tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post3116195519751357456..comments2024-03-29T06:58:28.383+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Sanity overcomes English bishopsPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-14929444296986057802014-02-09T22:28:02.977+13:002014-02-09T22:28:02.977+13:00"Talk about “obfuscation,” Michael…Name some ..."Talk about “obfuscation,” Michael…Name some names, give some dates for these “wholesale depositions” of those clergy who were “forced out” by the nasty TEC libbruuuuls."<br /><br />Yes, Kurt, obfuscation is exactly what you are doing. Because I did post names, dates and details, didn't I? <br /><br />Please read my posts above before responding in future. <br /><br />The names of hundreds of clergy who were forced out of TEC simply because they were not sufficiently liberal. <br /><br />You can be sure that the same thing will happen in any other church that is so unwise as to permit the liberals to take the reins of power. <br /><br />"The reason that you can’t do that, Michael, is because—thanks to the internet—those who want to check your “facts” can do so for themselves."<br /><br />The reason I can do that, Kurt (and have done so) is precisely because of the internet. And I do invite anyone interested to check the facts for themselves. <br /><br />"What you really mean by “forced out” is that con evos (and reactionary Anglo Catholics) who didn’t get their way on a whole range of issues during the past half century ended up feeling marginalized—as indeed they were. And because of that, they became embittered and left. It’s as simple as that."<br /><br />No, what I really mean by "forced out" is that those who disagreed with liberalism were forced out. Because that is what liberals do once they get power. Its as simple as that. <br /><br />"There was no “purge” wholesale or otherwise."<br /><br />There was indeed a wholesale purge by liberals. And now apparently some of them are ashamed of that and trying to deny it. As well they might. <br /><br />"No one who theologically opposed Prayer Book revision, women clergy, gay inclusion—or, even desegregation, for that matter—was deposed from the ministry of the American Episcopal Church. In TEC clergy are deposed for ACTIONS that violate the canons of our Church, not for BELIEFS."<br /><br />That is completely untrue Kurt. You can keep denying it, but that doesn't change the truth. <br /><br />"In 1995 the liberal bishop Walter Righter faced a presentment and trial..."<br /><br />I am talking about the persecution that non-liberals received from liberals in 2004-2008, not the very reasonable treatment that liberals received in 1995. <br /><br />MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-60316776642456593202014-02-06T23:13:33.506+13:002014-02-06T23:13:33.506+13:00It's just so lovely when everyone agrees on ev...It's just so lovely when everyone agrees on everything. But what would be the point of blogging? <br /><br />Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-57321189968527903002014-02-05T14:35:29.831+13:002014-02-05T14:35:29.831+13:00Hi Shawn
Your last suggestion is a very good one.
...Hi Shawn<br />Your last suggestion is a very good one.<br /><br />I am choosing not to redact a word or two above, because your essential point re hi-jacking is true: a number of posts in which I had not intention that discussion about them turned to homosexuality have found themselves turned to that topic.<br /><br />I also agree with you re marriage on this point: our church's discussion likely would proceed more smoothly to a satisfactory conclusion if change to marriage was not on the table.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-51788293884434930712014-02-05T14:17:50.190+13:002014-02-05T14:17:50.190+13:00Hi Tim,
The problem with living with disagreement...Hi Tim,<br /><br />The problem with living with disagreement over this issue is that, unlike pacifism, it involves a sacrament/ordinance, that of marriage. That is why "living with disagreement" is not possible. IF same-sex marriage was taken off the table, then much of my concern would also go, and what how individual parishes deal with the issue would not worry me. I have said, many times that this issue for me is not what adults choose to do in private, thats between them and God, but the sacramental definition of marriage, the ONLY definition of marriage, given to us by God; one man and one women for life.<br /><br />Because the Inclusive Church Movement insists on putting the sacrament of marriage (within the Church) on the table, we cannot live with disagreement. If ICM and other Christian gay-rights advocates take the sacrament of marriage out of the argument, problem solved as far as I am concerned and I would be happy to live and let live. And ironically, that could be described as a "small l" liberal position!<br /><br />I am in total agreement with you about moving on from this. What has been said has been said, and nothing constructive will come of more arguments. I want to discuss other theological issues. But we have a problem, in that one individual insists on highjacking almost every single thread, no matter the topic, to aggressively push the issue. Just look at the start of the ARCIC thread. That could have been a very interesting discussion re Roman and Anglican theology.<br /><br />Perhaps Peter could restrict the discussion of that topic (homosexuality) only to threads specifically dealing with it. That would give us space to develop other discussions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-68729536472882885532014-02-05T07:48:07.628+13:002014-02-05T07:48:07.628+13:00Kurt Hill
"Semi-pacifist?" Isn't t...Kurt Hill<br /><br />"Semi-pacifist?" Isn't that like being "mostly dead?"<br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02290618813437983875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74331152846969831242014-02-05T07:30:56.320+13:002014-02-05T07:30:56.320+13:00If I had been graduated from college in 1942 rathe...If I had been graduated from college in 1942 rather than in 1972, I could see myself as an ensign in the US Naval Reserve.<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Brooklyn, NY<br />Kurtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-17942349032050282202014-02-05T07:21:13.051+13:002014-02-05T07:21:13.051+13:00Hi Kurt (Tim)
I cannot wholly go in the pacifist d...Hi Kurt (Tim)<br />I cannot wholly go in the pacifist direction.<br />But if I did, in the back of my mind I would always be thinking that if some nation invaded NZ I would hope the US had our back covered!! (Cf WW2 and Japanese expansionism in the Pacific. We had no hope save that the US entered that war zone. Praise God the US did).Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-27606382955413767292014-02-05T06:49:07.631+13:002014-02-05T06:49:07.631+13:00“Yes, you all know that I think a pacifist interpr...“Yes, you all know that I think a pacifist interpretation of the New Testament is the most faithful one…”—Tim Chesterton<br /><br />Actually, Tim, I agree with you. But, I’m afraid I’m not strong enough to do the pacifist thing. I’m a semi-pacifist in practice, however.<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Brooklyn, NY<br />Kurtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-40476722598369768652014-02-05T06:30:55.028+13:002014-02-05T06:30:55.028+13:00Peter - yes, I believe that if we Anglicans can co...Peter - yes, I believe that if we Anglicans can continue to worship together and be in communion with each other while (a) believing different things about whether it is OK for Christians to kill other Christians when their country tells them to do so (pacifism has never been an official Anglican position, but there are Anglican Pacifist fellowships and no one has said that their members are unfaithful Anglicans), and (b) having such widely diverse views on the Eucharist that some think that veneration of the consecrated elements is not only good but mandatory, while others think it is idolatry, and (c) holding widely divergent views on the scripture/tradition issue (which, as Carl highlights, is fundamental to everything else), and (d) being so diverse politically that some of us find it hard to believe that a person can be a (conservative/liberal/socialist/capitalist/cultural Marxist etc. etc.) and be a Christian...<br /><br />...well, if we can manage those disagreements, I think we can manage this one too. I am a fairly traditional evangelical in many ways, but I have colleagues with whom I disagree over homosexuality but agree with over just about everything else - and vice versa. As usual, deciding who is 'conservative' and who is 'liberal' is not as easy as people think!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43541260425119931122014-02-05T05:44:24.749+13:002014-02-05T05:44:24.749+13:00Hi Carl
It may be futile (I am not so confident of...Hi Carl<br />It may be futile (I am not so confident of El Dorado as to dismiss your point).<br /><br />But it may be possible to live with this particular disagreement (because we have as Anglicans lived with other disagreements, including an ongoing disagreement about truth and revelation). I think on that particular point Tim and I may be in agreement.<br /><br />However part of what keeps this blog going is that in some Anglican churches such as my own, we are in uncharted territory (therefore worth continuing to explore). In time the charts might prove that, so to speak, we are in TECland; or in CofEland (which I think is proving to be an eternal muddle, but I acknowledge that others such as yourself see it also turning out to be like TECland); or (because on certain matters our history has done this) in new Anglican territory.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-50143472515435839052014-02-05T04:00:38.562+13:002014-02-05T04:00:38.562+13:00Tim Chesterton
No, its not just you. I stopped po...Tim Chesterton<br /><br />No, its not just you. I stopped posting on Liberal weblogs long ago. It's pretty pointless. If you look through my posts on this thread you will see that my dominant theme has been:<br /><br />"There is no way to resolve this argument, so stop trying. Face the reality of division and deal with it."<br /><br />It's really an argument made to Peter and others like him who do not want to accept that this is true. They keep insisting that El Dorado is just over the next hill if only we keep moving. But there is no El Dorado. The quest is futile.<br /><br />I only got onto the homosexual apologetic because FRS directly confronted me on it. There are issues I would like to have out with FRS. They involve his understanding of Truth and revelation. But he will have none if it. I have asked (and others have asked) him repeatedly about this subject, but he never responds. That's an important issue because it is the genesis of the conflict.<br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05195615264891904953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-72986985534311284302014-02-04T18:35:39.450+13:002014-02-04T18:35:39.450+13:00Carl, when I said 'move on', I was actuall...Carl, when I said 'move on', I was actually thinking of a much smaller stage than you. I was thinking of this blog. It is clear to me that every possible argument on all sides of this issue has already been made by the contributors here. I can't see the point of repeating them again at higher volume. Yes, we all know that Ron thinks traditional Christians are homophobic. Yes, we all know that Shawn thinks that quite a few of us are cultural Marxists. Yes, you all know that I think a pacifist interpretation of the New Testament is the most faithful one, and I know that Martin thinks that makes me an Anabaptist fundamentalist. I can't see why we have to keep jumping in on the same points over and over again, the same people making the same predictable arguments and using exactly the same terms to describe each other. Quite frankly, every time Peter posts something I hardly need to read the comments; I know what everyone is going to say already.<br /><br />That's what has me discouraged. I can't help feeling that there are more pressing things the Lord may be calling us to. I know that I am starting to ask searching questions about why I feel compelled to continue to jump in and engage in blog arguments that rarely seem to resolve anything. But hey, maybe it's just me.<br /><br />Tim ChestertonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-3043195868162011462014-02-04T16:31:57.491+13:002014-02-04T16:31:57.491+13:00Hi Ron
It is only offensive if the inference is ta...Hi Ron<br />It is only offensive if the inference is taken.<br /><br />I suggest another reading of Martin's remark which goes like this: 'Although ADU could become the liveliest Anglican orthodox blog aroundabouts it is becoming a turn off because of the unorthodox comments its blogmeister permits such as unorthodoxly calling other commenters homophobic.'<br /><br />Putting this another way, Ron: I do not believe it is your orthodoxy which is in general being questioned here* but your style of put downs of fellow commenters.<br /><br />*I say 'in general' because it is the point of a blog to raises questions about particular points of orthodoxy. Thus I hope you are free to question whether (say) sola scriptura is part of orthodox Christian belief, just as others should be free to question whether a commitment to gay marriage is consistent with orthodox belief.<br /><br />As best I can tell there are Nicene Creed saying Christians committed to Sola Scriptura and those who are not ... etc.<br /><br />Orthodoxy is not whatever I make it out to be. But a community owned understanding of orthodoxy being worked out via blog discussion should be free of side distractions about moderation of comments.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52845088696767341862014-02-04T12:02:28.041+13:002014-02-04T12:02:28.041+13:00"As a result, your blog - which should be the..."As a result, your blog - which should be the liveliest watering hole for orthodox Anglican thought in NZ - is increasingly a turn-off."<br /><br /> - Martin - <br /><br />This is yet another instance of offensive inference, that in some way, I, and others who think like me, are unorthodox. I resent that remark as being not only untrue but deeply divisive - a remark made by someone who obviously does not want dialogue, but monologue to be the mark of ADU.<br /><br />Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-66971266150176267132014-02-04T08:13:59.702+13:002014-02-04T08:13:59.702+13:00Fr. Ron,
Does your Diocesan bishop know how you f...Fr. Ron, <br />Does your Diocesan bishop know how you feel regarding the doctrine of the ACANZP when it comes to what this Church (and the Anglican Communion based on Lambeth 1.10) accepts as the right ordering of relationships, and chastity?<br /><br />With regards to our somehoe living in good disagreement you have said 'As a matter of fact, with your - and the S.S. - professed statements here and in other fora, I don't think it will ever happen. We are too far apart.'<br /><br />Does this in actual fact make you a schismatist? You claim we can not live in good disagreement, so what happens next? Who leaves? Who stays? HOW do we get along?<br /><br />It looks like your position leaves you at odds with the Holy Orders you have taken, and the committment you have made to uphold the Doctrine of this Church.<br /><br />How will you remain within an organisation which you disagree with on such a fundamental basis?<br /><br />I am not asking to goad or upset, and I hope my comments are not taken that way. I am striving to see a way forward, where I don't think there is one.Zane Elliottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-7954163509147124172014-02-04T07:08:06.868+13:002014-02-04T07:08:06.868+13:00Tim Chesterton
Wouldn't it be wiser (for thos...Tim Chesterton<br /><br /><i>Wouldn't it be wiser (for those whose minds are already made up) to move on?</i><br /><br />But what does that mean? Just drop the issue? That's impossible so long as the teaching and practice of the church are at stake. Should one side just surrender? That isn't going to happen. Does it then mean "Leave." Well, that is what is happening. One side has departed and the other now makes for itself a second career out of screaming "Schismatics!"<br /><br />FRS revealed the basic conflict when he said: <br /><br /><i>I never promised that I would accept your challenge as to how you and I <b>(or Sola Scriptura v liberal)</b> could ever live in 'good agreement' on the issues you mention</i><br /><br />It is not just about sex or even primarily about sex. It is about theology. It is about Scripture, revelation, and authority. That's why there is no way to move on from it. All of those issues touch non-negotiable essentials for both sides. They directly impact what we both mean when we say "Christian.' This isn't a disagreement. It's a <i>war</i> over the fundamentals of the faith. It's a <i>war</i> between two very different and very mutually exclusive religions that both claim the title "Christian" and the spiritual heritage that attends. That's not a very pleasant metaphor, but it's true.<br /><br />No church can remain half-liberal and half-orthodox over time. It must become all one or all the other. What we are witnessing is the outworking of that fundamental reality. Everyone who remains will eventually have to swear loyalty to the doctrines of the victorious regime. There won't be any middle ground. There won't be any compromise.<br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02290618813437983875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81816494698019698032014-02-04T06:04:16.121+13:002014-02-04T06:04:16.121+13:00Hi Martin
Your [redacted by me re focus on one per...Hi Martin<br />Your [redacted by me re focus on one person] point below is well taken. We seem to run along quite well for a while and then things turn to custard. I might invoke Chinese help in making 2014 the Year of Not Turning Civil Conversation to Custard.<br /><br />"Peter, it wearies me (for the 20th time) to note that Shawn is right and that you created a rod for your own back [].<br />Kurt disagrees with orthodox evangelicals but is not (usually) disagreeable (when he is not disdaining his fellow Americans in South Carolina).<br />Tim can take issue but never takes umbrage.<br />[].<br />As a result, your blog - which should be the liveliest watering hole for orthodox Anglican thought in NZ - is increasingly a turn-off.<br />I'm sorry, Peter, but this is an own goal.<br />Martin <br />"Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-17315008612582968792014-02-04T06:00:16.056+13:002014-02-04T06:00:16.056+13:00Dear Ron,
The following comment also requires reda...Dear Ron,<br />The following comment also requires redaction. Here is a clue as to why I am redacting it: the omitted words appear to mean you have not paid any attention to the argument mounted for the influence of cultural Marxism on the thought world of liberal theology. Whether the argument is correct or not, it has been made and could be replied to, rather than dismissed.<br /><br />""Dear Commenters,<br />I think Shawn is right and I have permitted unwarranted and uncalled for attacks on other Christians to be published here. I apologise for my part in any offence caused you."<br /><br />- Dr. Peter Carrell -<br /><br />Thank you, Peter for your apology. []<br /><br />Moderation, surely ,if anything, means 'being fair', no? [] <br />"<br /><br />I agree, Ron. I am trying to be fair.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-26493484269704265032014-02-04T05:57:09.822+13:002014-02-04T05:57:09.822+13:00Dear Ron,
Once gain your words stray from the issu...Dear Ron,<br />Once gain your words stray from the issue to the person, from comment/reply to commenter. Thus redaction occurs:<br /><br />""PS Ron: "SS" is a bit ambiguous in this context! Same Sex or Sola Scriptura???" - Dr.Peter Carrell -<br /><br />You seemed to have understood what I was referring to in context, Peter, in the first paragraph of your posted response.<br /><br />[] <br /><br />[]<br />"<br /><br />Reply: Ron, My ability as Chief Hermeneut of your Comments does not blind me to the fact that others might not be so perspicuous and could find some of what you say ambiguous!!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-60630366088936699762014-02-04T05:53:42.088+13:002014-02-04T05:53:42.088+13:00Thanks Tim for good points. Nevertheless if we can...Thanks Tim for good points. Nevertheless if we can improve the respectfulness of our language here, maybe it will help each of us in our personal speech at (say) Synods.<br /><br />THanks Kurt. I like that last quote: some kind of 'real' left voicing critique of the American juggernaut!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-67451296701208856972014-02-04T03:33:13.662+13:002014-02-04T03:33:13.662+13:00“The wholesale depositions were of clergy who did ...“The wholesale depositions were of clergy who did not want to leave, but who were forced out by the liberal leadership of TEC because they did not agree with liberalism and wanted to remain faithful to historic.”—MichaelA<br /><br />Talk about “obfuscation,” Michael…Name some names, give some dates for these “wholesale depositions” of those clergy who were “forced out” by the nasty TEC libbruuuuls.<br /><br />The reason that you can’t do that, Michael, is because—thanks to the internet—those who want to check your “facts” can do so for themselves. What you really mean by “forced out” is that con evos (and reactionary Anglo Catholics) who didn’t get their way on a whole range of issues during the past half century ended up feeling marginalized—as indeed they were. And because of that, they became embittered and left. It’s as simple as that. There was no “purge” wholesale or otherwise. <br /><br />No one who theologically opposed Prayer Book revision, women clergy, gay inclusion—or, even desegregation, for that matter—was deposed from the ministry of the American Episcopal Church. In TEC clergy are deposed for ACTIONS that violate the canons of our Church, not for BELIEFS. <br /><br />In 1995 the liberal bishop Walter Righter faced a presentment and trial—not for any belief about the suitability of gay people for the ministry—but for the action of ordaining an openly gay man living in a committed same-sex relationship. Likewise, conservative clergy are not “forced out” for their unpopular beliefs, but they are certainly held accountable for their actions.<br />***<br />Look, Shawn, if you want to believe that offensive name-calling by liberals of right-wing fundamentalists and rednecks is “scapegoating” these people, then I guess there is nothing I can write that will change your mind. (I could cite sociological and cultural anthropological papers on the subject, but I doubt that it would be a profitable use of my time since your mind appears to be already made up.)<br /><br />The only people who still believe that the Obama administration represents anything “left-wing” are the denizens of the far-right. Obama’s recent State of the Union Address attracted fewer than 34 million viewers, an all-time low for the president and the second-lowest rated since the Nielsen ratings began recording viewership in 1993. As one (genuine) leftist commentator noted: <br /><br />“Apparently, Americans would rather spend their time watching Simpsons reruns or fiddling with their iPhones than listening to the pompous pronouncements of the Dissembler in Chief. And good for them. It goes to show that no one really believes that a junior senator with a pedigree in community organizing is setting policy for the world’s only superpower. The idea is ridiculous. Obama is merely the mask that conceals the ruthless machinery of Empire.”.<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Brooklyn, NY<br />Kurtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43836802794471004072014-02-03T21:48:16.790+13:002014-02-03T21:48:16.790+13:00Hi Peter.
Personally, I think if people are going...Hi Peter.<br /><br />Personally, I think if people are going to wade in, over and over again, making exactly the same arguments as they did last time, on the most divisive topic in world Anglicanism today, they can expect that the debate will be intense and at times personal.<br /><br />As I said a little further up on this thread, I really can't see much point to it myself. Everything that could possibly be said on the subject has been said, and we still don't find each other's arguments convincing. I don't see what good repeating the same arguments will do. Wouldn't it be wiser (for those whose minds are already made up) to move on? But if people choose not to move on, it's natural that some will want to turn up the volume, and so the language will get a little more intense. I think everyone should take responsibility for ensuring that their language is respectful, rather than expecting you - a busy man, I believe, for whom this blog is not your full time job - to rescue us from our own hotheadedness over and over again.<br /><br />Finally, part of the problem is that we are working with words for which multiple definitions are obviously in play. Some understand 'homophobia' to have a strictly limited definition - fear of homosexuality - while others are very obviously working with a much wider definition. As for 'cultural Marxism', I haven't the first idea what that means - especially when it is applied to Barack Obama, who, in the last U.S. election, campaigned somewhere to the right of the Conservative Party of Canada - and, I suspect, most conservative parties in the western world.<br /><br />Perhaps an understanding of the definitions we're using for some of these terms might help?<br /><br />Tim ChestertonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-86990882451640468242014-02-03T19:30:28.388+13:002014-02-03T19:30:28.388+13:00Dear Commenters,
I think Shawn is right and I hav...Dear Commenters,<br /><br />I think Shawn is right and I have permitted unwarranted and uncalled for attacks on other Christians to be published here. I apologise for my part in any offence caused you.<br /><br />Let me restate, for the umpteenth time, that it is not appropriate here to call other Christians, including commenters here 'fearful', 'phobic' etc re homosexuality. The issues in such discussions are ethical and theological, not psychological. The discussion should be about the merits of ideas, not about the psychology of proponents of ideas.<br /><br />In particular I expect proponents of marriage being only between a man and a woman to be respected as honourable Christians in the grand catholic and apostolic tradition of the church which in its catholic and apostolic modes has always taught thus about marriage.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-19443248498285994722014-02-03T19:26:33.155+13:002014-02-03T19:26:33.155+13:00Hi Shawn
To show I am not against being given a bi...Hi Shawn<br />To show I am not against being given a bit of stick for my inadequacies and failings I am prepared to publish the following comment (minus specific reference to another commenter, for I do not see how that constructively helps conversation). I object to you saying I am not prepared to take issue with other commenters here: I have done and am doing. I don't mind, however, being called to account for failing to spot what is blindingly obvious to others here. I have my faults ... But I can assure you that it is simply not the case that "something else [is] going on [here on this blog]." Not at all.<br /><br />"Hi Peter,<br /><br />Let me deal with the CM issue first. I accept that not all Liberals would identify as such, but the problem, as both myself and Bryden have pointed out, is that we are all swimming in it. It is so pervasive that everything in the West, socially and politically, is affected by it. Since the 60's it has been the determinative driving force behind all forms of Left wing Liberalism, so much so that it is virtually impossible to be a left-liberal and not also be, even if unknowingly, a Cultural Marxist.<br /><br />In terms of Christian theology, it manifests in various hermeneutic approaches to Scripture, especially the "hermeneutic of suspicion", and these hermeneutics are pervasive in Liberal theology and thus in Liberal theological articles, and in campaigns for Liberal causes in the Church, such as same-sex blessings.<br /><br />Now it may be that there are Christian Liberals whose definition of Liberalism excludes CM, but I have never seen or heard such a definition. <br /><br />However, all of that is really not relevant. <br /><br />My concern is that you have repeatedly said that accusations of homophobia, hatred, or psychological defects, such as the claim that the only people opposing same sex marriage are heterosexual males who are motivated by fear, are not acceptable, and for good reason. They are PUBLIC attacks on people's character, not attacks on people's theology or worldview.<br /><br />Yet, we are only just a over a month into the new year and those claims are flying fast, even on threads which are not even related to same-sex marriage.<br /><br />WHY?<br /><br />Moderation does not have to be perfect to be effective in weeding out such attacks. Other blogs I have been on do it. It is not difficult. The posts containing such attacks are blindingly obvious.<br /><br />So I am left with the conclusion that there is something else going on, and that you have no intentions of reining in [] attacks on people's character. And while I would like to participate on this blog, I'm not willing to have my name dragged into the mud and my character attacked every few threads because, for whatever reason, you will not stand up to [another commenter].<br /><br />Using the excuse that much worse does not get published does not wash. Personal attacks on people's character should not get through at all, and there really is no excuse for it. It is very serious. Calling people who have lives in the Anglican Church, whether as ministers or laity, haters and homphobes is both unacceptable to any degree, and more importantly for you, at times legally actionable. <br /><br />But I have said all this before, and I now think I'm wasting my time doing so. I see no evidence that anything is going to change, and as my wife has to live and work in the AC in New Zealand, I'm not going to make myself a target for [] attacks, as long as you will not stand up to him. <br />"Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-78461388089924860392014-02-03T19:21:04.099+13:002014-02-03T19:21:04.099+13:00Hi Ron
I am deleting part of your comment because ...Hi Ron<br />I am deleting part of your comment because it is simply offensive. No one here defending sola scriptura is defending homophobia. Don't make false accusations. Thank you.<br /><br />"Zane, I never promised that I would accept your challenge as to how you and I (or Sola Scriptura v liberal) could ever live in 'good agreement' on the issues you mention.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, with your - and the S.S. - professed statements here and in other fora, I don't think it will ever happen. We are too far apart. That's the reason I feel impelled to post as I do. The resultant effects of continuance of the S.S. biblical [approach to homosexuality] is just a step too far for me and for many Anglicans. <br />"<br /><br />PS Ron: "SS" is a bit ambiguous in this context! Same Sex or Sola Scriptura???Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com