homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Second openly gay bishop in ECUSA (very likely) (Page 8)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  17  18  19 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Second openly gay bishop in ECUSA (very likely)
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683

 - Posted      Profile for ianjmatt   Author's homepage   Email ianjmatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
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

Zach - conservatives want sexuality issue put to bed ( [Biased] ) once and for on their side - he is refusing to give them that; TEC and others want sexuality put to bed ( [Yipee] ) once and for all on their side - he is refusing to do that.

Instead, he is asking for time and space for all sides to work through it. That sounds reasonable to me. Just because you didn't get your way doesn't mean the other side got theirs.

--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com

But maybe not

Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I meant "It wouldn't be" of course.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
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.
We elected a gay bishop. The conservatives don't like that. So, he says, we are endangering the communion. Is it really that much of a leap, then, to conclude that the only proposed thing we can do to prevent schism is to give in to conservative demands?

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
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Zach - conservatives want sexuality issue put to bed ( [Biased] ) once and for on their side - he is refusing to give them that; TEC and others want sexuality put to bed ( [Yipee] ) once and for all on their side - he is refusing to do that.

Instead, he is asking for time and space for all sides to work through it. That sounds reasonable to me. Just because you didn't get your way doesn't mean the other side got theirs.

... and how is a complete moratorium on ordaining gay bishops not giving the conservatives their way?

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      Profile for Grammatica   Email Grammatica   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

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. [/QB]
Hasn't Tearfund been in big trouble with the more conservative evangelical faction recently?
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248

 - Posted      Profile for Grammatica   Email Grammatica   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
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!
Oh dear must now point out the gentle irony and polite demurral to one who by virtue of his pond side claims knowledge of same by birthright. Or just say out loud that you were in a hurry to score points and were therefore tone deaf and misunderstood. Sorry.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
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).

I don't think many Americans understand the CofE, or the English way of life at large, unless they have lived in middle England (not London), and possibly not even then. Most of the CofE is not affiliated to any of the pressure groups. The silent majority are the majority.

As the nature of establishment evolves, the CofE will evolve. I really don't think a big split is inevitable. If anything the CofE could become more united depending on how certain other issues with Rome and women bishops play out.

I agree with you about 'in communion'. You would be very welcome to receive communion in the CofE, and indeed in most protestant churches in England. The only churches that would deny you communion would be Rome, Orthodoxy and a very few closed brethren or baptist churches (and you almost certainly wouldn't go there anyway.)

There would be some evangelical churches that would expect celibacy at certain lay leadership positions, but other than that the CofE would welcome you with open arms whatever happens in the USA. The CofE is not the same as TEC in variety of churchmanship, so you would in practice probably not go to a lot of its churches regularly.

While obviously there are gays in many CofE churches they are not normally as loud about being out as perhaps they would be in TEC, but then English people aren't normally as loud about anything as Americans are.

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683

 - Posted      Profile for ianjmatt   Author's homepage   Email ianjmatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Zach - conservatives want sexuality issue put to bed ( [Biased] ) once and for on their side - he is refusing to give them that; TEC and others want sexuality put to bed ( [Yipee] ) once and for all on their side - he is refusing to do that.

Instead, he is asking for time and space for all sides to work through it. That sounds reasonable to me. Just because you didn't get your way doesn't mean the other side got theirs.

... and how is a complete moratorium on ordaining gay bishops not giving the conservatives their way?

Zach

Well ... I would hazard a guess that the clue is in the word moratorium (actually, you can't have a complete moratorium - it either is one or isn't. Using the word 'complete' doesn't make it sound any more draconian). A time to wait, pray, talk and consider. That is not what the extreme wings of the conservatives want. They don't want to listen (or think!).

--------------------
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      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Well ... I would hazard a guess that the clue is in the word moratorium (blah blah blah...). A time to wait, pray, talk and consider. That is not what the extreme wings of the conservatives want. They don't want to listen (or think!).
And if you will recall, we agreed to it and obeyed it until pretty recently. And the conservatives continued to set up competing jurisdictions with complete impunity. I am failing to see the fairness in this yet. Where is the middle way again?

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
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
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]
I care that some of my fellow Christians get their knickers in a twist over it, and are prepared to act like loons. That Mary Glasspool is a lesbian? Not bothered.
quote:
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.

Overthrown is overstating the case. Doing in the open what the CofE (and probably other Anglican churches) have been doing on the quiet for years, if not centuries - I agree.

quote:
If ECUSA really wasn't bothered about what people do with their genitalia then they would have left the traditional position as it was.

[Confused]

quote:
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.

The thing is, you're confusing caring about whether gays get to wear the pointy hat with caring about what happens to the Anglican Communion. I care about the latter much more than I care about the former. Now, it might be that the AC is broken beyond anyone's ability to repair it, simply because there are enough others who put their priorities the other way up.

But for me, I like being in the CofE, and I like that I'm part of an international network of loosely-federated autonomous national churches. I think it brings more to the table than just a different range of snacks at parties.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Grammatica - you may also want to check out the writings of John Stott, who has for many years been seen as one of the doyens of English Evangelicalism of a distinctly conservative theological bent.

(for example this one)

It seems very, very difficult to get the message through that the American way is not the universal way. It may of course become that way if you persist hard enough, though if it does you will have succeeded in re-exporting your unique form of puritanism back, centuries after we thought we had got rid of it. Sigh.

(ETA - Alogon - many thanks for the links - will try to check them out tomorrow.)

[ 09. December 2009, 22:05: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248

 - Posted      Profile for Grammatica   Email Grammatica   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Grammatica - you may also want to check out the writings of John Stott, who has for many years been seen as one of the doyens of English Evangelicalism of a distinctly conservative theological bent.

(for example this one)

Thanks for the link; I'm well aware of John Stott's conservative social views. He was, e.g., firmly opposed to women in positions of "headship." He is quite important to conservative evangelicals in the US -- the Southern Baptist Convention, for example. Many, but not all, of his followers extend his ban on female "headship" to all secular contexts; all do agree there can be no women in positions of leadership in religious organizations or families. This does not strike me as an especially progressive outlook. As I mentioned earlier, however, there was a time when left-wing views co-existed quite happily with misogyny and the Stalinist version of "family values." So perhaps there are still some in the religious organizations who see themselves as socially progressive, while continuing to hold very retrogressive views of women's abilities and capacities. They may see no contradiction here, but I do.

But somehow, I think the main line of argument here has been getting confused, and confused in an interesting way.

We in the US church have been saying that, yes, we are now departing the Anglican Communion. We welcome openly gay and lesbian persons and allow them to serve in church positions. You in the Church of England will not tolerate that and do not wish to be in communion with us unless we change our ways. Well, we are not going to, so we are departing.

This should be cause for joy on your part, should it not? You've been working toward this outcome for years.

Why isn't it?

Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433

 - Posted      Profile for Zappa   Email Zappa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Which leaves those of us who aren't in either ECUSA or the CofE, but are a part of a disintegrating communion, in a fascinating position. If push came to shove I suspect the Anglican Church of Aotearoa/NZ would swim to join ECUSA, while the Australian Anglicans would swim to Canterbury. Of the rest of the Europeanized, white Anglican world, I can't surmise.

--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/

Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

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.

Hasn't Tearfund been in big trouble with the more conservative evangelical faction recently? [/QB]
Don't think so. Are you thinking of the Ang Mainstream/CMS/Greenbelt controversy?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248

 - Posted      Profile for Grammatica   Email Grammatica   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

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.

Hasn't Tearfund been in big trouble with the more conservative evangelical faction recently?

Don't think so. Are you thinking of the Ang Mainstream/CMS/Greenbelt controversy? [/QB]
No, Tearfund -- similar problem, though. You can explain both situations in detail if you like. As I understand it, both Tearfund and Greenbelt were suspected of being "soft on gays" and threatened with withdrawal of support. Pretty clear evidence there of evangelicals' priorities.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Thanks for the link; I'm well aware of John Stott's conservative social views. He was, e.g., firmly opposed to women in positions of "headship."

I think his view on headship was a bit more nuanced than you give credit for. He was after all in favour of women's ordination.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248

 - Posted      Profile for Grammatica   Email Grammatica   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Thanks for the link; I'm well aware of John Stott's conservative social views. He was, e.g., firmly opposed to women in positions of "headship."

I think his view on headship was a bit more nuanced than you give credit for. He was after all in favour of women's ordination.
But only in subordinate roles. Not that nuanced, in other words.

Among the Southern Baptists, a woman can teach boys in Sunday School, but not teenage males, and certainly not men. This is how they interpret "headship."

Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Hiro's Leap

Shipmate
# 12470

 - Posted      Profile for Hiro's Leap   Email Hiro's Leap   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
So perhaps there are still some in the religious organizations who see themselves as socially progressive, while continuing to hold very retrogressive views of women's abilities and capacities.

You're probably right about headship. Evangelicals didn't lead the way in gay or women's equality issues: at best they seemed to jump aboard after the issues were accepted by wider society.

Last weekend I met an old friend, a very committed conservative evangelical. His views include...
  • No sex outside marriage.
  • Homosexual sex is always sinful.
  • New Labour isn't socialist enough.
  • Headship restricts women from some church roles, but this shouldn't apply to wider society at all.
  • Urgent government action is required on climate change.
  • We're far too materialistic.
He's not all that different to other evangelicals I've known: some are relatively right-wing, some are left-wing, and many are uninterested in political issues. There are a wide range of views on different issues and these don't correspond neatly with US divisions.

(To be fair, my friend also complained that many evangelicals over here are becoming more right-wing. It seems to be nowhere near as monolithic as in the US though.)

Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397

 - Posted      Profile for LA Dave         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Interesting, HL. I sincerely doubt that any American con-evo would be so concerned about global warming. Though to be fair, Albert Mohler, a prominent American evo, has expressed what I would characterize as mild concern about global warming, a concern that he admitted in a 2007 commentary was not typical of most evangelicals.
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Googling "Tearfund gay", the most relevant hit I could find was this 2 year old relic from the Wycliffe Hall fiasco, by that well known impartial news source Ekklesia, which somehow manages to link Elaine Storkey in her former Wycliffe role, her position in Tearfund, and the LGCM who were having a whine at the time. Grammatica couldn't possibly be scraping the barrel for ammunition, could she?

I suggest everyone looks at the (British evangelical) Third Way magazine website. How much of that looks like a Tory party pamphlet?

On the John Stott issue, the point being made upthread was precisely that he does indeed hold some views that are repugnant to Grammatica et al and yet is progressive in other areas, thus disproving her pathetic whinge about the hardly-existent religious right in the UK. What are we arguing about here?

--------------------
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
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
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.

Eh? Whose the "Majority Church"? [Confused]

If you mean the Roman Catholics, then their doctrine and teaching on homosexuality is clear. While the laity may and do hold contrary views, this is irrelevant to the official position. Of course, this movie is seen worldwide.

Next down the size list, the position of the United Church of Canada is also clear. Per the 32nd General Council in 1988, homosexuality is not a bar to membership or ordination in the United Church. Local congregations are completely free to not call an openly gay minister, and this does happen. Our polity requires no special structure for this.

The Anglican Church of Canada's position is up in the air right now, though I would note that since the 1988 decision in the United Church many of our anti-gay party left for other churches, including the Anglicans. This reinforced the ACC's anti-gay party. I was informed of this by an Anglican priest who is a friend of mine.

Since Canada has such a small number of mainline churches, church affiliation does not map onto party affiliation.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248

 - Posted      Profile for Grammatica   Email Grammatica   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
All right, I'm going to try this one more time, though I got absolutely nowhere with my previous queries.

I want to make it clear that I am simply testing a hypothesis about conservative evangelicals in the UK. Just evaluate it please. No defensiveness needed; I want to see where the chips fall.

ISTM that it was quite possible, forty or fifty years ago, to be progressive in politics but still hold views that today would be considered extremely retrograde, with respect to the position of women and certainly with respect to gay and lesbian persons. Many a committed Marxist of that time believed in some version of complementarity, even in separate spheres for men and women. When contemporary second-wave feminism began to appear in the late 1960s, many a committed Marxist viewed it as a distraction from the real struggle; a bourgeois preoccupation or worse.

This sort of view, however, would now be considered very retrogressive. I'm not saying there aren't (still) many otherwise progressive men who don't "get" feminism, but few progressives now would be willing openly to oppose it. Likewise, while even twenty years ago many progressives would have scoffed at gay rights, that also has changed, and changed dramatically.

However, these changes have not taken place among British evangellicals, who hold on to the viewpoints of the progressives of forty or fifty years ago. I wonder why, but I do have a theory:

As I am beginning to understand British conservative evangelicals, their thinking seems to me to resemble very closely the British Marxists and New Leftists of the previous generation. It isn't the same as the thinking of an American biblical literalist. Evangelicals, like Marxists, can be literate and sophisticated in their thinking. But both groups have a need to pull everything that might possibly be proposed, learned, discovered, thought, back to a pre-existing, fixed, and fully authoritative body of scripture.

Whatever the proposition is, if if it can't be clearly expounded out of a place in Marx, Engels, or Lenin, then, whatever it is, it has to be discarded, no matter how much experience and reason might seem to speak for it. If it can't be tied in securely with that pre-existing body of authoritative writings, then it would be opportunistic or worse to accept it. There were not a few, especially in New Left circles years ago, who would have wanted to see women's issues become a matter of concern, but to the committed Marxist, if feminism couldn't be tied back into Marx, then, with whatever regrets, feminism would have to be left off the agenda.

Now this does seem to me to be very much the conservative evangelical approach, with (of course) the Bible taking the place of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. I suppose that it was easier to avoid the re-thinking that went on in progressive circles if one hid out, so to speak, in the Church. At any rate, evangelicals have never been through this process, which now makes them appear very reactionary in some respects.

[ 10. December 2009, 01:37: Message edited by: Grammatica ]

Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I care that some of my fellow Christians get their knickers in a twist over it, and are prepared to act like loons. That Mary Glasspool is a lesbian? Not bothered.

[Confused] In which case I'm struggling to read your response in any way that says the AC has any meaning to you at all?

I might well disagree with other members of my denomination but if something that concerns them greatly doesn't bother me at all that surely communicates how lightly I'm committed to said denomination.


quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Overthrown is overstating the case. Doing in the open what the CofE (and probably other Anglican churches) have been doing on the quiet for years, if not centuries - I agree.

[Ultra confused]

As an argument that is weak - the church has turned a blind eye to many things in the past (e.g. slavery), that is hardly a reason (in and of itself) to overthrow a traditional stance on morality. All it shows is that the church is full of hypocrites ... rather like the rest of humanity.

But as an argument to conservatives it is especially weak - the traditionalists case is built on a desire to remove hypocrisy in the first place. Saying things like, "I wish conservatives were as bothered by ... divorce / doctrinal orthodoxy etc." is actually playing into their hands. The only response you'll get is ... "Now you mention it ..."

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The thing is, you're confusing caring about whether gays get to wear the pointy hat with caring about what happens to the Anglican Communion. I care about the latter much more than I care about the former. Now, it might be that the AC is broken beyond anyone's ability to repair it, simply because there are enough others who put their priorities the other way up.

But for me, I like being in the CofE, and I like that I'm part of an international network of loosely-federated autonomous national churches. I think it brings more to the table than just a different range of snacks at parties.

Then, again, you seem to have a very individualistic notion of the AC. Your involvement seems to be entirely on your terms.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683

 - Posted      Profile for ianjmatt   Author's homepage   Email ianjmatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I suppose that it was easier to avoid the re-thinking that went on in progressive circles if one hid out, so to speak, in the Church. At any rate, evangelicals have never been through this process, which now makes them appear very reactionary in some respects.

No - I think you are still being somewhat simplistic.

Firstly, what you mean by conservatives. Do you mean the Church Society/English CHurchman tyoe? Or, going slightly broader the Reform/UCCF sort? Or perhaps all evanglicals who would hold to biblical innerancy would be considered 'conservative' which would then also stretch to groups such as Anglican Mainstream, New Wine, (perhaps) Fulcrum etc.

I am thinking you mean the latter of these, but aplogies if you don't. In this case you are still being too simplistic. You will find, in an average congregation of average size (which is, if I recall the research, about 120) a mixture of opinions. E.g. some will be Marxist, some 'wet' Tory, some 'dry' Tory, some Lib Dem centre-left, some New Labour centre-right, some will be what Philip Blond recently labelled 'red tory' (not the same as the Canadian thing) - which is really Distributist on the right and anarcho-syndicalist on the left.

You will find some wanting greater state-aid for development, some wanting more church income sent, some wanting all buildings sold, some wanting all buildings used for social activities, some more sacramentalist about buildings.

You will find most churches will be Fairtrade in policy, most members will be the same at home. Environmental action will be considered essential. Stop the Traffik and other initiatives against people trafficking, exploitative working conditions and bonded labour will be stringly supported, as was Drop the Debt (on developing world debt) and Make Poverty History before them. Many members will be strongly involved in their local community (such as School Governors, scout/guide leaders, homeless shelters, help the aged, after school clubs, breakfast clubs etc) not to convert people but to 'make a difference'.

Con Evos as defined above will be both diverse and socially progressive. Many will see Shaftesbury, Wilberforce et al as their spiritual and social forebears. But I don't think they can be defined through some sort of psycological explanation for their religious conviction. I may not agree with them on everything, but I don't think them flawed for the way they think.

--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com

But maybe not

Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
the Pookah
Shipmate
# 9186

 - Posted      Profile for the Pookah   Email the Pookah   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can someone explain how come the U.C ELCA Lutherans are so pro-gay priests/marriage? I always thought of them as conservative, so their open position really pleases me.
Lutherans are worldwide, look at Sweden, though Kenya objects...are they better off for not having a n Archbishop

Posts: 926 | From: the Northern colonies | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I suppose that it was easier to avoid the re-thinking that went on in progressive circles if one hid out, so to speak, in the Church. At any rate, evangelicals have never been through this process, which now makes them appear very reactionary in some respects.

No - I think you are still being somewhat simplistic.

Firstly, what you mean by conservatives. Do you mean the Church Society/English CHurchman tyoe? Or, going slightly broader the Reform/UCCF sort? Or perhaps all evanglicals who would hold to biblical innerancy would be considered 'conservative' which would then also stretch to groups such as Anglican Mainstream, New Wine, (perhaps) Fulcrum etc.

I am thinking you mean the latter of these, but aplogies if you don't. In this case you are still being too simplistic. You will find, in an average congregation of average size (which is, if I recall the research, about 120) a mixture of opinions. E.g. some will be Marxist, some 'wet' Tory, some 'dry' Tory, some Lib Dem centre-left, some New Labour centre-right, some will be what Philip Blond recently labelled 'red tory' (not the same as the Canadian thing) - which is really Distributist on the right and anarcho-syndicalist on the left.

You will find some wanting greater state-aid for development, some wanting more church income sent, some wanting all buildings sold, some wanting all buildings used for social activities, some more sacramentalist about buildings.

You will find most churches will be Fairtrade in policy, most members will be the same at home. Environmental action will be considered essential. Stop the Traffik and other initiatives against people trafficking, exploitative working conditions and bonded labour will be stringly supported, as was Drop the Debt (on developing world debt) and Make Poverty History before them. Many members will be strongly involved in their local community (such as School Governors, scout/guide leaders, homeless shelters, help the aged, after school clubs, breakfast clubs etc) not to convert people but to 'make a difference'.

Con Evos as defined above will be both diverse and socially progressive. Many will see Shaftesbury, Wilberforce et al as their spiritual and social forebears. But I don't think they can be defined through some sort of psycological explanation for their religious conviction. I may not agree with them on everything, but I don't think them flawed for the way they think.

This is precisely how I see the UK evo scene as well. I think it is true of both the conservative and the "open" traditions. On the narrower subjects of gay clergy and the role of women in the church, I think you would find much shoulder shrugging, at least amongst the footsoldiers. The view that "we shouldn't be obsessed with sex when there are far more important issues like the evangelisation of our neigbours/social justive issues/global warming on which to concentrate" is pretty common. I recognise this si in itself scant comfort to those who do feel marginalised because of their gender or their sexuality, but it certainly isn't evidence of a doctrinaire right wing approach to these issues.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I might well disagree with other members of my denomination but if something that concerns them greatly doesn't bother me at all that surely communicates how lightly I'm committed to said denomination.

You've inadvertently diagnosed, for me, precisely the "illness" of the Anglican Communion at present. Of course, the problem is precisely that some are bothered and others not. Liberals' failure to be "bothered" isn't any kind of evidence about our attitude towards the problem - it is, in conjunction with the corresponding objections of conservatives, the problem. Those of us who are not bothered by Canon Glasspool's election could just as easily turn it around and suggest that the fact that conservatives aren't bothered by Lambeth I.10 communicates how lightly they are committed to the Communion - and, more presciently, their fellow Christians. But it would be just as much begging the question as your comment. Somehow, though, the conservative position has become the default one, the one singularly deserving of "accomodation," and the benchmark of loyalty to the Communion.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

If ECUSA really wasn't bothered about what people do with their genitalia then they would have left the traditional position as it was.

Yes, if they were really sincere about no longer viewing homosexuality as a sin, they would continue to condemn it as a sin. That's not silly at all.

[ 10. December 2009, 08:06: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
All right, I'm going to try this one more time, though I got absolutely nowhere with my previous queries.

I think the problem is the terms you are using. Words like 'progressive' and 'reactionary' would simply be irrelevant to most UK evangelicals. From this side of the pond we're trying to say that there isn't the same phenomenon of the religious right that you have in the US. That isn't to say that there are no examples of such fundamentalism - Christian Voice spring immediately to mind. Neither is it to say that evangelicals tick all the boxes in Grammatica's checklist of what makes a 'progressive'.

Frankly, there's always been a tendency among catholics, evangelicals and liberals to define too rigidly - those who are 'sound' and 'unsound', those who are 'progessive' and 'reactionary' - with regard to hot-button issues.

BTW, I do now recall the Tearfund controversy over an association with ++Desmond Tutu. You must try to understand that only a small grouping were involved in this controversy - the majority of us continue to support the work of Tearfund.

BTW 2, I don't think that John Stott's thinking gives rise to women only being able to teach boys in the Southern Baptist tradition. Stott thinks that headship, rules out women being in charge of a team of male clergy. In other words, they can teach a mixed congregation but they can't be team rector, archdeacon or bishop. In fact, his reinterpretation of headship in the 1970s/80s was a halfway stage to many evangelicals becoming fully supportive of women's ordination.

Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry to double-post, but I have asked Grammatica a question previously and received no answer: What is a 'con evo' or a conservative evangelical? The increasing usage of such terms is confusing. Is it an attempt to define evangelicals in terms of one issue only.

It makes me think that it is not really the evangelicals who are obsessed with sex but their critics.

Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:

This should be cause for joy on your part, should it not? You've been working toward this outcome for years.

Who is "you" here?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
All too many black con evos still want truth and justice for the common person only if that person is straight.

Sure. But unless you have a system like that in California where people get to vote on single issues, in practice they tend to line up with political liberals.

--------------------
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
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Matt Black:
[qb] 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".
<shrug>It seems similar in doctrine and practice to the CofE place I attend.

--------------------
"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
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
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

There are, what, thirty eight provinces in the Anglican communion. I guess that Canada, South Africa, one of the Latin American provinces, Scotland and Wales would be reasonably comfortable with the consecration of +Robinson and +Glasspool (pending). That leaves thirty two provinces that are less than ecstatic about the whole thing.

But if the Primate of the Anglican Communion factors in the responses of thirty two provinces to the decision to elect +Glasspool (pending) this must be part of some nefarious plot to do the Yanks down in order to hold the C of E together.

Do you have any idea how up yourselves you are all beginning to sound?

[ 10. December 2009, 08:57: 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
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Those of us who are not bothered by Canon Glasspool's election could just as easily turn it around and suggest that the fact that conservatives aren't bothered by Lambeth I.10 communicates how lightly they are committed to the Communion - and, more presciently, their fellow Christians.

[Confused] I'm not an Anglican, so it is quite possible that I've missed something here, but I don't see how conservatives are unbothered by Lambeth I.10.

I thought conservatives were asking ECUSA to uphold Lambeth I.10?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I might well disagree with other members of my denomination but if something that concerns them greatly doesn't bother me at all that surely communicates how lightly I'm committed to said denomination.

You're in danger of a "there goes the neighbourhood" argument. I'm committed to my local community - but if a bunch of say, Afghani refugees move in and my neighbours throw up their hands in horror, am I to say "yes, something must be done!" or "get a bloody grip!"


quote:
[Ultra confused]

As an argument that is weak - the church has turned a blind eye to many things in the past (e.g. slavery), that is hardly a reason (in and of itself) to overthrow a traditional stance on morality. All it shows is that the church is full of hypocrites ... rather like the rest of humanity.

Bzzzt. I think you meant to say supported slavery and had slaves of their own. That's a pretty big reason to overthrow the traditional stance on slavery. I could go on with the analogy, but that's DH territory. You get the picture.

quote:
Then, again, you seem to have a very individualistic notion of the AC. Your involvement seems to be entirely on your terms.
Er, no. You could, and others are, argue that it's the traditionalists who only want an AC on their terms, otherwise they'll split. I'm happy with an AC that contains both Glasspool and Orombi. I'd be happier if he wasn't suggesting a pogrom on homosexuals in his own country, but hey.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Matt Black:
[qb] 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".
<shrug>It seems similar in doctrine and practice to the CofE place I attend.

--------------------
"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
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think before you prepare yourself to greet your new CANA overlords, Matt, you might want to consider that when the invitations to Lambeth were dished out +Minns was made to sit in the naughty corner (along with +Robinson and that bloke from Zim who wasn't allowed into the country for being a crony of Mr Mugabe) on the explicit grounds that his parking his tanks on TEC's lawn was not on. So I think Grammatica's idea that we are just going to declare ourselves out of communion with TEC and recognise CANA as the Anglican Church of the US overnight may be just a little bit far fetched.

--------------------
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
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
But if the Primate of the Anglican Communion factors in the responses of thirty two provinces to the decision to elect +Glasspool (pending) this must be part of some nefarious plot to do the Yanks down in order to hold the C of E together.

Well, when you frame it in straw man terms like that it's fairly easy to shoot down ECUSA. And, if we were talking about "factoring in," you would be right. But since we're instead talking about trying to pass off a complete overthrow of historic Anglican polity and provincial autonomy as mere recognition of pre-exising relationship, I can't imagine which Archbishop of Canterbury or which Anglican Communion you have in mind with your comment. It can't be the ++Rowan who is trying to convince us that an Anglican Covenant is something we've somehow implicitly agreed to all along, or the Communion that is seeing a shift away from its prior stance of non-interference in the synodical decisions of national churches.

[Edit: Scratch that. You refer not to the ABC but to a fictional "Primate of the Anglican Communion." In that case I've no idea what personage you have in mind, ++Rowan's ambitions notwithstanding]

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Those of us who are not bothered by Canon Glasspool's election could just as easily turn it around and suggest that the fact that conservatives aren't bothered by Lambeth I.10 communicates how lightly they are committed to the Communion - and, more presciently, their fellow Christians.

[Confused] I'm not an Anglican, so it is quite possible that I've missed something here, but I don't see how conservatives are unbothered by Lambeth I.10.

I thought conservatives were asking ECUSA to uphold Lambeth I.10?

I was using "not bothered" to mean "in favour of", which is evidently the meaning you were using when describing liberals as "not bothered" by gay bishops. (If not, then I'm not sure what your comment was supposed to mean. That liberals are simply uninterested in the opinions of other Christians?)

[ 10. December 2009, 09:25: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
BTW, I do now recall the Tearfund controversy over an association with ++Desmond Tutu. You must try to understand that only a small grouping were involved in this controversy - the majority of us continue to support the work of Tearfund.

There was also some controversy about Tearfund and Cliff Richard (one of its vice presidents) when he came out in favour of civil partnerships.

On the wider issue, I have to admit that I'm struggling to understand why ++Rowan and ++Sentamu have not spoken openly against the Ugandan bill.* I gather that it would be seen in Uganda as proof of the corruption of the west, but they think that anyway and it would go a long way to reassure many of us in the West. I'm with the Rt Revd Mike Hill, Bishop of Bristol on this one. He said at a recent diocesan synod, “Whatever view we take of the issues on the human-sexuality de­bate, this piece of legislation is so pernicious and so unpleasant, that I hope that Chris­tians on both sides of the debate would stand as one and say that this is unacceptable.”

According to Giles Fraser, he is on the more conservative side. Actually, maybe that is the answer -- ++Rowan and ++Sentamu can't speak out because they are already regarded as too liberal on this issue -- what if Reform, Fulcrum and other such bodies came out against this law?

I can see more easily why ++Rowan has called for restraint from those of us who take a more liberal position -- we are changing the position after all. But I can also see that that is incredibly painful for those for whom this is a pressing issue -- it's easy for me to be restrained on this issue because I'm straight, but harder for me to be restrained on women's ordination because I'm a woman!

Somehow we have to learn to communicate again. I think there is a strong theological case for the liberal position, but that because we've tended to talk in terms of rights and justice the more conservative haven't heard it theologically and they need to hear that.

But I do also wish that there could be more honesty about the matter in the CofE and CinW. I know someone who was advised she could go on to ordination as long as she was prepared to be discreet (i.e. lie) about her partner. Equally, I know of a number of gay priests who are already ordained who are then in a very difficult situation -- especially if a relationship fails.

Carys


*As a Ugandan ++Sentamu would perhaps have more leverage -- or would it just be seen as proof that he's sold out to the west

[ 10. December 2009, 09:50: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]

--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise

Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
On the wider issue, I have to admit that I'm struggling to understand why ++Rowan and ++Sentamu have not spoken openly against the Ugandan bill.* I gather that it would be seen in Uganda as proof of the corruption of the west, but they think that anyway and it would go a long way to reassure many of us in the West. I'm with the Rt Revd Mike Hill, Bishop of Bristol on this one. He said at a recent diocesan synod, “Whatever view we take of the issues on the human-sexuality de­bate, this piece of legislation is so pernicious and so unpleasant, that I hope that Chris­tians on both sides of the debate would stand as one and say that this is unacceptable.”

I also applaud Mike Hill's statement particularly given the links of Bristol Diocese with Uganda. But I think we have to give the benefit of the doubt to both ++Williams and ++Sentamu. Public statements might not help their behind-the-scenes efforts to intercede with Ugandan political and religious leaders. I would think they're both working pretty hard to use their influence and can't speak about it for obvious reasons. Over-the-years there've been many examples of Archbishops of Canterbury carrying out unsung work behind-the-scenes which may on the surface not seem to amount to a lot - but it is honest effort with more chance of success than public statements (examples in Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine/Pakistan/Liberia, Sudan come to mind).
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Grammatica -

I'm afraid you completely missed my point in citing John Stott. I am neither con. nor evo. I chose him precisely as someone who might fill that description, yet who is passionately committed to international justice and the environment (just to cite two things). You read right past that and went for your selected tick-box item. It's difficult to progress any further.

But to go to another matter - you write
quote:
As I am beginning to understand British conservative evangelicals, their thinking seems to me to resemble very closely the British Marxists and New Leftists of the previous generation. It isn't the same as the thinking of an American biblical literalist. Evangelicals, like Marxists, can be literate and sophisticated in their thinking. But both groups have a need to pull everything that might possibly be proposed, learned, discovered, thought, back to a pre-existing, fixed, and fully authoritative body of scripture.
Whilst I don't agree with your analysis in general, there are some aspects I can agree with. But what is most encouraging is the fact that you attempted to get a revised view of things by reframing the issue. Can we continue on this basis? I don't particularly want to prolong that issue because I don't think it is particularly relevant to matters in hand. It is hardly just evangelicals who are miffed at TEC, and you could finish up down a side alley by thinking it was. Maybe they are the hottest on the presenting issue, but to collapse it to that would be too simplistic.

Assuming that's OK. The point about the way we frame things is relevant because we all do it. You do it, I do it... Within that frame of understanding we include much that we take on trust - unexamined issues which we haven't examined rigorously (if at all). But they are generally settled issues amongst the people we trust. The technical term for such views is prejudices - matters we take to be pre-judged. We all have them - we have to as there just isn't time to analyse absolutely everything.

But we are social animals and conforming to our peer-groups can make us feel over-comfortable with received wisdom. And as the philosopher Bertrand Russell pointed out, history usually debunks most received wisdom as wrong anyway.

What I and several others are trying to get over is the need to radically question these world-views. Where do they come from? Why are they worth believing? Why should communities based around them command my allegiance? The repeated use of "conservative", "liberal", "progressive" and so on all pre-suppose a commitment to a world-view widely shared by North Americans. However, those words carry a different load elsewhere. They are all words with multiple valence and there is endless scope for misunderstanding. If everyone who keeps banging on about Conservative this or Liberal that does not stop for a moment to even question why that should even be a meaningful way of looking at things, then understanding will never be achieved.

Just a final point :-
quote:
This should be cause for joy on your part, should it not? You've been working toward this outcome for years.

Why isn't it?

Whilst I appreciate this may have been a rhetorical question, I can give you an answer.

What you assume is diametrically opposite to my case. (Others will need to speak for themselves). I am gutted by it all. I have a high view of the church and take most seriously the prayer that we might all be one. Clearly we are not, and that is not the fault of anyone alive today, but if we can work towards re-integration with the great communions and our separated brothers and sisters on the protestant side, I am reasonably content. But I will not do schism. If that happens I shall walk off for a season to consider my options and then present myself elsewhere. You can possibly guess why I am here now.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
There are, what, thirty eight provinces in the Anglican communion. I guess that Canada, South Africa, one of the Latin American provinces, Scotland and Wales would be reasonably comfortable with the consecration of +Robinson and +Glasspool (pending). That leaves thirty two provinces that are less than ecstatic about the whole thing.

But if the Primate of the Anglican Communion factors in the responses of thirty two provinces to the decision to elect +Glasspool (pending)this must be part of some nefarious plot to do the Yanks down in order to hold the C of E together.

Do you have any idea how up yourselves you are all beginning to sound

As if those other 32 provinces had any business telling the diocese of Los Angeles who their bishop could be. Are saying the Anglican Communion is ruled by mob rule, and a few dissenting provinces should just put up and shut up? Sounds like precisely my point.

My point is more about liberals than Americans. He's held the liberals on his own province down more than any one else. That sure doesn't sound "up myself."

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      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Spawn, I reject your equation of quiet, behind the scenes work in long term political processes such as Northern Ireland and Palestine with the proper response to the type of Third Reichist politics currently being played in Uganda. Places like Zimbabwe and Uganda call for an entirely different form of massive public international condemnation and pressurization of the international community of governments to make it clear to the offending state that there will be unpleasant consequences if they insist on pursuing a particular course of action (and then indeed carrying out punishment of the target state if it should persist in its unacceptable aims). The Archbp of Canterbury has a moral obligation to speak out, loud and clear on this matter. Working behind the scenes in this sort of context will not achieve desired aims and amounts to no more than complicity. When combined with Cantuar's unsolicited warnings regarding the election in the American Church of the Rev Mary Glasspool, the total effect is to present ++Rowan as completely wrong-headed and morally reprehensible. With most Americans, at least, he has now lost any shred of moral authority that he may have previously managed to retain.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure I understand your point: either we are a Communion, in which case there surely needs to be a degree of consensus, or there isn't that need for consensus, in which case it's not much of a Communion.

[reply to Zach]

[ 10. December 2009, 11:57: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

--------------------
"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
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Matt, are you really saying that, with agreement on nearly all other points of theology... about the trinity, Christology, salvation, and all that... with similar power structures in our hierarchy and a common history... after centuries of cooperation... that a different understanding on sexuality amongst some of your province's members and some of my province's members really means we have no consensus whatsoever?

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
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867

 - Posted      Profile for Spawn   Email Spawn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Matt, are you really saying that, with agreement on nearly all other points of theology... about the trinity, Christology, salvation, and all that... with similar power structures in our hierarchy and a common history... after centuries of cooperation... that a different understanding on sexuality amongst some of your province's members and some of my province's members really means we have no consensus whatsoever?

Zach

My personal view, and I can't speak for others, is that the difference over sexuality is serious because it points to much deeper ways in which our theologies are different. So no despite your protestations I think you've also redefined sin and soteriology.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Third Reichist politics currently being played in Uganda.
L.Sv.K. - any chance of some serious analysis? You know Godwin's law means you've just lost that argument. In any event Uganda is utterly unlike the third reich. Try again.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248

 - Posted      Profile for Grammatica   Email Grammatica   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Grammatica -

I'm afraid you completely missed my point in citing John Stott. I am neither con. nor evo. I chose him precisely as someone who might fill that description, yet who is passionately committed to international justice and the environment (just to cite two things). You read right past that and went for your selected tick-box item. It's difficult to progress any further.

I agree it is difficult to progress any further. You see, I don't believe Christianity has anything at all to do with the breakup of the Anglican Communion. It's been about politics and power, pure and simple. There's no Christianity in it at all.

So I have simply been trying to discover what sort of politics is practiced among British Evangelicals, how their diehard opposition to gay rights and feminism (for example) sits with their claimed interest in social justice. The best model I have been able to come up makes a structural analogy between their thinking and that of the British Marxists of fifty years ago.

That helps me understand their gut-level dislike of the Episcopal Church. Our politics are of the pragmatic, emotional, often sloppy liberal variety. So if the British Evangelicals want to kick us out of the Party -- oops, I meant the Communion -- for left bourgeois deviationism, i.e. support of gay rights, I can perfectly well understand the reasons. (I will be the first to admit that identity politics has done the Left no good at all).

If they have made an alliance with the US Religious Right to do so, well, it's just another Red-Brown Coalition, isn't it?

Again, in my view none of this has anything whatsoever to do with Christ or Christianity. If it did, the whole course of this would have been very, very different.

I am quite content to see the Anglican Communion changing into something much looser, something in which the Americans will not longer participate actively, though some connections may remain. I do think it is going to be better for all concerned.

Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My personal view, and I can't speak for others, is that the difference over sexuality is serious because it points to much deeper ways in which our theologies are different. So no despite your protestations I think you've also redefined sin and soteriology.

I see know reason to think that is so, since the definition of sin does not hinge on sexuality. For me any way, I can't speak for you.

Which still leaves completely valid my point that there is still lots of consensus between our provinces either way.

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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  17  18  19 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools