tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post7293788488983075006..comments2024-03-28T19:03:49.275+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Defacing the gospel with the brown paint of progressive ChristianityPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81306331386139442202009-12-18T20:43:31.247+13:002009-12-18T20:43:31.247+13:00I am happy to go with Glynn's own preference t...I am happy to go with Glynn's own preference to call himself a progressive Christian!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-26200341766895358042009-12-18T20:30:14.613+13:002009-12-18T20:30:14.613+13:00Very well written opinion. ThanksVery well written opinion. ThanksFonofalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07436333897447537487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-75904224602791765232009-12-18T19:30:16.025+13:002009-12-18T19:30:16.025+13:00I don't know why you use that self-designation...I don't know why you use that self-designation "progressive" without speech marks. They seem to be simply extreme religious (rather than secularist) liberals of a Rousseau-esque stripe. I see nothing progressive about that mindset: more a regressive stepping away from the truth than advancing towards it (Lat. progredior).<br />Mark Steyn (steynonline.com) in the US has picked up on the story and calls it another instance of Anglican despair. "Archdeacon" Cardy should be disciplined for blasphemy and false witness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-28145645883070550182009-12-18T16:59:55.100+13:002009-12-18T16:59:55.100+13:00I have problems with the underlying assumptions of...I have problems with the underlying assumptions of the billboard -- and not just the assumption that God used a sperm.<br /><br />Joseph was told by an angel that he was to marry Mary. This billboard seems to assume that God would have left him in a situation where that marriage was inevitably unfulfilling and unhappy. Given that Jesus clearly taught that marriage was intended by God to be for the benefit of humankind this seems at very least an unwarranted assumption.<br /><br />I think this is a classic case of a "progressive" church doing anything to make itself feel "relevant", and in the process made themselves look like a whole lot of sniggering kids behind the bike shed.MargaretGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11113913094810256635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-75451602983233007532009-12-18T13:31:23.386+13:002009-12-18T13:31:23.386+13:00I think there is a deeper issue here. It seems to ...I think there is a deeper issue here. It seems to me that 'progressive Anglicans', to quote their own rather curious name for themselves, have a problem with integrity. "Progressive Anglicans' were presumably ordained in the Anglican church when they would have assented to and affirmed the doctrines of the church, shared in the Creed, and given glory to the Trinity, yet clearly did not believe much of it. I asked an ordained person who would describe himself as a 'progressive Anglican' about this little problem and he affirmed that he indeed did not believe the Creeds or the Trinitarian faith of the church's doctrines, but at his ordinations, had said he did, to 'respect those who did believe'. I have considerable difficulty with 'progressive' people who make such public and serious affirmations in intentional dishonesty. Or perhaps eager work is done on expanding or reducing the meaning of the words to suit the theology...'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'Richardnoreply@blogger.com