Firstly, the words "liberal" and "theologian" do not work together. They are mutually exclusive. Evidence is that all this guy says is the same old yada yada about how Paul talked about inclusivity and how Jesus preached love. Nothing new and nothing true with regard to rump wrestling.

The Bible prohibits homosexuality. It says it is an abomination. No spin. No interpretation. No social context. It's wrong.

What is incredibly sad is that the revisionists have destroyed an entire communion at the behest of human seculist advocates intent only on justifying their deviate proclavities.

Which Bible is this cowboy reading. Doesn't sound like any Bible I've ever read. From where does the church dig these people up? And this guy's the Dean of King's College, London? Kings College used to be a half decent theological college, but so did a lot of others -- ONCE UPON A TIME. This past week I ran into an old classmate from my theological college days. He now lives and teaches in Britain. We got talking about Oxford, and I mentioned Keble College, Oxford, which used to be one of the premier Anglo-Catholic colleges in Great Britain. He told me that it no longer resembles anything one would recognize as being either Anglican or Christian. He told me that today's Oxford theological colleges are generally hostile to theological studies. It's all social sciences disguised as Christian theology, he said. And this outlaw's bad theology is proof of what my friend asserted. When the rot sets in at the foundation, then the whole house is in danger of collapse.

Burridge is a "theologian" and West a "biblical scholar" by virtue of the academic positions they hold rather than the rigor of their scholarship or the honesty of their intellectual investigations. They are moreover postmodernists, quite willing to substitute politicized rhetoric and assertion for dispassionate intellectual research (truth in any case being unobtainable for postmodernism). Such facts seriously compromise any declarations by these men. Theirs is a pseudo-scholarship, politically activist and striving for power, which will pass muster only among like-minded or those unable to detect the counterfeit.

That Prof. West should have been delegated the task of organizing the "Bible studies" shows both the deep corruption of Anglican theological education--even in South Africa--and how skewed toward the revisionist position Lambeth is. But this is no surprise: Oxbridge and Anglican seminaries in North America long ago abandoned solid theological education for the clergy and have become vipers' dens of godless and secular innovation. The Canterbury system is rotten at its intellectual and spiritual core, cancerous unto death.

Let's hope that neither of these guys are teaching Sunday School, or we're ALL in deep, deep trouble!

Cennydd

"Even the Anglican Mainstream website wants to claim that the abolitionists were really biblical," said Burridge.


In all this guilt being layed upon orthodox pastors of the 1960s supposedly supporting slavery, the proponents of the idea never mention that "abolitionist pastors" by the hundreds were kicked out of the southern states.

Don't forget that.

Don

Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think that I would be more moral, have a higher moral understanding of God and what he wishes than an Anglican Dean and Theologian, but strange things happen on the road to salvation. God works in mysterious ways.

"Meanwhile, a leading Anglican bishop has also raised the issue of slavery in the context of homosexuality. The Rt. Rev. Mouneer Anis, Bishop of Egypt, North Africa , and the Horn of Africa, denounced on Friday the "advocacy of unscriptural practices." He diagnosed sexual obsession, including homosexuality, as "a new form of slavery: a slavery to modern secular culture and to immoral desires and lusts."

That makes Freewill the slavemaster. 2 for 2

This is a lame arguement that has been tried time and time again, it is still lame. For those who are interested, Robert Gagnon has written on this subject see:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/RogersUseAnalogies.pdf

Isaac

The Rev. Dr. Richard Burridge ignores the teaching in Scripture relating to slavery -- the slavery of personal sin, of which, same-sex sex is clearly a sin against God.

(Rom. 1:26,27, Lev. 18:22, 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10, Gen. 19: 1-9, Judg. 22:19, 1 Kin. 14:24 and Jude 7)

FREEDOM FROM SIN:

The Christian is “baptized into His (Christ's) death” (Rom 6:3), “buried with Him through baptism into death in order that as Christ was raised from the dead”, so the Christian “might walk in newness of life” (6:4).

“Knowing this”, the “old self was crucified with Him”, so that the Christian’s “body of sin might be done away with”, and that the Christian “should no longer be slaves to sin.” (6:6)

“For sin shall not be master over” the Christian, for the Christian “is not under Law but under grace.” (6:14)

“Having been freed from sin” the Christian “becomes slaves to righteousness”. (6:18)

The “law of sin and of death” (7:2) does not apply and the Christian has “God’s free gift of eternal life in Jesus Christ”. (6:23)

Behold, “knowing this” the Christian is in Christ, “a new creature; the old things passed away, new things have come.” (2Cor 5:17)

HOMOSEXUALS ARE SLAVES TO THEIR SAME-SEX SEXUAL SIN!

LAMBETH 2008 IS A FRAUD -- A MILITANT EFFORT BY TEC'S HOMOSEXUALS TO IMPRESS ITS LIE ON THE COMMUNION!

It's a mark of many ivory-tower types to avoid examining the practical consequences of their theories. The emotional and physical havoc that comes as a consequence of homosexual behavior is not the kind of thing that enters into their calculations.

Otispage2,

LAMBETH 2008 IS A FRAUD -- A MILITANT EFFORT BY TEC'S HOMOSEXUALS TO IMPRESS ITS LIE ON THE COMMUNION

Right on. From beginning to end. Planned, orchestrated, programmed, run, managed and paid for by the LGBT leaders of TEc.

Ruin Williams who? He's just a willing accomplice.

In Chinese you point to the mulberry in order in fact to attack the pagoda tree. Both are trees. That is about as far as you can go.

But what does orthodoxy have to do with slavery or with homosexuality? One is a question of how one understands God and His will. The second has to do with how human affairs are ordered by people. The third is a matter of how an individual relates intimately to other individuals. Three distinct, unrelated categories.

So why bring them together? Why not say homosexuality is like being bad at arithmetic? Or that being bad at arithmetic is like drinking too much? Or adultery is like not reading enough books? Or that being good at arithmetic is like anti-semitism? Logically what the Good Theologue is talking is pure rubbish.

Why is he doing it? Because he wants to confuse two completely distinct issues. This is like saying that having separate toilets for men and women is like Jim Crow. And some people say that--though rarely little old ladies in Grand Central Station confronted with self-declared "females" among the stalls, still equipped with their male wedding tackle.

Da-da-daddalala, da-da-daddalala, (the start of the famous circus tune that every child recognizes as the circus theme song). The Lambeth Circus is about to strike its tent and go on to a town near you. Unfotunately the elephant in the tent, (VickeGene) is leaving his manure all over the TEC floor.

Does this sound like Orwell's 1984 to anyone else?

Right on, Peregrino:

"The destruction of language is a beautiful thing." -- George Orwell, Nineteen-Eighty Four.

The Anglican's Ministry of Love is really about hate. The Anglican's Ministry of Truth is really about error and misinformation. And the Anglican's use of "Newspeak" dismantles the orthodoxy of a bygone age. The current Anglican Church tells lies that are "double-plus-good."

Orwell could not have written a dystopia as hideous and unreal as the Anglican Communion of today.

The Right Reverend George Councell reports in from the centre of the Anglican universe called 'Lambeth'.

In the last week I attended three "self-select" classes on "Human Sexuality and the Witness of Scripture, " led by the Rev. Dr. Richard Burridge, Dean of Kings College, London, assisted by the Rev. Canon Philip Groves, facilitator for the Listening Process on human sexuality for the Anglican Communion. Dean Burridge is the author the commentary on John's Gospel that the Archbishop of Canterbury selected for pre-Lambeth reading by all the bishops. Canon Groves is the editor of The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality: A resource to enable listening and dialogue, which was also sent to all the bishops.



http://newjerseyincanterbury.blogspot.com/

So Rowan - Christian Socialist that he is - had his choice of facilitators....and they all sang from the same hymn sheet in harmony with ECUSA

Give me a break. What kind of lame-brained theologian is this guy!!!!!

Good Lord deliver us!

Many thanks to you, Quissum, for your clear delineation of the sheep and the goats in this scholarly bunch of elegant BS. I understand that US seminaries are in a similar decline, to put it nicely. There's no comfort knowing the condition is so widely spread,but it does let us know where we stand as believers.

Hans Zeiger,

Thank you for your successful reporting from Canterbury.

The video is especially appreciated.


humbly, gregory

Voyager, Excellent observation!

And this is not the first time the "stage" was set in this way, including using the "groups" and "facilitator" approach.

Nflorida was overtaken in this way back in 2005.

humbly, gregory

Quote: "When it comes to Paul's treatment of homosexuality, for example, Burridge said that readers must remember "Paul's concern for an inclusive community."

If you read this quote from the post slowly you won't understand any more than if you read it fast. This person is trying to be very TECie and intellectual but failed big time. TEC's word "inclusive" is "inconclusive",(leading to no conclusion or definite result) and that is nothing to claim Paul's concern for.

I really wonder, but probably we'll never know, the reaction of orthodox bishop, who happened to get into these seminars, reacted at the time....and don't believe they will share their thoughts on some of this grap either...they are too devoted to The Gospel to get catty......which I know in my heart is good, but I would sure like to know......

crap not grap....

If you listen long enough, they will brain-wash you, and you will believe all that they say.

Firstly, a special thanks to Hans Zeiger for his reportage at Canterbury. I’ve missed his regular columns since he left one of the secular news sites.

Greetings to everyone on the site. I’ve read many of your posts over the years. I grew up in the Episcopal Church. But after the Vicky Gene Robinson apostasy, I was led by God’s Holy Spirit to walk away, just as Lot walked away from Sodom. My home is now in Orthodoxy, although sometimes I feel like a stranger in a strange land. But it’s getting better.

I’m even more convinced that after the current Lambeth session, nothing is going to change. The (Not) Listening Process will continue until the end of the Age of Man. Like Lot, we may have to walk away from that which has given us comfort for so many years. But I saw no other choice. I found the longer I stayed, the more tempted I would be to compromise.

Here are some comments from a Orthodox bishop whose credentials no one can doubt: Archbishop Kallistos Ware of Great Britain; his full title is
METROPOLITAN KALLISTOS WARE OF DIOKLEIA, TITULAR METROPOLITAN OF THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCATE IN GREAT BRITAIN.


GW ( Fr. George Westhaver)– Being aware as you are of the major issues that are facing the Anglican Communion both internally and externally, if you had to offer some advice to the Archbishop of Canterbury at this Conference, what advice would you give him?

KW (Archbishop Kallistos)– First, I admire deeply the way in which Archbishop Rowan is fulfilling his role as Archbishop of Canterbury, at this moment of crisis. It’s easy to say, with reference to his position here at the Lambeth Conference or generally in the current Anglican world, that he is in a no-win situation. But granted the immense difficulties that he is facing, he is not doing too badly. Now, what should he be doing here at Lambeth? Should he be offering very firm and clear leadership, insisting on a particular point of view, putting forward resolutions to the plenary gathering of the bishops for their acceptance? He has not chosen to do that. Some people feel disappointed. Some people feel he should be doing that. But if he were to do that, it would create confrontation and division. If you walk through the mountains and you find a large rock in your path, one method is to kick it out of the way. The other is to walk around it and go on with your journey. Now Archbishop Rowan has probably understood that if he tries to kick this particular stone, or this double rock – the ordination of women and homosexual relations – if he tries to confront it head-on and insist on a clear expression of the position of the Anglican Communion, to kick the stone out of the path, he is likely to hurt his toe. The stone perhaps is too sharp and heavy to be moved in that way at this moment. But you can walk round it in the sense of affirming the bonds of unity that exist beyond these divisive issues. And this is what he wants to do with the present Lambeth Conference. To make this a time of shared prayer, shared discussion, strengthening the bonds of friendship. Now some people would be disappointed that as far as we can see, and we are halfway through now, there is not going to be either a major confrontation or a very clear affirmation. But perhaps this is not the right moment – this is not the kairos, the opportunity given by God for such clear statements. Is a very difficult thing to discern, when to insist on a decision, when to say we are not ready. That’s the problem that confronts the chairman of any gathering. And it confronts Rowan in a particularly poignant way.

Perhaps there will be some clear resolutions coming out of the Conference – I don’t see them emerging as yet. We are now Friday evening, in the first week. We’ve got another eight days and much can happen in that time. But, perhaps there are times when we have to say, “we are not ready, and we need to reflect further,” rather than creating a clear division. I suppose his dilemma is this. Unity is good. Therefore, from one point of view, everything should be done to preserve the unity of the Anglican Communion. We do not want to see this division that has taken place between a meeting in Jerusalem and one at Lambeth as leading to a schism between the Anglican Church. But then there is the other side of the question, and it is this that creates the dilemma. Unity, yes, but not unity at any price. Unity has to go with truth. Sometimes people do have to break communion in the name of truth. That has been described today by the Archbishop as the “Reformation principle”, though it existed long before the Reformation. But sometimes in the name of truth you do need to part company. Has the Anglican Communion come to that point? I don’t believe that it necessarily has. And therefore my advice to Archbishop Rowan – though he doesn’t need it - is go on, without compromising the truth, go on trying to maintain the bonds of communion within the Anglican fellowship.





The whole interview can be found at: http://www.prayerbookatlambeth.org/interviews/2008/7/28/an-interview-with-the-most-revd-kallistos-ware-archbishop-of.html

Are you kidding me??? Equating being orthodox with being pro-slavery is quite a stretch and one that will only appeal to mindless, milktoast sheeple. Burridge himself states "it can be simplistic to draw exact parallels between the debates over homosexuality and the debates over past injustices..." Oh really? Do ya think?

If, as a church, we do not love the word of God and stand for morality, who will? Who should we look to for preserving doctrine, instilling morals, and speaking the unpopular truth?

What saddens and infuriates me the most is that our "leaders" cannot be depended upon to stand firm against what is politically correct and morally corrupt. Perhaps it's a bit simplistic of me to compare Burridge and others like him to Satan, but to quote the good Rev. Dr.'s words, I think "a lot of the rhetoric is very familiar!"