|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Spong banned in Sydney
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
What post-modern rubbish. Then I can say 1 is 2, black is white, lead is gold, I am the Walrus, koo-koo-ka-chu.
And who is to say I'm not bonkers. My opinion is just as good as anybody's, after all.
But then I'm not ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) "inclusive." [/qb][/QUOTE]
yeah, that use of the word "inclusive" is just another form of intolerance but using another name
[ 15. August 2007, 22:07: Message edited by: SeraphimSarov ]
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cusanus:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Preachers that were trying to affect change and keep people in the Christian camp I hardly think he would have excluded.
People who do not believe Jesus of Nazareth was/is God Incarnate are not Christians. Full stop. End of story.
Thurible
An argument could be made that this definition excludes St Mark...
Of course, this was before several things in Christology and theology were worked out. For example, like the Trinity.
Meanwhile, we have defined a few things since Mark that have been universally accepted for a while now, shall we say. For example, the Creeds and Chalcedon.
I know that, to some extent, everyone makes God in their own image. It was what happens when the finite tries to understand the Infinite. Spong just seems to excel at doing it, without worry or concern.
Jensen and Spong both seem to have problems with Tradition. They were made for each other.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Is "worked out" Christian codespeak for "Theology that determined who it was okay to exclude"?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Look at your hearts. When the "unchurched", the Buddhist, or a Ghandi looks across the room at what you are doing, do you really want to show them the nasty backfighting, unloving version of Christianity? Really? Come on....try harder.
Yeah, come on. This is a Christian website, right? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Can I ask, as an ignorant free church man, do people genuinely see the Sydney Anglican push for lay presidency as a theological issue of equivalence to denying the divinity of Christ?
No.
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Can I ask, as an ignorant free church man, do people genuinely see the Sydney Anglican push for lay presidency as a theological issue of equivalence to denying the divinity of Christ?
No. The reason I am against it is because I see it offends others.
And MadGeo - I think there's a huge difference between loving Spong and letting him speak in a church, just as there's a huge difference between loving President Bush (as a person) and agreeing with all of his policies.
If I am in a position of authority in a church, and I love Spong, but happen to think that he is dangerously wrong, to the point where he imperils both his own salvation and that of anyone who believes him, then the loving thing to do is to tell him that he is wrong and show him that he is wrong (lovingly).
If you worked for an oil company and someone genuinely believed that drilling for oil very near an active volcano was a good move, they'd (according to my limited knowledge of geology) be dangerously wrong, and the loving thing to do would be a) to strongly encourage them not to do it and b) not to allow them to address your oil prospecting teams as part of an official company briefing. Same thing.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
How is not letting someone preach "hating" them? This part confuses me greatly. It appears as nothing more or less than overwrought hysterics.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
If you think he is "Dangerously wrong" ( ) then let him speak and you or the bishop rebut it.
You have your opinion, he has his. Just because you have differing opinions about it (and he IS a Christian according to both the Primate Aspinall, a legion of people in agreement with him, the church he was in charge of, and most importantly ME) does not excuse the un-Jesus-like behaviour of the Bishop. If the Bishop had been SOOOO afraid of the oogley boogley Spong, than why not let him speak and then rebut him from the same pulpit that he controls for the next year, for all I care.
MT,
I don't know how you'd feel if we, say, banned you from the Ship and then reported it to the newspapers that we didn't let you talk because we think the Orthogonal from WA are too square, or whatever.
I am reasonably confident that you would not "Feel the Love" and would probably label that as "Hate", but YMMV.
Scot:
Somehow my earlier post didn't post regarding your comment. It was:
quote:
Yes, apparently us non-Christians are supposed to have the graciousness to be seen and not heard in this forum. I will try to do better next time.
Not.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I don't know how you'd feel if we, say, banned you from the Ship and then reported it to the newspapers that we didn't let you talk because we think the Orthogonal from WA are too square, or whatever.
Totally irrelevant. Nobody has banned him nor forbidden him to speak. They have said he would not receive permission (permission he hasn't even asked for yet) to preach from the pulpit of one of their churches. They are not beholden to allow anybody who asks to preach from their pulpits, be they priest, bishop, or zookeeper. I very much doubt they'd let me do so. Hell, I doubt the Orthodox Church would let me do so. It's not keeping me up at night. (Nor, I imagine, is Spong losing much dreamtime.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
So let me get this straight.....
....he hasn't asked for permission and they banned him from speaking, before he could ask for permission? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Yeah, that's NICE. How utterly absurd.
That you are defending people that deny permission to speak before it's even asked and then leak it to the media that they are banning him before he asked so they could ban him anyway......is fucking hillarious.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Glad I could brighten your day a little. I'm not a big Jensen fan, by any means. But it's his perrogative to say who can and cannot preach from the pulpits in his diocese.
You're grasping at straws now.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
...do people genuinely see the Sydney Anglican push for lay presidency as a theological issue of equivalence to denying the divinity of Christ? ...
No, but it's overtly heretical, according to the Catholic/Anglican understanding of the priesthood and the Eucharist. If I were a bishop, I certainly wouldn't want anyone preaching that sort of thing from the pulpits of my diocese.
I don't argue that +Spong is right, or that ++Jensen is wrong (in this context), but I do think they are more similar -- in picking and choosing what elements of the faith they endorse, and in having an appetite for publicity -- than is generally acknowledged.
For the record, I wouldn't cross the street to hear either one of them.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
Before Mad Geo blows a gasket, I've done some looking around and I kind of think this is a piece of creative writing.
I was surprised to read of some 'official ban' when I read the OP because there was no press release on the Syd Ang website and I had received no memo as a member of the clergy in the Sydney diocese and had just attended a conference with PFJ where he gave no heads up that such a statement was about to be made.
The archbishop is not quoted in the article and Rob Forsyth does not mention a ban but criticises the archbishop of Brisbane for issuing an invitation.
I can't help thinking that Greg Roberts got hold of a copy of Southern Cross and read the articles by John Dixon and Mark Thompson critiquing Spong's latest book made a couple of calls to Forsyth and Aspinall for comment about the book tour and produced the article, interpreted it using the normal 'conflict in the church' paradigm.
I may be blind, but I can find no directive actually issued by PFJ in print and if it exists, I would have expected to receive a copy as a member of the clergy who it would presumably largely be directed at.
All I can find are the article and other reports that summarise the article and the Southern Cross articles.
I don't think any ban was issued, although I'm pretty sure that no licence to preach would be issued either if requested.
CJS
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
...do people genuinely see the Sydney Anglican push for lay presidency as a theological issue of equivalence to denying the divinity of Christ? ...
No, but it's overtly heretical, according to the Catholic/Anglican understanding of the priesthood and the Eucharist.
Ross
I think you mean 'the Roman catholic and one of the anglican understandings of the priesthood and the Eucharist'
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
... That you are defending people that deny permission to speak before it's even asked and then leak it to the media that they are banning him before he asked so they could ban him anyway......is fucking hillarious.
Geez, MG. You're beginning to sound like a writer for Entertainment Tonight. No one "leaked" shit to the media. Did you miss Anselm's post on pg.3?: quote:
++Jensen did not release a statement "banning" Spong. The journalist who wrote the story approached the diocese asking what the diocese's response was to Spong's impending visit. The reporter was told that the response was to be the same as for his previous visits, that if he sought permission to preach in the churches in the diocese that would not be given, as his published teachings deny the divinity of Christ. [my bold]
Hello? I thought that this thread would come to a grinding halt after that revelation. TubaMirum's "Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen has taken the extraordinary step of banning John Shelby Spong" [my bold] in her opening OP set the tone for this exercise in futility. The whole premise is ridiculous. Of course the various denominations of christianity set the rules for who is IN or OUT. So what else is new? In other news, man bites dog. Pictures at eleven.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
I think CJS is probably right here. The journo may have asked whether Spong* would get a licence to preach and Bp F or Abp J probably said 'Shit, no.' or whatever bishops say in those circumstances. Whether the quote from the Primate came before or after this is anyone's guess.
** I wish this was a verbal debate. I just love saying his name. Spong. Spooooonnng. Spongggggg.
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Yeah, sounds like a wound-up spring suddenly breaking.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Um, for the hundredth time: what was in the OP was a direct quote from the article I linked to. I didn't write it; the newspaper guy did.
It's really not that shocking to start a thread on something like this, you know. Several of us weren't sure, in fact, if it meant that Spong was forbidden to even set foot in churches in Sydney, which would indeed be quite extreme. That was the question.
Sheesh.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
P.S.: Spong and Jensen are in the same denomination, not different ones.
It is a fun name to say, I agree - except I just can't stand the guy, so I don't even like that part.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
I think you mean 'the Roman catholic and one of the anglican understandings of the priesthood and the Eucharist'
No, I meant precisely what I said. Don't be coy, CJS.
All of Anglicanism, as a part of the Church Catholic, has always maintained the three orders of clergy -- deacons, priests, and bishops -- each with its own distinct duties and responsibilities. One of the most important of those is the celebration of the Eucharist.
The notion of "lay presidency" in such celebrations is absolutely outre for Anglicanism, even if you happen to regard yourself as more Protestant than Catholic.
For that matter, I don't know of any conventional Protestant denomination which does not insist on ordination before allowing an individual to celebrate at even a "memorial-only" communion service. I think the Jensenites must be sniffing something in the dye on their Geneva gowns to come up with a notion as thoroughly unAnglican as that one.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
There is nothing in your OP about quote:
Several of us weren't sure, in fact, if it meant that Spong was forbidden to even set foot in churches in Sydney, which would indeed be quite extreme. That was the question.
You quoted the "banning" phrase without any other setup than "I'm not a fan of Spong, but this is going a bit too far, isn't it?" YOU posted it, YOU own it.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Um, for the hundredth time: what was in the OP was a direct quote from the article I linked to. I didn't write it; the newspaper guy did.
Sheesh.
I suspect this is about my post, but I wasn't trying to suggest that you had got something wrong. I read the article and you quoted it accurately.I think that the journalist has been a bit creative because I can find absolutely no other evidence for the issuing of some sort of formal 'ban'.
I don't know if we just have some particularly lazy journalists in Sydney but I can remember other occasions where the 'research' involved in producing articles was pretty thin. There was one time where one of these 'massive conflict in the anglican church' stories was written in the herald and some of us instantly recongised that all the quotes were from (largely anonymous) posters on a particular threat of the Sydney Anglican website discuss boards. The whole story was based on that discussion thread.
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
I think you mean 'the Roman catholic and one of the anglican understandings of the priesthood and the Eucharist'
No, I meant precisely what I said. Don't be coy, CJS...
The notion of "lay presidency" in such celebrations is absolutely outre for Anglicanism, even if you happen to regard yourself as more Protestant than Catholic.
Ross
I may be coy, but I have to say "Tish i love it when you speak French".
My observation of the Anglican Communion around the world is that there appears to be absolutely nothing which is outre for Anglicanism.
And I consider myself to be both protestant and catholic.
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
"Lay presidency" is not a remotely Anglican concept.
We're getting off topic here: my point is simply that +Spong is not the only bishop mentioned in this thread who has apparently abandoned some aspects of the faith he vowed to uphold at his ordination. It may only be the kettle compared to the steam locomotive, but it's still pretty black.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
There is nothing in your OP about quote:
Several of us weren't sure, in fact, if it meant that Spong was forbidden to even set foot in churches in Sydney, which would indeed be quite extreme. That was the question.
You quoted the "banning" phrase without any other setup than "I'm not a fan of Spong, but this is going a bit too far, isn't it?" YOU posted it, YOU own it.
Try the "Back" button. It's a real good way, I've found, to avoid threads you don't have any interest in, or whose "setup" you don't like.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
I'm not a big Jensen fan, by any means. But it's his perrogative to say who can and cannot preach from the pulpits in his diocese.
True although the Abp and his relatives and clergy from Sydney show fairly scant respect for Abp's authority and perogative eg Sydney Anglicans will establish non-denominational churches in dioceses outside Sydney and the Dean of Sydney and other clergy will visit other dioceses and undermine the authority of clergy within that diocese, all in speaking the truth in love of course. That is justified within their paradigm of defending the truth so I guess Spong thinks he is doing the same. It's a slippery slope when you start ignoring church authority.......
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
"Lay presidency" is not a remotely Anglican concept.
We're getting off topic here: my point is simply that +Spong is not the only bishop mentioned in this thread who has apparently abandoned some aspects of the faith he vowed to uphold at his ordination. It may only be the kettle compared to the steam locomotive, but it's still pretty black.
Ross
My point is simply that PFJ has not abandoned any aspect of the faith he has vowed to uphold at his ordination or indeed his consecration.
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
I suspect this is about my post, but I wasn't trying to suggest that you had got something wrong.
Sorry, no. It was meant for Gort, who doesn't seem to understand that the phrase "In the news today," linked to the news I was referring to, might signify that the content of the OP came from a newspaper. Which I linked. And quoted. Go figure.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Look at your hearts. When the "unchurched", the Buddhist, or a Gandhi looks across the room at what you are doing, do you really want to show them the nasty back-fighting, unloving version of Christianity? Really? Come on....try harder.
You know you can find people like that in any organization. From what I remember of history, Buddhists had all kinds of issues. Just look how they treated that Nichiren guy...
Every ideology has its tossers. That's not really unique to Christianity. Is it even unique to homo sapiens?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Anyway, CJS: I'm grateful to those from Sydney and elsewhere who've explained the reality of this story.
Yes, the writer took a lot of liberties in writing the article, it seems, with the "bans" and the "attacks." And it's not limited, by any means, to Australia, as we were talking about on another thread. Journalists are trying to sell papers these days, I guess, and "banning" bishops will attract more eyeballs than the ordinary truth.
Spong is still not welcome to (speak? preach? worship in? what?) churches in Sydney diocese, though, it seems - even though nobody's asked him to.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
]My point is simply that PFJ has not abandoned any aspect of the faith he has vowed to uphold at his ordination or indeed his consecration.
I strongly disagree.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
I'm not a big Jensen fan, by any means. But it's his perrogative to say who can and cannot preach from the pulpits in his diocese.
...the Dean of Sydney and other clergy will visit other dioceses and undermine the authority of clergy within that diocese...
Could you be a bit more specific? Please.
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
There is nothing in your OP about quote:
Several of us weren't sure, in fact, if it meant that Spong was forbidden to even set foot in churches in Sydney, which would indeed be quite extreme. That was the question.
You quoted the "banning" phrase without any other setup than "I'm not a fan of Spong, but this is going a bit too far, isn't it?" YOU posted it, YOU own it.
Try the "Back" button. It's a real good way, I've found, to avoid threads you don't have any interest in, or whose "setup" you don't like.
OK. I criticize the lame "setup" in your OP by pointing out there was nothing there regarding "Several of us weren't sure, in fact, if it meant that Spong was forbidden to even set foot in churches in Sydney, which would indeed be quite extreme. That was the question." and this in the context of Mad Geo's strident extrapolations and you suggest I take a hike?
Is the point of this thread to educate you in the vagaries of press reporting or the finer points of christian exclusiveness? If the former, I would that suggest MG's hyperbole is a good example of what you can expect from assuming Spong's "banning" extends to being forbidden to set foot in Sydney churches.
If the latter, then perhaps you should define those parameters more closely. Whether or not I have an "interest" in this thread and how I should react is not your decision to make.
This thread stinks of yellow journalism and sensationalist media bullshit.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
OK. I criticize the lame "setup" in your OP by pointing out there was nothing there regarding "Several of us weren't sure, in fact, if it meant that Spong was forbidden to even set foot in churches in Sydney, which would indeed be quite extreme. That was the question." and this in the context of Mad Geo's strident extrapolations and you suggest I take a hike?
Is the point of this thread to educate you in the vagaries of press reporting or the finer points of christian exclusiveness? If the former, I would that suggest MG's hyperbole is a good example of what you can expect from assuming Spong's "banning" extends to being forbidden to set foot in Sydney churches.
If the latter, then perhaps you should define those parameters more closely. Whether or not I have an "interest" in this thread and how I should react is not your decision to make.
This thread stinks of yellow journalism and sensationalist media bullshit.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
]My point is simply that PFJ has not abandoned any aspect of the faith he has vowed to uphold at his ordination or indeed his consecration.
I strongly disagree.
I kinda got that vibe ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) .
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(Gort, let me be more clear.
I really have an awfully tiny amount of interest in your bitchiness about the thread. I honestly just don't care.
You haven't been involved in the conversation at all, and you haven't said anything worth responding to. You decided to come in here and drop some stink bombs; what did you expect would happen?
I just don't care what you think, and it's not worth it to me to respond. Sorry.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...I just don't care what you think, and it's not worth it to me to respond. Sorry.)
That's odd, since you've responded. So which is it? Yellow journalism or christian exclusiveness? I want to be sure so I can focus my response in a constructive manner.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...I just don't care what you think, and it's not worth it to me to respond. Sorry.)
That's odd, since you've responded. So which is it? Yellow journalism or christian exclusiveness? I want to be sure so I can focus my response in a constructive manner.
Another problem, BTW, is that your posts are totally incoherent, so I have literally no idea what you're talking about.
Hope you're enjoying - well, whatever sense of superiority you seem to feel about whatever it is you're talking about. Sounds like a great time.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Another problem, BTW, is that your posts are totally incoherent, so I have literally no idea what you're talking about.
I thought I was quite clear. I was asking for the focus of your thread.
quote:
Hope you're enjoying - well, whatever sense of superiority you seem to feel about whatever it is you're talking about. Sounds like a great time.
I literally have no idea what you're talking about. I assure you, there is no sense of superiority in asking you to define the parameters of this thread. As it is, I don't know whether to hang the author of your article or burn Sydney Anglicans at the stake.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
So let me get this straight.....
....he hasn't asked for permission and they banned him from speaking, before he could ask for permission?
Yeah, that's NICE. How utterly absurd.
You haven't got it straight.
Spong has NOT been BANNED.
The diocese has not issued or 'leaked' anything to the press.
The journalist who penned the article approached the diocese and spoke, I believe, to the media contact person. The journalist asked in the course of the interview whether permission would be given to Spong if he asked permission to preach in an Anglican church - the response was that, as in previous visits, he would not be given permission.
+Spongs views are well known, and clearly recognised as radically deviating from orthodoxy.
You speak of loving others; the Archbishop has a responsibility to love and care for his flock - allowing +Spong to preach (which is different to 'setting foot in a church' or 'engaging in dialogue with') would not be loving to either parishioners or to +Spong.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
All right, Gort, sorry; I understand now. I got exercised by the little lecture you gave me above and lost my temper.
I probably should have written a little intro to this post, explaining the situation. Anglicans know exactly what the mention of the word "Spong" implies, and are familiar, too, with what's going on now, during the "Great Anglican Unpleasantness"; some others understand the Spong thing, too, but I guess not everybody.
In any case, I can't really think how to sum this up succinctly so that somebody who's never heard the word before would understand. Sorry about that; it is, as they say, a long story.
The question was simply the one in the OP: Did Sydney Diocese go too far by banning Spong? As I said, I wasn't sure how far this ban actually went; some others weren't, as well, as you can see from Thurible's comment (#3). I think we all settled after a time into an understanding that the ban applied only to the pulpit, and went with that.
I wasn't addressing "yellow journalism" because, simply, I took the journalist at his word for what he wrote, which others have since said was over-the-top.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
CJS says quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a big Jensen fan, by any means. But it's his perrogative to say who can and cannot preach from the pulpits in his diocese.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...the Dean of Sydney and other clergy will visit other dioceses and undermine the authority of clergy within that diocese...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you be a bit more specific? Please.
I don't actually want to drag this into specific egs of wrongs or perceived wrongs done by "Sydney", as I said I think their intentions are genuine in defending what they percieve to be the truth, nevertheless, if you want specific publicly discussed egs of Sydney Diocesan representatives undermining the authority structures of other dioceses, here are a couple off the top of my head. Note the issue is not who's approach is truth, just respect for authority.
Church planting outside Sydney
Then there was the sorry case when the Dean of Sydney went to England and can't actually remember what he said but admitted to talking about the Abp of Canterbury and then immediately went on to talk about holders of high office in the CHurch of England prostituting Christian ministry.
Dean talks about prostitution of Christian ministry
PS you selectively quoted me in one of your previous posts so as to misrepresent my point. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Anglicans know exactly what the mention of the word "Spong" implies,
I never heard of him until I came here.
Sometimes it's good to lead a sheltered life.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Can I ask, as an ignorant free church man, do people genuinely see the Sydney Anglican push for lay presidency as a theological issue of equivalence to denying the divinity of Christ?
No.
Some of us would stake our lives on the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. To this extent, lay presidency is up there with the issue of the denial of Christ's divinity.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Anglicans know exactly what the mention of the word "Spong" implies, and are familiar, too, with what's going on now, during the "Great Anglican Unpleasantness"; some others understand the Spong thing, too, but I guess not everybody.
In any case, I can't really think how to sum this up succinctly so that somebody who's never heard the word before would understand. Sorry about that; it is, as they say, a long story.
It may come as a surprise, but I understand "the Spong thing" perfectly well. Like Mad Geo, it only emphasizes the petty divisiveness that this sort of pseudo-conflict advertises.
OMG! A bishop of the church would dare to express an opinion at odds to official church dogma! That way leads madness and post-modern satan worship! Close ranks all ye faithful and hold to tradition lest we falter and be consumed in the fiery pit!
Oh yeah, sorry about that, Copernicus and Galileo. We were just upholding the faith.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yes, because of course geocentrism has exactly the same role in Christian thinking as the Incarnation. Well, nearly. Well, nice try, Gort.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TubaMirum:
[qb]
Oh yeah, sorry about that, Copernicus and Galileo. We were just upholding the faith.
what?? No Giordano Bruno???
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Yes, because of course geocentrism has exactly the same role in Christian thinking as the Incarnation. Well, nearly. Well, nice try, Gort.
Oh, OK. Christian thinking has it right about the Incarnation but just happened to fuck up about geocentrism. What exactly is your point? Could it possibly be that the church, as an institution, is more concerned with survival than propagating the truth?
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
...You speak of loving others; the Archbishop has a responsibility to love and care for his flock - allowing +Spong to preach (which is different to 'setting foot in a church' or 'engaging in dialogue with') would not be loving to either parishioners or to +Spong.
I am seeing another intersting trend on this thread. Apparently when one becomes a Christian one can no longer decide for oneself what one should listen to at the alter.
You are a sheep! Your designated shepherd, a priest (not Jesus mind you because he would let any old riff raff in to eat with you) must protect you from ALL things. Especially anything controversial. In order to protect you he must stand firm against anything, real or imagined that MAY cause you to be forced to think.
Or something.
We'll have to agree to disagree folks. If you feel you are entitled to ban, excommunicate, not talk to, keep from preaching, whatever, a perfectly legitimate point of view that is different than yours, well then I have nothing to say that I haven't already said. I do not think Jesus called for anyone to isolate themselves from discourse (and preaching can easily be made in to a form of discourse, so let's not go there) and controversy. I am reasonably sure that the priests of his time looked more like the Bishop here. Jesus fought people like the bishop his whole life. I suspect him and Spong woulda got along fine.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
Well said, Mad G. It is not "protecting" others to sustain their ignorance, it is controlling them. It weakens the church.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
