Joan Bakewell's radio programmes this week are very good.Marina Warner today most inspiring. And David Starkey defending the vital-ity of the C of E yesterday.

Great stuff....

Nobody minds debate and discussion......debate is going on all the time but not all views are persuasive.. debates cannot go on forever just because some are not persuasive.  Thankfully, the CofE and the AC are slowly moving away from the deceptive and destructive idea that we must include in leadership  those who want to be in the Communion on the basis that their rejection of its existing common mind is accepted or even promoted.  Brazen request!  But it nearly worked.....

The AC hierarchy may be finally understanding that  a house divided against itself cannot stand.....so we are getting a covenant which is acceptable to most  ......key point...acceptable to most....it is not acceptable to a few in the AC but .....we're getting it because the positions taken by some are not acceptable to  most, after all!  It cannot include all....trying to do that is the (non-biblical) error of the last few decades.  And, an ABC from "the left" has to lead the process which defines what is not acceptable and maybe how to deal with it, thereby disciplining the "far left".  Mysterious ways? Probably for the best.....harder for people to pretend it was a partisan leadership and not the mind of the Communion.

It was a clever idea to get an organisation to house and pay some trying to subvert it ....even if it needed some deception  (don't ask, don't tell, a nod and a wink)  - but in all the decades of that kind of duplicity and gaining a foothold, revisionist arguments have persuaded few and emptied churches.  The ABC seems to accept this reality even if he might wish that we all stuck together regardless  -  thankfully, some liberals have forced his hand because they are impatient with the slow progress of their agenda  (I respect those in the US who put their principles before politics and "playing the long game" strategies - we may disagree but they are at least out in the open with their beliefs and willing to take the consequences, even if their experience in the last 6 years is that few real consequences come (e.g. see Lambeth invitations))

The ABC moves towards a covenant........... trouble is, revisionists know that all they have to do is sign up but with no intention of upholding the spirit of the covenant. Even some evangelicals might celebrate revisionists signing up, as if that would represent any real intention to uphold the spirit of the covenant, as if it will mean anything more than just further years of some tearing the fabric of the Communion with few willing to do anything meaningful in response....

Or has the ABC now realised that real responses, not faux indabas minus a proper Zulu resolution respected by all, are needed to stop a small group of revisionists unilaterally ripping apart AC unity when they cannot change the mind of the Communion through their arguments (theological and emotional)?    He may have....he has seen a lot of doublespeak and actions not fitting words....even just this year, post GC09 he was assured nothing had changed......but it was obvious that it had....and now the assurances look like lies.  He seems a very patient man (too patient, maybe) but perhaps he has lost patience at last with those who have not been that trustworthy in their dealings with him...... I hope so because most Anglicans have no problem with the covenant including section 4 being effective in disciplining those who cannot persuade the AC but break unity through unilateral actions...... if the ABC gets a covenant which is really effective in building unity accepted (i.e. it excludes those who cannot sign with integrity...even if they might sign with fingers crossed....)  he will have done a great job......for the unity of the CofE and the AC....and the church catholic.   

If someone acknowledges the Bible is supernatural, but disagrees with the club rule number 1, the statement 'Jesus Christ is Lord' then clearly they have a problem with squaring that view with some resurrection and even birth miracle texts.

Of course, the Bible was written by people who believed supernatural things, whereas today we assume that problems and questions have practical this-worldly solutions (even believers, those who throw a switch and become supernatural when a religious question is asked).

I'm quite happy to use biblical texts to suggest in all probability that there was no resurrection or miraculous conception, nor do I come to any such conclusion that 'Jesus Christ is Lord' - and I will debate equally with those who have a low view of the supernatural (say they are conservative postmodernists) and yet do conclude that 'Jesus Christ is Lord' in some sort if internal meaningful way.

Actually I think there is some shaking out going on. As the Church narrows the people who were trying to argue for greater reform and inclusion (I sometimes have done this - I have stopped now) have fallen away (as I have). The Church has also lost the ethical argument now. What is interesting is the people having the most difficulty over this and their own responses - people very committed to being a Christian and also still pursuing an inclusive ethic. They are better off in the United States and Canada, but elsewhere it is becoming more and more difficult. It is why, if they want to succeed, this Covenant has to fail. If the Covenant is passed, their position becomes untenable (I would say, however much many will go on trying).

I noticed the other day a female bishop of the Metropolitan Community Church was getting a duffing over on Revelation TV (I know, where do I get my entertainment!) up against a biased presenter and a Free Presbyterian, for goodness sake. It struck me that half her problem was that she was sticking to an evangelical and Catholic view of Christianity. Her liberalism was social and inclusive based. If she had been more consistent, she could have taken the two of them on more successfully. They had a Pagan on some weeks back and she was rather better at holding her ground, despite receiving the same treatment. I would join her group far quicker than I'd join theirs.

To Pluralist, 
If one looks as you ahve done at the human history of Christianity it is mixed, but the NT is the record of the communities that started to witness what Jesus Christ had done.

The fundamentalism you seem to be referring to is that which looks not to human failings but to that first revelation of God to the diverse communities you refer to.

To me liberal Christianity is a complete deception, it seems close but under examination is a bigger rejection and disbelief than one's average non-believer. I know someone who said they can't accept Jesus Christ as Lord but they acknowledge the Bible is supernatural and not a human product alone. Contrast that with some liberals who think only by their reason can God's word be either accepted or rejected, ot me that is exactly what the serpent did with Eve.

There are two religions and the problem with the Anglican Communion is (accepting those who believe the word of God) Jesus warned a house divided cannot stand. 

That's not the New Testament I read. The New Testament is full of argument and variety, and the Christian communities of that time were even more diverse than it includes. Fundamentalism is so self-deceptive. Even a look at the recent History of Christianity summary series showed variety and argument from the very beginning, indeed variety and adaptability is what has allowed Christianity to maintain itself, until modern times in Europe. Many people seem to be throwing around terms like 'proof' and 'truth' here, as something in 'context' - yes, so narrow a context that there is no proof or truth left where most people read, most people live.

Not surprised you have given up, Junius....not one good argument from you below....back to the thread.... 

In defence of Rowan Williams , he does not pretend the mind of the Communion is anything different to what it is i.e. it has not been persuaded by decades of revisionist arguments.  But, he wants all to be united despite contradictory views but that is not acceptable to most in the AC...precisely because they have not been persuaded by all those decades of revisionist arguments.

Unfortunately, Rowan Williams is working for institutional unity  -  trying to keep together the vast majority of Anglicans who uphold the 2000 year old teaching of the church catholic and those who want the AC to tolerate and condone the opposite...his approach is only in the interests of a small group of revisionists who have failed to persuade the Communion to change its mind.....not the unity spoken of in the new testament which is based on common belief / faith. 

As a result of the focus on institutional unity, some "liberals" are angry with the ABC because he will not push their agenda (but he cannot given so few are persuaded by the arguments for change)...... those "liberals" understand better what the ABC is doing than some evangelicals want to  persuade themselves that he is defending the teaching of the church ..... but he is not.   He is working for a synthesis, an accomodation of revisionist ideas even though few are persuaded.... the ABC's approach is only helpful to those wanting to change the mind of the Communion an inch at a time.

...and I've done it again, putting stuff in the wrong thread. I've discovered that it's by having multiple tabs open - the editor assumes you're adding to the last tab you opened, not the one you click 'add' on.

Sorry. Again.

wggrace. As you say, I don't play text-tennis, so I'll limit myself to saying that as far as I can see the Bible says nothing at all about loving, committed same-sex relationships.

nersen, I'm afraid, like other posters I've seen, I now won't bother to answer your aggressive polemic, so don't expect any more from me.

A question to throw into the mix: for how long after your country has been invaded, your culture supplanted and your home taken from you should you resist? A year? Five years, maybe ten? When would you accept defeat and resign yourself to being a second-class citizen in the land you once called yours?

Junius

I am confused as to where I used the language of 'strong' or 'weak' but doubtless you can help there.

As to the arguments, I did tackle one scripture cited by one pro-gay respondent on the Fulcrum forum to show why I thought that the 'gay' interpretation was wrong (is that a better word than 'weak') (posted 13/12/09 on the TEC crosses the rubicon thread). Perhaps you could comment on that. I am not aware of any scriptural arguments from you for full acceptance of homosexual practice but I admit that I haven't trawled your postings very thoroughly. Perhaps you could offer a text and your interpretation of it and we could discuss it. I know that you don't like text-tennis, assuming that your reference to it was sarcastic, and so would you like to offer not just the text but how the text means what you think it means?

As for my arguments being 'thin', I did at least offer some argument and a reference where a 'thick'  version of the argument could be consulted but your last post offered no argument at all, thick or thin. So your accusation could be returned. But I would not counsel silence if you would like to offer some argument.

Junius...stop digging -  that is not what they (or I) said.....certain arguments have not changed "the mind of the Communion" on certain issues......they are, therefore, weak compared to arguments which have led to change on other issues.....get it?  

Your logic is weak -  since we have been persuaded on certain issues, it does not follow that we must change on others    -  especially if, after decades of trying, revisionist views have failed to change what the ABC calls "the mind of the Communion".  

Junius

"You say that the arguments about remarriage are strong, and the arguments about LGBT people are weak, and that, therefore, the method is not the issue but the arguments. What you signally fail to do is to engage with the arguments in any way, just labelling them 'strong' 'weak'."

In the first place, I did no such thing.  In fact, I avoided making a judgment on the quality of the argument.  Instead, I said Nerson's response was on topic, and didn't deserve summary dismissal.  He certainly did not deserve to be treated like an idiot who is incapable of understanding an argument.  Which is what you did.

In the second place...  If you think I am either incapable or unwilling to engage the arguments of a homosexual apologist, then you simply haven't been reading my posts on this site.

carl