|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is being "distinctively anglican" a desirable thing anyway?
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why are the more strident Evangelicals even in the CoE when they believe in very little that is distinctly Anglican? It seems to be for power and control, and having more resources than if they were Baptists or Independent.
I was going to reply on the other thread but it was a bit off topic.
My immediate reaction was "Because the C. of E. is defined by orthopraxy and not orthodoxy" but even that isn't really true any longer - it seems common to not use lectionaries and Common Worship / the BCP in favour of freeform or Roman Catholic Services, even in neighbourhood churches.
What /is/ distinctly Anglican anyway? Is it even desirable to be distinctly Anglican? The ideal seems somewhat tribal.
I think we also overestimate the difference between denominations and factions in the mind, even if the 70s and 80s were the zenith of oecumenism.*
Gareth Hughes on this - http://christhum.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/why-im-an-anglican/
*And thus liturgy at such gatherings seem to be from that epoch - Haugen/Haas/Farrell/Schutte/John L Bell/Taizé. And that's okay and it works.
--------------------
SPK: I also plan to create ... a Calvinist Ordinariate
ken: I thought it was called Taize?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
My point was more that for the particular DH issue that was being discussed to be dominated by those at the extreme ends of the CoE, who seem to have little interest in Anglicanism, seems rather unfair.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It differs in different places. Distinctively Anglican means in western Canada liberal in social outlook, lacking a central authority or pope, to a degree a social club for those with the relevant ethnic heritage, and place to serve for those specifically not allowed within the Roman church. Be cause the mainstream Lutherans share all of this save the specific ethnic derivation - which is becoming less and less relevant anyway as Canadians, and are also liturgical, I suspect if we wait a little while, Anglicans and Lutherans may merge in Canada.
Evenso the RCs, Lutherans, and Anglicans often share all sorts of facilities and services, and quietly violate the restriction from the central RC authorities about some aspects of RC official rules. It would be interesting to do a straw poll of Canadian Anglican, Lutheran and RCs who have taken communion together.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
And this difference from the United Church is...?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
I think that Anglicanism in England has a distinctiveness that flows from the fact of Establishment and its particular history. From the outside looking in it has traditionally been perceived as benign, unthreatening, cosy and accommodating. Recent internal strife has probably added in the notions of indecisive, faction-ridden and out of touch.
The problem the CofE has always had is how to provide a common spiritual home for its active believers who are sharply divided in their outlook I and a broader population who are generally indifferent but expect its services to be on tap when required. The contortions it goes through to meet these requirements are probably considerably more amusing to outsiders than to insiders.
What seems to be most distinctive about it at the moment is that it largely features as a heavy piece of baggage at the end of the liberal wagon train. It has successively supported contraception, divorce, abortion , female ordination and the legitimacy of same sex relationships but it does so in such a manner as to appear a drag on progress to social liberals while completely alienating social conservatives. The aim of trying to accommodate everyone easily becomes the result of annoying everyone.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As far as the CofE goes - and this might sound daft and obvious but I think it needs stating - there is still something distinctly 'English' about it.
But I know that raises a whole load of issues as to how we recognise and define that.
I've been aghast when I've seen some US Episcopalians online banging on about the Monarchy and about King Charles I - 'King and Martyr' - and so on in a way that would sound very odd indeed to most people who actually live over here ...
I think it is possible to be distinctively Anglican and be an evangelical. The tradition can accommodate that. If Ken, of blessed memory, were still here he would remind us that for much of its history the CofE was largely Calvinistic.
The Wesleys were in a minority with their Arminianism.
And even George Herbert was nowhere near being a Laudian, despite his appropriation as such by some High Church pundits.
Is it possible to be Anglo-Catholic and remain distinctively Anglican? I think so, although I'm sure that Anglo-Papallism isn't at all distinctively Anglican.
'Distinctively Anglican' is a very stretchy definition anyway and can mean any one of a number of things and to describe a number of otherwise incompatible positions.
Such is the genius of Anglicanism. Such also is its weakness.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Such is the genius of Anglicanism. Such also is its weakness.
So true. But it's through the cracks that the light gets in. Isn't the church called to be as broken and wounded as Christ's own body? That's the only way it can help others, who are equally broken and wounded. Not by being strong, powerful and unassailable. God help us all if the Anglican church ever gets like that!
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Thank you Chorister - I found that moving and helpful.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
What I regard as being distinctively Anglican:
a commitment to the parish - everyone who lives within our boundaries is welcome to be baptised, married, buried
wealthier churches support poorer ones by the parish share/quota
you are welcome regardless of you belief/lack of belief/stage on your journey
you don't have to come to everything - a minimum of three communions a year, of which one should be Easter
a variety of worship styles but kept in check by the lectionary and prayer book
localism - there is no central authority - each province is part of a federal structure
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Such is the genius of Anglicanism. Such also is its weakness.
So true. But it's through the cracks that the light gets in. Isn't the church called to be as broken and wounded as Christ's own body? That's the only way it can help others, who are equally broken and wounded. Not by being strong, powerful and unassailable. God help us all if the Anglican church ever gets like that!
That's excellent. This reminds me why I keep one faltering finger nail in touch with Christianity. As one of my old teachers used to say (about work), you don't have to get it right, you have to be in touch.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
scuffleball: What /is/ distinctly Anglican anyway?
Do I have to say it again? The elderly coffee ladies after service. Although 'coffee' is a big word for what they're pouring.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
My point was more that for the particular DH issue that was being discussed to be dominated by those at the extreme ends of the CoE, who seem to have little interest in Anglicanism, seems rather unfair.
Some Anglican evangelicals, Anglican evangelicals like me, consider those within the church who persist in aggressively planting flags at some metaphorical 'centre' of Anglicanism (i.e. revisionists) are not in fact faithful to the original vision of Anglicanism at all.
The truth, as I see it, is this: the ideological employment of spacial metaphors claiming the 'centre' is perpetuated by those who are really interested in power and influence, especially if the occupation of that constructed centre involves defining that centrality over against those who are deemed occupy some kind of constructed margin or fringe or extreme end. However, when facing arguments which lay claim to the centre, I like to take comfort in the fact that Jesus identifies most strongly with the marginalised.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
My point was more that for the particular DH issue that was being discussed to be dominated by those at the extreme ends of the CoE, who seem to have little interest in Anglicanism, seems rather unfair.
Some Anglican evangelicals, Anglican evangelicals like me, consider those within the church who persist in aggressively planting flags at some metaphorical 'centre' of Anglicanism (i.e. revisionists) are not in fact faithful to the original vision of Anglicanism at all.
The truth, as I see it, is this: the ideological employment of spacial metaphors claiming the 'centre' is perpetuated by those who are really interested in power and influence, especially if the occupation of that constructed centre involves defining that centrality over against those who are deemed occupy some kind of constructed margin or fringe or extreme end. However, when facing arguments which lay claim to the centre, I like to take comfort in the fact that Jesus identifies most strongly with the marginalised.
But that's not at all what I am saying - I am talking about the far, far extremes. I wouldn't identify as being in the 'centre' of Anglicanism myself at all, but I am talking about the extreme edges of FiF and very conservative evangelicals - not about all evangelicals at all, far from it. I am talking about how this particular DH debate is dominated by those on the far extremes, not even most evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics. I am perfectly happy to be outside of the centre, I am not happy for Synod to ignore the views of the majority of laity and clergy and be so unrepresentative.
As for marginalization, it's so not true that those outside the 'centre' are marginalized. The reason extreme voices are being tolerated is because of their power. To suggest that the likes of Anglican Mainstream and Reform are in the same category of oppression to Jesus as the poor and disabled is a gross misuse of Scripture.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Some Anglican evangelicals, Anglican evangelicals like me, consider those within the church who persist in aggressively planting flags at some metaphorical 'centre' of Anglicanism (i.e. revisionists) are not in fact faithful to the original vision of Anglicanism at all.
I think in some ways evangelical anglicans can sometimes end up being their own worst enemy. A lot of them seem to have a vision of the church that owes much to the low church tradition of the 19th Century (see http://charlesdickenspage.com/illustrations_web/David_Copperfield/David_Copperfield_01.jpg) when the vicar was commonly addressed as Mr <So-and-So>.
As such they have been disinterested in the church hierarchy to the point of harming themselves as a movement (The Ugley Vicar blog made several posts on this topic a couple of years back, which I link below):
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/and-still-there-is-no-conservative.html
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/whats-really-wrong-with-english.html
I quote for emphasis:
"Connected with points 4 and 5, English Conservative Evangelicals are inconsistent over bishops and episcopacy. For the most part, they treat the episcopate as a joke — something they do not need and which the church would be better off without. Yet they will enthusiastically welcome overseas bishops and fete them as great leaders of the Church when occasion requires it. You cannot be serious players in an episcopal church and disparage the episcopate, which is one reason why Conservative Evangelicals are not serious players."
[ 17. July 2014, 17:43: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I doubt that the majority of practicing lay Anglicans in the CofE would identify with the agenda and values of the ideological construct called "the centre" which happens to hold ecclesio-political sway in Synod. I suspect that the "majority views" of Synod are in actual fact the minority view across the whole church more generally.
In other words, there might be lots of priests who aggressively promote a revisionist ideology as a some kind of "central" expression Anglicanism in order to gain power in Synod, but most of those priests have congregations which, numerically speaking, are in the distinct minority in terms of regular and committed worshippers.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...I am talking about the far, far extremes. I wouldn't identify as being in the 'centre' of Anglicanism myself at all, but I am talking about the extreme edges of FiF and very conservative evangelicals - not about all evangelicals at all, far from it. I am talking about how this particular DH debate is dominated by those on the far extremes, not even most evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics.
Ah, you mean those ultra-extreme con-evos and anglo-catholics that disagree with you on certain DH issues...
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I doubt that the majority of practicing lay Anglicans in the CofE would identify with the agenda and values of the ideological construct called "the centre" which happens to hold ecclesio-political sway in Synod. I suspect that the "majority views" of Synod are in actual fact the minority view across the whole church more generally.
In other words, there might be lots of priests who aggressively promote a revisionist ideology as a some kind of "central" expression Anglicanism in order to gain power in Synod, but most of those priests have congregations which, numerically speaking, are in the distinct minority in terms of regular and committed worshippers.
I think it is true that Synod is not representative of the C of E as a whole - but not in the way you describe. Synod is overly packed with "extremists" of all persuasions - Conservative Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics and liberals. The arguments that go on in General Synod bear little relation to what the vast majority of the people in the parishes actually think. This was made obvious in the aftermath of the vote on women bishops in 2012. Across the country, parishioners were up in arms at the way that "their" representatives had voted. I certainly was present in one meeting where the General Synod representatives who had voted against the measure were ripped apart by furious lay people. You could see the shock on the faces of the GS representatives as it finally hit home how out of touch they were with the groundswell of opinion. Sadly, little has changed since then, as all suggestions of reform of GS have been firmly resisted by Church House.
It is also true that the "centre" (defined as Church House and the central hierarchy) is also unrepresentative of the C of E as a whole. As an organisation, Church House is predominantly conservative and controlling. Hence, their determination to block any attempts to reform GS and make it more accountable to the people in the parishes.
quote:
there might be lots of priests who aggressively promote a revisionist ideology as a some kind of "central" expression Anglicanism in order to gain power in Synod
This is just plain nonsense, as far as I have experienced the C of E. The only people I have seen "aggresively promoting" anything in recent years are the CEs.
To move back to the question of what is "distinctively anglican", I would point to something which is actually being eroded at the moment - the sense of being a family of churches. Ever since George Carey, there has been a strong movement to unify the Anglican Communion by imposing unanimity from on high. At its best the Anglican Communion (and Anglicanism in general) resists such attempts. We are a family of churches who are different and yet committed to one another. And even within dioceses or deaneries, that sense of being a family of churches marks out the best of Anglicanism. We may be different. We may not agree on everything. But we are committed to one another.
Sadly, this is being increasingly lost in the C of E - though not in other places, I have found.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think that Daronmedway is right to some extent, that the 'centre' tends to be wherever we ourselves want it to be ie. somewhere near us ... by and large.
But I also think there's a similar dynamic going on with some of those who like to think of themselves on the margins.
'Look at me, I'm on the margins. I'm where the action is ... God has to to dance to my tune ...'
Both tendencies are equally bad and ultimately cancel one another out.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
To me being distinctively Anglican in a sense means taking the best of the Catholic and Protestant traditions and making them our own. It is pure Biblical and Patristic Catholic Christianity, with no Roman or Eastern additions or Protestant subtractions. It affirms the Real Presence without defining it, and it affirms salvation by faith without neglecting good works. Anglicans worship using a vernacular liturgy adapted to the context of the national church. Communion is given to the laity in both kinds, and real wine is used. Anglicans take the Bible seriously but not literally. They are not unduly influenced by one theologian, and are creedal but not confessional. That is to me the core of Anglican faith and practice.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think that Daronmedway is right to some extent, that the 'centre' tends to be wherever we ourselves want it to be ie. somewhere near us ... by and large.
But I also think there's a similar dynamic going on with some of those who like to think of themselves on the margins.
'Look at me, I'm on the margins. I'm where the action is ... God has to to dance to my tune ...'
Both tendencies are equally bad and ultimately cancel one another out.
Precisely. I'm taking issue with the whole use of spacial metaphor with reference to church government and missiology. I take issue with claiming some imaginary "centre" to legitimise one particular vision of Anglicanism over against other "marginal" visions of Anglicanism. I especially object when that "central" vision bears little or no relation to the historical vision of Anglicanism to which the Scriptures and Anglican formularies bear witness.
I see in the spacial claim to centrality within Anglicanism a brand of early stage totalitarianism in which those claiming "the centre" are beginning to invite those deemed to be on the margins either to leave or to submit to the ideological vision of the centre.
In other words, the "central" ideology does not understand itself as just one on a number of valid positions within a wider vision of Anglicanism; it is an expansionistic form of ideological imperialism which is actively seeking to expand its borders. And it does this in two basic ways: subsumption or expulsion, by a process of "listen or leave".
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Oscar the Grouch says: This is just plain nonsense, as far as I have experienced the C of E. The only people I have seen "aggresively promoting" anything in recent years are the CEs.
I find that very hard to believe. Do you honestly believe that everyone just woke up one morning and decided that gay marriage and female bishops (for example) would be a good idea? Of course not. They are ideas which have been promoted to people. It's what all people do when they want their way; they promote their ideas.
I'm not objecting to the promotion of ideas within the church. I'm objecting to the aggressive nature of ideological claims to "centrality" - by means of spacial metaphor - as a means of lending artificial legitimacy to one particular view as more Anglican than another.
After all, the issue isn't really about whether one view is "more Anglican" than another. The issue is about which view is right.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I can see what you're driving at, daronmedway.
I don't disagree.
It's simply that whatever hegemony there is, that's what it is going to end up doing.
Just suppose there was some kind of HTB-style hegemony (and there is in some quarters) then that would begin to elbow out the alternatives.
Same as if there was an Anglo-Catholic hegemony which claimed to be the 'centre' or a Reform one.
Heck, there's been enough heat generated on these Boards over the years about Sydney Anglicans. Even if a great deal of it was exaggerated - there remained non-Jensenite parishes in the Sydney diocese for instance - there was certainly a case to answer.
I s'pose the interesting dynamic within the Anglican communion at the moment could be that there's a series of competing expansionist empires ... one that sees itself as centrist (or several that see themselves that way) and what you might call the 'extremes' - the Reform types and the charismatics on the one hand and the full-on Anglo-Catholics on the other.
Whether the Communion can survive such centrifugal tensions without fragmenting remains to be seen.
@Try - nice try, Try. I'd go along with that if such an ideal actually existed on the ground. I don't see much evidence of the Anglicanism you depict here.
Where I live you've got dumbed-down, liturgy-lite evangelicalism on the one hand and a kind of vague, woolly, catholic-lite liberalism on the other.
To find the kind of Anglicanism you're talking about would mean heading off into the sticks and worshipping in country parishes outside of the towns.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Gamaliel.
Yes, I agree with you that most, if not all, 'brands' of Anglicanism would like to see an expansion of their own particular vision. That's the nature of conviction in general I think, and not necessarily wrong in itself. For example, HTB are expansionist in their particular vision of Anglicanism.
However, they don't tend to make claims to ideological "centrality" at an institutional level. Rather, they seem to have opted for the exertion relational influence through a combination of political circumspection and a reliance on the persuasiveness of results. This, I think, is what differentiates HTB and charismatics from the more politically minded and confrontational elements within conservative evangelicalism.
[ 18. July 2014, 10:39: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I think that's fair.
However, I took your comments earlier to relate more to expansionist tendencies among non-evangelicals ... a kind of strong-arm inclusivist tendency ...
'We represent the centre of Anglicanism. We are pro-same-sex marriage, pro-women bishops, we don't want those nasty conservative evangelicals over there messing things up ... nor do we want those spikey-stick-in-the-muds at the more Catholic end interfering with things ...'
A kind of Stalinist Militant MOTR tendency ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I think that's fair.
However, I took your comments earlier to relate more to expansionist tendencies among non-evangelicals ... a kind of strong-arm inclusivist tendency ...
'We represent the centre of Anglicanism. We are pro-same-sex marriage, pro-women bishops, we don't want those nasty conservative evangelicals over there messing things up ... nor do we want those spikey-stick-in-the-muds at the more Catholic end interfering with things ...'
A kind of Stalinist Militant MOTR tendency ...
Yes, that's what I am saying. At risk of overstatement I'm saying that HTB have the luxury of a very large and influential network of likeminded Anglican and non-Anglican evangelicals and a track record of numerical and organisational success in terms of "getting things done" in terms of evangelisation and church planting and therefore don't have to take the political route in order to get their way.
They are playing the long game. In contrast, however, the centralist agenda is by and large political, and does not have the grass-roots results in terms of successful evangelisation and church planting. They are playing a shorter, more institutional game which, given time, will most likely fizzle out through the natural processes of church decline.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Past experience suggests that it is evangelical models that tend to blow themselves out while the MOTR church continues. It is certainly noticeable out here that it is the Church of Scotland that has survived while the Wee Frees and the Congregationalists, both the subject of massive growth in the 19th century, have disappeared.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I think that's fair.
However, I took your comments earlier to relate more to expansionist tendencies among non-evangelicals ... a kind of strong-arm inclusivist tendency ...
'We represent the centre of Anglicanism. We are pro-same-sex marriage, pro-women bishops, we don't want those nasty conservative evangelicals over there messing things up ... nor do we want those spikey-stick-in-the-muds at the more Catholic end interfering with things ...'
A kind of Stalinist Militant MOTR tendency ...
And dare I say neo-colonialist...these are the same folk who were supporting African independence fifty years ago, and now they are trying to impose Western values on the former colonies. Ironic, to say the least...
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Oscar the Grouch says: This is just plain nonsense, as far as I have experienced the C of E. The only people I have seen "aggresively promoting" anything in recent years are the CEs.
I find that very hard to believe. Do you honestly believe that everyone just woke up one morning and decided that gay marriage and female bishops (for example) would be a good idea? Of course not. They are ideas which have been promoted to people. It's what all people do when they want their way; they promote their ideas.
I'm not objecting to the promotion of ideas within the church. I'm objecting to the aggressive nature of ideological claims to "centrality" - by means of spacial metaphor - as a means of lending artificial legitimacy to one particular view as more Anglican than another.
After all, the issue isn't really about whether one view is "more Anglican" than another. The issue is about which view is right.
Nice of you to completely ignore my response to you re 'centrality'. I'm not arguing about 'centrality', I'm talking about those who openly do not have any particular loyalty to Anglicanism (and by that I mean those who happily admit that they'd go RC or Baptist or NFI or whatever, if it didn't mean losing resources from the CoE) - not accusing people of being 'less Anglican'.
You are completely misrepresenting my position.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I think that's fair.
However, I took your comments earlier to relate more to expansionist tendencies among non-evangelicals ... a kind of strong-arm inclusivist tendency ...
'We represent the centre of Anglicanism. We are pro-same-sex marriage, pro-women bishops, we don't want those nasty conservative evangelicals over there messing things up ... nor do we want those spikey-stick-in-the-muds at the more Catholic end interfering with things ...'
A kind of Stalinist Militant MOTR tendency ...
And dare I say neo-colonialist...these are the same folk who were supporting African independence fifty years ago, and now they are trying to impose Western values on the former colonies. Ironic, to say the least...
Actually, not 'Western values' at all, cf Ugandan gay rights activists bravely risking their lives for equality's sakes. It's Western evangelicals promoting homophobic legislation.
Painting Africans as being inherently misogynistic and homophobic is deeply racist.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...I am talking about the far, far extremes. I wouldn't identify as being in the 'centre' of Anglicanism myself at all, but I am talking about the extreme edges of FiF and very conservative evangelicals - not about all evangelicals at all, far from it. I am talking about how this particular DH debate is dominated by those on the far extremes, not even most evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics.
Ah, you mean those ultra-extreme con-evos and anglo-catholics that disagree with you on certain DH issues...
No, those who disagree with the vast majority of CoE clergy and laity, but for some reason manage to dominate the conversation.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Nice of you to completely ignore my response to you re 'centrality'. I'm not arguing about 'centrality', I'm talking about those who openly do not have any particular loyalty to Anglicanism (and by that I mean those who happily admit that they'd go RC or Baptist or NFI or whatever, if it didn't mean losing resources from the CoE) - not accusing people of being 'less Anglican'.
From my experience such people are rare in leadership, although somewhat common among the congregations. Particularly in London where many people come from their own faith tradition and are only involved with Anglicanism through an evangelical parish; when they return to their home countries they go back to their home churches.
Certainly the HTB network encourages its bright young things to go for ordination and to make a lifelong commitment to the Church of England. Considering that it's a heck of a lot easier to become a pastor in an independent evangelical church (or to start your own) than to become a vicar in the CofE, I think this indicates a significant commitment to the institution.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Nice of you to completely ignore my response to you re 'centrality'. I'm not arguing about 'centrality', I'm talking about those who openly do not have any particular loyalty to Anglicanism (and by that I mean those who happily admit that they'd go RC or Baptist or NFI or whatever, if it didn't mean losing resources from the CoE) - not accusing people of being 'less Anglican'.
From my experience such people are rare in leadership, although somewhat common among the congregations. Particularly in London where many people come from their own faith tradition and are only involved with Anglicanism through an evangelical parish; when they return to their home countries they go back to their home churches.
Certainly the HTB network encourages its bright young things to go for ordination and to make a lifelong commitment to the Church of England. Considering that it's a heck of a lot easier to become a pastor in an independent evangelical church (or to start your own) than to become a vicar in the CofE, I think this indicates a significant commitment to the institution.
Oh I wouldn't classify HTB as extreme, at least not at a congregation level. I know places much more conservative than HTB.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Oh I wouldn't classify HTB as extreme, at least not at a congregation level. I know places much more conservative than HTB.
Can you (or other Shippies) give examples of some of these very conservative evangelical churches? I am familiar with St Helens Bishopsgate in London which came across to me as practically Southern Baptist, but I just have no idea how influential and/or common they are throughout England. Are any of the major Bishops/Archbishops from this background?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aggie
Ship's cat
# 4385
|
Posted
[/QUOTE]Can you (or other Shippies) give examples of some of these very conservative evangelical churches? I am familiar with St Helens Bishopsgate in London which came across to me as practically Southern Baptist, but I just have no idea how influential and/or common they are throughout England. Are any of the major Bishops/Archbishops from this background? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Christ Church, Mayfair is another very conservative evangelical church, where the clergy call themselves Ministers and Elders.
--------------------
“I see his blood upon the rose
And in the stars the glory of his eyes,
His body gleams amid eternal snows,
His tears fall from the skies.”
(Joseph Mary Plunkett 1887-1917)
Posts: 581 | From: A crazy, crazy world | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Poppy
Ship's dancing cat
# 2000
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Oh I wouldn't classify HTB as extreme, at least not at a congregation level. I know places much more conservative than HTB.
Can you (or other Shippies) give examples of some of these very conservative evangelical churches? I am familiar with St Helens Bishopsgate in London which came across to me as practically Southern Baptist, but I just have no idea how influential and/or common they are throughout England. Are any of the major Bishops/Archbishops from this background?
If you go to the Reform website then you can put in your postcode and it will bring up churches which are either Reform churches or are linked to the organisation. In my area there is one of each and the linked church has clergy who are members of Reform. I've had minimal contact with the clergy from these churches as they don't go to chapter meetings except when the new bishop came along and he was told how dreadful it was that there were a)bishops and b) a diocese.
--------------------
At the still point of the turning world - there the dance is...
Posts: 1406 | From: mostly on the edge | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Are any of the major Bishops/Archbishops from this background?
No - and this is what I alluded to in my post. The problem with evangelicals on the conservative end is that they often have a schizophrenic attitude to the hierarchy.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Actually, not 'Western values' at all, cf Ugandan gay rights activists bravely risking their lives for equality's sakes. It's Western evangelicals promoting homophobic legislation.
Painting Africans as being inherently misogynistic and homophobic is deeply racist.
Right. So why are those Ugandan gay rights activists having to risk their life at all? Do you believe theirs is a majority or minority view amongst Anglicans in Uganda?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Nice of you to completely ignore my response to you re 'centrality'. I'm not arguing about 'centrality', I'm talking about those who openly do not have any particular loyalty to Anglicanism (and by that I mean those who happily admit that they'd go RC or Baptist or NFI or whatever, if it didn't mean losing resources from the CoE) - not accusing people of being 'less Anglican'.
From my experience such people are rare in leadership, although somewhat common among the congregations. Particularly in London where many people come from their own faith tradition and are only involved with Anglicanism through an evangelical parish; when they return to their home countries they go back to their home churches.
Certainly the HTB network encourages its bright young things to go for ordination and to make a lifelong commitment to the Church of England. Considering that it's a heck of a lot easier to become a pastor in an independent evangelical church (or to start your own) than to become a vicar in the CofE, I think this indicates a significant commitment to the institution.
I guess I'd be one of 'those types' of leaders. I seriously considered leaving the CofE about three years ago to church plant with Newfrontiers but God firmly closed the door on it. So, yes, I do look first and foremost to other evangelicals rather than other Anglicans for ecclesiological and missiological fellowship but, frankly, I consider that to be a healthy expression of fellowship, not a lack of commitment to Anglican evangelicalism.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The trouble is, daronmedway, that the 'evangelical charismatic aristocracy' - your Nicky Gumbels and New Wine types in the CofE and the Mumfords in the Vineyard and so on - no more occupy the moral highground than the nasty liberals who are trying to expand what they see as the 'centre'.
Given the number of outright lies, half-truths and exaggerations that have been fostered or promulgated by the Gumboids and Mum-sters over the years, I'm surprised anyone takes them seriously.
But money talks ...
Ok, I know that I'm from South Wales and have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to toffee-nosed public school evangelicals and charismatics. I'm an inverted snob. I admit it.
I put two fingers up at Gumbel and twats like J John. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.
I say this even though I recognise it to be completely irrational and even though some of my best friends went to Public School and even though some of my wife's family were once involved at St Andrew's Chorleywood.
But there's something about middle-class charismatic Anglican evangelical charismaticism that brings out the worst in me ...
Sure, those who are trying to make a centre out of the liberal agenda come from the same background. The liberal vicar here is a toffee nosed twat in some ways but I still like to go out with him for a pint.
All this puts me in a quandary. A plague on both their houses.
Wild-horses wouldn't drag me anywhere like New Frontiers these days. They're full of shit too.
The problem is, there are equal and opposite piles of supperating shite at the liberal end and all other ways round.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I can very much identify with the public school oligarchy at the heart of Anglican evangelicalism. It annoys me too. Their blinkered view of evangelisation has coloured their ecclesiology rather badly which in turn has led to an overly narrow notion of koinonia which, at its worst, creates a almost wilful blindness to the normal struggles of under-resourced churches which are less favourably placed in terms of social demography.
In this respect I think charismatic and conservative evangelical Anglicans have much to learn about mission in and to working class communities.
And the same holds true for Newfrontiers, which is partly why I think God has kept me in the church of England. In my opinion, one of the greatest strengths of English Anglicanism is the somewhat understated, but nevertheless deeply incarnational, commitment to an Anglican "presence in every community". The problem, of course, is that the church can't really agree on what that presence should actually entail.
For evangelicals like me, who are called to minister in areas of social deprivation, that commitment calls for our continuing commitment to classic tenets of evangelicalism like Christocentric conversionism, biblicism, and to and to a greater extend local activism - values which can indeed make us appear unAnglican to our liberal colleagues.
This is mistaken, in my view. It seems to me that the holding of such convictions doesn't necessarily mean that I hold to the same cultural values as the posh boy oligarchy of HTB and New Wine. I may share the same theological convictions as my posh colleagues but I want to see them expressed in ways which HTB types might find rather alien.
[ 18. July 2014, 19:14: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Oscar the Grouch says: This is just plain nonsense, as far as I have experienced the C of E. The only people I have seen "aggresively promoting" anything in recent years are the CEs.
I find that very hard to believe. Do you honestly believe that everyone just woke up one morning and decided that gay marriage and female bishops (for example) would be a good idea? Of course not. They are ideas which have been promoted to people. It's what all people do when they want their way; they promote their ideas.
I'm not objecting to the promotion of ideas within the church. I'm objecting to the aggressive nature of ideological claims to "centrality" - by means of spacial metaphor - as a means of lending artificial legitimacy to one particular view as more Anglican than another.
After all, the issue isn't really about whether one view is "more Anglican" than another. The issue is about which view is right.
Nice of you to completely ignore my response to you re 'centrality'. I'm not arguing about 'centrality', I'm talking about those who openly do not have any particular loyalty to Anglicanism (and by that I mean those who happily admit that they'd go RC or Baptist or NFI or whatever, if it didn't mean losing resources from the CoE) - not accusing people of being 'less Anglican'.
You are completely misrepresenting my position.
I'm struggling to see how you can support the assertion that you've only seen traditionalists aggressively promoting their point of view while at the same time sharing anecdotes about liberal minded people savaging their opponents. Doesn't seem very consistent to me.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I guess I'd be one of 'those types' of leaders. I seriously considered leaving the CofE about three years ago to church plant with Newfrontiers but God firmly closed the door on it. So, yes, I do look first and foremost to other evangelicals rather than other Anglicans for ecclesiological and missiological fellowship but, frankly, I consider that to be a healthy expression of fellowship, not a lack of commitment to Anglican evangelicalism.
I have heard a number of evangelical Anglicans say similar things and it always leaves me a little bemused - after all, to what extent is their faith/ministry distinctively Anglican at all? And this even whilst I totally understand that one might have very good fellowship with non-Anglican evangelicals.
This seems to me to embody fairly strongly the quote earlier "being part of an episcopal church while not believing in an episcopate".
It seems the only consistent paths to take are either MLJs or that of the Sidney Anglicans (their tactics, rather than their beliefs), otherwise one can't really complain about being an increasingly ignored rump in the CofE nor can one justify this with some kind of appeal to a remnant suffering - this is mostly self inflicted.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Oh I wouldn't classify HTB as extreme, at least not at a congregation level. I know places much more conservative than HTB.
Can you (or other Shippies) give examples of some of these very conservative evangelical churches? I am familiar with St Helens Bishopsgate in London which came across to me as practically Southern Baptist, but I just have no idea how influential and/or common they are throughout England. Are any of the major Bishops/Archbishops from this background?
As others have said, the Reform website will give more information but there are several churches in the Eastbourne-Hastings area.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Past experience suggests that it is evangelical models that tend to blow themselves out while the MOTR church continues. It is certainly noticeable out here that it is the Church of Scotland that has survived while the Wee Frees and the Congregationalists, both the subject of massive growth in the 19th century, have disappeared.
This is a fair point but I think it doesn't properly account for the fact that the church has run out of those lovely Victorian legacies which came, in large part, from evangelical philanthropy. The church is very much living from hand to mouth now and expressions of Anglicanism which lack evangelistic confidence simply will not survive into the next decade unless they can fill their pews with real, live people who give real live money.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
Of late, far more avowedly evangelical anglican leaders have sat down in diocesan settings to seriously listen to ....and pray/ worship with ....those of another theological stable to their own.
Which can only help.
The alternative is having folk saying: "i don't even want to sit down and listen to what you have to say "
Which is Never going to help........
Maybe what unites us is really bigger than what we think divides us.
[ 18. July 2014, 19:31: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Actually, not 'Western values' at all, cf Ugandan gay rights activists bravely risking their lives for equality's sakes. It's Western evangelicals promoting homophobic legislation.
Painting Africans as being inherently misogynistic and homophobic is deeply racist.
Right. So why are those Ugandan gay rights activists having to risk their life at all? Do you believe theirs is a majority or minority view amongst Anglicans in Uganda?
They're risking their lives because of a government decision, influenced by some US evangelicals. I do not know the mainstream Ugandan Anglican position, but my main point was to counter the idea that homophobia is some kind of default setting for Africa and other former colonies. It's a pernicious idea amongst conservatives but is both deeply racist and incorrect.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Oscar the Grouch says: This is just plain nonsense, as far as I have experienced the C of E. The only people I have seen "aggresively promoting" anything in recent years are the CEs.
I find that very hard to believe. Do you honestly believe that everyone just woke up one morning and decided that gay marriage and female bishops (for example) would be a good idea? Of course not. They are ideas which have been promoted to people. It's what all people do when they want their way; they promote their ideas.
I'm not objecting to the promotion of ideas within the church. I'm objecting to the aggressive nature of ideological claims to "centrality" - by means of spacial metaphor - as a means of lending artificial legitimacy to one particular view as more Anglican than another.
After all, the issue isn't really about whether one view is "more Anglican" than another. The issue is about which view is right.
Nice of you to completely ignore my response to you re 'centrality'. I'm not arguing about 'centrality', I'm talking about those who openly do not have any particular loyalty to Anglicanism (and by that I mean those who happily admit that they'd go RC or Baptist or NFI or whatever, if it didn't mean losing resources from the CoE) - not accusing people of being 'less Anglican'.
You are completely misrepresenting my position.
I'm struggling to see how you can support the assertion that you've only seen traditionalists aggressively promoting their point of view while at the same time sharing anecdotes about liberal minded people savaging their opponents. Doesn't seem very consistent to me.
Sorry, what anecdotes about liberal minded people savaging their opponents? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Of course people other than conservatives aggressively promote their points, but those others aren't dominating the particular Dead Horse I was talking about, because the people who are on the opposing side are a minority. That's my whole point - they are a tiny minority within the CoE, why do they get to dominate the debate? My initial quote that started this thread was only talking about this and other Dead Horses.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
They're risking their lives because of a government decision, influenced by some US evangelicals. I do not know the mainstream Ugandan Anglican position, but my main point was to counter the idea that homophobia is some kind of default setting for Africa and other former colonies. It's a pernicious idea amongst conservatives but is both deeply racist and incorrect.
So the Ugandan government blindly does what "Western evangelicals" tell them to? The problem is that your stance denies them agency.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I guess I'd be one of 'those types' of leaders. I seriously considered leaving the CofE about three years ago to church plant with Newfrontiers but God firmly closed the door on it. So, yes, I do look first and foremost to other evangelicals rather than other Anglicans for ecclesiological and missiological fellowship but, frankly, I consider that to be a healthy expression of fellowship, not a lack of commitment to Anglican evangelicalism.
I have heard a number of evangelical Anglicans say similar things and it always leaves me a little bemused - after all, to what extent is their faith/ministry distinctively Anglican at all? And this even whilst I totally understand that one might have very good fellowship with non-Anglican evangelicals.
This seems to me to embody fairly strongly the quote earlier "being part of an episcopal church while not believing in an episcopate".
It seems the only consistent paths to take are either MLJs or that of the Sidney Anglicans (their tactics, rather than their beliefs), otherwise one can't really complain about being an increasingly ignored rump in the CofE nor can one justify this with some kind of appeal to a remnant suffering - this is mostly self inflicted.
That's why I said I was committed to Anglican evangelicalism rather than evangelical Anglicanism! My evangelicalism is what defines me, my Anglicanism simply places me within the structures in a particular denomination; a denomination which, I grant, is governed episcopally. However, I don't think that this posture is unAnglican because there is a long heritage of evangelicalism within the Anglican church. In fact, I dare say that the DNA of historic Anglicanism is, in fact, evangelical.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Oscar the Grouch says: This is just plain nonsense, as far as I have experienced the C of E. The only people I have seen "aggresively promoting" anything in recent years are the CEs.
I find that very hard to believe. Do you honestly believe that everyone just woke up one morning and decided that gay marriage and female bishops (for example) would be a good idea? Of course not. They are ideas which have been promoted to people. It's what all people do when they want their way; they promote their ideas.
I'm not objecting to the promotion of ideas within the church. I'm objecting to the aggressive nature of ideological claims to "centrality" - by means of spacial metaphor - as a means of lending artificial legitimacy to one particular view as more Anglican than another.
After all, the issue isn't really about whether one view is "more Anglican" than another. The issue is about which view is right.
Nice of you to completely ignore my response to you re 'centrality'. I'm not arguing about 'centrality', I'm talking about those who openly do not have any particular loyalty to Anglicanism (and by that I mean those who happily admit that they'd go RC or Baptist or NFI or whatever, if it didn't mean losing resources from the CoE) - not accusing people of being 'less Anglican'.
You are completely misrepresenting my position.
I'm struggling to see how you can support the assertion that you've only seen traditionalists aggressively promoting their point of view while at the same time sharing anecdotes about liberal minded people savaging their opponents. Doesn't seem very consistent to me.
Sorry, what anecdotes about liberal minded people savaging their opponents?
You said:
quote:
I certainly was present in one meeting where the General Synod representatives who had voted against the measure were ripped apart by furious lay people. You could see the shock on the faces of the GS representatives as it finally hit home how out of touch they were with the groundswell of opinion.
[ 18. July 2014, 19:39: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
