Thread: The Bishop of Coventry Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023357
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
The London bookmakers and The Times seem to agree: the Right Rev Christopher Cocksworth, Bishop of Coventry, is likely to be nominated as the next Archbishop of Canterbury.

Are there those on the Ship who are able to tell us something about him, from personal experience, and can do so discreetly?

I know nothing about him apart from his resume, and have nothing against him apart from his somewhat unfortunate choice of last name.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Pretty mainstream Open Evangelical. Therefore, a good choice IMHO.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Very wet and without a backbone. I do hope this prediction is wrong.
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
Why is that the Evo contenders always tend to be of a very marked churchmanship, whereas this is not true for their more high church counterparts. I don't know +Coventry personally, but he seems to be markedly Evangelical and was even the Principal of an Evangelical theological college. ++Carey was also very markedly evangelical, but it could hardly be said that ++Rowan or ++Runcie (although the latter was easier to pigeonhole as 'liberal Catholic'). Indeed, I don't think there's ever been a markedly Anglo-Catholic ABC (David Hope came closest, although he is still quite a moderate A-C). These days, it seems to fluctuate between MotR and Evangelical.

I think +Londin. would make an excellent ABC, but the CofE currently idolizes youth, and anyone over 60 tends not to be taken seriously — never mind that men in their seventies are often called by our coreligionists in Rome and the Eastern Churches.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Why is that the Evo contenders always tend to be of a very marked churchmanship, whereas this is not true for their more high church counterparts. I don't know +Coventry personally, but he seems to be markedly Evangelical and was even the Principal of an Evangelical theological college. ++Carey was also very markedly evangelical, but it could hardly be said that ++Rowan or ++Runcie (although the latter was easier to pigeonhole as 'liberal Catholic'). Indeed, I don't think there's ever been a markedly Anglo-Catholic ABC (David Hope came closest, although he is still quite a moderate A-C). These days, it seems to fluctuate between MotR and Evangelical.

I think +Londin. would make an excellent ABC, but the CofE currently idolizes youth, and anyone over 60 tends not to be taken seriously — never mind that men in their seventies are often called by our coreligionists in Rome and the Eastern Churches.
I think the Bishop of London would make an awful Archbishop of Canterbury. Apart from anything else, it would be quite absurd to have an Archbishop who thought that a significant chunk of his clergy weren't really priests. I would suggest the appearance of bias is simply an artifact of your own churchmanship, which is well out on the (rather lacy!) fringe even of Anglo-Catholicism. I think Archbishop Rowan's Catholicism is pretty clear. Yes he's liberal, but so is the Church of England. His liturgical practice, what I've seen of it, is fairly high.

Obviously I'd like another Anglo-Catholic, but we do have to accept that there are evangelicals in the church too. Just so long as it's not another lunatic like Lord Carey.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Don't know about the current inwardness, but I know Bishop Graham James has been thought to be one of the front runners.

I think he's a pretty safe pair of hands and maybe that's an important consideration at present. I've met him, like him a lot. If, against the current story, he does get the job then I reckon Canterbury's gain would be Norwich's loss.

So far as Bishop Christopher is concerned, I only know what I've read. Included in which is the fact that he's David Pytches' son-in-law. I'm sure that gives some folks pause for thought, given that David founded the charo-evangelical New Wine movement (sometimes known as Anglo-Wimberism). But that hardly defines him. Anyway, he'd better be his own man.

Whoever gets this job, and regardless of their particular colour in the Anglican rainbow, they sure will need our prayers. It looks even more of a "poisoned chalice" than when Rowan took over. Hope I'm wrong about that.
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
+Christopher, robed and mitred, attended Benediction at the high altar of Coventry Cathedral at the conclusion of the 2008 AffCath pilgrimage. He is known for an interest in liturgy and played a large part in the development of Common Worship.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Barnabas62 wrote:
quote:
Whoever gets this job, and regardless of their particular colour in the Anglican rainbow, they sure will need our prayers. It looks even more of a "poisoned chalice" than when Rowan took over. Hope I'm wrong about that.
I would like to think you are wrong, B62. But I'm afraid you are probably right.

[Waterworks]
 
Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :
 
My understanding is that there was a big fuss after he arrived in Coventry as he appeared to be avoiding ordaining women as priests. He would preside at their deaconing but somehow was never available to ordain them as priests. The suffragen did that.

I think he has now ordained women as priests following some full and frank discussions with his women clergy.

He made it public that he signed the petition against the proposed legislation for same sex marriage, and encouraged those who shared his view to sign the petition.

I doubt if he will be as accommodating as Rowan Williams has been to those who disagree with his views and I suspect he will be very keen to be friends with the Forward in Faith brigade.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It looks even more of a "poisoned chalice" than when Rowan took over. Hope I'm wrong about that.
It is a chalice of hemlock and double cyanide on the rocks with a chaser of strychnine and an extra side order of viper venom. On steroids. I can't imagine who in their right mind wouldn't feign madness just to avoid nomination.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It looks even more of a "poisoned chalice" than when Rowan took over. Hope I'm wrong about that.
It is a chalice of hemlock and double cyanide on the rocks with a chaser of strychnine and an extra side order of viper venom. On steroids. I can't imagine who in their right mind wouldn't feign madness just to avoid nomination.
You can't? Here are three:
1) The Archbishop of York
2) The Bishop of Coventry
3) The Bishop of London

I assume they are all in their right minds. They're senior bishops, after all.

[ 05. August 2012, 16:14: Message edited by: Amos ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It looks even more of a "poisoned chalice" than when Rowan took over. Hope I'm wrong about that.
It is a chalice of hemlock and double cyanide on the rocks with a chaser of strychnine and an extra side order of viper venom. On steroids. I can't imagine who in their right mind wouldn't feign madness just to avoid nomination.
You can't? Here are three:
1) The Archbishop of York
2) The Bishop of Coventry
3) The Bishop of London

I assume they are all in their right minds. They're senior bishops, after all.
I fail to see how that follows. [Devil]
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Come, come, Arethosemyfeet. Even Balaam's ass was a messenger of the Lord.
 
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't know about the current inwardness, but I know Bishop Graham James has been thought to be one of the front runners.

I think he's a pretty safe pair of hands and maybe that's an important consideration at present. I've met him, like him a lot. If, against the current story, he does get the job then I reckon Canterbury's gain would be Norwich's loss.
I share this hope. I knew him reasonably well some time ago, and although we personally had some disagreements, I would be very happy to see him as ABC.

I believe that he has said that he doesn't want the job, which, to my mind, further emphasises his suitability.
 
Posted by Ceannaideach (# 12007) on :
 
We recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of the consecration of the new Coventry Cathedral. As part of the celebration the cross of nails was sent on a pilgrimage from church to church around the diocese, accompanied by folks from the churches and both Bishop Christopher and Bishop John (Warwick).

The procession stopped off at a local pub for a handover from one parish to another. Bishop Christopher stopped for lunch and for a prayer of blessing over the pub. He went out to the front stood on a table and gave a brief but effective explaination of the pilgrimage and offered up the prayer of blessing. And the regulars, (who in the landlady's words aren't the most religious of people), bowed their heads and joined in the Amen at the end.

All of which is a longwinded way of saying that he relates well to people.

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Very wet and without a backbone. I do hope this prediction is wrong.
I wouldn't agree, he may have some dodgy advisors but IMO it'd be a loss to Coventry if he got the ABC job.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Even Balaam's ass was a messenger of the Lord.
But not in its right mind by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Come, come, Arethosemyfeet. Even Balaam's ass was a messenger of the Lord.
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Just so long as it's not another lunatic like Lord Carey.
You might not like his theology or politics but he is not any sort of "lunatic" and there's no need for the silly name calling

Though I suspect its not his theology or politics but his firm support for the ordination of women which made him so unpopular at the extreme heights of Anglo-Catholicism - maybe the same goes for Rowan as well, I've never quite worked out why so many of them, both theological liberals and theological conservatives, seem to hate him so - or maybe hatred of archbishops is a natural consequence of their position, whoever the bishops might be.

And anyway, if you lined up all the Anglicans in the world one one long spectrum of churchmanship from the snake's belly to the top of the candle, Carey would be nearer the centre on the low-church side, probably a lot nearer the centre, than Rowan would be on the high-church side.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
+Christopher, robed and mitred, attended Benediction at the high altar of Coventry Cathedral at the conclusion of the 2008 AffCath pilgrimage. He is known for an interest in liturgy and played a large part in the development of Common Worship.
Yes, i was there. Her also dressed properly (chasuble) to concelebrate in the morning. had a lovely smile when we gave me communion

I believe you can look into someone's eyes to see if they are genuine. I think he is the real deal and have been arguing for a long time that he is the right man for Canterbury - except that he might not have been a bishop for long enough - then nor had Carey, not that is a good comparison as far as the latter is concerned.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Very wet and without a backbone. I do hope this prediction is wrong.
I think that is unfair.

When he was principal, he made Ridley Hall an interesting place for those of us who aren't evangelicals - they run good courses, including for readers, and have published stuff about Christianity and the workplace - if he had no backbone, he would have played the church game and not encouraged such controversial stuff.

He has also written excellent stuff about ordained ministry - the theology and quality far exceeds the musings of Gordon Kuhrt (the latter has a functional view of ministry with little interest in prayer and the sacraments; Cocksworth is far, far better and focussed).
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Just so long as it's not another lunatic like Lord Carey.
You might not like his theology or politics but he is not any sort of "lunatic" and there's no need for the silly name calling

Though I suspect its not his theology or politics but his firm support for the ordination of women which made him so unpopular at the extreme heights of Anglo-Catholicism - maybe the same goes for Rowan as well, I've never quite worked out why so many of them, both theological liberals and theological conservatives, seem to hate him so - or maybe hatred of archbishops is a natural consequence of their position, whoever the bishops might be.

And anyway, if you lined up all the Anglicans in the world one one long spectrum of churchmanship from the snake's belly to the top of the candle, Carey would be nearer the centre on the low-church side, probably a lot nearer the centre, than Rowan would be on the high-church side.
I once mentioned to someone who worked closely with both of them that Lord Carey probably wasn't intelligent enough, or at least not intellectual enough, for the job (in particular he seemed to have difficulty understanding theological positions other than his own, particularly on the Catholic side), whereas ++Rowan was perhaps too much of an intellectual. He responded with a resounding affirmation that this was, indeed, the problem.

I have much more personal sympathy for ++Rowan, whom I've seen 'in action', where he exudes a sense of calm and quiet authority (+Carey doesn't have this quality at all, although in fairness I've only met him at a party).
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I think +Londin. would make an excellent ABC, but the CofE currently idolizes youth, and anyone over 60 tends not to be taken seriously — never mind that men in their seventies are often called by our coreligionists in Rome and the Eastern Churches.
Londin preached well at the royal wedding but is regarded as a friend of the very wealthy, the sort who inhabit gentlemen's clubs.

If that is true, I can't think that he would have a very wide appeal.

He also comes across as rather old-fashioned.

Someone who can lipread reckoned he was two-faced ion his treatment of the occupy protesters - saying christian stuff to them out loud and then telling the police to get rid of them asap.

I hope all that is not true - after all, it is hearsay.

It would be nice to hear good stuff about him from someone in his diocese.

[ 05. August 2012, 18:00: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
An argument could also be made — and perhaps should be made more vociferously — that being the Bishop of London is the only job that gives anything like a good preparation for being ABC. There's the inherently political element, of course, and the links to the Royal Family (as the ex officio Dean of the Chapel Royal), but more important is the fact that London is probably the only diocese in the Church of England that reflects the diversity of the CofE on a national scale, and the only diocese in the world that reflects the diversity of the Anglican Communion. There is no extreme that won't be found in London — in the square mile of the City of London alone , there are churches as diverse as St Helen's, Bishopsgate, S. Magnus the Martyr, St Michael, Cornhill, and S. Bartholomew the Great. How many other dioceses have that kind of diversity?
 
Posted by +Chrism (# 17032) on :
 
I believe and which has been expressed by the the other Bishops within the wider Anglican Communion is that a traditionalist needs to be appointed to the role of Archbishop of Canterbury.

He should be an Anglo-Catholic, the CofE has suffered enough we do not need a Evangelical Bishop to make it work. The only suitable person would be +Pete Willesden who seems to be only sympathetic Evo Bishop I've seen.

We need someone like +Rowan Cantaur and +David Hope. If we are to do a Catholic it cannot be an Affirming Catholic (not that there is anything wrong with them as we are all Anglo-Catholic) but a Traditionalist will make more of a difference.

As much as the CofE may be against, it will happen. We need to build up a church which is seen to be crumbling (which we are not). I sent +Richard Londin (Chartres) name in as I think he is the only qualified Bishop to be Archbishop of Canterbury.

Although you'd need to work out how it would work when it comes to consecrating Women Bishops when the Archbishop doesn't ordain women
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Just so long as it's not another lunatic like Lord Carey.
You might not like his theology or politics but he is not any sort of "lunatic" and there's no need for the silly name calling
Frankly, his politics are the far side of vile, suggesting lunacy is the charitable option when the alternative is active malevolence.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
I believe and which has been expressed by the the other Bishops within the wider Anglican Communion is that a traditionalist needs to be appointed to the role of Archbishop of Canterbury.

He should be an Anglo-Catholic, the CofE has suffered enough we do not need a Evangelical Bishop to make it work. The only suitable person would be +Pete Willesden who seems to be only sympathetic Evo Bishop I've seen.
I like Pete but he is a bit 'left wing' - which is why i like him.

The job traditionally seesaws between anglo and evo so it is the evo's term.

The Nigerians and Ugandans and their paymasters are demanding a say - so it will be a trad. evo if they get their way.

Anglo catholicism is, at present, moribund.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Nigerians and Ugandans and their paymasters are demanding a say - so it will be a trad. evo if they get their way.
What paymasters?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Someone who can lipread reckoned he was two-faced ion his treatment of the occupy protesters - saying christian stuff to them out loud and then telling the police to get rid of them asap.
I can't lip read and have no inside gossip, but his public handling of the affair looked bad to me. He asked them to commit to disbanding before he would talk to them at one point, and he later gave a dreadful interview where he gave the impression that mistakes had been made by everyone but him, and he'd come in at the last minute to sort the mess out. It was not a credible account.

I thought the affair made him appear very pro-establishment and a terrible contrast with Giles Fraser.

Perhaps, on reflection, this is how one ends up ABC.

[ 05. August 2012, 19:22: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It looks even more of a "poisoned chalice" than when Rowan took over. Hope I'm wrong about that.
It is a chalice of hemlock and double cyanide on the rocks with a chaser of strychnine and an extra side order of viper venom. On steroids. I can't imagine who in their right mind wouldn't feign madness just to avoid nomination.
Whoever gets the job should be reassured by this

[ 05. August 2012, 19:25: Message edited by: Ramarius ]
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
This is not intended to be a comment on the suitability or otherwise of the bishop of London to be archbishop, as I don't know anything about who is suitable. But as Leo wanted to know if anyone had a good experience of him, I will mention that I was present as a visitor when he led a service at St Paul's Northfields. This is a new wine church and about as un Anglican as an Anglican church can be, more like vineyard than anything else.

He seemed very relaxed in the informal atmosphere, spoke very well and suitably for the mostly younger congregation, and was very favourably received as far as I could tell.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
He should be an Anglo-Catholic, the CofE has suffered enough we do not need a Evangelical Bishop to make it work. The only suitable person would be +Pete Willesden who seems to be only sympathetic Evo Bishop I've seen.
Haven't seen much of Pete173 lately -- I'd be interested in his input here.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Frankly, his politics are the far side of vile, suggesting lunacy is the charitable option when the alternative is active malevolence.
You'll be running out of words to use for the real bastards if you are already wasting ones like "far side of vile" for George Carey. There are degrees and scales of vileness. For a start there is the bloody Tory Cabinet. A nastier bunch than that George Carey, but not quite "beyond vile" yet, or even all vile, even if they are lower than vermin. (I quite like some vermin) Then worse than them you might have, say, Mitt Romney. Or a genuine piece of shit like Sarah Palin - evil and stupid and ignorant all at the same time, which is pretty bad but maybe not quite bad enough to be vile, nevery mind yet beyond it. Or our homegrown racist attack-bitch Melanie kill-them-all-God-will-know-his-own(and-they-won't-be-fucking-Arab-slime) Phillips. She's vile, cvertainly (well her stated political opinions are vile, maybe she isn;t so bad in person, no doubt she is kind to her family and friends and small furry animals) And therse is still a long way before you get to the utter vileness of say, Saddam Hussein. To actually go beyiond vile we might have to ramp up the shite-rating to the level of the BNP or KKK. And there are a load worse than them around.

If you start wasting words like "beyond vile" on George Carey what on earth do you call some of those? And why hate him so much? What did he do to you? He doesn't even rant and whinge all over Radio Four like Ms Phillips does. Did he kick your cat when you were little or something? Where are you getting this from?


quote:
Originally posted by leo:

The job traditionally seesaws between anglo and evo so it is the evo's term.

The Nigerians and Ugandans and their paymasters are demanding a say - so it will be a trad. evo if they get their way.
[Roll Eyes] You forgot to blame the Knights Templar, the Lizard Men from Mars, and the Secret City of the Elder Things beyind the Mountains of Madness at the South Pole. [Roll Eyes]

Andyway, there has never been a conservative evangelical Archbishop of Canterbury and its hard to imagine there could be one now with the centre of gravity of English evangelicalism shifted so far towards the charismatic and ecumenical.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:


I thought the affair made him appear very pro-establishment and a terrible contrast with Giles Fraser.

Perhaps, on reflection, this is how one ends up ABC.
No not the Bishop of London I hope. And not Giles Fraser either! I'm sure he's a lovely man but he somehow manages to make himself seem more left-wing than I think he really is. My inner paranoid conspiracy-theorist detects in him a hidden authoritarian under that liberal cardigan-wearing exterior. He had a rather nasty column in the Church Times last week recommending compulsory DNA testing for everybody to be stored in a central database, and then accusing anyone who dared to disagree with that idea of being "right wing". In some ways he might find he agrees with Melanie Philips [Projectile]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I don't hate Lord Carey, I do hate his opinions. The homophobia, the xenophobia, the arms trade promoting, the racist dog whistles. In many areas his views are pretty much identical to those of Melanie Philips and the likes of Nadine Dorries. The difference is that there is nothing beyond nationality linking me to Philips and Dorries, and even less linking me to Romney or Palin. Lord Carey was my Archbishop when I was growing up, and I feel contaminated by association every time he opens his mouth to spew forth some other tory talking point.
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

Andyway, there has never been a conservative evangelical Archbishop of Canterbury
Archibald Tait? Randall Davidson? +Carey is certainly an Evangelical and is pretty conservative politically and in other respects, with the notable and perhaps sole exception of the ordination of women (which is not an issue for most Anglican evangelicals who are far too busy worrying about 'teh gayz' and, of course, the evil Papists and their ritualist appeasers). Unless you're using 'conservative evangelical' as some sort of secret code.

[ 05. August 2012, 20:20: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

Andyway, there has never been a conservative evangelical Archbishop of Canterbury
Archibald Tait? Randall Davidson? +Carey is certainly an Evangelical and is pretty conservative politically and in other respects, with the notable and perhaps sole exception of the ordination of women (which is not an issue for most Anglican evangelicals who are far too busy worrying about 'teh gayz' and, of course, the evil Papists and their ritualist appeasers). Unless you're using 'conservative evangelical' as some sort of secret code.
Lord Carey is relatively liberal on the remarriage of divorcees, which strikes me as requiring incredible cognitive dissonance given his hostility towards gay marriage.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I don't think there is a conservative evangelical bishop in the C of E (with the exception of +Wallace Lewes, soon to retire). Politically conservative bishops, yes, but they are mainly MOTR or trad Catholic. Apart from the hot-button Dead Horse issue (which strangely inflames otherwise moderate men) I'd guess most evangelical bishops tend to be left-of-centre on both political and social issues.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
I feel contaminated by association every time he opens his mouth
arethosemyfeet - when dawn breaks and the cold light of day casts its pale blue light over yet another pointless engagement, you may wish to review introducing a doctrine of taint into yet another wretched argument.
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Very wet and without a backbone.
So exactly what the Crown Nominations Commission and No.10 will be looking for then.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Nigerians and Ugandans and their paymasters are demanding a say - so it will be a trad. evo if they get their way.
What paymasters?
It was proven, some years back, that US conevos are bankrolling them. There was a thread about it on these boards.

I am also reading a book about it by Eva Grisworld - they are being manipulated
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by +Chrism:
He should be an Anglo-Catholic, the CofE has suffered enough we do not need a Evangelical Bishop to make it work. The only suitable person would be +Pete Willesden who seems to be only sympathetic Evo Bishop I've seen.
Haven't seen much of Pete173 lately -- I'd be interested in his input here.
I suspect he would feel it inappropriate/unprofessional to comment on individuals, though he'd have a great insight into the general principles.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Lord Carey is relatively liberal on the remarriage of divorcees, which strikes me as requiring incredible cognitive dissonance given his hostility towards gay marriage.
I believe his stance on remarriage was formed by personal family experience and by his pastoral work (which he wrote about shamelessly when he should have kept confidences) with the royal family.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Arethosemyfeet

Please stick to the point. Which has widened, legitimately, to considerations of other candidates for ABC, but has nowt to do with homophobic or right wing attitudes (whether alleged or real) held by any previous ABC.

To use your own word, opinions may vary on whether your posts may be tainting the thread. But they are in danger of derailing it.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

[ 06. August 2012, 09:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by parm (# 9287) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And not Giles Fraser either! I'm sure he's a lovely man but he somehow manages to make himself seem more left-wing than I think he really is. My inner paranoid conspiracy-theorist detects in him a hidden authoritarian under that liberal cardigan-wearing exterior. He had a rather nasty column in the Church Times last week recommending compulsory DNA testing for everybody to be stored in a central database, and then accusing anyone who dared to disagree with that idea of being "right wing". In some ways he might find he agrees with Melanie Philips
I think some of the confusion here stems from the conflation of "left-wing" and "liberal". Giles doesn't claim to be liberal, he claims to be a socialist, in that given a choice between the common good and individual liberty he will always go with the common good. He wrote a piece in the Grauniad about it recently, if I can find it...

[ 06. August 2012, 13:48: Message edited by: parm ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by parm:
...he claims to be a socialist, in that given a choice between the common good and individual liberty he will always go with the common good.
That's a funny definition of "socialist"! And one that applies to lots of conservatives as well. Not at all left-wing it seems to me. We socialists want liberty and equality as well as fraternity! (Bread and roses! Land and freedom!)
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Yes, ken, but they have to be balanced. Sometimes allowing untrammelled liberty infringes on fraternity and equality. (BTW, what is an acceptably non-sexist word for 'fraternity'?)
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Unless you're using 'conservative evangelical' as some sort of secret code.
Yes, of course we are! Well, in a special jargon sense that we use in matters of what Anglicans (and no-body much else) call "churchmanship". I'd assume it was a code known to anyone even a little bit familiar with the diversity of Anglicansim, (Where "diversity" is a polite term for "bitchy internecine politicking")

And in matters of churchmanship, "conservative" doesn't refer to politics but to theology, doctrine, and worship style. And "conservative evangelicals" are contrasted with "charismatic evangelicals" and the now almost extinct "liberal evangelicals" (*), and - pretty much in the Church of England only, other people don't use the phrase - the new-fangled "open evangelicals".

Just to fill in those who missed last week's exciting episode:

"Conservative evangelicals", pretty much anywhere in the world, are likely to:


In a specifically British Anglican context (things would be different in other denominations or countries) you would also expect self-defined "conservative evangelicals" to:


I made those lists up myself just now but I think they are probably pretty fair. And of those twenty features of conservative evangelicalism I'd guess that George Carey would probably show well under half. Maybe even only four or five. As parties in the Church of England go he's definitely an evangelical, but not a conservative evangelical.


(*) Its probably unfair to say that the old liberal evangelical party is "extinct" in England. It lives on in the URC and Methodists, and even some Baptist churches. Specifically in the Church of England "liberal evangelical" parishes of a generation or so ago are likely to have moved "up the candle" liturgically and have mutated into "liberal catholic" ones - which in much of the CofE is the mainstream. If they retained a low-church identity they are likely to have merged with the "open evangelical" party. Yes there are still a few parishes around with prayer-book liturgy, scholarly sermons, and theology so liberal it is hardly there at all, but there are few of them.
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

[*]assume that Anglo-Catholics are always theologically liberal
That's a very curious thing to assume, given that Anglo-Catholicism has its root in the rejection of theological liberalism. Indeed, I find it very hard to imagine an Anglo-Catholic who would self-identify as being liberal in theology, assuming that 'liberal' here refers to the influence of 19th century liberal theologians, particularly from Germany. Obviously, most Anglo-Catholics have been influenced by 19th century liberal theology, but no more — and generally rather less — than most Anglicans. Politically, I think, only a few Anglo-Catholics are liberals: most tend to be either some kind of Tory — generally either 'High' or 'One Nation — or else some kind of socialist; even those between these extremes would probably not self-describe as 'liberal' (although I personally might, albeit with caveats).


quote:
Originally posted by ken:

Yes there are still a few parishes around with prayer-book liturgy, scholarly sermons, and theology so liberal it is hardly there at all, but there are few of them.
I would say that that is the normative churchmanship in this part of the world.

[ 06. August 2012, 16:03: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Yes, ken, but they have to be balanced. Sometimes allowing untrammelled liberty infringes on fraternity and equality. (BTW, what is an acceptably non-sexist word for 'fraternity'?)
I suppose it ought to be 'siblinguity', but I don't imagine that catching on as a word. Can you imagine anyone proclaiming on the barricades, 'Liberty, equality, siblinguity'?


On the more serious question of people throwing the accusation of 'theological liberal' at each other, I'm not sure how relevant it still is to assess this by reference to nineteenth century Germans. It may be more useful to ask the question,
'Given the scripture, tradition and reason, do you regard them as three independent sources, or do you regard scripture as having a stronger status so that you might draw on the other two to help you understand what the Spirit might be saying to the churches?'.

Or to put it more bluntly, can you say?
'my reason, or my understanding of the tradition leads me to the view that scripture is wrong on this'.
Or is the self evident conclusion from this?
'if that is where my reason or my understanding of the tradition lead me, then my understanding of them must be wrong'.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

On the more serious question of people throwing the accusation of 'theological liberal' at each other. [/i]
Not throwing accusations. Merely taking Spike(c) at face value and so trying to explain what we mean by "conservative evangelical" - and why few of them ever get to be Bishops and none to be Archbishops


quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

[*]assume that Anglo-Catholics are always theologically liberal
That's a very curious thing to assume, given that Anglo-Catholicism has its root in the rejection of theological liberalism.
It may seem to be an odd thing to say to you but I can assure you that a significant number of Anglican evangelicals do assume that Anglo-Catholics - or "high church" as they would be more likely to say - are theologically liberal, if they can be counted as Christians at all. Thirty years ago almost all of them would have thought that. Most of them have probably softened a little since, but the more conservative the evangelical the less likely they are to approve of the Catholic end of things.

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

Yes there are still a few parishes around with prayer-book liturgy, scholarly sermons, and theology so liberal it is hardly there at all, but there are few of them.
I would say that that is the normative churchmanship in this part of the world.
Really? 1662 Morning Prayer as the main Sunday service?

Anyway, the normative churchmanship in this part of the world is liberal-catholic - Common Worship eucharists with lots of tat and not much of a sermon - pretty the sort of thing that lots of evangelicals say has ruined the CofE. (But then they always did say that which is why there are so many coming and going all the time)

[ 06. August 2012, 16:56: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Really? 1662 Morning Prayer as the main Sunday service?

Indeed. Okay, only in two parishes (one of them large, the other small). In one case, alternating with BCP Holy Communion (with stay-behind in weeks where there isn't a sung Communion). The larger parish has both a CW sung Eucharist and Choral Mattins every Sunday, but with the latter in the 'main slot' (although it's sometimes swapped for a hymn sandwich with a lengthy sermon). Both parishes are quite liberal theologically. Most of the other parishes lean in that direction, although not to the same extent.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I'm not sure how many Anglo-catholics have ever been liberal by 19th century German standards, but certainly from the time of Lux Mundi in the late 19th century people like Charles Gore challenged some of the conservative attitudes to scripture and specifically literal understanding of the creation myths. They laid great stress on the Incarnation and hence the fact that God's truth is revealed in the material world and secular knowledge, which IMHO is a truly catholic understanding.

That became a strong current in Anglican theology until comparatively recent times. It of course underlay the social justice commitment of many anglo-catholics, notably Gore's own Community of the Resurrection. It's different from the milk and water liberalism of many today, particularly bishops or ambitious clerics who have preferred to trim their sails to the prevailing wind without much enthusiasm. Now that all bishops of whatever flavour are happy to dress up and enjoy the tat, it's harder to discern who is in the catholic tradition and who is just 'liberal'. Affirming Catholics have been maligned as 'liberals in vestments', but the truth is different: the movement doubtless includes some of these but the core consists of those in the tradition of Gore and Lux Mundi.

(Not that I disapprove of liberals or evangelicals wearing the tat: it is important that bishops are pastors to all their flock and fit in with all traditions.)
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It may seem to be an odd thing to say to you but I can assure you that a significant number of Anglican evangelicals do assume that Anglo-Catholics - or "high church" as they would be more likely to say - are theologically liberal, if they can be counted as Christians at all.
Completely agree. This shows what a relative term liberal is. Anyone who disagrees with me is either a fundamentalist or a liberal heretic.

I have even heard an evangelical preacher give Roman Catholicism in a list of examples of liberal theologies.

But more usually a C of E evangelical uses "liberal" as a short-hand for someone who does not subscribe to a literal view of scripture (most importantly regarding homosexuality), believes in evolution and probably denies the virgin birth. A "very liberal" label might apply to someone who denies a literal resurrection.

Such a liberal theological position is associated with "high church" practice, and hence the label "Anglo-catholic", insofar as it means anything at all, would tend to be associated with the stereotypical liberal Anglican.
 
Posted by emendator liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Nigerians and Ugandans and their paymasters are demanding a say - so it will be a trad. evo if they get their way.
What paymasters?
Large amounts of funding to different churches in Africa have come from conservative sources in both the United States and Australia: travel expenses, staff costs, loans, donations etc. Once reason why they backed the sexuality statement from Lambeth (which was abhorrent to American arch conservatives) while also the issues of polygamy were not raised, in fear that the ultra-conservatives would appear to be way to colonial in outlook.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by emendator liturgia:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Nigerians and Ugandans and their paymasters are demanding a say - so it will be a trad. evo if they get their way.
What paymasters?
Large amounts of funding to different churches in Africa have come from conservative sources in both the United States and Australia: travel expenses, staff costs, loans, donations etc. Once reason why they backed the sexuality statement from Lambeth (which was abhorrent to American arch conservatives) while also the issues of polygamy were not raised, in fear that the ultra-conservatives would appear to be way to colonial in outlook.
This is a lie.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by emendator liturgia:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Nigerians and Ugandans and their paymasters are demanding a say - so it will be a trad. evo if they get their way.
What paymasters?
Large amounts of funding to different churches in Africa have come from conservative sources in both the United States and Australia: travel expenses, staff costs, loans, donations etc. Once reason why they backed the sexuality statement from Lambeth (which was abhorrent to American arch conservatives) while also the issues of polygamy were not raised, in fear that the ultra-conservatives would appear to be way to colonial in outlook.
This is a lie.
Pronoun reference problem here. What part of that statement, exactly, is a lie, Ken?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Pronoun reference problem here. What part of that statement, exactly, is a lie, Ken?
The specific lie about ignoring polygamy.

The specific lie that Nigerian and Ugandan Anglicans "backed the Lamberth sexuality statement" because they were bribed by Americans and Australians.

The implication of the whole that these are poor ignorant niggers being tricked by clever white masters into doing their bidding as if they had no ideas or intentions of their own.

The implication that they aren't really Christians but just somehow bribed into pretending to be.

The blithering ignorance about both Nigerian and Ugandan Anglicanism (and the huge differences between them)

The way these rich so-called-liberal Americans are using Africans as nothing but symbols in their own internal arguments - they aren't peopel to them, just parables. "Oh look how nasty those horrid conservatives are because they have to dupe the poor benighted niggers into voting for them"

The implication that Africans can't be trusted to come up with their own take on theology, or even to understand the ones we holy wealthy whites so kindly donate to them.

The whole sick bloated paranoid victimisation fantasies of a handful of prosperous middle-class wealthy American thologically liberal (but politically right-wing though they pose as liberal sometimes) Anglicans that they are in danger from poor black Christians on the other side of the ocean. Its disgusting. And yes it is racist. And yes someone is going to go off on the "Oh you politically correct lefties trying to play the race card again" drivel - but its true, its there, its racist, its been going on for years, decades, and I'm fed up with it and fed up with the way that pretending to be liberal is supposed to get them off their very real racism. "Oh it can't be us, we're not racist, we supported civil rights way back then,..." It makes me fucking angry.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I'm pretty sure Akinola and chums are perfectly capable of their own bigotry, and the Ugandan government shows every sign of being disgustingly homophobic without any encouragement from western conservatives. My recollection is that wealthy conservative churches do tend to throw money around, and it wouldn't be at all surprising if there was some weighing of pros and cons when it came to how much fuss to make about homosexuality as against the risk of losing financial support which probably does a lot of good in the target country.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It makes me fucking angry.
We've noticed, Ken. But all of these allegations are very well documented.

Calling people "racists" for accepting this evidence is simply an ad hominem, and an increasingly desperate one.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
...but the Bishop of Coventry does seem rather pleasant, and often wears a more formal form of the clerical collar.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I've only come across Christopher Cocksworth as the author of an introduction to Colin Buchanan's liturgical writings.

Buchanan is someone I tend to regard at times as a bit of a thug, and I thought the introduction was rather good at being appreciative of Buchanan' legacy, while distancing himself from the thugish tendency.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I'm surprised that the bookies and The Times are said to 'know' who will be next ABC. These are the people who know, as they are deciding - hopefully they have all been in our prayers since May.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
Would your money be on + Michael, Chorister? Would he be disqualified by age?

In an increasingly non-ageist society, SHOULD/COULD age have anything to do with it in future appointments, either legally or morally.

Polycarp, Bishop and Martyr was in his 80s when he shed his blood for Christ and had not 'retired'.

John XXIII was elected pope at 78 and was one of the most radical it might be argued, of the modern age - according to Ken Livingstone in his support of 'elderly' appointments.
 
Posted by emendator liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It makes me fucking angry.
We've noticed, Ken. But all of these allegations are very well documented.
Indeed there is indeed, Ken, a large amount of documentation (not merely assertion): may I suggest for starters:

Ian Douglas, 'Lambeth 1998 and the 'New Colonialism', The Witness, 81.5, 1998.
Jim Naughton, 'Follwing the Money', http://www.edow.org/follow

Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden, Lambeth: A View from the Two Thirds World, London, SPCK, 1989.

http://www.lambethconference.org/1998/news/Ic042.cfm (relating issues of debt and sexuality)

Jason Bruner, 'Divided we Stand: North American Evangelicals and the Crisis in the Anglican Communion', Journal of Anglican Studies.

There is also the financial records of the Diocese of Sydney showing how much money has been spent on supporting GAFCON initiatives and supporting the work of conservative envangelical dioceses in Africa and elsewhere.
 
Posted by emendator liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
Sorry the link to Jim Naughton's article must have changed:

Read it here
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Thanks for that link.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by emendator liturgia:
Indeed there is indeed, Ken, a large amount of documentation (not merely assertion). [...]
[/QB]
I hope some here will take the trouble to read through the links provided by emendator liturgia.

None of this is new. The word has been out for years; the road from Lambeth 1998 to Dar Es Salaam is thoroughly documented; most of us who have been at all active in the Episcopal Church are well aware of the dirty deals that went down.

On the other side of the pond, though, it's all just been brushed away. I am not sure why. Possibly there's an understandable desire to avoid knowing just how completely the wool has been pulled over one's own eyes by a handful of schemers. Rather like the old lefties who went on defending Stalin long after the facts were in, because they couldn't bear to see the dream of Soviet socialism die.

And I am also somehow reminded of the other threads that pop up with considerable regularity on these boards: Are these latest signs and wonders: these Todd Bentley healings, these Bethel miracles, these showers of gold dust -- are they the real thing (finally!) or are they just another confidence trick? Driving them seems to be a wistful will-to-believe in the amazing supernatural, in defiance of all experience and known fact, and not in a Hebrews 1.11 kind of way, either.

So is credulousness of some sort a necessary condition for religious belief? I don't know if I want to go down that road right now.

I posted the OP because I knew nothing of +Cocksworth. I suppose I was wondering what chance there was of his healing the breach in the Communion that opened at Dar Es Salaam. Since that unhappy event, the US Episcopal Church has had only the most tenuous of relationships with the Church of England, and I don't detect much desire for anything more.

Given what happened at Dar, it's understandable. But divisions are unhappy. It's just that the Church of England would also have to do some work to do to heal the breach. I was hoping for someone to tell me that a new Archbishop of Canterbury might be willing to make a start. Can that happen?
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Since that unhappy event, the US Episcopal Church has had only the most tenuous of relationships with the Church of England, and I don't detect much desire for anything more.
I'm not going to suggest this is wrong, exactly, but I think it is overstated. It is probably more than fair to say that some (not all) of the hierarchy of the US Church has little use for some (not all) of the hierarchy of the CofE (and vice versa). It's also more than fair to note that every little tiff and spat gets blown to monstrous proportions in the blogosphere. The truth is, though, that many (probably most) of the laity just don't care--in either country.

Church is local. If a faithful CofE parishioner was suddenly plunked in the middle of East Podunk, they would almost certainly look for an Episcopal church first. A faithful American Episcopalian dropped into England would most likely NOT be checking out the options in Non-conformism first. To me, that is far more indicative of the health of the connexion than anything the Bishops fling at each other.

Bishops--on both sides of the pond--come and go. They are not "The Church" by themselves, and their relationships with each other are not the last word in the relationships between the national Churches.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I hope some here will take the trouble to read through the links provided by emendator liturgia.
Two are not working for me, the third links to a fairly turgid and poorly organised pdf from which I finally came to a section called "Who's piper, who's tune" which is pretty short on any serious evidence.

I am sure money has flowed from various evangelical organisations to Anglican churches in Africa, that doesn't amount to being bought off or manipulated though.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Since that unhappy event, the US Episcopal Church has had only the most tenuous of relationships with the Church of England, and I don't detect much desire for anything more.
I'm not going to suggest this is wrong, exactly, but I think it is overstated. It is probably more than fair to say that some (not all) of the hierarchy of the US Church has little use for some (not all) of the hierarchy of the CofE (and vice versa). It's also more than fair to note that every little tiff and spat gets blown to monstrous proportions in the blogosphere. The truth is, though, that many (probably most) of the laity just don't care--in either country.

Church is local. If a faithful CofE parishioner was suddenly plunked in the middle of East Podunk, they would almost certainly look for an Episcopal church first. A faithful American Episcopalian dropped into England would most likely NOT be checking out the options in Non-conformism first. To me, that is far more indicative of the health of the connexion than anything the Bishops fling at each other.

Bishops--on both sides of the pond--come and go. They are not "The Church" by themselves, and their relationships with each other are not the last word in the relationships between the national Churches.
This is a nice, eirenic response, Organ Builder, but, like your response to Leo in the correlative Hell thread, I think it underestimates the seriousness of the situation. No doubt the average American Episcopalian visiting England would look for a Church of England service, just as the same Episcopalian, visiting, oh, rural Minnesota would look for a Lutheran service. For one thing, those are the services that would be easy to find. The American would recognize the similarities in the liturgy and the common historical roots of the churches. That's really all, though.

Anything more than that is probably going to come about through contact between the clergy of the two churches. I don't see American Episcopal clergy desirous of any closer relationship with the Church of England than the present one, and in the absence of any initiatives from the Church of England, the two will only drift further apart.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
Further apart than WHAT? When was this nice comparison period when the average Episcopalian clergyman (and back then it would have been a man) and the average English parish priest had that much contact or interest in each other? (Apart from the importation of English clergy and organists in the 19th century by some of the more socially impregnable parishes--but I doubt either one of us would view that as particularly healthy).

In some ways, they are more likely to have contact NOW because there are a lot more programs for the odd year studying abroad. That's mostly going to be Americans going to the UK, but then, it was ever thus...
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
It's just that the Church of England would also have to do some work to do to heal the breach. I was hoping for someone to tell me that a new Archbishop of Canterbury might be willing to make a start. Can that happen?
Make a start? Rowan has been doing that for the past umpteen years.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
It's just that the Church of England would also have to do some work to do to heal the breach. I was hoping for someone to tell me that a new Archbishop of Canterbury might be willing to make a start. Can that happen?
Make a start? Rowan has been doing that for the past umpteen years.
If you say so, Leo. I can agree he's been trying to slow down the progress of the schism. He let himself be badly outmaneuvered at Dar Es Salaam but appears to have learned from the experience, and nothing that bad has happened since.

So, is that progress, then?

If you and Organ Grinder both start telling me things aren't as bad in the Communion as they seem, I might have to start believing you.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
This is a nice, eirenic response, Organ Builder, but, like your response to Leo in the correlative Hell thread, I think it underestimates the seriousness of the situation. No doubt the average American Episcopalian visiting England would look for a Church of England service, just as the same Episcopalian, visiting, oh, rural Minnesota would look for a Lutheran service. For one thing, those are the services that would be easy to find. The American would recognize the similarities in the liturgy and the common historical roots of the churches. That's really all, though.

Anything more than that is probably going to come about through contact between the clergy of the two churches. I don't see American Episcopal clergy desirous of any closer relationship with the Church of England than the present one, and in the absence of any initiatives from the Church of England, the two will only drift further apart.
I've said this before on a thread which wandered into the same territory, and I'm going to say it again upsetting, or even churlish though this may sound.

Even the average thinking member of the CofE has not normally been very conscious of the ECUSA, certainly not in the way they are of churches in the Commonwealth. Many of these are former mission fields. Our diocese has close links with Uganda. Most English dioceses have similar links with some part of Africa, Asia or the Caribbean.

The Ship has been a bit of an eye-opener. If one is not regularly involved, one tends to imagine that the dominant form of Christianity in the US is people like Tod Bentley, gold dust, new earth, KJV only etc.

Recent rows about a certain dead horse subject may have raised awareness of the ECUSA slightly over here because we've been having dissension about the same subject. Nevertheless, and I hope it doesn't come to that, if it were a question of the communion disintegrating, for many of us, what Africa thinks is important in a way that what Ohio thinks is not.
 
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I am sure money has flowed from various evangelical organisations to Anglican churches in Africa, that doesn't amount to being bought off or manipulated though.
This.

Surely there is homophobia to be found in African cultures also outside the Anglican churches. "Manipulated" implies a passivity on the receiving end that just isn't there in African cultures, and which also rings scaringly similar to a straw man of the Other that Africa has seen way too much of.

Chinua Achebe breaks with colonialism through, amongst other things, daring to give the Africans homophobic and misogynic thoughts in his seminal work Things Fall Apart, back in 1958. Even more than just giving the African a face and an activity, he gives the African a complexity that just isn't there in the words "bribed" and "manipulated", and just wasn't there in the British imperial mindset. That's why the wording is bordering on racism, even if money has flowed in that direction.
 
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
[x-posted with several other posts on both this thread and the one in Hell on the same topic. It seems to me now that it might have been better placed on the other thread, but it didn't seem so at the time of writing.]
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
[x-posted with several other posts on both this thread and the one in Hell on the same topic. It seems to me now that it might have been better placed on the other thread, but it didn't seem so at the time of writing.]
C'mon down!
 
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
[x-posted with several other posts on both this thread and the one in Hell on the same topic. It seems to me now that it might have been better placed on the other thread, but it didn't seem so at the time of writing.]
C'mon down!
Fixed.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
...Organ Grinder...
I only object to this for one reason--we have a Shipmate named Gay Organ Grinder, and I try to avoid confusion. Otherwise, it wouldn't bother me in the least.

I haven't seen him here in a while, which is a shame because I used to enjoy his contributions.
 
Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on :
 
Speaking as a CofE churchgoer - The ECUSA is not something I've encountered outside of this website (other than the vague understanding that it exists). I had to look it up! And found in their you tube channel some lovely videos of their mission and activities.

But Enoch is right, English dioceses have little 'connection' with the ECUSA, instead often emphasising links with the Commonwealth countries.

If anything, US Christianity is caricatured as one extreme or another Fundamentalists or ultra-Liberals

I don't want the ECUSA to leave communion or break with the CofE – its a very useful corrective on a lot of things.

But if push comes to shove, my sad prediction is that the ECUSA (if it doesn't leave of its own accord) will be put in such a position of impaired communion that it will effectively be kicked out of the Anglican communion.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
...Organ Grinder...
I only object to this for one reason--we have a Shipmate named Gay Organ Grinder, and I try to avoid confusion. Otherwise, it wouldn't bother me in the least.

I haven't seen him here in a while, which is a shame because I used to enjoy his contributions.
Sorry for my error!
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I'm surprised by the comments from other CofE members, because I have tended to assume that, in the event of a schism, most CofE members would want to be on the side of the water that included PECUSA. But then I know how easy it is within the CofE to remain in one's own little backwater - the churches I've been involved with have tended to have more connection to the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia than to either Africa or North America. The mission links are to Pakistan rather than sub-saharan Africa.

If push comes to shove, however, I wonder how many in the CofE will feel comfortable lining up alongside the "gays should be executed" brigade, given the number of gay members and clergy the CofE already has. I suspect the SEC would want to side with North America if everything falls apart, but given the small size of the SEC and the proximity to England, I can't begin to imagine what that would look like in practice.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I am not sure you should be surprised, as I do not think that most CoE members believe that they will be taking sides, will have to take sides, or that these sides are where dividing lines will appear. I see a similar phenomenon in Canada (although we have our own way of avoiding discussion or decision).

Much of the discussion on The Issue in the US has taken in the context of its own cultural wars, which are specific to that country. The social-political-cultural linkages on both sides are not to be found in other countries.
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:


I think +Londin. would make an excellent ABC, but the CofE currently idolizes youth, and anyone over 60 tends not to be taken seriously — never mind that men in their seventies are often called by our coreligionists in Rome and the Eastern Churches.
It is not age that is the problem with Dr. Chartres.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm surprised by the comments from other CofE members, because I have tended to assume that, in the event of a schism, most CofE members would want to be on the side of the water that included PECUSA. But then I know how easy it is within the CofE to remain in one's own little backwater - the churches I've been involved with have tended to have more connection to the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia than to either Africa or North America. The mission links are to Pakistan rather than sub-saharan Africa.

If push comes to shove, however, I wonder how many in the CofE will feel comfortable lining up alongside the "gays should be executed" brigade, given the number of gay members and clergy the CofE already has. I suspect the SEC would want to side with North America if everything falls apart, but given the small size of the SEC and the proximity to England, I can't begin to imagine what that would look like in practice.
Arethosemyfeet: - you might as well be asking us if we would prefer to boil our heads in oil, rather than jump into a red-hot lava flow. The correct answer being "neither of the above" of course. Or to be a bit more technical, you are posing a false dichotomy. There is absolutely no reason why I should want my church to be a TEC oriented clone any more than I would want it to be a gay-hating one. Why should I? Why should most of us?

Effectively you are uncritically saying that the dimensions of the oft-discussed socio-political divide in the USA must inevitably be the way we have to go elsewhere in the world. In answer to that, both the political and social conditions in countries outside the USA vary markedly, and moreover religion is different in even more radically different ways. I see no valid reasons why we should uncritically follow the same route. In fact I see plenty of reasons why we shouldn't.

But I don't have a crystal ball, and cannot predict what the future holds in store. It might come about, but only if people want it to. That would be the day I'm outta here. I am not going to do schism, neither de facto nor de jure.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I am not going to do schism, neither de facto nor de jure.
As a fellow Anglican I can't help feeling that door is shutting on a stable rather lacking in horses.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Actually mdijon, I'm packing my bags as we speak.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Arethosemyfeet: - you might as well be asking us if we would prefer to boil our heads in oil, rather than jump into a red-hot lava flow. The correct answer being "neither of the above" of course. Or to be a bit more technical, you are posing a false dichotomy. There is absolutely no reason why I should want my church to be a TEC oriented clone any more than I would want it to be a gay-hating one. Why should I? Why should most of us?
It's not about being a clone of anyone. It's just that my read of the way the wind is blowing is that the more conservative churches within the Anglican communion could reach a point where they say to the other members, you're either in communion with us, or with PECUSA. I hope it doesn't happen, I don't want it to happen, but it is hardly outside the realms of possibility that it could. Some churches, including the Church of Nigeria, have already redefined their relationship with the communion as doctrinal rather than to the see of Canterbury.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
My own view would be to let the splitters split. If a number of churches in Africa said they no longer wished communion unless you do x y and z, then I would be passive and stay where I was. I would not wish to take instructions from anyone else about who I can or can't be in communion with. If they then declare themselves out of communion with me that is up to them.

Likewise I wouldn't want to accept instructions from ECUSA about needing to fracture communion with African churches if they were the ones initiating the split.

I know that seems an arbitrary way of deciding, and there is the possibility of "constructive schism" as an equivalent to constructive dismissal in employment terms, but that's my take at present.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Several of the more recent posts here highlight my own concern for the next ABC - that whatever schismatic forces exercise themselves over the next few years, the ABC will come under more and more pressure to become a sort of Anglican Pope. That, for me, is what will spell the end of the Church of England. And the saddest thing is that for many of us, there's nowhere else to go.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I don't think the ABC will have the power to compel anyone to listen to him, and I doubt that the worldwide communion will submit to him.

I can see the thought that the communion could be held together were he to be something like the pope, but I think it won't happen.

(Fortunately).
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Likewise I wouldn't want to accept instructions from ECUSA about needing to fracture communion with African churches if they were the ones initiating the split.
No one from the Episcopal Church has ever demanded this of you. I don't see why you include it here.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
My own view would be to let the splitters split.
I guess that's close to what my own position has been. I'm not very happy with it though. It's probably what both sides thought at the time of the great schism. More worryingly, it's probably what the majority in the early Johannine church thought.

But history judges schisms as being due not to those who split, but more those who caused the split. Sometimes the schismatics are a splinter group, but sometimes they are the majority who have gone off the rails. My worry is that the approach you outline can become for me a lazy way of me avoiding making any decision at all.

I'm not really sure about this "breaking communion" stuff. I can't see that it makes any sense any more. In what way are we or they breaking communion with anyone? We have an open table, and unless anybody is suggesting some other form of communion, breaking communion just seems to have become a metaphor for "not liking you enough to sit down with you".

Actually, reflecting on that last sentence, it's not a complete metaphor. It lacks the reciprocal nature of communion. But it's too late for me to expand on that tonight.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
No one from the Episcopal Church has ever demanded this of you. I don't see why you include it here.
To make the point that the important principle was "let the splitters split" rather than a priori partiality to one or other party.

[ 10. August 2012, 20:53: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Not, please, another schism. Never advocate such a thing. Never suggest that it is the only option, that it is better than any of the alternatives nor that God is calling you out, or to expel them.

Even the slightest knowledge of both scripture and Church History ought to make it clear that schism is not just wrong but very wrong. Likewise, forcing other people into schism. It is more important that the brothers and sisters love one another, than that they or any group of them insist on being right at all costs.

Schism does not do the work of God. It is not a fruit of the Spirit. It does the work of the enemy of souls.

And from years of experience, there's no one quite as bigoted as a liberal bigot.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Not, please, another schism. Never advocate such a thing. Never suggest that it is the only option, that it is better than any of the alternatives nor that God is calling you out, or to expel them.

Even the slightest knowledge of both scripture and Church History ought to make it clear that schism is not just wrong but very wrong. Likewise, forcing other people into schism. It is more important that the brothers and sisters love one another, than that they or any group of them insist on being right at all costs.

Schism does not do the work of God. It is not a fruit of the Spirit. It does the work of the enemy of souls.

And from years of experience, there's no one quite as bigoted as a liberal bigot.
Not convinced: both the Quakers and Salvation Army are as a result of splits for very good reason with very positive results which could not have occurred if George Fox and William Booth had accepted the authority of the churches out of which they split. But I'll agree with you about the liberal bigot.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
My own view would be to let the splitters split. If a number of churches in Africa said they no longer wished communion unless you do x y and z, then I would be passive and stay where I was. I would not wish to take instructions from anyone else about who I can or can't be in communion with. If they then declare themselves out of communion with me that is up to them.

Likewise I wouldn't want to accept instructions from ECUSA about needing to fracture communion with African churches if they were the ones initiating the split.

I know that seems an arbitrary way of deciding, and there is the possibility of "constructive schism" as an equivalent to constructive dismissal in employment terms, but that's my take at present.
In other words, do nothing. It's exactly that which is bringing the church to the brink.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I really don't feel that my inactivity is what is bringing the church to the brink. I really don't.

Just to humour me, can you set out what I might be doing or what different stance might mend it?
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
I'm not going to comment on individual candidates - we have to work together collegially. What I would say is

1. that the job is too big. There are 5 or 6 jobs, as identified by Hurd and Mellows in their reports on the Archbishop's needs and resources, which are gathering dust and should have been taken seriously. The new incumbent will come into a post that is still unmanageable. Separate out: Anglican Communion; European Churches; Privy Council and all the Royal stuff; Archbishop of Province of Canterbury; Primate of all England; Diocese of Canterbury; House of Lords. It's impossible.

2. that the bureaucrats won't let you give up these roles. The Anglican Communion politburo, Lambeth Palace, and Church House all have their own agendas which they run in order to keep the ABC from performing to the best of his ability. I sometimes have a hankering to volunteer as the Malcolm Tucker of the CofE in order to sort the bureaucrats out and give the ABC a clear run. Certainly someone needs to do it!

3. that it's clear from the way Rowan has been treated that it's less and less possible to be your own person as ABC and get away with it. The press couldn't cope with Rowan being holy, intellectual and complicated - and unable/unwilling to speak in sound bites. The liberals couldn't cope with Rowan because he could see both sides of all the arguments that they thought he should support them on. The conservative evangelicals couldn't cope with Rowan because he was too deep for their simple theology. And the Anglican Communion couldn't cope with Rowan because (deep down) neither ECUSA nor the Global South want him to fix it. Rowan has remained true to himself, but it hasn't won him friends.

4. that whoever does it next is probably onto a loser unless they pause, take stock and think about what's really important (see 2 above).

[ 11. August 2012, 11:47: Message edited by: pete173 ]
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
I agree totally with that. In the words of ++Robert Runcie:

'One will always fail. But one has to fail the most graciously.'
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I'm not going to comment on individual candidates - we have to work together collegially. What I would say is
I am really glad that you said this - really helpful.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I sometimes have a hankering to volunteer as the Malcolm Tucker of the CofE in order to sort the bureaucrats out and give the ABC a clear run.
Go for it, Pete, go for it!

The rest of your post explains the dilemmas well. Who would possibly want the job? Certainly no-one capable of doing even half of it.
 
Posted by thomasm (# 4618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Who would possibly want the job? Certainly no-one capable of doing even half of it.
The Early Fathers would have no problem with that - don't want anyone who wants the job to have it!!
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by thomasm:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Who would possibly want the job? Certainly no-one capable of doing even half of it.
The Early Fathers would have no problem with that - don't want anyone who wants the job to have it!!
The Coptic selection process is more complex than it used to be, but the final stage retains the ancient element of divine intervention by means of random selection from the chalice. I do not see why this cannot be used for Canterbury and, if need be, the candidate can be dragged up for enthronement by unemployed post-Olympic security.

Pete173's chillingly accurate and sympathetic comments on the nature of job bear remembering. Perhaps ++Runcie was right and what is important is how one fails at it.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0