Terry,
That part of the speech from NTW struck me as a comment by a badly rattled man. I think that the evangelical left (sorry Gordon), or at least the group “Fulcrum” founded by NTW as a counterweight to the more conservative “Reform” has been caught out by the emergence of Gafcon and the allance of conservative and charismatic evangelicals on the homosexual issue.
They have positioned themselves as the “reasonable’ evangelicals who are loyal to the mostly liberal hierachy. To see a new more conservative evangelical powerbase emerging in the communion has exposed their weakness.
There was a much better talk on the gay issue given by Andrew Goddard to Fulcrum which had some good stuff on theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg, but it suffered from the normal Fulcrum flaw of placing reliance on the Anglican Establishment to do the right thing. They could do with a good dose of Gordon’s cynicism, which is even better than his gin.

John Sandeman - 28 April 2008 05:02 PM

Is attending a meeting of church leaders (bishops) which includes those who ordain women priests/presbyters/bishops less offensive an assocuiation with false teachers than attending one which includes those who ordain sexually active homosexuals?
Is women’s ordination a lesser issue in some sense than homosexuality?
What defines a issue that would require schism? A salvation issue? grave sin?
My impression was that one could possibly read the Dean’s recent paper and conclude “yes” to the first two questions. I may be misreading it though.

Need there be universally applicable concrete answers to these questions?  Various churches have split over far more trivial issues (take the Russian Old Believers, for instance) or amalgamated despite seemingly more intractable disputes (consider the Church of South India). 

What’s wrong with an ad hoc approach which treats presenting issues as they come?

There’s really little doubt about what Venables thinks, in his interview with David Virtue posted yesterday:

Venables: I have used this language deliberately. I believe there comes a time when a marriage is no longer a marriage. We have to recognize that it is no longer a marriage of like minds on the nature of the gospel in the Anglican Communion. That is the reality of life. We deplore divorce, but the time comes when we must recognize a relationship is no longer what it was.

For the Anglican Communion to go on waiting for the situation to become resolved is both unrealistic and irresponsible. The question is, can the communion find a way of acknowledging and dealing with this irretrievable separation.

It is clearly in the interests of revisionists to have an inclusive church even though, at the end of the day, they both deny and despise what orthodox Anglicans believe and practice.

And on NT Wright’s reaction to GAFCON:

Venables: I am sad that the dialogue was public and in no way addressed personally to those of us who are involved in the organization. The ‘super apostles’ comment by Wright is not only bordering on the absurd, but says far more about Tom Wright than it says about anyone else.

I see it as a violent statement, unsupported by any serious exegesis of Scripture nor is it a valid understanding of both the Early Church’s understanding of heresy and its reinterpretation in the 21st Century, but perhaps he believes he is above all that. You can dismiss the past, but our present is rooted in the past and we cannot ignore the apostles’ teaching, and their rootedness in Jesus as their master and God’s Word written.

Stirring stuff, and straight-talking leadership.

[edit: oops, I see I’m duplicating half of Terry G’s earlier post. Sorry about that! Oh well, it bears repeating anyway.]

Meanwhile, TEC keeps suing its (ex) orthodox parishes. Today its New York’s turn.

Central New York

It’s still New York State ;).. but I take your point its the Diocese of Central New York.

Jeremy Halcrow - 29 April 2008 12:50 PM

It’s still New York State ;).. but I take your point its the Diocese of Central New York.

Hi,
Part of the area commonly referred to as upstate New York.
Terry

Again, there seems little doubt about Greg Venables’ stand.

From the report:

Archbishop Venables said he has talked to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan

Williams, about his actions. “I’m not seeking endorsement but we have open dialogue.” But he stopped short of divulging details. “It was a private conversation.”

I’m guessing they had a full and frank exchange of views.

The only person here casting aspersions on evangelicals attending Lambeth was yourself, Gordon, so I’m glad you’ve seen fit to exempt Venables, particularly after the revelation of his attendance made a mockery of your previous claims. Perhaps you’ll extend the same generosity to others who you don’t have public information about?

Gordon Cheng - 30 April 2008 02:57 PM

Again, there seems little doubt about Terry Venables’ stand.

I think that you mean Gregory Venables as opposed to the former Socceroos coach Terry Venables.

Yours in Christ,
Mark

Mark Tough - 30 April 2008 03:06 PM

Gordon Cheng - 30 April 2008 02:57 PM

Again, there seems little doubt about Terry Venables’ stand.

I think that you mean Gregory Venables as opposed to the former Socceroos coach Terry Venables.

Yours in Christ,
Mark

Oops!

Fixed now. I’m sure Tezza agrees, but. ;-)

Gordon, you appeared to have missed my previous comment. Perhaps you’re ignoring it. Oh well.

I did recall some of your previous comments however, which I felt are worth reconsidering in light of Venables decision to attend Lambeth. I’ve collected some choice cuts below:

Yes, I really think that’s what’s going on. Because the scriptural arguments are unassailable for those who are approaching the matter as evangelicals, the attention swings to focus on side issues such as the Dean’s supposed arrogance. That in itself represents a deeper arrogance, because it separates Scripture from its application in the real world.

For those who are so appalled at the idea of not attending Lambeth, the question really becomes whether there is any point where they would follow the Bible’s teaching and part company with false teachers.

So far, it appears not.

Ouch, on the wrong side of unassailable scriptural arguments.

What Phillip appears to me to be doing is making a simple and straightforward observation about what will happen if the orthodox bishops take certain actions, like going to Lambeth to share in unity with false teachers. He is smart enough to know he has neither the ability nor the power to do any ‘tarnishing’ off his own bat.

That is to say, they will be tarnished by their own actions and hypocrisy. They won’t need any help from anyone else.

Going to Lambeth is to “share in unity with false teachers,” making them hypocrites. Right.

As for the other suggestions about where a line might be drawn, I think the alternatives John suggests miss is the unique aspect of Lambeth as (1) a meeting for all bishops in the Anglican communion (2) for the purpose of fellowship.

And make no mistake, it is for the purpose of fellowship. Those who have protested otherwise on this thread and elsewhere seem to have missed this point, ably outlined by Robert Tong’s excellent paper. I am sorry that in all the fuss, Robert’s work has been overlooked by some. It is good stuff, and puts to rest the idea that it is possible to go to Lambeth and not be seen to fellowship with the others who are present.

The idea that to “it is possible to go to Lambeth and not be seen to fellowship with the others who are present” has been put to rest? Just as well…

But now we are being told and asked to accept that Lambeth is an ‘instrument of unity’ within the communion. If that is what it is, then if our bishops attend, they are upholding this unity by the very fact of their attendance. And the Bible has clear things to say about unity with false teachers. We mustn’t do it. The bishops mustn’t do it on our behalf.

So, regardless of ones position, the very fact of their attendance is to uphold the unity of the communion, I see..

We seem to be back to speaking about whether Phillip was being rude or not, or whether he was speaking to bishops or not.

But so what? Either the arguments that were advanced work, and work logically (pace Jeremy) or they don’t. Either Lambeth is about fellowshipping with false teachers, or it isn’t.

If Lambeth is not about fellowshipping with false teachers, then the arguments Phillip and others put can safely be ignored, no matter how politely worded.

If Lambeth is about fellowshipping with false teachers, then the arguments would still be valid even if they were scripted by Ali G or Eddie Murphy on a bad day.

Those who are interested in talking about issues of politeness and niceness might be able to do so on another thread. We really just ought to keep asking whether the arguments are valid or not. Should orthodox bishops fellowship with false teachers and then be surprised that their reputations are tarnished? I think not.

“Either Lambeth is about fellowshipping with false teachers, or it isn’t.” Well, gosh, “Should orthodox bishops fellowship with false teachers and then be surprised that their reputations are tarnished? “

I guess that kinda depends now, huh?

The level of hysteria on the part of liberal bishops continues to increase, as reported here. The US Episcopalians are speaking the language of ‘invasion’.

To stir up this sort of reaction, Venables seems to be doing pretty well.

Luke, I’m glad you’re reading and re-reading my comments. You don’t seem to have understood the point, or the specific reasons why Venables represents an exception to a still-valid rule, but the quotes you highlight are a good summary of my position.

So will you be writing an apology to him for your previous comments above? No? Aww…

That’s hardly necessary. If Gregory Venables reads this forum, he is intelligent enough to be able to understand the point being made and interpret it correctly. He, more than a number of people involved in the discussion, seems to understand that it is absolutely vital that no comfort be given to false teachers by appearing to share fellowship with them.

Given recent events, I doubt his attendance at Lambeth will cause confusion for anyone.