Down Under we see things differently.
Hi Hermano David,Thanks for your comment which I will bear in mind!
Yes, be flattered - you seem to be achieving a certain notoriety! And deserve a bravery award for taking on this stuff)
This clearly shows you have established yourself as a major player in this debate. And since Christian unity is something we are called upon by Scripture to maintain it is a worthy debate to be engaged in.The conflict between (Post) modernism and traditional Christianity may indeed mark a major split within Christendom following precidents from the split at Chalcedon in the 5th century (and now to all intents and purposes healed), the Great Schism of the 10th century, moving towards healing though it wont happen in our lifetimes and the Protestant/Roman Catholic split of 500 years ago.Or perhaps (Post)modern Christianity will turn out to be a temporary aberration which will fade away after a century or two (or even less) as many other movements have in the life of the Church.Time alone will tell
Peter, congratulations for having caught the dodgy eye of David Virtue. I could have warned you about the oxymoronic nature of the title of his blog - 'virtueonline'.Conservative in Anglican politics you may be, Peter, but you have never - as far as I know - plumbed the murky depths of Mr Virtue's rhetoric on his self-titled 'Voice of Global Orthodox Aglicanism'.Virtue accuses you of not having been present at any of the dissidents' meetings around the world. Obviously, he has been to every one of them and, partisan as he is, and has been able to record every insult to the TEC Presiding Bishop and the Archbishop of Canterbury that he has been privy to in the journalistic bleachers. He has not seen you, therefore how could you have been present?The truth is, Peter, your fares were never paid by the American Right sodality, and your ACANZP stipend did not allow for such extravagance, so how could you have been at Jerusalem, Jamaica, or any other of the world-wide meetings of the GAFCON or ACNA clan meetings?I would'nt worry too much about Mr.Virtue's maunderings if I were you. At least, you are a priest of good standing within a Church of the Anglican Communion: whereas Mr Virtue is an ex-Baptist apologist for GAFCON & ACNA.
Hi Peter, You're probably in good company getting criticised by David Virtue. He has a bit of trouble discerning opinion from analysis /presenting all sides of a debate. Bit of a bunker mentality too - if you're not in exactly the same bunker with him, you're the enemy. Just on the article though, I thought the last Priimates' Meetings in Alexandria admitted they were hopelessly divided. The interviews with the orthodox primates certainly suggested that. There was a resigned belief on their part that there were two irreconcilable gospels trying to co-exist in the Communion. My impression was that that is partly the reason they don't see any pont to attending this meeting - what have we got to talk about? We have different agendas. Do you have a different assessment?PS My word verification for this post is "coventi". You're not trying subliminal covenant advertising are you? :)
Thanks for supportive comments!Andrew Reid's question: yes, Alexandria noted division. I am looking for a statement which says that a broken communion is not a communion. Hand-wringing statements that we are a communion but we won't meet together do not cut my mustard!
You're on Thinking Anglicans as well.http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/
Post a Comment