tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post3268064322427482335..comments2024-03-29T17:55:30.203+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: When Anglicans read Scripture ...Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-57743516544067412862010-03-05T09:25:13.890+13:002010-03-05T09:25:13.890+13:00I’m surprised there are still people trying to rev...I’m surprised there are still people trying to revive the covenant by patching. I’m not surprised that this is from people who appear to neither understand the theory nor the practice of Anglicanism/Episcopalianism. Anglicans are not normally “governed by bishops” (except perhaps in Nigeria, Sydney, and similar). They are normally episcopally led and synodically governed. Fr. Carrell, at a comment February 28, 2010 7:36 PM, speaks of the “bishops’ synods” in his province. This misunderstands both theory and practice in his province. Howard Pilgrim clarifies in that same thread episcopally-led, synodically-governed is not what distinguishes that province. Furthermore, the current suggested patch misunderstands the place of primates within Anglicanism. Again not surprising, as it is misunderstood within Fr. Carrell’s province.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-17884185818157223452010-03-04T19:30:42.052+13:002010-03-04T19:30:42.052+13:00And no more Francophobic comments either! Except t...And no more Francophobic comments either! Except this:<br /><br />Q: How do you get a French waiter's attention? <br />A: Start ordering in German. <br /><br />Arthur :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-35556569692209128412010-03-04T10:09:07.142+13:002010-03-04T10:09:07.142+13:00Hello Commenters
I am happy to keep publishing co...Hello Commenters<br /><br />I am happy to keep publishing comments in general about Anglican reading scripture and related subjects, but I will not publish any further comments about whether gay men are effeminate or can do violence with one hand tied behind their back or the church is too feminate, feminist, or feminized. The church is what it is! Gay men are what they are.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-78484936306198944922010-03-04T09:57:01.986+13:002010-03-04T09:57:01.986+13:00“I don't think it can be seriously denied that...“I don't think it can be seriously denied that a church with a significant number of homosexual men in the ministry (like Tec) will take on a 'feminized' image and outlook.”--Anonymous<br /><br />This is nothing but homophobic BS. The militaries of most countries are filled with gay men and lesbians (despite whatever restrictions there are formally). In France, in fact, it has long been assumed that the military is predominately homosexual. This reality has hardly “feminized” the military image. The “feminization” is in your head, Anon; many gay men I know could probably rip you in two and tie the pieces together with one hand tied behind their backs.<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Brooklyn, NYKurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10032216707367304535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-56496170448434284452010-03-04T09:35:52.499+13:002010-03-04T09:35:52.499+13:00I don't think it can be seriously denied that ...I don't think it can be seriously denied that a church with a significant number of homosexual men in the ministry (like Tec) will take on a 'feminized' image and outlook. Actually, the issue long predates the contemporary Episcopal Church of the United States. <br />The book 'Goodbye Good Men' on homosexuality in the US Catholic priesthood presaged many of the problems that have riven that communion in the US (and Ireland), in which most of the so-called 'child abuse' is really sexual exploitation of teenage boys. <br />Leon Podles dates the feminization of western Catholicism to much, much earlier (devotional practices of the 13th century).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38574365460441589632010-03-04T02:12:33.264+13:002010-03-04T02:12:33.264+13:00“But Nietzsche wasn't thinking about 'gay ...“But Nietzsche wasn't thinking about 'gay people'.”--Anonymous<br /><br />But, read in the context of your comments, you obviously were, ‘Anonymous’.<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Brooklyn USAKurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10032216707367304535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-49296000649385019632010-03-03T09:15:01.867+13:002010-03-03T09:15:01.867+13:00"Talk about stereotypical thinking about gay ..."Talk about stereotypical thinking about gay people!" - quoth Kurt.<br /><br />But Nietzsche wasn't thinking about 'gay people'. As a neo-philo-Hellenic, he may well have admired the Greek cult of ephebophilia. But I don't know - I haven't read 'The Gay Science'! (Er, that's a joke.) Nietzsche admired 'der Wille zur Kraft' and hated Christian compassion as 'Sklavenmoral', which he saw as sapping the strength of a culture. <br />As a Christian I naturally don't agree with his reading of the first few centuries of the Church (I follow David B. Hart here - classical culture was already pretty decadent in the 1st century) but I find his observation interesting when it's transposed into the late 20th century. Actually quite a lot of 18th and 19th century Germans (Goethe, Schiller, Holderlin etc) were philo-Hellenic neo-pagans.<br />Anyway, my comment about Nietzsche was just a coda.<br />Perhaps my 'lack of manly candor' is chromosonal?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-60036760610419955382010-03-03T08:06:28.485+13:002010-03-03T08:06:28.485+13:00"Tim I know, Peter I know, Kurt I am getting ..."Tim I know, Peter I know, Kurt I am getting to know, and Dave at least appears with a photograph ... but who are you, Anonymous?" (Acts 19:15)<br /><br />More to the point, why should I be interested in your opinions about homosexuals, feminists and charismatics in the church (all of whom get my approval, in principle) when you are one of those woosies who is too scared to put your name where your mouth is? And that little affectation quoting Nietzsche while carefully distancing yourself from him - how twee!<br /><br />A perfect illustration of what I was lamenting - a lack of manly candour in the Church.Howard Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822571103485207143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-473164488389818002010-03-03T03:08:19.345+13:002010-03-03T03:08:19.345+13:00“I think Nietzsche (not my role model, I hasten to...“I think Nietzsche (not my role model, I hasten to add!) would understand 'dominant woosiness' [sic] - he understood Christianity as the victory of the sick and the weak over the strong and heroic.”--Anonymous<br /><br />Talk about stereotypical thinking about gay people! <br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Brooklyn, NYKurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10032216707367304535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-22932019970555083572010-03-02T20:34:01.368+13:002010-03-02T20:34:01.368+13:00"It was an offputting image to me as a young ..."It was an offputting image to me as a young man considering Jesus' claim on my life, and it cuts no ice with more recent generations either. Why has it become such a dominant model (dominant woosiness: a paradox) in our church?"<br /><br />A good question. Probably several answers: 1. The homosexual undercurrent in some streams of Anglicanism certainly disparaged 'muscular Christianity' which was often linked with evangelicalism in its foreign missions-mindedness. 2. The slow acceptance of feminism by the Protestant churches inevitably came to mean that the ordained ministry would take on more 'feminine' characteristics and become more focused on nurture and pastoring than mission: churches led by instinctive mothers rather than instinctive fathers. 3. The 'feminine' or romantic type of emotions associated with charismatic or 'renewed' worship in the 1900s and onward, satirized as 'My Jesus, my boyfriend'.<br /><br />(I think Nietzsche (not my role model, I hasten to add!) would understand 'dominant woosiness' - he understood Christianity as the victory of the sick and the weak over the strong and heroic.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-73011439236768679402010-03-02T17:25:44.143+13:002010-03-02T17:25:44.143+13:00Equivocation is a safer option: it has the appeara...Equivocation is a safer option: it has the appearance of being profound and learned, and if no-one is quite sure what you believe, you are less likely to attract criticism.<br /><br />To take a stand and provide clarity in one's beliefs leaves you much more exposed, and especially so if you find yourself isolated in that position. <br /><br />But safer options in this regard rarely makes for decisive leadership.Tim Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13316071177447733796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-35034692445647465572010-03-02T15:11:00.801+13:002010-03-02T15:11:00.801+13:00... because we say the creeds less than we used to...... because we say the creeds less than we used to ... :)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-68511476006548348452010-03-02T15:02:42.910+13:002010-03-02T15:02:42.910+13:00Tim
Couldn't agree more with your last comment...Tim<br />Couldn't agree more with your last comment about the frustration in our communities (ecclesiastic and secular) about the inability of leaders to make a stand and give a clear answer. Epistemic humility appears to have mutated into vacuous equivocation. So why, in the spirit of your concerns(!) do you think our leaders, be they deacons (arch or otherwise) priests and bishops, find it hard to answer the 'what DO you believe / where DO you stand' question?Dave Clanceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18175082754647293739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-66470337951082134702010-03-02T14:06:49.233+13:002010-03-02T14:06:49.233+13:00Hah! It was indeed a late night typo ('mask...Hah! It was indeed a late night typo ('mask' for 'mast'), and one with many possibilities at that...<br /><br />Howard, in terms of your other questions, it is pretty much 'all of the above'. As a church culture, we seem more comfortable and able expressing doubt than conviction. I'm not wanting the reductionistic 'black and white' mode (which I often find particularly frustrating), but I do look for clearer discernment between those issues in which we are all too aware of complexity and no simple answers on the one hand, and the major affirmations of the faith that lies at the heart of our gospel witness. <br /><br />Sometimes we need to be better with an upfront answer to the honest inquiry, just what DO you believe?<br /><br />There is a great scene in the movie 'The Man who Sued God' (largely about the insurance companies cop out in blaming God for the so called 'acts of God'). A panel of church leaders/theologians is gathered to answer whether God was responsible for a boat being struck by lightning, one from each of the main denominations. When it came to the Anglican theologian/bishop, he provided the classic Anglican answer: "yes..... and no"<br /><br />I do think we should aim to achieve greater clarity and honesty in exploring our differences, moving beyond personality issues and jibes - it is only by bringing clarity to such realities that our dialogues will begin to have any integrity.<br /><br />In my experience, the wider community (and many within our churches) have little time for leadership that has an inability to give a straight answer to an honest question.Tim Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13316071177447733796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82254277258989679142010-03-02T10:47:51.342+13:002010-03-02T10:47:51.342+13:00Tim, was "mask" intentional or a typo fo...Tim, was "mask" intentional or a typo for "mast"? Anglican masks, with or sithout colours attached ... an interesting image.<br /><br />I agree with you that openness and candour are essential to good leadership, and not highly valued within our shared Anglican culture. (This is why I have objected to some of the most strident opinions from commentators on this blog being expressed from behind a shield of anonymity).<br /><br />Tell me more, however. Are you really referring to our lack of openness, or our inability to speak with one voice? The way I understand our current situation, more openness will expose our diverse convictions and force us to negotiate with one another more courageously. It will require real leadership rather than our Anglican preference for smooth talk and covert power plays.Howard Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822571103485207143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-70066930482286305842010-03-01T22:46:22.163+13:002010-03-01T22:46:22.163+13:00I'm just looking for leadership - male or fema...I'm just looking for leadership - male or female - that is prepared to 'nail their colours to the mask'. What we Anglicans have lost is the ability to give a straight answer to an honest question, and to stand up for what it is that we DO believe.Tim Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13316071177447733796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-75182744635248312672010-03-01T16:20:40.839+13:002010-03-01T16:20:40.839+13:00I have been out of touch for a few weeks, and am j...I have been out of touch for a few weeks, and am just catching up on some excellent threads on this site. Surprise, surprise, I suddenly want to speak up in support of Rosemary ... or at least to agree with part of what she is saying.<br /><br />I share her concern for the place of men in our church. For years I have been asking myself, and God, why it is so hard to attract men to a committed Anglican life. And like Rosemary I think a major factor is that our leadership generally fails to impress them. One way of saying this would be that our leadership has become "feminized".That expression demands immediate explanation! <br /><br />This is probably where Rosemary and I differ in our convictions because, after a long time wondering, I no longer think that there are too many women in leadership positions to leave enough room for men to contribute. Rather, I would now say that the problem is in our preferred leadership style. We collectively prefer to have, and give preferrment to, leaders who have, or have been socialised to present themselves as having, decidely low levels of testosterone. Consultative, supportive, non-confontational, enabling, .... you get the picture.<br /><br />Acceptable to those who prize unconditional love above all else, but ineffective too. Not presenting an image that many males want to rally around. Not incarnating a Christ who calls men and women to devote their lives to his mission within the real world outside of our feely-touchy church culture. Not the sort of leadership model that would welcome St Paul's leadership!<br /><br />And not the sort of church culture that values and celbrates the Wally Behans in our midst. I want to say that Wally, with Rosemary's support, has done a wonderful job at St John's Latimer Square over all these years. His leadership has enabled many men to identify with Christ and his Church who could not have done so elsewhere, unless it was in a congregation where forthright leadership was in evidence.<br /><br />Some of those few congregations, however are led by women! Powerful women not afraid to lead from their "male" side. Women who have not been taught that they must label their assertiveness as "stroppy" and "bossy". What do you think Rosemary? Are you a bit hard on yourself? Could it not be true that your forceful personality is God's creation rather than your fallen nature? Why else do you make such forthright contributions to this blogsite? <br /><br />My own emerging conviction is this: what we need to attract a new generation of Anglicans, male and female, is a model of leadership that is more faithful to the humanity of Christ, including his testosterone. "Gentle Jesus meek and mild" might make him more approachable in the junior Sunday School, but beyond that it bears false witness to the strong One who confronts us within the Gospels. It was an offputting image to me as a young man considering Jesus' claim on my life, and it cuts no ice with more recent generations either. Why has it become such a dominant model (dominant woosiness: a paradox) in our church?Howard Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822571103485207143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-27816131807913309392010-02-28T20:55:45.161+13:002010-02-28T20:55:45.161+13:00Hi Rosemary,
I recognise the importance of the co...Hi Rosemary,<br /><br />I recognise the importance of the concern you raise in terms having a genuine place within the Communion, and view things pretty much in the same terms as Peter. I would add, however, that I am personally committed to advocating for such a place wherever I have a voice. <br /><br />But as Peter says, the Communion, Province and each diocese has a life of its own, and the approaches taken will no doubt be quite varied. It may be that the Anglican Communion is about to lose another generation of 'Wesley's' from her immediate fellowship through their disregard for principled dissent. <br /><br />Or to put it another way, the ideologically driven power moves of those now in positions of control have all the hallmarks of the proverbial train wreck in motion - yet I trust God is working at a grass roots level where various expressions of Anglicanism at its evangelical best (in the truer sense of the word) can still thrive - in God's grace alone.<br /><br />Speaking personally, I am looking for stronger fellowship in the gospel at a grassroots level (with a renewed awareness of primary and secondary issues), and am increasingly less concerned (or hopeful) about higher level instruments of unity.Tim Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13316071177447733796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-63895314996917796242010-02-28T19:36:01.607+13:002010-02-28T19:36:01.607+13:00Hi Rosemary
I appreciate very much your continuin...Hi Rosemary<br /><br />I appreciate very much your continuing quest for clarity as expressed with "I still ask though .. whether we are welcome members of the Anglican communion. I think at this point in time, that is a VERY important question .. and as far as I’m concerned, I'm not getting a clear answer to that question." But I think the question misdirected if you continue to seek clarity from the likes of Tim and me. True we both have roles close to our respective bishops ... but the fact is the answer to your question lies with the bishops of our church and with their synods, as well as with General Synod. I certainly feel unable to offer the clarity you seek - I imagine Tim might also - because we are not bishops and we are but one voice in our respective synods, and one of us is one voice in our General Synod and one is not!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-41017160426280425402010-02-28T16:23:54.304+13:002010-02-28T16:23:54.304+13:00Chuckle .. well I’m glad I can be of help Tim, ...Chuckle .. well I’m glad I can be of help Tim, but really, for the nitty gritty theological aspects, you need to speak to someone else. Yes, I read the Bible, and I’m as much a theologian as any lay person in that I’m constantly searching for knowledge of God, but I’ve never done the type of study you’re asking for.<br /><br />“I would have to suggest that there is little biblical basis for maintaining role differentiation on gender grounds - in fact, nothing overtly, and little if anything even implicitly.”<br /><br />Well as I mentioned before, I start with God and Jesus [God]. They do NOT call women to those roles, and I’ve got to ask myself why. Perhaps because I’m a farmer’s daughter, I’m extremely aware that in all the families of creation, there is order. From the cockrel and his hens right down to the bossy female spider who eats her husband when he’s outlived his usefulness. Perhaps ‘order’ is the wrong word to use when speaking to a theologian .. shrug .. but from that ‘order’ I understand that we ALL have our part to play, but while the family is all equal, they’re not all the ‘boss.’ I’m surprised that this ‘family’ stuff doesn’t come into focus at all among folk like you who believe so differently.<br /><br />That on top of the fact that neither God, nor Jesus who certainly raised women to a new level in His society, appointed them as leader/teachers .. MEANS something to me. Means a lot actually. So I don’t agree with your above.<br /><br />I still ask though .. whether we are welcome members of the Anglican communion. I think at this point in time, that is a VERY important question .. and as far as I’m concerned, I'm not getting a clear answer to that question.Rosemary Behanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631238218649271544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-88140523727418160602010-02-28T15:22:07.648+13:002010-02-28T15:22:07.648+13:00Hi Anonymous
I prefer not to be drawn into your re...Hi Anonymous<br />I prefer not to be drawn into your request because my point is that I see no reason to expend time clarifying when I have been misrepresented - and certainly not to someone who is doing so anonymously.<br /><br />As a matter of sheer grace I will take one of your points: " It is clear that there has been a shift and this blog is moving from a vehemence against TEC to a seeking to broaden Anglicanism to include them fully."<br /><br />I agree that I have in recent months attempted to tone down vehemence against TEC - it is ungracious to be vehement, and I am trying to learn to listen more carefully to TEC proponents. But I disagree that I have intentionally or unintentionally sought "to broaden Anglicanism to include them fully." What I have been trying to do is to attend to various issues with care; and trying to better understand TEC.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-3573860767477092792010-02-28T15:14:38.176+13:002010-02-28T15:14:38.176+13:00My sincere apologies, Peter. There certainly is no...My sincere apologies, Peter. There certainly is no attempt to wilfully misrepresent your position. Why would anyone wish to do that on your own blog? How could anyone succeed in that context? Rosemary's position was difficult to understand until she clarified it. Maybe it is time to clarify yours if it is being misunderstood. You could take the 12:52pm comment as a basis and clarify point by point where I am misrepresenting you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-21124657828665910192010-02-28T13:40:25.107+13:002010-02-28T13:40:25.107+13:00Hi Anonymous (12.52 pm)
If you further comment in ...Hi Anonymous (12.52 pm)<br />If you further comment in this vein, wilfully misrepresenting what I write then your comments will not be published.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-30057824412145381002010-02-28T12:52:07.313+13:002010-02-28T12:52:07.313+13:00Thank you, Rosemary, for your clarity. You are hol...Thank you, Rosemary, for your clarity. You are holding to the classical and majority position from which Peter and Tim have departed with arguments from the Bible turning exceptions into the rule. Peter would have Christa the Daughter of God being able to be our savior. When it was pointed out that the arguments he uses can be applied directly to affirming blessing same-sex couples he conceded he had not yet thought that through. It is clear that there has been a shift and this blog is moving from a vehemence against TEC to a seeking to broaden Anglicanism to include them fully. If there is no distinction between gender roles then TEC's is the logical direction that this approach tends to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-15639442573838841262010-02-27T22:58:29.223+13:002010-02-27T22:58:29.223+13:00Thank you for your candor Rosemary. To be honest, ...Thank you for your candor Rosemary. To be honest, I don't understand where you are coming from, but your comments are helping me in that process, and I am keen to get a better understanding. You are quite right in identifying that particular line of my comment as encapsulating where we differ.<br /><br />However, I would have to suggest that there is little biblical basis for maintaining role differentiation on gender grounds - in fact, nothing overtly, and little if anything even implicitly. There is nothing distinguishing roles on a gender basis in Genesis 1 or 2, nothing throughout the OT (and a few notable examples to the contrary), nothing in the Gospels, nothing in the Pauline epistles other than 1 Tim. 2 (which I believe is addressing a particular situation in Ephesus). <br /><br />Furthermore, there is much biblical evidence that there are many roles in which male and female participation are indeed inter-changeable (eg. praying and prophesying, as but one instance). There will be distinctive ways in which males and females express their gifts and ministries (males are to minister as males, and females as females) - but precious little - if anything - that clearly distinguishes roles on a gender basis.<br /><br />And put quite simply, the challenges in temperament and character you describe are more a matter of seeking of be Christlike - as males and females - than a matter of finding our proper role as males and females. The evidence of scripture - which we must take seriously - is that God does indeed gift some women with gifts and responsibilities in leadership, and for some men, leadership is not their calling. I believe a biblical approach is far more consistent with viewing ministry on a person by person basis.<br /><br />Having being involved in such debates for over twenty years (like you) - I despair that fellow evangelicals are reading much too much into Scripture in making this the big issue, while more serious battles (to my mind) lie elsewhere.Tim Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13316071177447733796noreply@blogger.com