|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Spong banned in Sydney
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Well I did a little googling about this absurd notion regarding wealth and the Bishop. Bishops have a Talent for wealth, apparently.
quote:
Presiding Bishop James De Wolf Perry began the move for voluntary retrenchments last week by pruning his $15,000 salary 10%. He has a rich wife, an independent income. New York's small Bishop William Thomas Manning, who also has a rich wife, a fine Bishop's Palace, a salary of $15,000 and a $5,000 "discretionary fund," followed suit.
From retirement emerged wealthy, 81-year-old Bishop William Lawrence to lend sage counsel.
No salary cut could Long Island's wealthy Bishop Ernest Milmorc Stires take because on assuming office he refused a salary, has only an impressive residence in Garden City with a liberal maintenance allowance and discretionary fund.
Apparently St. Francis is not required reading amongst the Bishoply bretheren. Good for them. Francis was a Maroon .
Apparently this point is difficult for some people to understand. Here it is again, very slowly:
Jack Spong makes money by being the church-bashing, Creed-smashing Bishop. However, when he was ordained as priest and bishop, he took vows to "conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church." Is it really too much to ask that he do what he promised to do? Other people seem to have no problem with this; I bet most people on this board do what they promised to do when they took their jobs. They don't go out and badmouth their employers, at any rate, or they get fired. Right?
I don't have a problem with him writing books or with making money. He can easily do any of that as an ordinary citizen. I'm simply suggesting that he cannot have his cake and eat it, too.
He doesn't say anything. Nobody can seem to articulate what this man is proposing to replace the current faith, which he calls "bankrupt." He opnely scorns the faith he promised to teach. IOW, he's biting the hand that feeds him - and not even interestingly or productively.
He's a hypocrite and doesn't contribute anything to his church. He could easily still say the same things if he wasn't a bishop; in fact, he'd have more credibility.
And yes, other bishops are rich and pompous and not credible, too. That's the whole point; Spong seems to want to be taken seriously as a "revolutionary," yet not to have to actually be inconvenienced in any way, or to sacrifice anything.
Unlike, you know, Jesus.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
that's the language that reminds you of "baby skinning"?
No, that's the language that reminds me of hysteria and over reaction. Go back and read it again. I never accused you of baby skinning.
quote:
Interesting. Looks like you've totally lost contact with reality at this point. Must be all those days and nights you spend in Hell, flinging vile insults at other people for no particular reason.
if want to insult me you know where to take it. quote:
And BTW, since you've never heard of Spong before, how come you're all of a sudden such an expert about him?
as I have said, oh, a good 4 or 5 times on this thread so far... I don't know anything about him. I'm not an expert.
I've been asking you to support your assertions against him. You're the one coming across as the expert. one must be careful stating something as fact that is actually a blind accusation.
is he rich? is he the opposite of a saint or a parish priest? I don't know one way or the other. But I suspect you don't either.
--------------------
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
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
What I find creepy is the idea that dissent is somehow not allowed. So he's a crackpot. so what? It's got people reexamining their beliefs and studying up and asking questions.
That is a good thing.
as for hiring me: don't worry, there have been plenty of others willing to do so.
Let's try it again; I know this must be difficult. Dissent is very much allowed; Jack Spong is welcome to be as dissenting as he likes - as an ordinary citizen. I'm also welcome to "dissent" as much as I like, and so are you.
A bishop has a different job, though. He is charged to teach the very faith that Spong openly scorns. He calls it "bankrupt." He says that no "thinking person" could believe it. He ridicules people who disagree with him.
He also says that the church is ridiculous, and that he doesn't want to be part of it. Yet he's still hanging on to his position as bishop. Why?
I'd imagine because he knows that if he resigns out of principle, he won't be as "outrageous" any longer, and nobody will be interested in hearing him speak or in reading his books.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Dissent is very much allowed; Jack Spong is welcome to be as dissenting as he likes - as an ordinary citizen.
So, JC was allowed dissent because he was an ordinary citizen? Good thing he wasn't elected bishop.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
No, that's the language that reminds me of hysteria and over reaction. Go back and read it again. I never accused you of baby skinning.
What I said was in no way hysterical; in fact, it was a simple and straightforward statement that expressed admiration for people who work hard and do their jobs and sacrifice for others. Please at least own up to your own hyperbole.
I do know that Spong is wealthy; I live in his diocese and I know him. He has said so himself, as I've already said; I'll go to the trouble of showing this, if you insist.
In any case, you're totally missing the point. You're right that his finances are not my business, really; what is my business, though, is that Spong ignores his duties and gets accolades for it, while decent and self-sacrificing priests who actually do work hard to teach the faith are ignored. IOW, I have zero respect for Spong and his best-sellers; I think I'm certainly permitted to criticize him on that account.
Again: Spong doesn't have anything positive to offer at all. The church deserves criticism, no doubt; I say that myself, all the time. The point is that it would be quite possible to criticize the church and at the same time teach the faith. Spong doesn't do this. He's a bad leader because he doesn't do the job he promised to do, and he should resign on that account.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Let's try it again; I know this must be difficult.
Don't push me, TubaMirum.
quote:
Dissent is very much allowed; Jack Spong is welcome to be as dissenting as he likes - as an ordinary citizen. I'm also welcome to "dissent" as much as I like, and so are you.
I can't address the content of what he says and writes as I have not read his work. But I can say, again, that I dont think Bishops, priests, or frankly anyone else in a leadership position in any organization should leave their brains at the door when they sign up. Those "within" are actually in a much stronger position to bring about change, as they have made it their careers. I have much less credence in my dissent because I have not dedicated my life to the believability of the divinity of Christ. I'd rather hear a bishop's opinion than a hot dog vendor.
quote:
A bishop has a different job, though. He is charged to teach the very faith that Spong openly scorns. He calls it "bankrupt." He says that no "thinking person" could believe it.
again, just for clarity, I cannot address the content of his words, and never meant to imply I did. quote:
He ridicules people who disagree with him.
this, if true, is the first thing you've said that makes me think he should be asked to leave his diocese. That is very unChristlike behavior. At least, ridiculing them is. Criticizing their theological POV is just rigorous debate.
But so far, you say all sorts of things that are not grounded with any evidence, so I just can't believe it. it's a track record thing. quote:
imagine because he knows that if he resigns out of principle, he won't be as "outrageous" any longer, and nobody will be interested in hearing him speak or in reading his books.
could be. or could be he loves the church and the faith and is hoping to bring about change. Or, even more likely, he believes he is doing his job by scrutinizing the faith and advancing academic and spiritual understanding.
--------------------
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
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Dissent is very much allowed; Jack Spong is welcome to be as dissenting as he likes - as an ordinary citizen.
So, JC was allowed dissent because he was an ordinary citizen? Good thing he wasn't elected bishop.
So you, too, believe a person should not be expected to do the job they promised to do, then?
Very interesting. It really does seem that when it comes to certain issues, the church and its representatives are expected to be highly morally upright, and to act better than everybody else.
When it comes to others, though, people are handed a free pass to act in any way they like.
My wish for you all is that you'll have employees that do whatever the hell they feel like doing, regardless of what's in the job description.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
No, that's the language that reminds me of hysteria and over reaction. Go back and read it again. I never accused you of baby skinning.
What I said was in no way hysterical; in fact, it was a simple and straightforward statement that expressed admiration for people who work hard and do their jobs and sacrifice for others. Please at least own up to your own hyperbole.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum a bit earlier:
He's the very opposite of somebody like St. Francis - or, for that matter, like any parish priest who works hard to help his parishioners, and who keeps the vows he took at ordination, something Spong can't be bothered with, apparently.
This is straitforward and positive? quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum from the same post I responded to with the "baby skinning" comment:
He's using his position as Bishop - which he hasn't got the integrity to resign from, which he really should do, considering that he doesn't agree with any of his own church's teachings - in order to enrich himself. I don't think Jesus "woulda got along fine with him." I think Jesus woulda thought he was a tremendous hypocrite.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum even further back, when the money was brought up:
I have to point out that Jack Spong is rich and famous, so I really wouldn't waste any tears on him.
In fact, he's a publicity hound with an egomaniacal sense of his own righteousness. He has contempt for those who disagree with him, and doesn't hesitate to express it. He gets paid handsomely to speak in various places across the globe, and sells millions of books. He has a much larger megaphone than any other bishop of the church, with the exception of Rowan Williams. He's really not one of the meek or poor or salt of the earth; in fact, he's still a bishop in the church - part of the power structure, IOW - and yet claims that the teachings of that same church are "bankrupt."
On top of that, he's a tedious read and unoriginal to boot. So, please. Can we tone down the wailing and rending of garments?
These are just a few examples of the posts that made me respond by saying he wasn't exactly skinning babies. like I said - over reaction and hysteria. I am not the least surprised you disagree, and certainly it was hyperbole. But that doesn't mean I wont stand by it.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
How can you say someone is overreacting when by your own admission you have no idea whatsoever what she's reacting to?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Don't push me, TubaMirum.
Obviously you need a push. I've never seen anybody act so arrogant in arguing about a subject they know so little about.
The things I'm saying are well-known. Sneering at my "track record" is a bit rich, I'm afraid, given the circumstances.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I do know that Spong is wealthy; I live in his diocese and I know him.
this gives you credibility. it was worth mentioning quite some time ago.
quote:
He has said so himself, as I've already said; I'll go to the trouble of showing this, if you insist.
I only insist if you still think his weath matters to the discussion at hand. I don't think it does, and frankly I dont give a shit how much he makes.
quote:
what is my business, though, is that Spong ignores his duties and gets accolades for it, while decent and self-sacrificing priests who actually do work hard to teach the faith are ignored. IOW, I have zero respect for Spong and his best-sellers; I think I'm certainly permitted to criticize him on that account.
as a member of his diocese, yes that is your business. has he actually ignored his duties or just said things you find shocking and heretical? because there is a difference.
And quite saying "best sellers" - I have had a preliminary look and I dont believe that to be the case.
quote:
Spong doesn't have anything positive to offer at all. The church deserves criticism, no doubt; I say that myself, all the time. The point is that it would be quite possible to criticize the church and at the same time teach the faith. Spong doesn't do this. He's a bad leader because he doesn't do the job he promised to do, and he should resign on that account.
See? all of this, stated as your opinion from your perspective, is perfectly fair.
My issue with you is only that you not bring irrelevence and pettiness into the argument. Criticize the guy on what he has actually done or not done. Not on the size of his wallet or imagined infractions.
As for him resigning - has your Diocesan Convention discussed this? what is the pulse within the Diocese? I perrsonally am not terribly thrilled with my former bishop either, but he never did anything wrong enough for us to call for his resignation. instead, we sat him down over coffee and debated with him. It was enough.
If Spong's infractions are beyond the coffee point, then why haven't you guys done something about it?
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
If Spong's infractions are beyond the coffee point, then why haven't you guys done something about it?
THAT is the $40,000 question. Then again when in recent memory have the Anglicans (as a group) taken a firm stand on anything?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
How can you say someone is overreacting when by your own admission you have no idea whatsoever what she's reacting to?
As soon as I hear that Spong actually was skinning babies I'll take it all back.
--------------------
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
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
You know, I really don't understand your issue here. This thread is now on page 6, and we're talking about other issues than Sydney, etc. I made some offhand complaints about Jack Spong; that I feel he's a hypocrite for remaining a bishop in the church when he scorns it, and that I think it's appalling to make money for not doing your job.
That was really the end of it, from my point of view. I'm not clear on the reason you seem to want to go into a clinch about this; I have no such desire. I was done with the whole thing the second after I hit the "Add Reply" button.
FYI, Spong is not the Bishop-in-Charge here anymore. He's "Emeritus" at this point; still part of the system, but not actively involved in the day-to-day of running the diocese.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... Dissent is very much allowed; Jack Spong is welcome to be as dissenting as he likes - as an ordinary citizen.
So, JC was allowed dissent because he was an ordinary citizen? Good thing he wasn't elected bishop.
So you, too, believe a person should not be expected to do the job they promised to do, then? ...
I believe that all the myriad christian churches and their elected representatives fall short of what is expected of them. You seem to be content with the condition of christianity in the world today. Others are not. Your arguments are defending the institution and its rules which, by your way of thinking, should be obeyed to the letter.
That doesn't mean the protesters are any less christian. It just may be that those who rail against the establishment are seeking to improve it, not destroy it.
It's been my belief for a long time that organizations literally take on a life of their own and will subordinate the interests of the individual parts to survival of the whole, just like any living thing. It will defend its existence, no matter what the cost.
What is your prime concern? Individual salvation or survival of the faulted organization that represents it?
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Don't push me, TubaMirum.
Obviously you need a push. I've never seen anybody act so arrogant in arguing about a subject they know so little about.
I know an awful lot about truth in reporting, actually. Which was all I took issue with. I don't like lies or exaggurations used to slander people. Most often the truth is enough to completely ruin our reputations, lies are unnecessary and overkill.
quote:
The things I'm saying are well-known. Sneering at my "track record" is a bit rich, I'm afraid, given the circumstances.
if they are so well known you'll have no problem defending your words then.
as for it being a "bit rich", either say what you mean or shut up.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
...when in recent memory have the Anglicans (as a group) taken a firm stand on anything?
Ah the "firm stand".
Codespeak for "kick out the people we disagree with, we would burn them but that's a bit too unpopular nowadays so we'll settle for the next best thing".
The Christian Love, it's a beautiful thing to behold....
--------------------
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
I see my previous observation holds true.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I believe that all the myriad christian churches and their elected representatives fall short of what is expected of them. You seem to be content with the condition of christianity in the world today. Others are not. Your arguments are defending the institution and its rules which, by your way of thinking, should be obeyed to the letter.
That doesn't mean the protesters are any less christian. It just may be that those who rail against the establishment are seeking to improve it, not destroy it.
It's been my belief for a long time that organizations literally take on a life of their own and will subordinate the interests of the individual parts to survival of the whole, just like any living thing. It will defend its existence, no matter what the cost.
What is your prime concern? Individual salvation or survival of the faulted organization that represents it?
Hmmm. I wish people would read what I'm writing instead of responding to what's in their own heads. I've already said that that the church can and should be criticized - that I do it all the time myself - but that in the meantime, the job of a bishop was to teach the Christian faith.
Not to scorn it and declare that it is "bankrupt" - particularly when he hasn't got anything to offer to take its place. And yes, a person can certainly object to this particular of the faith or that one, and do some outside-the-box theology - but if you're a bishop you really can't throw the whole thing out because you personally don't care for it anymore. Bishops actually have responsibilities and duties to the people in their dioceses; it's not All About Them.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
CJS, I put it to you that ++Jensen has knowingly and deliberately broken the vows he took at ordination. (I can't find anything on ordination on the Anglican Church of Australia site, so I'm working with the Church of England's BCP 1662 here; I'm guessing he was ordained using its liturgies.)
And so, for that matter, has any other priest who supports the notion of "lay presidency" at the Eucharist.
Here's the service for the Ordination of a Priest.
And here's the segment he (and his fellows) have most egregiously violated:
quote:
The Bishop.
Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?
Answer. I will so do, by the help of the Lord.
The Bishop.
Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your Cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given?
Answer. I will, the Lord being my helper.
"The Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ...as this Church hath received the same" has a very clear view of the Eucharist. I can't think of many more "strange doctrines" than allowing laypeople to pretend to celebrate the Eucharist.
There are very clear similarities here to +Spong, who should really move officially to Unitarianism, based on his beliefs: If ++Jensen and his posse want to dump all pretense at Anglican doctrine and tradition to become some sort of wacko-Calvinist NSP (Non-Specific Protestant), they should have the courage of their convictions and Just Do It.
Ah, but that would mean giving up the power and the glory and the real estate and the money, wouldn't it? And they don't have the guts to do that. So they wear their goofy Geneva gowns and "schedule" the Eucharist, on a very occasional basis, and otherwise act in a totally unAnglican fashion.
By planting NSP churches in other jurisdictions and playing their other little games while still pretending to be Anglicans, they're no better than +Spong.
He and Jensen deserve one another. A pox on both sides of this dispute.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
What really gets me about Spongism is that the Episcopal Church has almost no doctrine in the first place - and is very generous about dissent. Nobody is told what they have to believe.
But Spong apparently can't deal with even minimal doctrine: the two Creeds. That's all there is, and there are a million ways to interpret them.
But this is "bankrupt," according to him, and needs to be done away with. His latest thing is that "God is so far beyond us that we can't say anything about God."
Which is, obviously, something we can say about God. It's just ridiculous, really.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I heard Katherin Jefferts Schori speak the night before last and in an extended response to a question on the "boundaries" of Episcopal doctrine, one of the things she said was that she "could imagine" that the Creeds will be rewritten by the Church. She said that it had happened before and that it was the job of the Church to "recontextualize" the Gospels, canons, and creeds to the people in the times and places that it serves.
I'd like to know now if she thinks they ought to be rewritten, as Spong does. I was kind of hearing it between the lines, but it could be me. I'm also wondering if she thinks the Church might be better off without creeds since they seem to spawn more schism than unity.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Hosting
Comet and Tuba Mirum, please feel free to continue whatever furious debate you're having, so long as it sticks to the issues and leaves off the directly personal attacks.
Thank you,
Professor Kirke
Purgatory Host
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
What really gets me about Spongism is that the Episcopal Church has almost no doctrine in the first place - and is very generous about dissent. Nobody is told what they have to believe.
But Spong apparently can't deal with even minimal doctrine: the two Creeds. That's all there is, and there are a million ways to interpret them.
But this is "bankrupt," according to him, and needs to be done away with. His latest thing is that "God is so far beyond us that we can't say anything about God."
Which is, obviously, something we can say about God. It's just ridiculous, really.
No...thats good!!! He's getting out of the 19th century. The next step is restating Neo-Orthodoxy as if Barth never existed and it was something new.
I can't get upset about Spong. He's too funny.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
I heard Katherin Jefferts Schori speak the night before last and in an extended response to a question on the "boundaries" of Episcopal doctrine, one of the things she said was that she "could imagine" that the Creeds will be rewritten by the Church. She said that it had happened before and that it was the job of the Church to "recontextualize" the Gospels, canons, and creeds to the people in the times and places that it serves.
I'd like to know now if she thinks they ought to be rewritten, as Spong does. I was kind of hearing it between the lines, but it could be me. I'm also wondering if she thinks the Church might be better off without creeds since they seem to spawn more schism than unity.
There is a need here to clearly distinguish the content of orthodoxy from the form in which it is presented. The Creeds for example, were written in the language of Greek Philosophy (Homoousius vs Homoiousius for example). Each generation attempts to conceptualize and present the catholic truth in its own way. The content of orthodoxy remains universally constant (Christ as Lord and God, his death and resurrection as the means for our salvation). The form in which it is presented changes.
If we rewrote the Creeds today, I'm pretty sure that in light of our feminist times, we would figure out new names for the three persons of the Holy Trinity (Loving Creator, eternal Word, and Holy Spirit, for example). As well, we would try to not write the doctrine of the Ascension as implying a three-level universe.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
I heard Katherin Jefferts Schori speak the night before last and in an extended response to a question on the "boundaries" of Episcopal doctrine, one of the things she said was that she "could imagine" that the Creeds will be rewritten by the Church. She said that it had happened before and that it was the job of the Church to "recontextualize" the Gospels, canons, and creeds to the people in the times and places that it serves.\.
Did she reflect on how the ancient Creeds might be "rewritten" in context of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches' position through consultation or will the historic Creeds be written only within the ECUSA? This would be troubling to me and I'm sure many others. One particular church cannot start changing the historic Creeds on their own.
--------------------
"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
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
No...thats good!!! He's getting out of the 19th century. The next step is restating Neo-Orthodoxy as if Barth never existed and it was something new.
I can't get upset about Spong. He's too funny.
I think we're in a semi-permanent Spong-generated feedback loop now. We can't move forward or make any progress on anything because we're eternally questioning "the basics." Over and over and over again, so we never get beyond Square One - which is really sad, considering we have hardly any basics to begin with.
We've become total morons, IOW. Nobody knows anything anymore because we're always arguing about the Creeds and whether or not we should rewrite them.
God, it gets old.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Amazing, us talking about Spong on a thread with the name Spong in it, go figure.....
:rolleyes
--------------------
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
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Amazing, us talking about Spong on a thread with the name Spong in it, go figure.....
:rolleyes
What in the world are you complaining about now?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
What really gets me about Spongism is that the Episcopal Church has almost no doctrine in the first place - and is very generous about dissent. Nobody is told what they have to believe.
But Spong apparently can't deal with even minimal doctrine: the two Creeds. That's all there is, and there are a million ways to interpret them.
But this is "bankrupt," according to him, and needs to be done away with. His latest thing is that "God is so far beyond us that we can't say anything about God."
Which is, obviously, something we can say about God. It's just ridiculous, really.
In all fairness, I really don't think Spong believes we should be dumping all of tradition. Anglicans generally love singing, and it will be a cold day in hell when they stop singing the hymns of Wesley, Watts, etc.
I think what he is saying is that we shouldn't be taking any of it literally. His argument is you can't have it both ways. You can't support tolerance for gay people for example if you are orthodox. Because the orthodox line of thinking is dangerous, an acceptance of the Scriptures as literal.
I think that is his view, and I don't think it is as outrageous as people make it out to be.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
In all fairness, I really don't think Spong believes we should be dumping all of tradition. Anglicans generally love singing, and it will be a cold day in hell when they stop singing the hymns of Wesley, Watts, etc.
I think what he is saying is that we shouldn't be taking any of it literally. His argument is you can't have it both ways. You can't support tolerance for gay people for example if you are orthodox. Because the orthodox line of thinking is dangerous, an acceptance of the Scriptures as literal.
I think that is his view, and I don't think it is as outrageous as people make it out to be.
Well, I didn't say anything about Tradition or worship styles; I was talking about doctrine. (I sort of wonder what will be left of "Tradition" if the doctrine gets tossed - not much, is my guess - but that's another thread.)
I don't agree that he's arguing for a "non-literal" understanding of Scripture; again, he says that "the Christology of the ages is bankrupt." I am certainly not a literalist, and I don't find it bankrupt at all; neither do most people I know. Most Anglicans aren't literalists to begin with. And I am gay, and quite "orthodox" in theology. (I think the use of the word "orthodox" in the Anglican Communion these days is code for "anti-gay"; the word isn't being used correctly.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
CJS, I put it to you that ++Jensen has knowingly and deliberately broken the vows he took at ordination.
And exactly how well do you know the mind of ++Jensen? quote:
And so, for that matter, has any other priest who supports the notion of "lay presidency" at the Eucharist.
Here's the service for the Ordination of a Priest.
And here's the segment he (and his fellows) have most egregiously violated:
quote:
The Bishop.
Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?
Answer. I will so do, by the help of the Lord.
The Bishop.
Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your Cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given?
Answer. I will, the Lord being my helper.
"The Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ...as this Church hath received the same" has a very clear view of the Eucharist. I can't think of many more "strange doctrines" than allowing laypeople to pretend to celebrate the Eucharist.
Look, I'm not saying that we should allow lay presidency, but there is nothing in those vows that rules it out.
And whilst I understand the theological implications that those who are against lay presidency see in its implementation, I fail to see how this is in the same category of 'error' of denying the physical resurrection of Jesus. I can certainly think of a lot more "strange doctrines" than lay presidency. quote:
If ++Jensen and his posse want to dump all pretense at Anglican doctrine and tradition to become some sort of wacko-Calvinist NSP (Non-Specific Protestant), they should have the courage of their convictions and Just Do It.
Ah, but that would mean giving up the power and the glory and the real estate and the money, wouldn't it? And they don't have the guts to do that. So they wear their goofy Geneva gowns and "schedule" the Eucharist, on a very occasional basis, and otherwise act in a totally unAnglican fashion.
By planting NSP churches in other jurisdictions and playing their other little games while still pretending to be Anglicans, they're no better than +Spong.
You do realise that evangelicalism is a firm part of the Anglican tradition, don't you?
And while I can appreciate that you have significantly different theological views to ++Jensen, I don't see why someone having a different theology to you (that leads them to a differing paxis) necessarily means that you can infer a lack of moral integrity on them. It certainly doesn't do your position any service.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Thanks for the response Mad Geo.
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I am of the opinion that information delivered and controlled (if absolutely neccesary) or rebutted, is often better than information that is hidden or surpressed. By banning Spong, people give him a louder voice than he ever would have had they simply let him have his say in a controlled situation.
I can see your point and I do have some agreement, but, living in Sydney, I'm not sure this is making news outside of religious circles: yes, it did make the news, but I think most people read it and moved on.
In Sydney, there wouldn't that many people cueing up to here Spong. Sydney-siders, and Australians in general, are an unreligious lot, and those in Sydney, especially Sydney Anglicans, would generally not give much credence to him.
That said, I do disagree with your unhappiness and belief that holymen cannot protect their sheep and that it is arrogant to do so: this is, as far as I am aware [and please someone correct me if I'm wrong] what they have sworn to do. Christianity is a corporate religion: it is all of us, not just me. We are a body, for better or worse, and those at the head are there to look after us. Do they make mistakes? Of course. Come down here and see what a state Orthodoxy is in here: madness [I won't speak of other churches..we have enough issues to drive anyone mad].
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
To No One In Particular
I woke up this morning and thought about how Jesus would react to the divisiveness of his church. How many sects there are, given his strong emphasis to love one another and love thy neighbor, etc, etc. I thought about how this story (true or not) in the OP and the reactions herein describe a pattern of behaviour where people are looking for an excuse, any excuse, to ban, seperate, disagree, etc. etc.
Somehow I think Jesus woulda been disappointed with that whole way of approach.
'Course his people killed him for being of a different opinion, so I doubt he woulda been surprised.
I've been trying to think of a response to this from yesterday, and still can't. Not sure what that says. I looked at comparing religion to geology [what your profession is by your profile] and wondering what you'd do if someone claimed the Flying Spaghetti Monster was in every rock, but it is comparing apples and oranges, and, as far as I am aware, geologists had no founder saying 'Be nice'. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
To me, and I hope this is not offensive, the Gospel and its Truths are something worth fighting [metaphorically] for -- they are the pearl of great treasure and the lost coin [sorry, can't give references: I know they're somewhere in the first four books]. It may not seem it, and perhaps I am mad and completely overstating the case, but something like Spong teaches is, to me, terribly offensive. Should he be allowed to speak? Of course! Free speech is important. Should he get respect? As a human being of course. As a Bishop: he gets the respect deserving of a Bishop -- though I'm sorry to say I couldn't in good conscience be under him. And, before I continue, I will say I have some concerns with my current Bishop. I'm not on a 10-foot pillar of holiness preaching to those below me: I'm in the general muck of day-to-day Christianity.
Finally, should a bishop have the right to prevent talks occuring in churches in his diocese? I think he does. I think he has every right. As do governments who stop 'undesirable' people coming in to the country. I may disagree with some decisions made, and when that's the case I send letters: but it makes some sense to me. I may be foolish and ignorant: but these are my thoughts.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Amazing, us talking about Spong on a thread with the name Spong in it, go figure.....
if you were responding to this:
quote:
TubaMirum:
I think we're in a semi-permanent Spong-generated feedback loop now. We can't move forward or make any progress on anything because we're eternally questioning "the basics." Over and over and over again, so we never get beyond Square One - which is really sad, considering we have hardly any basics to begin with.
I dont think Tuba was talking about the thread, but about the church in general.
quote:
Professor Kirke:
Comet and Tuba Mirum, please feel free to continue whatever furious debate you're having, so long as it sticks to the issues and leaves off the directly personal attacks.
Sorry. Won't happen again.
[ 17. August 2007, 07:00: Message edited by: comet ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
I can't get upset about Spong. He's too funny.
I think that's just about the right attitude to Spong. I've met the guy three times - friendly at first, but hates being challenged. My third interview with him was acrimonious and unfriendly and then he wrote some fairly unpleasant things about me in his autobiography (which I'm quite proud about). TubaMirum is right that he treats his theological enemies with contempt and ridicule, and is quick to turn on his erstwhile allies with ferocity when they dare to disagree with him. He was a disastrous diocesan bishop who failed to get to grips with mission in Newark. His theological thought is unoriginal and lacks any insight and humour. Basically, he's a fundamentalist.
Years ago he was interviewed on a BBC television programme alongside Elaine Storkey who totally deflated him by giggling at his outrageous utterances. Instead of repeating his familiar litany of words memorised from his own books, repeated in speeches and interviews ad nauseam, he was almost silenced.
But, I'm glad to see TubaMirum criticise him from the perspective of a gay person, because he's been cut too much slack in the past. Far from helping the cause of gay liberation in the Church he's set it back because he's made it impossible to have an intelligent debate by his very extremism and publicity-seeking behaviour.
Back when he ordained Robert Williams in a massive blaze of publicity it seemed in his desire to be at the cutting edge he was not even competent enough to ensure that this particular gay man was suitable for ministry. Williams later suggested that faithfulness and monogamy were a patriarchal attempt to impose heterosexual standards on the gay community and asserted that Mother Theresa would be better off getting laid. And then in 1998 at the Lambeth Conference Spong managed to alienate just about everybody with his insulting comments about third world bishops and his bizarre 12 Theses. The acrimonious atmosphere of post-colonial resentment which infected that Lambeth Conference was a direct result of his comments and his egoistic behaviour.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
I remember discussing Spong with Stephen Sykes (chairman of the Doctrine Commission of the CofE) and I'm sure that I remember him saying that he'd been part of a panel with him on a television programme and that he was singularly unimpressed with most things about him. Unfortunately, I can't find anything online about it.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Sorry you're "creeped out" by the idea that somebody should actually do the job they've promised to do, or else have the decency to resign. Remind me never to hire you for anything.
I would be very surprised to learn that he was expected to not examine the faith in an academic manner when hired as a Bishop.
Did he lead his diocese? Did he confirm and ordain and represent his diocese as they asked him to do when they hired him? Thing is, whether or not he was doing the job he was hired to do is between him and his diocese.
Not just between him and his diocese. He sits in the House of Bishops where he has voice and vote until he dies. Bishops govern particular dioceses until they retire, but they are bishops in the church, the whole church, for the rest of their lives.
Also, leading and representing his diocese, confirming and ordaining people and some of the things that were part of his job as bishop, but he made a promise:
quote:
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I, N.N., chosen Bishop of the Church in N., solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church.
He wasn't just supposed to keep the budget balanced and show up in parishes on a regular basis.
quote:
What I find creepy is the idea that dissent is somehow not allowed.
What I find ridiculous is the idea that it's okay, even a good thing, for bishops to go back on their promises.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
There are any number of jobs Spong could have taken in life in which his beliefs would be of no trouble to anybody - including that of an academic theologian. In fact, he undertook the job of bishop - the one job on the whole wretched planet where his views were not appropriate. You have to admit that this is pretty bloody-minded of him, if nothing else.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by TubaMirum:
I think we're in a semi-permanent Spong-generated feedback loop now. We can't move forward or make any progress on anything because we're eternally questioning "the basics." Over and over and over again, so we never get beyond Square One - which is really sad, considering we have hardly any basics to begin with.
Personally, I think it's very important to make sure you have your fundamentals straight before moving forward. If you have your basics right, everything else ought to fall into place. If you don't, you'll never get anything else right. I think a lot of honest religion involves trying to get back to square one, so to speak.
Creeds are overrated, IMO.
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Personally, I think it's very important to make sure you have your fundamentals straight before moving forward. If you have your basics right, everything else ought to fall into place. If you don't, you'll never get anything else right.
Doesn't that make you a fundamentalist? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny S:
Doesn't that make you a fundamentalist?
Yes, in a manner of speaking. I've been thinking lately that it's really quite impossible to be religious and not be a fundamentalist of one stripe or another, at least if you take it seriously.
It's just that I find the people who call themselves (or are referred to as) fundamentalists so abhorrent that I don't use the word because it's so loaded with sociopolitical baggage.
I'm also humble enough to admit that I probably haven't perfected my fundamentals yet. Another reason to be wary is that if you don't just think like a fundamentalist but act like a fundamentalist, you'd better hope that you're right, otherwise your mistakes will be magnified to the deific scale that you create. If you live your theology, the flaws will become painfully apparent. (This is something I picked up in Aikido, btw, but I think it fits many other things as well.) It might be what Luther was getting at when he said "If you must sin, sin boldly!"
I could easily say the same for being "Born again." It's not that I think there's anything wrong with rebirth, I just don't agree with the people who most loudly proclaim their "born again-ness."
I think liberals need to do some serious linguistic reclamation in the future.
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I think liberals need to do some serious linguistic reclamation in the future.
That's funny, 'cos one of the words that conservatives want to reclaim is 'liberal'.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny S quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I think liberals need to do some serious linguistic reclamation in the future.
That's funny, 'cos one of the words that conservatives want to reclaim is 'liberal'.
Oh, if you mean liberal as in the liberal free market, I'm pretty liberal already on that front (though not quite libertarian, I'll admit). I was thinking of theological liberals, you know, the types that think loving, taking care of people, and trusting God is more important than controlling folks' bedroom behavior or bludgeoning sinners with their own mistakes.
--------------------
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
Just to add that I can see how one of my comments could have been taken out of context, and want to set the record straight.
When I said Spong is "using his position as Bishop to enrich himself," I didn't mean that was his motivation; I really don't know what his motivations are. In fact, I doubt he's doing it on purpose; I'm sure he does believe in what he's doing and thinks he has all the answers.
What I meant was his making money was dependent on his being Bishop; that that was the outcome of his position as Bishop. I simply find it outrageous that he continues to ignore the responsibilities of his job and at the same get kudos and profits from book sales for it.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Did she reflect on how the ancient Creeds might be "rewritten" in context of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches' position through consultation or will the historic Creeds be written only within the ECUSA?
She said nothing about the mechanics of how a rewriting of the Creeds might proceed. It was not 100% clear when she said that "we" might rewrite the creeds who "we" were. Again, this was a spontaneous offhand remark in response to a question from the audience, not a prepared statement and certainly not a formal proposal.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I think liberals need to do some serious linguistic reclamation in the future.
That's funny, 'cos one of the words that conservatives want to reclaim is 'liberal'.
In this country, the political conservatives have been using "liberal" as a swear word for so long that it's impossible to believe they want it back.
As for theological liberals, I haven't noticed any theological conservatives asking for it back either, but I don't read a lot of their works.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Personally, I think it's very important to make sure you have your fundamentals straight before moving forward. If you have your basics right, everything else ought to fall into place. If you don't, you'll never get anything else right. I think a lot of honest religion involves trying to get back to square one, so to speak.
Creeds are overrated, IMO.
I can see your point, mirrizin - but the Creeds are the only doctrine of TEC at all. They say, at the bare minimum, what our faith is about; if we toss them, what would likely be put in their place would be some form of Confession, something I think would be far worse.
But the Creeds are nothing but boundaries, anyway; they aren't really oaths to be sworn (which a Confession would be), but outlines to follow. Nobody's required to take them literally in every particular. In fact, I'd say that almost nobody does. They are the corporate faith, not individual vows. And they connect us to history, something I don't think anybody can afford to lose.
I used to not say them at all because I didn't believe them, but now I have no trouble with them; they're a sort of meditation for me. (I do think, actually, that there's no really good reason to have them in the liturgy every week, but I'm not bothered with this anymore really.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
In this country, the political conservatives have been using "liberal" as a swear word for so long that it's impossible to believe they want it back.
In the UK liberal can still mean generous.
It does make me smile when people are horrifed about being considered generous.
[ 17. August 2007, 15:17: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
[QUOTE] I was thinking of theological liberals, you know, the types that think loving, taking care of people, and trusting God is more important than controlling folks' bedroom behavior or bludgeoning sinners with their own mistakes.
the problem with that statement is that theological liberals are not the only ones who believe strongly in doing the former and often theological "liberals" are just as intolerant as the extreme fundamentalists. There is a lot of middle way between the two extremes. A Via Media if you like. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Look, I'm not saying that we should allow lay presidency, but there is nothing in those vows that rules it out.
Read it again. I think it's quite clear. ++Jensen is as guilty as +Spong of running roughshod over Anglican doctrine and tradition. He's just not as celebratory about it.
quote:
You do realise that evangelicalism is a firm part of the Anglican tradition, don't you?
You do realize that observing jurisdictional boundaries is a firm part of the Anglican tradition, don't you? You do realize that the Africans have been slapped for stomping on others' turf, don't you? Why should Sydney be allowed to flout the rules?
quote:
And while I can appreciate that you have significantly different theological views to ++Jensen, I don't see why someone having a different theology to you (that leads them to a differing paxis) necessarily means that you can infer a lack of moral integrity on them. It certainly doesn't do your position any service.
I don't really care about "significantly different theologies" per se -- see my sig -- but I do care about hypocrisy, and about misrepresentation. If ++Jensen and his followers wanted to start their own overtly Protestant denomination, or to move to another one en masse, I'd wish them fair winds and a safe voyage. (Oh, and leave the keys on the hook by the door.)
But I think there is indeed "a lack of moral integrity" to be found in those who don't believe and don't uphold what they swore that they did believe and would uphold at their ordinations, and yet continue to grasp the material and public rewards of their positions in the Church. That's true of +Spong. And it's equally true of ++Jensen.
Ross
[ 17. August 2007, 17:03: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
