tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post2547305203959330309..comments2024-03-29T13:30:56.758+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: 1 John 2, the Anglican Communion and secessionPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-19128054579175391122008-07-03T06:31:00.000+12:002008-07-03T06:31:00.000+12:00Hi AnonymousIt is one of the stranger, most startl...Hi Anonymous<BR/>It is one of the stranger, most startling claims Archbishop Rowan has ever made as ABC. My larger point, beyond the words you quote, is that this claim needs examination, and the forthcoming Lambeth Conference is the place to do this.<BR/><BR/>As a matter of fact I think Archbishop Rowan is wrong on this matter. My difficulty with 'proving' him to be wrong is that my supposition relies on quite a bit of material on the internet and published in books (but then mostly by renegades such as John Spong), and does not rely on dialogue with the alleged heresiarchs in which they might, as a matter of justice, be given opportunity to explain their statements, to withdraw them, or to enlarge them. To give one example: Presiding Bishop Schori, according to postings on the internet has made much of the Millennium Development Goals. It appears that these goals are the heart and soul of the Christian gospel for her. But it is possible that her gospel is fuller than that. The MDG are not anti-gospel to the extent that they concern human dignity, justice and provision of need - they are more or less at one with the kingdom of God. But they are not the whole of the gospel, and God's rule over the world is concerned with more than the scope of the MDG. I would like to hear more from PB Schori before I (personally, in my role as a Communion nonentity!!) passed definitive judgement.<BR/><BR/>Certainly PB Schori's 'Jesus is a way for some but not all' type statements are damning - but again, they occurred as far as I have seen them in a press interview. I think that insufficient basis for condemning a prelate of the church. Is this her considered, line-in-the-sand, widely published-through-formal-TEC-channels doctrine on which her leadership stands or falls? If so, then account her a heresiarch! <BR/><BR/>If you have capacity and opportunity to look up this YouTube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ziECzNKhM , you will find a very odd encounter with Archbishop Peter Jensen. Some are presuming certain things of Peter because of this clip. I am assuming the media has not done him justice!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74612567090165076022008-07-03T06:07:00.000+12:002008-07-03T06:07:00.000+12:00"Archbishop Rowan Williams in his response rightly..."Archbishop Rowan Williams in his response rightly noted, "Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion". If there is no need for the new fellowship then a thoroughgoing shared christology is precisely the reason for it. Archbishop Rowan knows his 1 John 2:19-23!"<BR/><BR/>Are we on the same planet? Katherine Shori's 'mother Jesus'? 'mustn't put God in a box'? 'Jesus is a way for some but not all'? <BR/>or Mike Ingham's 'Mansions of the Spirit'? <BR/>or Tec's rejection of resolutions affirming the uniqueness of Christ and the necessity of evangelism?<BR/>not to mention Jack Spong and Richard Holloway, the heresiarchs of yesteryear...<BR/><BR/>Peter, this comment just doesn't ring true. It's whistling past the graveyard. Tune in to blogs like 'Stand Firm' or 'Titusonenine' & find out what is *really* happening in North America. There's none so blind as those who will not see.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com