|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: ECUSA vs. The C of E
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Hypothetical maybe, but would +Gene's appointment be causing such a stir if he were living (unmarried) with a heterosexual partner? Possibly he would have been quietly persuaded to resign, but I can't see it being a Communion-splitting issue. Yet Anglican policy is [a] that any sexual relationship outside marriage is unacceptable, and [b] (as ToujoursDan reminds us) gay people should be valued and treated as equals.
I sense a lot of second-hand homophobia, in that Western church leaders may not be directly homophobic themselves, but they certainly seem to be afraiid of doing anything to upset the African bishops, many of whom are clearly homophobic.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
And also incapable of standing up to a new (and rich) type of agressive conservative evangelical in the 'global North'.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
FWIW, I agree that there was too much homophobia among British evangelicals, especially over the Jeffrey John thing, though I also agree with Spawn that there were valid reasons for objecting to him.
I think that has changed, by and large. I know plenty of evangelical churches (and theological colleges) have had gay speakers in to discuss their experiences. Celibate gay people mostly, but they're no less gay than anyone else. We now seem to be making the wise distinction between orientation and practice much better and more clearly.
And yes, I lament the difficulties in relating to Nigeria, for example, on that. But the African church has a distinctly wide range of views on the issue; Nigeria is just the most extreme. And I doubt what I say is going to change anything there.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
I was very hearted at our last clergy conference when one of the assistant clergy in one of our evangelical congregations mentioned that there had been a congregational discussion group on the whole subject of homosexual relations and that a congregational member (or two) who were involved in a gay relationship had been asked to speak. I initially fell into the trap of imagining that this was someone who a) had once been gay but had 'changed' or that b) this was not an active member of the congregation but was soon disabused of my prejudice and was told that it was exactly as had been described.
When I was back in Montreal there was this one extremely evo congregation - vicar was a graduate of Oak Hill - the real McCoy - and one of the wardens was an extremely 'out' university professor. I asked him what sort of 'fit' he felt this was. His response was that the sort of worship at St X's was what he wanted. He understood what the public stance of the congregation via Anglican Essentials Canada was but that nobody had called him on it. There was some rapprochement (the details of the conversation are a little fuzzy).
There's more to this story than meets the eye. There are plenty of gay evangelicals around and many of them are attending evangelical churches. It's just back where the rest of the church was 30 years ago.....the closet I guess.
RR
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
If the House of Bishops decides that Episcopal Bishops are no longer in communion with CofE Bishops, will there cease to be an Anglican Church in the United States of America?
Will the House of Bishops decide some other Anglican "church" is the "real" Anglican church, and invite those bishops to Lambeth?
How does this work?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
I don't think that's going to happen. I think the House of Bishops may decide they're going to do what they feel led to do and nuts to anybody who tells them they can't. They seem to be growing in that determination. But they won't be the one's to cut the apron strings.
I don't think.
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
If the House of Bishops decides that Episcopal Bishops are no longer in communion with CofE Bishops, will there cease to be an Anglican Church in the United States of America?
Will the House of Bishops decide some other Anglican "church" is the "real" Anglican church, and invite those bishops to Lambeth?
How does this work?
There's been speculation that the Camp Allen bishops who have submitted themselves to Windsor/Dromantine will be recognized as the representatives of Anglicanism in the U. S. and that they will be asked to elect a new primate.
That could be so, but I doubt it. In any case, there's a number of ways to form a new U. S. province. They may be all somewhat messy, of course.
And I suspect the Primates, not the CofE House of Bishops, will take the lead in any such realignment should it happen.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
If the House of Bishops decides that Episcopal Bishops are no longer in communion with CofE Bishops, will there cease to be an Anglican Church in the United States of America?
Will the House of Bishops decide some other Anglican "church" is the "real" Anglican church, and invite those bishops to Lambeth?
How does this work?
Well, if I may chime in here:
1. Assuming that you refer to the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
2. You're not going to see the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church decide any such thing even if the notion somehow came into the bishops' heads. The House of Bishops of TEC alone are not empowered to do such a thing. Only the General Convention could do such a thing.
A. Because it is part of the written Consitution of Ther Episcopal Church. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
and
B. Such an action could not be accomplished without a 3/4 majority vote of both the House of Bishops and and the House of Deputies in two successive General Conventions.
Actually there is no "Anglican Church" in the USA that is in communion with the see of Canterbury except The Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion.
The Episcopal church can be said to be Anglican by heritage and association, but it is particularly sui generis - in unique ways its own special thing.
But perhaps you meant this the other way around ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) with the English House of Bishops severing ties with The Episcopal Church? Thre is no precdent for that, but surely the authority for it would lie in the province of the archbishop of Canterbury acting with the consent of the Church of England General Synod by overwhelming majority.
That is a scenario just as unlikely as the first one I put forward vice versa.
INMHO
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by moveable_type:
I'm fascinated by how much trouble English shipmates have absorbing this concept - no offence.
Yes. there is offence. I'm slightly annoyed that you think we have any trouble with the idea of elections. We had them for centuries before you copied them from us.
If you persist in pretending that this is all some Imperialist hangup about democracy you will never understand where your oppponents are coming from.
Don't know about anyone else, but I don't think it's "some Imperialist hangup about democracy." To me the problem is that when we've said again and again that our bishops are elected, not appointed, and people still persist in referring to the appointment of bishops in the Episcopal Church, I can't help but wonder what else they're not reading in our posts and how deep their (mis)understanding of our polity goes.
In my case, it's a semantic difference. The verb "appoint" does not, in my lexicon, dictate how the person appointed was chosen. It makes perfect sense to me, for example, to say that a bishop was appointed by being elected. ' Elected' and 'Appointed' are not mutually exclusive. Possibly a pond difference, possibly just a personal difference. I don't know.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
But perhaps you meant this the other way around with the English House of Bishops severing ties with The Episcopal Church? Thre is no precdent for that, but surely the authority for it would lie in the province of the archbishop of Canterbury acting with the consent of the Church of England General Synod by overwhelming majority.
That is a scenario just as unlikely as the first one I put forward vice versa.
The ball lies in the Archbishop of Canterbury's court - not the House of Bishops and not the General Synod. An Archbishop of Canterbury could, in theory, declare that he is not in communion with TEC. He could decide to act alone in not issuing invitations to meetings of the Communion over which he presides. In reality, I daresay the Archbishop would take advice and would make any such decisions after consultation with the Archbishop of York, the House of Bishops, the General Synod and the other Anglican 'Instruments'.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The verb "appoint" does not, in my lexicon, dictate how the person appointed was chosen. It makes perfect sense to me, for example, to say that a bishop was appointed by being elected. ' Elected' and 'Appointed' are not mutually exclusive.
Yes. The bishop was appointed, chosen for office. The people who appointed him were the members of the churches in the diocese.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
Pond difference, I expect. "Appointed" in the U.S. has the connotation of having been selected by a smaller group possessing authority. Judges may be elected or appointed by the governor depending on jurisdiction. Our county board of conservation commissioners are elected, but in my parent's town the town manager is appointed by the town council (even though the town council voted on whether to appoint the manager).
Quite often which positions must be elected and which are appointed are explicitly enshrined as such in the national or state constitutions.
As a great deal of thought went in to exactly what positions need to be elected (intending greater responsiveness to the people) and which can be appointed, the term 'appointed' has taken on the context of 'not elected'.
There is generally an accompanying sentiment that elected positions are more directly responsive to the people. [I said 'more responsive' rather than 'responsive].
The theory of American Constitutional government was highly influential in the organization of General Convention.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Confirming that over here, "appointed" is the opposite of "elected", when speaking of jobs.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Confirming that over here, "appointed" is the opposite of "elected", when speaking of jobs.
Here they are opposites in debates about House of Lords reform.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Shipmates who read through my above post on episcopal elections manifesti may now take a certain perverse delight in learning that my home diocese now has an election web page where you can follow the candidates' answers, whenever any of them agree to be nominated (so far, they seem to be nervous at the prospect and are very demure in allowing their names to go forward).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
God combined with google and wrote a poem
----------
Where are the "God-fearing" today' Has God changed so that there ...2 Oct 2006
... speaker and writer the Reverend Dr. Peter Toon, has kindly agreed to . ...
and Toon Disney off its Expanded Basic cable lineup starting Wednesday, Oct. 25.
... His animated Toon Disney show Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go! ...
Toon - http://toon.speed-experts.com/
---------
RR
[ 24. January 2007, 17:24: Message edited by: Raspberry Rabbit ]
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
I don't think one has 'unguarded moments' with Louie Crew and I must assume that everybody knows this. Hence his dissatisfaction was disseminated via Louie. It constitutes a 'blurt'.
A necessary blurt, perhaps, but a blurt.
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Saint Punk has alerted us to quite an interesting scoop. That Canon Kearon feels this is one thing, that he has communicated it to Louie Crew is quite another. Oy.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
Yes, the Canon's e-mail is making big headlines on the Episcoblogs in the USA. One influential blog, Daily Episcopalian, writes about Rowan as if he were a "reverse Dale Carnegie" -- i.e., as someone who is good at losing friends and not influencing people.
There is also much anger in progressive circles over the invitation of Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan to chat with the Primates. Duncan is the moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, a group that while still in TEC, is establishing a parallel network of institutions (including a rival to Episcopal Relief and Development). The other bishop is Bishop McPherson of Western Louisiana -- a so-called "Windsor Bishop."
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
This one will undoubtedly have legs, as they say.
Just as a matter of interest, I observed earlier that Rowan has avoided attending any conclaves, but has spoken to a continuous stream of people on all sides of this argument (a crap way of putting it I agree - can't think of a better one).
For those who feel Rowan is not acting evenhandedly, how would you rather have had him do things? Meet with the HoB or Deputies and whatever passes for the organizational meetings of the dissenters? Not receive anyone at all? Something else entirely?
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
For those who feel Rowan is not acting evenhandedly, how would you rather have had him do things? Meet with the HoB or Deputies and whatever passes for the organizational meetings of the dissenters? Not receive anyone at all? Something else entirely?
For one thing, he could bother to read, mark, and inwardly digest how we do things here.
For another, he could treat our presiding bishop in the same deferential way he treats +Akinola. (Many of us are going to have a hard time forgetting "I have decided not to withold an invitation" to +KJS...or that he couldn't be bothered to attend her installation as PB.)
He could remind +Akinola, +Orombi, etc. that both Lambeth 1.10 and the Windsor Report make demands on them as well---demands they conveniently ignore.
If he's going to invite +Duncan to Tanzania, he could invite any number of progressive bishops--including +VGR---to at least PRETEND he's trying to listen to the vast majority of Episcopalians who are NOT trying to break away from the church (and steal the silver while they are at it...)
He could speak out forcefully on the issue of equal civil/legal treatment of gays and lesbians.
That would do to be going on with...
But he has done none of those things. And I've given up hoping...
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
OK Paige - well, thanks for engaging. Though my point was really directed at how this disagreement was being handled rather than wider problems in the communion. But in the spirit of engagement, let me try to probe further on those things -
1. To what extent do you think the way you do things has not been adequately considered? Surely the disagreement is about what you have done rather than how you have done it? Nobody has suggested you haven't followed your canons or whatever.
2. I'm not sure he is particularly deferential towards Akinola - he hasn't really said anything. In fact I wish he would (publicly that is - I've no idea what has happened in private). There was a load of flannel on the internet about Akinola planning to have himself "crowned" as new leader of global anglicanism some while back, which turned out to have no basis. Is that what you were referring to?
3. +KJS - has Rowan attended the installation of any other Archbishops or equivalent? I'm not aware of it. If so, why make an exception for her? I'm open to information/correction on this.
4. Lambeth 1.10. I happen to agree. However, Dromantine did change that one, and Dromantine governs the implementation of Lambeth. Those primates would reply that they have only offered their oversight to congregations that have already decided to leave and then approached them. No, it's not helpful in the broader context - but then it's a very messy situation, and it surely needs much more self-criticism from ECUSA powers-that-be to recognise the part they played in this.
5. Tanzania - as I understand it, bishops Duncan and MacPherson have been invited to be present for a pre-meeting. They represent the outright opponents (Duncan) and the "opposed but want to continue in ECUSA" contingent (MacPherson). Your PB will be there to represent ECUSA formally anyway. Why should a load more be invited? The option to present your case was given at Nottingham, where the case was presented as "To Set our Hope in Christ". Those days are past - we are onto the next stage, whatever that may transpire as.
6. The issue of equal civil/legal traetment of gays & lesbians - well, what exactly are you looking for? He does regularly say that all gays and lesbians must be accorded the respect due to all humans and that positions based on hatred have no part in our life. Does it get reported adequately?
Please forgive my saying so (yet again), but to me at least, so much rhetoric from both sides of this dispute presupposes a very polarized world, one indeed that all too frequently characterizes itself as Liberal or Conservative. Six months ago, the big-C blogosphere was all doom and gloom. Now it's the turn of the big-L supporters.
Entrenched positions beget entrenched positions - it seems pretty clear to me that Rowan joining you in the trenches, which is what I read you as wanting, is going to solve nothing save crushing somebody or other. Depends on whose trenches Rowan joins. I don't think he is interested in doing that, and my respect for that grows daily.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
3. +KJS - has Rowan attended the installation of any other Archbishops or equivalent? I'm not aware of it. If so, why make an exception for her? I'm open to information/correction on this.
This is correct. Archbishops of Canterbury as a matter of course send representatives to installations of other Primates rather than attend themselves. The one exception to this during my father's time as Archbishop was to attend the installation of the Archbishop of Sudan. Sudan was an exceptional case for him because the Church was experiencing such pressure, persecution and violence from a particularly malign Islamist regime.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Thanks, Spawn - I suspected so.
Though it's worth taking a look at this. It seems to undermine one of my earlier points somewhat (only somewhat, as he is not going to engage in "political" discussions).
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
I don't recall there being much irritation at Rowan for not attending her installation rites; in fact, I don't think that anyone expected him to be there.
But the tone of his "congratulatory" letter to Katharine after her election could best be described as "frosty" and that certainly started the irritation that many in TEC have felt with respect to Rowan's treatment of the PB and of TEC in general.
By the way, posters to the leftish Episcoblogs are beginning to fantasize about creating a new communion out of TEC, the Anglican Church of Canada, Scotland, Wales (ironic, that), New Zealand, Sydney-less Australia and South Africa, among others.
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
The one exception to this during my father's time as Archbishop was to attend the installation of the Archbishop of Sudan. Sudan was an exceptional case for him because the Church was experiencing such pressure, persecution and violence from a particularly malign Islamist regime.
Thanks for that info, Spawn---I knew that it had been done before, but wasn't aware of all the particulars. I agree that your father was right to go.
HRB---I promise to come back soon and answer your other questions. But I will say two things--++Cantaur appointed a Panel of Reference that made recent pronouncements about the OoW in TEC. That report showed lamentable ignorance of our policies and the Panel apparently spoke to no one among the VAST majority of Episcopalians who are in favor of OoW---just the 3 dioceses (out of 110) that are, as we say down here, agin' it.
The report was a shoddy piece of work, and poured gas on the flames. He put them up to it, he needs to take ownership of it. (And he also needs to stay the hell out of our national church policy making---but that's another thread...)
Since +KJS is the first female Primate in the history of the Anglican Communion (of which TEC is still a member, the last time I looked), it would have meant a lot to many of us to have ++Rowan attend. It might have shown us that he wants to keep us in the AC.
As I think he is fast becoming the 21st century version of Neville Chamberlain, however, I'm not sure that he does. If he would break communion with us, while maintaining it with those who are turning Anglicanism into nothing more than the latest "fundagelical" Protestant church, then I'm not sure why so many of us have spent the last two years agonizing.
++Rowan lost my respect over the Jeffrey John incident. He has done nothing since then to regain it. But I pray for him daily, because I cannot imagine that his life is a very happy one since he put on that pointy hat...
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moveable_type
Shipmate
# 9673
|
Posted
This may or may not be connected:
quote:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, will make his first visit to Canada as Archbishop of Canterbury with a visit to the April meeting of the Canadian house of bishops in Niagara Falls, Ont.
“We have had the invitation in the works for over a year; we struggled with his calendar and we received the answer today (Jan. 26). We’re delighted,” said Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada.
The move is significant since Archbishop Williams has come under criticism for avoiding the U.S. and Canadian churches since his election in 2002 and since the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada have been seen as moving toward more-liberal views on homosexuality at about the same time.
Rest of article at link.
Posts: 1062 | From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anthropax
Shipmate
# 11234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
By the way, posters to the leftish Episcoblogs are beginning to fantasize about creating a new communion out of TEC, the Anglican Church of Canada, Scotland, Wales (ironic, that), New Zealand, Sydney-less Australia and South Africa, among others.
Why on Earth Wales? Is there something I don't know about my home province? I thought Wales was seen as one of the more Trad parts of the UK, Anglicanism-wise?
--------------------
Be joyful and keep the faith! St David
Posts: 142 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
Upon re-reading the post in question, I was incorrect. Wales was not included.
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anthropax
Shipmate
# 11234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
Upon re-reading the post in question, I was incorrect. Wales was not included.
Out of interest, do you have a link?
--------------------
Be joyful and keep the faith! St David
Posts: 142 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
Look at Preludium, the blog run by Mark Harris. I don't have a ready link, but I think it may be found at Anglicanfuture.blogspot.com.
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anthropax
Shipmate
# 11234
|
Posted
cheers
--------------------
Be joyful and keep the faith! St David
Posts: 142 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
Look at Preludium, the blog run by Mark Harris. I don't have a ready link, but I think it may be found at Anglicanfuture.blogspot.com.
I looked at it. The link is as you said There are comments by one Raspberry Rabbit. Apart from them, I could make head nor tail of it. The issues discussed have little relevance to the issues discussed in any church I've ever been in. There is a lot of talk about a place called Africa that bears little resembance to the Africa I've been to or the Africans I know, and someone called the Archbishop of Canterbury who seems quite differnt to the British bishop of the same title. All very odd.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I think Mark Harris's blog is one of the less strident - though still highly polarized - of the american anglican blogs. But I also find them - of both flavours - highly disorienting. The terms "left-wing", "right-wing" and "progressive" in particular seem to mean something totally different to what I am used to.
If you are going to go reading the anglican blogs, for heavens sake treat yourself to a quadruple G&T before reading the comments, though. They appear to be written by a machine fuelled by nitric acid.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
... Raspberry Rabbit always excepted, of course...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
I appreciate not being included in that mob of vitriolic commenters. I do occasionally 'blurt' but it usually takes the form of a bit of humour rather than straight apocalyptic ranting.
RR
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There are comments by one Raspberry Rabbit. Apart from them, I could make head nor tail of it. The issues discussed have little relevance to the issues discussed in any church I've ever been in. There is a lot of talk about a place called Africa that bears little resembance to the Africa I've been to or the Africans I know, and someone called the Archbishop of Canterbury who seems quite differnt to the British bishop of the same title. All very odd.
I found this sentence interesting:
quote:
He is conservative but a very constructive and pastoral person.
The implication of the "but" is that conservatives are not generally constructive or pastoral. I didn't know liberals had a corner on the constructive and pastoral market.
Can you imagine the howls of rage if "conservative" were replaced by "female", "gay", or "black"?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I found this sentence interesting:
quote:
He is conservative but a very constructive and pastoral person.
The implication of the "but" is that conservatives are not generally constructive or pastoral. I didn't know liberals had a corner on the constructive and pastoral market.
Can you imagine the howls of rage if "conservative" were replaced by "female", "gay", or "black"?
It's as annoying as when african-americans are described as "well-spoken" as if that would be a surprise.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
quote:
It's as annoying as when african-americans are described as "well-spoken" as if that would be a surprise.
or worse still Africans....
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
ken: I read many of the Episcoblogs, right and left, and I don't think that the sentiments expressed in that post are unusual among the left. Just this weekend, a resolution was proposed (but tabled -- this is the American usage, which means not acted upon) at the convention of the Diocese of Washington (DC) that criticized the AB of C and called for examination the question of continued membership of TEC in the Anglican Communion.
Now the resolution was tabled, but Jim Naughton, a highly respected former reporter for the Washington Post, reported on his blog that many people were in sympathy.
This kind of public dissatisfaction with the Archbishop and the Anglican Communion has never, in my memory, been expressed by American Episcopalians.
I wonder what odds the London bookies are making on the participation of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada bishops at the 2008 Lambeth conference.
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
I read many of the Episcoblogs, right and left
The use of the words "left" and "right" gets confusing and unhelpful here.
In talking about the Reformation people sometimes use the word "right" to mean the more conservative parts of the church - in that context the Roman Catholics - and use "left" to desdcribe the more far-out Protestant groups, the emotional and intellectual ancestors of modern-day evangelicals and fundamentalists. So when I read that someone is on the "left" in church politics I tend to read it as that they are congregationalist or presbyterian rather than episcopalian (without capital letters here because I don't mean the denominations with those names). So talking of "left-wing" or "right-wing" Anglican blogs brings on some congnitive dissonance.
And of course outside the church context Rowan Williams is almost certainly to the political left of most of these critics of his in the USA. Probably far to the left of most of them.
quote:
I wonder what odds the London bookies are making on the participation of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada bishops at the 2008 Lambeth conference.
I doubt if any of them know or care!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
LA Dave muses:
quote:
I wonder what odds the London bookies are making on the participation of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada bishops at the 2008 Lambeth conference.
This might be a useful point to remind folk that ECUSA was the more general subject of the Windsor report, given that it was General Convention that ratified the election of Bp Robinson; the ACC, on the other hand, has but one errant diocese in New Westminster (although we might be getting more errant at General Synod later this year, but that is yet to be seen), so the situation is slightly different.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Whilst waiting for interest among bookies to pick up, why not keep your hand in with a spot of Pope-Betting (i.e. betting on who is to succeed B16).
I see that a certain Fr. Dougal Maguire of Craggy Island is listed at 1000/1. You could make a tidy sum if he came top of the polls.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Cardinal Martini is only 100/1? I know he's knocking on a bit but shurely shome mishtake (++Cormac has better odds!)?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I see that a certain Fr. Dougal Maguire of Craggy Island is listed at 1000/1. You could make a tidy sum if he came top of the polls.
Indeed, although he's running the same as Bono.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
What are the odds on Sinead O'Connor?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
What are the odds on Sinead O'Connor?
Slightly better than for Gene Robinson, I think.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
