Comments: New Orleans: reports from UK, Australia

Well, the words of the Primate of Australia are bound to disappoint NP and his/her Calvinist friends:

"I think a number of churches in the Anglican communion are struggling with this issue. The United States, Canada, England itself, Australia, has done some preliminary work on the questions. So the discussion is going on all around the world, and I think it's only to be expected that at some stage, future Lambeth Conferences will consider the matter again. Lambeth 110 is an important resolution that we need to give proper weight to, but it's not the final word."

And, to further throw water on the smoldering flames of fundamentalist anger, the Archbishop notes, earlier in his interview with Australian Broadcasting, that "the Lambeth Conference does not have any legislative power in the Anglican communion, and its resolutions are advisory...."

So, we have the Primates of Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Mexico, Scotland, South Africa, United States, and Wales, as well as the CoE's Archbishop of York, and prominent bishops of other Provinces, making it clear that either this is not to be a meeting resulting in anyone's exclusion, and/or that these issues of scriptural interpretation about the impact of sexual orientation are not even core issues for the Anglican Communion.

Gee whiz, maybe next we'll be paying attention to the Sermon on the Mount, and other aspects relating to the core issues of the mission of Christ.

Posted by Jerry Hannon at Friday, 21 September 2007 at 5:12pm BST

"He [the ABC] should use them to convince the diverging sections of the Communion that a sincere difference of opinion exists, and that, since the time taken so far to resolve the issues has clearly not been enough, more time is needed."

Time enough for what? Compromise---as TEC has done again, and again, and again?

Or time to continue invading TEC's territory, to foment schism?

In these "the diverging sections of the Communion", one side has been playing fairly (TEC & friends, to be specific), and one side (the "Vocal South" & fellow travellers---esp. their funders from North America) hasn't. The ABC NEEDS to name names, and clearly!

Posted by JCF at Friday, 21 September 2007 at 6:57pm BST


I don't know if you saw the posting a few weeks ago where one suscriber told us not to bring the whole sermon on the mount into the debate.

I nearly fell off my chair laughing.

That same poster recently queried if we thought there were influences other than Jesus in play in their church. Well, if they don't like having Jesus quoted at them, it does lead to some ponderings, doesn't it?

Posted by Cheryl Clough at Friday, 21 September 2007 at 11:11pm BST


No, I missed that one. Some of these people must really be Christian pretenders who have totally lost the huge Christian forest for the few carefully selected scripture-snippet trees. It's beyond sad.

Posted by Jerry Hannon at Saturday, 22 September 2007 at 5:04am BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.