|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Bishop of Coventry
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I'm not sure how many Anglo-catholics have ever been liberal by 19th century German standards, but certainly from the time of Lux Mundi in the late 19th century people like Charles Gore challenged some of the conservative attitudes to scripture and specifically literal understanding of the creation myths. They laid great stress on the Incarnation and hence the fact that God's truth is revealed in the material world and secular knowledge, which IMHO is a truly catholic understanding.
That became a strong current in Anglican theology until comparatively recent times. It of course underlay the social justice commitment of many anglo-catholics, notably Gore's own Community of the Resurrection. It's different from the milk and water liberalism of many today, particularly bishops or ambitious clerics who have preferred to trim their sails to the prevailing wind without much enthusiasm. Now that all bishops of whatever flavour are happy to dress up and enjoy the tat, it's harder to discern who is in the catholic tradition and who is just 'liberal'. Affirming Catholics have been maligned as 'liberals in vestments', but the truth is different: the movement doubtless includes some of these but the core consists of those in the tradition of Gore and Lux Mundi.
(Not that I disapprove of liberals or evangelicals wearing the tat: it is important that bishops are pastors to all their flock and fit in with all traditions.)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It may seem to be an odd thing to say to you but I can assure you that a significant number of Anglican evangelicals do assume that Anglo-Catholics - or "high church" as they would be more likely to say - are theologically liberal, if they can be counted as Christians at all.
Completely agree. This shows what a relative term liberal is. Anyone who disagrees with me is either a fundamentalist or a liberal heretic.
I have even heard an evangelical preacher give Roman Catholicism in a list of examples of liberal theologies.
But more usually a C of E evangelical uses "liberal" as a short-hand for someone who does not subscribe to a literal view of scripture (most importantly regarding homosexuality), believes in evolution and probably denies the virgin birth. A "very liberal" label might apply to someone who denies a literal resurrection.
Such a liberal theological position is associated with "high church" practice, and hence the label "Anglo-catholic", insofar as it means anything at all, would tend to be associated with the stereotypical liberal Anglican.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Nigerians and Ugandans and their paymasters are demanding a say - so it will be a trad. evo if they get their way.
What paymasters?
Large amounts of funding to different churches in Africa have come from conservative sources in both the United States and Australia: travel expenses, staff costs, loans, donations etc. Once reason why they backed the sexuality statement from Lambeth (which was abhorrent to American arch conservatives) while also the issues of polygamy were not raised, in fear that the ultra-conservatives would appear to be way to colonial in outlook.
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by emendator liturgia:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Nigerians and Ugandans and their paymasters are demanding a say - so it will be a trad. evo if they get their way.
What paymasters?
Large amounts of funding to different churches in Africa have come from conservative sources in both the United States and Australia: travel expenses, staff costs, loans, donations etc. Once reason why they backed the sexuality statement from Lambeth (which was abhorrent to American arch conservatives) while also the issues of polygamy were not raised, in fear that the ultra-conservatives would appear to be way to colonial in outlook.
This is a lie.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by emendator liturgia:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Nigerians and Ugandans and their paymasters are demanding a say - so it will be a trad. evo if they get their way.
What paymasters?
Large amounts of funding to different churches in Africa have come from conservative sources in both the United States and Australia: travel expenses, staff costs, loans, donations etc. Once reason why they backed the sexuality statement from Lambeth (which was abhorrent to American arch conservatives) while also the issues of polygamy were not raised, in fear that the ultra-conservatives would appear to be way to colonial in outlook.
This is a lie.
Pronoun reference problem here. What part of that statement, exactly, is a lie, Ken?
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Pronoun reference problem here. What part of that statement, exactly, is a lie, Ken?
The specific lie about ignoring polygamy.
The specific lie that Nigerian and Ugandan Anglicans "backed the Lamberth sexuality statement" because they were bribed by Americans and Australians.
The implication of the whole that these are poor ignorant niggers being tricked by clever white masters into doing their bidding as if they had no ideas or intentions of their own.
The implication that they aren't really Christians but just somehow bribed into pretending to be.
The blithering ignorance about both Nigerian and Ugandan Anglicanism (and the huge differences between them)
The way these rich so-called-liberal Americans are using Africans as nothing but symbols in their own internal arguments - they aren't peopel to them, just parables. "Oh look how nasty those horrid conservatives are because they have to dupe the poor benighted niggers into voting for them"
The implication that Africans can't be trusted to come up with their own take on theology, or even to understand the ones we holy wealthy whites so kindly donate to them.
The whole sick bloated paranoid victimisation fantasies of a handful of prosperous middle-class wealthy American thologically liberal (but politically right-wing though they pose as liberal sometimes) Anglicans that they are in danger from poor black Christians on the other side of the ocean. Its disgusting. And yes it is racist. And yes someone is going to go off on the "Oh you politically correct lefties trying to play the race card again" drivel - but its true, its there, its racist, its been going on for years, decades, and I'm fed up with it and fed up with the way that pretending to be liberal is supposed to get them off their very real racism. "Oh it can't be us, we're not racist, we supported civil rights way back then,..." It makes me fucking angry.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I'm pretty sure Akinola and chums are perfectly capable of their own bigotry, and the Ugandan government shows every sign of being disgustingly homophobic without any encouragement from western conservatives. My recollection is that wealthy conservative churches do tend to throw money around, and it wouldn't be at all surprising if there was some weighing of pros and cons when it came to how much fuss to make about homosexuality as against the risk of losing financial support which probably does a lot of good in the target country.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It makes me fucking angry.
We've noticed, Ken. But all of these allegations are very well documented.
Calling people "racists" for accepting this evidence is simply an ad hominem, and an increasingly desperate one.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
...but the Bishop of Coventry does seem rather pleasant, and often wears a more formal form of the clerical collar.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I've only come across Christopher Cocksworth as the author of an introduction to Colin Buchanan's liturgical writings.
Buchanan is someone I tend to regard at times as a bit of a thug, and I thought the introduction was rather good at being appreciative of Buchanan' legacy, while distancing himself from the thugish tendency.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I'm surprised that the bookies and The Times are said to 'know' who will be next ABC. These are the people who know, as they are deciding - hopefully they have all been in our prayers since May.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Would your money be on + Michael, Chorister? Would he be disqualified by age?
In an increasingly non-ageist society, SHOULD/COULD age have anything to do with it in future appointments, either legally or morally.
Polycarp, Bishop and Martyr was in his 80s when he shed his blood for Christ and had not 'retired'.
John XXIII was elected pope at 78 and was one of the most radical it might be argued, of the modern age - according to Ken Livingstone in his support of 'elderly' appointments.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It makes me fucking angry.
We've noticed, Ken. But all of these allegations are very well documented.
Indeed there is indeed, Ken, a large amount of documentation (not merely assertion): may I suggest for starters:
Ian Douglas, 'Lambeth 1998 and the 'New Colonialism', The Witness, 81.5, 1998.
Jim Naughton, 'Follwing the Money', http://www.edow.org/follow
Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden, Lambeth: A View from the Two Thirds World, London, SPCK, 1989.
http://www.lambethconference.org/1998/news/Ic042.cfm (relating issues of debt and sexuality)
Jason Bruner, 'Divided we Stand: North American Evangelicals and the Crisis in the Anglican Communion', Journal of Anglican Studies.
There is also the financial records of the Diocese of Sydney showing how much money has been spent on supporting GAFCON initiatives and supporting the work of conservative envangelical dioceses in Africa and elsewhere.
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
Sorry the link to Jim Naughton's article must have changed:
Read it here
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by emendator liturgia:
Indeed there is indeed, Ken, a large amount of documentation (not merely assertion). [...]
[/QB]
I hope some here will take the trouble to read through the links provided by emendator liturgia.
None of this is new. The word has been out for years; the road from Lambeth 1998 to Dar Es Salaam is thoroughly documented; most of us who have been at all active in the Episcopal Church are well aware of the dirty deals that went down.
On the other side of the pond, though, it's all just been brushed away. I am not sure why. Possibly there's an understandable desire to avoid knowing just how completely the wool has been pulled over one's own eyes by a handful of schemers. Rather like the old lefties who went on defending Stalin long after the facts were in, because they couldn't bear to see the dream of Soviet socialism die.
And I am also somehow reminded of the other threads that pop up with considerable regularity on these boards: Are these latest signs and wonders: these Todd Bentley healings, these Bethel miracles, these showers of gold dust -- are they the real thing (finally!) or are they just another confidence trick? Driving them seems to be a wistful will-to-believe in the amazing supernatural, in defiance of all experience and known fact, and not in a Hebrews 1.11 kind of way, either.
So is credulousness of some sort a necessary condition for religious belief? I don't know if I want to go down that road right now.
I posted the OP because I knew nothing of +Cocksworth. I suppose I was wondering what chance there was of his healing the breach in the Communion that opened at Dar Es Salaam. Since that unhappy event, the US Episcopal Church has had only the most tenuous of relationships with the Church of England, and I don't detect much desire for anything more.
Given what happened at Dar, it's understandable. But divisions are unhappy. It's just that the Church of England would also have to do some work to do to heal the breach. I was hoping for someone to tell me that a new Archbishop of Canterbury might be willing to make a start. Can that happen?
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Since that unhappy event, the US Episcopal Church has had only the most tenuous of relationships with the Church of England, and I don't detect much desire for anything more.
I'm not going to suggest this is wrong, exactly, but I think it is overstated. It is probably more than fair to say that some (not all) of the hierarchy of the US Church has little use for some (not all) of the hierarchy of the CofE (and vice versa). It's also more than fair to note that every little tiff and spat gets blown to monstrous proportions in the blogosphere. The truth is, though, that many (probably most) of the laity just don't care--in either country.
Church is local. If a faithful CofE parishioner was suddenly plunked in the middle of East Podunk, they would almost certainly look for an Episcopal church first. A faithful American Episcopalian dropped into England would most likely NOT be checking out the options in Non-conformism first. To me, that is far more indicative of the health of the connexion than anything the Bishops fling at each other.
Bishops--on both sides of the pond--come and go. They are not "The Church" by themselves, and their relationships with each other are not the last word in the relationships between the national Churches.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I hope some here will take the trouble to read through the links provided by emendator liturgia.
Two are not working for me, the third links to a fairly turgid and poorly organised pdf from which I finally came to a section called "Who's piper, who's tune" which is pretty short on any serious evidence.
I am sure money has flowed from various evangelical organisations to Anglican churches in Africa, that doesn't amount to being bought off or manipulated though.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Since that unhappy event, the US Episcopal Church has had only the most tenuous of relationships with the Church of England, and I don't detect much desire for anything more.
I'm not going to suggest this is wrong, exactly, but I think it is overstated. It is probably more than fair to say that some (not all) of the hierarchy of the US Church has little use for some (not all) of the hierarchy of the CofE (and vice versa). It's also more than fair to note that every little tiff and spat gets blown to monstrous proportions in the blogosphere. The truth is, though, that many (probably most) of the laity just don't care--in either country.
Church is local. If a faithful CofE parishioner was suddenly plunked in the middle of East Podunk, they would almost certainly look for an Episcopal church first. A faithful American Episcopalian dropped into England would most likely NOT be checking out the options in Non-conformism first. To me, that is far more indicative of the health of the connexion than anything the Bishops fling at each other.
Bishops--on both sides of the pond--come and go. They are not "The Church" by themselves, and their relationships with each other are not the last word in the relationships between the national Churches.
This is a nice, eirenic response, Organ Builder, but, like your response to Leo in the correlative Hell thread, I think it underestimates the seriousness of the situation. No doubt the average American Episcopalian visiting England would look for a Church of England service, just as the same Episcopalian, visiting, oh, rural Minnesota would look for a Lutheran service. For one thing, those are the services that would be easy to find. The American would recognize the similarities in the liturgy and the common historical roots of the churches. That's really all, though.
Anything more than that is probably going to come about through contact between the clergy of the two churches. I don't see American Episcopal clergy desirous of any closer relationship with the Church of England than the present one, and in the absence of any initiatives from the Church of England, the two will only drift further apart.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Further apart than WHAT? When was this nice comparison period when the average Episcopalian clergyman (and back then it would have been a man) and the average English parish priest had that much contact or interest in each other? (Apart from the importation of English clergy and organists in the 19th century by some of the more socially impregnable parishes--but I doubt either one of us would view that as particularly healthy).
In some ways, they are more likely to have contact NOW because there are a lot more programs for the odd year studying abroad. That's mostly going to be Americans going to the UK, but then, it was ever thus...
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
It's just that the Church of England would also have to do some work to do to heal the breach. I was hoping for someone to tell me that a new Archbishop of Canterbury might be willing to make a start. Can that happen?
Make a start? Rowan has been doing that for the past umpteen years.
If you say so, Leo. I can agree he's been trying to slow down the progress of the schism. He let himself be badly outmaneuvered at Dar Es Salaam but appears to have learned from the experience, and nothing that bad has happened since.
So, is that progress, then?
If you and Organ Grinder both start telling me things aren't as bad in the Communion as they seem, I might have to start believing you.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
This is a nice, eirenic response, Organ Builder, but, like your response to Leo in the correlative Hell thread, I think it underestimates the seriousness of the situation. No doubt the average American Episcopalian visiting England would look for a Church of England service, just as the same Episcopalian, visiting, oh, rural Minnesota would look for a Lutheran service. For one thing, those are the services that would be easy to find. The American would recognize the similarities in the liturgy and the common historical roots of the churches. That's really all, though.
Anything more than that is probably going to come about through contact between the clergy of the two churches. I don't see American Episcopal clergy desirous of any closer relationship with the Church of England than the present one, and in the absence of any initiatives from the Church of England, the two will only drift further apart.
I've said this before on a thread which wandered into the same territory, and I'm going to say it again upsetting, or even churlish though this may sound.
Even the average thinking member of the CofE has not normally been very conscious of the ECUSA, certainly not in the way they are of churches in the Commonwealth. Many of these are former mission fields. Our diocese has close links with Uganda. Most English dioceses have similar links with some part of Africa, Asia or the Caribbean.
The Ship has been a bit of an eye-opener. If one is not regularly involved, one tends to imagine that the dominant form of Christianity in the US is people like Tod Bentley, gold dust, new earth, KJV only etc.
Recent rows about a certain dead horse subject may have raised awareness of the ECUSA slightly over here because we've been having dissension about the same subject. Nevertheless, and I hope it doesn't come to that, if it were a question of the communion disintegrating, for many of us, what Africa thinks is important in a way that what Ohio thinks is not.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I am sure money has flowed from various evangelical organisations to Anglican churches in Africa, that doesn't amount to being bought off or manipulated though.
This.
Surely there is homophobia to be found in African cultures also outside the Anglican churches. "Manipulated" implies a passivity on the receiving end that just isn't there in African cultures, and which also rings scaringly similar to a straw man of the Other that Africa has seen way too much of.
Chinua Achebe breaks with colonialism through, amongst other things, daring to give the Africans homophobic and misogynic thoughts in his seminal work Things Fall Apart, back in 1958. Even more than just giving the African a face and an activity, he gives the African a complexity that just isn't there in the words "bribed" and "manipulated", and just wasn't there in the British imperial mindset. That's why the wording is bordering on racism, even if money has flowed in that direction.
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
[x-posted with several other posts on both this thread and the one in Hell on the same topic. It seems to me now that it might have been better placed on the other thread, but it didn't seem so at the time of writing.]
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
[x-posted with several other posts on both this thread and the one in Hell on the same topic. It seems to me now that it might have been better placed on the other thread, but it didn't seem so at the time of writing.]
C'mon down!
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
[x-posted with several other posts on both this thread and the one in Hell on the same topic. It seems to me now that it might have been better placed on the other thread, but it didn't seem so at the time of writing.]
C'mon down!
Fixed.
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
...Organ Grinder...
I only object to this for one reason--we have a Shipmate named Gay Organ Grinder, and I try to avoid confusion. Otherwise, it wouldn't bother me in the least.
I haven't seen him here in a while, which is a shame because I used to enjoy his contributions.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shire Dweller
Shipmate
# 16631
|
Posted
Speaking as a CofE churchgoer - The ECUSA is not something I've encountered outside of this website (other than the vague understanding that it exists). I had to look it up! And found in their you tube channel some lovely videos of their mission and activities.
But Enoch is right, English dioceses have little 'connection' with the ECUSA, instead often emphasising links with the Commonwealth countries.
If anything, US Christianity is caricatured as one extreme or another Fundamentalists or ultra-Liberals
I don't want the ECUSA to leave communion or break with the CofE – its a very useful corrective on a lot of things.
But if push comes to shove, my sad prediction is that the ECUSA (if it doesn't leave of its own accord) will be put in such a position of impaired communion that it will effectively be kicked out of the Anglican communion.
--------------------
Right around the Wrekin
Posts: 77 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
...Organ Grinder...
I only object to this for one reason--we have a Shipmate named Gay Organ Grinder, and I try to avoid confusion. Otherwise, it wouldn't bother me in the least.
I haven't seen him here in a while, which is a shame because I used to enjoy his contributions.
Sorry for my error!
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I'm surprised by the comments from other CofE members, because I have tended to assume that, in the event of a schism, most CofE members would want to be on the side of the water that included PECUSA. But then I know how easy it is within the CofE to remain in one's own little backwater - the churches I've been involved with have tended to have more connection to the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia than to either Africa or North America. The mission links are to Pakistan rather than sub-saharan Africa.
If push comes to shove, however, I wonder how many in the CofE will feel comfortable lining up alongside the "gays should be executed" brigade, given the number of gay members and clergy the CofE already has. I suspect the SEC would want to side with North America if everything falls apart, but given the small size of the SEC and the proximity to England, I can't begin to imagine what that would look like in practice.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I am not sure you should be surprised, as I do not think that most CoE members believe that they will be taking sides, will have to take sides, or that these sides are where dividing lines will appear. I see a similar phenomenon in Canada (although we have our own way of avoiding discussion or decision).
Much of the discussion on The Issue in the US has taken in the context of its own cultural wars, which are specific to that country. The social-political-cultural linkages on both sides are not to be found in other countries.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
I think +Londin. would make an excellent ABC, but the CofE currently idolizes youth, and anyone over 60 tends not to be taken seriously — never mind that men in their seventies are often called by our coreligionists in Rome and the Eastern Churches.
It is not age that is the problem with Dr. Chartres.
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm surprised by the comments from other CofE members, because I have tended to assume that, in the event of a schism, most CofE members would want to be on the side of the water that included PECUSA. But then I know how easy it is within the CofE to remain in one's own little backwater - the churches I've been involved with have tended to have more connection to the Indian subcontinent and south-east Asia than to either Africa or North America. The mission links are to Pakistan rather than sub-saharan Africa.
If push comes to shove, however, I wonder how many in the CofE will feel comfortable lining up alongside the "gays should be executed" brigade, given the number of gay members and clergy the CofE already has. I suspect the SEC would want to side with North America if everything falls apart, but given the small size of the SEC and the proximity to England, I can't begin to imagine what that would look like in practice.
Arethosemyfeet: - you might as well be asking us if we would prefer to boil our heads in oil, rather than jump into a red-hot lava flow. The correct answer being "neither of the above" of course. Or to be a bit more technical, you are posing a false dichotomy. There is absolutely no reason why I should want my church to be a TEC oriented clone any more than I would want it to be a gay-hating one. Why should I? Why should most of us?
Effectively you are uncritically saying that the dimensions of the oft-discussed socio-political divide in the USA must inevitably be the way we have to go elsewhere in the world. In answer to that, both the political and social conditions in countries outside the USA vary markedly, and moreover religion is different in even more radically different ways. I see no valid reasons why we should uncritically follow the same route. In fact I see plenty of reasons why we shouldn't.
But I don't have a crystal ball, and cannot predict what the future holds in store. It might come about, but only if people want it to. That would be the day I'm outta here. I am not going to do schism, neither de facto nor de jure.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I am not going to do schism, neither de facto nor de jure.
As a fellow Anglican I can't help feeling that door is shutting on a stable rather lacking in horses.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Actually mdijon, I'm packing my bags as we speak.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Arethosemyfeet: - you might as well be asking us if we would prefer to boil our heads in oil, rather than jump into a red-hot lava flow. The correct answer being "neither of the above" of course. Or to be a bit more technical, you are posing a false dichotomy. There is absolutely no reason why I should want my church to be a TEC oriented clone any more than I would want it to be a gay-hating one. Why should I? Why should most of us?
It's not about being a clone of anyone. It's just that my read of the way the wind is blowing is that the more conservative churches within the Anglican communion could reach a point where they say to the other members, you're either in communion with us, or with PECUSA. I hope it doesn't happen, I don't want it to happen, but it is hardly outside the realms of possibility that it could. Some churches, including the Church of Nigeria, have already redefined their relationship with the communion as doctrinal rather than to the see of Canterbury.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
My own view would be to let the splitters split. If a number of churches in Africa said they no longer wished communion unless you do x y and z, then I would be passive and stay where I was. I would not wish to take instructions from anyone else about who I can or can't be in communion with. If they then declare themselves out of communion with me that is up to them.
Likewise I wouldn't want to accept instructions from ECUSA about needing to fracture communion with African churches if they were the ones initiating the split.
I know that seems an arbitrary way of deciding, and there is the possibility of "constructive schism" as an equivalent to constructive dismissal in employment terms, but that's my take at present.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Several of the more recent posts here highlight my own concern for the next ABC - that whatever schismatic forces exercise themselves over the next few years, the ABC will come under more and more pressure to become a sort of Anglican Pope. That, for me, is what will spell the end of the Church of England. And the saddest thing is that for many of us, there's nowhere else to go.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I don't think the ABC will have the power to compel anyone to listen to him, and I doubt that the worldwide communion will submit to him.
I can see the thought that the communion could be held together were he to be something like the pope, but I think it won't happen.
(Fortunately).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Likewise I wouldn't want to accept instructions from ECUSA about needing to fracture communion with African churches if they were the ones initiating the split.
No one from the Episcopal Church has ever demanded this of you. I don't see why you include it here.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
My own view would be to let the splitters split.
I guess that's close to what my own position has been. I'm not very happy with it though. It's probably what both sides thought at the time of the great schism. More worryingly, it's probably what the majority in the early Johannine church thought.
But history judges schisms as being due not to those who split, but more those who caused the split. Sometimes the schismatics are a splinter group, but sometimes they are the majority who have gone off the rails. My worry is that the approach you outline can become for me a lazy way of me avoiding making any decision at all.
I'm not really sure about this "breaking communion" stuff. I can't see that it makes any sense any more. In what way are we or they breaking communion with anyone? We have an open table, and unless anybody is suggesting some other form of communion, breaking communion just seems to have become a metaphor for "not liking you enough to sit down with you".
Actually, reflecting on that last sentence, it's not a complete metaphor. It lacks the reciprocal nature of communion. But it's too late for me to expand on that tonight.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
No one from the Episcopal Church has ever demanded this of you. I don't see why you include it here.
To make the point that the important principle was "let the splitters split" rather than a priori partiality to one or other party.
[ 10. August 2012, 20:53: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Not, please, another schism. Never advocate such a thing. Never suggest that it is the only option, that it is better than any of the alternatives nor that God is calling you out, or to expel them.
Even the slightest knowledge of both scripture and Church History ought to make it clear that schism is not just wrong but very wrong. Likewise, forcing other people into schism. It is more important that the brothers and sisters love one another, than that they or any group of them insist on being right at all costs.
Schism does not do the work of God. It is not a fruit of the Spirit. It does the work of the enemy of souls.
And from years of experience, there's no one quite as bigoted as a liberal bigot.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Not, please, another schism. Never advocate such a thing. Never suggest that it is the only option, that it is better than any of the alternatives nor that God is calling you out, or to expel them.
Even the slightest knowledge of both scripture and Church History ought to make it clear that schism is not just wrong but very wrong. Likewise, forcing other people into schism. It is more important that the brothers and sisters love one another, than that they or any group of them insist on being right at all costs.
Schism does not do the work of God. It is not a fruit of the Spirit. It does the work of the enemy of souls.
And from years of experience, there's no one quite as bigoted as a liberal bigot.
Not convinced: both the Quakers and Salvation Army are as a result of splits for very good reason with very positive results which could not have occurred if George Fox and William Booth had accepted the authority of the churches out of which they split. But I'll agree with you about the liberal bigot.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
My own view would be to let the splitters split. If a number of churches in Africa said they no longer wished communion unless you do x y and z, then I would be passive and stay where I was. I would not wish to take instructions from anyone else about who I can or can't be in communion with. If they then declare themselves out of communion with me that is up to them.
Likewise I wouldn't want to accept instructions from ECUSA about needing to fracture communion with African churches if they were the ones initiating the split.
I know that seems an arbitrary way of deciding, and there is the possibility of "constructive schism" as an equivalent to constructive dismissal in employment terms, but that's my take at present.
In other words, do nothing. It's exactly that which is bringing the church to the brink.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I really don't feel that my inactivity is what is bringing the church to the brink. I really don't.
Just to humour me, can you set out what I might be doing or what different stance might mend it?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
I'm not going to comment on individual candidates - we have to work together collegially. What I would say is
1. that the job is too big. There are 5 or 6 jobs, as identified by Hurd and Mellows in their reports on the Archbishop's needs and resources, which are gathering dust and should have been taken seriously. The new incumbent will come into a post that is still unmanageable. Separate out: Anglican Communion; European Churches; Privy Council and all the Royal stuff; Archbishop of Province of Canterbury; Primate of all England; Diocese of Canterbury; House of Lords. It's impossible.
2. that the bureaucrats won't let you give up these roles. The Anglican Communion politburo, Lambeth Palace, and Church House all have their own agendas which they run in order to keep the ABC from performing to the best of his ability. I sometimes have a hankering to volunteer as the Malcolm Tucker of the CofE in order to sort the bureaucrats out and give the ABC a clear run. Certainly someone needs to do it!
3. that it's clear from the way Rowan has been treated that it's less and less possible to be your own person as ABC and get away with it. The press couldn't cope with Rowan being holy, intellectual and complicated - and unable/unwilling to speak in sound bites. The liberals couldn't cope with Rowan because he could see both sides of all the arguments that they thought he should support them on. The conservative evangelicals couldn't cope with Rowan because he was too deep for their simple theology. And the Anglican Communion couldn't cope with Rowan because (deep down) neither ECUSA nor the Global South want him to fix it. Rowan has remained true to himself, but it hasn't won him friends.
4. that whoever does it next is probably onto a loser unless they pause, take stock and think about what's really important (see 2 above).
[ 11. August 2012, 11:47: Message edited by: pete173 ]
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I agree totally with that. In the words of ++Robert Runcie:
'One will always fail. But one has to fail the most graciously.'
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
