Thus we find that the election of a clergyperson* with, shall we say, views basically in keeping with most of the bishops of my church in these islands (sympathies for progress on homosexuality, doubts about the primacy of penal substitutionary atonement) is generating some controversy, particularly through the blogging of David Ould.
Background posts are here and here. In one of the posts are very interesting range of responses from other Oz bishops is reported.
On Twitter last night David Ould forecast a new development:
Grafton story. Tomorrow. 10am. AEDT
— David Ould (@davidould) March 6, 2014
That's around midday our time, I think (depends who is and isn't running Daylight Saving etc).
I will keep you posted ... Indeed here is the post: in my words, "Poacher turned gamekeeper?"
*The clergyperson is a woman and thus a question in the Oz Anglican context also arises re whether women should be bishops. Here I am not interested in discussion on that question and may not publish comments which focus on that aspect of the situation. What I am interested in is the general question of Anglicanism and substitutionary atonement: does the latter lie at the centre of the former? Should it? Did it?
PS The power of blogging is much overrated and leads to some stupid things being said. So here we read that 'All eyes are on you' re the Ordinariate. That is just false. No one is looking at the Ordinariate in the reign of Franciswho is making quite different waves re Anglican relationships!