tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post6020634991432101085..comments2024-03-28T22:29:52.666+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Missing the point?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-37492365036584688682010-05-19T17:06:10.357+12:002010-05-19T17:06:10.357+12:00Obadiah wrote:
'"Paymasters" is an a...Obadiah wrote:<br />'"Paymasters" is an another interesting putdown. While navigating newsroom culture is difficult and the pressures are certainly real I for one think that Ruth's opinions are her own.'<br />- so do I, and I think I said so. <br />"The sad fact is that she is not inventing the function of the CofE giving a religious gloss to "liberal" Britain, but that a good part of the CofE has seen this as their role. It is not hard to find UK commentators who have seen a lukewarm CofE as a way of kleeping more robust forms of christianity at bay in their society. (We probably agree about that bit)."<br />- we do. Who would criticize homosexuality or abortion or the truth claims of Islam in a British newspaper today? You's probably get a visit from the Britsh police for your trouble for stirring up "hatred".<br />"But I would not ascribe that attitude to Rupert Murdoch the ultimate paymaster of the Times."<br />- "paymaster"? interesting putdown on Australia's greatest export (after The Dame). Where's your patriotism, mate? :)<br />OutisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-33784810112014710042010-05-19T16:57:31.340+12:002010-05-19T16:57:31.340+12:00Hi Anonymous,
There are a lot of people around the...Hi Anonymous,<br />There are a lot of people around the Communion writing about issues affecting Communion unity at this time. It is interesting that they all appear incapable of writing about sexuality consistently.<br /><br />I may be misunderstanding the point you are making, but it seems like because here and there adultery is tolerated, so should homosexual same sex activity. I may not be fairly characterising your point, so I carefully now use the word 'if': if I am interpreting you correctly, the point has an air of justifying one wrong on the basis of another wrong. There is a certain consistency in doing that, but it does not amount to a strong argument in favour of the justification.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-44922645287697784492010-05-19T16:46:49.407+12:002010-05-19T16:46:49.407+12:00Thank you for publishing my comment twice. Your bl...Thank you for publishing my comment twice. Your blog is clearly becoming more popular, and your conversations are increasing. Congratulations. Currently you are only showing five comments in your sidebar. Have you considered increasing that number to make it easier for visitors to follow conversations?<br /><br />“I am not aware of any jurisdiction in the Anglican Communion in which adultery (= accused, tried, convicted) has ceased to be a sackable offence. Are you aware of any?” Response: I am not aware of any jurisdiction in the Anglican Communion in which adultery leads to being accused, tried, and convicted. Are you aware of any?<br /><br />We are aware of a jurisdiction in the Anglican Communion in which known leadership adultery does not lead to any consequences. <br /><br />“My argument here concerns an analysis of matters affecting the whole Communion.” Response: that analysis needs to include why it is that only homosexual issues are “matters affecting the whole Communion” and the people who speak or write so actively about homosexuality do nothing about known heterosexual leadership adultery. My analysis would be that the issue is not about a consistent sexual ethic but about homosexuality in particular.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-1477546676037693912010-05-19T10:33:23.581+12:002010-05-19T10:33:23.581+12:00Outis,
It is not uncommon for roundspeople to writ...Outis,<br />It is not uncommon for roundspeople to write comment pieces. I will let the readers determine whether "jobbing journalist" was a put-down in your original post.<br />And your original criticism was of a jobbing journalist being a "correspondent"- ie having the religion round. You are shifting ground somewhat to claim that your objection was to her writing oped pieces.<br />"Paymasters" is an another interesting putdown. While navigating newsroom culture is difficult and the pressures are certainly real I for one think that Ruth's opinions are her own. <br />The sad fact is that she is not inventing the function of the CofE giving a religious gloss to "liberal" Britain, but that a good part of the CofE has seen this as their role. It is not hard to find UK commentators who have seen a lukewarm CofE as a way of kleeping more robust forms of christianity at bay in their society. (We probably agree about that bit).<br />But I would not ascribe that attitude to Rupert Murdoch the ultimate paymaster of the Times.John Sandeman / Obadiah Slopehttp://eternity.biznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-34091229344644567972010-05-18T18:23:37.683+12:002010-05-18T18:23:37.683+12:00Obadiah, "jobbing journalist" isn't ...Obadiah, "jobbing journalist" isn't pejorative in my book; as a journalist covering the human angle of things, I think she's pretty good. But when she turns to op-ed, her grasp of biblical and historical issues is not specialist and is in fact fairly personally colored (through the prism of her own life). Like her paymasters in The Times, she wants to retain a gloss of liberal religiosity on late-capitalist, post-Christian Britain and sees western Anglicanism as the vehicle for this.<br />OutisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-66675154000229709512010-05-18T15:53:53.782+12:002010-05-18T15:53:53.782+12:00[Hi Anonymous. For some reason this comment would ...[Hi Anonymous. For some reason this comment would not publish in the usual way. So I am publishing it, with response, under my name].<br /><br />Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Missing the point?": <br /><br />“It has been important for Anglicans that their leaders live in accordance with God's revealed will, including God's will for sexual relationships. … adultery, being blunt, has been a sackable offence.”<br /><br />Your cautious phrasing and use of the past tense is interesting. When did it stop being possible to say this sentence for all leaders in all Tikanga? When, in each Tikanga, did it cease to be a sackable offence? Can you be equally “blunt” in the present tense please for all Tikanga. Or would such actual bluntness blunten the point of your article? <br /><br />Response: I am not aware of any jurisdiction in the Anglican Communion in which adultery (= accused, tried, convicted) has ceased to be a sackable offence. Are you aware of any?<br /><br />My argument here concerns an analysis of matters affecting the whole Communion. It was no purpose of my argument to raise specific matters in any one Anglican jurisdiction. Should you wish to raise such matters - there is a hint of that in your comment - why not start your own blog in order to do so?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-50496453964013212552010-05-18T15:46:03.673+12:002010-05-18T15:46:03.673+12:00“It has been important for Anglicans that their le...“It has been important for Anglicans that their leaders live in accordance with God's revealed will, including God's will for sexual relationships. … adultery, being blunt, has been a sackable offence.”<br /><br />Your cautious phrasing and use of the past tense is interesting. When did it stop being possible to say this sentence for all leaders in all Tikanga? When, in each Tikanga, did it cease to be a sackable offence? Can you be equally “blunt” in the present tense please for all Tikanga. Or would such actual bluntness blunten the point of your article?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-51811783390588445952010-05-18T10:35:36.484+12:002010-05-18T10:35:36.484+12:00Outis I have no difficulty with your critique of ...Outis I have no difficulty with your critique of Ruth Gledhills argument. But you went much further than that reasonable point. You said that she was unworthy because she was a journalist, rather than a "qualified expert". <br />I don't think that the comments at T19 cover that point for you. You will need to make your own defense of what seems to me to be intellectual snobbery.John Sandeman / Obadiah Slopehttp://eternity.biznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-57443341198222587352010-05-18T05:20:17.870+12:002010-05-18T05:20:17.870+12:00It's the quality of her argument I was disputi...It's the quality of her argument I was disputing, not her writing style or her nose for a story. The comments at T19 say it well, especially Sarah:<br />http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/30091/#comments<br />OutisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-49017716391757070722010-05-18T00:03:54.412+12:002010-05-18T00:03:54.412+12:00One of my editors told me that he was Managing Edi...One of my editors told me that he was Managing Editor at The Times when Ruth Gledhill came and asked for the job. "Nobody could understand why anybody wanted that job". <br />But contrary to Anonymous' point of view journalists make the best religious reporters. (And some of the worst). And church historians make the best historians. (And some of the worst). Ruth is a good reporter. Getting stories into newspapers is not as easy as it looks. Have you ever tried it?John Sandeman / Obadiah Slopenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-23330098482611799632010-05-17T15:22:36.012+12:002010-05-17T15:22:36.012+12:00Ruth Gledhill is a decent eniough if chatty writer...Ruth Gledhill is a decent eniough if chatty writer but decidely lightweight as a thinker, and being on her third marriage, takes a 'relaxed' view about this side of life. It's sign of the low esteem that The London Times holds religion that a jobbing journalist like Ruth Gledhill (rather than a qualified expert in theoloogy and church history) is their correspondent in this field. Can't imagine they'd o that for sport or economics.<br />OutisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-23205563526274393382010-05-17T14:56:51.882+12:002010-05-17T14:56:51.882+12:00Thanks Mark,
All encouragement appreciated :)Thanks Mark,<br />All encouragement appreciated :)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-58616909718184352082010-05-17T14:50:41.075+12:002010-05-17T14:50:41.075+12:00Peter...I suspect you will be part of that new thi...Peter...I suspect you will be part of that new thinking. I appreciate more and more your willingness to keep on keeping on, and your hope for the Church (one I share).Mark Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.com