Reactions in the blogosphere to Tom Wright’s recent interview have been strong. Here are some links:
Anglican Scotist Anglicanism’s Conceptual Space: A Sketch, Part II (Wright’s Fallacy)
daily episcopalian N. T. Wright chooses sides
Caught by the Light “Doctrinal Indifferentism”
Raspberry Rabbit Of course there are plenty of choices to be made
Fr Jake Durham Lobs Charges in the 11th Hour, Again
Preludium “Doctrinal Indifferentism”: Bishop Tom goes for the full body blow, and misses.
Episcopal Chaplain at the Bedside Perhaps Wright Is Not Wrong; Just Misinformed
Vocatio! – Living into Call What Church Will we Choose and will we Reform it?
Aaahhh… you missed me out at http://www.peter-ould.net/?p=248
An interesting range of articles, and many excellent points made. I will further explore the implications of Rasberry Rabbit’s comment “I’ve always been wary of anybody telling anybody else that they ‘have no choice’ but to follow this or that course of action. Such words, when uttered at a Synod or during labour negotiations are never descriptive…” One of the things that has struck me in the last year or so is how certain groups have tried to coral the discussions down pre-set paths, denying the right for divergence. This has enabled them to gain “scriptural authority” because they have… Read more »
I respect +Wright as a NT scholar but at this point in time I would love to start a “Do the Right Thing, Not the +Wright Thing” campaign designed to decrease sales of his numerous books. Maybe then he would reaiize that people in the pews read his stuff and ren’t nearly as ignorant of church affairs as he seems to credit. I wish His Grace would keep his nose in his diocese instead of in the business of the American church, by way of 11th-hour bombs that show not only a woeful lack of understanding of TEC polity but… Read more »
For me there is a dark subtext to this interview. Tom Wright’s words are all part of the not so subtle pressure that is being heaped on +Rowan’s head by his so-called ‘friends’. ‘Don’t worry Rowan, we’re here to support you in making the correct decision’, says Durham, smiling through gritted teeth as he twists Canterbury’s arm even further behind his back. ‘I’ll be here to greet you on your return’. It’s also saying to the conservative primates, ‘For God’s sake don’t play up too much and blow it all. Don’t walk out. Keep your heads. We’ve almost achieved what… Read more »
Hmmm. An interesting choice of articles. I’m a bit surprised that there wasn’t any positive response to NT’s comments from any quarter. But, maybe its just a bit slow in coming rather than a bit slow in being posted.
As for the others–predictable. Hell hath no fury like a liberal scorned.
Steven
Simon – thank you for creating a link to my post. I respect your work here at Thinking Anglicans and trust that I added some ideas of value to this thread.
I look forward to your coverage of the events as they unfold in Tanzania as well as other developments in the Church of England and elsewhere around the Anglican Communion.
in Christ’s Compassion,
Jim+
Steven need look no further than alias Titus 1:9. It is full of praise, yellings of “brilliant scholar” and scorn.
I haven’t even checked out Vitriolonline.
Like Steven I thought it was an interesting list of comments. Do you really only read one side of the argument? Is that what it means to be a “thinking” Anglican — to just look at places where your views will be reinforced, and avoid anywhere that may challenge you to actually — well — think? If you go to the “alias Titus 1:9” scorned above you will find posts from all points of view (and also other listings that are just background — or just plain interesting). Unlike you “thinking” folks here they actually like the discipline considering the… Read more »
Links to eight comments, all of the same point of view.
How are people to learn to think if they are only given what they want, & have their prejudices confirmed? It’s a bit like a reading list consisting of nothing but Jim Packer.
Welcome Margaret. How lovely to see you here, too. Yes, T19 is amazingly open and nuanced.
“I didn’t know what sin was, until I visited T19” !
True, Chris, but the links at standfirm were of similar uniformity. As we all know, sampling needs to be across a wide range…….
I think people should pause before slagging off +Durham so hastily. He is a clever man and holds a position with the Anglican Communion which demands more respect than some of the commenters give him here, even if you disagree with him. Likewise, I’m sure, some of the things written by conservatives. If we lack grace with each other then there’s nothing worth redeeming in the Communion to start with.
“How are people to learn to think if they are only given what they want, & have their prejudices confirmed?”
This is ever so rich, Christopher.
On the lack of positive responses, one thing I think NTW does get right is that Rowan Williams is streets ahead of many of the louder voices – everything he says seems to be overinterpreted according to factional points of view. There are very few people who seem to be listening to what RW actually says, and fewer still who seem to understand what he is about – but I’m afraid that is mainly not RW’s fault, but the result of closed ears and open mouths. I admire and commend ABC for NOT being what everyone seems to want him… Read more »
If I had a blog it would not be T19 but 1 Corinthians 1:25 which probably explains some of my eccentricities.
Dear Margaret,
Please show where I “scorned” Titus 1:9.
(and remember, the Pastorals are pseudo-epigraphs, aliases, not written by Paul himself but a century later by someone posing as Paul, attributing to him views theological, ecclesiological, political & c contrary to his own)
1 Cor. 1: 25 it is Mark ! Thank you.
Hi Ford-
Why is it rich?
Despite repeated requests that you cite your sources, the only name you have provided is Gagnon. This seems to be exactly what he, and you, are doing. I say ‘seems’ because I have only the current discussion to go on. I am quite willing to accept that I might be misjudging you. In another place, you claim that your information is NOT coming from the places I have suspected it does come from. If not, again, give one study that backs up, for instance, that gay people have a shortened lifespan. Remember that STDs are a result of promiscuity, not… Read more »
Ooooooooooo… this is getting complicated :0
And can that be a piece of research which doesn’t take HIV+ men as its subjects.
These sort of stats are obtained by adding together different unrelated studies, largely those of HIV+men. They are then misused and distorted by the homophobes – people like Christopher.
I always go for the article which has the largest sample and is tolerably recent. Anything with a larger sample (and/or which was more recent) would therefore trump it. Please therefore feel free to trump the following: I normally cite the International Journal of Epidemiology Canada 1990s survey of male homosexuals which arrived at a figure of 8-20 years less (split the difference and say 14). This of course is colossal, exceeding even the figure for smoking. As soon as I found a bigger survey (preferably one more recent) I would cite that instead. The reference to Gagnon is puzzling.… Read more »
The reference to Gagnon was indeed puzzling, but it was your reference. Nobody else’s.
Thanks, Christopher. Finally.
Is anyone going to interact with the IJE article? Is it right or wrong? If wrong, why? If right, what are the implications?
IJE? Translate please!
International Journal of Epidemiology
Obviously not. Wotta surprise.