the prosperity (so-called) "gospel" is clearly  incompatible with scripture and therefore is no gospel at all as it seeks to justify a particular sin (greed, which is idolatry) and thereby misleads people.......it is not the only false teaching in the church but it is as bad as any

clare - I was assuming this is a discussion between Anglicans......that is people in an historical tradition which has certain articles etc which give the bible a particular importance. Anyway, I was not suggesting that we are not to use our reason but merely pointing out that when the "experience" and "reason" of some people leads them to encourage us all to condone behaviour which is incompatible with scripture, we are to trust that scripture is right (remembering who inspired it). 

The ABC made theological arguments on the presenting issues in the past, arguments which pleased liberals.... but even he persuaded few in the CofE and the AC. Even he admits that the bible says nothing positive about the sort of behaviour that some would have suddenly called good and holy based on their experiences and judgments, regardless of what scripture says.

Back on topic.................the Fulcrum response to Lambeth and GAFCON is helpful and fair, it does not put institutional unity above truth but does still want to allow time for repentance in TEC et al leading to unity being restored in the AC.

As always, Fulcrum is overly optimistic about possible outcomes and unwilling to criticise the negative impact of the (in)decisions of the ABC, but still, the statement is fair.

Reality is, TEC et al are willing to talk until the cows come home, but will not change their revisionist, rights-based direction - this has to be addressed at some point by a DECISION to which the AC is committed in both word and action (i.e. with integrity)

Sergei says "simply, being human, (I) am wrestling wth genuine dilemmas"

Exactly......we are human and we are all flawed. This is why we are not the ones to determine what is right and wrong ultimately....this is exactly why we are not free to condone what is incompatible with scripture given it is inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

It is easy to come up with examples to challenge or support arguments - individual cases cannot determine principles.  Both "open" and "conservative" evangelicals have in common a high view of scripture and individual cases are not persuasive in attempts to get evangelicals to condone what is incompatible with scripture.  Showing that scripture actually teaches that we should accept behaviour which for much more than 2000 years has been thought sinful in God's eyes, showing that we have misunderstood God's will in the OT and the NT would be persuasive......making strong theological arguments would be persuasive.

Rowan Williams tried to make such arguments as a professor but today accepts that few were persuaded and that Lambeth 1.10 represents what he calls the "mind of the Communion"......at the end of Lambeth, he also made the very important point that "rights-based" arguments are not persuasive. The most important thing is that we get the theology right -  so far, few are persuaded that revisionists have strong theological arguments  (because they do not) and jumping to experience and rights-based arguments is not going to change the "mind of the Communion".

Sergei - the problem is not the "middle" but the extreme left which tore the fabric of the Communion in 2003 but still insists on being in the Communion (since without it, all that is left is a very small and declining US denomination)

Matt Kennedy's responses are excellent and biblical, showing that accomodating false teachers is not Christian. If we read Galatians 2, we see that St Paul confronted St Peter when he  was in error. He put truth ahead of institutional unity. He did not say, "Let's have 2 integrities" and wait for years without saying what is right and wrong.  Throughout the whole bible, there has been only one right response to false teaching and it is not accomodation of it...... remember, the issue is the authority of scripture and what it says on who is fit to be a leader / teacher / pastor in the church.  There is absolutely zero support in the bible or the early church for having leaders who do not hold to sound doctrine because they will end up leading others astray....they destroy communion. We were  not told that if we find wolves dressed as sheep, we should respect their integrity, let them be leaders in the church and talk endlessly without ever rejecting their false teaching,  while they push their agenda in the church.   Not confronting and rejecting false teaching is not the Christian way....it is not what the Lord or his apostles did or taught, they always stood for truth and were disliked by many religious leaders for doing so.... religious institutionalists never like those who rock the boat..... those who cry "peace, peace" while clinging to shreds of comfort in the AC "slow train wreck", show more concern for institutional unity than the truth....this is not what Jesus Christ did and he definitely did not regard all division as wrong -

"Do you think that I came to bring peace on earth? Not at all, I tell you, but rather division!"

Luke 12:51

Sergei - I think you overestimate the differences between "open" evangelicals and "conservatives" etc.  I guess it is all a matter of definition but "open" evangelical does not really mean "communion liberal" if you are defining the term that way......"open" evangelicals are still evangelical, by definition, and are not very different to "conservatives" on the big issues facing the AC in the last 5 years. It seems to me that the differences between the groups are often more personal or to do with personalities.....but both are firmly evangelical.

One of the wonderful and interesting things about GAFCON is that it was a broad group.....it was not just Reform, Sydney and Nigerians by any stretch of the imagination. There is very much more in common between "open" and "conservative" evangelicals than there is between all of us and so called "liberals".

Put it this way, if Tom Wright were ABC in the last 5 years and had dealt with TEC as suggested by The Windsor Report,  I am sure GAFCON would never have happened  and all those at GAFCON would have been at Lambeth and happy to be in the AC under the leadership of somebody who is not aligned with "conservative" evangelicals.  It is important to realise that many of the leaders of "open" evangelicals are perfectly acceptable to "conservatives" and are respected by them as people and theologians.

Even though one has to use them, I don't believe the labels "open" and "conservative" are helpful, except to those who wish to divide evangelcals. And, there are people who wish to divide evangelicals. The labels amplify small differences when there is much more agreement in reality.

The wonderful reality of GAFCON was that there is great unity and trust between many who are from various "traditions" eg evangelical, Anglocatholic and charismatic. I think the core positions of the Fulcrum leadership on the presenting issues in the AC would have been perfectly at home in the GAFCON set up -  this is what really matters, not disagreements on approach in how to deal with revisionists in positions of leadership in the AC.  We are not divided on the core issues.

If the Fulcrum leadership and the ACI are "open" evangelicals, then "open" and "conservative" evangelicals share the same high view of scripture and want the same things for the AC......we are very closely related in reality.

Yes Adrian -  as I suggested, we have unreconcileable views on the authority of scripture, but I suspect you have a caricature of what evangelicals think about the subject. We do think! Some of us think a lot. Here is something from Dr Packer:  http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_herm_packer.html

Hello Birinus.   You say, "The problem, Nersen, is that the 'Mind of the Communion' isn't the tolerant, muddled, middle-of-the-road, compromise that we know and love, but an intolerant, conservative, doctrinally-orthodox anglicanism..."

Not sure why you think Anglicanism should be muddled or compromising....I know some of it has been for a long time, and perhaps Henry VIII wanted that approach on particular issues at particular times, but just because a fraction of Anglicanism has been "liberal", it does not follow that is how it should be nor that all of Anglicanism should accept the compromise.

As for what the ABC is doing, I think you see a man dealing with realities in the knowledge that his private views have persuaded few and the last 5 years of not making hard decisions is creating more division rather than papering over the cracks.......and the reality which is behind his clarity at the end of the Lambeth conference (despite the fact that tiny TEC has a quarter of the bishops present at Lambeth!) is that the Lambeth Conference really was weakened and needed the missing GAFCON bishops  (including the 3 English bishops who were not present), but GAFCON clearly really did not need or miss the small liberal wing of the AC which gathered at Lambeth. So, the ABC faces a choice: lead the AC to be a small (maybe 10m?), western, liberal denomination, or to try and keep in the AC all those who were at GAFCON  (who represent about 30-40m Anglicans in the world).  He has clearly chosen to try and keep the AC as a global communion and many times used the word "church"  to describe it ........ this marks the  end of the muddled, compromised, middle-of-the road club which you may prefer. 

The good news is that you are not alone, if you are a "liberal", and it looks increasingly like there will be two "Anglican communions", with a liberal one led by TEC(USA) and having more than one Gene Robinson, as they will be free of AC moratoria. This won't be good for Gene's book sales but might be good for the AC. I think +Winchester and others who talk of an amicable split are wise. We would all be happier in honest, genuine  alignments. So, I would like to see a situation in which liberal English parishes were  free to join "TEC Global" and non-revisionist TEC(USA) parishes were free to join the Anglican Communion.  No law suits about property and money. No more fighting about theology. No more "don't ask, don't tell" hypocrisy. All will be aligned with like-minded people locally and around the world and can go forward without all the backbiting of recent years.  Pls be clear, I am not so keen to exclude you or Adrian but for there to be sustainable, honest relationships and a healthy communion....or even, a church. We could achieve this by  being honest that we are never going to reconcile the views of Gene Robinson and Michael Nazir Ali, are we? If I have picked extremes, then we are never going to reconcile the views of K.J.Schori and Tom Wright, are we?   Much better if we admit there are 2 clear groups (maybe 3 with those who are practically RC in their practice) and have an amicable split. The alternative is more years and decades of in-fighting as people continue to try to reconcile the unreconcileable.....and fail. Unity is only going to be possible in groups which share a genuine basis for unity -  this is  what the ABC needs to accept or he will be leading us into more years of in-fighting. Things can be much better for all sides - we just need to be honest about the realities of the AC and have an amicable split so revisionists are free to revise whatever they want (happily, together, without Akinola and even nice "open" evangelicals asking for moratoria etc) and the rest of us are free to get on with being less muddled, less middle-of-the road Anglicans with a high view of scripture (because that is what we are)

Adrian incorrectly labelling respected theologians like Dr Packer as "biblical literalists" does not diminish the biblical stance or arguments of Dr Packer and many others, including many who would not consider themselves "conservative" in any sense. Are all who reject the rights-based "new thing" of TEC now to be labelled "biblical literalists"? Even nice "open" evangelicals?

The reason that Rowan Williams, a respected theologian, does not push his personal views on certain issues is that even his huge brainpower and past writings did not convince many other theologians in the AC, even some of his friends, and have not changed what he calls "the mind of the Communion". Dr WIlliams shows a great humility about his personal views and also a great desire for unity...... I prefer his approach to that of some bishops who merely assert that issues are not "first order" and hope everyone might roll over and pretend we are united despite all the evidence to the contrary since the divisive actions of TEC in 2003.

I will go on about the bible, Adrian, because the main issue causing division in the AC is the authority of scripture.

It is not at all surprising that a pluralist should not agree with the views of evangelicals .....

Rowan Williams may not be an evangelical, but he is not a pluralist....so, it is not surprising that a pluralist should not like his stance on church unity and his desire that the GAFCON bishops should return.

Opposing, contradictory views on scripture and authority in the church can never be united genuinely. We are currently living through the consequences of decades of  pretending  "unity" is possible when people hold unreconcileable views on primary issues like the authority of scripture......in the end, those who believe in the authority of scripture, even the nice "open" people,  cannot accept any "new thing" which is incomaptible with scripture  -  it is good if the pluralists and atheists and social campaigners in the AC are realising this (at last).

Clare - a TV programme would be great but don't think I am the right person.......however, I would like to see Tom Wright vs Richard Dawkins in a TV debate.........

Dawkins would get a surprise as he would not be able to pull out straw men and easily knock them down..........not sure he would be converted (as that requires a miracle), but I am sure he would not look quite so clever in that debate.

Bizarre show....not sure why these four leaders think it will be effective to try to get people to follow sets of moral rules when they have no faith.....giving people moral rules is not preaching the gospel.

They are putting the cart before the horse and reinforcing the common misunderstanding that the faith is all about morality.

Shame they did not use the opportunity to talk of Romans 5:8 to the people in the group and the people watching.

Thanks for your message, Pete.

Of course I would not have a problem endorsing such a call (as I say below)

Not sure you are right that the Archbishops fell short in anything apart from knowing how to deal with "have you stopped beating your wife?" questions from the western press.....when Archbishop Jensen made his clarification (for the press!) after the African Archbishops spoke, they were quite happy.....no evidence that they did not accept what he said or his clarification.They may however have wondered why it was necessary, if they did not realise what  headline the questions were trying to get! 

Given Primatial statemememts have spoken against violence and given the Primates in question have never endorsed violence and given those who try to smear the GS Primates cannot show that they endorse violence, I think we ought to be truthful about the facts when accusations are made against these men and no evidence is provided that they support any kind of violence.