Paul Avis' article is an eloquent defence of the Covenant.  However, whilst I agree with him that the future of the Anglican Communion is in jeopardy, I don't agree with this assessment that it will be fixed or that the Covenant is the only way to resolve matters.  Given the tortuous history of the last eight years, or longer if you cast back to Lambeth 1998, it seems much more likely that the various national churches that comprise the Anglican communion will simply go there own way.  Some will turn down the Covenant because they fear it does too much, for others because it does too little, still others because there constitutions prevent acceptance (which is potentially the Australian situtation, even if Sydney was on board, which it is not).  So the "bonds of affection", which may have been little more than a common worship that went the way of the Dodo once the BCP (1662) was replaced by contemporary litiguries, will get weaker and weaker.  The Global South will continue but the TEC will simply die and there is little that people of goodwill or otherwise can do to change the situation.  Perhaps for the good of all the efforts should change to separating with as much goodwill as is possible, rather than trying to save what has already been lost.

Roger,

Thank you for your response of the 19th July and I am glad that you found the articles by Luke Timothy Johnson and Eve Tushnet to be helpful and valuable.

I'd be interested to know whether I am reading your response to wggrace of the 20th July correctly if I were to include yourself amongst those who you think have argued similarly to Johnson on this thread. I think that you do but what I don't see is the same clear recognition as Johnson gives that he is setting aside specific scriptures for the sake of its larger narratives.  For instance when you set out your on presuppositions on 23rd June you wrote:

• I believe that the bible is inspired by God and speaks with his authority.
• Although much of the scriptural text and narrative are clear and unambiguous there are places where that text is opaque and open to various interpretations.
• On such occasions, not least, the context of the text or narrative becomes crucial.  I do not see the classic 'anti-gay' texts as clearly and incontrovertibly addressing faithful, committed gay relationships.

Putting aside that both the second and third bullet points are actually conclusions, as wggrace pointed out, my impression is still that you are taking refuge in ambiguity.  Apologies if you are not but can we put this to the test? Are you able to say, with the same boldness and clarity of Johnson, that you are setting aside and contravening certain scriptures for the Gospel's sake?  This might move the discussion on to whether the Gospel does in fact require this of us.

However, where I think we will continue to disagree is in relation to the role of experience and how it is to be evaluated.  You comment that:

Although her article ostensibly sets out to contradict Johnson's approach, I feel she still looks to her carefully assessed experience as pivotal in understanding her love for other women and God's love for her.  As I have argued elsewhere, I believe she is 'biblical' to do so.

But this misses entirely Eve Tushnet's own comments on the difficulty of understanding ourselves and the fallibility of experience.  For precisely these reasons she looks not to own experience but subjects it to scripture and the guidance of the Church's teaching.  In the end she trusts not in her private experience and judgment but in the grace and rich resources made available to us through the Church.  Not only does she not look in the direction you say but I think that she would not regard it as either 'biblical' or an appropriate path to take.  I would have thought that the travails of the TEC over its abrogation to itself of the right to (corporately expressed) private judgment are a sufficient illustration of why Catholics baulk at your approach.

Dave,

David Bentley Hart has written a "beginner's guide" to John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" here: http://davidbhart.blogspot.com/2007/11/anti-theology-of-body.html

I confess that I haven't read through all the posts on this long thread but I see more attempts at exegesis than investigations of presuppositions.  Some (a few?) think that the scripture clear and negative on this issue and a range of others have put forward somewhat tentative cases for revision.  However, what seems to unite both sides is a conviction that the scriptures, rightly understood, will ultimately validate their position.  Perhaps this is as it should be on a (largely) evangelical site.  However, not being an evangelical, I'd like to ask whether scripture alone will satisfy either party.  My impression of the scriptures is that the easiest cases to build are of heterosexual polygamy or celibacy.  Beyond this you have to make a theological case for monogamy and the materials to build such case clearly favour the traditional reading.  I think it unsurprising, but will perhaps be disputed, to note that the scriptures, in so far as they address same sex relations, are uniformly negative.   You don't have to be a conservative on this issue (although I am) to form such a judgment.  For instance, Luke Timothy Johnson arguing for acceptance of same sex relations in the June 2007 edition of Commonweal remarked that:

He goes on to argue a broader theological justification that goes beyond scripture in a way that, he believes, faithfully engages with scripture at the same time as departing from it.  I don't think that his argument is successful, and the traditional stance as expounded immediately after by Eve Tushnet holds more sway for me, but I think that Johnson's argument holds more promise than the many suggestions on this thread that just possibly the scriptures don't mean what the consensus (now and past) regards them as saying, or that what they condemn is not what some want to affirm.

Both Luke Timothy Johnson and Eve Tushnet have a proper Catholic regard for the interplay of scripture, tradition, reason and experience and on this broader canvas seem to achieve a better level of exchange than exhibited here.  You can read the full exchange here (if the link works) http://commonwealmagazine.org/homosexuality-church-1

So from a Catholic to evangelicals, my suggestion is that you dispense with the presupposition of "sola scriptura" when discussing this issue (and indeed others).

Pluralist, I can't see why the covenant being "illegal" is such a barrier.  The Church of England could simply dis-establish and give up its Erastian ways that are simply an accident of history.  In doing so it would lose nothing of importance, join the rest of the AC and would then be "free" to sign the covenant. 

L. Roberts, Dean Jeffrey John, whom you would expect to be sympathetic to your position, is candid enough to note his “Permanent, Faithful, Stable” essay that the Bishops do not regard a same sex union as on par with heterosexual marriage and that such parity is not compatible with a faithful reflection of the insights that God has given through scripture, tradition and reasoned reflection on experience.  Might it be, as Peter notes below, that “Issues” simply provides a pastoral response in dealing with laity who conscientiously dissent from the Church’s teaching and that in reading acceptance within “Issues” you are seeing more your hope than the reality?  Rather than there being two standards within the CofE on this issue might it not be the case that there is one standard but that only clergy is held to the standard given their role as an exemplar and the undesirability of being too prescriptive over the lives of the laity? And if chronology has the significance you suggest then should not “Issues” from 1991 be qualified by Lambeth 1.10 from 1998, which, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has noted remains the “mind of the Communion”?  I do not see why you believe that the CofE or Fulcrum has been dishonest in holding to a traditional view of sexual ethics.  Equally I am at a loss as to why you believe that there has not been much of a listening process when resources such as the book edited by Phil Groves have been produced.  Do you not believe that it may be possible for others to listen to you but to respectfully disagree? And might it not be possible that those who do continue to disagree and challenge you do so with an open heart, desirous of your good?

Roland

Whether the two versions have the same message or not (which they do) was not actually my point.  What I should have said is if the version released to Fulcrum was edited by a representative of the Barnabas Fund rather than the authors, then it would be just one more reason why Fulcrum was justified in calling it a Barnabas Fund Response.

Out of interest, has the Barnabas Fund clarified who edited the original article by David Zeidan and Tawfik Hamid?  What it the authors or was it Mark Green or another at the Barnabas Fund? Re-shaping the original article to the "presuppositions and terms of discourse of many in the Fulcrum constituency" sits oddly with the tone original and looks more like the work of a third party.

Regardless, if representatives an organisation seek the right to a response, procure the production of that response, act as the principal liaison in providing a response, and then are the conduit for the provision of the response, including use of that organisation's email, they cannot credibly turn around and disclaim that response.  The line that it is not an "official" response because it wasn't branded that way is a mere fig-leaf and if a Muslim was to maintain such a tendentious account then, why, they might just be accused of practicing taqiyya.

Obadiahslope (whose name is John) is being less than frank and is engaging in false humility.  He would not have the regular column that he does, in the publication in which it appears, without being well known and well connected to the leadership of the Sydney Diocese.  He may not know the authorship of the GAFCON documents but he could easily find out by placing one or two calls.  It is hard to fathom way a Fairfax trained journalist has suddenly lost his curiosity.