This site is moving

to the original

Mainstream SA site:

http://www.anglican-mainstream.org.za

A message from Bishop David Anderson

August 11th, 2008 Posted in News |

A Message from Bishop David Anderson
Dearly Beloved in Christ,

Lambeth is now over. Many of us are studying not only the documents of Lambeth, but the detailed analyses that are being produced by various sources, and then sitting back and saying, “OK, what is really going on, and how does this play out in the next year?”

Reports came in from Lambeth that a number of TEC revisionist bishops were spreading misinformation in their Indaba groups about the state of litigation in the United States. Their claim was that the orthodox churches and dioceses “were suing them,” and the blame was really to be put on the orthodox. This is untrue, but it has been proven that if a lie is told often enough, people begin to believe there is something to it. Let us look at a few examples of lawsuits in the US.

In California, the bishop of Los Angeles is suing the orthodox churches, as is also the case in the diocese of San Diego. The Los Angeles orthodox churches won in the lower court and were reversed in a Court of Appeals, and the case is now before the California Supreme Court. The point to take away is that Bishop J. Jon Bruno initiated the lawsuit, demanding even the children’s Sunday School crayons (no, I am not joking, you can read it in the public record), and for anyone, especially a California bishop, to assert that they were sued first is a deliberate untruth.

In Virginia, Bishop Peter Lee had worked out an arbitration procedure that would have allowed the churches and the diocese to negotiate an agreed-upon settlement and avoid litigation. The churches proceeded with their parish votes and the registration of the vote tallies with the local Court Houses, as per the 1867 Virginia law that applied to church splits. When the TEC Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori heard about it, she advised Bishop Lee that “there is a new sheriff in town.” Lee was told that if he didn’t sue the churches, TEC would sue him. Bishop Lee uncharacteristically buckled under the pressure, and without advance notice, launched the lawsuits. For him to say that the Virginia churches sued him would be a gross violation of the truth also.

Somewhere in the United States, a parish may have asked for a declaratory judgment to settle issues of property title, or may have, once they were sued, filed a counter suit in defense, but it has been the model of the orthodox churches not to use the courts to attack bishops, dioceses, or TEC. The very aggressive stance that TEC has taken was first formulated by leadership within the Presbyterian Church in the US, and it appears that TEC Chancellor David Booth Beers is following the Presbyterian game plan to a “P.”

‘Rwanda is coming under the fire of the Spirit’

ASSIST News Service (ANS) – PO Box 609, Lake Forest, CA 92609-0609 USA
Visit our web site at: www.assistnews.net — E-mail: assistnews@aol.com

Saturday, August 9, 2008

‘Rwanda is coming under the fire of the Spirit’
The Archbishop of Rwanda talks about the genocide and his optimism for the future

By Dan Wooding
Founder of ASSIST Ministries

The Archbishop of Rwanda

MEXICO CITY, MEXICO (ANS) – Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini, the head of the Anglican Church of Rwanda, has one of the most difficult jobs in the world.

For he has pledged himself to bringing healing to a country that in 1994 experienced the Rwandan Genocide, which saw the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of Rwanda’s minority Tutsis and the moderates of its Hutu majority.

The genocide was primarily perpetrated by two Hutu militias, the Interahamwe, the militant wing of the MRND, and the Impuzamugambi, the militant wing of the CDR. It was an eruption of the ethnic and economic pressures ultimately consequential after Rwanda’s colonial era and the fractious culture of Hutu power.

The Rwandan Civil War, fought between the Hutu regime with support from Francophone nations of Africa, as well as France itself, and rebel Tutsi exiles with support from Uganda, after their invasion in 1990, was its catalyst. With outside assistance, in 1993, the Hutu regime and Tutsi rebels were able to agree to a cease-fire, and the preliminary implementation of the Arusha Accords.

The diplomatic efforts to end the conflict were at first thought to be successful, yet even with the RPF, the political wing of the RPA, and the government in talks, elites among the Akazu were against any agreement for cooperation between the regime and the rebels to solve the ethnic and economic problems of Rwanda and progress towards a stable nationhood.

Now, thankfully, a relative piece has settled into the country and who better to talk about the situation but the Archbishop of Rwanda.

I caught up with him at the recent 17th International AIDS Conference in Mexico City, where he was a speaker at an event put during the conference by Rick and Kay Warren of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, who moderated a panel of Rwandan government and church leaders; business and medical experts; and Saddleback HIV/AIDS Initiative directors, to address the issue of global partnership ventures to help people living with HIV/AIDS.

I began by asking Archbishop Kolini to talk about the Rwandan genocide that so shocked the world.

A man in Nyamata, 18 miles south of Kigali looks at hundreds of skulls, at a memorial for victims of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. (Photo: AP)

“Well, let me say first of all I was not there at that time,” he began. “I was a bishop in the Congo, where I was born, but I was following the terrible events because I was a part of what was called the Francophone province which was comprised of three countries — Rwanda, Burundi and Congo. We had several meetings and I knew what was going on in Rwanda. It was terrible to me; it was a spiritual challenge.”

Read The rest of this story Highly reccomended here

WILLIAMS STEALTH ENDORSEMENT OF GAY AGENDA REVEALED

WILLIAMS STEALTH ENDORSEMENT OF GAY AGENDA REVEALED IN S.P.R.E.A.D. DOCUMENT

NOTE: VOL believes that in light of recent revelations of Dr. Williams on homosexuality with letters between himself and a lady psychiatrist in Wales, that this SPREAD article with links to the original S.P.R.E.A.D. document are important enough to run again.

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
2/19/2007

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams has been exposed in a 140-page document as a theologian-leader who has long supported non-celibate gay and lesbian sexual relationships, contrary to Holy Scripture.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/content/Williamsandscripture.pdf

Williams, who authored The Body’s Grace and Open to Judgement has a long history of supporting pansexual behavior going back to the early 1980s when he was a spiritual director to persons engaged in homosexual activity.

A team of theologians headed by the Rt. Rev. John Rodgers produced the document believing that the Anglican Communion has not been made fully aware of the archbishop’s views that are at variance with the vast majority of 78-million Anglicans most of whom reside in the Global South and who eschew homosexuality.

The findings of the report are devastating and conclude that the defenders of the Anglican Faith cannot rely on Rowan Williams to use the powers of the Archbishop of Canterbury to preserve, much less propagate, the Anglican Faith which adheres to the sovereign authority of Scripture and requires obedience to the moral commandments given from God by Moses.

The evidence shows that Williams worked for many years before becoming Archbishop of Canterbury to replace the Anglican Faith with a different kind of faith which adheres to the sovereign authority of man’s reason, intelligence, and experience, and promotes a new moral code. The evidence also allows little room to believe that since becoming the Archbishop of Canterbury Williams has changed his teachings.

The 140-page document reveals that Williams began to reject Scripture’s prohibition of same gender sexual relations some time in the 1980s and in a newspaper interview in 2002 he stated that his “developing sense over the last twenty years” that the Church should approve of same gender sexual relations “has come in part from being the spiritual director to people of the homosexual orientation.”

In an interview Williams said; “I did come to a point where I could no longer say the Biblical account answers all of the questions we have or want to ask.”

Williams acted on his conclusion that scripture did not have all the answers concerning same gender sexual relations with such diligence that he became a leader in the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. This movement was founded in 1976 in England by Richard Kirker who is currently its Executive Director. The LGCM sponsored an annual “Michael Harding Memorial Address” and Rowan Williams addressed the group a decade later in his now famous lecture “The Body’s Grace”.

Williams founded the Institute of Christianity and Sexuality and in 1996 changed its name to the Center for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality expressly holding as a matter of “conviction ” that “it is entirely compatible with the Christian faith not only to love another person of the same sex, but also express that love fully in a personal sexual relationship.”

Williams critique of Scripture can best be summarized in his own words: “I suspect that a fuller exploration of the sexual metaphors of the Bible will have more to teach us about a theology and ethics of sexual desire than will the flat citation of isolated texts; and I hope other theologians will find this worth following up more fully than I can do here.”

Williams was also a member of the board of editors of the journal Theology and Sexuality when its first edition was published in 1994 and remained on its board till 2002 after he was selected to be the Archbishop of Canterbury.

David Holloway, an evangelical leader exposed an issue of this journal which had such articles as, ‘men, Muscles and Zombies,” “The Place for Porn in a Gay Spiritual Economy,” and “Finding God in the Heart-Genital Connection.”

In 1990, Williams worked with the Rev. Canon Jeffrey John, Bishop Richard Holloway, and others to found another organization which promotes the Church’s approval of same gender sexual relations, “Affirming Catholicism”. In the words of its executive director, “Affirming Catholicism has consistently called for the full inclusion of lesbian and gay members of the Church.”

Affirming Catholicism sets forth in its website many of the concepts used by the proponents of the Church’s approval of same gender sexual relations. Among them is the major concept that Scripture’s commandments concerning moral behavior are not conclusive, but are subject to change inspired by the Holy Spirit and measured by human reason, intelligence and experience.” This concept becomes clear when various Affirming Catholicism web publications are pieced together.

Williams gave papers at the Affirming Catholicism conferences in 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2000. Williams traveled to the USA and Canada addressing Affirming Catholicism members in those countries.

In 1992 when Williams was enthroned as Bishop of Monmouth in the Province of Wales he ordained a priest he knew to be unrepentantly homosexual. Williams later explained that he takes the “minority” position that priests do not have to give up a homosexual lifestyle, and he is “not convinced that a homosexual has to be celibate in every imaginable circumstance.” However, if priests engage in same gender sexual relations, Williams would “want to be sure that their attitude to their sexual habits is a reasonable, prayerful, and theologically informed one.”

Not surprisingly Frank Griswold’s teachings reflect Affirming Catholicism’s themes of the Holy Spirit speaking in new ways and the measuring of sexual conduct by human experience.

But it is not only homosexuality that Williams has affirmed. In March 1996 Williams reviewed a book, “Just Good Friends: Towards a Lesbian and Gay Theology of Relationships. Williams states among other things, “Liz Stuart is able to point meaningly and effectively to the image of Sophia as the connection-making, time-taking energy of God in the world, the divine “Spiderwoman” whose life is found in but not extinguished by the event of Jesus – Jesus in the community of those he loves and who love him.”

Williams wrote that “contemporary debates suggest that we are getting worse all the time, with out obsessive searches for purity, whether radical or conservative.”

Later he wrote, “The apparently clear line between eros and friendship is illusory; we are looking at different forms of one passion – the passion for life-giving interconnection.”

In 1997, Williams demonstrated his commitment to his teaching that the Church should approve of same gender sexual relations by giving up the opportunity to be the Bishop of Southwark in the C of E rather than abandon it. Carey objected to the appointment, and asked Williams to distance himself from his teaching. Williams refused the condition and was not nominated for the post.

Williams later helped the Institute for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality’s “sister organization,” Changing Attitude, (a network of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and heterosexual members of the Church of England) lobby for the approval of same gender sexual relations at the 1998 Lambeth Conference. Williams wrote the forward for the book “The Other Way? Anglican Gay and Lesbian Journeys” published by Changing Attitude in June 1998.

The 1998 Lambeth Conference voted overwhelmingly against homosexual relationships affirming that the only place for sexual expression was in life long union between a man and a woman in marriage. When Roman Catholic Cardinal Cassidy gave the homily at Lambeth, he said that there could be no unity between the Catholic Church and the Communion as long as the Communion permitted sexual behavior contrary to the Gospel. Williams took an opposite position to Cassidy saying that opposing views on the sexuality question should not be a bar to unity. Williams said that unity in the Anglican Communion despite the difference over the sexuality question was not “unity at all costs.” Williams obliquely dismissed Scripture as the basis for Christians to discern moral truth.

When Lambeth 1:10 was overwhelmingly passed by a vast majority of bishops that said same gender sexual relations are “incompatible with Scripture” and therefore should not be engaged in, Rowan Williams countered that God doe does not communicate to us authoritatively through the Holy Scriptures, because the writers thereof “misapprehended(ed)” and “misread” “the mind of God” and therefore Holy Scriptures are not the rule and ultimate standard of faith and practice.

Williams joined with other bishops in announcing to the world their refusal to comply with the 1998 Lambeth Conference’s teachings concerning the authority of Scripture and same gender sexual relations.

On the last day of Lambeth Williams and a group of other Anglican bishops announced to the world their opposition to Resolution 1.10’s prohibition of the approval of same gender sexual relations. They did this by signing and issuing to the public the 1998 Pastoral Statement to Lesbian and Gay Anglicans.

In 2000, after Williams was enthroned as the Archbishop and Primate of Wales, he provided the Foreword to the book “Seeking the Truth in Love, The Church and Homosexuality, by the Bishop of Bristol-Swindon, Michael Doe. Williams argued, as he did at the 1998 Lambeth Conference, that the members of the Anglican Communion should remain united despite their differences over the teaching that the Church should approve of same gender sexual relations.

With the publication of “The Body’s Grace” as a pamphlet and as a chapter in the book “Theology and Sexuality: Classic and Contemporary Readings”, and the reprinting of Open to Judgement in 2002, Williams put forth afresh, which he was under consideration to be the Archbishop of Canterbury, his teachings that the church should approve of same gender sexual relations and any opposition to based on Scripture relies on “an abstract fundamentalist deployment of very ambiguous biblical texts.”

In 2002, on the eve of his becoming the next Archbishop of Canterbury, a group of evangelical clergy and laity who sought the return of the C of E to its Biblical roots expressed its objection to Williams becoming the next ABC. They wrote a book “A Line in the sand, Reform and Rowan Williams” which pointed out Williams’s anti-Scriptural teaching concerning same gender sexual relations and called on Williams to expressly state his position concerning such teaching and suggested Williams decline the appointment to be the next ABC if he could not repent.

Williams responded saying he would separate out his personal views from “the majority teaching of the church, and I will exercise the discipline of the Church as I am bound to do. But I can’t go beyond this and say that I believe what I do not believe.”

As a result Church Society an orthodox group of theologians, clergy and laity me with Williams and after talking with him made the following charges against Williams.

On salvation: Williams claimed to uphold the 39 Articles believing a person can only be saved through Christ, however this does not mean that a person of another religion can be saved even though they do not personally know Christ.

On Sexual Practice: Williams is the first ABC who is prepared to condone sexual immorality, including homosexual practice in defiance of I Cor. 6: 9-10. Williams believes that there may be circumstances in which homosexual practice is acceptable. Within a committed ‘covenantal’ relationship it may be permissible for homosexual practice to take place, says Williams.

We conclude that Dr. Rowan Williams teaching on sexuality are sub-Biblical, indeed heretical; that he does not accept Scripture as God’s Word concerning the nature of God, man’s relation to God, or the manner in which man should behave. Williams does not provide answers, he only poses questions and offers a methodology for answering them by looking to “our experience of Christian humanity and reality and how our thinking fits with it.”

By dismissing Scripture as the supreme source of knowledge and treating it as merely a methodological guide for finding God’s will in the experience of Christian humanity, Williams replaces the Anglican faith with a totally new religion wrapped in Christian trappings and terminology.

The entire 148 page report can be read in PDF format here:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/content/Williamsandscripture.pdf

END

Consultation 2008

We have come to the time for Anglican Mainstream SA to meet together once again. Much has happened since last October. It is time for us to meet together to hear about GAFCON and Lambeth 2008, to discern what the Lord is calling us to do in this Province, and to support one another in His work.

When: September 3 – 4, 2008

Where: St John’s Walmer Port Elizabeth.

Programme:

Wednesday 3 September

10.00 AMSA Committee meeting

11.30 – 13.00 Registration

13.00 Lunch

14.00 – 16.45

Presentation on Gafcon

Presentation on Lambeth 2008

Questions, Discussions, Implications

Tea will be served at a suitable time.

16.45 AMSA Committee – plan Thursday format

16.45 – 19.30 Free Time and Supper.

19.00

Report Back

Worship and message (offering taken for AMSA)

Thursday 4 September

06.30

Eucharist with message

07.30 BREAKFAST

08.00 Consultations continue

· Why a church/Anglican should sign Jerusalem Statement.

· Province wide information evenings

· Teaching Outreach event 2009

· AMSA or GAFCON Southern Africa or both

· Prayers

Tea will be served at convenient moment

12.00 Lunch

13.00 Departure

Cost: R250 (can be paid on arrival or request banking details for EFT)

Registration form for online registration

Registration: email: anglicanmainstream@gmail.com

Fax: +27 021 874 1120

The Final Lambeth Reflections Document

Under Anglican Communion, Sexuality By Peter Ould

Thought it would be interesting to analyse where the final reflections document differs from the fourth draft.

• This is text removed
  
• This is text added
  
• This is text moved

Fourth Draft	Final Document
This section should have been titled “The Bishop and Homosexuality” because it was quickly apparent the whole spectrum of human sexuality, including issues of marriage and family, was not going to be discussed. The self select sessions identified with human sexuality included sessions on Human Sexuality and the Witness of Scripture, Listening and Mission, The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality, Listening in Practice, Sexuality and Spirituality, Questions of Science, Culture and Christ, Culture and Homosexualities, Listening to the Experience of Homosexual People.	This section appears here to address the tensions that have arisen in our common life. It should have been titled “The Bishop and Homosexuality” because these discussions were the focus of this topic in the indaba groups. The self select sessions identified with human sexuality included Human Sexuality and the Witness of Scripture, Listening and Mission, The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality, Listening in Practice, Sexuality and Spirituality, Questions of Science, Culture and Christ, Culture and Homosexualities, Listening to the Experience of Homosexual People.
The third meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in 1976 spoke about the Communion in this way: “As in the first century, we can expect the Holy Spirit to press us to listen to each other, to state new insights frankly, and to accept implications of the Gospel new to us, whether painful or exhilarating.” Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10, while reiterating clearly the traditional stance of the Church, also called for sensitive listening. The Bible study and indaba groups gave us the opportunity to meet in a spirit of generosity and prayerful humility which helped us to listen patiently to each other and to speak honestly.	Faced with the issue of the ordination of women, the third meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in 1976 spoke about the Communion in this way: “As in the first century, we can expect the Holy Spirit to press us to listen to each other, to state new insights frankly, and to accept implications of the Gospel new to us, whether painful or exhilarating. Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10, while reiterating clearly the traditional stance of the Church, also called for sensitive listening.  The Bible study and indaba groups gave us the opportunity to meet in a spirit of generosity and prayerful humility which helped us to listen patiently to each other and to speak honestly.
Christians are called to exercise judgement and discernment in their vocation and discipleship, but to embrace that discipleship with humility and with generosity. The Lord himself warned us to avoid judgementalism. It is important therefore to be careful not to make dismissive judgements, because people have come to their decision after prayer and careful study of the Bible. Nor is there a monopoly on Christian charity: those who take different positions regarding this issue have often been the bearers of compassionate pastoral care to homosexual persons, though we must confess some failure in this regard. We come from different backgrounds, contexts and experiences. As Bishops we need to repent of the ways in which our hardness of heart toward each other may have contributed to the brokenness of our Communion at this present time. We need to repent of statements and actions that have further damaged the dignity of homosexual persons. People who have held traditional views on this matter have sometimes felt that they have been dismissed with ridicule or contempt.	Christians are called to exercise judgement and discernment in their vocation and discipleship, and to embrace that discipleship with humility and with generosity.  The Lord himself warned us to avoid judgementalism.  It is important therefore to be careful not to make dismissive judgements, because people have come to their decision after prayer and careful study of the Bible. Nor is there a monopoly on Christian charity: those who take different positions regarding this issue have often been the bearers of compassionate pastoral care to homosexual persons, though we must confess some failure in this regard.  We come from different backgrounds, contexts and experiences.  As Bishops we need to repent of the ways in which our hardness of heart toward each other may have contributed to the brokenness of our Communion at this present time. We need to repent of statements and actions that have further damaged the dignity of homosexual persons. People who have held traditional views on this matter have sometimes felt that they have been dismissed with ridicule or contempt.
There were repeated statements of the desire to remain in communion while attempting to maintain a generous space for ongoing discussions. Although there has been a great appreciation of one to one conversations, there is the need to develop further trust in the relationships that have started here. In this regard, in some groups, in addition to previous expressions of regret by both the House of Bishops and the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, some individual bishops of The Episcopal Church have expressed apologies in their groups, noting that they had not previously grasped the depth of the negative impact that their action in the consecration of the present Bishop of New Hampshire had caused in many parts of the Communion.	There were repeated statements of the desire to remain in communion while attempting to maintain a generous space for ongoing discussions. Although there has been a great appreciation of one to one conversations, there is the need to develop further trust in the relationships that have started here. In addition to previous expressions of regret by both the House of Bishops and the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, some individual bishops of The Episcopal Church have expressed apologies in their groups, noting that they had not previously grasped the depth of the negative impact that their action in the consecration of a bishop living in a same gender union had caused in many parts of the Communion.
There were several references to the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10, although it was clear that only one section was being referenced and not the whole report on Human Sexuality from the 1998 Lambeth Conference or the whole resolution.	There were several references to the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10, although it sometimes appeared that only one section was being referenced and not the whole report on Human Sexuality to the 1998 Lambeth Conference or the whole resolution.
There is confusion about what “the issue” really means. There are three aspects that would help to clarify discussions: How the church evangelizes, disciples and provides pastoral care for homosexual people How and on what basis the church admits people to Sacred Orders; How the church deals with the first two locally and globally.	There is confusion about what “the issue” really means. There are three aspects that would help to clarify discussions: How the church evangelizes, disciples and provides pastoral care for homosexual people; How and on what basis the church admits people to Sacred Orders; How the church deals with the first two locally and globally.
The whole issue of homosexual relations is highly sensitive because there are very strong affirmations and denials in different cultures across the world which are reflected in contrasting civil provisions, ranging from legal provision for same-sex marriage to criminal action against homosexuals. In some parts of the Communion, homosexual relations are a taboo while in others they have become a human rights issue.	The issue of homosexual relations is as sensitive as it is because it conflicts with the long tradition of Christian moral teaching.  For some, the new teaching cannot be acceptable on biblical grounds as they consider all homosexual activity as intrinsically sinful. Tension has arisen when those who hold the traditional teaching are faced with changes in the Church’s life or teaching without being able to understand or engage with a clear presentation of how people have come to a new understanding of scripture and pastoral theology.
Some people said that their understanding of the long tradition of Christian moral teaching is now being questioned and this creates confusion when a clear presentation of how people have come to their new understanding of scripture and theology is not available to them. For some, such new teaching cannot be acceptable as they consider all homosexual activity as irredeemably sinful.	The whole issue of homosexual relations is also highly sensitive because there are very strong affirmations and denials in different cultures across the world which are reflected in contrasting civil provisions, ranging from legal provision for same-sex marriage to criminal action against homosexuals. In some parts of the Communion, homosexual relations are a taboo while in others they have become a human rights issue.
In the framework of The Bishop in Mission, it is agreed that the ordination of a partnered homosexual Bishop has compromised mission in many parts of the Communion and has had a profoundly disruptive effect on the Communion by detracting from other aspects of mission. There is anxiety that this will not turn out to be a single act but something that is likely to happen again and further compromise mission.	In the framework of the bishop in mission, it is agreed that the ordination of a bishop living in a same gender union has compromised mission in many parts of the Communion and has had a profoundly disruptive effect on the Communion by detracting from other aspects of mission. There is anxiety that this will not turn out to be a single act but something that is likely to happen again and further compromise mission.
For some, the way the Communion has been perceived to handle polygamy has complicated the issue. Polygamy has been part of the history and of the present of some provinces of the Communion. It is unacceptable in other parts of the Communion. The perception has been that the Communion did not tell those Provinces that they must withdraw from the Communion. The Communion made a space for them to deal with this issue at their local level. This they are doing, setting clear standards while providing pastoral attention. The question from some is, why can we not make the same space in regard to homosexuality? In the case of polygamy, there is a universal standard – it is understood to be a sin, but local pastoral provision is made: polygamists are not admitted to positions of leadership, nor after acceptance of the Gospel can a convert take another wife, nor, in some areas, are they admitted to Holy Communion.	For some, the way the Communion has been perceived to handle polygamy has complicated the issue. Polygamy has been part of the history and of the present of some Provinces of the Communion. It is unacceptable in other parts of the Communion. The Communion made a space for such Provinces to deal with this issue at their local level. This they have done, setting clear standards while providing pastoral attention. The question from some is: why can we not make the same space in regard to homosexuality? In the case of polygamy, there is a universal standard – it is understood to be a sin, therefore polygamists are not admitted to positions of leadership including Holy Orders, nor after acceptance of the Gospel can a convert take another wife, nor, in some areas, are they admitted to Holy Communion.
There have been many aspects of the history of this current situation that has brought us to this point in time. To some, the possible acceptance of homosexual people as good Christian people is new, and their acceptance as possible leaders in the church is unacceptable. To others, thirty years of Scripture study, of theological discussion, of listening and discussion to come to the present understanding, seems a long time. In the time frame of Christianity, or even of the Anglican tradition, it has not been enough time to allow for the Bishops of the Communion to come to a new consensus within Provinces or worldwide – either to agree, or to live together in disagreement.	There have been many aspects of the history of this current situation that have brought us to this point in time. In some parts of the Communion the issue of homosexuality has been under discussion for over thirty years, whereas for others it is a more recent conversation. In other places, there are legal or cultural reasons which constrain dialogue. In some Provinces, the acceptance of homosexual practice would be seen as a betrayal of the teaching of the missionaries who brought the faith, and experienced as a new form of colonialism. In the time frame of Christianity, or even of the Anglican tradition, there has not been enough time to allow for the Bishops of the Communion to come to a new consensus within Provinces or worldwide – either to agree, or to live together in disagreement.
The issue of homosexuality has challenged us and our Churches on what it might mean to be a Communion. We are still learning how to be the Communion that God has called and gifted us to be.	The issue of homosexuality has challenged us and our Churches on what it might mean to be a Communion. We are still learning how to be the Communion that God has called and gifted us to be.
For many Anglicans, the ordination of an openly homosexual bishop, is seen as questioning the authority of Scripture and the church’s traditional reading on these matters. It calls into question traditional moral teaching concerning the nature of marriage. The question for many is “Whether the Bible transforms the culture or the culture is allowed to transform the Bible”.	For many Anglicans, the ordination of a bishop living in a same gender union is seen as questioning the authority of scripture and the Church’s traditional reading on these matters.  It calls into question traditional moral teaching concerning the nature of marriage. The question for many is “Whether the Bible transforms the culture or the culture is allowed to transform the Bible”.
The ordination of an openly partnered homosexual bishop and the open blessing of same sex relationships has had many negative results including: Partnership in mission is lost and damaged. In some provinces, there is an experience of betrayal of the teaching of the missionaries who brought the faith, and it is experienced as a new form of colonisation Confidence in the validity of the Anglican Communion, the bonds of affection and our mutual interdependence is severely damaged It is dishonouring to former Lambeth Conference decisions It diverts us from our primary focus It is seen as leading to “sexual license” It damages ecumenical and interfaith relationships. Bishops cannot be a symbol of unity when their consecration itself divides the church. The unique focus for catholicity in the Communion is lost. In some regions the issue has become a test of orthodoxy and a basis for hostile actions In some places the church is ridiculed as the “gay church”, so membership is lost.	The ordination of a bishop living in a same gender union and the open blessing of same sex relationships has had many negative results including: Partnership in mission is lost and damaged, as we are diverted from our primary focus. In some places the church is ridiculed as the “gay church”, so membership is lost. In some regions the issue has become a test of orthodoxy and a basis for hostile actions. Ecumenical and interfaith relationships have been damaged.  Some ecumenical participants present underscored this point. Bishops cannot be a symbol of unity when their consecration itself divides the church. The unique focus for catholicity in the Communion is lost. Confidence in the validity of the Anglican Communion, the bonds of affection and our mutual interdependence is severely damaged. It is dishonouring to former Lambeth Conference decisions.
There have also been positive effects in parts of Canada, the US and England when homosexual people are accepted as God’s children, are treated with dignity and choose to give their lives to Christ and to live in the community of faith as disciples of Jesus Christ with fidelity and commitment.	It was also reported that there has been positive effects in parts of Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico and Central America and in other parts of the world when homosexual people are accepted as God’s children, are treated with dignity and choose to give their lives to Christ and to live in the community of faith as disciples of Jesus Christ with fidelity and commitment.

All in all, the final section on Human Sexuality is tighter and more conservative than the fourth draft. In particular:

• Issues of function versus ontology (”an openly homosexual bishop” being replaced by “a bishop living in a same gender union”)
• The removal of the referral to “local pastoral provision” as regards polygamy makes it very clear that the practice of African churches in response to polygamy cannot be compared to the willingness of some to bless same-sex unions.
• The addition of the section on the ecumenical impact of the revisionists’ actions highlights the wider catholicity within which the Anglican Communion must operate

Later on I’ll turn my attention to the proposed way forward.

Lambeth at a “Local” Level

August 6th, 2008 Posted in News |

By David Skinner

David Skinner of the Salisbury Diocese has written the following letter in response to same-sex issues raised by the recent visit of TEC’s Katharine Jefferts Schori to Salisbury Cathedral. The Presiding Bishop preached at the cathedral 13 July 2008. On the following Monday, a forum was given which was ‘touchy-feely’ in ambience and theologically light-weight in content. Also, and interestingly, the forum was tightly (though covertly) controlled, monitored and directed. Echoes of various people’s experience of Lambeth are heard loud and clear here!  David responds here to the aftermath of Jefferts Schori’s visit as written up by a local Anglican clergy.

Dear Reverend Shirley Smith,

I wish to take the opportunity of making a few comments about your article, printed on the front cover of The Hill, July 2008.

First, I must applaud you on your courage, in raising such sensitive issues connected with sexuality and gender. I suspect that the vast majority us hide deep vulnerabilities concerning sexuality and we may also have family, friends, people we know personally, who are directly effected by these issues. No wonder we close ranks when subjects such as these, that can become so emotive and divisive, are raised. Little wonder, in fact that the elephant in the room was ignored at the Lambeth Conference. Rowan Williams must be sighing with relief and congratulating himself on the fact that no crockery was smashed or tables overturned. But you have raised it and it deserves a response. In fact I would go as far to say that it is high time that these issues were properly aired at the local level, for it is at the local level, in our churches, schools, places of work where the challenge to truth, morality and what it means to be human are already being forcibly worked out for us by powerful lobby groups like Stonewall.

For people to say that what people do in the privacy of their homes is none of our business no longer holds true because, whether we like it or not, we are being forced to approve of what people might do behind closed doors. We are having our faces rubbed in it. What previously was considered shameful behaviour is now proudly celebrated from the roof tops. Not only are we being asked to be accepting and “inclusive,” of sexual perversion, but our children are being groomed by government sex education programmes to also conform to this behaviour.

When dissenters to the homosexual agenda are having their collars fingered by the police, jailed, fined, dismissed from their jobs, denied work, publicly humiliated and threatened with prison sentences, this concerns all of us.

A predictable idiosyncrasy of the cover article to The Hill, made by clergy in the Okeford Benefice, is the use of poetry as opposed to scripture. I was pleased to see that you had resisted this conceit.

However there are quotes that I believe are relevant to us. Martin Niemoller, a German pastor and Holocaust survivor who paid a heavy price for faith and freedom, said:

“In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up”. Read the rest of this entry »

Lambeth: Surmise, frustration, and interest greet proposals

By Pat Ashworth, Church Times

INITIAL REACTIONS to the Windsor Continuation Group’s suggestions reflected a scepticism that exists within the group itself. On the subject of the moratoriums, the group acknowledges that, on three previous occasions, most recently the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam in 2007, requests to desist have been “less than wholeheartedly embraced on both sides”.

As a result, much surmise and varying degrees of frustration followed Monday’s airing of the group’s observations, writes Pat Ashworth. Even the Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright, was throwing up his hands and could not come up with a comment.

The Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, reflected a view expressed by others when he said on Tuesday: “Everyone will tell them how deficient it is, and then something else will happen.”

Resolutions at this Lambeth Conference would have been disastrous, but this had been the wrong process, he suggested. “The Americans have produced material which they say they have had no chance to give, though they gave it to the ACC and they gave it to the Primates. All the time, different things are being presented to different groups and so not everyone is in the loop.”

Dr Morgan voiced one key difficulty: bishops from provinces where leadership was autocratic still could not comprehend why their colleagues in other provinces were not able to make an instant decision.

“The assumption is that polity is made by bishops. Some of us live in Churches that believe in synodical government. We can influence but not control,” said Dr Morgan.

The Archbishop of Cape Town, the Most Revd Thabo Makgoba, found the reception of the report very encouraging. “When people stood up and said: ‘Well, my brother Americans, I disagree fundamentally and theologically with you, but I will not leave the Anglican Communion — that, for me, kept up the spirit of indaba.

“In indaba, we do not write each other off. We say: ‘I may disagree with you, but let’s keep on defining what our position is and through that we will finally come to an agreement.’

A significant majority of those at Lambeth wanted to stay together, said the Archbishop. “My sense is that, even if we are not articulating it as such, even if sometimes we are clumsy at that, the fact that we have stayed right through and engaged one another is a positive thing.”

The Primate of Australia, the Most Revd Phillip Aspinall, said he saw the wisdom in the idea of setting up a pastoral forum and the three suggested moratoriums, adds Ed Beavan; but he called for the Lambeth Conference to flesh out the details.

“We’ll be looking for the Lambeth Conference to work out these proposals in more detail. We need to have the Windsor Continuation Group give a bit of a steer so they can show the way the Communion should be moving.”

The Bishop of Alabama, the Rt Revd Henry Parsley, described the group’s suggestion of a pastoral forum or “holding bay” for disaffected groups within the Communion, as “interesting”.

“My sense is it would bring people together face to face to talk about these things. I think that will be a tremendous step forward, so we’re not sending communiqués across the ocean, so we don’t really talk about things in person.

“We need restraint, patience and forbearance, forbearance is one of my favourite biblical words. We all need patience and forgiveness. As Desmond Tutu said about the Anglican Communion: ‘We’re messy, but we’re also lovable.’”

GAFCON PRESS STATEMENT

Press Release

For Immediate Release

4 August 2008

The Primates‘ Council of GAFCON will wish to study the outcome of the Lambeth Conference carefully and consult with those they are leading. They are meeting towards the end of August and will make their response following that meeting.

For further information:

Rev. Dr. Arne H. Fjeldstad, GAFCON Head of Communications: (+47) 97 56 16 96, US phone arnefjeldstad@yahoo.com

Reflections on the Lambeth Reflections

August 4th, 2008 Posted in News |

From the Ugley Vicar blog:

Is there somewhere on earth where the Sunday afternoons are so interminably long and wet that one’s life would be more enhanced by reading in detail the Reflections on the Lambeth Conference 2008 than by, say, watching another re-run of The Great Escape or attempting again a Sudoku puzzle you messed up earlier? Perhaps there is, but for most of us life is too short for me to recommend the exercise (in fact I would much rather you read my own reflections on What on earth is God doing? than even these comments).

We need to remind ourselves what the Lambeth Conference was convened to achieve. The answer is, nothing. Remember, with the exception of the very first (and with interruptions for world wars), Lambeth Conferences have occurred decennially. They are held because it is time to hold one, not (essentially) because there is something that needs to be done which only a gathering of Anglican bishops from all the corners of the globe can achieve.

Thus, despite the acknowledgement within the Reflections document itself that the Anglican Communion is in ‘crisis’, it was possible to organize this conference with the express intention of avoiding confronting the issue. Behind the scenes, of course, the intention was that by avoiding confrontation, a resolution of sorts could be approached, since keeping everyone together would further establish the status quo as de facto policy.

Publicly, the means to this end was a bastardized African import — the so-called indaba groups. These, one suspects, as much resembled the real thing as village-hall yoga does the Indian mystic tradition. Historically, an indaba is a meeting of Africans, not Anglican bishops, and brings with it the assumptions of African, not Western Liberal, culture — one of which is not ‘constantly avoiding confronting the issue’ (thus, from an old ANC Daily Briefing on the internet: “Sport and Recreation Minister Ngconde Balfour has called a one-day indaba to thrash out the problems plaguing professional boxing in South Africa.”) The organizers of the Lambeth Conference adopted the term indaba because it sounded good. But they used it for their own ends.

And now a Conference called for no particular reason, holding meetings designed to reach no particular conclusions, has produced not a report but a series of reflections. Read them, if you will. (Article continues here.)