|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Second openly gay bishop in ECUSA (very likely)
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
...I don't know much about how Anglicanism works.
...
Nor do many Anglicans! It sometimes seems to be 'a work in progress' as far as the worldwide situation goes.
I believe Samuel Seabury - the first post-revolutionary American bishop - had to be ordained by the (then officially outlawed, post-Culloden) Scottish Episcopal Church because of the political situation at the time. For some reason it happened in Dundee, I believe.
As far as I can work out, the 'provenance' of the Scottish Episcopal Church is historically from bishops who were consecrated at the behest of a Stuart sovereign in an attempt to change the course the kirk had taken.
ECUSA is not, I believe, in communion with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod who are quite conservative on certain matters.
As Ken says, there is the possibility of a range of being in communion (or not) for various branches of the still extant Anglican Communion.
I am reminded of that Goon Show adage: 'The plot thins.'
For a shaft of light.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Seabury was consecrated by Scottish non-jurors because he couldn't take the oath of alleigance that consecration by English bishops would have imposed. Parliament rectified this problem quite quickly after Seabury's consecration. TEC is indeed not in communion with the conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which is not itself in communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. In fact the LC-MS don't even consider the ELCA to be proper Lutherans.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Speaking of impaired communion, I think the CoEers should give some serious thought to what Akinola and gang will think of your province once he doesn't have the ECUSA to pitch a fit about.
Zach
Oh, they already know what's in store for the Church of England. It's already started over there.
Something called FOCA-UK (no joke), the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans-UK, an arm of GAFCON, captured a beachhead or two last year and stands ready to detach as many parishes and even dioceses from the Church of England as it possibly can.
Most of the con-evo parishes who are attracted to FOCA are already not paying their assessments (sound familiar?) and won't let the bishop in the door (sound familiar?). They are making serious plans for schism and starting to demand to be able to take the church buildings with them (sound familiar?) because they are the True Christians and everyone else is not (sound familiar?).
The more moderate evo party in the C of E is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK -- this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church. So what goes around comes around.
Then there's the Pope's offer to Anglo-Catholics who don't like the idea of women bishops: Join the RCC as a diocese, and we'll call you an Anglican Ordinariate. You can even have married priests.
It is very much like Archbishop Williams's earlier offer to John Howe and others among the most conservative TEC bishops. He told them that they could remain in the Anglican Communion as dioceses, even if TEC is removed. So, once again, what goes around comes around for the Church of England, and I think they are well aware of it.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Glory. They're carving us up like a pie before we're even in the pan. It almost seems like it was the plan all along. I am trying to think up a Psalm for the situation, but all that comes to mind at the moment is "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed."
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
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I always wonder why some Christians are hung up about sex. The African churches didn't cut ties with the American Episcopalian Church over Bush's imperialist foreign policy, nor did it threaten to cut ties over our North American churches' failure to speak out about the negative effects of globalization. I definitely don't think our North American churches are perfect. I know quite a few left-wing people who complain that our mainline churches still refuse to seriously take our prophetic role and speak truth to power.
Why, of all the issues that it sees homosexuality as the great moral issue that must determine one's orthodoxy? Why not, global warming, social justice, etc? Some American Christians believe that polluting the planet is a divinely instituted right. Is this not heresy that must be condemned and driven out by our spiritual leaders? Why is it Homosexuality, and not the multiple social justice issues that should determine one's true commitment to Christ?
--------------------
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
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I always wonder why some Christians are hung up about sex. The African churches didn't cut ties with the American Episcopalian Church over Bush's imperialist foreign policy, nor did it threaten to cut ties over our North American churches' failure to speak out about the negative effects of globalization. I definitely don't think our North American churches are perfect. I know quite a few left-wing people who complain that our mainline churches still refuse to seriously take our prophetic role and speak truth to power.
Why, of all the issues that it sees homosexuality as the great moral issue that must determine one's orthodoxy? Why not, global warming, social justice, etc? Some American Christians believe that polluting the planet is a divinely instituted right. Is this not heresy that must be condemned and driven out by our spiritual leaders? Why is it Homosexuality, and not the multiple social justice issues that should determine one's true commitment to Christ?
TBH - this is a bit of worn out accusation. (Sort of: "yah boo. Look at them getting obsessed about willies and stuff just because we are changing what people can do with their willies and stuff ... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ). It seems to be something that everyone is obsessed with.
To properly answer your question, I think that the problem some people have (please note the 3rd person here) is that American policy on global warming, imperialism etc is not generally the policy of TEC, whereas this is. The concern seems to be with what is happening within the Anglican Communion, not what is happening in the country (or other churches withing that country) that concerns other parts of the AC.
That's how I see it anyway.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
For some reason it happened in Dundee, I believe.
Could have, but didn't. Dundee tourist board really should think of adopting "For some reason it happened in Dundee" as a strapline, though.
Actually, for some reason it happened in Aberdeen.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Anglican_Brat asked - quote:
Why, of all the issues that it sees homosexuality as the great moral issue that must determine one's orthodoxy? Why not, global warming, social justice, etc? Some American Christians believe that polluting the planet is a divinely instituted right. Is this not heresy that must be condemned and driven out by our spiritual leaders? Why is it Homosexuality, and not the multiple social justice issues that should determine one's true commitment to Christ?
Probably it's because outside the USA these are not issues that divide us. To be sure there are contrary voices to be found, but if you were to go into an average evangelical and then a MOTR, then an A-C parish in the UK, you would get a pretty similar set of answers on issues like global warming and most social justice issues.
These sort of criticisms work the other way round, too. ++Rowan speaks regularly on these things. In the rush to judgement and condemnation earlier in this thread, why did these things not get noticed? Why does a somewhat anodyne "this may make matters more difficult" statement cause such red mist? It's hardly other Anglicans who are perplexed by this reaction - several others have been baffled by it. Whatever your POV on the presenting issue, I think most of us long ago expected TEC to do what it saw as right, and that the long unravelling of Anglicanism would continue its course.
These are genuine questions, BTW. I'm still puzzled.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Most of the con-evo parishes who are attracted to FOCA are already not paying their assessments
I don't believe that is true. You'd have to give us names to persuade me that its not just a made-up rumour. The usual impression we get round here - and I haven't seen the numbers - is that on the whole evangelical parishes pay more of their share than the distinctively Anglo-Cathloic parishes.
quote:
...and won't let the bishop in the door (sound familiar?).
That might well be treu, but its hardly news! Been going on since at least the 18th century.
quote:
The more moderate evo party in the C of E is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church.
That sounds made-up as well. No-one has "ravaged" anyone. And most evangelicals in the CofE probably have no idea who or what ACNA or CANA are anyway. Heck, I don't know what CANA is and I'm trying to pay attention tu whats going on.
I don't know who you have been getting your news from but it sounds like those nasty right-wing bloggers again. This whole business could do with some honesty about what the other side thinks.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
For some reason it happened in Dundee, I believe.
Could have, but didn't. Dundee tourist board really should think of adopting "For some reason it happened in Dundee" as a strapline, though.
Actually, for some reason it happened in Aberdeen.
OMG! Accepted! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Well, I'm not surprised that the thread was at five pages before I had a chance to catch up...
I don't think most American Episcopalians are particularly surprised that the Diocese of L.A. would elect an honestly-gay bishop. Nor are they surprised at the consternation this would cause elsewhere. I think the particular anger at ++Rowan's generally bland tut-tutting response, however, is just how quickly it was made--when no amount of increasing pressure internationally or from those in his own province has brought him to make any statements about the involvement of the Church of Uganda in pushing the draconian legislation there.
I would also have to say that the best responses--and some of the harshest words--that I have read on the topic outside of the Ship are by people who are NOT on my side of the pond (Louise's new signature comes to mind).
I would have been happier with our own PB if she had spoken out a little sooner, but I suspect that anything we have to say will just push Uganda harder in the opposite direction...what with us being apostate, and all.
I think it is possible that the "gracious restraint" urged might have had a chance of holding longer if there had ever been the least sign that ALL the gracious restraints asked for were important.
I don't think Americans would have blamed him for being unable to stop Nigeria and Uganda from poaching US congregations. They do blame him for not seeming to care. The perception--even among the convincible moderates--was that the only church for whom "Thou shalt not..." was important was TEC. It isn't just the rabid liberals that ++Rowan lost in the US (and in all fairness he never had them). He has lost the much larger middle who might have been able to prevent the confirmation of another gay bishop.
Most Americans still have a lot of respect for the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury. They aren't wasting any time over the pronouncements of the current holder of that See, however. They would be sorry to see the Anglican Communion change, but have begun to recognize the Communion as envisioned by ++Rowan is a change from its history.
Many Americans are also well aware that there are other Provinces in Britain who will be proud to remain in FULL communion with TEC.
--------------------
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
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
One thing I'm still confused about: what exactly makes one an "Authentic Anglican." I realize that this is one of the things that is at issue on this thread, but I'd be interested in hearing what people mean by this term. If it is not membership in the Anglican Communion, then what is it?
It looks to me as if both Continuers and (increasingly) Episcopalians are arguing that one need not be a part of the Anglican Communion in order to be "Authentically Anglican." Yet they do not consider each other to be Authentically Anglican," so there must be some other criterion at work.
Maybe I'm just bringing a RC mindset to this situation, which is keeping me from seeing something that is blindingly obvious to others.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I always wonder why some Christians are hung up about sex.
I agree with IanjMatt - IMHO this tired cliche should be banned from the discussion due to its redundancy.
Conservatives are called that precisely because they like to keep things the way they are. If it was only one side that was obsessed with sex then there wouldn't be an argument because the other side simply wouldn't be bothered.
Our sexuality is part of identity and incredibly important to who we are - and because it is a very important issue we are arguing about it.
[ 09. December 2009, 11:38: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Anglican_Brat asked - quote:
Why is it Homosexuality, and not the multiple social justice issues that should determine one's true commitment to Christ?
Probably it's because outside the USA these are not issues that divide us. To be sure there are contrary voices to be found, but if you were to go into an average evangelical and then a MOTR, then an A-C parish in the UK, you would get a pretty similar set of answers on issues like global warming and most social justice issues.
I often hear this said, but have to wonder how true it really is. The Archbishop of Canterbury may make pronouncements on global warming from time to time, but where are the statements from Reform and Anglican Mainstream?
ISTM that the opposition to gay rights is drawn from roughly the same social groupings in the US and the UK. In the US these groups form the "base" of the Republican party, and are entirely "orthodox" on global warming and social justice issues. I find it hard to believe it isn't the same in the UK.
Granted, the UK is much more secular than the US, but the small percentage of your society that still attends church is attending a church that is vocally opposed to gay rights and claims an exception to the anti-discrimination laws for itself. So how different can the constituencies really be?
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Most of the con-evo parishes who are attracted to FOCA are already not paying their assessments
I don't believe that is true. You'd have to give us names to persuade me that its not just a made-up rumour. The usual impression we get round here - and I haven't seen the numbers - is that on the whole evangelical parishes pay more of their share than the distinctively Anglo-Cathloic parishes.
I wouldn't say that this was always the case and, IME, social class plays as big a part as churchpersonship but it works as a reasonable generalisation. There have been cases, again IME, of big evo places saying 'we'll pay our own costs but not a penny more' but to be fair there are an awful lot of MOTR and AC places that are marking time and not paying their way but it has to be asked why the the congregation of a preaching box should give sacrificially to subsidise people who aren't pulling their weight.
The inner city is different. Churches who don't want to subsidise ministry to Christ's poor are hounds. But I really don't think that it is responsible behaviour for a priest to encourage his congregation to hand over vast swathes of money and in turn to hand it over to the diocese without taking at least a passing interest on what it's being spent on. Incidentally, when I was at a very well heeled AC place we used to have similar conversations at PCC meetings. But I've never heard of a case of a place refusing to pay its ministry costs and I can't imagine a responsibly PCC encouraging their priest to do so because incumbents don't last forever and the Bishop would suspend the living the seconds after the last Pickfords Van had rolled out of the driveway.
Parenthetically, Grammatica's version of the Church of England looks rather more apocalyptic than the one I happen to inhabit.
--------------------
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
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Heck, I don't know what CANA is and I'm trying to pay attention tu whats going on.
CANA = Convocation of Anglicans in North America. A breakaway group supported by Archbishop Akinola and headed up by "Missionary Bishop" Martyn Minns. He is the former Episcopal priest who led the breakaway groups in Virginia. A prominent leader of the so-called "orthodox," he has written many of Archbishop Akinola's statements and press releases. Their official website is here.
You'll shortly be in communion with them instead of us, so you might as well be acquainted with your new partners.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
The more moderate evo party in the C of E is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church.
That sounds made-up as well. No-one has "ravaged" anyone.
You would make out a much better case for your side if you did not invalidate the experience of your opponents. Don't tell us what to feel. We do know what we have suffered in the Episcopal Church from the depradations of ambitious breakaway movements, and we do know they have been supported by C of E evangelical movements such as Anglican Mainstream and Reform. "Ravaged" is a reasonable word for what they have done to our church. Yes, we have feelings about it. That's a major factor in our willingness to go our separate ways.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Heck, I don't know what CANA is and I'm trying to pay attention tu whats going on.
CANA = Convocation of Anglicans in North America. A breakaway group supported by Archbishop Akinola and headed up by "Missionary Bishop" Martyn Minns. He is the former Episcopal priest who led the breakaway groups in Virginia. A prominent leader of the so-called "orthodox," he has written many of Archbishop Akinola's statements and press releases. Their official website is here.
You'll shortly be in communion with them instead of us, so you might as well be acquainted with your new partners.
I've had a brief look; they seem pretty orthodox to me.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Our sexuality is part of identity
Agreed
quote:
and incredibly important to who we are
Well now, that depends, doesn't it?
I've never identified myself soley or mainly by my straightness. Or my gender, my colour, or my ethnic background. That might be because I'm part of that privileged white, male, straight, British cohort.
Or it might be that I don't see any of those things as particularly special or extraordinary. Of my gay friends, the least interesting thing about them is that they're gay. If you want to make it all about which bit goes where, go ahead, but my Give-a-damn-o-meter™ is barely flickering.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
One thing I'm still confused about: what exactly makes one an "Authentic Anglican." I realize that this is one of the things that is at issue on this thread, but I'd be interested in hearing what people mean by this term. If it is not membership in the Anglican Communion, then what is it?
It looks to me as if both Continuers and (increasingly) Episcopalians are arguing that one need not be a part of the Anglican Communion in order to be "Authentically Anglican." Yet they do not consider each other to be Authentically Anglican," so there must be some other criterion at work.
Maybe I'm just bringing a RC mindset to this situation, which is keeping me from seeing something that is blindingly obvious to others.
I suppose a rough analogy would be a sedavacantist who holds that the C of E isn't Catholic because it split from the Pope and the Pope isn't Catholic because he split from them!
It's about values being separable from institutions. And it's not actually a wholly unreasonable point. If the C of E tomorrow canonised Adolf Hitler, made belief in a world Jewish conspiracy a criteria for holding a position as an ordained minister and renamed itself the First Church of Jesus Christ, Aryan Nations I would chuck myself in the Hellespont whilst avering that, in a fairly important sense, I was closer to the spirit of Bl. Michael Ramsey et. al. than those remaining in communion with the See of Canterbury.
Now, obviously, the current case is not quite as straightforward as my Godwin-resistant analogy but it's not totally weird and counter-intuitive to say 'The Anglican Communion has abandoned orthodoxy therefore we who are true to the Anglican spirit (which involves being orthodox) can no longer remain institutionally Anglican' or 'The Anglican Communion has abandoned its openness to free enquiry and new ideas therefore we who are true to the Anglican spirit (which involves being open to free enquiry and new ideas) can no longer remain institutionally Anglican'.
Whether either claim can withstand sustained critical enquiry is another matter. But neither is on a par with claiming that green ideas sleep furiously. It's always possible for a given institution - assuming its head honcho is not infallible, of course - to lose the plot, or become apostate or sell out or whatever. Such a claim might be wrong but it is not self-evidently absurd.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
The Archbishop of Canterbury may make pronouncements on global warming from time to time, but where are the statements from Reform and Anglican Mainstream?
You don't hear statements because they don't need to be made. Reform et al aren't (yet) a separate church, so the ABC's statements cover them, too. None of these groups was set up to protest a different corner to the rest of the church about environmentalism, so they don't make environmental statements. Since the agree with everyone else, a Reform/FWS/etc pronouncement on global warming would contain no new information, nd so be superflous.
quote:
In the US these groups form the "base" of the Republican party, and are entirely "orthodox" on global warming and social justice issues. I find it hard to believe it isn't the same in the UK.
It may have escaped your attention that we don't have a Republican party in the UK, we're not even a republic. The cultures are different, and your American experience can't tell you anything about the political values of evangelicals over here.
As it happens, I know someone high up in Reform. He has solar panels on his roof.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
It's likely however that a greater percentage of Tory voters hold retrograde views about human sexuality than Labour voters.Just because the Tories rarely make a full-on effort at rolling back the progress achieved by Labour doesn't mean they readily embrace Labour-initiated policies.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
CANA = Convocation of Anglicans in North America. A breakaway group supported by Archbishop Akinola and headed up by "Missionary Bishop" Martyn Minns.
[...]
You'll shortly be in communion with them instead of us, so you might as well be acquainted with your new partners.
And who are these "... more moderate evo party in the C of E [which] is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church. "???
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
The Conservative and Unionist Party (the closest thing we have to the Republicans) are fairly relaxed about Teh Gaze, nowadays. The party leader David 'Call Me Dave' Cameron has cultivated the pink vote in a discreet sort of way and their shadow spokesman for education has stood up and said that Clause 28 and their opposition to civil partnerships were a mistake.
Basically, the battle for gay equality has been pretty much won in the UK (apart from Norn Ireland which, for complex historical reasons, is run by a coalition of clerical fascists and fundamentalist presbyterians) and the opposition are just faffing around trying to agree on a suitable location to sign the instruments of surrender. Whatever they may say anyone with an IQ in triple figures knows that an attempt to return to the heady days before Woy of the Wadicals is about as likely as a Jacobite restoration.
[x-posted with ken.]
[ 09. December 2009, 12:51: 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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've never identified myself soley or mainly by my straightness. Or my gender, my colour, or my ethnic background.
That's because they are all the unmarked variant.
Like being English. English people hardly notice we are English. Its the default nationality to us.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
It's likely however that a greater percentage of Tory voters hold retrograde views about human sexuality than Labour voters.Just because the Tories rarely make a full-on effort at rolling back the progress achieved by Labour doesn't mean they readily embrace Labour-initiated policies.
Yes - and Russians have a predisposition to cannibalism.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Grammatica asks quote:
I often hear this said, but have to wonder how true it really is. The Archbishop of Canterbury may make pronouncements on global warming from time to time, but where are the statements from Reform and Anglican Mainstream?
Grammatica - please don't take this amiss, but surely only an American could ask that question - ? No, I'm not trying to start a pond war. There are many of us here (ken and myself on this thread for starters) who keep trying to point out that American socio-cultural criteria have limited, if any, validity outside their original context. Anglican pressure-groups are set up to pressurize whoever in respect of whatever it was they were set up for.
You might as well ask why Forward in Faith keeps rabbiting on about women priests and bishops (which is of course regularly asked here too). The answer to all these things is the evidence you need to realise that what is at fault is not your logic, but the way you are framing the whole issue. Things simply don't work like that here. The alignment of cultural norms with ecclesiastical norms and self-identity is very much an American phenomenon. (It is of course a plank in the culture wars, though there is much about that that lies outside our discussion here.) I'm not saying it doesn't happen at all, but that the correlation is weak, and for the most part local. Attempts to view the world through this lens are going to be doomed to misinterpret other people badly.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
It's understandable, aumbrey, that you don't have a facility for receiving personal messages. I hadn't noticed that before; how clever of you.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And who are these "... more moderate evo party in the C of E [which] is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church. "???
Fulcrum
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
In the US these groups form the "base" of the Republican party, and are entirely "orthodox" on global warming and social justice issues. I find it hard to believe it isn't the same in the UK.
It's quite likely for a UK evangelical to be conservative about homosexuality and abortion but have a totally different attitude to other social justice issues - e.g. fair trade or the environment. AFAIK there's no fundamental reason that political conservatism and social conservatism should closely correspond.
Also, because we're more secular, homosexuality and abortion aren't strong party political issues.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
It's likely however that a greater percentage of Tory voters hold retrograde views about human sexuality than Labour voters.Just because the Tories rarely make a full-on effort at rolling back the progress achieved by Labour doesn't mean they readily embrace Labour-initiated policies.
Being pedantic, surely it could only be considered 'retrograde' if they held 'view a', changed to a new view, and then returned to 'view a' again. 'View a' would then be considered retrograde. Holding a position that seems out of date or not the latest opinion on something is not 'retrograde'.
Anyway ...
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Yes, Numpty, and TEC don't disagree with any of that.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I often hear this said, but have to wonder how true it really is. The Archbishop of Canterbury may make pronouncements on global warming from time to time, but where are the statements from Reform and Anglican Mainstream?
Well given that Anglican Mainstream is a pressure group, and so is Reform, you'd hardly expect them as groups to make statements outwith their purpose. If I was you I wouldn't risk making a fool of myself by not taking Ken's word for it. He's been immersed in the CoE and its evangelical tradition for decades.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
In the US these groups form the "base" of the Republican party, and are entirely "orthodox" on global warming and social justice issues. I find it hard to believe it isn't the same in the UK.
It's quite likely for a UK evangelical to be conservative about homosexuality and abortion but have a totally different attitude to other social justice issues - e.g. fair trade or the environment. AFAIK there's no fundamental reason that political conservatism and social conservatism should closely correspond.
Also, because we're more secular, homosexuality and abortion aren't strong party political issues.
And it is why Ludicrous Kazimierz pontificating on Labour and Conservative voters (presumably from somewhere on Mount Rushmore) is wrong. If any social group was traditionally conservative about matters to do with homosexuality it was the British working class which was also traditionally the bedrock of Labour's vote.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
A question. Is not disagreeing the same positively agreeing?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And who are these "... more moderate evo party in the C of E [which] is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church. "???
Fulcrum
That would be the same Fulcrum that criticised the formation of both ACNA and CANA for not waiting for the 'glacial' processes of the Anglican Communion to unfold?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
aumbrey, what party did the last PM who launched a major legislative assault on gay rights represent?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
If any social group was traditionally conservative about matters to do with homosexuality it was the British working class which was also traditionally the bedrock of Labour's vote.
Perhaps - I don't know enough to say. The Conservative Party tended to support Clause 28 though, and the Daily Telegraph is distinctly less pro-gay rights than the Guardian or Independent.
Opinions seem to be much less divided along party lines than in the US though.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Yes, Numpty, and TEC don't disagree with any of that.
Numpty, perhaps what confuses is you is that we could agree the Holy Scripture contains all things generally necessary to salvation? Of course, Scripture contains much else that isn't edifying or relevant to life either in the Christian dispensation generally or in present day social reality. So the approach to Scripture might be problematic for you. But I daresay that's likewise a problem you would encounter with your co-religionists in other wings of the CoE.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
aumbrey, what party did the last PM who launched a major legislative assault on gay rights represent?
Why don't you go back and read your own post? You were pontificating on the voters not the parties.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
It's likely however that a greater percentage of Tory voters hold retrograde views about human sexuality than Labour voters.
This is what I am referring to.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Yes, Numpty, and TEC don't disagree with any of that.
Numpty, perhaps what confuses is you is that we could agree the Holy Scripture contains all things generally necessary to salvation? Of course, Scripture contains much else that isn't edifying or relevant to life either in the Christian dispensation generally or in present day social reality. So the approach to Scripture might be problematic for you. But I daresay that's likewise a problem you would encounter with your co-religionists in other wings of the CoE.
It is possible to err by addition as well as subtraction, and there are plenty of socially real things that aren't socially good things. Much of scripture is given to humanity so that - by obedience - we may avoid ungodly social realities.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I think this is really the crux of it: we disagree on first principles when it comes to the role and interpretation of Scripture. This also tends to imply different POVs regarding inspiration, the nature of the collection of canonical books, etc; and the degree to which the Canon is subject to historical criticism.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Kenneth Leech spoke at my parish a while back, and the most memorable (to me, at any rate) thing he said was that in the future the various denominations of Christianity will be relatively meaningless, and there will really only be two kinds of Christians: those who believe that the Kingdom of God is the province of the next life and those who believe it is up to us to bring about the Kingdom of God here and now.
Surprisingly for him, Ken Leech is less than true to scripture or tradition than he should be here (though I know what he means). But it's a truism that the Kingdom is already/not yet. Or both/and.
And this thread shows that the issue is not about the dilemma Ken points up. It's about what the Kingdom is. And how we give content to justice and inclusion is a part of that debate.
But that's a theological tangent to the thread!
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Resurgam
Shipmate
# 14891
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
The more moderate evo party in the C of E is doing its desperate best to dissuade anyone from joining FOCA-UK - this after doing their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA and the rest ravage the Episcopal Church.
That sounds made-up as well. No-one has "ravaged" anyone.
You would make out a much better case for your side if you did not invalidate the experience of your opponents. Don't tell us what to feel. We do know what we have suffered in the Episcopal Church from the depradations of ambitious breakaway movements, and we do know they have been supported by C of E evangelical movements such as Anglican Mainstream and Reform. "Ravaged" is a reasonable word for what they have done to our church. Yes, we have feelings about it. That's a major factor in our willingness to go our separate ways.
Our small-town parish lost several of its most involved families after 2003. They felt they were the ones whose views and beliefs were ravaged by the national church. It wasn't depredations of ambitious breakaway movements that caused them to leave, but the actions of the national leadership itself. There's victimology on both sides of the issue, or as Basil Fawlty asked, "Do I detect the stench of burning martyr?"
Posts: 54 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
bonabri
Shipmate
# 304
|
Posted
A little voice of sanity from today's Times (of London) by Richard Morrison here
Posts: 274 | From: Brighton and Hove, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
