There is an old saying, a sort of Anglican saying really, about 'the curate's egg', meaning that it is good in parts, bad in the other parts.
A post or two below I offer an unequivocal welcome to ACNA from this blogsite (which, surely, has gone completely unnoticed by ACNA)!
But ACNA disappoints me in certain ways. Here's part of a report from USA Today:
"And the governing structure for the Anglican Church in North America is designed to make sure that parishes and dioceses in the new church don't meander off with different biblical interpretations.
Bishops will have the final say in the choice of future bishops. Only men, and no gays, will be accepted.
Duncan says the church may continue to ordain women as deacons and priests. But pushing forward to name them as bishops, he says, is seen by the rest of the Anglican Communion as "a sad and arrogant American approach. The bishop is the symbol of the diocese and putting someone other dioceses do not recognize as capable of holding the office in the post is divisive in the international church"."
It troubles me that the laity and the clergy are excluded from choosing bishops. I don't think they have been the problem with problem bishops!
It also troubles me that there is an equivocal commitment to the ordination of women as deacons and priests.
But most troubling is the argument against women bishops because this is a 'sad and arrogant American approach'. Hello!! There are women bishops in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and they are in the pipeline in England ... and, at last count, they have not divided the international church.
ACNA may yet back itself into a cultural corner over these matters: bishops choosing bishops could work well, but it is very susceptible to control freakery. Excluding women from ordained ministry plays well to the existing conservative members, but does it play well to the mission field of 21st century North America?
Mark Harris at Preludium picks up on one or two other matters of interest such as Bob Duncan's assertion that a new 'muscular Christianity' is required. That's an old expression. Has it's time come again? As Mark Harris points out it is also an ironic expression in a church not keen on gay men taking up leadership roles!
"Mark Harris at Preludium picks up on one or two other matters of interest such as Bob Duncan's assertion that a new 'muscular Christianity' is required. That's an old expression. Has it's time come again? As Mark Harris points out it is also an ironic expression in a church not keen on gay men taking up leadership roles!"
ReplyDeleteYeah, right.
... to explain: just because male homosexuals have an erotic interest in young male muscular bodies in no way means you will find many such body types among their number - usually it's the opposite case. A gay colleague often notes the health problems of the gay 'lifestyle' (excessive smoking, drinking, eating, to say nothing of infections) and he at least affirms the stereotype that few of them are interested in traditional 'practical male' skills (building, mechanics etc).
ReplyDelete