Bloggers

Blog powered by Typepad

« Discovering who we are | Main | Alan Greenspan's Deception »

Feb 17, 2005

Comments

Karen

You clearly have a stronger stomach than I. I gave up MCJ and Virtue long ago because I wanted to retain the hope that EC traditionalists weren't uniformly snide, sarcastic, mean-spirited homophobes. Thankfully it worked, and it's not because I refuse to read conservative sites since I still read T19 and Pontificator regularly.

obadiahslope

John,
perhpas it makes a difference if you read the executive council document alongside the Windsor Report. the executive council is making its response following the reports release. It's then clear that the EC is avoiding making any commitment to the suggestions of the WR but saying "we really do care about the rest of you, look at the companion diocese relationships we talk about at EC".
In other words, we don't want to hear what the communion's Windsor report says, but we want to portray ourselves as building relationships. It is against that background that MCJ's comments need to be read. Without the context, they don't make very much sense
And yes Karen, they are an acquired taste. I am glad you read some conservative sites and I will continue to read Liberal ones.

Nick

That's nothing, you should read standfirminfaith.com I gave them up for Lent, as their (the webmaster's usually) snide remarks and interpretations, as well as his attempts at public humiliation of priests of our diocese, have really gotten to a comical level. There's no longer any credibility there because he's not answering to anyone, even though there's a list of ten founding priests. The lingering southern baptist known as 'Marty' is a fun read. (be comforted that he doesn't wish the SBC to be 'in communion' with the ECUSA)

David Huff

Nick, perhaps these folks should contact the AAC bunch here in my diocese. Our more extreme "reasserters" are all of the Anglo-Baptist sort. A lady in one of our mainline congregations waggishly refers to them as "tarted-up Southern Baptists." ;)

Of course, none of that should surprise anyone who's familiar with Texas...

Nick

Not much surprises me these days David. I still believe it's possible to see the God in everyone, however.

John Wilkins

obadiah, thank you for the insight. The belief that liberals don't want to hear what the communion's Windsor report says, but butwant to be portrayed as building relationships is inaccurate: the liberals are hearing what the Windsor report is saying, and rejecting parts of it, and are in fact still building relationships. The "portrayal" is accurate.

obadiahslope

John,
Let me try again.
The liberals are hearing what the Windsor report is saying. They reject part of it including most of its recommendations.
They don't wish to say this in the EC statement. They are building relationships. So that is highlighted in the EC statement (although I can't find any relationship building action it in the report of this meeting's resolutions.)
But at the same time they don't want to do as the communion's report sugggests.
So the total message is we want to have a relationship. But not on your terms, or the communions terms, but ours.

Todd Granger

Good to know that spring of Episcopalian antibaptist sentiment is still flowing.

Though in the main, I agree with John's assessment of anger, snideness, and the seeking of victory. But the progressives and liberals of the Church shouldn't for a moment delude themselves that only "angry" conservatives and traditionalists are among the victory-seekers and anger- and snidenessmongers. The progressive ranks have their share as well. Just take a look (for example) at some of Father Jake's recent entries, or Bishop Carranza's recent letter to the clergy of the Diocese of Los Angeles. Their bludgeoning words bespeak a desire for victory at a blistering cost, with little or no concern for those who differ from them profoundly over the "presenting issues".

John Wilkins

Obediah, I think you're generally correct, although the next step is to consider what it means to say whose terms the discussion is now made. Then we're talking about politics, in part, and leave the realm of theology.

Todd, I think you are right - obviously there is anger on the liberal side, and I confess a few times I feel like I've been pushed to the limits of civility. The next step is discerning if my anger is because I'm being lied to, or if I'm being told the truth. Sometimes both are equally irritating. My hope is that when I have heard the Truth, I will listen.

Here in Sydney a book on the politics of the diocese is about to be published. (I have written a book review from aadvanced copy.) Even when the choice is between two types of evangelical, there is enough material to fill a book. When we make a democratic decision in a large Synod politics of some sort is inevitable.
So I agree with you that much of the communion-wide discussion now is about the 'idea of what is possible', that is politics.
I read a titusonenine extract today of a British General Synod speech which accused both ECUSA and Sydney diocese of beliving in too much autonomy for the speakers taste .
He has a point. The Windsor reports centralising tendency is unpopular here on much the same grounds that the left in ECUSA rejects it. Loosening rather than tightening the ties of Anglicanism is seen as the way ahead. Where we may part company is on the question of parallel jurisdictions.
That, or DEPO/flying bishops becoming very common would seem to be our future in my view. In some ways the spirit in which we institute these institutional changes is more important than the changes themselves.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Friends and Family