1. This General Synod/Te HÄ«nota WhÄnui resolves to appoint a working group to bring and recommend to the 62nd General Synod/Te HÄ«nota WhÄnui:
(a) A process and structure by which those who believe the blessing of same-gender relationships is contrary to scripture, doctrine, tikanga or civil law, will not be required to perform any liturgy for the blessing of same-gender relationships, will continue to have integrity within the Church, and will remain compliant with the parliamentary legislation within any relevant jurisdiction;
(b) A process and structure by which those who believe the blessing of same-gender relationships is consonant with scripture, doctrine, tikanga and civil law may perform a yet to be developed liturgy for blessing same-gender relationships in a manner which maintains their integrity within the Church, is compliant with the parliamentary legislation within any relevant jurisdiction, and can remain in communion under scripture, doctrine and law; including
(i) A proposal for a new liturgy to bless right ordered same-gender relationships;
(ii) A process and legislation (whether church or parliamentary) by which a new liturgy to bless right ordered same-gender relationships may be adopted…
I confess I haven’t read it all… but in reading what Kendall’s excerpted above, I’m struck by two things:
[i]…[b]can remain in communion under scripture[/b], doctrine and law; including
(i) A proposal for a new liturgy to bless [b]right ordered[/b] same-gender relationships; …[/i]
1) No one can unilaterally demand that those who choose to bless same-sex unions will “remain in communion.” Being in communion is a two-sided matter. It takes two, agreeing, in unity, to be in communion. (The verse from Amos: “How can two walk together unless they are agreed” comes to mind…). By making this proposal, NZ Anglicans are in effect saying that “same-sex blessings are adiaphora.” However many in the Communion have already made clear their convictions that this is not a matter about which belief is optional. Communion is already broken over this issue. It cannot be restored or maintained merely because those who wish to bless same-sex unions desire it to be maintained. Friendships may be maintained, dialogue may continue, but [b]”COMMUNION UNDER SCRIPTURE”[/b] is pretty impossible to maintain if one side is willfully violating what the other side believes to be the clear commands of Scripture.
2) Secondly, reasserters would claim that no same-gender relationship can be “right-ordered.” So for NZ Anglicans to propose to limit SSBs to only “right-ordered SS relationships” is quite absurd. It totally denies Biblical anthropology. It’s equivalent to saying “we will eat only those oranges which are apples.” Well either something is an apple or an orange, it cannot be both. You can claim that an orange is an apple, or that an apple is an orange, but if you plant orange seeds, you will get more oranges. If you plant apple seeds, apple trees will grow. Wishing an orange were an apple will not make it so.
Yes – considerable dishonesty, dissonance, and denial appear to be their self-congratulatory ‘way forward.’
The proponents lead the church to the wanton embracing and teaching of sin, willfully breaking communion, yet no doubt view themselves as exhibiting considerable largesse in the concession:
“…will not be required to perform any liturgy…”
🙄
I was just commenting at “Anglican Down Under” blog on this proposal,
this is the post:
http://anglicandownunder.blogspot.com/2014/05/breaking-news-way-forward-is-paved-with.html
I realized I need to slightly modify my original comment above. I should, of course, have written:
“reasserters would claim that no [b]non-celibate[/b] same-gender relationship can be “right-ordered…â€
It seemed good to state that distinction explicitly, rather than merely implying it.
When I read the NZ Prayer Book a few years back, I figured they were laying the ground work for continued progressive movements of the spirit like this.
Let us praise natives who follow the imperialist line! Commination to those who will not! Traditionalists, rot!
I am reminded of Shakers, but for what reason?
I am ashamed to think that brother and sister Anglicans can use the language above which betrays no appreciation of the life of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia. The slightest degree of Christian charity should prevent the use of the words ‘natives’ and ‘imperialist line’ in the same sentence or to ascribe our decision as the result of ‘continued progressive movements of the spirit.’
We are a church with the full spectrum of Anglican commitments on these and other matters. That spectrum is well represented at the General Synod. For our church to come to the resolution it has a most careful process of respectful listening has taken place and close study of the resolution makes it clear that the place of conservatives in our church has been recognised in ways appropriate to ourselves – please don’t read “North America” into “Down Under”! Further, the whole resolution is a disappointment for those who naively thought that this Synod would move more quickly and more extensively to change our doctrine on marriage to incorporate gay marriage (in line with our civil law). For our Synod not to move at that pace is a sure sign that conservatives are being listened to, recognised and, further, that we have no wish to emulate the divisions which have occurred in North America.
Finally, I ask you to understand that we are a relatively small church, in which strong familiarly and friendly relationships occur across the divide on views about homosexuality. Division at this time would serve no good purpose for our church, or any part of it, let alone for Christian witness in our highly secular country.
[blockquote] “- please don’t read “North America†into “Down Underâ€!” [/blockquote]
We don’t have to, Fr Peter – you in NZ are doing a very good job of it on your own.
[blockquote] “Further, the whole resolution is a disappointment for those who naively thought that this Synod would move more quickly and more extensively to change our doctrine on marriage to incorporate gay marriage (in line with our civil law). For our Synod not to move at that pace is a sure sign that conservatives are being listened to, recognised…” [/blockquote]
Which is exactly what happened in North America and is now happening in England. Same words, even.
[blockquote] “Division at this time would serve no good purpose for our church, or any part of it, let alone for Christian witness in our highly secular country.” [/blockquote]
I suggest that division is the thing you needed most of all, to constitute a meaningful Christian witness. All this does is show watching New Zealand society that, underneath, you are no different to them. So, they will happily socialise with you at a barbecue, but they won’t follow you or join you.
Hi Michael,
I can think of no signs in North America though there might be some in England (which is at a different point to them and to us re this matter) that conservatives have been listened to in the way our Synod has done.
Division will assist our church in our context? Yeah, right!
RE: “Division will assist our church in our context?”
Note that MichaelA included the words “meaningful Christian witness.” All of this discussion — yet again — is is that those opposed to same sex sexual relationships believe that it is intrinsically anti-Gospel and intrinsically church-dividing, and those who support same sex sexual relationships believe the opposite, which is understandable since neither side shares the same gospel.
So yes, public division — mirroring the division that has already substantively occurred within the organization — might well be the thing that constitutes a meaningful Christian witness, defining the words as Anglicans opposed to same sex sexual relationships do.
Same old same old conversation for a decade now.
RE: “Further, the whole resolution is a disappointment for those who naively thought that this Synod would move more quickly and more extensively to change our doctrine on marriage to incorporate gay marriage (in line with our civil law).”
Yes, revisionist activists always do — they thought so in TEC too. Not to worry — slow and steady will effectively do the trick and create the same augering-into-the-ground effect that has been so gloriously demonstrated over here.
Whatever. Your hypotheses, Sarah, are best treated with a wry smile.
no. 11 i don’t see how you can remain together when you don’t believe the same theology; otherwise you are two entities existing under the same title but have nothing else to bind you to each other.
Hi Magnolia, Well we have lived together now as Anglicans Down Under with huge differences in theology. We are bound together by many things, including simple human relationality. Differences in theology can be over-rated. I have sometimes found that actual talking over a coffee can yield common ground I did not think existed. We are, of course, bound together by serving under our diocesan bishops. Being good Anglicans … and our bishops generally take care to hold us together.
It stands to reason that those who endorse and teach sin within the church, and desire for others to do the same, would militate for cloaking their innovation with the air of authority an intact institution might offer – even as that institution declines. Nothing surprising there – deja vu all over again for another declining Anglican province (17% in the last 7 years).
Those who hold themselves out as disagreeing with the innovation – yet continue to support the institution as it conforms more to the world and less to John14:15 – have little witness except that of their own compromise with sin – namely, chucking the biblical teaching of addressing heresy within the church. A church that permits the teaching of sin, well, endorses the teaching of sin, regardless if it tolerates some who might disagree. That is not a full spectrum of Anglicanism, but simply bits of Anglicanism mixed with heresy.
Anywho – decline to irrelevance, split, or become indistinguishable from the world – no worries, she’ll be right.
RE: “Your hypotheses, Sarah, are best treated with a wry smile.”
I agree. When the hypotheses have turned out to be demonstrably true on the ground over the past 10 years, revisionist activists still wish to continue forward with their particular gospel. That’s what commitment is all about.
There’s really nothing that they can say — augering-into-the-ground is preferable to changing their gospel.
My response is “faster please.”
Peter, “Living together with differences in theology” cannot be good for the Church catholic in the long run. I would consider that a tested hypothesis. One could always argue of the order of importance of the differences as being primary, secondary, or tertiary. It has been my opinion that those differences that are deemed to be of secondary importance have deep roots that can be traced to primary theological differences/errors or to methods of scriptural interpretation which inevitably lead to primary differences/errors.
RE: “The slightest degree of Christian charity should prevent the use of the words ‘natives’ and ‘imperialist line’ in the same sentence or to ascribe our decision as the result of ‘continued progressive movements of the spirit.’”
I disagree — I think it very charitable to point out the obvious, and it is obvious to any thinking person that this decision is “the result of ‘continued progressive movements of the spirit.’”
RE: “We are a church with the full spectrum of Anglican commitments on these and other matters.”
No, it’s a church with a full spectrum of secular/non-Christian and Anglican commitments on this particular matter. The decision is a clear progression down a non-Christian, secular path. It’s no surprise — people have been pointing out the obviousness of New Zealand’s trajectory for years now, despite various people’s attempts to try to obscure that or act as if it’s somehow not obvious.
RE: “close study of the resolution makes it clear that the place of conservatives in our church has been recognised in ways appropriate to ourselves . . . ”
It’ll be interesting to see if the conservatives themselves over in New Zealand believe that.
FWIW, I wholeheartedly agree with MichaelA, and Sarah.
So what happens now for the Diocese of Nelson? It’s more isolated and endangered than ever. I suspect that ++Selwyn, the great pioneer bishop in New Zealand, would be (and in fact is) dismayed at the craven capitulation to the spirit of the age shown by the province.
The actions of the synod are so predictable, so lamentable, so pathetic.
David Handy+
P.S. The only real “way forward” when you’re heading in the wrong direction is to turn around and go back to where you went astray. There is no “reconciliation” without repentance. But that would require Anglicans in New Zealand to become truly counter-cultural. Given the Erastian, state church roots of our tradition, that is an extremely difficult change to pull off. A transformation of Anglicanism that drastic and revolutionary in New Zealand, or anywhere else in the Anglo cultural world, would amount to nothing less than….
you guessed it…
a New Reformation.
Very unlikely, you say? Yes, I’d have to agree. Very unlikely and tragically divisive. But utterly necessary, just the same.
David Handy+
Undergroundpewster: Living with differences is not good for the church catholic in the long run – world Anglicanism has been discovering that for several hundred years. On the other hand the suppression of differences has not been good for the Roman Catholic church for a long time (see, e.g., its slowness to accept it has been wrong in the way it has handled clerical scandals).
Sarah: it is imperialism to infer from a distance that Down Under we are some kind of ‘natives’ acting as lackeys to some imperialist power. What kind of superiority complex says such things? We have our own gay people, families with gay members and ‘ouch’ moments about how gay people are treated by our own churches. We don’t need any imperialist agenda to prompt careful consideration of the way forward for ourselves. The resolution we have passed appears (a day or two later) to be causing great pain to gay Anglicans who thought we would move faster, more extensively to a different place more in tune with the spirit of the age. But we haven’t.
David Handy: it is difficult to understand how the Diocese of Nelson could feel more isolated after this Synod given that one of their representatives (and principal of their theological college) took a leading hand in the proceedings at the Synod which so carefully drew a line clarifying the place of conservatives in our church. To get to that point there must have been (and would have been) support from conservative representatives from other dioceses.
Peter, we are discussing living with doctrinal differences at the moment and not the suppression of them. NZ is proposing its way of living with it, or maintaining unity, or moving forward in spite of our differences, but how does that differ from all those previous methods used by Anglicans in the past that have failed?
Undergroundpewster: obviously history will be the final judge of whether this way differs or not from other ways.
1. Our point of difference partly lies with conservatives and reception of this way. If we stick together and see it through that (it seems to me) would be different to what I have observed in North America. My sense is that we will stick together because we have had good representation at the Synod.
2. Our history as a three tikanga church – unique – is a history of maintaining unity despite massive tension (which nearly led, this past week, to deconstruction of our three tikanga situation … but didn’t).
That future historical judgment might also have something to say about the way our church develops in the next decade or so. Our aging liberal sectors are shrinking in numbers: that could mean that conservative strength proportionally rises. But if conservatives peel away now then the future could be bleak as a church with fewer conservatives would not be in a position in the future to argue for the ‘deal’ done at this Synod to remain in place.
Good luck Peter.
RE: “Sarah: it is imperialism to infer from a distance that Down Under we are some kind of ‘natives’ acting as lackeys to some imperialist power.”
Perhaps. But as I didn’t comment on that, I’m unsure of why you mention it. I was very specific as to what I commented on and asserted to be charitable and accurate speech.
RE: “. . . we would move faster, more extensively to a different place more in tune with the spirit of the age. But we haven’t.”
I agree that the New Zealand synod hasn’t moved as fast as you possibly could have towards the new secular gospel it has chosen.
RE: “fewer conservatives would not be in a position in the future to argue for the ‘deal’ done at this Synod to remain in place.”
This is a laughable statement. New Zealand just approved of same sex sexual relationships, but promises not to purport to “marry” them. I recognize that it’s the fashion to deconstruct words and ideas but people who are conservatives don’t “argue” for the Church to continue approving of same sex sexual relationships.
RE: “But if conservatives peel away now then the future could be bleak as a church . . . ”
Right — why, you could move [i]even faster[/i] towards purporting to “marry” gays than you might if all the conservatives would hang on and enable the pretense.
Just to be clear for the rest of the thread [since Peter and I are not trying to persuade each other of anything but merely trading opposing assertions] . . . when I say that the church is now and has been divided, I don’t mean that the *organization* will or must or should or has divided. The reality of division may exist without one particular external sign of the organization’s dividing. But divided it is — between people who believe the Gospel, and people who promote and defend another gospel. It remains for conservatives in New Zealand — just as it has for conservatives in TEC — to figure out how their differentiation, rejection, repudiation, and resistance is played out, whether they leave the Anglican church in New Zealand or not. But I’m confident that wherever those conservatives are in New Zealand, they will.
#24–I really don’t comment much on T19 anymore, but I will share with you my personal wisdom garnered from hard, cold experience. I was at a pretty high level in TEC/ECUSA from 1994 to 2006. I stayed and fought for the exact reasons you seem to be. Here is what I learned: the Left has a demonic agenda. They will suck you in with promises of unity. They will lead you down that path while in the background they will be preparing a coup. They do not believe in the unity you believe in. They believe in unity of thought–their thought. I promise you, there will come a time when you will be accused of all manner of evil intentions and sins because YOU are harming unity by not going along with THEM. By upholding “unity”, you are setting yourrself up for destruction and banishment from the very institution you are tyring to unify and save. Unless you are willing to be ruthless with the left, which as a follower of Jesus I cannot recommend, then get out now. To paraphase an American patriot, “They cry ‘unity, unity’, but there is no unity”. The only unity is Christ. Whatever differs from that unity, to the extent of the difference, is not “unity”. I expect you will not really believe what is going to happen to you, but do me this favor–make a copy of this and look back at it in 5 or 6 years. As my friend Pewster says–good luck!
It’s truly a weird business that in our generation the kind of report writing and decision making, once so associated with Ecumenical conversations – now occurs most pointedly not between, but within, churches.
Hi Sarah,
I get all you are saying and I don’t want to keep trading opposing assertions! However I will take you up on one word, ‘repudiation.’ Whatever else is going on in our variously weird and wonderful church, ‘repudiation’ of conservatives is not the thrust of what is going on. The resolution our Synod arrived at would not be possible if any trace of ‘repudiation’ existed within our church. On that point at least, I insist that ACANZP should not be read as some kind of South Seas variant of TEC.
Dear David (Keller),
I profoundly and deeply disagree with your reading of our church. All agenda are transparent, there is no shadowy group preparing a coup. If in 5 or 6 years time we end up in the same place as TEC (c. 2014 – who knows where TEC will be in 2020!) then it simply will NOT be because of the kind of scenario you have (sadly) experienced. We will have evolved there by a different route. All the key players here, to the left and the right, are well-known in a small church and country. If they were organised in a TECian ‘shadowy’ way, the play of the last few years would have ended with a much different resolution than the one we now have.
Presumably “repudiation” of the previous position of the church as church (namely that human sexual intimacy only occurs fittingly within the marriage bond of one man and one woman), is implied in the decision to explore same sex blessings? The church once affirmed the former view and no longer does. In other words, at the level of doctrine, one can’t as an individual or as a church, on pain of contradiction, teach that sexual intimacy only belongs within such a marriage bond and that it does not only belong within such a marriage bond.
Hi Driver8,
I was referring to repudiation of conservatives.
I do not understand our resolution to prohibit in any way shape or form the continued teaching that sexual intimacy only belong with the marriage bond etc.
1. One must distinguish between what individuals teach, or be permitted to teach without being disciplined and what is the formal teaching of the church.
2. Thus the church looks to be committed to the view that not simply that individuals may disagree without discipline, but that a plurality of views is not sinful. Thus represents a repudiation of the view held for almost all of christian history that a plurality of views on this matter is indeed sinful.
Is your view that the traditional view is maintained by the church because it is one of the options that the church permits? But surely permitting options on a matter on which no such plurality was permitted for almost all of christian history, is itself a repudiation of the traditional view?
How do you say “load of hooey” in Maori?
hi driver8
There are some in our church who think the traditional view should be the only view but are prepared to live with others who think that to be limiting and wish other views to be taught.
Until fairly recently for our church, a few other churches, and still for a few churches, there was one teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. Now there are options available re what is taught about the admissibility or inadmissibility of remarriage after divorce. Is that a repudiation of the traditional view?
Ditto re ordination of women (which I support).
But we may be talking past each other: I object to Sarah’s apparent surmise that what our Synod has done is to repudiate conservatives as a group; you are talking about repudiation of views which conservatives hold to – clearly some in our church are now given space to repudiate those views. They were already doing so, now they have some formal permission to do so.
Titus 3:10-11.
Of course – when women were ordained as presbyters, the view that only men could be so ordained was repudiated. Men are still ordained, and a few in England at least, are still ordained who continue to believe what the church believed for almost all its existence. However the church as such no longer shares this view.
Indissolubility has a more complex history. William Fittall, Secretary General of General Synod, recently denied that the CofE ever held an indissolubilist view of marriage. His meaning however was very tightly restricted – namely that the CofE did not hold that the very rare second marriages after divorce by Parliamentary Act were bigamous. However, it was silent concerning the more general point that ecclesiastical courts, which handled matrimonial matters until 1857, had no jurisdiction to grant divorce in the modern sense. In that sense, the CofE was surely indissolubilist.
Indeed though the 1857 Act transferred jurisdiction to civil courts, and permitted dissolution by such, it didn’t change canon law: it simply made canon law a legal irrelevance. Even the current Canons affirm that marriage is by its nature a union permanent and lifelong. On the other hand – since the 80s pastoral provision for remarriage in church following divorce has been delegated to individual clergy – this only makes sense on a view that the church might properly reshape its pastoral practice in the light of the power of the state to dissolve marriage.
It’s complex – due to the whole civil/ecclesiastical thing – and the CofE’s ability to say two apparently contradictory things simultaneously. William Fittall assures us that the CofE never taught indissolubility; on the other hand, I’m not quite sure that, at some level, it isn’t residually still present in the church’s teaching – though completely incapable of being enacted.
Apologies – for this rambling rumination – I rather regret thinking about it out loud but as I’ve typed it I’ll leave it.
“Well we have lived together now as Anglicans Down Under with huge differences in theology. ”
i don’t understand this; yes you can disagree on semantics ie. baptists, methodists, lutherans all maintain differing interpretations of certain things but the main things are constant and unwavering. if i believe that adultery or theft is sin as is written explicitly in the bible, and you do not then that is a different theology no matter how much we may like and respect each other.
Hi Magnolia
If think much modern remarriage of Christians after their divorces is adultery and disobedience to our Lord’s teaching, and you don’t, is that a difference in theology containable in the one church or not? If you believe transubstantiation and I believe in the opposite, is that containable in the one church? For a while now such differences have been accommodated in the Anglican church in many places, including ACANZP. Plus we have interesting amalgams of the God of Jesus Christ and the gods of forest, sea and sky; Spongism and its like; tantalising discussions in which the Treaty of Waitangi seems as important if not more so than the gospel. Moreover, our recent resolution only puts into synodical words differences over theology of sexuality which have been around for ages.
Hi sorry, I came back to this a bit late.
[blockquote] “I can think of no signs in North America … that conservatives have been listened to in the way our Synod has done.” [/blockquote]
Of course. Unless you have some knowledge of the history of this issue in North America (and it appears that you have very little) how could you think of such signs?
[blockquote] “Division will assist our church in our context? Yeah, right!” [/blockquote]
Why not? [Sorry, I can’t comment further on this one, because “yeah, right” seems to be a content-free response.]
[blockquote] “Whatever. Your hypotheses, Sarah, are best treated with a wry smile.” [/blockquote]
Revd Peter, given that Sarah writes from long experience of events in North America (and from a perspective of one who remains in TEC and has attempted to maintain the orthodox flame within it for many many years), I would have thought her comments deserve more respect from you than this. I am not suggesting that you have failed to pay personal respect, but I am referring to the intellectual respect of recognising that she does actually have an objective basis for her hypotheses, which you do not yet have, as you have not yet seen whether any of your confident predictions will be borne out.
[blockquote] “Whatever else is going on in our variously weird and wonderful church, ‘repudiation’ of conservatives is not the thrust of what is going on. The resolution our Synod arrived at would not be possible if any trace of ‘repudiation’ existed within our church.” [/blockquote]
I am sorry but this is so naïve as to be risible. Anyone who has had dealings, or merely looked on, at the methods used by liberals over the last 20-30 years in Australia, England, USA and Canada, knows that the last thing they will do is “repudiate” conservatives, when they can get what they want by other ways. They will sign on to anything regardless of whether or not they believe it, if it gets them closer to their goal. So, yes, they are fully capable of signing on to something like this whilst intending to repudiate when they have the numbers. And when the time comes, you will be forced to go along with it, just as people in your position have been forced to go along with it in USA, Canada, England and much of Australia.
[blockquote] “I insist that ACANZP should not be read as some kind of South Seas variant of TEC.” [/blockquote]
You can insist all you like, but it is future events that will decide that, not your insistence.
[blockquote] “I profoundly and deeply disagree with your reading of our church. All agenda are transparent, there is no shadowy group preparing a coup.” [/blockquote]
Of course, not even the possibility that you fail to see everything with crystal clarity.
[blockquote] “All the key players here, to the left and the right, are well-known in a small church and country. If they were organised in a TECian ‘shadowy’ way, the play of the last few years would have ended with a much different resolution than the one we now have.” [/blockquote]
Errr, why? I get the impression that you know very little about what happened in TEC, nor about its relevant history that goes back long before 2003.
[blockquote] “For a while now such differences have been accommodated in the Anglican church in many places, including ACANZP.” [/blockquote]
I am struggling to see how this is relevant to the point.
Hi Michael
Let me try to express my views in a different way, hopefully less risibly!
I challenge the claim that what has happened in TEC is predictive of what will happen in our church.
The basis for my challenge is that we are a different church and our process to this point has been different.
It is hypothetical to read the life of TEC past into the life of ACANZP future.
I certainly mean no disrespect to Sarah for her understanding of TEC (assuming Sarah is the Sarah I have engaged with in the past, then she is an expert on TEC). I am intrigued that being Up There in TEC gives an insider’s view on life Down Under 🙂
However we may yet fail to live up to what was achieved in our GS last week because each of the two integrities could choose to walk away from what has been agreed. But there is no necessity to do so and I personally want to work for commitment to the resolution.
“If think much modern remarriage of Christians after their divorces is adultery and disobedience to our Lord’s teaching, and you don’t, is that a difference in theology containable in the one church or not?”
Jesus addressed this and the denomination as a whole has agreed on it.
“If you believe transubstantiation and I believe in the opposite, is that containable in the one church?” this is not defined as a sin as far as i know so whether you personally believe it or not will have no effect on the denomination as a whole. if some denoms do then they do so corporately; that is what defines denominations from each other. however most Christians agree on what constitutes sin and the price of those sins and that Jesus preached repentence not blind acceptance of them; that is one of the things that we all have in common that defines us from other religions or secularists.
but from reading your post i think my reply is rather pointless. “Spongism and its like; tantalising discussions in which the Treaty of Waitangi seems as important if not more so than the gospel. Moreover, our recent resolution only puts into synodical words differences over theology of sexuality which have been around for ages.” if you truly believe that spongism is valid and the treaty is more important than the gospel…well you’ve already gone down the primrose path and there’s no point in furthering a discussion. our faith should be the point of all answers not endless meandering questions. hope it works out but i can see the conservatives leaving although it won’t be as dramatic as the process was here.
Hi Magnolia
You may be right, on all counts!
RE: “However I will take you up on one word, ‘repudiation.’ Whatever else is going on in our variously weird and wonderful church, ‘repudiation’ of conservatives is not the thrust of what is going on.”
Hi Peter — I didn’t say that conservatives were repudiated. I said that it remains for conservatives to figure out how *they* might repudiate, differentiate, and reject the anti-Gospel stance of their church — and as I also said, I’m confident they’ll figure it out.