|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Second openly gay bishop in ECUSA (very likely)
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
This (link) has now appeared on the Ugandan presidential media centre site. It's worth pondering in the context of the issues mentioned earlier. I'll leave off commenting myself.
(I wasn't aware of the other thread Gildas, thanks for the heads up).
Thanks for that: Well clearly the good news is that with a pronouncement that is one part woofing and one part 'lets be sensible' the Ugandan government is looking for a climbdown.
The bad news is that you could pretty much do a search and replace on that document with the words 'homosexuals' and 'transdimensional shapeshifting lizards' and it would probably make as much sense. If these are the reasserters new best mates then it is not so much a case of the Poor Man's Dietrich Bonhoeffer as the Poor Man's David Icke.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
This (link) has now appeared on the Ugandan presidential media centre site.
From the document:
quote:
We ought to know that homosexuality community across the world is now 10% of the world population. Since we are part of the global community how feasible would it be to kill off 10% of the population.
Is the second sentence a rhetorical question or a suggestion for further study?
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
I really am not suggesting Rowan Williams set out to make himself popular. Leadership may well be about doing the right thing, but I'd take that to mean right for the body of which you are a leader. While blocking objectionable legislation anywhere in the world would seem to be a good thing, the value in attempting to influence a particular legislative process in which you have no direct say would seem less than clear cut. If it's a binary choice with making clear where your own Church stands, I'm not at all sure why it should have priority.
Disagree. The document that was invariably cited in the nineties as to the C of E position on human sexuality was 'Issues in Human Sexuality'. The document that gets cited now is the Lambeth 98 Resolution. I am not wild about either document but they pretty much preclude 'gas them like badgers' being taken as the C of E's line as far as gay people are concerned so I think we can ignore the whole Andrew Brown But Rowan doesn't care... line. Anyone who thinks that the Ugandan legislation is a good thinks so in the face of the pretty much establised C of E position that it ain't.
So Rowan has a choice. On the one hand he can do stuff behind the scenes and this might have a positive outcome for gay people in Uganda. Or he can do what lots of liberals (including me) would like and slag off the Ugandan church despite this having absolutely naff all effect. If what matters is party lines then we will go for the latter choice because sticking it to the bad guys is important. If we care about gay people in Uganda we will go for the former because this might actually have some effect for the better on their situtation.
If it all goes tits up and the legislation gets passed then, for the record, yeah absolutely, I was wrong. Next time lets stick it to The Man. But at the moment I think that the prudential case says 'behind the scenes if you please, people'. And, if that's the right thing to do, then galling as it is, lets stick to it.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Ho hum. Scratch my last.
That said, given the events of the last forty eight hours there is probably an issue about timing here. And I notice that His Nibs draws our attention to the pronouncements of the AC as to why the Ugandan legislation is wrong. So I may yet refrain from wearing sackcloth and ashes for a bit longer.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Bit of both surely? Is it not possible to believe (unless one is a knee-jerk Rowan vilifier [which seems ironically to be a position common to conevo schismatics like Charles Raven and to Rowan's AffCath former friends!]) that he has been doing the behind the scenes diplomacy with Orombi and co., but now feels that it's possible to go public with the (pretty low key but nuanced) denunciation that all of us feel is required? It's classic Foreign Office diplomacy. You don't badmouth Uganda while you know that there's some behind the scenes arm-twisting to be done.
Equally, the rest of the UK bishops will have been keeping their powder dry and waiting for Rowan, and for our colleagues whose dioceses are twinned with Uganda, to do the business in private.
And that of course is where the moral equivalence stuff breaks down. Uganda may or may not be susceptible to low-key diplomacy. What is being proposed is of course utterly unacceptable. But they need to be persuaded.
ECUSA's action isn't in the same ball-park. But it is a deal-breaker for the Communion. They know it. And I'd venture to suggest that they aren't in the slightest bit open to any kind of persuasion about the effect of their actions. They're basically what used to be known in socialist circles as vanguardists. The question is whether the revolution they want is actually going to happen...
[ 12. December 2009, 19:29: Message edited by: pete173 ]
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
That would be largely my interpretation of what happened. I merely felt unable to enthusiastically commend our ongoing struggle with the forces of Eastasia fourteen minutes after I had exhorted the proletariat to commit themselves to the struggle with Eurasia! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I think I disagree with your final paragraph but will need to have a think as to why.
[ 12. December 2009, 19:48: Message edited by: Gildas ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
ECUSA's action isn't in the same ball-park. But it is a deal-breaker for the Communion. They know it. And I'd venture to suggest that they aren't in the slightest bit open to any kind of persuasion about the effect of their actions. They're basically what used to be known in socialist circles as vanguardists. The question is whether the revolution they want is actually going to happen...
But the deal was already broken: specifically, by those continuing to interfere across national/provincial borders; morally, by those who continue to offer no engagement with ('listening') lesbian and gay Christians.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I merely felt unable to enthusiastically commend our ongoing struggle with the forces of Eastasia fourteen minutes after I had exhorted the proletariat to commit themselves to the struggle with Eurasia!
What this prole was mostly criticising Rowan for, though, was not representing the Church of England's position in his own back yard. Whether we like it or not, public perception of the Church will be disproportionately influenced by what Archbishops say or don't say.
Senior church leadership obviously requires political awareness and diplomatic nous, but if it refuses to speak credibly for the Church on what is in the news it effectively pulls the rug from under anyone or anything that identifies with it.
Those with some church involvement might say it's not about image. But in practice, for anyone on the outside, what else is there? What's in the news is the only church they're likely to see and hear from one year to the next. Rough as it is on Archbishops, a stoney silence can be taken to speak volumes and as easily misrepresented as anything that is said.
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
ECUSA's action isn't in the same ball-park. But it is a deal-breaker for the Communion.
Only I think if you assume a Communion that does not yet exist. The Communion as is has no such concept of breakage, only those who speak and act is if it did.
[cross-posted]
[ 12. December 2009, 21:30: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
But the deal was already broken: specifically, by those continuing to interfere across national/provincial borders; morally, by those who continue to offer no engagement with ('listening') lesbian and gay Christians.
Of course, the concept of listening is a bit like the concept of reception. It isn't susceptible of any kind of objective measurement. We can't know when it's happened.
The debate on gay relationships in the Church has been going on throughout my adult Christian life - since at least the early 1970s, and roughly coterminous with the gay rights movement itself. Within that 35 year period, there has been much dialogue of the deaf, but also a great deal of listening. Many may not have "listened", but the experience of a good number of Christians will have been [as mine has] that they have a number of gay and lesbian friends; that they have heard and aborbed the painful and sometimes cruel experiences of those friends at the hands of the Church; they have sat in groups and one-to-ones and dialogued; and that they (however partially) have been doing what the Lambeth resolution requires. But however much listening goes on, it remains an unfulfilled and impossible task.
Just as the ordination of women will never be "received" until every single person and ecclesial community has accepted women as fully part of the priesthood of the Church of God, so I suspect that listening will never be complete until every church, on the basis of listening, accepts the validity of committed faithful homophile relationships.
That's not a complaint. It's the content that I think "listening" has been given. It's kind of code for "winning the argument" - only put in softer tones. Doesn't absolve us from the need to do the listening - but I think we're aware that, like "reception", "listening" has an infinite middle. And if you remain unconvinced of the theological rightness of the reformist argument, we have a concept whose desired outcomes can't be fulfilled.
As to the border-crossing, you'll know that I and many others don't really think that people changing churches or planting new ones is any big deal. If some Anglicans in the USA want to realign, that's their choice. It's a matter of supreme indifference what church people decide to be a part of, provided that they're being discipled and growing in Christ.
But it would be interesting to hear from those who keep recalling us to the listening process what content they give to the word. It does really seem to me to end up as vanguardism.
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I don't think that Lambeth 1998 resolution I.10 was intended to create a cosy Shangri-la of perpetual 'listening'. There is a time to listen and there is a time to speak. The listening has been done. The same things are being said ad infinitum. They are just as unconvincing now as when they were first being said. There is a time when talking become pestering. That time is now long past.
Gosh, you know, I think we agree on something.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Bit of both surely? Is it not possible to believe (unless one is a knee-jerk Rowan vilifier [which seems ironically to be a position common to conevo schismatics like Charles Raven and to Rowan's AffCath former friends!]) that he has been doing the behind the scenes diplomacy with Orombi and co., but now feels that it's possible to go public with the (pretty low key but nuanced) denunciation that all of us feel is required? It's classic Foreign Office diplomacy. You don't badmouth Uganda while you know that there's some behind the scenes arm-twisting to be done.
Charles Raven? He who was Team Vicar in a district in Kidderminster ten years ago who fell out with his Bishop / Team Rector / APCM over flying bishops / churchwardens / something or other. He set up a new independent church with his old churchwardens and left the CofE, didn't he?
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
But the deal was already broken: specifically, by those continuing to interfere across national/provincial borders; morally, by those who continue to offer no engagement with ('listening') lesbian and gay Christians.
Of course, the concept of listening is a bit like the concept of reception. It isn't susceptible of any kind of objective measurement. We can't know when it's happened.
The debate on gay relationships in the Church has been going on throughout my adult Christian life - since at least the early 1970s, and roughly coterminous with the gay rights movement itself. Within that 35 year period, there has been much dialogue of the deaf, but also a great deal of listening. Many may not have "listened", but the experience of a good number of Christians will have been [as mine has] that they have a number of gay and lesbian friends; that they have heard and aborbed the painful and sometimes cruel experiences of those friends at the hands of the Church; they have sat in groups and one-to-ones and dialogued; and that they (however partially) have been doing what the Lambeth resolution requires. But however much listening goes on, it remains an unfulfilled and impossible task.
Just as the ordination of women will never be "received" until every single person and ecclesial community has accepted women as fully part of the priesthood of the Church of God, so I suspect that listening will never be complete until every church, on the basis of listening, accepts the validity of committed faithful homophile relationships.
That's not a complaint. It's the content that I think "listening" has been given. It's kind of code for "winning the argument" - only put in softer tones. Doesn't absolve us from the need to do the listening - but I think we're aware that, like "reception", "listening" has an infinite middle. And if you remain unconvinced of the theological rightness of the reformist argument, we have a concept whose desired outcomes can't be fulfilled.
As to the border-crossing, you'll know that I and many others don't really think that people changing churches or planting new ones is any big deal. If some Anglicans in the USA want to realign, that's their choice. It's a matter of supreme indifference what church people decide to be a part of, provided that they're being discipled and growing in Christ.
But it would be interesting to hear from those who keep recalling us to the listening process what content they give to the word. It does really seem to me to end up as vanguardism.
Tendentious and misleading.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The debate on gay relationships in the Church has been going on throughout my adult Christian life - since at least the early 1970s, and roughly coterminous with the gay rights movement itself. Within that 35 year period, there has been much dialogue of the deaf, but also a great deal of listening.
Well, yes. In the mid 1970s I was living in an evangelical Anglican college and we certainly had that sort of debate. Including at one point some students coming out publically - one of them in a CU meeting. You will remember some of individuals involved. Many of them are now CofE clergy. And of course Michael Vasey was at the same college. As was at least one current bishop.
There has been plenty of talking and listening going on for decades. Not all of it very charitable or useful, bit some of it was. We haven't been hiding under the table with our fingers in our ears.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Without referencing Pete173's entirely and lengthy (again) post, Grammatica said:
quote:
Tendentious and misleading.
No, it's not. It is a very different perspective (one I don't much agree with, by the way), and gives us something for reflection. (Pete173 should not assume anything on account of an occasional semi-compliment).
Grammatica.... might I suggest that we give our opposing interlocutors a bit more credit?
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I see nothing there about it being anglicans ultimate authority... or am I missing something?
The 'We' at the start of the sentence is a clue. I take it to mean "We Anglicans". The sentence then goes on to say that "We (Anglicans) view the Old and New Testaments ' as... - containing all things necessary for salvation' and
- as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
Does that cause you a problem?
No. The "we" stands for "we members of the CHurch of England." The CofE website -- the CofE General Synod -- the Parliament of the UK all may claim to speak for the CofE. None of them, at all, in any way, speak for "Anglicans".
Some anglicans, perhaps, but not for us all.
(And that is a statement that leaves undiscussed how and to what degree some, any or all anglicans view the Old and New Testaments.)
The Webpage is about what it means to be Anglican, not Church of England. I can understand why you may wish to wriggle out of this particular definition of Anglicanism, but you should explain precisely why you dislike the definition, not attempt to avoid it on the basis that it doesn't apply to you.
The webpage certainly purports to define Anglicanism, but it has no authority to do so for any group except the CofE. And as the CofE is not now -- nor has it beem for several decades -- normative for any other branch of Anglicanism, what the webpage says is interesting but not necessarily applicable outside England.
For example, any reference to the 39 Articles in the context of Anglicanism has to take account of the fact that they never had any authority in the Epicopal CHurch of Scotland. They must, therefore, fall as an authoritative standard or statement about Anglican belief, except insofar as individual churches have adopted them. You in ENgland can refer to them as the website and you have done. You do so, as regards the CofE, with perfect propriety. But that's where it ends.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
Augustine the Aleut, here's the bit I objected to:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
As to the border-crossing, you'll know that I and many others don't really think that people changing churches or planting new ones is any big deal. If some Anglicans in the USA want to realign, that's their choice. It's a matter of supreme indifference what church people decide to be a part of, provided that they're being discipled and growing in Christ.
It's that last bit I called
quote:
Tendentious and misleading.
because that isn't a faithful and complete picture of what's been going on in the US, and Pete173 has every reason to know it. Like the equally surprising memory lapses certain other evangelicals were prone to, up the thread, it gives me reason to think some shading of the truth is going on. I don't like that.
[ 13. December 2009, 01:13: Message edited by: Grammatica ]
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
caercybi06
Shipmate
# 15105
|
Posted
In my diocese we have had 4 churches split , some people joining the Anglican Network reas friends of AB Akinola et al. the others staying to rebuild
IMHO conservative Anglicans should decide werther being conservative and Anglican, at the same time is possible . I think it is o.k. you have to accept that we will ordain gay & lesbian people but then aren't they part of the family of God too ? Where is the Christian concept of love thy neighbour ? We need to exercise such love and stop shooting at each other. I know much more of this all sex all the time in The Canadian Anglian Journal and I will be hard pressed to stay an |
Anglican. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbitt JRR Tolkien
Posts: 59 | From: Victoria BC Canada | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I think a lot of this stems from a rather pompous pride by some conservatives. The conservatives leaving our Church beat their chest proclaiming how good little orthodox people they are, as opposed to the wicked TEC. It is sad that one can only be secure in one's orthodoxy by attacking other people's point of view.
The ABC, rather than telling such people to bugger off and pay attention to their own sins, is enabling them by criticizing the election of the recent Suffragan bishop of LA. The ABC's criticism is laying the blame squarely on TEC and giving legitimacy to the specious claim that the Episcopal Church is heretical.
Frankly I do not think either the ACC or the TEC should accept having to look over one's shoulder to ensure Canterbury is happy before making a decision on an issue.
--------------------
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
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
pete173 and ken both make entirely reasonable points about listening; listening has gone on, it has sometimes been useful and sometimes not, and that 'listening' can carry a hidden agenda of aiming to win the argument. I do suspect that my experience of a Deanery Synod in the CofE in the late 1990s where 'listening' was interpreted as 'talking about' would not be a unique one.
But there are those within the Communion (both 'West' and 'South') with their mind made up who therefore see no purpose in dialogue. For them 'the gay issue' appears to have been made the touchstone of orthodoxy: if you accept some form of homosexual behaviour, that is evidence that your view of Scripture is not as high as 'ours'. But views vary between sincere Christians, as evidenced by the ongoing debate. Are the 'liberals' condemned to keep giving ground, while the 'conservatives' stand firm?
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Posted by John Holding:
The webpage certainly purports to define Anglicanism, but it has no authority to do so for any group except the CofE. And as the CofE is not now -- nor has it beem for several decades -- normative for any other branch of Anglicanism, what the webpage says is interesting but not necessarily applicable outside England.
For example, any reference to the 39 Articles in the context of Anglicanism has to take account of the fact that they never had any authority in the Epicopal CHurch of Scotland. They must, therefore, fall as an authoritative standard or statement about Anglican belief, except insofar as individual churches have adopted them. You in ENgland can refer to them as the website and you have done. You do so, as regards the CofE, with perfect propriety. But that's where it ends.
Someone, rather helpfully, posted a link to TECs equivalent of the webpage under discusssion. It's called What makes us Anglican? The Hallmarks of the Episcopal Church. That suggests to me that there are certain "hallmarks" that should mark any Anglican church (e.g. the TEC and the CofE). This sentence from TEC's website provides a good example of what I'm talking about. quote:
Like all Anglican churches, the Episcopal Church is distinguished by the following characteristics:
Now that to me looks like an attempt to define what is specifically Anglican about the TEC. However it is also, by implication, an attempt to define Anglicanism itself. For the record, I think this sentence from TEC's definition of Anglicanism is wonderful. I wish the CofE would say such a thing about itself! quote:
Anglicanism stands squarely in the Reformed tradition.
A bit of serious historical reflection on what that statement actually means, or might mean could solve a lot of the problems in TEC.
With regard to scripture the website goes on to make this statement: quote:
The Anglican approach to reading and interpreting the Bible was first articulated by Richard Hooker, also in the 16th Century.
Again, a bit of serious engagement with what this actually means would yield great reward. Matt Black is the shipmate who is best placed to explain precisely what Hooker was about and my hope is that he'll post something about it at some point.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by caercybi06:
In my diocese we have had 4 churches split , some people joining the Anglican Network reas friends of AB Akinola et al. the others staying to rebuild
IMHO conservative Anglicans should decide werther being conservative and Anglican, at the same time is possible . I think it is o.k. you have to accept that we will ordain gay & lesbian people but then aren't they part of the family of God too ? Where is the Christian concept of love thy neighbour ? We need to exercise such love and stop shooting at each other. I know much more of this all sex all the time in The Canadian Anglian Journal and I will be hard pressed to stay an |
Anglican.
I think what you're saying is that to be an Anglican in North America is to accept the majority position there, and if you don't like it you cannot be Anglican. Is that correct?
If so, it is utter hokum, any more than someone in Reform trying the same thing. After all, haven't we been continually told that TEC is basically congregational? If that is the case why can individual parishes not make such decisions themselves? Or is is a case have your congregational cake but eating it with an Episcopal flavour?
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Link to post by Grammatica
Grammatica
A couple of technical points related to quotations.
1. As you have explained later, your comment did not apply to the whole post, so you would have been better to quote only the part on which your comment is based.
2. In general, there is no need to quote a relatively long post in its entirety. If you do wish to refer to an entire post, you can always post a link - for example as I've done in this post.
And of course you can combine 1 and 2.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clavus
Shipmate
# 9427
|
Posted
quote:
Anglicanism stands squarely in the Reformed tradition.
That phrase, taken out of the context in which it occurs, is so misleading that is is simply Not True. This is where proof texting gets you.
Posts: 389 | From: The Indian Summer of the C of E | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
There seems to be an emerging consensus that when the Lambeth 1998 Resolution said 'listening to gay people' we really meant 'we had a conversation about that in our Christian Union in the 1970s and, like, totally ick and, hey, Somerset Maugham!'.
Ha! Fooled you gay people who trusted our bona fides! Egg all over your faces!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
quote:
Anglicanism stands squarely in the Reformed tradition.
That phrase, taken out of the context in which it occurs, is so misleading that is is simply Not True. This is where proof texting gets you.
I'm interested. Could you explain what you mean please?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Again, a bit of serious engagement with what this actually means would yield great reward. Matt Black is the shipmate who is best placed to explain precisely what Hooker was about and my hope is that he'll post something about it at some point.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Am I? I'm flattered by the compliment, but I'm not sure that's the case nor that I fully understand the question. As I see it, Hooker basically developed further Luther's concept of adiaphora with reference to history and ecclesiology in particular. Hooker accepted (contra the Presbyterians) that Scripture could be argued at least three ways (episcopal, Presbyterian and congregational) with regard to church government; his take on it was that episcopacy was the pre-existing form that the Church had 'done' since the Year Dot so, as there was nothing in the NT against it and in fact on or two mentions of it in the NT, 16th century Reformers might as well keep it. There was, perhaps, more than a cursory nod to Tradition in Hooker's 'workings' of this conclusion and thus one can draw from this the principle that 'Tradition is OK, and fills in the gaps where Scripture is silent and indeed is useful for interpreting Scripture provided it doesn't actually contradict Scripture' but, tbh, that was hardly revolutionary even in the nascent CofE - Cranmer's Homilies of a generation earlier are shot through with the same methodology. For me, this is what firmly establishes Anglicanism as Reformed Catholicism...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
pete173 and ken both make entirely reasonable points about listening; listening has gone on, it has sometimes been useful and sometimes not, and that 'listening' can carry a hidden agenda of aiming to win the argument. I do suspect that my experience of a Deanery Synod in the CofE in the late 1990s where 'listening' was interpreted as 'talking about' would not be a unique one.
How can any listening take place in the places where it needed to take place the most? During the period of time following Lambeth 1998, both the Nigerian and Ugandan churches have supported legislation that criminalized gay self-identification with assistance from Anglicans and other conservative evangelicals in the States and elsewhere.
Sure, a listening process may have happened in London, Toronto, New York, Los Angeles and Auckland, but I don't believe for a minute that openly gay people had the opportunity to tell their stories in church settings in Rwanda, Burundi, Kenya, Nigeria or Uganda. And these place are where the listening process was most critical. There, they are fighting for their lives.
Lambeth 1998 said that the listening process was meant to be communion wide, not just in the Western, gay friendlier parts of it. The percentage of homosexuals in Nigeria is probably the same as in the UK, but their voices have not been heard. As Nigeria, Uganda, etc., have actively participated in GAFCON and in the "realignment" process from the TEC and AngChCanada, I still believe one can argue that they also didn't hold up their end of the resolution, either.
[ 13. December 2009, 13:08: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
it would be interesting to hear from those who keep recalling us to the listening process what content they give to the word. It does really seem to me to end up as vanguardism.
I wonder what you mean by vanguardism in this context. If simply that a movement for change whose time has come does not reflect your tradition's position, I'd have thought what you're referring to was a legitimate outcome of any genuine listening process.
The problem with this particular listening process, whatever the original perhaps honorable intent, is it was based on at least one false assumption: that all involved were open to creative change. What's become clear, and I would have thought should have been obvious from the start, is that those whose faith is based on unreflective dogma cannot/will not accept innovation.
Given that reality, the 'content' that has emerged, the proposed Covenant to replace the Anglican Communion with a broadly acceptable global Anglican Church, was only ever either a pipe-dream or a cynical ploy to marginalise and exclude liberals.
I like the idea of some kind of covenant. It could frame a forward-looking, aspirational basis for anglicanism in terms of shared history and values. Instead all the drafts have aped existing orthodox forms of words, I guess out of habit as much as anything. The best thing that could happen would be for Churches to simply refuse to sign up. Only the ideologues attempting to impose their orthodoxies would lose out.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
ISTM Pete is pointing out that one can sincerely listen, and still not agree with the point being put. Whereas some people have taken listening to mean, talking until such time as we find we agree with you.
So then when conservatives say, we have listened and you're still wrong, the other side state - you said you were going to listen, but you haven't and we know you haven't listened because you haven't changed your mind.
The main problem on both sides seems to be the assumption that it is impossible to read the bible, seriously listen to a range of views, understand the situation in the world, and yet be able to sincerely disagree.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
When I see (many) conservatives still invoking claims from ex-gay "ministries" and long discredited research to state that not only is homosexuality a sin, but that gay people are sick, diseased-ridden, depraved people who are a threat to children, and who deserve no legal protections, I have trouble believing much listening has been done at all.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
The main problem on both sides seems to be the assumption that it is impossible to read the bible, seriously listen to a range of views, understand the situation in the world, and yet be able to sincerely disagree.
No, the problem is the proposed outcome - the Covenant - that will exclude liberal readings of the bible from involvement in global anglican decision-making. If accepted, this anglicanism will be synonymous with a dogmatic orthodoxy that discriminates against people on grounds of sex and orientation for as long as any national church vetoes change.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Honestly believing homosexality is sinful and dangerous and akin to peadophilia is certainly possible - and may be a majority view globally. Doesn't mean they are right of course - but it also doesn't mean they haven't listened. It means when they listened their minds were not changed.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
It means when they listened their minds were not changed.
Well, yes. So what should happen next? That's where the problem is arising.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Honestly believing homosexality is sinful and dangerous and akin to peadophilia is certainly possible - and may be a majority view globally. Doesn't mean they are right of course - but it also doesn't mean they haven't listened. It means when they listened their minds were not changed.
Some people may believe homosexuality to be naturally ocurring, not 'akin to paedophilia', not dangerous, but homosexual activity to be sinful. They may have listened to the arguments and come to this conclusion. Without an absolutist philosophy it is impossible to say if they (or any other opinion) is right or wrong.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
"Agree to disagree" isn't really a conclusion, unless you're in a Dave Marshall non-dogmatic type of church. It works for pluralists, but not for anyone else.
Disagreement then implies a series of sorts of next steps:
1. Disagree and hide the disagreement by not mentioning it - unlikely
2. Disagree and try to resolve it - it's what we've been doing (badly)
3. Disagree and stop talking to each other - won't help the "listening process"
4. Disagree and hold opposing views in antinomy - not really possible in a church where public positions are encapsulated in liturgy, canon law and pastoral practice as they are in the CofE [for instance, unlike what appears to be the case in ECUSA, we couldn't have a diversity of official practice on liturgical provision for gay quasi-marriage].
Agree to disagree is, I suspect,only a theoretical possibility in a congregational, non-credal, non-episcopal denomination. Which is why ECUSA hasn't, despite their looser polity, held together. It also makes the covenant increasingly unlikely...
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Disagree and hold opposing views in antinomy - not really possible in a church where public positions are encapsulated in liturgy, canon law and pastoral practice as they are in the CofE
None of which the Anglican Communion is.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Disagree and hold opposing views in antinomy - not really possible in a church where public positions are encapsulated in liturgy, canon law and pastoral practice as they are in the CofE
None of which the Anglican Communion is.
I don't understand. Will you please explain?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Disagreement then implies a series of sorts of next steps...
There is a fifth possibility: Disagree, but let everybody back off a little and let the dust settle. It is the "reasserters'" claim that disagreement over sexuality must be Communion-breaking that has been the real problem, and not the fact that disagreement over sexuality exists.
Henry VIII, that old lion, saw the problem perfectly clearly in in his 1545 speech: "Some be too stiff in their old mumpsimus, others be too busy and curious in their sumpsimus.”
[Irony ON] But then, in his day, and his son and daughters' days, as we all recall, the disagreements in the Church were over unimportant stuff, adiaphora like permitting the laity to read the Bible in translation, allowing services to be conducted in the vernacular, the precise nature of the Eucharist, Communion in both kinds, the necessity of penance and the role of the priest, the proper veneration due to saints, the efficacy of relics and pilgrimages, little things like that. Nobody took them very seriously except for people like Anne Askew, Hugh Latimer, or Edmund Campion, who weren't really hurt much except for being burned at the stake or disembowled and dismembered. So it wasn't at all like today, when we debate over human sexuality. That's a real disagreement, not at all like that silly stuff people fought over in the Reformation. Nobody cares about any of that. [Irony OFF}
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Agree to disagree is, I suspect,only a theoretical possibility in a congregational, non-credal, non-episcopal denomination. Which is why ECUSA hasn't, despite their looser polity, held together. It also makes the covenant increasingly unlikely...
Stop the presses -- I agree with Pete173. The Anglican Covenant is not going to come into effect. It was too stiff it its old mumpsimus for the sumpsimus churches like Scotland to accept it.
Well, the historians will say that a closer union among the provinces of the Anglican Communion was attempted at the end of the 20th century, but the model proved unworkable and was abandoned by 2010. So the Anglican Communion went on to ---
Do what? That's what we should be thinking about now.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Disagreement then implies a series of sorts of next steps...
There is a fifth possibility: Disagree, but let everybody back off a little and let the dust settle.
Yeah. Brilliant. You do what you want inch by inch, regardless of everyone else. The truth is this: you don't the wider communion to listen to anything; you want it shut up and watch you do what the hell you like.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneviève
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Disagreement then implies a series of sorts of next steps...
There is a fifth possibility: Disagree, but let everybody back off a little and let the dust settle.
Yeah. Brilliant. You do what you want inch by inch, regardless of everyone else. The truth is this: you don't the wider communion to listen to anything; you want it shut up and watch you do what the hell you like.
Speaking for +Peter Akinola, are you?
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
But the VERY same things are going on in other parts of the communion. There are gay clergy and bishops that everyone knows about in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Canada and elsewhere. What I find puzzling is that Gene Robinson wasn't the first openly gay bishop. He was merely the first openly gay bishop through the process. It seemed to be perfectly okay in the 1990s to have openly gay bishops like Otis Charles and Oliver Garver doing their duties happily. No one split because they were not defrocked.
It's certainly not hard to get a same sex blessing in the Church of England, either. There was a big article in the Telegraph about this in 2002.
An investigation by The Telegraph can reveal for the first time just how easy it is for same-sex couples to receive a blessing in an Anglican church. In the space of less than a week, reporters posing as gay couples were offered blessings by 14 different vicars. The clergy, who were chosen at random, were happy to help the couples even though they were strangers who had no connection with either the local church or the parish. Two parish priests in the dioceses of Lincoln and Southwark even provided dates for the ceremonies, which they agreed could take place in their own churches.
Telegraph via Changing Attitude
The church splitting problem seems to be the TEC's willingness to acknowledge the elephant in the living room.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Pete173:
quote:
Disagree and hold opposing views in antinomy - not really possible in a church where public positions are encapsulated in liturgy, canon law and pastoral practice as they are in the CofE [for instance, unlike what appears to be the case in ECUSA, we couldn't have a diversity of official practice on liturgical provision for gay quasi-marriage].
No, but apparently we can cope with a service of thanksgiving after a civil partnership as long as it's made clear that its not a wedding service or a blessing, for example. You could in theory have an official position which left space for a kind of loyal opposition, as it were. Which, lets face it, is the position quite a lot of good and conscientious C of E clergy find themselves in. It would be nice if General Synod were to move out of the 1950s but we don't have to wait for that to happen before getting on and doing our bit for the Kingdom of God. Now, whilst there is a minority of hardliners who would be quite happy to see the loyal opposition branded traitors and drummed out of the C of E in practice this would probably be quite difficult and the grown ups who disapprove in theory have sensible views about the logistics of replacing otherwise orthodox and capable clergy.
The problem with this on a communion wide level is firstly that TEC is expendable inasmuch as kicking them out will have little effect on the day to day life of the C of E so the opportunities for grandstanding are greater. It's not like waking up one morning and finding that all your Aff Cath parishes are in vacancies and the churchwardens aren't returning your calls because they've resigned in protest. Secondly the communion is more polarised than the C of E. A loyal opposition wouldn't be acceptable to GAFCON.
Thirdly we don't know what a communion wide shape would look like, whether it would be honoured in more conservative parts of the communion. Fourthly, after six years of name calling TEC aren't really in a mood for compromise any more. KJS was making those sorts of noises a few years ago but I don't think she can deliver her troops on the ground, any more.
Which is a pity because on paper its not a bad idea.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I think what you're saying is that to be an Anglican in North America is to accept the majority position there, and if you don't like it you cannot be Anglican. Is that correct?
...
After all, haven't we been continually told that TEC is basically congregational? If that is the case why can individual parishes not make such decisions themselves? Or is is a case have your congregational cake but eating it with an Episcopal flavour?
I'm not quite sure what caercybiO6 was trying to say, but I don't think that is what most Episcopalians would say about being Anglican in North America. They would suggest you need to realize the majority position is the majority position and will influence policy as long as it remains the majority position. Still, no one was forcing Ft. Worth to ordain women (I use Ft. Worth as an example because it is the "hot spot" with which I am most familiar, although my on-the-ground knowledge is 20 years out of date). So while the majority was "moving on", no one was forcing the minority out the door. Except for a few of the more vocal blogosphere group, I don't think most Episcopalians would have felt they weren't "Anglican" until they left.
As for congregationalism in TEC--I think you have misread the discussion Spiffy and others were having up-thread. As I read it, they stated that many people in their parishes have a congregational view of their parish--often having come to the Episcopal Church from other congregationally-organized churches. However, I would suggest it takes more than that to actually BE a congregational church. Certainly Bishop Iker of Ft. Worth did not consider TEC a congregational church when he sued for and won recovery of the property of Holy Apostles Church in Ft. Worth, which attempted to take the property to the Orthodox Church (I don't recall precisely which branch).
There are just a very few people from Ft. Worth with whom I still keep in contact. In a very general way, they feel the true impetus for Bishop Iker's departure was not the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson, but the election of a woman as Presiding Bishop.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Geneviève:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Disagreement then implies a series of sorts of next steps...
There is a fifth possibility: Disagree, but let everybody back off a little and let the dust settle.
Yeah. Brilliant. You do what you want inch by inch, regardless of everyone else. The truth is this: you don't the wider communion to listen to anything; you want it shut up and watch you do what the hell you like.
Speaking for +Peter Akinola, are you?
No.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
ToujoursDan, with whom I normally agree, writes:
quote:
But the VERY same things are going on in other parts of the communion. There are gay clergy and bishops that everyone knows about in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Canada and elsewhere. What I find puzzling is that Gene Robinson wasn't the first openly gay bishop. He was merely the first openly gay bishop through the process. It seemed to be perfectly okay in the 1990s to have openly gay bishops like Otis Charles and Oliver Garver doing their duties happily. No one split because they were not defrocked.
The difference was that (neigh!! neigh!!) Bp. Robinson was not openly gay, but openly partnered. On the one hand, the distinction between orientation and practice began to blur and/or become irrelevant. On the other, this removed everyone's denial facility, which has been, in so many areas, the key to Anglicanism's ability to manage irrecondilable differences! With Bps Charles & Garver, they were IIRC both retired before they came out of the closet, which put them in the catgory of a) doesn't matter because they're retired and/or b) it is the fault of their diocesan who is now not disciplining retired clergy properly.
This may be a generational issue, where both pro and anti elements are now no longer willing to facilitate the situation where we all knew, but did not discuss it. This change has its positive points, but it also creates some major challenges, as we are now seeing.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Agree to disagree is not working because it is not a symetrical argument. The people arguing for change do not see the ordained priests of the status quo as ontologically not priests. Whereas the people arguing for status quo see the potential for lots of ontologically not-priests "pretending" to be actual-priests.
Put another way, what do you lose if you don't ordain gay clergy ? The individual contributions of - in absolute terms - a small number of individuals, increased acceptance for homosexual Christians.
From the point of view of a traditionalist, you potentially promote sin and risk the apostolic succession (and if folk leave over it, you lose the contributions of a number of individuals).
In that sense the the traditionalists have more to lose.
(I am not including the wider social issue of the abuse of homosexual people - of course those who want change hope that a lead from the church will reduce this.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
There is an asymmetry, but I think it goes the other way. The row over gay priests/bishops forms a secondary debate over whether self-identified gay people and gay relationships can be reconciled with the Christian walk. For gays, it is our lives you are attempting to pass judgment on and micromanage. Identity and relationships go to the core of who we are and how we interact with others. On a larger scale the way the church falls on this issue has implications for gay people in the political and societal realm as well.
Gay people have the most to lose in this fight.
Whether the church comes to the conclusion that gay people and relationships are sin or not doesn't affect the lives of conservatives on a personal level. They aren't being asked to give up their spouses and break up their families, leave the church or hide in the closet.
AA: You make a good point. Perhaps instead of using VGR, perhaps the Jeffrey John fiasco would have been a better example.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
That's a personal rather than an institutional loss - bottom line if it came to losing the apostolic succession or some folk having a more sacrificial and difficult life ....
ETA to add a related point, I think that gay rights activists would get further trying to get humane treatment for homosexuals in countries where they are maltreated - if they were not pushing to get them into the clergy. Allow the Akinolas of this world to assume a position of benign condecension, rather than their current outright hostility.
(Disclaimer: I am a gay female, I don't share the traditionalist viewpoint, but I can see where they are coming from.)
[ 13. December 2009, 18:17: Message edited by: Think² ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
