|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Rowan's revelations?
|
|
|
Shire Dweller
Shipmate
# 16631
|
Posted
The Presidential idea could be a reference to the suggestions of some African bishops that the next head of the Anglican communion should not necessarily be the ABofC
The benefits of splitting off the communion wide figurehead, administrator and leader roles of the ABofC is that the ABofC could focus more on England, and being the leader there.
However, I'd suggest a drawback of a President is partisanship to either Conservative or Liberal views.
Rowan has spent much of his time in the communion trying to find an equilibrium between these two poles. But would a President that was more than just a figurehead try to find the equilibrium?
In the Anglican communion, a President supported by just Conservatives or just Liberals may well drive their opponents to schism.
Its sad, but some seem to want schism... and only stay because they dont know if they'll get to keep their Church property.
--------------------
Right around the Wrekin
Posts: 77 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
This was debated on Radio 4's Sunday this morning - Ruth Gledhill and Stephen Bates. They pretty much concluded that although Archbishop Rowan didn't deal with America well after the installation of Bishop Gene Robinson, there was no way out of the current impasse. Within the CofE there are those who think that the ABC should have appointed Jeffrey John and those who think that he should have stood up for Biblical values on homosexuality.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Does Archbishop Rowan's interview with The Telegraph tell us anything we didn't already know?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9529526/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-interview-I-dont-think-I-cracked-it.html
Thank you for posting the link. I have just been listening to the piece. I hope there is an audio copy of his book, because I think I'd be intrested to read it ... although, as a sceptic, I'll be ooking out for the unvidenced, faith statements! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
He acknowledges he could have handled the US House of Bishops rather better early on - and that he's upset both conservatives and liberals. But is there anything new or surprising in what he's telling us as he winds down ...?
And how about the Presidential idea?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I'd be interested in thoughts on this one as long as they don't get all personal about the outgoing Archbishop (I'm a fan) ... [/QB][/QUOTE]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
In case anyone's already looked at my mistaken posting, I am pleased to say I caught the edit window in time ... well, I thought I had, and then I went to post, found I'd spent too long! My apologies. quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Does Archbishop Rowan's interview with The Telegraph tell us anything we didn't already know?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9529526/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-interview-I-dont-think-I-cracked-it.html
Thank you for posting the link. I have just been listening to the piece. I hope there is an audio copy of his book, because I think I'd be interested to read it ... although, as a sceptic, I'll be looking out for the unevidenced, faith statements!
I hope that during his further teaching and research, he comes to a realisation that all gods are human creations, but that's probably unlikely!
quote:
I'd be interested in thoughts on this one as long as they don't get all personal about the outgoing Archbishop (I'm a fan) ...
Yes, I think I'd say I'm a bit of a fan, but I noted that the interviewer said he laughed - and it sounded as if this had a silent 'dismissively' qualification -about his encounter with Richard Dawkins. If he watches that a few times, I wonder if he'd really come to consider the question scientifically.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Within the CofE there are those who think that the ABC should have appointed Jeffrey John and those who think that he should have stood up for Biblical values on homosexuality.
And there are others who think that those are not in any way incompatible. Including, in the past, Archbishop Rowan himself.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
I'm just wondering how long after he has stepped down it will be before there's a great feeling of "Come back, +Rowan, all is forgiven." Were I a betting man (which I'm not, of course, being a good Methodist), my money would be on it not being very long.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
You read it all here first!
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Within the CofE there are those who think that the ABC should have appointed Jeffrey John and those who think that he should have stood up for Biblical values on homosexuality.
And there are others who think that those are not in any way incompatible. Including, in the past, Archbishop Rowan himself.
That's not my opinion, I was summarising the argument from Sunday.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I'm just wondering how long after he has stepped down it will be before there's a great feeling of "Come back, +Rowan, all is forgiven." Were I a betting man (which I'm not, of course, being a good Methodist), my money would be on it not being very long.
I don't think you'll find any takers. I already think that.
He was right on sharia. He was right on Professor Dawkins. I don't think anyone else could have done any better with the American bishops. They were determined to poke their sticks up the rest of the Communion's noses. Above all, uniquely for a public figure in modern Britain, he's resistant to sound bites, and has the humility to say he might have been wrong, even where he wasn't.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I'm just wondering how long after he has stepped down it will be before there's a great feeling of "Come back, +Rowan, all is forgiven." Were I a betting man (which I'm not, of course, being a good Methodist), my money would be on it not being very long.
I don't think you'll find any takers. I already think that.
He was right on sharia. He was right on Professor Dawkins. I don't think anyone else could have done any better with the American bishops. They were determined to poke their sticks up the rest of the Communion's noses. Above all, uniquely for a public figure in modern Britain, he's resistant to sound bites, and has the humility to say he might have been wrong, even where he wasn't.
But if you're already a fan of Rowan, then you've nothing to forgive him of. The question is whether his detractors will come to appreciate his value after he's left the scene.
He helped to hold his institution together, which may be a great achievement for the current era. But the future perhaps needs someone with other priorities and skills. Or, as he suggests, perhaps splitting his office into two distinct roles will be better than trying to find one man who pleases everyone.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oxonian Ecclesiastic
Shipmate
# 12722
|
Posted
quote:
That's not my opinion, I was summarising the argument from Sunday.
The Sunday programme on Radio 4 is one of the most irritating, ill-informed, unhelpful programmes there is. I now refuse to listen to it.
Posts: 174 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oxonian Ecclesiastic:
The Sunday programme on Radio 4 is one of the most irritating, ill-informed, unhelpful programmes there is. I now refuse to listen to it.
Yes, I find Edward Stourton very irritating and nowadays listen only to the announcement of the items at the beginning of the programme. When Roger Bolton was in charge, it was a programme I didn't like to miss.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I'm just wondering how long after he has stepped down it will be before there's a great feeling of "Come back, +Rowan, all is forgiven." Were I a betting man (which I'm not, of course, being a good Methodist), my money would be on it not being very long.
I don't think you'll find any takers. I already think that.
He was right on sharia. He was right on Professor Dawkins. I don't think anyone else could have done any better with the American bishops. They were determined to poke their sticks up the rest of the Communion's noses. Above all, uniquely for a public figure in modern Britain, he's resistant to sound bites, and has the humility to say he might have been wrong, even where he wasn't.
This (in the modern manner of Ship of Fools).
Rowan has done and is doing as good a job as anyone could possibly do. His intelligence and even-handedness may have raised expectations in others that their case would prevail, but that is their problem not his.
If the roles of ABC and head of the Anglican Communion were to be separated then I fear the Anglican Communion would be dead in a generation.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If the roles of ABC and head of the Anglican Communion were to be separated then I fear the Anglican Communion would be dead in a generation.
Perhaps it would make the governance of the Church of England a bit easier, not carrying the weight of the world on its shoulders when making doctrinal decisions.
The situation reminds me quite a bit of the Lutheran World Federation/ International Lutheran Council difference. If the Anglican Communion were to fracture (more so), I could imagine similar groups coalescing. Life would go on.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If the roles of ABC and head of the Anglican Communion were to be separated then I fear the Anglican Communion would be dead in a generation.
I doubt it would take that long.
If there were an appointed head of the Anglican Communion (separate from the ABC), the descent into vicious conflict would be swift.
The Anglican Communion does NOT need a quasi-Papal figure to "lead" it. What is needed now is an ABC who re-asserts the "traditional" view of the Anglican Communion as a family of Churches, who care for one another, pray for one another but don't need a leader to whip them all into line.
Such a person should have the strength of character to say to all concerned "we would love you to remain in our family, but not at the cost of perpetuating endless strife. If you decide you can't accept the compromises that this entails, perhaps it would be better for everyone if you just go off and do your own thing."
And the key test about this is this: "are your bishops prepared to share communion with others of different opinions?" How can you have any credible family of churches if one set of bishops won't even gather around the bread and wine of communion with another set?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I doubt it would take that long.
If there were an appointed head of the Anglican Communion (separate from the ABC), the descent into vicious conflict would be swift.
The Anglican Communion does NOT need a quasi-Papal figure to "lead" it. What is needed now is an ABC who re-asserts the "traditional" view of the Anglican Communion as a family of Churches, who care for one another, pray for one another but don't need a leader to whip them all into line.
Such a person should have the strength of character to say to all concerned "we would love you to remain in our family, but not at the cost of perpetuating endless strife. If you decide you can't accept the compromises that this entails, perhaps it would be better for everyone if you just go off and do your own thing."
And the key test about this is this: "are your bishops prepared to share communion with others of different opinions?" How can you have any credible family of churches if one set of bishops won't even gather around the bread and wine of communion with another set?
But that is what we have had for the last 9 years, and look at how the ghastlies have treated his every attempt to be and do this.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I doubt it would take that long.
If there were an appointed head of the Anglican Communion (separate from the ABC), the descent into vicious conflict would be swift.
The Anglican Communion does NOT need a quasi-Papal figure to "lead" it. What is needed now is an ABC who re-asserts the "traditional" view of the Anglican Communion as a family of Churches, who care for one another, pray for one another but don't need a leader to whip them all into line.
Yes, but the ABC is supposed to be the first amongst equals - which is daft given all the other things he is supposed to be doing. Why should the bishop of East Kent have any kind of international role?
It is a totally impossible role for one person to do. And that doesn't even include being the Archbishop for the bottom half of England and the 'head' primate of the Anglican Communion..
quote:
Such a person should have the strength of character to say to all concerned "we would love you to remain in our family, but not at the cost of perpetuating endless strife. If you decide you can't accept the compromises that this entails, perhaps it would be better for everyone if you just go off and do your own thing."
And the key test about this is this: "are your bishops prepared to share communion with others of different opinions?" How can you have any credible family of churches if one set of bishops won't even gather around the bread and wine of communion with another set?
Surely a more important point is to answer why the Primate of Southern England is considered to be head of the Communion rather than the Primate of anywhere else. Or why there is a primate for areas with vanishingly small Anglican populations who are considered to be equal to those of highly populated areas.
Have a president elected by the primates themselves. Why not? What is so scary about the idea of the 'first amongst equals' Primate being from Africa or South America or wherever?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
The Torygraph's got an agenda, and will slant what it reports to further that agenda. It's the primary source for this information, but I suspect the true picture may be more complex than the linked article indicates. Bearing those caveats in mind:
ISTM that he freely admits that he hasn't communicated well, but seems very reluctant to admit to any other form of failing. That's reminiscent of political parties with waning popularity, which I would humbly suggest is not an encouraging parallel.
I also find it disappointing that he's chosen to take cheap shots at Richard Dawkins and to reassert the church's ludicrous and disingenuous response to the same-sex marriage consultation. The government has no obligation to protect the church from "embarrassment", nor should that embarrassment have anything to do with the quality of the consultation, but the weasel words with which the church attempted to claim ownership and control of civil policy.
He's an interesting thinker, and I think he's fundamentally a very decent man, but there's a sense of privilege and entitlement that shines through much of what he says, as if the church should have some special right to have things done in a particular way.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I also find it disappointing that he's chosen to take cheap shots at Richard Dawkins
We don't know the context in which he 'laughed' during this interview, but from what I heard, his debate at Oxford with Dawkins with quite a mild-mannered gentle, very Anglican affair.
So I would presume that in this case, a laugh is just a laugh.
x
AV
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
And describing him as a "pub bore"? Is that just a gentle joke?
I have no doubt that the Torygraph have an agenda, but those words appear in quotes, and I'm struggling to see a way they could be understood as friendly ones.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
And describing him as a "pub bore"? Is that just a gentle joke?
In the context, admirably restrained, amusing, very apt and difficult to disagree with.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Have a president elected by the primates themselves. Why not? What is so scary about the idea of the 'first amongst equals' Primate being from Africa or South America or wherever?
Because they are worried that the person elected by any kind of majority process would usually be an African evangelical, and they are scared of that.
OK the Archbishop of York is African and also sort-of evangelical, but he got put there by the very English process of a secret cabal of the Great and the Good. Much safer than actual democracy.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I don't think there is much danger of an election amongst the Primates of there being a African head of the church. Even if there was, I don't think the problem would last too long as the said Primate would suddenly discover he had no church to represent outside of his area.
[ 10. September 2012, 14:09: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Because they are worried that the person elected by any kind of majority process would usually be an African evangelical, and they are scared of that.
I think, at the risk of exhuming equine corpses, that they/we would be very worried about electing a homophobic person. African and/or evangelical we would welcome, but they often come as a package.
--------------------
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
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
How many Primates are there in Africa though? And of those how many are likely to vote for a homophobic kill-all-the-gays head-of-church?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
How many Primates are there in Africa though?
12, I think.
quote:
And of those how many are likely to vote for a homophobic kill-all-the-gays head-of-church?
None.
But I would guess that 10 to 12 of them would not wish to appoint bishops who would ordain people in same-sex relationships as clergy.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Perhaps a chairperson should steer a loose federation of Anglicanism of different tiers, rather than the assumption of a single church that often occurs on here. This might be along the lines of what has already been mooted before. The Cof E can be the CofE; the TEC the TEC with same sex unions and the like; the Church of Nigeria, anti such things and so on.
There would be no reason why this loose federation should not include continuing Anglican churches as well, so the Hilda and Wilfreds could be accomodated.
The problem would appear to be the increasing belief in some quarters that there is something called 'The Anglican Church', when there is actually no such thing. There is an Anglican Commnuion (or sorts) but that is very different and could be adapted-changed-freed.
Such splits as are inevitable can just happen. And in an age of reasonabe ecumenical politeness, the splitters can then engage ecumenically with each other.
The archbishop of Canterbury could be left to be the Primate of All England.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
A longer answer.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
How many Primates are there in Africa though?
There are 4 provinces in Europe, 12 in Africa, 11 in Asia, 3 Anglo-American ones, 4 Latin American, and 4 Somewhere In The Pacific.
quote:
And of those how many are likely to vote for a homophobic kill-all-the-gays head-of-church?
I've been looking at the list of Anglican primates and provinces and making wild guesses as to their likely positions on things. And they really are wild guesses, especially about the South American and Asian provinces, because no-one seems to document these things, and if you try to search for them online you end up with a huge number of blogs written by odddly unpleasant overweight bearded (*) Americans who seem to be conservative in both senses and dedicating their lives to abusing all American Anglicans who have not yet jumped ship and joined whichever one of about seventy small post-Anglican sects they are in themselves.
Although there is obviously a lot of variation within each, from a liturgical point of view perhaps six have mostly highish, ritualistic, anglo-catholic-style traditions (Scotland, USA, Canada, West Africa, Melanesia, Phillipines, maybe Papua New Guinea?) another 8 or 10 are very mixed (including the CofE of course) and perhaps 16-20 are almost entirely low-church or evangelical.
When it comes to theological doctrines, and again with a lot of guess work, I'd imagine that maybe half a dozen provinces are almost entirely theologically liberal, perhaps seven or eight (including England, Australia, and South Africa) mostly liberal with large orthodox minorities; and a clear majority are mostly orthodox (**)
On what someone very Anglicanly called called the "presenting issue", maybe 20-25 of the provinces seem to be heavily against same-sex marriage, or ordaining non-celibate homosexuals as clergy. As far as I know only two or three are definitely for it, and some are heavily divided internally (including England, Australia, and New Zealand) I would guess that most of those divided provinces are likely to continue to move towards inclusion, so in a few years things might be a bit more even than they look at the moment.
But the situation on the ordinaiton of women is much clearer - its a done deal. Only 9 out of the 38 don't ordain women as priests and they are mostly smallish, poor, Southern provinces heavily influenced by Anglo-Catholic missionaries from England. The two exceptions to that are the Southern Cone (which is tiny, but prosperous, and I suspect mainly made up of expatriate Brits, though I am not sure) and of course Nigeria, which is the only really significant hold-out against women's ordination remaining in the Anglican Communion. I strongly suspect that Nigeria sooner or later will ordain women, and probably sooner rather than later, but of course I don't really know.
So if the Primates elected a President from amongst themselves, and if they voted the way their congregations would probably want them to, and if they took these issues into consideration, the chances are we'd get a theologically orthodox evangelical who was anti-gay and pro-women.
(*) I can say that because I am overweight and bearded. It is merely a description, not a criticism.
(**) sorry about the "o" word but I really can't bring myself to call them "conservative" as if they were all some sort of right-wingers or Tories. And in the CofE the word "traditionalist" seems to have been hijacked by the anti-women movement. And more importantly in Anglicanism "conservative evangelical" is contrasted with "charismatic evangalical", and though both sorts are different flavours of theologically conservative/orthodox/traditionalist, they are different. And A lot of evangelical Anglicans, especially in East Africa and some parts of Asia, are more in the charistmatic tradition than the conservative-evangelical one.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Thanks ken, that is good analysis. Of course, the whole idea of the Primates electing one of their own is a bit unhinged when, the Primates of the Middle East and Southern Cone (with tiny populations) would have the same say as the Primates of Nigeria and England (representing much larger populations)
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I don't think orthodox is a suitable descriptor of the anti-gay elements of the Anglican communion. I don't think theologically liberal is an accurate descriptor of those who aren't anti-gay either. Most on both sides are theologically orthodox. Theological liberalism, in the sense of denying the resurrection, or Christ's miracles (to pick the most egregious examples) is vanishingly rare.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think orthodox is a suitable descriptor of the anti-gay elements of the Anglican communion. I don't think theologically liberal is an accurate descriptor of those who aren't anti-gay either.
That's obvioulsy correct, which I why I am trying not to do that. The "liberal <-> orthodox" spectrum is not the same as the prog-gay<->anti-gay one. (And neither is the same as pro-women<->anti-women)
quote:
Theological liberalism, in the sense of denying the resurrection, or Christ's miracles (to pick the most egregious examples) is vanishingly rare.
Not in the Church of England it isn't. I think its less common than it was among clergy a few decades ago, and was never the majority opinion, but there is a lot of it about.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Not in the Church of England it isn't. I think its less common than it was among clergy a few decades ago, and was never the majority opinion, but there is a lot of it about.
*shrug* I grew up in the Church of England and never encountered a priest who couldn't recite the Nicean Creed with good conscience. YMMV, obviously.
[ 10. September 2012, 20:51: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
