tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post2012779848129647233..comments2024-03-29T17:55:30.203+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Are Pitcher and Global South on the same page?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-8940558156810814922009-10-31T11:59:30.436+13:002009-10-31T11:59:30.436+13:00See also history of the Church of the Province of ...See also history of the Church of the Province of South Africa in Virute on LineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-88186990785688056922009-10-29T15:51:03.300+13:002009-10-29T15:51:03.300+13:00I'm not sure whether the last 50 years really ...I'm not sure whether the last 50 years really offer much support to the view of Anglicanism as broad and tolerant. The refusal of the scheme of reunion in the early <br />70s, the very uncertain welcome given to charismatic renewal, the riding roughshod over Anglo catholic concerns, the lack of sympathy for those wishing to be rebaptised as adults. <br />I'm not saying I'm for or against any of this; just that there have been in the past, even the recent past, hard edges Anglicanism, and the appeal to inclusivity per se as a key factor in our history is not very plausible. Inclusvitiy is matched by exclusivity.<br />I agree history is contestable; it means when we appeal to it, we have to employ very high standards of intellectual integrity. It's far too easy to use history as propaganda. Inclusivity is important, but not more important than historical integrity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-61185423896314247122009-10-27T18:42:28.970+13:002009-10-27T18:42:28.970+13:00Hi Anonymous
I now have a better understanding of ...Hi Anonymous<br />I now have a better understanding of the point you are making: Anglican churches have not always been as broad-minded and tolerant as George Pitcher's remarks make out. Fair enough. The question remains whether Anglican churches might, mistakes notwithstanding, generally have been broad and tolerant churches, especially within the last fifty or so years.<br /><br />Certain facts may not be contestable, but I think history is! In this particular case the contest is about whether Pitcher and the Global South and you are describing something true of Anglican character represented through history, or whether only two, or just one of you are correct.<br /><br />Mentioning Ratana is certainly a provocative case to consider: was Ratana ejected though an orthodox Christian? Was he ejected, rightly, as a heterodox Christian? Why could we do that then, and now have the gravest difficulty calling heterodoxy for what it is?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-67427549304974372882009-10-27T16:55:05.043+13:002009-10-27T16:55:05.043+13:00Are these facts really contestable, as facts indic...Are these facts really contestable, as facts indicating that Anglican history is not a particularly welcoming one; yes, their significance is debatable, but surely even they cannot be dismissed by simply saying that 'history is always contestable'. That would be an end to any worthwhile appeal to history, and make pointless Pitcher's article. Or is it a way of saying "you are talking rubbish"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-5247685179508393082009-10-27T09:47:49.071+13:002009-10-27T09:47:49.071+13:00History is always contestable!History is always contestable!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-62000591743270031962009-10-27T09:39:14.766+13:002009-10-27T09:39:14.766+13:00The great ejection; the ejection of the methodists...The great ejection; the ejection of the methodists; the ejection of Ratana; the schism with Rome. The record won't bear the weight of the argument. What held Anglicanism together was the prayer book and the canons and statutes. By all means find a way of holding together today. but not at the cost of pretending our history is what it isn'tAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com