Liberal has been used in conservative christian circles as a general term of abuse and a multitude of positions have been swept into this bag. I see the liberal theologian as someone who has been convinced by philosphy or culture that you cannot expect to be taken seriously if you still believe "that". The liberal then seeks to reformulate his faith in a way which overcomes the objection. The liberal will often see his work as apologetic while the conservative sees him as part of the attack. Liberal pictures of Jesus failed in the 19th century buy turning him into a European gentleman and in the 20th Century it did not have the moral vision to opose Hitler in Germany.

Liberal values now appear to amount to rights, equality, justice and utillity. Things are only valued on the basis of their value to man. Value is determined by the market so the poor have no voice. 

Where does the liberal draw his strength from? The reason, experience and values he shares with all mankind or the church tradition he is modifying. If he is not careful he is like the man sawing off the branch he is sitting on.

I have found recent posts very difficult to follow. the trouble seems to be that attempts are being made to read other peoples minds, which is impossible. As a result the worst of motives are being ascribed to others. I am tempted to suggest that the time has come if not to"grow up" at least to "shut up".

The queastion seems to be: do the responsibilities of readers mean that they should be subject to the same requirements ordained clergy. As they are often used in a similar way to non-stipendary clergy I would suggest there is a good case for this.

Yes, of course people should know what the consequences of sucessful completion of the training will be.

I think it would be a good thing if the church could make theological education available to members, on the basis of degree level modules even of they wew not meeting the full requirements for lay readers ofr would only reach this over an extended period.

I think or at least hope that the Fulcrum response is little pessamistic. My reading of the siuation is that TEA were walking in a different dirction from most of the AC before 2003. Events of 2003 moved this from theology to practice. This years GC shows a move towards the rest of the GC, althought not as much as hoped for. I would hope that TEA can now be described as on a convergent path, probably with a still distant meeting point although still out of step.

I see the Windsor process as a means of restoring relationships beween the chuches to how they were towards the end of the last century. The Covenant, as drafted in the report, deals with relationships not doctrine.

I understand ++Rowan Williams to be a consistent supporter of the Windsor report since its publication. He is merely stateing this more firmly.

The process should be continued slowly if this means there are more on board at the end of the day.

Oliver O'Donovan's sermon on the role of bishops at the consecration of +Tom Wright is also relevant to the ongoing dialogue within the chuch.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/aroundtheweb/consecration_of_the_bishop_of_durham_oliver_odonovans_sermon

Christians seem to be named by others rather than choosing thier own name as in Merthodist or God Squad. The early christians seem to have been called "followers of the Way"  Acts 24:13. Acts 11:26 suggests that the name Christian was given by the people of Antioch. I have had several goes at definitions on this thread and "What is an Evangelical Anglican?" I think that a definition should be short, enable identification and indicate rh substance of the matter. Evangelical is used in Europe to mean Protestant. It has been used and abused in naming sects. So my definations are:

Anglican refering to the Anglican Communion as growing out of the Chuch of England. This gives us a tradition in church order, worship and theology.

Evangelical is an emphasis on Good News as recorded in the gospels and preached by the apostles.

Conservative is the definition of Christianity as all and only what is found in the Bible.

Charismatic refers to an expectation of what God will do now in changing us, blessing us and enpowering us.

Open is a willingness to listen to the wider church and the world in positive rather than defensive way.

Centre I understand as refering to the vast majority of evangelicals in the Church of England who want to work together on the basis of mutual respect and understanding.

A further problem is how we understand the gospel. Evangelicals naormaly interpret is as a reply to "What must I do to be saved?" +Tom Wright however points out that the New Testament meaning is the proclamation that Jesus is the earth's true Lord. This Lordship can only be fullyaccepted in the context of his people and church. Justification is incorpoarion into the people who will be shown to be on the right side at the end of time. How central is +Tom's vision to a Fulcrumesque understanding.

Oh and Fulcumesque, the dynamic of balance under tension?

I understood that the realisation of sexuality was a teenage thing. The realisation of gender comes much earlier. If the realisation of sexuality is more of a change in identity for gays I would have thought a large part of it is a move away from a belief that they will grow up to be like their fathers. Accepting the testimony of homosexuals that their sexuality is something that they discover rather than choose, I do not know if there would be any practical advantages to resolving the nature/nurture debate. This is a question that psycologists tend to raise about all human qualities and problems rather than a peculiarity of the homosexual debates.

David 

I agree that this statement is a positive call for unity. Yet the press seems united in treating it as a move towards schism. My reading is that ++Rowan Williams position has not changed. He supports the Windsor report as the best way forward as he has done since it was published.

David

The question of the proceedure for implementing an Anglican Covenant was raised a few days ago. A proposed proceedure is given in the Windsor Report para 118. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/section_c/p9.cfm

The report also gives a posible draft in Apendix B

These proposals differ significantly from the covenant Colin Slee  fears in his letter to the Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2247853.html

The draft covenant affirms the authority of Scripture in general terms rather than defining the biblical standards of Anglican doctrine. The Windsor draft is a proceedural document dealing with the responsibilities of the individual churches to the Communion and each other.

An interesting article.  I think you are describing two ways this mechanism works. In your example it is limiting the chance of a further male child to a family with only male children already. If so is this a very weak mchanism. I understood that the advice to a family with 3 male children that the chances of a girl next time was still 50/50? As you are saying that the maleness increases how alien the foetus is? Does this mean that it does not affect female foetuses in the same way? Secondly it makes younger sons more likely to be gay. 

I don't think this is an evolutionary step as such. I understand an evolutionary step to mean that a change has occured and been established in a way that is passed on to the next generation. There is no suggestion that this mechanism has not always been in the human species.