Mark Harris is completely skew-whiff in his arguments:
Archbishop Venables of the Southern Cone is quoted in the Living Church as saying, “We will have no problem ceasing interventions once we see repentance and a return to biblical principles.”
This is a shaky moral stance: "We will stop doing x (which the Archbishop considers a "secondary" issue) when you stop doing y (which he considers a primary issue.) What if he is wrong in what is primary and secondary, or deluding himself?
I want you all to note Harris’ line of argument. He’s given up defending same-sex activity as being in line with Scripture. His argument is actually over whether it’s of primary or secondary importance.
But it gets better:
Let’s try this out: We will stop beating you when you stop talking back to your father. (Secondary issue: when is beating with a cane OK; primary issue the commandment about honoring your father and your mother.) This is the Archbishop Akinola moral example.
And the link to where Akinola says that it’s OK to beat a child? URL? Magazine interview reference?
Non existent, but let’s not stop smearing people with vicious allegations with no evidence whatsoever:
Or this: We will stop calling you worse than dogs and criminal when you say you are sorry you ever engaged in homosexual acts and get married to a person of the opposite sex. (secondary: insult; primary, biblical principle as defined by the accuser) An Akinola example again.
Where does Akinola say that? Where does Akinola demand that all men should be married to women? URL? Magazine or Newspaper reference?
Non existent, but that doesn’t stop Harris slandering Akinola.
This is a miserably pathetic line of argumentation and a clear example of the TEC principle of "It’s not what the text says, it’s what I choose the text to say" evidenced only yesterday in KJS’ approach to the Canons.