I think ++Rowan is left in a most difficult place and that he has made some grievous errors in responding to reactionary forces within the AC.
However, he can speak with a wonderfully subtle voice. As I read another comment, at another site today, I again saw the reprehensible use of "fudge", as verb, to describe various statements of the Church. Surely, we are all capable of communicating complex thoughts, and we must acknowledge that well more than two opposing camps of thought are present in our current conversation. We must not let the puritans sidetrack meaningful communication among those of us who love TEC by their invocation of surely-not-clear doctrine.
The issue, as seen by most Nigerian Christians (and the Nigerian Church), is not what it means to be Anglican but what is or is not compatible with scripture.
++Rowan's background as a "liberal" theologian, his "druidic" association and his reluctance to frame this argument scripturally (he tends to rely to much on logic,tradition and history), does not enhance his reputation amongst us.
The perception of the speaker is important. (Rowan has never had the type of respect that Runcie and Carey had amongst Nigerian Christians).
++Carey made his views on this subject clear, ++Rowan has been wishy-washy on this issue. ++Rowan is a spiritual leader of some sort, we expect a spiritual leader to be able to speak in favour or against a position (from scripture).
"Liberals / progressive" don't have a very good reputation in Nigeria. (The same camp that declared that "God is dead" with a flourish is 1960's is aggressively pushing this intepretation of scripture).
(In our minds, ++Rowan is just a "liberal" playing it safe). ++Rowan leads more evangelical christians than the Southern Baptist Convention - yet he still speaks in the overly intellectualised language of a progressive theologian.
(The leader of the largest number of evangelical christians in the world is a "progressive" - what an irony!).
This is my personal view.
I don't think the Church in Nigeria is thinking as much in terms of the "Catholic" or "Protestant" dichotomy. Some events in our experience have shaped our views (rise of independent churches, needs of the congregants etc). We are getting more comfortable with the term "Bible believing".
I wish there was a Nigerian theologian around, I cannot explain the Nigerian Church fully and your impression of the Nigerian Church seems to have been formed solely on the writings of ++Akinola.
Chike makes a good point -- the BIG LIE in the Windsor Report (besides its dishonesty about the ministry of women -- still rejected by two thirds of the WWAC (which really means it is absurd to call it a "Communion," doesn't it?) is that the problem was insufficient consultation -- NO ONE who objected to the consecration of Gene Robinson has ever said that -- they objected because it was "against the plain meaning of Scripture" and/or "the traditional teaching of the Church."
I don't happen to agree with that position -- I think one of the disappointments of the Reformatrion was that the expectation that once everyone could read the Scriptures, everyone would agree about everything (admittedly, pretty naive considering previous church history) but the fact is that the traditional teaching of the church has been that sex is low & tolerable only for the getting of children & celibacy is a higher calling -- I happen not to agree with that, either, but this is, in fact, the traditional teaching of the church -- not that heterosexuals can marry & divorce as frequently as they like, provided that people only have sex with persons of the opposite sex to whom they happen at the moment to be married!
Chike, in the US, the term "Bible believing" church would be the description of a fundamentalist Protestant church. Maybe it means something different in Nigeria.
"Bible believing", suggests a leaning more towards Protestant than Catholic, IMHO.
Prior Aelred is correct about the traditional teaching: sex for procreation only. Now there is a great deal to discuss about that teaching in terms of what it means that Creation is good, what is sex all about (from eschatological rather than the traditional biological and productionist starting point), about thinking about relationships rather than focusing on just the sex in matters of divinization and ascecis.
On the other hand I find it highly hypocritical that the vast majority of the Church, those affectioned primarily for the opposite sex, have been capable of reassessing that teaching quite steadily beginning with the Reformation and continuing at Lambeth in 1938(?). if you use birth control of any form, including NFP, you are in one way or another, a reasseser of the Tradition. Aquinas would say you are a sodomite.
The problem now it seems to me is that we've gotten so focused on the sex in relationships (or not) that we're not looking at the overall matters of the relationships as places to practice the virtues and the context of those relationships wrapped in commitment and the like. After all, I've known nasty celibates. In and of itself, celibacy or being sexually practicing (same or opposite sex) is no guarantor of growth in the virtues, of becoming more a likeness of Christ. This is why I appreciate so much ++Williams' sophistication because it at heart observes the complexity of the way the world is and we are and how God works in it and doesn't offer easy or pat answers.
I will say that sola Scriptura as a wholecloth approach was terribly faulty and the result is this hardening toward a "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" approach that of course is quick to gloss over those bits that apply to oneself.
The problem is Anglican ethics and thinking has not tended to be so simplistic as that; at least in reading the Divines, I detect a great deal of theological sophistication, and so when I read Hefling or ++Williams, I detect that similar note.
Good theology is sophisticated and complex, not always easily understood or quickly digested. Just look at the Cappadocians on the Trinity. To assume that sophisticated theology therefore means an end game toward liberalism is to ignore that orthodox theology and the tertiary thinking around ethics that follows such thinking has always been sophisticated and complicated and not always easily understood.
I became Anglican for numerous reasons, one of which was that we have a tradition of thinking deeply about matters and an openness to give space to that thinking and to allowing for disagreements in praxical matters while still coming together in common prayer. It seemed to embody the best of the Roman Catholic tradition I had left. Now, it seems some would want to shut down those best parts for a quick biblical moralism. After all, the dogma of the Trinity in its richness is nowwhere to be found in Holy Writ. Homoousius is not a biblical word. Neither is perichoresis.
Grandmere,
I don't have problems with the terms "Bible believing" and "Fundamentalist". Christianity should have fundamentals and Christians should believe the Bible. Believing the Bible does not mean a literal reading of scripture. It means seeking a deeper revelation of truths so contained in scripture.
Biblical revelation is moving in divergent paths - you belong to one school of thought, I belong to another. Your school of thought seems to be less comfortable with the Bible than mine.
We tend to have a more "work man orientated" approach to our Christianity. We read and we want to implement. Implementation leads to deeper understanding (there is a whole lot to be learned from practice). (E.g. the Pastor who learns about evangelism from the Bible, implements what he learns, fails at the first attempt, prays, rechecks and tries again - will ultimately come out with answers).
(To understand our orientation get familiar with authors like Oswald Chambers and Watchman Nee.)
I think your approach is trying to force an agenda on christianity (This is controversial).
The Bible never says that sex is only for procreation. Afterall, Paul talks about "conjugal rights".
This is why I appreciate so much ++Williams' sophistication because it at heart observes the complexity of the way the world is and we are and how God works in it and doesn't offer easy or pat answers.
You appreciate it, what about 70 million other Anglicans.
You are not in this thing alone.
That's why he's the ABC. He forms the 70 million. We believe in an episcopacy for the reason of formation, right?
I read this on the Thinking Anglicans site that posted a longer excerpt. I pick up some imperious tones from Williams that disturb me. In at least one of the examples he employs of the conflicts in Sudan he seems to envision a role for the incumbent of Canterbury as an arbiter of international conflict. That's pretty grandiose for somebody who is sitting in the middle of a hornets nest.
Chike,
I should fill you in on some background here. We Americans are having this discussion in the context of some other disagreements which have been going on in this country for many years. I don't know how much of this you are aware of, so pardon me if you already know this, but I want to make sure you understand the code words.
The word "fundamentalist" should be understood as a name, rather than as a descriptive adjective. American Fundamentalism is a relatively new movement, begun in the early part of the 20th century, dedicated to Scripture as the only source of doctrine and belief in the infallibility of the Bible in all matters. (This includes history and science, not just morals and theology.) "Bible believing" is a code word used by fundamentalists and evangelicals which is intended as an insult to those they disagree with. Some times we throw the term back at them with a similar, insulting intention. The history of religious factions in the US and Western Europe isn't a pretty one, and there have been times when the action/reaction dynamic has pushed both sides to extreme positions.
None of us should have a problem with a term like "bible believing". It is our history which has forced on this term additional layers of meaning.
The statement that sex is only for procreation comes from Roman Catholic thought, which is rooted in a particular brand of natural theology founded by Aquinas. There are experts here who can tell you much more about that than I can. I have never found that line of reasoning very convincing.
The issues about how the Anglican Communion should function and how it should go about resolving them are peculiarly Anglican. However, the issues which have precipitated this crisis are not. Gay rights and the role of women continue to be major contentions in almost all religious bodies, at least those that allow people to express divergent opinions. This is not occurring in an Anglican vacuum and I don't think it is going to be resolved in an Anglican vacuum.
Well, what I see here might be seen as a matter of Gods...
In our Communion we have people worshiping two different Gods...
One of them is pure love, and cares for all His creation. His message applies to everybody, and He would not deny His salvation to those who have never heard of Him, but still have followed His commandments.
The other is a manichaeistic one, who acts like a chess master. He has created human beings already knowing they will sin and be condemned to hell.
One of them had revealed Himself to some men in the desert. Through these men, He has shown a pathway that leads to His revelation contained in Jesus.
The other has chosen only those men, and later, only the elected. The rest is already condemned.
One of them inspired different people to write books about their perceptions of Him, leaving His innermost principles and His promise of salvation to them. But His word is still revealed to us, through the action of His Holy Spirit. Revelation is not strictly closed. It evolves with the Church.
The other has psychographed a series of books, and doesn't care for contradictions or misunderstandings in His writings. For Him, differences in ethical and social concepts are not relevant either. He commits people to follow those books strictly and literally. The Holy Spirit is limited to extactic manifestations only.
One of them is still talking to us. We praise Him through new discoveries and advances on science, art and technology. He is happy for us having a deeper and wider knowledge of social and ethical issues.
The other says that anything science discovers that apparently is against His scripture is something heretic and therefore, should be completely ignored and ridicularized.
One of them is beyond logic. So, we believe in Him.
The other has a very twisted logic. Because of that, He needs to scare us, so we will keep believing in Him.
One of them understands that we have to deepen our knowledge on Him through varied theological studies.
The other makes us remain attached only to clobber passages and limited perceptions. We aren't allowed to research more.
One of them, for reasons we still do not know, has allowed people to have several sexualities. But for Him, much more important than that is that those people live their sexualities in committed, loyal and long-term relationships.
The other likes to act as an asmodeus. He permits people to be gay, just to make them feel they are something filthy. He approves disgusting treatments in order to change someone's sex desire, that, at the end, don't work anyway.
One of them commits us to fight against misery, pain, prejudice and social inequality.
The other says that everything that looks like socialist, homophile and humanitarian is part of a revisionist agenda, that tries to menace the Christian world.
One of them allows a wide range of talk and discussions on several subjects related to Christianity.
The other is encapsulated to "isms": Augustianisms, Pelagianisms, Nestorianisms, Tomisms, Arminianisms, Calvinisms...
One of them says: "love them anyway".
The other says: "you are a cancer and must be extinguished".
One of them does not mind being called "mother".
The other, however, is very outraged with this assumption. Because for this God, women are just "inferior beings".
One of them has been manifested through Jesus Christ, who commanded us to love God beyond everything and people around us as ourselves.
The other has stimulated (and still stimulates) wars, murders, slavery and prejudice.
This is a mere difference of Gods. Some have chosen one of them. The others have chosen (or were obliged to chose) the other.
And I have also written directly to every Primate to ask for a preliminary reaction from their province.
I strenuously OBJECT to this: that TEC, and TEC alone, should be on some kind of Inquisitorial "hot-seat", subject to everyone's (every Primate's) judgment.
Doesn't Canada get to judge the Southern Cone?
Doesn't Scotland get to judge Uganda?
Doesn't South Africa get to judge the West Indies?
(and vice-versa, of course)
Don't we Yanks get to judge our "judges"?
>:-/
*****
Thank you, Luiz: so wonderful to hear a "Global South" voice that is not condemning me and my church! :-)
*****
On the other hand...
Rowan's . . . "druidic" association
What the heck are you talking about, Chike? The mere fact he's Welsh? Present some facts, or else you sound like you're making a scurrilous smear!
Similarly,
Liberals / progressive" don't have a very good reputation in Nigeria. (The same camp that declared that "God is dead" with a flourish is 1960's is aggressively pushing this intepretation of scripture).
I resent these allegations. "Liberal/Progressive" Episcopalians DON'T (have never) "declared that 'God is dead'" (nor are we "aggressively pushing" ANYTHING!!! We just want our diocesan boundaries left alone---is that too much to ask?)
I think your approach is trying to force an agenda on christianity (This is controversial).
Yes---in the sense that you are creating a controversy, Chike, w/ these repeated, ridiculous charges against my beloved Episcopal Church (my place in the Body of Christ).
Please, PLEASE, stop it already? For the love of Christ? Please?
I think Luiz's second "god" is a contrived stereotype that none of the "conservative" Christians I know would recognise.
Surely such polarising dialogue is hardly helpful to the divisions under discussion.
I don't think it's so contrived. That is the God that I hear about from more than a few Christians.
It seems to me it is past time to name the demon. There's a call to strive for clarity? Then let's be clear. What is often passed off as "God" by some who claim to be Christians is a monster unworthy of worship.
J.C. Fisher notes: "repeated, ridiculous charges against my beloved Episcopal Church"
Some of this stuff sounds like it be could be coming from the pages of one of Ann Coulter's rants.
I wandered over to viperonline(virtue), and the vile things they say over there, it's really stretching it to call them christians.
This is so sad,
Whos in, whos out!
God is this, God wants that.
Why would I want to be a Christian?
Can anyone tell me?
Why would I want to bring anyone into this family?
What is there to evangelize for?
Who is this god that desires we fight each other?
Who is this god that requires us to serve him/her by picking at each other and pointing accusing fingers?
Who is this god that requires misery for "salvation"?
I feel the stumbling block being set before me.
What grace is there in that?
There's a story about K J Schori in the Detroit Free Press today, about straining the ties with the Catholic church. Here's a link:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.d...9/1026/
FEATURES
“I strenuously OBJECT to this: that TEC, and TEC alone, should be on some kind of Inquisitorial "hot-seat", subject to everyone's (every Primate's) judgment.”—JC Fisher
Right on, JC! Me too!
Shortly after appointment to Canterbury, the then AB of Wales was recieved into a Welsh Literary association doing the Bard thing with a lot of creative anchronism hokus pokus.
Their highest order are called "Druids." It's a kind of "celtic" version of the "troubadour" Academie de la Rose at Toulouse.
The usual suspects; Calvinists all over the place, went Berserk, not least on Virtueonline...
I just read the report of today's debate at the UK General Synod on women bishops. The politics sounds very similar to General Convention. There is a minority group demanding a separate all male church structure. It's conceivable that the C of E could wind up in a state similar to TEC. I guess somebody would then have to sit in judgment on them too.
Why am I reminded of Romper Room?
I HAVE NEVER wanted the Anglican Church to be associated with Rome.
IMO Rome carries too much historical baggage (and bad theology).
Some of you call be "conservative" - wait till you come in contact with Nigerian Catholics
Chike: Your school of thought seems to be less comfortable with the Bible than mine.
I beg your pardon, but I have great reverence for the Bible, I take an enormous amount of comfort from its message, and I read it every day. I did not mean to denigrate either a Bible-believing church or a fundamentalist church. When you hear those words in the US, the Episcopal Church does not immediately leap into your mind, but that does not mean that we do not reverence the Bible.
Here in the US, the words "Bible-believing church" do suggest a church that takes a more literal reading of the Bible than the Episcopal Church.
Listening to a new interview with Katharine Jefferts Schori. Just started listening.
http://www.streetprophets.com/st...7/8/02645/
14122
Bruno,
I know you are feeling broken-hearted, and a stumbling block has really been set before you. It's hard for me to find the right words.
But, I think, I am a Christian because God commended His love for us, that even as sinners Christ died for us. I'm ready to follow Him regardless of what everyone else in the institutional church is doing. We are all a bunch of miserable sinners, Bruno, and there are tares mixed with the wheat, but God is still faithful in all our lives.
I think when we evangelize, it's not so much just to call people to the institutional church, but to a relationship with Jesus Christ. And, He never disappoints or lets us down. Bruno, I've been touched before by your sharing, and your voice on this blog. I think the church very much needs you, needs your Christian witness.
I know when I'm feeling discouraged, I'm impacted by the teaching of Scripture, God's word to all of us.
Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, ...Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. Heb. 12:1-3.
Chike,
Good theology is not determined by numbers alone. This false and repeated claim that majority and consensus themselves lead to truth is belied by the Tradition itself, not to mention Holy Writ. I think of Athanasius in exile, after all, or Maximos the Confessor sent to prison. The whole Christian world was against them with regard to matters of the dogma of the Holy Trinity. While we Anglicans learned from our bloody history that beyond essentials in the Creeds, we continue to come to Common Prayer together even in our disagreements about ethics and theology, it seems we're about ready to entertain that bloody history again because we are truly dealing with divergent understandings of what it means to be Anglican. As I wrote the other day, on the one hand we have Puritan Anglicans and on the other Anglicans keeping with the Divines and that long understanding that reason is an important part of how we discern matters, especially that reason as felt in Eucharistic community.
Bible-believing is indeed here understood as a literalist approach to Scripture, but such often does violence to the text or ignores conveniently those passages that apply to oneself while also ignoring that interpretation (and biased readings) is going on, for direct access to the texts is impossible and a modern and modernistic claim, indeed, the flipside to a positivistic 19th and early 20th century scientific approach.
Perhaps, Anglican will come to mean this approach, rather than the richness of Hooker, Taylor, Donne, Maurice, but at such a point, it really will be time for me to find another expression of Christianity. I grew up in a bible-believing Pentecostal tradition and asking deeper questions was tantamount to heresy. Roman Catholicism at least has a venerable tradition of reason even if some of its deeper proponents face silencing at the moment.
As for teaching about procreation only, that is not just from Aquinas onward but has roots in the early Church itself, at least 2nd-3rd century and was THE TRADITION not just for Roman Catholics but for all Christians until the 20th century, though the Reformers softened this stance by allowing for mutual comfort but even then any form of birth control was sinful, including sex acts other than vaginal-penile. Anything other than that was sodomy.
Fundamentals for me include the Creeds which give shape, indeed liturgical shape to understanding Who God is for they are a response to the God the early Church encountered over time in the Eucharistic community and worship and provide a framework in any further thinking about God in theologizing, and therefore affect how I come to understand Scripture. After all, Arianism has a good case if we go by Scripture alone.
Goran seems to have the druid angle down. As a man of Welsh ancestry, Rowan's druid activities sound merely like St. David's Day services in funny costumes with swords.
"Some of you call be "conservative" - wait till you come in contact with Nigerian Catholics"
I've heard.
I've been reading ++Williams sermons and I think the most recent on his web page, the one on St. Alban preached at the Cathedral of St. Alban's would repay study in conjunction with the address to Synod and the Reflection. I think we all need to remember that ++Williams is a very careful and precise and subtle scholar, this mode is not the least comfortable to most of us, and particularly us Americans. Impatience is I think our besetting sin.
LeeLC
You appreciate it, what about 70 million other Anglicans.
You are not in this thing alone.
No, Chike, we aren't. But I must add, neither are you.
Your school of thought seems to be less comfortable with the Bible than mine.
In this, Chike, you do us a great injustice by judging us based on your own ideas, almost on par with the comments of your Primate's calling of us as "cancerous growths".
Chike, the Jews have a wonderful way of looking at their scripture not as a rule book that spells everything out word for word but as something to be engaged, wrestled with, looked into and beyond what the words say, and, in some cases, hearing what the words *aren't* saying -- but probably should. Scripture isn't about rules but about relationship, the relationship of God and God's people. This approach is more ancient than the literalist "God said it in His Word and I believe it so that's all there is to it" approach that has come into being over the past 100-200 years or so. Say the word "myth" to a fundamentalist and he will say the word means "lie" when our ancestors understood it meant a story that might or might not be factual but which has a foundational truth behind it that was more important than just the words themselves. TEC and many of us who are part of her believe in this ancient way of looking at scripture, wrestling with its meaning, searching beneath what is mythic and endeavoring to find what those tales and stories are to mean to us in our own relationship to God.
Perhaps that's where our views differ, Chike. We are looking for God beyond the word where it seems your interpretation (and those who have the same interpretation you do) are looking for God *in* the words. Both are valid but very different and truly, both aims are identical (finding God, having a relationship with God, believing in Jesus and trusting in the Spirit to inspire us to make all things right in a broken world), just manifested in different forms.
"St. David's Day services in funny costumes with swords."
A Pantomime!
Was it ++Rowan's participation in the National Eisteddfod of Wales that the Puritans were objecting to? Makes sense; Puritans used to denounce Maypoles and Christmas as pagan, too.
The Eisteddfod is a national celebration of Welsh poetry, music, customs and history, and an elected presiding official there is known as the "Archdruid."
Below is information copied from the Eisteddfod official website at:
http://www.eisteddfod.org.uk/ind...lang=EN;
navId=0
WHAT'S IT ABOUT?
The National Eisteddfod of Wales can be traced back to 1176 when it is said that the first Eisteddfod was held, under the auspices of Lord Rhys, at his castle in Cardigan. There he held a grand gathering to which were invited poets and musicians from all over the country. A chair at the Lord's table was awarded to the best poet and musician, a tradition that prevails in the modern day National Eisteddfod.
Following 1176, many eisteddfodau were held throughout Wales, under the patronage of Welsh gentry and noblemen. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, an Eisteddfod of historical significance was held at the Ivy Bush Inn in Carmarthen, when the Gorsedd of Bards first became officially associated with this national event. By this time, the Eisteddfod had developed in to a fully-fledged folk festival on a large scale.
In 1880, the National Eisteddfod association was formed and charged with the responsibility of staging an annual festival to be held in North and South Wales alternately, and with the exception of 1914 and 1940, this target has been successfully achieved.
And further on "Druids" in the Eisteddfod:
Gorsedd of Bards
The Gorsedd of Bards is an association whose members consist of poets, writers, musicians, artists and individuals who have made a distinguished contribution to the Welsh nation, language and culture. For example world famous opera star Bryn Terfel, England cricketer Robert Croft, former Labour Leader in the Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, ex-Welsh rugby stars Gareth Edwards and Ray Gravel.
This association is the creative invention of Iolo Morganwg, one of Wales' most famous and eccentric scholars, who felt that it should be made known that the Welsh were the direct descendants of Celtic culture and heritage. The Gorsedd of Bards of the Isle of Britain first came together in 1792, not in Wales as you might expect, but on Primrose Hill in London. It made its first appearance at the Eisteddfod in Carmarthen in 1819, and from the time that the National was born in 1860 / 1861 its close association with the Festival has remained.
The head of the Gorsedd of Bards is the Archdruid, who is elected for a term of three years, and is responsible for conducting the Gorsedd ceremonies during Eisteddfod week. These Ceremonies are held to honour literary achievements amongst Welsh poets and prose writers
That God is Dead was declared not by liberals in the 60s, but by Neitzche in the 19th century. You must have been confused. ;-)
And what killed God? If we consult "The Gay Science", "We have killed him - you and I."
He was killed by rationalism and science - ironically, the same shift in views that birthed what those in America call "Fundamentalism." With the rise of science, and the discovery of certain inner workings of the universe, one set of people said, "This contradicts the bible: religion is not true." Another set said "This contradicts the bible: science is not true." But either way it was the same: God could not live along side an honest understanding of the world for these people.
There was, and remains, however, a Middle Way. A way espoused by "Liberal Christians." A way that does not kill God, by neither giving mythology the role of science, nor science the role of metaphysics- and by allowing the Word to be Eternal, not confined to certain pen-strokes. Rather by expanding their understanding of God they embrace both his created and revealed works.
" I've been reading ++Williams sermons and I think the most recent on his web page, the one on St. Alban preached at the Cathedral of St. Alban's would repay study in conjunction with the address to Synod and the Reflection. I think we all need to remember that ++Williams is a very careful and precise and subtle scholar, this mode is not the least comfortable to most of us, and particularly us Americans. Impatience is I think our besetting sin."
That kind of intellectual precision is very useful when you are communicating with an academically oriented audience that is on the same wave link. However, his present responsibilities require him to deal with a diverse audience that cuts across cultural and language borders. His problems do not result entirely from a lack of patience on the part of the audience.
rationalism and science - ironically, the same shift in views that birthed what those in America call "Fundamentalism." With the rise of science, and the discovery of certain inner workings of the universe, one set of people said, "This contradicts the bible: religion is not true." Another set said "This contradicts the bible: science is not true." But either way it was the same: God could not live along side an honest understanding of the world for these people.
Precisely, Michael. Thank you!
[JCF: who on other boards far different from this one, gets just as annoyed by the contrarian hooey of Atheist Fundamentalists, as here by Theist ones! ;-p (IT, sweetie: you know I DON'T mean you! *g*)]
No offense taken, JCF. Atheism is a religion to some folks, I call them the Militant Atheists. Obviously I am not one of them. :-)
One could make a case for Jack Spong being a "fundamentalist" of sorts (apologies to the Bp. Spong fans). I must admit, while reading his work, that thought crossed my mind more than once.
The Enlightenment has given us many gifts, that I would not want to disappear. The advances in medical science being the first one that comes to mind.
But, there have been sacrifices. It is difficult for us to think mythologically (in the positive, Joseph Campbell sense) in today's world. An idea is either "true" or "false". This leaves little room for the story teller, who tries to dance near the truth using multiple disciplines, but never assumes to be able to capture Truth.
Today, the great myths are dismissed as being "false". The fact that they tried, through the medium of a tale well told, to explore deep truths, is dsmissed. Odyseus, Agamemnon, Roland, Percival and Dante have no place in today's world. A sordid boon.
Which brings Wordsworth's classic to mind:
The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon,
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers,
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not.--Great God! I'd rather be
A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn.
Part of +KJS' interview on Oregon Public Radio yesterday, in which the host asked Katharine about her work in oceanography...
Christy George: I've read that you said that your work gave you a taste of life on the margins. Because of the creatures, or because of your role in science?
Katharine Jefferts Schori: Well, I think you could probably see both of those in there. I was a woman--one of few. The first year I started graduate school was I think the first year that women could go to sea overnight on the vessels there. The first time I was chief scientist on a research cruise, the captain wouldn't talk to me because I was a woman. And I worked in an area that is on the margins of human experience. How many of us get to go stick our heads under the water, even near shore and how many of us get to see the strange and wonderful creatures that live a thousand meters down in the north Pacific.
The CoE has voted to make women bishops.
New Here, great news! Could TEC have been an inspiration for them?
I don't know, Grandmére. I do wonder, though, what will be the reaction of the "Global South."
The C of E hasn't exactly voted to make woman bishops. They passed a resolution to the effect that they saw no theological impediment to it. There are many steps in a long process before there is any change to the present rules. The House of Commons will have the final say in the matter since the C of E is not ultimately in control of its own affairs.
It'll take time, Richard, agreed, but it's fairly safe to now assume it's a done deal.
> It'll take time, Richard, agreed, but it's fairly safe to now assume it's a done deal.
It certainly seems likely, but it's tangled up with the demands of the minority for a third male only province. I posted a good link on the new thread. There are some parallels with the approach of the dissidents in the US.
Jake --
There is no question that +Jack Spong has a fundamentalist mindset -- the world of the Church Fathers is a very different place!
“I strenuously OBJECT to this: that TEC, and TEC alone, should be on some kind of Inquisitorial "hot-seat", subject to everyone's (every Primate's) judgment.”
Agreed. I got the sense that the Abp. is doing some sort of "dry run" for a covenant process here without any real warrant from his committees, and, as usual, without any imput from the laity and most of the people his actions affect personally--those invisible glbts whom Canterbury consistantly ignores.
I find this hugely patronizing. It sets the wrong tone for the future.
"You appreciate it, what about 70 million other Anglicans."
I don't understand this mantra: "70 million, 70 million, 70 million".
Do all Episcopals think like +Gene Robinson, or ++Katharine Jefferts-Schori?
So, do not expect that all "Global-Southerners" think just like ++Akinola.
Those who say it are just pretending we are all like stupid sheep that follow and think exactly what our leaders want...
Anyway, I don't even belong to the Global South... My province was purged by Abp. Akinola. He thinks we are way too liberal...
The most interesting thing is that the "Global South" started as an initiative to unite Primates against *huge* problems that affect 3rd World countries, like misery, war and disease.
Now, this meeting is used as a means of gaining power against the "Global North".
Peace and goodness.
Luiz, I happen to think you are a part of the REAL Global South, and not just the one in ++Akinola's delusions of grandeur!
(And, needless to say, you're a Real Anglican as well, :-D)
Chike, you say Rowan does not argue scripturally? I found his brilliant speech to be full of scriptural overtones -- steeped in the Pauline and Johannine idea of unity for example. This is a brilliant theologian and a man of deep prayer. He is far closer to the heart of Scripture than those who use its latter to bash gays on the head.
its latter SHD BE its letter
mumcat, that is a very good point about Jewish use of the Bible. They are not afraid to quarrel or joke with God. We should ask them how to read the Bible, after all they wrote it! (There is not a single non-Jewish writer in the Old or New Testaments as far as I know.)
Christopher and Prior Aelred say that the traditional teaching was: sex for procreation only. I am not sure this is right. Procreation was the PRIMARY END of marriage in Roman Catholic theology until the mid 20th Century, but St Augustine speaks of other goods of marriage as well -- mutual help, mutual fidelity, remedy of concupiscence, sacramental reflection of the love of Christ for his Church. The "unitive" significance of the sexual act was first highlighted in the mid 20th century by a French author whose name I forget and who wrote very inflated prose; this was a bit of a revolution at the time. Since Vatican II it is assumed that the primary and secondary ends of marriage, i. e. the procreative and the unitive and both equal, both primary ends.
"On the other hand I find it highly hypocritical that the vast majority of the Church, those affectioned primarily for the opposite sex, have been capable of reassessing that teaching quite steadily beginning with the Reformation and continuing at Lambeth in 1938(?)". It was 1928 I think; Pius XI replied with Casti Connubii, Dec 31, 1930; and the Catholic Church has been trying to prove ever since that the Anglicans were wrong and we were right, as always.
"Good theology is sophisticated and complex, not always easily understood or quickly digested. Just look at the Cappadocians on the Trinity. To assume that sophisticated theology therefore means an end game toward liberalism is to ignore that orthodox theology and the tertiary thinking around ethics that follows such thinking has always been sophisticated and complicated and not always easily understood."
Amen to that.
Lambeth in 1938(?)". It was 1928 I think; Pius XI replied with Casti Connubii, Dec 31, 1930; and the Catholic Church has been trying to prove ever since that the Anglicans were wrong and we were right, as always.
This is contraception we're talking about, I assume?
Doesn't the RC promulgation of "NFP" really blow all this out of the water?
I mean, once you start talking about "family planning", I think the distinctions between measuring a woman's body temperature to determine whether she's ovulating (and hence, avoid sex then), and using latex or hormones to prevent conception or ovulation, really become quite meaningless.
Either you think that God graced us w/ sentience, in order to be able to choose whether/when to reproduce or you don't (and instead have a "Be Fruitful-and-Multiply Uber Alles" approach).
[I realize this thread's starting to drift OT, and I'm not helping, am I? ;-/]
Discussion seems to be remaining rather prickly here, and I can't really get into joining another group (the MSN community), so I'll just stick with sharing these tidbits when I have them. *Someone* is clicking, so someone here must be interested in reading these things...
Katharine Jefferts Schori: Well, you know the reality of our understanding of marriage has changed enormously over the centuries. In the middle ages, even in church circles, it was understood as a property contract. You know, in an era when women were seen as property and they were handed from father to groom. That's where the "giving this woman" comes from in the marriage ceremony, when it's used.
We live in a culture and a time where we understand that human beings give themselves freely to another, and that parents don't do that giving. We understand that people are free to enter into an agreement to live together in a way that, in the church, is an expression of the holy. And for the state to meddle in that seems inappropriate. There's a significant move in the church right now to take clergy out of the role of signing the marriage certificate on behalf of the state. And I think we might be healthier if we went that route.
Christy George: To really separate civil and religious marriage.
Katharine Jefferts Schori: Correct--as happens in many other regions of the world.
More here.
We live in a culture and a time where we understand that human beings give themselves freely to another, and that parents don't do that giving.
Not everyone lives in that culture.
I may not be able to get into this, but the African concept of marriage differs from the Western concept.
Granted, we have adopted some Western concepts, but on the whole we are not entirely happy with the Western approach to marriage.
Western society is individualistic, African society is communal. (Even if the circumstances that led to our communal approach to marriage and life dissappear - e.g scarce resources, farming. I would not want us to lose our group consciousness).
Western society says: "do it as long as it makes you happy". African society harps on responsibility. Marriage in Africa is more than the union of two people, it is the union of two villages, two ethnic groups or two cultures.
Before a young man gets married in Africa, it is the duty of his father (or the most senior male in his family) to inquire about the family of his future in-laws and make the neccessary contacts. (Very similar to some biblical accounts of marriage).
There are advantages and disadvantages - but by and large the African approach seems to lead to longer lasting marriages. (Probably because both parties think as much in terms of responsibility to the community as they think in terms of love).
(Many find true love, some others sentence themselves to hell on earth).
A western can think in terms of "just the two of us", while an African thinks in terms of "the two of us and our different communities".
Not everyone lives in that culture.
Then (+)+KJS probably wasn't talking about the people who don't... don't you think?
When (+)+KJS talks about the American legal, social, and cultural context regarding the separation of church and state and its relation to marriage, is it just possible that it has nothing to do with your cultural context? Is it possible that no one is suggesting changing anything in any context other than America?
And if it's possible, what difference does (+)+KJS's suggestion make to people living in cultures that no-one is suggesting changing?
Granted, we have adopted some Western concepts, but on the whole we are not entirely happy with the Western approach to marriage.
Then might I respectfully suggest that you not take a Western approach to marriage, and leave us free to not take an African approach to it?
Adrienne, I think that Chike perceives that EVERYTHING American is either being imposed upon the whole world (particularly Africa), or will be.
In some ways, I'm sympathetic.
Between American imperialistic adventures (so prominent under the current President, but truthfully, rarely are they not), and American-based (or at least, -originated) multinational corporate capitalism, it would be easy to assume that anything by any American, any time, anywhere, is SOON to be Comin' Atcha!
What Chike seems NOT to understand, however (indeed, he seems positively resistant to this understanding), is just how un-American TEC is now (as opposed to 50 years ago: in fact, I think a persuasive case can be made, that precisely when we started to wrestle w/ gender and sexuality, and to a lesser extent race, is when TEC lost---perhaps, "surrendered"---its significant place in American Society).
Just think, Chike: TEC could have stayed "the Republican Party at prayer" . . . and might be cheerleading Presidents to invade, oh, maybe Nigeria next? ("Why should Nigeria get to control all that oil, just for the sheer LUCK of it being underneath all those black feet, after all? Why not just say 'So sorry, this is Property of the USA now. Don't like it? Eat hot lead! The God of the Episcopal Church declares that white Americans have been given this mandate!'") Yeah, that COULD have been TEC today...
...but instead, we're more wrapped up (for better or for ill) in wrestling with just what "manner of life" is permissable (or not) for our own bishops (and nevermind Nigeria's). And not the Church whom Presidents consult for a "direct hotline to God" (indeed, some Pentecostal preacher is more likely to get *that* call!)
Now, what was that again, about TEC's "agenda" to "impose change" other cultures, Chike?
I hear what you're saying, J.C.
I'm perhaps less sympathetic, primarily because I'm not American, I'm Canadian. I live in Florida because my husband is here.
But I grew up in the house next door, a place that is affected on a daily and ongoing basis by the US and its policy decisions. It's been true since both countries developed economies of their own, and it's never going to go away.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau said, in 1969, that Canada’s relationship with the United States is like that of "a mouse in bed with an elephant…no matter how friendly the beast…one is affected by every twitch and grunt." I'd be hard pressed to find a wing of my family who aren't affected by the US in real and tangible ways - for example, my father works in the southwestern Ontario auto parts industry, which depends on the Detroit auto industry for survival.
So I really don't have a lot of time for people who go looking for ways that they're affected by the US.
Commenting by HaloScan
