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: TEC suspended (... maybe?) (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: TEC suspended (... maybe?)
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Nobody is trying to 'force' TEC to do anything. They've broken the rules, and they've been suspended.

Has TEC been suspended by anyone who actually has the power to suspend? Where is that power and the ways to do it spelled out in the governing principles of the Anglican communion?

Way upthread I got the impression this meeting had no actual authority to do anything binding on anyone, and the voting procedures were ad hoc invented at the meeting, and the whole thing is a bunch of people trying to usurp power to impose their doctrine on other, independent, churches.

See the demise of the Southern Baptist Convention 20 years ago for a strong parallel - it was an association of independent church that had doctrinal differences but a similar overall style and emphasis on evangelism. Conservatives decided to destroy the association, make it instead a centralized organization with new strong powers never before held by Southern Baptist presidents. All member churches (and professors in their universities, whether or not their topic was religion) were newly subject to narrow doctrinal tests that had never been universally agreed! After a long battle, churches split and communities of churches broke off as regional associations. The rulers of the new centralized denomination are proud of their victory in destroying the concept of association of churches.

Same will happen here if the conservatives are allowed to declare new rules for meetings and new powers for themselves, in the hope of appeasing them. Power seekers won't honestly "look for ways to get along together somehow" if their goal is to remake the Anglican Communion in their own image with them dictating required beliefs far outside the creed.

Stop thinking compromise can keeps us all together with all our disagreements. If some primates want a wholly different association of churches that runs on wholly different principles than the longstanding Anglican Communion, let them go build their own, not destroy this one just to keep them coming to our meetings.

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025

 - Posted      Profile for gorpo   Email gorpo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Same will happen here if the conservatives are allowed to declare new rules for meetings and new powers for themselves, in the hope of appeasing them. Power seekers won't honestly "look for ways to get along together somehow" if their goal is to remake the Anglican Communion in their own image with them dictating required beliefs far outside the creed.

Conservatives are not requiring TEC to believe things "far outside the creed". Itīs not like if you ignore their heterodox views on human sexuality, the rest of their doctrine is "creedal christianity". Itīs obvious that the blessing of sin is a mere consequence that TEC doesnīt believe in creedal christianity anymore. You have openly atheist people as bishops. Being "creedal" is not only unnecessary in this church, but itīs even a barrier for someone to be in priesthood, in many cases.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Itīs not like if you ignore their heterodox views on human sexuality, the rest of their doctrine is "creedal christianity". Itīs obvious that the blessing of sin is a mere consequence that TEC doesnīt believe in creedal christianity anymore. You have openly atheist people as bishops. Being "creedal" is not only unnecessary in this church, but itīs even a barrier for someone to be in priesthood, in many cases.

[Cool] [Angel] [Cool]

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Itīs not like if you ignore their heterodox views on human sexuality, the rest of their doctrine is "creedal christianity". Itīs obvious that the blessing of sin is a mere consequence that TEC doesnīt believe in creedal christianity anymore. You have openly atheist people as bishops. Being "creedal" is not only unnecessary in this church, but itīs even a barrier for someone to be in priesthood, in many cases.

[Cool] [Angel] [Cool]
And where in this is the argument, as opposed to feebly sarcastic abuse?

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Conservatives are not requiring TEC to believe things "far outside the creed". Itīs not like if you ignore their heterodox views on human sexuality, the rest of their doctrine is "creedal christianity". Itīs obvious that the blessing of sin is a mere consequence that TEC doesnīt believe in creedal christianity anymore. You have openly atheist people as bishops. Being "creedal" is not only unnecessary in this church, but itīs even a barrier for someone to be in priesthood, in many cases.

You'll be able to demonstrate that the General Convention has repudiated the creeds, then? Or do you simply mean that TEC chooses not to discipline people for expressing heterodox views? Last I checked the CofE had priests who denied the resurrection too, and failed to discipline them. Besides which GAFCON and co have made it abundantly clear that their real issue is sexuality, which is why all their concrete demands focus on that. They're not calling for Spong to be expelled from TEC's house of Bishops, for example (though I might have some sympathy for that).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Conservatives are not requiring TEC to believe things "far outside the creed".

Or do you simply mean that TEC chooses not to discipline people for expressing heterodox views? Last I checked the CofE had priests who denied the resurrection too, and failed to discipline them. They're not calling for Spong to be expelled from TEC's house of Bishops, for example (though I might have some sympathy for that).
Where in the Nicene creed does it talk about sexuality? Is that really an essential doctrine of Christianity?

In the 60s, Bishop Pike was considered by many to be in heresy for such things as questioning the virgin birth and trinity (and seances to try to contact his dead son), but the church decided not to do a heresy trial. How is sexuality more central to what it means to be Anglican than trinity?

There's a long history of allowing very diverse beliefs even at high levels. Suddenly one item never mentioned in the creeds as what matters most?

I understand that morality is important. I also understand that churches get it wrong, and that people have strong differences of belief, and that churches in the past have endorsed or shrugged things we now think immoral - slavery, abuse of women, "just wars", conquest and forced conversion (think the Americas). Shouldn't the many examples of churches getting it wrong on important moral issues be a major caution about making a moral issue a central test of Christianity?

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Before this increasingly mean-spirited thread is dragged off to the knacker's yard, could we please acknowledge that - whatever your position might be - this is kind of sad?

The Anglican Communion has been a communion of people who could share communion at the same table. It has never been the Anglican Theological Agreement Association. The clue is in the name. True, a certain amount of theological agreement was probably expected or assumed among those who gathered at the table. But this form of breaking fellowship over theological difference is sad.

It reminds me of a family who traditionally eat a festive dinner together, but among whom one or two members are not living in accordance with other family members' ideals of sexual ethics. Asking them to leave the table and not come back is an occasion for lots of mutual finger-pointing and shouting; it is also a sad occasion.

I don't think TEC is either surprised or broken-hearted by these developments, and neither will be the Anglican Church of Canada when it gets the boot too.

Altogether it's like watching one of those illustrations of Pangaea, with some land masses drifting apart and others drawing closer together. The church world is being reshaped. But it's always a bit sad to see the previous landscapes parting definitively.

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think it is sad, and it makes me angry because it's so utterly unnecessary as well as profoundly wrong. We've been lectured at length about how we should "disagree well" and it turns out that there was never going to be a good disagreement, only punishment for perceived wrongdoing.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I watched a similar battle about 20 years ago, when the Southern Baptist Convention, an association of independent churches, got taken over by militant conservatives who demanded their doctrines (including removing women from clergy positions) be imposed on all churches. Many groups of churches left and formed their own associations, SBC ceased being the largest protestant denomination in the USA, and I guess everyone ended up happier because both liberal churches and conservatives ones no longer had to deal with the tensions of living in the same tent.

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
See the demise of the Southern Baptist Convention 20 years ago for a strong parallel. . . .

[Confused]

The conservative take-over of the Southern Baptist Concention was certainly ugly and did result in the loss of congregations and the formation of some new associations (and seminaries). But far from having met its demise, the SBC is still the largest Protestant denomination in the US. It's almost twice the size of the next largest Protrstant denomination, the United Methodist Church. If all the nondenominational, independent churches were counted together as one denomination, it would be the second largest, but the SBC would still be bigger.

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200

 - Posted      Profile for Og: Thread Killer     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well at least you are not splitting over chrome bumpers vs non-chromed bumpers on your black cars.

I agree though. This is all so very very humanly done and so so sad.

--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."

Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Belle, they STILL preach 'just war'. They never stopped. Blessing it. Blessing 'our' side. They fell off the arc of the moral universe 1600 years ago. So how could they possibly embrace a point on the trajectory sixteen hundred years above them?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Same will happen here if the conservatives are allowed to declare new rules for meetings and new powers for themselves, in the hope of appeasing them. Power seekers won't honestly "look for ways to get along together somehow" if their goal is to remake the Anglican Communion in their own image with them dictating required beliefs far outside the creed.

Conservatives are not requiring TEC to believe things "far outside the creed". Itīs not like if you ignore their heterodox views on human sexuality, the rest of their doctrine is "creedal christianity". Itīs obvious that the blessing of sin is a mere consequence that TEC doesnīt believe in creedal christianity anymore. You have openly atheist people as bishops. Being "creedal" is not only unnecessary in this church, but itīs even a barrier for someone to be in priesthood, in many cases.
This may be so, but why then was the focus then not on the various heresies? I could certainly understand an international effort to discipline TEC over Bishop Spong but there seems to have been little interest in so doing. And there has been no GAFCON discontent on the several US and Canadian divorcés who have been consecrated bishops, against which there is a clear scriptural argument. I have told several of my local (Ottawa-area) interlocutors that it all smells a bit too much like cultural politics for them to count on me. I get a squirm as a response, but this is all very unhappy.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've been feeling rather sad for those who may be of a 'traditionalist' view in TEC. I know that term is loaded and not entirely helpful, but rather than write paragraphs hopefully I can run with it. I've been feeling sad because they - if there are any - probably feel that they've been very unfairly treated in all of this. I imagine they might feel that they have held to a line and been faithful to what they believe, but now an entire province has been tarred with the same brush and the 'punishment' falls on everyone indiscriminately.

If I was to compare it with the church province I am in (the Church of Ireland), there have been gay and lesbian clergy in the past, I'm sure there are today, there have been gay and lesbian couples who have had their marriages blessed in churches and there will very likely be a lot more in light of recent events. However we haven't made any official changes as a church. But if the scope of suspension were widened to include us it would feel deeply unjust, especially to those who haven't done this, shouldn't do this and those who feel they must not. It's like everyone in an entire country being branded in the same way and tarred with the same brush. It's just plain bizarre.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Arabella Purity Winterbottom

Trumpeting hope
# 3434

 - Posted      Profile for Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Email Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That would be under a "don't ask, don't tell" arrangement, would it (in the COI)?

--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal

Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the undercurrent of most of the posts here is quite intolerant of any attitude other than that of TEC; what always amuses me is that those who charge another group with intolerance are sometimes in danger of becoming the most intolerant. So here, on this thread, the charge against those who hold to the traditional majority church teaching on marriage is that they are backwards-in-time-travelling supporters of oppression, slavery, bigamy, corrupt judicial systems, murder and torture of homosexual people.

The latest cry of no one was killed by the TEC carries with it the overt implication that GAFCON and ACNA are murderous zealots.

In actual fact, most people (unlike the Westboro people - surprised they haven't been referenced yet in the 'lets pile on as much shit onto the traditionalists as we can' call to arms!) - most people are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles - and their neighbours too - who happen to believe in traditional morality.

This thread, sad to say, is one where most of you are also like that latter description, but, in discussing TEC, the recent meeting and its decision, have perhaps assumed that the only correct position is the one that is opposed to ++Justin's and therefore only TEC is to be supported.

And you know what, there are plenty of LGBT people in same-gender marriages throughout the Anglican Communion who are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles.

There are also plenty of LGBT people throughout the Anglican Communion who are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles - who are also horribly tortured and murdered for being LGBT (it is not just gay people but bi and trans people too).

If your Nice Conservative Straight People were really so fucking God-fearing they'd put a stop to it instead of either endorsing it explicitly (because the people torturing and murdering are of the opinion that they are just nice God-fearing folk doing what God wants) or endorsing it by not saying anything. One conservative murdering gay people is one too many - has it not occurred to you that 'well it's not ALL conservatives murdering and torturing and correctively raping LGBT people, so it's fine!' is perhaps not a great defence of conservative Christianity? I know many conservative Christians who are real supporters of LGBT people even if they disagree with SSM - that support does not consist of telling LGBT people how mean they are for suggesting all conservatives murder gay people when it's only some of them.

Next time you want to spout off about Poor Oppressed Conservatives, walk a mile in the shoes of LGBT people in Uganda et al and see what real martyrdom looks like.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
As opposed to "I believe in Progressive View Y, and you (ignorant Third World former colonies) must do as well".

Really, I must have missed TEC and ACoC trying to restructure the entire communion to force Uganda and Nigeria to agree with them. You'll have links, I presume?
Just to clarify this point, my comment relates to the charge of bigotry against traditionalists in the AC, against which I'm suggesting that it is a matter of the kettle calling the pot black, and that the actions and words of the 'progressives' might possibly be construed as cultural imperialism on the part of America and her allies.
FWIW there are more liberal churches in Africa too, and GAFCON is partly headed up by the archbishop of that noted 'third-world' city, Sydney in Australia.

I have absolutely no interest in forcing anywhere to adopt a particular policy on marriage. I DO want LGBT people (including LGBT Christians) in Uganda and Nigeria and Jamaica and everywhere else to not die (whether by suicide or murder) because they are LGBT. Heck I want that for LGBT Christians in GAFCON-supporting churches in the UK too. I think 'not dying' is quite a reasonable thing to want without being accused of cultural imperialism.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I cannot help but wonder whether the Columba Declaration is part of preparation in the Church of England (or its current leaders) for a Scottish partner if/when the Scottish Episcopal CHurch moves in the direction the US Episcopal CHurch has and (I hope) the Anglican CHurch of Canada does.

GIven the recent vote in the CinWales, where a majority (though not a sufficient majority) voted in favour of asking for the right to marry same-sex couples (my memory fails...was it just blessing same-sex marriages?), I'd think Justin might be feeling a little exposed.

It's clear to me that Justin planned this all along. We'll see on Monday what the Canadian Primate has to say in full, but before he went to Canterbury, what he said about what Justin said means Justin deliberately misled him about what was planned -- to be as polite as I can be. Giving a ballot to the ACNA leader had to be a deliberate act, and one that specifically broke a promise Justin made before the meeting.

ANd I'm afraid my reading of Justin's comments about LGBT issues since -- like the comments in the communique -- fill me with nausea: "Gee, we're sorry what we've done in the past has hurt you, but we're just going to keep on doing it. And we're certainly not going to call the homophobic churches who campaign to criminalize and imprison gays to account, contrary to what they promised in that famous Lambeth resolution."

You in the CofE have a big problem with your leader, though I grant you that you have no easy way of saying something that he or his pals will care about.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  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 
The Kirk General Assembly voted to allow people in same-sex marriages to enter into, or continue in, the Ministry of Word and Sacrament. So the Kirk is in the same boat the TEC, the ACCcan and the UCCan are in. There is nothing to be gained for the CoE that way.

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

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually Justin's official communique DOES mention challenging homophobic violence in conservative jurisdictions. TEC's suspension was a majority vote and not something he had any power to stop, he's not an Anglican Pope. I have met him and spoken with him as an LGBT Christian and discussed that issue - as an LGBT Anglican I understand what a fraught and difficult thing holding the Communion together must be for him, and I have every sympathy for him. I may disagree with him and his actions, but I do think he cares and I do want him as primate of my church. I hope I can be gracious and prayerful towards him in unpleasant circumstances.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In some ways, TEC is actually quite conservative in their adherence to their 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Liturgically I have noticed that American Episcopalians tend to be sticklers for sticking to their book, compared to the CofE where apparently, there are some clergy who create all sorts of liturgies that would not past muster in the United States.

TEC is always a whipping boy for Spong and Pike, but I understand that the vast majority of worship services still recite the Creed every Sunday. The American book, I understand still mandates a weekly recitation of the Nicene or Apostles' Creed whereas my own Canadian Book of Alternative Services allows the Creeds to be periodically omitted on a Sunday. This so shocked one of my friends from TEC, who while complaining about the general "liberalism" of her American church, nevertheless did not understand why the Canadian book allows the Creed to be omitted.

Of course, one can recite the Creed and have a heterodox interpretation of it, such as people who say that they understand the Virgin Birth metaphorically, not literally. But I think it has always been the case in Christendom that there are people with varying degrees of doubt and interpretation. I don't think it is fair or Christian to dismiss people who genuinely struggle to understand and wrestle with their faith.

To make one's views of sexuality as a litmus taste for orthodoxy is very, very problematic. Much of Christian history until modern times presumed a very patriarchal worldview of sexuality and gender relations. Yes, same-sex genital activity was condemned (though not necessarily, same-sex love as evidenced by the almost romantic letters by St Aelred and his fellow monks). But some of our church fathers, beloved as they are, also had nasty things to say about women and Jews. We can still be faithful to Christian tradition, in the sense of holding on to the essentials: that Christ is Savior, and that God is Triune and One, while accepting that some of their views on sexuality are contingent and do not fit our worldview today. I love for example, St Augustine and think he is a theological genius. But at the same time, I disagree with his rather dark and pessimistic view of human sexuality.

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

FWIW there are more liberal churches in Africa too, and GAFCON is partly headed up by the archbishop of that noted 'third-world' city, Sydney in Australia.


Of course, Peter Jensen, the Secretary of GAFCON, is no longer ABP of Sydney, having reached the retirement age of 70 some 2 1/2 years ago. Abp Glenn is nowhere near as strong a supporter as his predecessor.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In some ways, TEC is actually quite conservative in their adherence to their 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Liturgically I have noticed that American Episcopalians tend to be sticklers for sticking to their book, compared to the CofE where apparently, there are some clergy who create all sorts of liturgies that would not past muster in the United States.

While no longer an Episcopalian, I still have a very warm spot in my heart for the 1979 BCP. It is the book that taught me liturgical worship. I owe it a lot, or at least the people who crafted it. I used it for many years in my daily prayers. I still have at least one, and I think maybe two copies (there are a lot of books in this house).

I would love to see another thread on what it means to say that the virgin birth is a metaphor. Maybe I'll start one.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If I was to compare it with the church province I am in (the Church of Ireland), there have been gay and lesbian clergy in the past, I'm sure there are today, there have been gay and lesbian couples who have had their marriages blessed in churches and there will very likely be a lot more in light of recent events. However we haven't made any official changes as a church.

APW asks if this is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, a question I am also interested in and which to my mind would push this thread definitively over the line into Dead Horses.

(Indeed, it was the phrase that came to my mind when, over in DH, Pomona said this, if you want to join the conversation on that thread...)

Back in the context of this thread, it brings me back to why I was asking you, Fletcher, how you'd approach this if you were a Catholic.

It seems to me that the practice you outline above is a very Catholic way of going about things - the ability for pockets of the church to engage in practices and indeed beliefs that run quite contrary to the official line.

(As Graham Greene puts it in Travels with my Aunt, "of course I'm a Catholic, dear, it's just that I don't believe everything the Catholics do").

While Protestants here are currently tying themselves in knots and leaving federations over the issue of SSM, which I agree is a really stupid litmus test for orthodoxy, I have heard tell of a Catholic parish in Paris that quietly performs them.

As a non-conformist protestant the idea of affirming one belief whilst engaging in a contrary practice is very foreign to my way of theological thinking, but it does seem to offer the advantage of allowing a Church to make a certain number of accommodations.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493

 - Posted      Profile for Joesaphat   Email Joesaphat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Again, you are insisting that their view is bigotry! Yes, you disagree and yes you believe you have a strong case from your own perspective; but your charge of bigotry is not one that facilitates understanding or dialogue. It is in itself a bigoted view perhaps?

Thanks, Mudfrog. I agree with you. I think that it is important to accept that people are divided on this issue everywhere. Even where SSM is accepted by the majority, there is still a very large majority that does not agree.

I understand that many people want to demonize these people because they are seen as harming the innocent. But surely anyone can see that proponents of traditional marriage view SSM as causing even more harm.

But they are not merely 'proponents of traditional marriage'. That's the latest re-branding to escape charges of bigotry. That have been opposed to absolutely all extensions of our civil rights and liberties, from decriminalisation (at least for a solid number of them) onwards.

--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.

Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Before this increasingly mean-spirited thread is dragged off to the knacker's yard,

In the light of this and other posts, including the most recent one, let me offer a little hostly direction.

This thread can probably stay here if it relates first and foremost to the doings of the Anglican Communion, doings that just happen to relate to the Dead Horse issue of homosexuality. That will obviously involve discussing the latter, but the prevailing topic is Anglicans.

If, as I hinted in my non-host post above, people start talking about homosexuality and same-sex marriage with no reference to Anglicanism, then a thread move can be expected. There are a couple of lively and relevant threads on this topic down in Dead Horses. Posters inclined to discuss the above issues with only tangential mention of Anglicanism are invited to join one or start their own down there.

As someone who's been engaged on the thread, I'll be consulting with my fellow hosts about this. We'll be watching how this thread progresses backstage and act accordingly.

/hosting

[ 17. January 2016, 06:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The "suspension" blurs the issues. TEC is suspended, not removed: if there's no agreement now, there won't be in 3 years time. Delaying the real decision by any length of time won't reduce the likelihood of division - it will only enhance it as people from both sides of the discussion lose patience with vacillitating leaders.

You know what? How about we

- repent for persecuting LGBT Christians throughout the church and the world
- stop persecuting LGBT believers everywhere and discipline those who continue to do it
- accept SSM allowing any church to provide it but also permit churches to opt out (actively have to do this)
- step back and watch every denomination divide (to a greater or lessor extent)
- get on with life

[ 17. January 2016, 06:40: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Posted by Arabella:
quote:

That would be under a "don't ask, don't tell" arrangement, would it (in the COI)?

There is certainly no 'official' line of such a policy. There have been in the past and there are today some clergy who are gay or lesbian and those who are in civil partnerships. For them there is a pain of not being able to celebrate that in the church in the same way as other couples. There are also clergy who have openly admitted to blessing same sex unions in the church. It's been discussed at our synods and diocesan synods, convocations, conversations and all the usual stuff the Communion has been asked to engage in many times with courage and openness by both clergy and lay people. There are some who feel that clergy who bless same sex unions in church should be disciplined in some way and those who shout loudly that gay and lesbian clergy should have their licences revoked and that gay and lesbian lay people should not be receiving the sacraments and should not be able to hold church appointments. That has led to the House of Bishops requesting that same sex blessings not be carried out in churches. I'm not sure that amounts to a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, but perhaps it does.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Posted by Euty:
quote:

Back in the context of this thread, it brings me back to why I was asking you, Fletcher, how you'd approach this if you were a Catholic.

It seems to me that the practice you outline above is a very Catholic way of going about things - the ability for pockets of the church to engage in practices and indeed beliefs that run quite contrary to the official line.

Yes, I understand why you are asking me this, but I think it's because you are misunderstanding the core nature of what it means to be in an Anglican Communion and why I suggested reading all of my posts above. I will admit I'm not always as clear as I could be in explaining things, but I think I've managed it in those posts. That is why I can't compare with how I would act if I were a Roman Catholic because it isn't comparing like with like. Its to do with the threat to the autonomy of provinces in Anglicanism and a pressure group that has united forces with others to have a greater influence than they should be given and who hold aims and objectives that - like the Primates meeting - have not got through the test of Lambeth or the Provinces with their respective Bishops and convened synods. They are running rough shod over those they disagree with who have followed due process in their own provinces and who flag false problems and spew factual error to enact their aims; like, for instance, the notion that what TEC does means everyone must do the same - a notion that has appeared more than once on this thread, but one that is entirely incorrect.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the undercurrent of most of the posts here is quite intolerant of any attitude other than that of TEC; what always amuses me is that those who charge another group with intolerance are sometimes in danger of becoming the most intolerant. So here, on this thread, the charge against those who hold to the traditional majority church teaching on marriage is that they are backwards-in-time-travelling supporters of oppression, slavery, bigamy, corrupt judicial systems, murder and torture of homosexual people.

The latest cry of no one was killed by the TEC carries with it the overt implication that GAFCON and ACNA are murderous zealots.

In actual fact, most people (unlike the Westboro people - surprised they haven't been referenced yet in the 'lets pile on as much shit onto the traditionalists as we can' call to arms!) - most people are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles - and their neighbours too - who happen to believe in traditional morality.

This thread, sad to say, is one where most of you are also like that latter description, but, in discussing TEC, the recent meeting and its decision, have perhaps assumed that the only correct position is the one that is opposed to ++Justin's and therefore only TEC is to be supported.

And you know what, there are plenty of LGBT people in same-gender marriages throughout the Anglican Communion who are normal, mild-mannered work-aday church going people who love God, love the church and love their Bibles.
Yes, I said that.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, I think I understand that. The TEC, it is argued, should be allowed to adopt its own practices and not be dictated to (or sanctioned) by the rest of the Anglican Communion, any more than it should dictate its practices to them.

What I'm speculating is that within protestantism (and more particularly non-conformism), there is largely an implicit assumption that everyone toes the party line.

Within catholicism, I increasingly see an implicit assumption that everyone must have the same dogma but is also allowed a lot of licence in how they live out their faith.

(So where the CoI is coming from sounds quite "catholic" to my way of thinking. I might be wrong, of course.)

From my non-conformist, protestant worldview I used to think of this as hypocrisy, whereas I have come to see that for some at least, holding two simultaneous and contradictory ideas seems to be possible in all good conscience, and within a Church, actually offers a mechanism allowing for both upholding a party line and accommodation.

Whether I'm right or wrong about the broad protestant/catholic divide as to this mindset, I would imagine that it's entirely foreign to the likes of GAFCON.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

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

You know what? How about we

- repent for persecuting LGBT Christians throughout the church and the world
- stop persecuting LGBT believers everywhere and discipline those who continue to do it
- accept SSM allowing any church to provide it but also permit churches to opt out (actively have to do this)
- step back and watch every denomination divide (to a greater or lessor extent)
- get on with life

If we can have the first 3 without the 4th, that would be good, but justice has to come ahead of institutional unity. Otherwise completely agreed.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
... justice has to come ahead of institutional unity.

This.

How can unity come before people?

" The Labour shadow cabinet minister Chris Bryant has declared he has given up on the Church of England, saying its stance on homosexuality would one day look as wrong as supporting slavery."

It will.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
fletcher christian

Mutinous Seadog
# 13919

 - Posted      Profile for fletcher christian   Email fletcher christian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Posted by Euty:
quote:

What I'm speculating is that within protestantism (and more particularly non-conformism), there is largely an implicit assumption that everyone toes the party line.

Within catholicism, I increasingly see an implicit assumption that everyone must have the same dogma but is also allowed a lot of licence in how they live out their faith.

(So where the CoI is coming from sounds quite "catholic" to my way of thinking. I might be wrong, of course.)

I think you are right that there is an general unwritten rule among 'Protestant' and 'Reformed' churches that you toe the party line. I think there is definitely an element of this too in Anglicanism but probably not to the same extent as others.

I can't speak for Catholicism in the rest of the world, but in Ireland Catholicism both north and south has travelled through a long history of sectarianism followed by the scandal of abuse cases so it has a somewhat 'batten down the hatches' mentality. The result of that would appear from the outside to be a very strongly conservative streak in the majority, so the 'toe the line' attitude is very powerfully felt, which I think possibly may account for more losses than everything else it has come through, but that's a tangent for another thread.

The CofI is coming from the perspective of concern for the Anglican Communion. We are a small church on a small island on the very edge of Europe - isolation and the power of being part of something much larger is more keenly felt. It also serves to heighten the difficulties with those who have aligned themselves with GAFCON which has made a lot more people think a lot more about what an Anglican Communion is. I don't believe before this (but I could be wrong) that the CofI actually thought too deeply about what it meant to be part of the Anglican Communion, but in recent years it has become much more important as we have moved through various debates.

--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan

Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Cottontail

Shipmate
# 12234

 - Posted      Profile for Cottontail   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I cannot help but wonder whether the Columba Declaration is part of preparation in the Church of England (or its current leaders) for a Scottish partner if/when the Scottish Episcopal CHurch moves in the direction the US Episcopal CHurch has and (I hope) the Anglican CHurch of Canada does.

It really really isn't.

We are having our own internal debates over same-sex relationships that have followed a different trajectory to those in the CofE. In some aspects we are more conservative, in others more liberal. Currently, a tiny space has been carved out for ministers in civil partnerships, and the decision will be made at the General Assembly this year whether to extend that to same-sex marriages. (Presbyteries have voted 25-19 to extend the provision to same-sex marriages, but it has still to get through the GA.) There is no celibacy requirement here as in the CofE.

However, we are a long way off allowing ministers to conduct same sex marriages. No rule has been made re. blessing civil partnerships or marriages.

--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."

Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I understand that there are evangelicals, liberals,MoTR types and much else besides within North American Anglicanism ... both TEC and the Canadian Anglicans ...

Both TEC and ACNA (I don't know enough about the Canadians) seem to hold strongly to the Prayer Book and to liturgy etc - so I can understand Mousethief's point.

I do feel uncomfortable with Welby inviting ACNA - because it seems to be going back on an earlier promise and also looks suspiciously like he's got his next move planned ... but that might be uncharitable.

I don't have the same sense of outrage at ACNA being a 'schismatic sect' - as described upthread - as I think it ill-behoves Anglicans of any stripe to throw the 's' words around when, from RC and Orthodox perspectives that's what the Anglican communion is itself - a collection of schismatic sects ...

Spong et al worry me - but then,so do the Jensens and some of the Nigerians and Ugandans ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(As Graham Greene puts it in Travels with my Aunt, "of course I'm a Catholic, dear, it's just that I don't believe everything the Catholics do").

Or, to quote Pres. Bartlett from "West Wing": "I don't believe in God, and I believe that Mary is His mother".

And Stephen Colbert in a conversation with atheist Bill Maher:

B--"I thought you were a practicing Catholic?"

S--"I am--I'm just not very good at it!"

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

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


I don't have the same sense of outrage at ACNA being a 'schismatic sect' - as described upthread - as I think it ill-behoves Anglicans of any stripe to throw the 's' words around when, from RC and Orthodox perspectives that's what the Anglican communion is itself - a collection of schismatic sects ...

I think it would be a fair charge to level at Henry VIII and his advisers were they still alive. Even the RCC recognises a difference between those responsible for a schism and those raised in the resulting "ecclesial communities". Also, nobody excommunicated ACNA (unlike Henry or Elizabeth, or indeed Martin Luther), they left of their own accord, which is the act of a schismatic.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Or, to quote Pres. Bartlett from "West Wing": "I don't believe in God, and I believe that Mary is His mother".

I'm pretty sure that's not a West Wing quote.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I poked around, and it seems to be a quote from Martin Sheen *himself*, rather than Bartlett. Very Bartlettesque, though, IMHO.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I poked around, and it seems to be a quote from Martin Sheen *himself*, rather than Bartlett. Very Bartlettesque, though, IMHO.

Thank you! As a huge West Wing fan I was racking my poor brain trying to think of when Jeb said it. While the ironic twist sounds a bit Bartlett-ian, it doesn't fit well with other faith statements he makes, so was trying to figure out the context. Makes much more sense from Sheen.

*end tangent*

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have trouble comprehending the concept of tolerance if it allows freedom to intolerance.

I also have have difficulty with the prodigal son type narrative (perhaps not conscious) as applied to this.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The recipe I've seen so far is:
  1. Bully someone
  2. Wait until someone in exasperation says a nasty word
  3. "See? Both sides are doing it."
Fuck that. (That's a nasty word.)

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I have trouble comprehending the concept of tolerance if it allows freedom to intolerance.

Right, the oft quoted "we tolerate anything except intolerance". I guess for me the problem is that I'm not a great measure as to what is "acceptable" and what is "unacceptable". And I recognise that I'm not fully tolerant.

So I guess I rationalise and think that we're better off trying to tolerate a multitude of faith positions, including those I find disgusting/offensive/stupid/ridiculous. Mostly on the basis that someone somewhere likely finds me/my views disgusting too.

quote:
I also have have difficulty with the prodigal son type narrative (perhaps not conscious) as applied to this.
Can you unpack this?

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QB]
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I have trouble comprehending the concept of tolerance if it allows freedom to intolerance.

Right, the oft quoted "we tolerate anything except intolerance". I guess for me the problem is that I'm not a great measure as to what is "acceptable" and what is "unacceptable". And I recognise that I'm not fully tolerant.

So I guess I rationalise and think that we're better off trying to tolerate a multitude of faith positions, including those I find disgusting/offensive/stupid/ridiculous. Mostly on the basis that someone somewhere likely finds me/my views disgusting too.

Tolerate a variety of views, certainly. It's the actions that stem from those views that cannot always be tolerated. Ultimately the right to swing your fist stops at your neighbour's nose.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Tolerate a variety of views, certainly. It's the actions that stem from those views that cannot always be tolerated. Ultimately the right to swing your fist stops at your neighbour's nose.

Right, and the merging of the personal theology and the general societal ethic seems like a widespread problem.

It seems very unusual to hear anyone today saying "I believe x, but recognise the rights of other to do y".

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

It seems very unusual to hear anyone today saying "I believe x, but recognise the rights of other to do y".

I hear it quite a lot in relation to abortion, indeed it reflects my own position. Heck, it also reflect my views on drug use, polygamy and a host of other things I have moral qualms about but don't think should be illegal.

[ 17. January 2016, 15:35: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

It seems very unusual to hear anyone today saying "I believe x, but recognise the rights of other to do y".

I hear it quite a lot in relation to abortion, indeed it reflects my own position. Heck, it also reflect my views on drug use, polygamy and a host of other things I have moral qualms about but don't think should be illegal.
I agree on most of those, and I'd say that for that reason I don't discuss them. I don't think it would be right for me to x, and I don't want to stop you, so I'm not going to push my views about Xing on you.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think you are right that there is an general unwritten rule among 'Protestant' and 'Reformed' churches that you toe the party line. I think there is definitely an element of this too in Anglicanism but probably not to the same extent as others.

I think this is explained by the nature of Protestantism as being based on ideas, and the glue that holds Protestant churches together is agreeing on ideas. While everyone believes the glue of their church(es) is the Holy Spirit, on the practical level it looks quite different. The Catholics see themselves primarily as bound together by the sacraments and their shared history. (Orthodoxen the same.) Protestants see themselves as bound together by shared doctrine, and the splits one sees in Protestantism are very often if not most often based on disagreements in doctrine.

Not that the historic churches haven't seen a fair bit of splitting in their time. But there is also a lot of room for people to hold their private opinions -- theologoumena, we call them in Orthodoxy -- about non-dogmatic matters. The age of the great splits has long passed, and even then the church saw those who left as leaving the mother ship, not cleaving it in twain. Flakes from the great rock, which remains the great rock.

And what keeps the great rock together isn't minutiæ of doctrine but the sacraments and the continuity of clergy and worship. If all the Orthodox on the face of the earth died off next week, somebody couldn't come along a year later and re-start the thing using the same beliefs, the same vestments, the same services. It would be gone and irretrievable. (And, by the way, proof that it wasn't really the church after all.) I assume that my Catholic brothers and sisters here would say much the same. And that's a huge difference in self-understanding between our churches and the Protestants.

So "toeing the party line" is really the bottom line in Protestantism. Once you throw off the centrality of the sacraments, and apostolic succession, and the other common understandings of a universal church, it's what's left.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sounds to me like Scottish Episcopalianism and Orthodoxy have a lot in common.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So "toeing the party line" is really the bottom line in Protestantism. Once you throw off the centrality of the sacraments, and apostolic succession, and the other common understandings of a universal church, it's what's left.

Very interesting MT. I never heard that before.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
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

Đ 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