pray every day and worship God and Jesus every day.

Our Episcopal church is not governed in the same way as other churches in the communion. When we were given the Windsor report, we sent it to our General Convention and they acted upon it with the truest regards for the life of the Episcopal church.

Unlike other provinces of the communion, our Bishops do not have the "final Say", only after both our House of Bishops and House of Deputies (made up of clergy and laity) have reviewed the matter on the table and have acted on it as a full democratic body, can we move on an issue. When the DaS documents were issued, they came with stipulations that by the very nature of our church's canons could not be acted upon because they require acts of General Convention.

So please do us American Episcopals a favor and shut up. Before you go off and running about us being arrogant and ignoring Windsor and the DaS communique, perhaps you should actually read our Constitution and Canons and learn how our church is governed and how we come to the decisions that we do.

and as for What would Jesus Do? and Where would Jesus Be?

He would be right there in the heart of the debate asking us to Love God, and Love one another. He would be with the poor, sick, with those who are depressed and those who feel alone and unwanted. He would be seen eating with sinners and tax collectors, and above all else he would LOVE everyone. Jesus doesn't condemn those in committed same sex relationship, nor does he condemn those in opposite sex relationships. Jesus condemns those who seek to destroy others, oppress others, and deny others the Ideals of our countries founding fathers, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Hatred, discrimination, the denial of a womens place in the leadership of the church, denying gays and lesbians a place at the table, being authoritarian and suppressing those whose beliefs differ from yours, these are the things that Jesus would be against.

Jesus is everywhere at all times, He is with gays and lesbians as much as he is with straight people. He is in our church as much as he is with those of other churches. Jesus is everywhere.

I am convinced that I am living a life that Jesus would not condemn. I am a gay man, I believe in love, and I believe that all people have a place in the church (at every level) and in the fellowship of Christ at a place at the table.

Oh and one more thing... I (and others like me) are getting a little tired about being talked about, how about instead of talking about us or talking to us, try this, try talking WITH us. You might come to find out that there is few differences in what we believe.

[George Parr]

Since churches operate within a society which, in some areas - not all - needs consolidation and healing, I am very much heartened by the quiet refusal by open-minded Christians to support those seeking to ignore the basic rights of women and homosexuals.

Those who loudly preach discrimination and perpetuate division really should decamp to a place where they can freely associate and be readily identified as the bigots they undoubtedly are.

[Ian Welch]

I am not at all sure that Jesus would be sitting with everyone. Two biblical episodes suggest otherwise. He took a scourge to those abusing the temple precincts! He told his disciples to shake off the dust of any community that did not accept them.

I am second to no-one in respect for the Abp of Canterbury as a bishop, a church leader and a Christian man. But the simple and sad fact, shown in some of these posts, is that compromise, the essence of his sermon as I read Ms. Gledhill's report, is out of the question for extremists, be they Anglo-Catholics on the one hand, or evangelicals on the other.

It is inevitable, and right, if you accept the equality of all believers, that women should become bishops. Women are already the vast majority of the small minority who attend the church. The current state of the church does not suggest that gender has much to do with anything, least of all the building of a godly world.

Australia, hardly the most radical of societies, has joined NZ and the US in appointing women bishops. As far as I know, the cathedrals still stand, the church goes on and the stars still shine at night.

We need a little less prejudice all round, a little more tolerance, and a great deal more intensive Bible reflection. I was much taken with the Abp of Armagh's comment on Hooker's view of Scripture.

I am, quite frankly, out of patience with those who keep throwing the possibility of going to Rome. If they feel like it, they give up trying to make the Church of England something that it has not been for five hundred years. If they are genuinely committed to a 'Catholic' viewpoint, then let them go.

Ian Welch, Canberra

[Barry Henderson]

Time to disestabish the Church of Ebgland - free it from the constraints of being the "state church" and let it find its own level. And at the same time, free the rest of us from having to fund its nasty machinations.

[robroy]

There is a very interesting exercise where the blogger Anglican Curgmudgeon takes Rowan Williams words advocating incorportating Sharia Law in the greater context of British Jurisprudence and substitutes orthodoxy and Anglican Communion:
------- an excerpt: -------
And when certain [provinces adhere to] what they refer to as [orthodoxy] or when certain [GAFCON] activists demand its recognition alongside [contemporary Anglicanism], they are usually referring not to a universal and fixed code established once for all but to some particular concretisation [as embodied in the recent Jerusalem Declaration]. . .
----------
See http://tinyurl.com/5bala9

So Rowan argues for the Muslim minority to have their own rules with the British society but objects to the "minority" orthodox Anglicans (which are, of course, a majority) within the Anglican Communion.

[Rick Beekman]

There have many positive statements made on this sermon.

Art hit it correctly when he asked "What would Jesus do"?
Many Christian Churches today are being divided within by simply trying to pacify this "Group" or that group within those churches.

God left his Word in our Bibles for we to study and obey it's that simple.

If someone within a Church wants to argue and debate the Holy writ then they are in error. Our Lord does not change for "Political Correctness" or for whatever the current hot topic happens to be. He covered it all in his Word.

If people within a Church want to debate the Pastor or overseer wanting to have some Anti-Biblical teaching adopted then let them go start their own Church and stop disrupting The church who stays with God's Word very simple.

Ladies and Gentlemen this started in the First Original Church headed By Jesus and His hand-picked Apostles. Apostle Paul stated this; (Acts 20 v 29 & 30) "For I know this that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them."

Read also what Paul said to the Church of Galatia (Galatians 1 v 6 to 12).
We must all remember WE will be judged according to The Word of God and not the "Word" of some Man (Or Woman) who have their own personal agenda or just personal beleifs.
Not to be boastful or brag. I belong to a Christian Church that teaches beleifs and Doctines and Morals strictly from The Bible and no side commentaries unless it lines up with Biblical teachings. Our Pastor invites any person to read the word not to take his personal word for what he teaches.
This is exactly where the problem lies. We have hundreds upon hundreds of "Christian Churches" who all have their own personal doctrines dogmas and traditions and most of these were never taught by the Only church Jesus gave us.
Makes no difference what the name of any church is..the question Ladies and Gentlemen..would Jesus be pleased to call that Church His Church?...Food for thought.

[BabyBlue]

Does not the question still remain - will we pick up our cross and follow Jesus? Can we say to Him, "therefore I have been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me?" I wonder.

Who are we? Are we among those who stand with the disciple John and Mary Magdelene, standing at the foot of the cross? Are we like Peter and say we never knew Him? Or are we like the crowds shouting "Crucify him! Crucify him!" That seems to be the far greater question - Jesus stands at the door and knocks and promises He will come in, but we must open the door. Opening the door means opening our life to the pathway of the cross and in that cross we find reconciliation with God - through the Cross. The Cross.

I'm not sure I see that in these remarks - we know Jesus loves us, we know that by what He did on the cross. But do we love Him? Are we willing to follow Him along the narrow way, or will we remake the road to fit our own wants, our own desires, a road that leads to our own life and not our life now hidden in Christ?

I do wonder, Ruth - this sounds like a Hippie Be-In to this former flower child. Jesus is Everywhere! He's Everywhere You Wannt Be! Whoo hoo! Everyone is okay! We're all okay! Just be polite and don't forget to say please.

But leaving people in bondage to the brokenness caused by sin is not love. No, it is not.

bb

[Adrian Beney]

I think those who say that Rowan Williams was saying nothing new this morning should remember who was his audience. It was only peripherally the C of E at large; it was specifically the General Synod who will tomorrow vote on the proposals about women bishops. Just about every view on this subject is represented amongst the Synod members present - and it must be hard for those who have longed and toiled for years to have women regarded as genuinely equal to be told that this is wrong; just as, for those who (inexplicably in my view) believe that consecrating a women bishop would be abhorrent, it is hard to know that this is likely to happen in some way before very long. These 500 or so men and women tomorrow have to come up with a way of living with each other in a way that allows for each to have their views respected.

That was Rowan Williams' audience, and the question of "where would Jesus be" seems the best possible one to ask of people whose strongly held views and perhaps even entrenched positions must not be allowed to let them lose sight of the fact that they have more in common than divides them.

[Clifford Williams]

So Ruth Gledhill claims that she had just listened to a most 'incredible' sermon at York minster by Dr Rowan Williams, whilst, at the same time suggests that she might be 'overstating' it.

My dear, you have probably been over doing it of late. Time to take a long walk - dont you think?

[chris shaw]

All these words...how about just:'Still small voice of calm'
or
'In the stillness,the dancing'

There are just too many words; not enough love...probably too simplistic or too trite for all the high-minded?!

[Art]

Where would Jesus be? Why he would be with all people to preach salvation, to preach against sin and tell them to go and sin no more. What would Jesus do? He would select males to go out and preach to all who would listen as he did on his time on Earth.

[Chris Gillibrand]

The best summary of the sins against the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation is the breach of the virtues contained in Our Lord's Beatitudes and also what Catholics had to suffer, together with the proper response.

I am just recovering from the idea put forward on Songs of Praise tonight that the Bridgetine Order whose Syon Abbey was destroyed during the Reformation were really prototype radicals and indeed evangelicals. Try telling that to St Bridget of Sweden.

[Jenny]

More often than not, it seems that Ruth Gledhill reports on such occasions as this, as though she were a teenaged fan of a pop group, rather than a journalist who is supposed to think and report critically.

Whether it was after the ABoC's foolish rationales to impose Sharia, or his hypocritical, colonialistic attempt to demonize the bishops who attended GAFCon, she comes off like a star struck groupie, who thinks Rowan Williams can do no wrong.

No citations of his hypocrisies over the actions of TEC's leadership whom we all know lied to him, saying one thing to his face and duplicitously doing whatever they liked after the fact. Yet he spews bile at bishops who seek to hold fast to the gospel, and Christ's teachings. If this is any example of the quality of reporting at the Times, then is it any wonder that people no longer trust the media?

In the US, Bishop Jefferts-Schori is presiding over an effort to steal church properties that are owned by the congregations who paid to build and maintain them. TEC has never paid for churches, or spent a penny for their maintenance, yet they seek to steal the very churches away from congregations to punish them for refusing to betray Christ and their faith, to push the faithful out of the faith, when they seek to reaffiliate under the Southern Cone? He recognizes TEC, but refuses to recognize the Southern Cone.. perhaps because they aren't as mighty white as he and his minions?

Does the ABoC say that greed and theft are acceptable? Is this an example of the "love" and "conversation" he advocates? Why does he expect conversation to be a one way street, Christ certainly didn't espouse such values. In fact, Christ threw those who exploited the faith for money out of the temple.

Christ also told his followers that they should not put up with priests who put themselves up on pedastels, and admonished them not to treat priests as though they were above them. He further instructed his followers to question priests, and expect honest answers as they were as prone to sin, lust and greed as any other human being.

It is Gledhill's duty to serve the interest of ethical reporting, not to bow and scrape at the feet of a [snip] priest, and that is what ABoC Rowan Williams and Bishop Jefferts-Schori (TEC) are.

[Julia]

Excellent post, William Sulik!

When I read Ruth's run-up to +++Rowan's words, I was excited to click on "continue reading." But I didn't read anything different, healing, or exciting. And so, as usual these days, I sighed.

If +++Rowan believes that the Holy Spirit acts within the body of believers (and I would believe he does), why does he keep insisting on a "waffling Spirit" Who is more often envigorating the liberal POV than speaking through those who remain committed to the traditional faith and teaching? As we continue to witness the Scriptures examined and exhorted in various ways, how can we know God's continued action and voice in the Church?

By the health and stability of the Church, I believe, as Jesus promised us that He would always be with us and the gates of Hell would not prevail. So, how on Earth can the ABC continue to produce a waffling Spirit while the Church, weary of waffle and increasingly disillusioned by the lack of firm belief, splits apart?

[Timothy Fountain]

I believe he is preaching from the Prophet Zechariah (ch. 9), appointed for this Sunday in the RCL, rather than the Joseph story.

The passage is talking about God bringing people back from an exile caused by their infidelity to His revealed law.

Yes, the promise of the Messiah is in the passage - a prophecy fulfilled on Palm Sunday by Jesus Christ.

It is an all too affluent western misuse of the passage to say that it is about the emotional discomfort of this or that group, and how Jesus comes to hold their hands.

It is a prophecy about a merciful God who took flesh and died for our inability to be faithful. It is not about entitlements to ordination or putting a spiritual veneer of manipulative "dialogue" with predetermined outcomes.

In fact, this sermon's (mis)use of the Bible is exactly what the "traditionalists" are complaining about - and it is really sad that the press, who should be digging at the most important issues, are hiding behind the "Gee whiz why can't all my nice LGBT pals be priests" facade.

[Marie Blocher]

Yes, Jesus is all over the place, just as He has been the last two thousand years. Some listen to Him, and some listen to their own thoughts when He sits beside them.

I fail to see what Ruth is so excited over in the sermon. It doesn't come across in the excerpts she posted. Perhaps a full transcript of the sermon will reveal more, when it is available.

[Perpetuaofcarthage]

He said "the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion." But this is easily demonstrated to be FALSE. And these excerpts from his sermon do not show a conviction of Jesus Christ as LORD, only as a comforter. Comfort is good, but where is the conviction of LORDSHIP? Lords set boundaries and Lords lead.

[Theo Dexter]

Should we not love all and to be truly inclusive include in love those who belong to the "conservative evangelical" wing? It is not true that they do not "love their neighbour" -they are our brothers and sisters. Is it loving to demonize them? Is right for liberals to be intolerant of this group but claim it is not right to be intolerant of any other?

[William Sulik]

Granted - but how should the message of this sermon be applied?

It seems to me that we have all become like the stereotypical ugly American, seeking to impose our way of life instead of really listening to and loving one another.

I believe fully in women's ordination and there should be no barrier to women qua women being bishops in the Church. Nevertheless, perhaps we should yield on this point until there is broader agreement - not as a matter of doctrine, but of discipline.

Similarly, the traditionalists should be willing to admit that maybe they are wrong on this - in humility - and not bolt, but to seek accommodation if that be necessary.

And so on. And the Americans must admit they are arrogant and selfish and must repent - take on the discipline of Windsor and the other documents and sit out from the Anglican Communion for a period of time - a biblical seven years? - take on the attitude of a servant, not a master.

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:3-11 (New International Version)

We should pray this prayer and then act on it:

Lord,
make me an instrument of your peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
when there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.
Grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand,
to be loved as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

[Perry Smithwick]

Good for Rowan. He is truly following Jesus - unlike the divisive GAFCON tribe. Anglicanism has grown in stature through engagament with the enlightenment and modern liberal thought - the 'conservative evangelical' wing would take us back to the dark ages - they neglect human rights, love for thy neighbour, individual freedom and liberty, and preach discrimination, condemnation and hate. Rowan and Joh Sentamu must stand up to them.

[Tom Jackson]

“'He will be with the gay clergy who wonder what their future is in a Church so anxious and threatened about this issue.”

And when Jesus sits down beside them, what will He say to them?

Will His words be simply comforting, endorsing their homosexuality, encouraging them in their desire to interpret His teaching in any manner which supports their desire to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex?

Or will His words offer support to examine their consciences, to consider where their desires, their deviations from Christian teaching are taking them?

Will He make it clear that He is there for them, supporting, protecting and guiding but not willing to re-write Christian teaching to accommodate their behaviour?

I doubt that Jesus will choose this moment to appear and clearly indicate what He would say and do. That is why it is up to each and everyone of us, as followers of Him, to examine our own understanding and faith in Him and form conclusions from that examination.

[A BYSTANDER]

So, He's going to be (nearly) everywhere, then?

If one wishes to follow Him, in which direction does one go? I assume of course that staying just where one is will not do.

I'm sure His Grace's delivery was impressive, but I for one am at a loss to understand what guidance it provides.

[robroy]

RW alloted only 4 hours at DeS to the crisis. Then he released the subcommittee report that one of its own members hadn't even seen and gave the Americans a Windsor pass. Then he invited all to Lambeth before the September meeting, decreasing pressure on them to bargain in good faith. The "no deadline statement". The ridiculous evaluation process of the American response through the distorted lens of the JSC report (which over half of the primates/ACC members wouldn't even participate in). But worst of all is the indaba format that insures the crisis won't be addressed.

Now, he offers more words, but his actions are procrastination and dithering which benefits those who have rent asunder the Communion.

Will there be an August surprise? The ACO has said there will be no resolutions at Lambeth. This only steels the resolve of those refusing to participate in a jamboree. Then a reversal of Lambeth 1.10 does come out of Lambeth. (Ms Schori used this technique in the Spring 07 HoB meeting, and she seems to be pulling ACO strings.)