´óÏó´«Ã½

There are times when it is indeed appropriate for any person or body to 'set aside their rights' in the interests of a greater good - the more pertinent question is though: is it ever appropriate to set aside 'right' - for any end? I cannot believe that it is.

I especially cannot believe that it would be worth saying that truth, justice, the inclusive and all-encompassing love of God are considerations which can be set aside in the pursuit of an at best temporary and certainly illusory unity built around an empty and dis-empowered Christ.

I have to come back to this one: I am so angry at the colossal presumption of this proposal. What energises Christians about the sacrifice of Christ is that it was the supreme affirmation of who and what he is (not the denial!) and that it was voluntary - that Christ owned, possessed and had every right to what he offered in sacrifice - his very life. 'No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself.' (John 10 v.18)

What seems to be implied here is rather more along the lines of: "WE don't want to sacrifice OUR unity but, hey, why don't you sacrifice the gifts and ministry of THOSE GAY PEOPLE whom God and the Church are calling to service and leadership in the episcopate."

I hope and pray those who listen to the voice of God and for whom he is real have the courage to resist this siren song.

"Is ever appropriate to set aside right for any end?"

That's a two-edged sword you have there Portwyne. I posted a long message explaining why I treated Scripture as authoritative in these matters, and many others on the ethics of homosexual practice. So should conservatives set aside what they believe to be right?

As to your second post, I agree that unity should not be achieved by stamping on those who you believe to be in the right. I thought we employed politicians to do that sort of thing...

By the way, how does a non-personal being, who may not exist, have a voice?

Graham Veale

Graham

Conservatives absolutely should not set aside what they believe - I would have no respect whatever for them if they did - and, to be just, they show no signs of doing so. What I am arguing is that on points of principle liberals, who far too often have compromised their position for the sake of unity, should stick equally firmly to their guns even if this manifests the extant schism in the Community. I am saying truth and right are more important, much more important, than illusory unity.

"...with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19 v.26) that includes the possibility that he exists. However, my position is more that the concept of existence as we understand it is meaningless when applied to God.

As to his 'voice': I find prayer a way of talking to myself in what we might loosely call the medium of God. In that inner communication where one's thoughts and opinions are transformed by the experience of transcendent love one discerns what I have, perhaps poetically, called the voice of God.

Portwyne
I believe that you have every righ to be outraged by liberals.
I find Anglicanism a little difficult o understand - in fact, when touring the two Cathedrals in Armagh with my students, I've found I've more sympathy with the Roman Catholic tradition!
Does the authority reside in the person or the office of a Bishop. In other words, if a Bishop is, say, an alcoholic, should Anglicans still respect his decisions because the office carries authority, not his personal insights?
And how important is Canterbury to Anglicanism? If Anglicanism splits, will the breakaways need an alternative to Canterbury?

Graham Veale

Graham

I can understand why you might find Anglicanism confusing as our church has made a virtue down the centuries of neither saying what we mean or meaning what we say (see my reply to Peter M on 'AB of A responds to his critics').

I can also see why you would find Roman Catholicism more palatable than Anglicanism - it is an inherently conservative, Bible-believing denomination. I thought Cardinal Kasper's rebuke at Lambeth was an excellent summary of the fundamentalist position and the very interesting links you provided to the writings of Peter Kreeft show how an essentially evangelical position lies at the heart of historical Catholicism.

In Anglicanism generally it is the office not the person which should be respected - if you heard William's programme this morning Archbishop Ernest makes this very point - noting that the allegiance of the communion is to the see of Canterbury not to any particular occupant of it.

I suspect any breakaway group will appoint its own 'primus' or chair which might be more like a Presbyterian moderator - with the office located in the incumbent rather than any particular see.

Speaking personally I do not respect any person, any office or any decisions until I have convinced myself that they are worthy of my respect.

Portwyne
Thanks - very helpful
GV