|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Second openly gay bishop in ECUSA (very likely)
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
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,
that's actually a really interesting tangent to this thread - could you develop it a bit more? or does it need its own thread?
thanks,
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
A separate thread I suspect, but definitely another vote of encouragement here.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Grammatica writes: quote:
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?
Thankfully, we are far more confused than this in Canada. The majority church is fairly leftwing in its politics, but is opposed to gay marriage rights, although most of its attendees support gay marriage rights, even if not in church.
Supporters of the centre and sort-of-sometimes-leftwing Liberals support gay marriage rights, unless they are visible minority immigrants, in which case they tend to oppose them (Conservative activists are beginning to take advantage of this).
Most New Democrats, as far as I can figure out, are strong supporters of gay rights, aside from many of the Muslism supporters.
The Conservatives would rather oppose gay marriage rights and even tried, half-heartedly, to revoke them a few years ago. This gang is the only place where the US culture wars and evangelical=rightwing happens. Even so, many of the Tories' evangelical supporters are strong supporters of 3d-world aid and socially progressive measures for aborginal Canadians.
Churchgoing Anglicans are a fairly small percentage and, with an Erastian past, are generally happy/resigned to support gay marriage rights because Parliament has said so. Most of the separating group (Anglican Network in Canada, but I think they have a new name now), many of whom I know, are diverse in their politics. Some take the line that gay marriage is fine, but not in Anglican churches.
Attempts at achieving a coherent connexion between belief and politics is not very easy for Christians in Canada. I think it is simpler for Muslims but I don't think that my Shi'ite or Sunni friends spend a lot of time thinking about the Archbishop of Canterbury's position on the topic. I hope that this hasn't been too much of a tangent, but I wanted to note that Grammatica's equation is not universally valid.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
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?
I was able to identify the grouping from Grammatica's description. I didn't say I agreed with it.
I understand that lots of TECcies are cross about +Tom Wright's frequent interventions in their internal decision-making, and +Tom is patron of Fulcrum.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Resurgam:
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?"
This is unfortunate, but I think has been relatively rare most places within TEC. Fortunately most people have lives to get on with even when they don't like the decisions of the national church. After living with continual change in TEC for close to 40 years now, it takes one of a few select psychologies to become particularly exercised over any specific event or decision taken within the Church.
[code]
[ 09. December 2009, 19:50: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I would stand up for conservatives if they were being pushed out of a church. Heck, I've been that conservative before-- you wouldn't believe that crap my last Methodist church got up to.
Zach
Well, you know, a few conservative priests-- including Fr. Moyer in my diocese, have been deposed, or at least the bishop affected to depose him, while the bishop of Pittsburgh affected to succor him. I'm not sure where that matter stands legally. He is still the Rector of the Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, and whether Charles Bennison is to remain Bishop of Pennsylvania is disputed (and seems doubtful). But anyway, if deposition isn't "being pushed out of a church", I don't know what is. Fr. Moyer did diss the bishop and give other provocation and is a raging homophobe to boot-- but in fairness, it isn't as though this never happens.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
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.
Yep.
Whereas I've always been identified by visual inspection as a brown female and people treat me thusly (the queer part's a little harder to identify right off the bat, but it's usually assumed when I point out I don't have a husband, I don't want a husband, and I'm really not looking for a partner of any stripe, because being celibate is even more socially unacceptable than being queer).
And by people treating me thusly, it's typically white males telling me they don't treat me differently, instantaneously invalidating my experiences because it doesn't fit well into your happy little world view.
I highly suggest reading
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (PDF link) .
[ 09. December 2009, 15:48: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I would stand up for conservatives if they were being pushed out of a church. Heck, I've been that conservative before-- you wouldn't believe that crap my last Methodist church got up to.
Zach
Well, you know, a few conservative priests-- including Fr. Moyer
Isn't he Bishop Moyer now?
(I would think that by accepting episcopal orders in a schismatic group he's no longer "in good standing" in any TEC diocese, but maybe it's more complicated than that)
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Bonabri's link to the Times article is really rather sobering reading... especially when he points out the possibilities of a golden age of the church.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Why, of all the issues that it sees homosexuality as the great moral issue that must determine one's orthodoxy?
The reasons are, of course, psychological. In Republican Gomorrah, Max Blumenthal sheds light on the seamy side of those who build their careers on sex-negativism, and especially homophobia. Time and again these individuals are themselves outed, whereupon their houses of cards collapse in the tender mercies those whose support they have cultivated for years. I heartily recommend this book especially to those of like mind here: get to know your new friends. Just don't read it around mealtime. IMHO, these are seriously screwed-up people. But chacun a son gout...
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Much of scripture is given to humanity so that - by obedience - we may avoid ungodly social realities.
You mean like throwing people in prison for being gay?
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
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
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.
You may well be more comfortable with CANA as Communion partners. When all's said and done, that's probably the reason for this breakup, after all.
They are, however, hard-right on most social and economic issues, continuing the tradition of "the Republican Party at prayer."
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Of course, when I was a child there were still such creatures as liberal Republicans, big business types practising noblesse oblige and not trying to peek into people's bedroom windows.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
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.
You may well be more comfortable with CANA as Communion partners. When all's said and done, that's probably the reason for this breakup, after all.
They are, however, hard-right on most social and economic issues, continuing the tradition of "the Republican Party at prayer."
That's more a product of American Christian culture I suppose and will make for interesting interaction.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Alogon, didn't Good Shep., Rosemont basically leave the diocese?
Not according to the diocese's web site. However, the name "Moyer" does not come up among people. Yes, he is a bishop, also he is rector.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
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.
You may well be more comfortable with CANA as Communion partners. When all's said and done, that's probably the reason for this breakup, after all.
They are, however, hard-right on most social and economic issues, continuing the tradition of "the Republican Party at prayer."
That's more a product of American Christian culture I suppose and will make for interesting interaction.
"Interesting" would be one word for this kind of approach.
Enjoy your new friends, Matt.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
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. 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.
Grammatica,
You appear to assume that, if the Anglican Communion, splits the CofE will all fall behind Rowan. I do not believe that; I have no idea what proportion of the laity would choose to remain in communion with Uganda rather than TEC (or what proportion does not care), but a significant chunk would rebel.
The one thing I can predict is that it will be very messy - and there will be legal ramifications, so the Government's view might have to be taken into account as well. The Supreme Governor presumably has an opinion, even if we have no idea what it is, and she cannot be ignored totally.
I feel ++Rowan should spend less time on the Anglican Communion and more on the CofE.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I've had a brief look; they seem pretty orthodox to me.
It depends how you define "orthodox"; the concept of a Bishop in the USA who is responsible for a clutch of geographically dispersed parishes and who in turn is supervised by a primate in another continent and NOT by the primate in the area where he is based (although there is one there, in communion with the ABC) does not fit what I would call "orthodox Anglicanism".
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Alogon, didn't Good Shep., Rosemont basically leave the diocese?
Not according to the diocese's web site. However, the name "Moyer" does not come up among people. Yes, he is a bishop, also he is rector.
It is more complicate than that. Moyer is not recognised as rector by the diocese, but the parish claims him as rector. The parish website makes clear that they are still part of the diocese, though it's clear it's an unwilling arrangement.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Why, of all the issues that it sees homosexuality as the great moral issue that must determine one's orthodoxy?
The reasons are, of course, psychological. In Republican Gomorrah, Max Blumenthal sheds light on the seamy side of those who build their careers on sex-negativism, and especially homophobia. Time and again these individuals are themselves outed, whereupon their houses of cards collapse in the tender mercies those whose support they have cultivated for years. I heartily recommend this book especially to those of like mind here: get to know your new friends. Just don't read it around mealtime. IMHO, these are seriously screwed-up people. But chacun a son gout...
Alogon - thanks for the link. The rise of the religious right into American politics has been a bit of a closed book to me, and maybe that book might help the process of illumination. I'll order it. Is it reasonably comprehensive - any other titles that might help?
Though just to demonstrate my ability to annoy on an even-handed basis (not you Alogon - just generally), if we are talking about seriously screwed up people, there's been some recent work at Harvard which points towards higher than average levels of repressed homophobia amongst people who like to identify as "gay-friendly" (in the words of the Scientific American review, not mine). Personally I reckon 'twas ever thus. We probably all give away more about ourselves than any external light we shed. I don't worry about it too much until it starts involving badmouthing other people (i.e. transference). That's the danger sign.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
Having wasted many hours peering over the Internet offerings of the Anglican/Episcopal blogosphere in the US, I can say without cavil that the conservative "reasserter" side tend to be quite conservative on American political issues, while the liberal "reappraiser" side tend to be quite liberal. If you read, for example, the reasserter blog "Stand Firm," you will find posters scoffing at global warming and if you read reappraiser blogs (like "An Inch at a Time") last November you would have seen hosannas raised at the election of Barack Obama. So, please, no more "just because they are orthodox in religion doesn't mean they are conservative in politics" comments regarding Americans. Just ain't so.
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Which post was that LADave? The comments I made related to applying that POV outside the US situation. I did comment on the apparently regular alignment in the USA.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
I wasn't addressing your post, Honest Ron, but rather the notion, that I have often seen from UK or other non-American posters, that conservatives in church can be, and are often, progressives in politics. While there are exceptions to any rule, in the colonies, the term "Religious Right" is accurate in both a political and theological sense.
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
the notion, that I have often seen from UK or other non-American posters, that conservatives in church can be, and are often, progressives in politics.
I don't remember anyone claiming this for the US. People are simply saying that the "religious right" shouldn't be assumed for the rest of the world.
(Actually, even within America, black churches quite often seem to be socially/theologically conservative without being particularly Republican. They aren't a trivial group.)
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Grammatica,
You appear to assume that, if the Anglican Communion, splits the CofE will all fall behind Rowan. I do not believe that; I have no idea what proportion of the laity would choose to remain in communion with Uganda rather than TEC (or what proportion does not care), but a significant chunk would rebel.
It seems some of the above are now being heard from; witness this letter from Inclusive Church, signed by Giles Goddard as chair.
I do not know how much influence Inclusive Church has in the Church of England, however.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
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
Fulcrum?! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Since when did Fulcrum do "their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA" do anything, never mind "ravage the Episcopal Church."? And lets be honest they are hardly a big hitter in terms of international ecclesiastical or evangelical politics. (*) Its really hard to imagine them ravaging North American Anglicanism. Or anything else much tougher than a pizza. I mean seriously. These guys aren't Fred Phelps.
And their published statements are opposed to the ACNA, GAFCON, CANA and so on. For example Graham Kings defining four possible positions on the future of global Anglicanism
[http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=310] and discussing more recent developments using them[/url] and making it clear that he thinks that Fulcrum (& their friends such as Tom Wright & Michael Poon) are in a different quadrant from ACNA. He is also by and large critical of GAFCON and of Martin Minns part in it.
And Tom Wright, here
Yes, you can some find very bigoted comments on their web forum, and some support for GAFCON and ACNA, and a lot of it from a few of the same people, but that's a web forum. All sorts of loonies say stuff on web forums. Its not the position of
(*) As a declaration of interest, of the various CofE pressure groups they are the one I guess I am likely to be closest to on most things. (Durham in the 1970s, CMS, Grove booklets, Anvil, the usual suspects) And our parish recently had a clergyperson who was on its committee - but that is not neccessarily an indication of an official position as we have also got one who is on the committee of "Inclusive Church". But I suspect if Tom Wright wasn't associated with them no-one outside the small world of English Open Evangelicalism would have heard of them.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
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 might be because I'm part of that privileged white, male, straight, British cohort.
Yep.
<snip>
And by people treating me thusly, it's typically white males telling me they don't treat me differently, instantaneously invalidating my experiences because it doesn't fit well into your happy little world view.
I highly suggest reading
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (PDF link) .
I'll have a look at the link - but I fail to see why you think I'm invalidating your experiences, any more than I'm invalidating my friends' experiences when we meet over a pint. Being gay is part of them: it's not all of them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
Hiro's Leap: Yes, this claim has been made here and often.
As for predominately black churches, I think that the only major issue that might separate some of them from white liberal churches is sexuality.
However, I should have clarified that I was writing more specifically about Episcopalians/Anglicans in the US, which takes the African-American churches pretty much out of the issue. Since this thread is about the American Episcopal Church (happy, all of you who hate the term "TEC"?), the comment was intended to be focused there.
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
Hiro's Leap: Yes, this claim has been made here and often.
Oh, OK. Has it been made in this thread? It's not something I've noticed.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Fulcrum?! Since when did Fulcrum do "their absolute best to help ACNA and CANA" do anything, never mind "ravage the Episcopal Church."? [....]
And their published statements are opposed to the ACNA, GAFCON, CANA and so on.
Sorry, it hasn't come across that way. AFAIK Fulcrum has pretty consistently supported ACNA/CANA -- but in the US (only) -- defending these groups as refugia for the "persecuted orthodox" of North America.
They just haven't supported an extension(i.e. FOCA) to the UK. Granted, that nuance means a good bit to their position within the Church of England, but it means very little to a Yank.
More: Fulcrum has consistently called for disciplining TEC and/or removing TEC from the Communion. They have never varied in this, no matter what TEC said or did in response. Each time we complied with a demand, a fresh and harsher demand was made. We complied with the Windsor Report -- all right, but Windsor doesn't matter. We agreed to delegated episcopal oversight -- not good enough. We agreed (via B033) not to bring forward any more gay or lesbian candidates for bishop -- not enough, we were told we could not ordain gay or lesbian priests as well. (Memo to evos: Let's see you do the same in the C of E first, eh?)
The goalposts were constantly being moved for the Episcopal Church. One humiliation after another visited on us.
The last straw for me came when Tom Wright declared he could not accept TEC in the Communion even if TEC signed the Anglican Covenant, because we couldn't possibly mean it even if we did. After that there was really no reason to wish to continue in Communion with the Church of England; it was clearly an entire futile and useless wish.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
Except I've noticed that, with respect to white American liberals, sexuality trumps everything, even traditional liberal issues like affordable housing, racial equality, higher government spending on the social net, and so on. Around my neck of the woods, white liberals are now treating all black churches that take traditional positions on "sex and gender" related issues as if they were the mirror image of Coral Ridge Presbyterian, even though clearly they are not.
A couple of other deviations from the liberal party line amongst black voters are immigration (anti) and vouchers for private and parochial schools...at least those black voters that are not beholden to teacher unions.
As I've said before, one of the dirty little secrets in American culture is the personal antipathy between African immigrants and black Americans (descendants of slaves). The latter see the former as a threat to their economic security (and snobbish). The former perceive the latter as little better than savages. But, in the case of the affluent mainline Protestant American blacks, like Episcopalians, the "savage vs. the civilized" perceptions are reversed!
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
[qb]I highly suggest reading
White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (PDF link) .
I'm more than a little bemused. Something tells me that if I moved to Mexico City or Shanghai, my 'white male privilege' would be shown to be nothing more than the result of belonging to the existing culture. Many of McIntosh's 'daily effects' are simply that.
I can assure you that as a Teaching Assistant (low-pay, low-status job, usually done by women) in a Primary school (predominantly led and taught by women - I'm one of three male teaching staff out of about 20) in an incredibly white-bread area (something like 98% white British), the chances of opening any text book or reading book and seeing all-white faces is approaching zero. Likewise TV, Radio, newspapers, sports, music... I simply don't recognise the world she describes.
You'd say that was part of the problem, I guess. I'd say that treating all people fairly, equally, without prejudice is just part of being a decent human being.
Or it's just a pond difference. Britain has changed dramatically over the last four decades.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
There was a survey about the relationship between religion and politics in the US a few years ago (just after Bush was re-elected, IIRC). Basically there is a strong correlation between conservative evangelical religion and politics somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan among one subset of the population. Among another subset of the population conservative evangelical religion mapped across to being in favour of truth, justice and the common person.
The punchline is that the good con evos were black and the con evos lining up with the party of war, torture and ignorance were - yep, you guessed it - white. So the generalisation that conservative religion = lunatic teabagger doesn't actually work for the whole population of the US, it works for white Americans. So all the 'oh so inclusive' types who've been plugging that particular stereotype ought to consider that they've managed to give an account of the relationship between religion and politics in the US that ignores black people and extrapolated it to the rest of the world.
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
All too many black con evos still want truth and justice for the common person only if that person is straight.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
I am still waiting for evidence pointing to the(supposedly) many, many con evos in the Church of England who regularly take liberal/progressive positions on social justice and environmental issues but will not tolerate "unrepentantly" gay and lesbian people in the Church.
I asked for statements by Reform and Anglican Mainstream that demonstrated support for liberal and progressive positions. I was told there would be none because(apparently) both are single-issue pressure groups, and not in the least concerned with environmental issues, poverty, global warming, and so forth.
So, am I expected to believe, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, that British con evos are progressive about every single issue except human sexuality? Merely because one or two of them on this board threaten to get out the big stick if I don't believe them?
Name-calling won't do. Let's have evidence. I know of one who proclaims himself a Socialist; are there any others?
[Note for the gray-haired: Many of us can remember when the Left, particularly the Marxist Left, was as homophobic and misogynistic as the Right, if not more so. Stalinists promoted wholesome family values; Raymond Williams, no Stalinist, fell foul of British feminists for his (as he came to admit) troglodyte attitudes. It isn't evidence of this kind I'm looking for, just in case I really need to make that clear.]
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I am still waiting for evidence pointing to the(supposedly) many, many con evos in the Church of England who regularly take liberal/progressive positions on social justice and environmental issues but will not tolerate "unrepentantly" gay and lesbian people in the Church.
I'd like evidence for your ridiculous claims that Fulcrum has done anything other than oppose ACNA, CANA and other initiatives.
I think there are one or two pond differences. Firstly, what do you mean by 'con evo'? It's a term that seems to be thrown about with increasing regularity and I never know quite what is meant by it. Secondly, I don't think that evangelicals who run credit unions, soup kitchens, campaign for the forgiveness of third world debt would see their support for such initiatives as 'liberal' or 'progressive', or even 'right-wing' or 'left-wing'. There's a long tradition in British evangelicalism of social action. Remember Wilbeforce, Shaftesbury, the Clapham sect etc.
quote:
So, am I expected to believe, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, that British con evos are progressive about every single issue except human sexuality? Merely because one or two of them on this board threaten to get out the big stick if I don't believe them?
You're the one making assertions with absolutely no evidence. Just google Tearfund as an example of our leading evangelical relief agency for campaigns on poverty, social justice, global warming etc.
And who on earth is threatening the big stick?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I asked for statements by Reform and Anglican Mainstream that demonstrated support for liberal and progressive positions. I was told there would be none because(apparently) both are single-issue pressure groups, and not in the least concerned with environmental issues, poverty, global warming, and so forth.
No, you were told that they didn't release statements because that wasn't their business. I happen to be a member of the Cycle Touring Club, do you expect them to release statements representing my view on religion or politics? If not, why do you expect AM/Reform to be different?
quote:
So, am I expected to believe, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, that British con evos are progressive about every single issue except human sexuality?
Well why shouldn't you believe it, you've got no evidence to the contrary. The only evidence you've got is the testimony of several British evangelicals. If you want more, I could point you to the values of An evangelical house church network I know. I could point you at national charities such as A Rocha, Tearfund, Besom, Christians Against Poverty and many more. I could point you at The Campaigns page of the Evangelical Alliance.
On the other hand, you could just accept what you've already heard.
[x posted with Spawn]
[ 09. December 2009, 20:30: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I am still waiting for evidence pointing to the(supposedly) many, many con evos in the Church of England who regularly take liberal/progressive positions on social justice and environmental issues but will not tolerate "unrepentantly" gay and lesbian people in the Church.
Anecdotally...
When I was an evangelical, most of the people I knew at church were conservative about sexual morality - including being anti-homosexuality. Their views on other social issues differed widely though, and in general I'd say were slightly left-wing.
Similarly, the teaching at those churches was always conservative about sex, but this didn't correlate to being generally right-wing at all. For one thing, they were very early promoters of Fair Trade.
The equation Con Evo = Conservative Right doesn't hold well in the UK in my experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Just google Tearfund as an example of our leading evangelical relief agency for campaigns on poverty, social justice, global warming etc.
Yep. Tearfund were very visible at the climate change demo in London last weekend.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I can kinda see why Rowan has taken the conservative side time after time. The US Church has far less to worry about in terms of an internal schism. Sure, a few dioceses have split away, but all in all I really doubt more than a tiny fraction will leave. So we have time to worry about external schism. The English Church does not have that situation. An internal schism, a huge one, is looming over Rowan's head. While the liberals are quite used to sucking it up, the conservatives literally pour over his every word looking for things to split over.
So perhaps his pandering to GAFCON and gang is more about preventing a schism in his own province than even bothering to find a fair settlement in the Communion, or calling the conservatives to task in how they've fallen short of the Gospel themselves.
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
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Were that what's going on, Zach, it would just be further mendacity and moral cowerdice on Cantuar's part.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Alogon - thanks for the link. The rise of the religious right into American politics has been a bit of a closed book to me, and maybe that book might help the process of illumination. I'll order it. Is it reasonably comprehensive - any other titles that might help?
The other two with which I am familiar are Stealing Jesus by Bruce Bawer, and American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips. The Phillips book seems to me to have three separate sections dealing with three separate topics which he hardly tries to relate to one another (and only one relating to the religious right), but they're all informative.
Blumenthal interprets the scene using the psychology presented by Erich Fromm in reference to Nazi Germany. The resemblances in mentality are sobering.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So perhaps his pandering to GAFCON and gang is more about preventing a schism in his own province than even bothering to find a fair settlement in the Communion, or calling the conservatives to task in how they've fallen short of the Gospel themselves.
Zach
This isn't about GAFCON or any other acronym. I think it is about the ABC refusing to the allow extremes of the debate dictate the centre. And, when viewing Anglicanism as a whole, both GAFCON and TEC are on the extremes. In the middle there are many people of differing opinions and convictions trying to walk through with grace.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
This isn't about GAFCON or any other acronym. I think it is about the ABC refusing to the allow extremes of the debate dictate the centre. And, when viewing Anglicanism as a whole, both GAFCON and TEC are on the extremes. In the middle there are many people of differing opinions and convictions trying to walk through with grace
I call shenanigans: How is telling the liberals to shut up and do everything the conservatives' way playing to the middle of the road?
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
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I call shenanigans: How is telling the liberals to shut up and do everything the conservatives' way playing to the middle of the road?
Zach
It would be if that is what he said, but he didn't. He did observe that ignoring the moratorium and process will lead to further difficulties. Which it will.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
There is an American perception (among the few who bother to think about it) that the only thing holding the various elements of the C. of E. together is Establishment.
That may be a misperception on the part of Americans, but I don't think I'm misrepresenting them. Certainly, Americans are aware that there are those in England who greeted the news of this election with a joy as great as that of the Diocese of L.A.
So when we hear talk of disestablishment, we tend to wonder what parts of the Church of England would remain in communion with each other...
On the other hand, I've never been thrilled with the term "in communion" anyway--the fact remains that if Spawn or Matt Black or Ken or Aumbry or any other Shipmate on ANY side of the question presented themselves at the altar of any TEC church for communion, they would be served with gladness. As a gay man I probably wouldn't find a welcome in Matt's or Spawn's church, but I could certainly find C. of E. congregations which would be happy to have me there. I don't see that that will change.
Any of the former Episcopalians in the break-away churches who came for communion would be welcome in TEC. I have no doubt I would be welcome in their churches if I was willing to be closeted again--there ARE gays in their churches, just as there are (probably) gays in every Evangelical church of any size in the UK (though many in the congregations probably don't realize it).
--------------------
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
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I do not know how much influence Inclusive Church has in the Church of England, however.
So you finally admit that you know very little about the groups within the CofE? Hallelujah!
I heard they had their latest AGM in a phone box. Given that relatively influential over a group of people who included the previous Monmouth incarnation of +Rowan.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
They're only the same thing, ian. What you think the moratorium is? How is it not giving the conservatives precisely what they wanted? Name a single scrap that Williams has given the liberals this whole time.
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
but my Give-a-damn-o-meter™ is barely flickering.
Ummh, posting on this thread shows that you do care. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
This is not rocket science. ECUSA has overthrown the traditional stance of the Anglican Communion on homosexuality. Whether they were right to do so or not gets us into the territory of a DH. But that they have done so is simply a matter of fact.
If ECUSA really wasn't bothered about what people do with their genitalia then they would have left the traditional position as it was.
One of the absurd (just one, there are many) aspects to this debate is how many people get so uptight over something they don't care about.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
How is telling the liberals to shut up and do everything the conservatives' way playing to the middle of the road?
I wouldn't be, but who the fuck did that? Not the Archbishop of Canterbury. I still don't see where you all are getting this shit from.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
That's all good, johnny, so long as you are willing to admit that the conservatives are just as hung up about it themselves if they are willing to banish their sister Church from the table about it.
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
