tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post262138262225771185..comments2024-03-28T22:29:52.666+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Koinonia or ekklesia?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52727316579435748612010-06-15T15:30:52.072+12:002010-06-15T15:30:52.072+12:00Yes, Alison, but the team working on a world Angli...Yes, Alison, but the team working on a world Anglican Communion becoming a church, headed by ++Rowan, and supported by the likes of ++Thabo, would not need my inferior talents, indeed would probably be impeded by them.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-72801087389959666312010-06-15T15:01:02.393+12:002010-06-15T15:01:02.393+12:00Thanks for the clarification, Peter.
My point rema...Thanks for the clarification, Peter.<br />My point remains, especially now you have clarified yours: if you cannot get the level of unity you seek within your own small church, there is no hope of seeking it wider. First attend to what is in your own eye...<br /><br />AlisonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-20934582774968414062010-06-15T13:24:00.950+12:002010-06-15T13:24:00.950+12:00Hi Alison,
No I do not think you have got my argum...Hi Alison,<br />No I do not think you have got my argument straight at all! <br /><br />I am arguing for the Anglican Communion to evolve into a worldwide church, with a standard of unity much higher than what we currently enjoy in ACANZP.<br /><br />Only the naive would think that such evolution is easy or that securing agreement on essentials is straightforward. But I think it is worth a go. Not least because often we Christians disagree about the headlines, but if we get beyond them, we find a lot more agreement on substance.<br /><br />Is the alternative, of the Communion as a koinonia easier? Yes and no, I suggest. Yes, in so far as no great agreement is expected between those in fellowship. No, because if common ground becomes less and less then fellowship has less and less meaning. <br /><br />I am putting quite a lot of energy on one of my other sites into the Bible and homosexuality because that is something our church is putting energy into through its series of Hermeneutical Hui. When the series stops I imagine I will either wind that site up, or pursue other hermeneutical interests through it.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-1889233392982953712010-06-15T12:40:49.934+12:002010-06-15T12:40:49.934+12:00Let me see if I can get this straight: you are adv...Let me see if I can get this straight: you are advocating that the way you run your church, about 1% of the total size of the Anglican Communion, is the model for the way the Communion worldwide should be run!!! Hmmm… So the *cough* “unity” of your small church’s common life is the standard the Communion should aspire to?<br /><br />You have previously berated evangelicals for the tendency to disunity, and rightly so. Maybe it is the illusion of being able to find a united and uniting set of beliefs in the Bible that needs to be questioned. In this post you appear to allow for more than one way to be church together – so there’s no Biblical specifics about that. Bible-believing Christians are for and against infant baptism, divorce, women in ministry and leadership, the need for ordination, the place of bishops, the list goes on, and on, and with every issue another division. The lack of agreement on such essentials appears not to dissuade you from putting enormous energy into arguing about the Bible’s place in homosexual ethics about which the Bible says little to nothing beyond what might be drawn from it in relation to heterosexual ethics.<br /><br />AlisonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com