The Church Times press column this week was written by Rebecca Wilson and is titled Rare moment of cake.
In the news pages, Pat Ashworth summed up developments in US decision triggers postal activity.
Doug LeBlanc wrote for the Living Church that Bishops Discuss Paradoxical Votes on Consecrations, Blessings.
Adrian Worsfold wrote “Rowan Williams’s game is up” for Episcopal Café.
The Anglican Communion Institute wrote Resolutions and the Windsor Moratoria.
Religion Dispatches published Episcopal Church Walks with American Clergy on Gay and Lesbian Equality.
It was predictable that the so-called ‘Anglican Communion Institute’ would seek to denigrate the statement made by The TEC Presiding Bishop and Bonnie Anderson, affirming TEC’s determination to remain within the Anglican fold. ACI’s own uncritical reception of ‘Archbishop’ Robert Duncan’s statement to the Communion on ACNA’s wish to ‘retain’ it’s own unique and special connections to Canterbury (despite his formerly expressed dis-satisfaction with the ABC’s seeming reluctance to embrace ACNA’s schismatic action in leaving TEC) is symptomatic of the Institute’s reluctance to admit it’s own part in the creation of the schism. To pretend to represent the breadth of… Read more »
Hi Fr Ron-
What is infallible about ‘the anglican ethos’? Do you think that an ethos can or should be immune from criticism?
The point is whether something is good, truthful, just, or Christian, not whether it is anglican, coptic or armenian.
Here again, Christopher, you appear not to have understood the gist of what I have said. I have never suggested that the Anglican ethos is *infallible* – that is precisely why it cannot be likened to the Roman Catholic Church, which actually does claim an infallible magisterial culture, declaring other Christian Churches to be inferior in their view of the Mission. The whole point of Anglicanism is that it does not claim to be the only or ‘true’ Church. What it does claim is authenticity in its striving to maintain the inclusive ethos of the Gospel, in its own particular… Read more »
Christopher:
Despite what our friend RIW would tell you, nothing is infallible in this world, of course,
But if a person or organization is going to call itself “Anglican,” it behooves it to behave in an Anglican manner…and there’s nothing Anglican about exclusion.
Some combination of Seitz Radner and the other one write “participants have produced wildly inconsistent, if equally far-fetched, interpretations of what took place.” and then “There are now multiple conflicting interpretations of the relationship of Resolution D025 to Resolution B033 and the Windsor moratorium on episcopal elections” This is the ACI interpretation of “subtle and nuanced”. These three lads fall apart a bit when they explain that TEC agrees with the version of events they have been shouting for the last three years – that is, BO 33 is NOT a moratorium rather “The compliance with the Windsor request was… Read more »
The whole point of ACI spin doctoring is more or less to justify the much vaunted punishment of TEC for not policing or properly punishing its queer folks. Also, add in not properly policing or punishing the family members or friends of said queer folks – along with nearly anybody who doesn’t already at least say out loud that policing and punishment are God’s royal roads to holiness, in particular for queer folks. When/if certain straight folks do certain sex acts, it is nobody’s business, so long as the couple is married. Even if the couple is not quite yet… Read more »
“US decision triggers postal activity” has got to be the _best_ _article_ _title_ _ever_….
As a science fiction and comics fan, seeing General Convention referred to as “Gen Con” tickled my funny bone. “Con” is the usual shorthand for gatherings of fans (as in Comicon being held in San Diego this weekend), and “Gen Con” specifically is a gathering for gaming enthusiasts.
Imagining all those dog collars and purple shirts sitting around playing Dungeons and Dragons or World of War amuses me no end.
In the Big Hooha surrounding the GC resolutions and what they mean and how they apply – I hear a great, pained Cry: Leeway and Anglican ambiguity simply will not do, NOT do at all. Two sides of the Hooha Coin? Re: Emotion. Voting leeway or ambiguity (by such a notable majority?) in a hot buttom domain or time of change is not the closed, final answer nearly all of the loudest Hoohawkers seem to seek, to need. Do people really need to know, finally, for sure no doubts whatsoever, that queer folks are just exactly where church always put… Read more »
I have been to Gen Con AND Gen Con (I once played a game with Gary Gygax when he was just an insurance salesman) & use the term intentionally (I actually remember when Gen Con was an abbreviation of “Geneva Convention” before it got to big & had to move to Milwaukee) FWIW, I think Adrian Worsford’s piece seems accurate — but I have thought that for some time — TEC has been interested in honesty & communion (it is not good to enter into a relationship being dishonest about who you are– I discussed this with Jenny Te Paa… Read more »
Hi Pat- I think in practice what happens is that some people become more concerned with the secondary issue ‘is it anglican?’ than with the primary issue ‘is it Christian?’ – which is of course self-contradictory since each Christian tradition only exists in the first place in order to be as Christian (not as faithful to some sub-ethos) as possible. The BCP excludes some from receiving communion and includes others. It also includes those who give the right responses on certain occasions and excludes those who refuse to do so. I don’t see any evidence at all that it includes… Read more »
Christopher:
As I read the TEC BCP, we are to include ALL baptized Christians in the full life of the Church. It is not for us, as humans, to decide who is truly repentant and who is not–that is God’s decision, not ours.
What you miss is that every Christian denomination defines “Christian” in its own way, after agreement on certain fundamentals (Christ is Lord, Christ is risen, etc.). Therefore, the “sub-ethos” (in your words) of Anglicanism (or even the “sub-sub-ethos”, if you will, of American Anglicanism) will define “Christian” as its governing bodies discern.
“I think in practice what happens is that some people become more concerned with the secondary issue ‘is it anglican?’ than with the primary issue ‘is it Christian?'” And that some people seem to unite their particular denomination with Christianity. Many Evangelicals are guilty of this: to be Christian is to be Evangelical. You need to define Christianity, and to decide whether you are going to take a prescriptive approach: are those who do not confrom to your definition Christians or no? And it is incorrect to suggest that Anglicans are now seeking to admit the unrepentant. At least, to… Read more »
Hi Ford-
What are you talking about, specifically? It’s obvious that both I and all other Christians would oppose every attempt to bless or justify any sin.
“What are you talking about, specifically?” You made the following claim: “I don’t see any evidence at all that it (Anglicanism) includes the unrepentant” I said that the Anglican Church is not trying to do that. I further pointed out that the Church has declared things to be no longer sinful. I suspect you accept some of them. As I remember, you and I had a discussion once on the sinfulness of usury, something the Church once said was sinful, but long ago claimed it wasn’t. You said: “the primary issue ‘is it Christian?'” My point was that you have… Read more »
Hi Ford-
The easy step is to deny the christianity of those with whom we disagree. The hard route, but the correct one, is to study what a christian was thought to be foundationally, and not assume that one will be proven right or wrong in one’s prejudices.
Usury: the only reason people see this as a controversial issue is that it is already so scripturally. Blanket bans as in Ps 15 need to be held in tension with the NT parable of the talents Mt 25 & par..
“Usury: the only reason people see this as a controversial issue is that it is already so scripturally. Blanket bans as in Ps 15 need to be held in tension with the NT parable of the talents Mt 25 & par..” Thanks for the chuckle. That usury was a sin was accepted by the Fathers right up into the English reformation where we have some of the earliest Anglicans also speaking of it. But keep on arguing that it is more complex and needs to be taken in balance and all the other things, and keep on not seeing the… Read more »
Hi Ford- I don’t get why the witness of the fathers would override that of Jesus, given that the master in the parable seems clearly divine. A ‘Christian’ (the term was first used by nonChristians but is not disowned by Peter or Paul: 3 NT references, two in Acts and one in 1 Peter) is a Messianic believer as distinct from a nonMessianic one. The term first became useful and necessary in order to distinguish between different types of Jews – but of course the movement then became more Gentile. Though the early Christians preferred other terms (The Way; brethren;… Read more »
“How did they become so? By the process of salvation: being encountered with their need and Christ’s work; repenting, believing, receiving the Spirit, being baptised.”
So, based on this then, why do Pentecostals and many other Fundamentalists/Evangelicals claim that I am not a Christian? I surely fit your discription. And please keep up your attempts to justify usury. That you can’t see why it’s funny is in itself funny.
“Thanks for the chuckle. That usury was a sin was accepted by the Fathers right up into the English reformation where we have some of the earliest Anglicans also speaking of it.”
I didn’t know it took so long for the concept of interest to catch on.
At any rate, as far as I know, the reason for the medieval prohibition wasn’t so much anything in the Psalms as the clearcut prohibition in Leviticus 25:3.
Christopher, can you refer me to any classical commentator on the NT that sees the Parable of Talents as allowing interest on money?
Hi Ford and Billy- I would certainly be grateful for you pointing out where I said usury was justified. I am not sure that I do believe that, and certainly my personal beliefs are irrelevant to this particular discussion anyway. All I said was that the scriptural witness is ambiguous, which is absolutely true. You were writing without taking the talents-parable into account and ending up with a comparatively simplistic answer. I was taking the debate a step forward by introducing another relevant factor which made the overall picture less simplistic and more complex. Billy, I don’t know which commentators… Read more »
Christopher:
Despite what our friend RIW would tell you, nothing is infallible in this world, of course,
But if a person or organization is going to call itself “Anglican,” it behooves it to behave in an Anglican manner…and there’s nothing Anglican about exclusion.
As a science fiction and comics fan, seeing General Convention referred to as “Gen Con” tickled my funny bone. “Con” is the usual shorthand for gatherings of fans (as in Comicon being held in San Diego this weekend), and “Gen Con” specifically is a gathering for gaming enthusiasts.
Imagining all those dog collars and purple shirts sitting around playing Dungeons and Dragons or World of War amuses me no end.
Christopher:
As I read the TEC BCP, we are to include ALL baptized Christians in the full life of the Church. It is not for us, as humans, to decide who is truly repentant and who is not–that is God’s decision, not ours.
What you miss is that every Christian denomination defines “Christian” in its own way, after agreement on certain fundamentals (Christ is Lord, Christ is risen, etc.). Therefore, the “sub-ethos” (in your words) of Anglicanism (or even the “sub-sub-ethos”, if you will, of American Anglicanism) will define “Christian” as its governing bodies discern.