Comments: New Orleans: Monday morning

"US bishops try to find compromise....."

I wish they would just say what they believe to be right rather than just looking for compromise (out of fear that the club might shrink)!

I find VGR and Spong more honest than the political fudgemakers like the ABC - at least they say what they believe and stand by their positions.

"Let your yes be yes and your no be no" - good advice from someone who did know, speak and love the truth.

Posted by NP at Monday, 24 September 2007 at 11:19am BST

Well, if preliminary news is any indicator, the ABC pulled a "Chamberlain" and the AC is finished. Of course, it was finished in its current form anyhow. But, the ABC's chance to moderate a measured and gradual transition to a more structured form that might have continued to serve as a relatively unified voice and organization for world-wide Anglicanism appears to have been lost. This will be good news to some and bad news to others.

For Rowan Williams, unless he can pull some mighty fat rabbits out of his pointy hat in the months ahead, it means that he will be remembered as the last ABC to head a real world-wide Anglican Communion as well as the one on whose "watch" the whole thing fell apart. What will be left of the AC under the ABC after the dust settles is subject to dispute, but it will doubtless be smaller and of less import in the world at large. Meanwhile, in the US, the decline of TEC will accelerate as it continues to "purify" itself of conservatives.


Posted by Steven at Monday, 24 September 2007 at 1:37pm BST

it seems that Jeffrey Steenson's resignation is completely honourable.

Posted by Pluralist at Monday, 24 September 2007 at 2:40pm BST

Ah yes, swim the Tiber...afterall, over on that side of the divide most everyone, including the Pope, must pretend "things are different" than they really are or they would lose up to half of their clergy (both on the ground and in upper secret chambers)...seems like a really smart move for +Steenson to make (or anyone else who can't cope with finding REAL solutions to fear, injustice and degerative scriptural/spiritual fantasy).

Posted by Leonardo Ricardo at Monday, 24 September 2007 at 3:36pm BST

Steven says that the AC "will doubtless be smaller and of less import in the world at large"

I am afraid that all of us probably make the mistake of thinking that Anglicanism is much more important than it is! It is not very important in England today and is even less important in the US and the rest of the world.... representing at best 1% of the global population (even if we pretend the CofE contains 26m people - which it does not, divide by 10 and you are closer but still above real CofE membership!)

Therefore, 99% of the world ain't too bothered about Anglicanism or Anglican politics......they are lucky not to be wasting their time in badly managed Anglican organisations with too many bishops who say one thing and then are quite happy to do another.....maybe that is part of the reason why Anglicanism is not that important in the world today.

Posted by NP at Monday, 24 September 2007 at 5:06pm BST

"It seems that Jeffrey Steenson's resignation is completely honourable."

Yes. From what he wrote, he went by the book. He writes graciously about PB Jefferts Schori and is looking to make his leaving graceful for his diocese. I note that although he says TEC has gone places where he cannot follow, he does not claim to have been 'driven' or 'purified' out of it.

I wish others would follow his example and leave gracefully.

I am sorry to lose a man of such integrity [although obviously not of Integrity! - sorry - can't resist silly jokes].

Posted by Cynthia at Monday, 24 September 2007 at 5:55pm BST

Wow--NP is really AP columnist Rachel Zoll!

Congratulations! Quote from Radner? Check. Kendall Harmon? Check.

Posted by Slope at Monday, 24 September 2007 at 6:20pm BST

I belong the TEC because I enjoy the style of worship and the community I belong to is very special. I don't go to church to be saved or to get a behavior modification/Token Economy ticket into heaven. The ABC I feel was pushed into a corner. He had a choice, caring for all people or just those who belong to a certain population. He choose all baptized.

Some might think of him as the chap who let the AC fall apart and some might remember him as the man who said, all people are God's children and deserve respect and love. Even thought the hour is late, he came through!

Posted by BobinSwPA at Monday, 24 September 2007 at 6:23pm BST

Bishop Steenson is indeed a very honorable man and I am not surprised by this news, especially by the gracious way he has spoken.

Posted by Davis d'Ambly at Monday, 24 September 2007 at 6:29pm BST

Sorry, Steven, but I just cannot countenance the blatant dishonesty of your closing sentence.

The only "purging" that has been attempted in all of this has been by "conservatives."

Note that I have put quotation marks around conservatives, because I refuse to apply that honorable descriptor to those who are motivated by a desire for schism, destruction and rage.

By contrast, we have seen integrity and decency from real conservatives like Henderson of Upper South Carolina, Howe of Central Florida and even Steenson of Rio Grande. I may agree with these three on practically nothing, but I respect them for the honesty with which they have conducted themselves.

Oddly, I cannot summon the same respect for those like Duncan of Pittsburgh or Akinola of Abuja who have made Karl Rove look a right amateur in using hate as a wedge.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Monday, 24 September 2007 at 6:44pm BST

Don't be silly, Slope - Rachel Zoll writes in sentences!

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Monday, 24 September 2007 at 8:15pm BST

I think that the Archbishop did the right thing, and that was next to nothing. He gave a 'lecture' on being a bishop, though it was criticised for not including the role of bringing in the marginalised. He listened a lot, and then went elsewhere. The House of Bishops should so take this cue, to make some provision for those in some sort of doctrinal difficulty, and then present itself for inclusion in the Lambeth Conference for what anyone wants to talk about. Those others can then exclude it or stay away, if this is what they want to do. Or do nothing.

There are lots of different denominations in the US so a few more won't make a great deal of difference. We may as well see how this all works out. It's put up and shut up time for those who have said they want to act.

Posted by Pluralist at Monday, 24 September 2007 at 9:59pm BST

The "We the People" article is inspiring.

I always think of a calendar year running from December 2004 to November 2005. The bump in unnatural disasters and their consequences is well outside the bell curve of normality.

What I like about Dr Gus Newport is that he shows a Fear of God. He acknowledges the extent of the devastation caused by the hurricanes that year and New Orleans looked/s worst than a war zone; similar to SE Asia after the tsunami or Pakistan after the quake. He also sees that the rebuilding of such cities and communities is a beacon of light and hope, not just to those communities and souls; but to other parts of the world that may have been ravaged by corruption, war, famine, plague or tyranny.

I will always think if New Orleans as the God's Ground Zero in the US's recent history. God tore down the walls to expose the nastiness and failings. The white washing was stripped away, the priorities of regimes with their consequences exposed. I was so proud of the leaders who admitted that it was a disaster, who were prepared to say so and they didn't care if the CIA killed them. That they had been wrong to say that it was not apocalyptic, because it was.

It brought the bible to life and made it relevant for our times e.g. Isaiah 5:25 "dead bodies are like refuse in the streets" or Ezekiel 13 God "...will tear down the wall you have covered with whitewash and will level it to the ground so that its foundation will be laid bare... I will spend my wrath against the wall and against those who covered it with whitewash. I will say to you, “The wall is gone and so are those who whitewashed it, those prophets of Israel who prophesied... and saw visions of peace... when there was no peace...”"

Thank you NP for admitting respect for those who’s Yes means Yes!

Hopefully as more of the cruel shenanigans are exposed about how some souls use their power and position to constrict life out of parishes and/or communities (e.g. banning a parish from advertising or recruiting a minister) then some souls will come to realise that the growth numbers are being "fudged" and that there is a heavy price being paid by some parishioners for refusing to submit to repressive accusatory theology.

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Monday, 24 September 2007 at 10:06pm BST

Steven wrote:
"For Rowan Williams, unless he can pull some mighty fat rabbits out of his pointy hat in the months ahead, it means that he will be remembered as the last ABC to head a real world-wide Anglican Communion as well as the one on whose "watch" the whole thing fell apart. What will be left of the AC under the ABC after the dust settles is subject to dispute, but it will doubtless be smaller and of less import in the world at large. Meanwhile, in the US, the decline of TEC will accelerate as it continues to "purify" itself of conservatives."

I've been thinking about this whole proposition for some time, and I think it's time the "conservatives" learnt a little of their own history. They are indeed the innovators, Anglicanism's answer to multi-national conglomerates, with the Anglican Communion as their brand, product and main commodity. Their bishops should come with a provenance stamp and a health warning on the label - something along the lines of "may contain traces of lead".

Rowan's only rabbit is to return to being the bishop of a diocese in England; the mess he is managing was set up chiefly by his jetsetting predecessor. Maybe that's exactly what Anglican Global Inc needs more of at this point.

Posted by kieran crichton at Tuesday, 25 September 2007 at 1:57am BST

Steven wrote: "For Rowan Williams, unless he can pull some mighty fat rabbits out of his pointy hat in the months ahead, it means that he will be remembered as the last ABC to head a real world-wide Anglican Communion as well as the one on whose "watch" the whole thing fell apart."

It fell apart under +Carey. Lambeth 1998.

and further: "Meanwhile, in the US, the decline of TEC will accelerate as it continues to "purify" itself of conservatives."

It seems to me that ony those that think they are "pure" can do anything of the sort. See NP's comment:

"... (even if we pretend the CofE contains 26m people - which it does not, divide by 10 and you are closer but still above real CofE membership!)"

So no qute 10% are "pure"... Back to good Dr Turnbull of Wycliffe Hall fame ;=)

Bless their poor souls.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Tuesday, 25 September 2007 at 12:57pm BST




Hmmm. Well, let's face facts shall we. In the realm of ideas, when you purge an organization of certain ideas/ideals, you necessarily purge and/or marginalize those who follow and believe in those ideas and ideals. When you force diocese and parrishes to accept female priests, you are necessarily marginalizing and/or forcing out those who don't believe in this innovation. The same is true for other innovations, including active homosexual priests and blessing gay marriages. The choice is to sit quietly and abandon your principles or leave. And, liberals certainly scream the same thing or something similar when faced with a similar prospect in the AC. Consequently, it is too clever by far to claim that TEC is not in the prospect of purifying itself of conservatives when TEC liberals are simultaneously making the same or a very similar complaint that they are being "purified" out of the AC by the "puritans" in Africa and elsewhere.


Posted by Steven at Tuesday, 25 September 2007 at 1:42pm BST

"The choice is to sit quietly and abandon your principles or leave."

I disagree. There is another choice, to accept that the majority doesn't agree with you. You can still choose to leave, or stay with the disagreeing majority. None of us have to turn this disagreement into some kind of marginalizing and oppression of "us" by "them", and that goes for both sides. There have been continued accusations of repression of the conservatives by some liberal cabal in TEC, but in each case I have read about, the parish/group in question bears some culpability. Lawful discipline isn't necessarily repression. There have equally been accusations of conspiracy from the Left against the Right. There are shady connections between the Right in TEC, and globally, and extreme ultraconservatives in the US, and a significant amount of money flows from them into Global South coffers. Some call this a conspipracy. I think that's silly. It ain't a conspiracy, it's politics. If I am unwilling to call this some kind of plot, I am certainly not going to see it in TEC, where the evidence is far less visible. But those who most loudly claim to be oppressed by the heathen liberals in TEC seem to be bothered not a whit by the fact that one of the people funding their cause calls for a return to stoning of gay people! I find it scarey. The one who pays the piper calls the tune, after all. None of them opposes, some even defend, the use of anti-gay propaganda to support their cause. I can't see in TEC the kind of marginalization you describe. How many conservative parishes were unjustly set upon by a liberal bishop without provocation?

Posted by Ford Elms at Tuesday, 25 September 2007 at 6:35pm BST

Steven, I can't believe that you could possibly expect that to be taken seriously.

The fact that Canada elected a Conservative government does not, of itself, mean that I am oppressed simply because Prime Minister Harper and I do not see eye to eye.

The fact that my present bishop is much closer to your views on sexuality than mine does not mean that I am oppressed - and it certainly doesn't mean that I am being forced out of the Church in this diocese.

If you believe that the simple fact that some (apparently substantial) number of folk disagree with you means that you are "oppressed" and need to leave, might I suggest you go have a chat with someone who has experienced REAL oppression - say a holocaust survivor, or a refugee from Rwanda, or a 9-11 widow.

Then pray for perspective.

Howe of Central Florida agrees with you on virtually every point. So does Henderson of Upper South Carolina. So does Steenson of Rio Grande. Yet none of them are peddling this "oppression" silliness - for silliness it is.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Tuesday, 25 September 2007 at 11:07pm BST

Malcolm, I don't recall ever saying that I was oppressed. And, it does no good to introduce absurdities into the conversation--I have not compared myself to Rwandan refugees, or 9-11 widows. The implication is not only insulting, it is a strawman argument that does nothing to advance your case.

In fact, I am no more oppressed than TEC would be by toeing the line on 1.10, the Winsor Report, and etc. TEC could, equally, choose to do what it's told and accept the voice and will of the majority in the AC. The trouble is, the medicine liberals prescribe for others they are not willing to take themselves. Ironically, if you did, I would have no basis for complaint. Physician, heal thyself. Or better still, cast the beam out of your own eye so that you can more effectively deal with the beam/mote that is in mine.


Posted by Steven at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 12:06am BST


There is no reason that Luther could not have chosen to have just "gone along" with the majority. The same is true in terms of every other issue that has caused a break in the Church. Yet, people still choose to stand on principle.

Liberals accuse conservatives of not being willing to "go along" with the majority in TEC, while simultaneously providing an example of exactly the opposite by not being willing to "go along" with the majority in the AC. Consequently, I cannot help but view arguments of this type with a jaundiced eye.

In terms of money, it is easy to criticize when you have plenty of sources of denominational cash. It is also easy to criticize the struggling minority when in the majority. However, I have not noticed from TEC's own example and the example of liberals on this board that liberals are any better at being quiet, submissive, and "going along" when the shoe is on the other foot (in terms of the AC).

And, in terms of how others may behave, I am not answerable for the behavior of every conservative any more than you are answerable for the actions of every liberal.


PS-I know 9/10ths of the above is venting rather than response. I'm probably on a bit of an emotional jag. I'll try to do better next time.

Posted by Steven at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 12:22am BST

"every other issue that has caused a break in the Church."
Indeed. And schism being a Very Bad Thing, perhaps their principled stance was the wrong one. It certainly hasn't furthered the spread of the Gospel. It HAS proven out inability to live according to the precepts we try to force on everyone else.

"not being willing to "go along" with the majority in the AC."

How is +Jensen, with his heterodox views on sacraments, for instance, "going along" with the majority? How are we in Canada being forced to accept it? Just because the current issue so occupies our attention that no-one has noticed it? This is my point, the Right seems perfectly willing to accept certain heterodoxies depending on one's position on homosexuality.

"In terms of money, it is easy to criticize when you have plenty of sources of denominational cash."

Meaning TEC is rich so the "Global South" ought to be bankrolled by someone who can put up equal funds to "level the playing field"? Even if that someone is say Ahminson or Rushdooney(?), who can then be expected to influence the ideas of the GS?

As to your tone, don't worry, I've often sounded worse! I thought it quite reasonable.

"liberals are any better at being quiet, submissive, and "going along""

Where have you been? Liberal arguments have been made for years, and continually met with defeat. They just never felt this was reason to ask for DEPO or threaten schism. They went along with the majority for years in situations where the Right has proven they would have screamed bloody murder.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 12:47pm BST


Re: Schism is bad. Yes, this means that liberals need to go along with the majority in the AC.

Re: Jensen. Yes, Jensen is wrong IMO and needs to go along with the majority in the AC. As you should know, conservatives are not monolithic on most issues, including Jensen's issues. They are united, by and large, on the homosexual issue.

Re: Money. Yes, money talks. However, I don't believe most people are motivated to go beyond what they would ordinarily want to say/do. I'm also not sure that Ahmanson has anything to say that is beyond the bounds (I just don't know much about him). And, what about liberal "bankrollers" like Soros? Do they control everything that goes on with liberals? The argument is a bit ludicrous overall. Neither liberals nor conservatives are robot slaves to the money men--money men are just useful resources.

BTW-Rushdoony is not a money man, but a Presbyterian Reconstructionist. Some folks may still be influenced by his ideas I suppose. However, from my contacts in this area it appears that Reconstructionism as a movement peaked several years ago. Something called "Federal Vision" is the new hot topic in reformed circles.

Re: Screaming. Most conservatives have sat quietly with grumbles through years of liberal innovations in TEC. It is only recently that they finally, in large numbers, screamed "enough!"


Posted by Steven at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 2:20pm BST

Time - YET AGAIN - to bookmark Jim Naughton's "Following the Money", Steven - an excellently researched and referenced study of how American Right Wing cash - much of it from sources that have no affiliation with the Episcopal Church - has bankrolled the attack on TEC. On the Amahnson/Rushdoony connection, Naughton comments "Ahmanson was a disciple of the Rev. Rousas John Rushdoony, the father of Christian Reconstructionism. Rushdoony died in 2001 with the Ahmansons at his bedside. He advocated basing the American legal system on biblical laws, including stoning adulterers and homosexuals." I will leave you to clarify whether or not you consider this "anything to say that is beyond the bounds", Steven.

Soros, bogeyman of the American Right, which believes that only right wing propaganda should be funded by private money, is, as I hope you realize, a red herring - utterly irrelevant to this argument. Soros is of Hungarian Jewish extraction. His money goes to directly "political" enterprises. Over the years he has funded such well-known left-wing enterprises as the Solidarity labor movement in Poland and the Czechoslovakian human rights organization Charter 77 - groups which spearheaded the destruction of the Soviet Empire.

If you have any evidence whatever of Mr Soros's financial involvement with the Episcopal Church, and if you did not throw his name into the argument simply as a gut-reaction attempt to muddy the waters, I will be very interested indeed to read it.

"Following the Money":

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 3:43pm BST

"They are united, by and large, on the homosexual issue."

So one's position on homosexuality is more important than one's position on, say, the sacraments? I can't agree that one is not a heretic as long as one doesn't like gay people.

"And, what about liberal "bankrollers" like Soros? "

My knowledge on that is quite limited, so please tell me more. A link or two is probably all there's room for, I guess. I do want to know more about what I have always assumed was there.

"Some folks may still be influenced by his (Rushdoony's) ideas I suppose."

Like George Bush and the IRD, maybe?

"Yes, this means that liberals need to go along with the majority in the AC."

Doesn't answer my question. Why is Robinson a reason to split the Church but +Jensen isn't?

"years of liberal innovations in TEC"
Liturgical reform? Hardly a liberal innovation, but necessary. Uppity women in collars and now miters? What other "liberal innovations" have there been? Divorce? A good many conservatives have no room at all to grumble at THAT little altering of the rules. Approving of war? Sorry, that was an innovation so long ago, we didn't recognize Con vs Lib. Usury? Oh, right, a good many conservatives make money from that one, and again, an innovation so old, they don't even remember when it used to be a sin.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 4:20pm BST

I quickly Googled Soros, and found his foundation supports:

"the creation of open, democratic societies based upon the rule of law, market economies, transparent and accountable governance, freedom of the press, and respect for human rights"

I assume George Soros is who we are talking about. Yeah, that sounds like evil incarnate! Of course, it is an official statement, and those from IRD would sound very much the same.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 4:22pm BST

The entire dubious and dishonest case for international interventions has been based on a handful of dishonest schismatics claiming against all reality that they are being "oppressed" in the Episcopal Church because of their supposedly "conservative" position. Forgive me for presuming that your language about "purgE" wasn't just more of the same.

The claim that conservatives are being driven out of the Episcopal Church is, always was and always will be a complete and utter lie.

Some conservatives have felt that they must leave. Most of them have behaved with integrity and have either left with dignity or have struggled mightily to maintain as much unity as possible within the limits of their consciences.

Other "conservatives" have peddled grotesque propaganda games as a cover for their own ambition and covetousness.

Find me a case of where a single conservative has been told - or even asked - to leave the Episcopal Church.

Show me a case of a single conservative whose honest choice to depart was met with anything but grief and regret by TEC officials.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 5:16pm BST

Hi Ford:

Soros was thrown out merely as an example of a left-wing money man. Like Ahmanson, he uses his money to help fund the things that interest him (like defeating Bush and electing democrats), and like Ahmanson, he has foundation(s) that carry on a variety of less controversial charitable work. (My familiarity with both men comes from jumping over to Wikipedia for a few minutes and the chance references and articles I have read over the years).

The Wikipedia article seems to reflect the fact that Ahmanson's Reconstructionist/Rushdoony phase is fading if not left behind. And, having been at one time very familiar with Rushdoony and others and the impact they were having in certain intellectual and theological circles, I can say that this is not unusual. Reconstructionism has lost whatever lustre it had over the years and survives, where it survives, in a much attenuated and moderated form.

However, my primary point bears repeating: Money men are useful tools, but not determinative. If Naughton or others think that Ahmanson dictates the viewpoint of Duncan, Akinola (or myself for that matter)--they are idiots. In truth, both sides (whether liberal or conservative) in a moneyman/partisan relationship are using each other to facilitate their own individual goals. Some goals they may share. This is not to say they share all of their goals or ever will.

Frankly, money is empowering and a lot of movements fail without funding from somewhere. But, it takes more than money.


Posted by Steven at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 8:42pm BST


I tried to restrict my last post to the moneyman issue. So, this one will try to touch on other matters you have raised.

If you read my recent dialog with NP, this will seem repetitive, but here goes--Robinson and similar innovations fail under all three headings: Not Christian, Not Catholic, Not Anglican; whereas Jensen's innovations only fail under the last two mentioned. Consequently, the Robinson innovation is more egregious and problematic. This doesn't mean that Jensen won't have to be dealt with at some time or another. I hope sooner rather than later, but it will probably have to wait until the current crisis is under control.

As to other innovations, you mention a few. Women priests, women bishops, the abandonment of Biblical authority and the Anglican formularies, divorce, and (for curmudgeons like me) contraception, are all problematic. Not many conservatives would agree with all of these, but as previously noted, conservatives are not monolithic any more than liberals. I'd consider the loosening of strictures against excessive interest to be problematic as well, but I can't recall that this has ever been a matter that was even discussed by the Church. I think it is time as credit/interest slavery is a fact in this country.


Posted by Steven at Wednesday, 26 September 2007 at 8:58pm BST

I hope I am misunderstanding, but are you saying that Robinson and his supporters aren't Christians? Or just that the idea that he can be a bishop is unChristian?

As to the "liberal innovations" you list, no-one "abandoned" Biblical authority. The Anglican Church has never placed all authority in Scripture, it is the Evangelicals who are innovating on this point. Also, the Anglican formularies, the Creeds, the Articles, the C/L Quadrilateral. To me it seems far more the GS who have abandoned those. And the Articles are only binding in England and were never official doctrinal statements, but an attempt to bring religious peace to England. Divorce is hardly a "liberal innovation" and it's a bit much for a conservative to decry divorce and remarriage along with gay inclusion when so many conservatives are happily divorced and remarried. "Excessive interest" is just a term invented to justify usury. It comes from around the time of the Reformation. I could just as easily, and with as muich justification, claim that the Bible forbids "excessive homosexuality". And that you don't know of the Church ever discussing it is just a result of the fact that it was discussed centuries before you were born. It was just as innovative in its day as anything"liberal" innovation you are upset by now. I agree entirely with your last sentence. That situation is why usury is a sin.

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 1:43pm BST


Re: Robinson et al. I cannot judge their Christianity, but I can say that they are supporting an un-Christian cause (as many Christians have before and since).

Re: Scriptural authority. Anglicanism never adopted sola scriptura, though it has always fought against a puritan wing that wanted this standard. This doesn't mean that Scripture is not authoritative in Anglicanism--quite the opposite. However, liberals have constantly and consistently fought against treating Scripture as authoritative. Too problematic in terms of cultural syncretism I suppose.

Re: 39 Articles. The 39 Articles have been demoted in importance over the years by liberals--witness their demotion to a "historical document" in the 1979 (and so-called) BCP of the TEC. However, they remain the definitive statement (along with the other formularies) of what makes us Anglicans and separates us from the RC on one side and Presbyterians on the other. They are the most tangible statement of the Via Media of Anglicanism.

Re: Divorce. Religious liberals (TEC and elsewhere) were instrumental in supporting no-fault divorce--leading to spiraling divorce rates, and in liberalizing standards for ordination so that now we have a plethora of priests and bishops that have been divorced and remarried numerous times.

Re: Interest. Charging interest was not forbidden in the OT, but charging interest to your "brother". The Jews were always free to charge interest to gentiles, and had a monopoly on banking in the middle ages. Like going to court against your brother, one must wonder how to apply this--if it is applicable at all--in a post-Christian age/country.


Posted by Steven at Thursday, 27 September 2007 at 3:08pm BST

Liberals do not deny the authority of Scripture. The Articles never had the authority outside of England that they had in that country, and even there it wasn't as absolute as you might think. Besides, it isn't only "liberals" who do not conside them authoritative. Even NP has no compunction about ignoring the ones he doesn't like. As to usury, no disrespect to my Jewish cousins, but I'm not Jewish. Their religion might allow it in certain circumstances, ours did not for many centuries. Crysostom, Leo, and numerous others spoke against it, as did many early Anglican divines. It took till Anselm for us even to begin to rethink, and it took a lot longer than that for "interest" to come to mean "excessive interest" as it does now. As I said, by that argument, what the Bible condemns is "excessive homosexuality". As to divorce, it might have been the liberals who led us to accept it, but many conservatives have been only too happy to end their marriages and start anew, many of them ordained. So, if it was some "liberal" innovation that the conservatives have been forced to put up with, why have they been so willing to divorce and remarry? Doesn't seem like they're chafing under the yoke of having to accept something they don't agree with on that one.

Posted by Ford Elms at Friday, 28 September 2007 at 5:02pm 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.