Updated Thursday afternoon
Before we return to the American war zone, whose news came too late in Britain to get more than this NIB in The Times, there is a comment article in today’s Guardian:
Andrew Brown The archbishop, we can only deduce, is a humanist mole
And Colin Slee had a letter published in The Times under this headline: Communion not Empire: the future of Anglicanism.
Meanwhile in Australia, Archbishop Peter Jensen gave his opinion: Two-tier Anglican church absurd: Jensen in the Sydney Morning Herald and Anglican church split won’t affect Australia: Archbishop on ABC.
updated to add
Andrew Carey has this analysis in tomorrow’s Church of England Newspaper Analysis: Facing a two-speed Communion? There is also this news report there.
I’m not sure why the comparison with divorce is being made. ‘Divorce’ is a swearword and not to be uttered if one can help it. In no sense would the main two ‘sides’ (to put it crudely) have ever chosen to marry one another in the first place. The situation is more akin to waking up, finding there is an intruder in the house, and making sure that the intruder leaves the house.
Colin Slee mentions ‘true scholarship’, which happnes to conclude, he says, in line with his own preferred ideology.
What does he mean by ‘true’; and how come no such ‘true’ scholarship has emanated from any recognised NT scholars?
I don’t see how the Archbishop’s thoughtful survey of the problems could be called the work of a humanist mole. It holds more reproach to Akinola than to Robinson. And it compares the ECUSA rather than the conservatives with prophetic martyrs ready to take risks — but warning them to “count the cost”. This is what I posted in Brown’s combox: On annual visits to Oxford I still hear the Archbishop spoken of very warmly by his gay or at least gay-friendly friends; though some clerical ones express unease about how his stance may be evolving in a conservative direction.… Read more »
In his ‘reflections’ Dr Williams has yet to make clear why the issue of homosexuality should be THE issue that causes disruption. Is there a more ‘biblically based’ arguement against it that there is over the admission of women to Holy Orders? Is the position adopted by most Provinces/Dioceses of the Anglican Communion on divorce and re-marriage any less open to criticism from those whose ‘biblically based’ theology brings them into conflict with others in the Anglican Church over homosexuality? When His Grace is good enough to explain this, then I think we will have been given the benefit of… Read more »
Anglicanus is essentially right. The (rather shallow) tendency to cultural conformity, even in the churches, is no more re active homosexuality than re divorce. The two are, of course, part of the same 1960s unitary package. Sin is a unity; and sin breeds further sin. Change a culture and its worldview and you get their souls thrown in. It is a short step from something being presented as normal/legal to its (however ridiculously) being perceived as ok. A high proportion of the population, believe it or not, often fail to distinguish between the two (normal on the one hand, and… Read more »
“I’m not sure why the comparison with divorce is being made. ‘Divorce’ is a swearword and not to be uttered if one can help it. In no sense would the main two ‘sides’ (to put it crudely) have ever chosen to marry one another in the first place. The situation is more akin to waking up, finding there is an intruder in the house, and making sure that the intruder leaves the house.” Come now, Dr. Shell… Waking up next to an “intruder”? This simply adds more heat than light. Your metaphor is wholly inappropriate, and untrue as well; liberals… Read more »
A very nice analogy Ms Kwong. I’ve been married 32 years and it rings true. Fortunately my wife and I decided to take the same classes.
Hmmm. To me that anecdotal analogy should end: “Then she first began having clandestine affairs with strangers. Her husband turned a blind eye, in the interests of harmony. Then she demanded an open marriage. He let it happen. But when she demanded that he join in her amatory activities in order to broaden his mind and overturn his prejudices, he felt he had to call it a day.” As far as the orthodox are concerned, liberals are “whoring after false gods.” A solidly biblical viewpoint, surely? The orthodox think they were far too tolerant for too long–so tolerant, in fact,… Read more »
Sarah Dylan Breuer has a reflection on Andrew Brown’s column here:
http://www.sarahlaughed.net/gracenotes/2006/06/brilliant_colum.html
“For who can deny that their [so-called “orthodox”] positions are substantially the undisputed positions of the church for centuries back?”
Um…me? Faithful, life-long Anglican Christian me?
(re “whoring after false gods”: I’m afraid I can’t come up w/ anything wittier than he who smelt it, dealt it? ;-/)
lol – I’ll explain why I don’t think the marriage picture is accurate. Autobiographically, when I was assured that I was ‘an anglican’ at age 18-20, I was astonished. I had taken my confirmation to be simply a pledge to follow Jesus and seek the infilling of the Holy Spirit. The institutional side simply never occurred to me – and I have found this also with academic theories, that once one has broad horizons one can never go back to narrow. A second point: whichever church one grows up in, one will not at first realise that the other ‘wings’… Read more »
“For who can deny that their positions are substantially the undisputed positions of the church for centuries back?” Not sure that follows. It’s possible (for example) for both sides to hail (say) Calvin as their role model: one sides stresses Calvin’s dicta, the other his modus operandi. It was not possible for Calvin to be a critical biblical scholar in the way which has been open to us since (say) Tischendorf, so to assume without argument that he would have jumped one way or the other is not justifiable. I think the difference lies in our relationship with the tradition:… Read more »
Well, J.C. Saying it’s so don’t make it so (unless you’re a far more important J.C. than I imagine you are).
Come up with some evidence–and something a bit more convincing than Junia embroidery or Boswellite special pleading–and you can be taken seriously.
I don’t see anything particularly shameful about honestly admitting to innovation, actually. Just admit that you think the tradition is wrong, toss it, and carry on.
Smelt it/dealt it, however, is particularly shameful. How about “same to you with brass knobs on?” More colourful and somehow Anglican, I think.