tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26129962.post641155092101221775..comments2023-05-17T13:37:24.372+01:00Comments on SalvationsSongs: rant alert factor 7Marcus Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06603530412980948533noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26129962.post-80081336841581560752010-07-09T19:12:42.909+01:002010-07-09T19:12:42.909+01:00The Bishop of Croydon has some very sensible words...The Bishop of Croydon has some very sensible words on the selection process in Southwark in today's Guardian of all places.<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jul/09/religion-bishops-nomination-southwarkMarcus Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06603530412980948533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26129962.post-62801586039871511232010-07-08T17:45:33.871+01:002010-07-08T17:45:33.871+01:00As I see it, one of root-causes of all our problem...As I see it, one of root-causes of all our problems is this:<br /><br />Anglicanism was founded to be THE CHURCH in England. That is to say the Body of Christ locally adapted. We had seen the error of a forced uniformity (in the shape of Rome), and decided that each Sovereign state should be responsible for applying the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Keeping some rituals, banning others. Keeping some Titles, banning others.<br /><br />The modern Communion is a very good idea, one I would love to buy into. A faith that respects its sibling denominations, the diversities within itself, its own past, and importantly its own future. <br /><br />But without wanting to sound to apocalyptic; how can the Communion serve Anglicans, and the unchurched, when each sovereign state has such differences of opinion? When there really is no agreement between feuding brothers? Are we to say that Christians from one province are not to involve themselves in the affairs of others? or are we to have dual competing "franchises" of Orthodoxy side by side.<br /><br />I believe that the Communion has a future, but as a much looser federation of diocese... maybe...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26129962.post-39116624677900001092010-07-08T17:03:36.473+01:002010-07-08T17:03:36.473+01:00OK - I don't back TEC.
They acted unilateral...OK - I don't back TEC. <br /><br />They acted unilaterally, and in a very un-Anglican way. And then they promised to do something (or, rather, to NOT do something) before doing completely the opposite without any remorse. <br /><br />It's hard for me to say "I agree with their ethical stance" when whatever they have done seems to have very little to do with ethics. <br /><br />Barry would expect me to entirely agree with you in calling for a Communion-wide ban on all new bishops for 20 years! And there is something remarkably attractive about that prospect... we could hardly be any worse off...<br /><br />But that's not the point either. Anglicanism is a church whose structures and leadership is supposed to be about bishops in council. Not just bishops doing their own thing. Bishops in council with the whole church. A little more of everyone leavening the episcopal loaf might well help. <br /><br /><br />Still, just cos this might get quoted somewhere - I like your style!Marcus Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06603530412980948533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26129962.post-64909088583884280552010-07-08T15:46:03.490+01:002010-07-08T15:46:03.490+01:00I was thinking about blogging on this myself, but ...I was thinking about blogging on this myself, but you have have said much of what I think on the matter.<br /><br />I strongly believe that the Church has got itself tied up in a ridiculous knot over "sexual acts", specifically gay ones. this sort of arbitrary "line in the sand" drawing is pointless, and divisive. "Perhaps we could have gay bishops so long as they don't have X or Y sex, but they can fill their boots with Z kind."<br /><br />Either it is ok to be gay; as they think in TEC. or it is not, as they Think in Nigeria.<br /><br />Drawing a distinction between what is ok for clergy, and what is ok for laity is perverse. and a complete rebuttal of the teachings of Jesus.<br /><br />I cannot in all good conscience throw my lot in with the more reactionary elements within the communion, despite my best efforts to be conservative. So I find myself backing TEC, despite the arrogance and trouble-making I seem to find there.<br /><br />I apologise for my generalisations.<br /><br />I think that we should have a moratorium similar to that suggested by Rowan. Only I think we should go one further. No more Bishops until we work out what we (as a communion) believe to be important. It might take us 20 years, but it would help.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com