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?
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.
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.
Or this: I will stop breaking my vows made as a bishop to tend my own flock when you stop fulfilling your vows as a bishop to bless in yours.
I don't get it.
Bishop Venables has a a facile moral mind. But it breaks down rather badly.