To be a Christian does not mean believing the bible. It means to do your best to follow the teachings of Christ. However, we will not ascertain the will of God from the bible as it is only the views of certain human individuals. It certainly isn't infallible -if it was, it wouldn't contradict itself. For example, Jackie Scott refers to Ephesians and maintains that we are saved by faith in Christ, not works, but James says quite the opposite (2 v24) that "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone".

The real will of Christ can be quite different from what biblical authors claim it to be, and is made known to the hearts of all who truly love. If you insist that the bible is literally true then you are worshipping the bible, not God. That makes you a bibliolater, not a Christian.

Robert Dagnall, Sheffield, UK

The question to all of us is, Is sex outside of marraige a sin?" If the answer is "Yes", then surely this is forbidden by both the hetrosexual and the homsexual. The condemnation is the sin - not the sinner.

Allan Ashworth, York,

It appears Jackie Scott is confused with the usual Protestant misunderstanding that a belief in the salvic grace of our Lord is sufficient to qualify one as a Christian. It is made plain in John 6 that reception of the Eucharist, a sacrament, is necessary for salvation. The statements in St. Paul's letters to the Corinthians & Ephesians do not invalidate the Gospel.

Granted, faith in Jesus is the basic first step necessary to salvation, but foregoing a valid Eucharist leaves one an incomplete Christian.

Dave Livingston, El Paso county, Colorado, USA

It is refreshing to know that the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Churches are finally going to end the dispute caused by a royal divorce hundreds of years ago. The doctrinal differnces are minimal especially as Anglicans have rediscovered their catholic heritage . In a world riven with strife discord and horrendous evil of all sorts, it is important that Christ's Church be united and show a common witness of love to the world. May the reunion of our chuirches come quickly.

mark stevenson, abu dhabi, uae

Well if Anglicans can go along with recognising the Pope as Christ on earth,who is infallable. Buying indulgances to blot out their sins, confessing their sins to another sinner, praying to man appointed saints, Praying to Mary, who now they say has equal status with Jesus. Eating actual flesh of Christ and actully drinking his blood, 'transubstantiation.' And many more things which are contrary to the word of God. Well all the best, it would be like jumping from the frying-pan, into the fire. I am so glad I am just simply a sinner saved by grace, and a nonconformist.
God will still build His church, inspite of all this confusion.
Read Martin Luther's 95 theses, and why he left the Roman Catholic church. He started the Reformation and the break away from Rome.

M. Elward, Bridgend, Glamorgan

If you look at the Roman Catholic - Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justirifcation, published in 1999, which puts an end to the condemnations of the 16th century, it states that both churches believe that the doctrine of Justification by grace through faith is central to salvation. How that doctrine is understood and interpreted may differ and the Roman Cathlics certainly put more emphasis on the church and the sacrements, but we must guard against over-simplification because this leads to misunderstanding of each other which is one of the greatest causes of division.

Sonia TAYLOR, Paris , France

The catholic church has changed the gospel of Jesus Christ. A christian is someone who has believed that Jesus died for their sins, was buried, rose agian on the third day(1 Corinthians 15:3-4).Good works, church attendance or baptism don't make someone a christian.Only faith in Jesus will result in being with him forever. We are saved by faith in Christ, not works(Ephesians 2:8-9).The catholic church has tampered with the words of Christ, they state in their catechism that salvation is thorugh the catholic church and by baptism in water and participation in sacrements, Jesus stated that he is the way the truth and the life. The church of England preaches salvation through Christ, so therefore would be betraying Christ to unite with the false teachings of Rome.

jackie Scott, sheffield, Britain

If the Church of England could reasonably be defined as those believing its 39 Articles of Religion (see Book of Common Prayer, final few pages) then the present debate appears to be between its real 'conservative' members and many who are actually, though unwittingly, part of other 'churches'. A schism between the catholic, evangelical and liberal camps would merely formalise what the dispassionate observer now sees. The next debate, I fear, will be about what happens to the money should schism occur. And that might be even more bitter.

Andrew Hamilton-Meikle, Taunton, Somerset

I am absolutely appalled that Mr. Recio would even suggest that the Bible is inaccurate. He even suggests that the section of the Bible (Romans) prohibiting the lying of a man with another man speaks to modern gays is absurd. God's Word is the same yesterday, today and forever.

These statements declare the Words of our Lord and
the words of the Apostle Paul a big lie. This is
blasphemy. God NEVER intended for man to lie
with man and to do so is a sin of immense consequences. It brought the Roman Empire down
and it will bring America down.

You can't say God Bless America anymore. You have to say May God forgive America? I see more wrath than
forgiveness for those who would make the Word of the Living God out to be a lie for man's sexual convenience.
That is a compromise and compromise is deadly.

If Mr. Recio wants to desecrate the Bible, he should
do it privately -- not globally.

Dorothy Yonker, Boardman, Ohio

Leviticus DOES have moral claim on today's Christian Church, despite what Robert Recio says. The stoning of children was part of the old covenant. In order for people to distinguish between the old covenent and the new covenent, the teaching must appear in both the new and the old testament. As for homosexuality, it appears numerous times in BOTH the old testament as well as the new. In addition to Leviticus 18:22, there is also Genesis 19. In the new testament, try Romans 1:24.
Secondly, If we love God, we must accept his creation, however, to say that no serious person believes that we choose our sexual orientation is ignorant. There are many factors during our lives that contribute to this. If we love our neighbors as well as God, then we must show others the way to the Father, not accept their sinful behaviors.
People need to do their homework rather than misinterperating passages of the bible.

Patrick Kane, New Britain, Connecticut

As the late Pope John Paul II commented on the issue, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Until the leaders of the Episcopal Church recognize this behaviour as sinful, there will be no peace in the Anglican Communion.

David, Groton, US

Biblical inaccuracy is a poor excuse for creating Christian tradition. Christ never said a word against gay people although same-sex unions were a common feature in Roman society and Christ encountered Roman citizens. To suggest that a section of the Bible prohibiting the lying of a man with another man speaks to modern gay lives is even more absurd. Leviticus, which also requires the stoning of disobedient children, was speaking to male temple prostitution and has no moral claim on today's Christian church.

The gist of Christianity is Matthew 22:36-40 where Christ himself tells us that the whole of the Law and the prophets can be distilled into two commandments: Love God above all else and your neighbour as yourself. If we love God, we must accept his creation and no serious person believes that we choose our sexual orientation. If we love our neighbours as ourselves, then we must seek to treat them with respect and with kindness. The Christian church must be open and welcoming to all.

Robert Recio, Pownal, Vermont

The great strength of the Anglican approach is that it revived the original Early Church concept of a Christianity with local variations. Variety to reflect cultural differences. It is a shame that the vestiges of Empire seem to seek to make the Archbishop of Canterbury into a pseudo-Pope. If we in England can maintain honest communion with both Nigeria and the US what business of ours is it that they cannot speak to each other. The first protestant Anglicans could get along with Luther and Zwingli, who found each other insufferable.

Benjamin, Cirencester,

Ha ha, primates. At first I thought the author was insulting the leader by comparing them to monkeys, but no, that's their actual title.

H-Dogg, USA, USA

Whatever else might be said about Jesus there is no evidence that he or his followers refuted the bible in respect of its rules governing the relationships between persons. If therefore you accept homosexual sexual practices( Not love between men, of which there are many examples, the Word specifically forbids a man lying with a man as a woman) If you refute the most basic texts and principles of inter-personal relationships by which Jesus the man lived, you ought not to label yourself a "Christian"
You may well be an upright caring member of a monotheistic ehical religion built on Judeo-Christian foundations, but find a different label.

D Gordon, westcliff,

Ruth has rather got this round her neck - the Communion has no significant assets. They belong to individual Corporations and others throughout the world, and in England (unless the meddling General Synod upskittles this) at present proprty ownership is nicely diffused, much of it owned by Rectors and Vicars as part of their Freehold interest.
The Church of England was not founded by Henry VIII. but by Augustine of Canterbury in 597 AD, although there were Christians, and Bishops, in England (Britain) before that. So the present Archbishop of Canterbury stands in succession from Augustine. At the Reformation the non-monastic property of Churchmen was largely undisturbed, and clergy largely continued in office. What did happen was that the claimed jurisdiction of tRome was ousted, and Parliamentary Sovereignty was asserted, with the Monarch as Supreme Governor. The Anglican Communion is little more than a loose co-operative, and has no supra-national jurisdiction or power.

John Masding, Bristol, UK

The unity of the Church in England was a founding principle of the C of E in 1559, and its tradition of comprehension was how that principle was realized in practice. Today, however, the C of E no longer thinks of itself as THE Church OF England, but has settled for being just one sect among many. The rest of the communion has followed this lead. With this change of identity, many Anglicans no longer take the principle of unity as a given, and they have ceased working to accommodate one another.

Ruth Gledhill proposes that the two major factions should simply acquiesce to the inevitable and get on with the schism. But any church built on schism as a founding principle will be inherently Protestant. There will be no place in either post-Anglican denomination for those of us who do not regard ourselves as Protestants. For Anglo-Catholics, and for anyone else whose ecclesiology takes unity as essential, at least in principle, the proposed "solution" is the end of the Anglican road.

Bruce Lawrence, Maryland, US

Whatever happened to the Church whose teachings used to be too vague to be controversial?

Tom O'Reilly, Derby,

But who will go where? The state of the C of E is particularly moot. Which of these would remain the Cof E of the monarchy? The Catholics, the Liberals, the Broad - not always liberal, the Evangelicals (the ones who took advantage of Henry's divorce and created the Cof E) and several other sub-groups that have already hived off or are semi-detached. This divorce would mean disestablishment or an ugly fight over who remains established. Alternatively, people could follow the internal logic of their convictions. The Catholics would go over to Rome; the Liberals would be recognised as the heretics they are and start a new religion; the Broad Churches would have to decide what they really believed and the Evangelicals would, once again, be masters in their own home. The trouble is even the Evangelicals are divided over some issues and the Prince of Wales seems to want to be a New Age Muslim or something. Time for a revival.

Corin Keiler-Lloyd, Wolverhampton,

Peter Akinola is the only Luther among this trio: "The Word of God constrains me...." is the missing vital context to Ruth's quotation. The other two are detached from this Word, wherein lies the problem.

Laurence, Wigan, UK

I remember an article about a meeting of the Episcopal Church's bishops in the 1980s, in which the presiding bishop at the time (Browning, perhaps) sought to quell the growing consternation between the Spong-like liberals and the traditionalists by lauding the Episcopalians' knack for "embracing our ambiguities."

When all you have left is your pleasantries and your nuances, how much of a church do you really have? The Episcopal Church has so degenerated that the only mortal sin it still recognizes is bad manners. And despite its preachments of tolerance, the ostracism of priests and whole parishes that dare to challenge its latest diversions into oddness speaks volumes about its own unwillingness to put up with any ambiguity.

Ralph Williams, Somers, Connecticut

Ruth Gledhill misunderstands the situation. The homosexual issue is in no part a cultural question, it is entirely a theological question. The Christian church can do nothing but follow Christ and the Scriptures which he endorsed. Inconveniently for some in the church, the scriptures explicitly states that homosexual acts are sinful. These acts are listed together with other sins so varied that only Christ himself was sinless. The rest of us are sinners, homosexual or not. The Christian message is that we all to recognise our need and ask Christ for forgiveness. No room for ‘homophobia’ here. The problem in the church has arisen because some have chosen to ignore scripture. Poor leadership compounded by significant numbers of disbelieving clergy and inadequate training have compounded the issue to the point where it seems the church must split. Nevertheless, a split with all its financial implications would force the clergy to re-examine their beliefs and re-energise those with faith who remain.

Michael, Cambridge,

The Church of England is founded on the "divorce of a king" only insofar as Elizabeth I, under whom the church was formed, was child of the marriage that followed that divorce. The C of E is founded on the 1559 Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity.

Roger Mortimer, Columbia, SC, US

Just as well, as the Apostle Paul wrote: "The Lord knows those who are his" (2nd Timothy 2:19) closely followed by "Whoever says that he belongs to the Lord must turn away from wrong-doing" but then again, who decides what wrong-doing is? For 'traditional, conservative, Bible-believing, Gospel and Creed + Lambeth - adhering Anglicans', that is obvious!
How complicated, however, when the revisionist, liberal and 21st Century Pomo TEC (more the leadership and GLBT faction thereof) decide, over the last 40 years, to hijack the Church for their own agenda!
The whole of that 2nd Timothy chapter 2 has a lot to say in this debate, let alone ch.3 about "The Last Days" !!!
P:.S. not sure how 'catholic' a new TEC church would be if catholic has to do with what was believed in ll places from the beginning!

Tony Somrevell, Asunción, Paraguay

Would that this had happened ages ago.

Nora Quant, London, UK

Not only has the Church of England and its progeny enjoyed dissent but it has become a body in which laity have an important voice in all matters, including doctrine. Not so however among the Primates. They speak as if they are the whole church. This won't wash in North America.

Hrold Macdonald, matlock, Canada

Is there room for all at the table? Are we segregating the tables? Are we excluding the spiritually inept? Is our intolerance of them justifiable because we see them as intolerant? Who will be the first to turn the other cheek? If we are supposed to love our enemies how can we not welcome mere dissention?

Bear Baker, Alexandria, Virginia

" ... new US Primate, Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori, who could end up leading a new Episcopal Catholic Church."

Well, it might be "Episcopal," but it certainly wouldn't be "Catholic," and there's some question whether it would even be a church.

R M Bragg, Alexandria, VA

Your equation of the Christian concern for gay rights with merely "secular" justice is rather insulting.

You also underestimate the tragic effects of schism.

Fr Joseph O'Leary, Tokyo, Japan

the evangelicals have been trheatening to split off for years. I just hope at long last they mean it and go and b*gger off and be miserable by themselves

Christopher Anton, Birmingham, UK

Amen. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be in the Episcopal Church will act like an abusive spouse, making sure that the weaker, smaller parishes leave with nothing. It's all about power.

Recusant, USA,

Luther might have beleived in Sola Scriptura, but Anglicans don't. Read Article XX of the 39 Articles, a succinct statement of ecclesial hermeneutics that anticipated Vatican II's <I>Dei Verbum</I> by about 400 years...

And your last paragraph is the heart of the matter, of course, all this is not about sex but about grabbing the assets of TEC. Outside the genteel world of Anglicanism (ahem..) this would be called piracy.

Matthew Duckett, London, England

How can one ever praise the benefit of Schism when remembring the prayer of Jesus that we should be one? It is like praising sin rather than suggesting repentance!
Sadly Schism has already been brought about by the ecclesial community headed by Dr K Schori, one can only wait for the stray sheep to repent and come back home, just like the prodigal son.
Also pinning the origins of the C of E to Henry VIII's divorce betrays oversimplistic knowledge of facts, sadly something that many have come to expect of several journalists especially those with thir own agenda.

Fr I Aquilina, London,

Luther believed in Sola Scriptura - I cannot see how Gene Robinson or Katharine Schorri do.......

TomTom, Leeds, England

Right. Now you would be a......reporter, right? The meeting has just begun. You've had precious little to report so far. The only source of your news is from 'schismatic headquarters' and you've made up your mind.

Allright.......

Raspberry Rabbit, Penicuik, Midlothian