Check this out.
(It doesn't come out well in the checking! See comment below)
[For something more substantial to read, about the 'miracle' of the Anglican Communion, have a look at this.]
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Spiritual and Sacred Links - Monday 6 October 2014
(Supplied by an English colleague) (Update from initial posting)
WORSHIP
1. The bells of St Stephen's, Brannel in Cornwall.
- BBC Radio 4
2. Choral Evensong from Winchester College - BBC
Radio 3
3. Sunday Holy Communion livestreamed from St
Helena's Church, Beaufort, South Carolina at 10:15 am Eastern Time, 3:15 pm
London Time
4. Sunday Hour - BBC Radio 2
5. Archived choral services from the chapels of
King's College Cambridge
and St John's College, Cambridge
SERMONS AND TALKS
6. Belief and unbelief - Vaughan Roberts [Luke
11:29-36] - St Ebbes Oxford Audio
7. Who can forgive sins? - Rico Tice [Mark 2:1-12]
- All Souls Langham Place Audio
8. The Sunday Readings - Rev Stephen Trott
9. Preaching Ideas and Commentary - Rev Peter
Carrell
PRAYER
Please pray for the Ebola Crisis this week; for
Christians and all facing persecution and crime in Iraq; for the persecuted
church and in particular in the Middle East, Nigeria, Egypt, South Sudan, Laos
and Hong Kong; for peace in Ukraine, Israel and Gaza; and for the Diocese of
South Carolina.
10. Iraq Region:
Canon Andrew White on the situation in Baghdad -
Sky News
As winter approaches, Christian and Yazidi refugees
who fled IS could freeze to death - Ruth Gledhill
more Media Reports from FRRME
11. Topical Prayers - Church of England
Ebola: Sept 29 – Oct 5: A week of prayer for the
Ebola Crisis - Lent and Beyond
Iran: Capital charges faced by three Christians
dropped at court hearing – CSW
South Sudan: One in seven people starving or
severely malnourished - Christian Today
Egypt: Egypt: CSW calls for investigation into
violent police raid on Christian community – CSW
Laos: Lao Christians Arrested For Religious
Gathering – hrlrf
Hong Kong: Insight - Chinese troops play symbolic
role in Hong Kong drama over democracy – Reuters
South Carolina: Prayers from Lent and Beyond
CURRENT AFFAIRS
12. Sunday Programme - current affairs with Edward
Stourton - BBC Radio 4
13. Food for thought
The woman John Stott couldn't live without -
Christian Today
Tom Wright – Pulled between the People and the Page
– CEN
FINALLY
14. It's about Jesus - St Helen's Vimeo
15. Hallelujah - Emu Music
16. Norway - Morten Rustad Vimeo
Thursday, October 2, 2014
The Anglican Communion is no more. It is dead. Gone. (Updated)
UPDATE Episcopal Lead, 3 Oct 2014, reports that a Church of Ireland Gazette interview (MP3, not transcript) has ++Justin saying this about the prospects of Lambeth 2018 going ahead:
"As to the Lambeth Conference he say[s] that upon his installation he would visit all the communion churches by the end of 2014 and after that the primates, collectively would decide whether or not to go forward with Lambeth."
Thus the following post should be read in the light of that uncertainty.
ORIGINAL Anglican Ink is now reporting what has been emerging around Communion traps since an exchange at the recent TEC House of Bishops' meeting in Taiwan in which ++Jefferts Schori said that ++Welby had told her that the Lambeth Conference scheduled for 2018 is postponed indefinitely.
That there will be no Lambeth Conference is wise. The point of the conference is to gather all Anglican bishops together, each of them bringing their dioceses in spirit with them to form a great council of Anglicans. The Communion of Anglican churches has few meetings, some of those meetings stand out more than others, the Lambeth Conference being the greatest of them, the one with the most legitimacy to give an expression to 'what Anglicans believe' if we are interested in what we believe together globally.
That there will be no Lambeth Conference is chilling for Anglicans who believe we are one of the great branches of the universal church of God. The so called branch theory has been sawn off (by saw wielding Anglicans). We are now NOT a global communion. Just a bunch of people who like to call themselves Anglican.
Further, as Christopher Johnson points out, without the Lambeth Conference there is no means of asserting a legitimacy via membership of that conference: consequently, "you’re Anglican if you think you are."
Consider all the Anglican (or 'Anglican') bishops running around belonging to ACRONYM this and ECRONYM that who were not previously part of the Lambeth Conference invitation list. They now have as much legitimacy calling themselves Anglican bishops as the Archbishop of York or the Archbishop of Melbourne because neither of those bishops is invited to Lambeth either.
In turn this means that the Anglican Communion is now a convenient fiction. It was broken a while back. Some (including me) kept saying it was just wounded, it could be restored, etc so we could keep talking about the actuality of the Anglican Communion. Not now. It is over rover.
When GAFCON or Global South next meets it will have greater claim to talk about its bishops in communion with one another being 'the' Anglican Communion than the 'Anglican Communion' which now admits it cannot call its bishops together.
Anglicans in my experience often talk about this or that plan for the future being the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Well, with respect to the future of the Communion, read my lips, "The Titanic has sunk."
There is one way in which this line of thought could be proved wrong. If the long term plan of ++Justin Welby, to keep working on reconciliation 'behind the scenes', without the shipwreck of conferences bishops do not turn up to, yields some commitment to new meetings, then resurrection will take place.
But let's be clear. The Anglican Communion for the time being is a history and a hope which is not a present reality.
Postscript
In a comment below Kurt makes the pertinent observation that 'communion' re 'Anglican Communion' can also be understood in terms of 'in communion with the See of Canterbury.'
From that understanding then the 'Anglican Communion' exists as a collection of churches remaining in communion with the See of Canterbury. (As an aside, it would be interesting to work out just which churches those were and whether, pace some meetings between the Primate of ACNA and the ABC in recent years, such a definition included ACNA or not).
Nevertheless the objective meeting together is a significant factor in what constitutes the reality of people/churches claiming to be in communion with one another.
Would we consider a parish was still functioning if the vicar told the bishop that no services were being held but every parishioner considered themselves to remain 'in communion' with the vicar (and, indeed, offered signs of this being so by being willing to share in communion with the vicar when she made a home communion visit)?
It could be that we suspend judgment on the continuing reality of the Communion as a formal body if ++Justin declared that (a) Lambeth 2018 was postponed, but (b) the intention remained to hold a meeting of Anglican bishops at a suitable time and place in the future, while acknowledging that (c) if such a meeting were not to take place by, say, 2030, then formal disbandment of the structures of Communion would then take place.
"As to the Lambeth Conference he say[s] that upon his installation he would visit all the communion churches by the end of 2014 and after that the primates, collectively would decide whether or not to go forward with Lambeth."
Thus the following post should be read in the light of that uncertainty.
ORIGINAL Anglican Ink is now reporting what has been emerging around Communion traps since an exchange at the recent TEC House of Bishops' meeting in Taiwan in which ++Jefferts Schori said that ++Welby had told her that the Lambeth Conference scheduled for 2018 is postponed indefinitely.
That there will be no Lambeth Conference is wise. The point of the conference is to gather all Anglican bishops together, each of them bringing their dioceses in spirit with them to form a great council of Anglicans. The Communion of Anglican churches has few meetings, some of those meetings stand out more than others, the Lambeth Conference being the greatest of them, the one with the most legitimacy to give an expression to 'what Anglicans believe' if we are interested in what we believe together globally.
That there will be no Lambeth Conference is chilling for Anglicans who believe we are one of the great branches of the universal church of God. The so called branch theory has been sawn off (by saw wielding Anglicans). We are now NOT a global communion. Just a bunch of people who like to call themselves Anglican.
Further, as Christopher Johnson points out, without the Lambeth Conference there is no means of asserting a legitimacy via membership of that conference: consequently, "you’re Anglican if you think you are."
Consider all the Anglican (or 'Anglican') bishops running around belonging to ACRONYM this and ECRONYM that who were not previously part of the Lambeth Conference invitation list. They now have as much legitimacy calling themselves Anglican bishops as the Archbishop of York or the Archbishop of Melbourne because neither of those bishops is invited to Lambeth either.
In turn this means that the Anglican Communion is now a convenient fiction. It was broken a while back. Some (including me) kept saying it was just wounded, it could be restored, etc so we could keep talking about the actuality of the Anglican Communion. Not now. It is over rover.
When GAFCON or Global South next meets it will have greater claim to talk about its bishops in communion with one another being 'the' Anglican Communion than the 'Anglican Communion' which now admits it cannot call its bishops together.
Anglicans in my experience often talk about this or that plan for the future being the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Well, with respect to the future of the Communion, read my lips, "The Titanic has sunk."
There is one way in which this line of thought could be proved wrong. If the long term plan of ++Justin Welby, to keep working on reconciliation 'behind the scenes', without the shipwreck of conferences bishops do not turn up to, yields some commitment to new meetings, then resurrection will take place.
But let's be clear. The Anglican Communion for the time being is a history and a hope which is not a present reality.
Postscript
In a comment below Kurt makes the pertinent observation that 'communion' re 'Anglican Communion' can also be understood in terms of 'in communion with the See of Canterbury.'
From that understanding then the 'Anglican Communion' exists as a collection of churches remaining in communion with the See of Canterbury. (As an aside, it would be interesting to work out just which churches those were and whether, pace some meetings between the Primate of ACNA and the ABC in recent years, such a definition included ACNA or not).
Nevertheless the objective meeting together is a significant factor in what constitutes the reality of people/churches claiming to be in communion with one another.
Would we consider a parish was still functioning if the vicar told the bishop that no services were being held but every parishioner considered themselves to remain 'in communion' with the vicar (and, indeed, offered signs of this being so by being willing to share in communion with the vicar when she made a home communion visit)?
It could be that we suspend judgment on the continuing reality of the Communion as a formal body if ++Justin declared that (a) Lambeth 2018 was postponed, but (b) the intention remained to hold a meeting of Anglican bishops at a suitable time and place in the future, while acknowledging that (c) if such a meeting were not to take place by, say, 2030, then formal disbandment of the structures of Communion would then take place.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Weird, wacky, woeful, worrisome
A commitment to Christ is a commitment to engage with other Christians and thus to be part of 'organised religion.' To be part of one organised religion is to suffer the slings and barbs of outrageous fortune as other organised religions visit their weird and woeful, if not wacky and worrisome behaviours on the world. No more virulent example of the dark side of religion is the work of IS. But there are other awkward moments for the presence of religion in human life ...
1. I realise I will never be a very good conservative religionist because I have quite liberal standards in respect of heresy. I cannot, for instance, think of heresy as something warranting execution.
2. In fact I may not be a very good conservative Christian because I do not agree that maintaining the highest of standards for marriage is reason to be exclusionary about who is permitted to receive the eucharist. Now, I may be misunderstanding the letter at this link, signed by many Catholic leaders as well as well know Protestant Rick Warren, but I suspect that its otherwise agreeable entreaty to the Pope and Bishops (gathering soon for the Synod of Bishops on marriage and family life) about upholding marriage standards is code for something else. In this instance, code for 'keep telling divorced persons unable to obtain an annulment that remarriage will deny them the eucharist.'
3. Naturally I subscribe to the view, as I am sure you do, that a measure of religion's value this side of eternity is its contribution to peace, wisdom, love and joy among human beings. A logical deduction to make is that a seminary training future ministers of a religion will be the epitome of peace, wisdom, love and joy. Modelling future behaviour is everything, surely. However this benign and naive view of enlightenment breaks down when we read about the latest news from the famous General Theological Seminary. They resigned. We did not! All is well. No, it isn't!
Chloe's pink slippers, the third part will appear soon.
1. I realise I will never be a very good conservative religionist because I have quite liberal standards in respect of heresy. I cannot, for instance, think of heresy as something warranting execution.
2. In fact I may not be a very good conservative Christian because I do not agree that maintaining the highest of standards for marriage is reason to be exclusionary about who is permitted to receive the eucharist. Now, I may be misunderstanding the letter at this link, signed by many Catholic leaders as well as well know Protestant Rick Warren, but I suspect that its otherwise agreeable entreaty to the Pope and Bishops (gathering soon for the Synod of Bishops on marriage and family life) about upholding marriage standards is code for something else. In this instance, code for 'keep telling divorced persons unable to obtain an annulment that remarriage will deny them the eucharist.'
3. Naturally I subscribe to the view, as I am sure you do, that a measure of religion's value this side of eternity is its contribution to peace, wisdom, love and joy among human beings. A logical deduction to make is that a seminary training future ministers of a religion will be the epitome of peace, wisdom, love and joy. Modelling future behaviour is everything, surely. However this benign and naive view of enlightenment breaks down when we read about the latest news from the famous General Theological Seminary. They resigned. We did not! All is well. No, it isn't!
Chloe's pink slippers, the third part will appear soon.
Monday, September 29, 2014
I'll keep going on the politics of Jesus - Monday 29 September 2014
Post election political life is a little less exciting. Yet there is much too ponder for the follower of Jesus intent on working out the politics of Jesus here on earth in 2014. My particular zealous interest this past week has been on what it means to be 'left', 'Labour', 'socialist'. Sparked by numerous recriminations and reflections following the gazumping of both the left of NZ politics and the Labour Party, I have also been following the British Labour Party conference in which similar recriminatory thoughts seemed to be at work over which Labour Party will win the next election.
I quite agree with those pundits who have made the point that some policies promoted by the left should not be thought of as leftist but simple fairnesses at the centre of society (e.g. removing child poverty which, funnily enough, our PM has made significant noises about this week). Nevertheless perhaps the left has stronger motivation and passion to address such matters?
I can also agree with those arguing a principled approach to politics which says, "We are working for the implementation of our principles, no matter whether they are popular or not." Stick to that, avoid gaining votes from middle NZ (or Britain) by compromising, by all means. However I would prefer that no further talk comes from your mouths about what you will do in government! In a nutshell this is where the so called 'hard left' or 'socialist wing' of the Labour Party (plural if we include Britain) are or should be at. That's fine, but life has moved on from dear old Karl making his daily pilgrimage to the British Museum to write his prognostications on the proletariat in the midst of the industrial revolution.
But what if the respective Labour Parties wish to regain the government benches. Surely there must be a reckoning with what it will take to be elected? Even more surely, this must take such parties towards the middle of society, asking what will appeal to the middle. An appeal which appeals, to be sure, to the social conscience and sense of fair play of the middle, yet an appeal which does not trash the hopes and aspirations of the middle classes. The middle masses today are not quasi-socialists, one election of a 'real' Labour government away from dropping the 'quasi-'.
The middle masses today are capitalists. They like growing personal capital (especially owning their own homes and small businesses, with opportunity to share in larger businesses via the sharemarket). They want top dollar when they sell a car and to pay bottom dollar when they buy - they think markets are a good thing (albeit keen to retain state-funded education and health services).
If there is one significant error eating away at the voting share of both the NZ Labour Party and British Labour Party it is the not so hidden presumption that these parties do not really embrace capitalism. I think the voters see and hear that, and are nervous. Blair's Labour Party and Lange/Douglas then Clarke/Cullen's Labour Party did embrace capitalism and the voters trusted them enough to re-elect them several times.
But the current amazing embarrassment at the success of Labour governments under those paradigms serves the present parties poorly. In reacting to what is interpreted as a period of socialist heresy (i.e. a reign of neo-liberal 'terror'(!)), these two Labour Parties are returning to principles but have not let go of aspirations to govern again.
No one can serve two masters. As best I can understand the two situations, both the NZ and British Labour Parties are torn between wanting to be faithful socialists and wanting to be in government. To be the latter they need voters who do not agree with the former principles. That is a bit of calculus which does not yield a positive sum!
Are they doomed to never return to power?
Probably not. One day electoral sanity will return.
But, in the meantime, how many people will suffer because governments in NZ and the UK will not be constrained by leftist motivations to build fair capitalist societies and to eradicate poverty?
Epilogue
I have noticed here in NZ some talk about our electoral cycle in which the norm is swapping between National and Labour led governments of two to three terms each. Well, I have news for you: there is another electoral pattern, produced through 1949-1975 in which twenty six years of government produced just 2 x three year periods for Labour. Who is to say that we have not returned to that pattern? Wake up, Labour!!
I quite agree with those pundits who have made the point that some policies promoted by the left should not be thought of as leftist but simple fairnesses at the centre of society (e.g. removing child poverty which, funnily enough, our PM has made significant noises about this week). Nevertheless perhaps the left has stronger motivation and passion to address such matters?
I can also agree with those arguing a principled approach to politics which says, "We are working for the implementation of our principles, no matter whether they are popular or not." Stick to that, avoid gaining votes from middle NZ (or Britain) by compromising, by all means. However I would prefer that no further talk comes from your mouths about what you will do in government! In a nutshell this is where the so called 'hard left' or 'socialist wing' of the Labour Party (plural if we include Britain) are or should be at. That's fine, but life has moved on from dear old Karl making his daily pilgrimage to the British Museum to write his prognostications on the proletariat in the midst of the industrial revolution.
But what if the respective Labour Parties wish to regain the government benches. Surely there must be a reckoning with what it will take to be elected? Even more surely, this must take such parties towards the middle of society, asking what will appeal to the middle. An appeal which appeals, to be sure, to the social conscience and sense of fair play of the middle, yet an appeal which does not trash the hopes and aspirations of the middle classes. The middle masses today are not quasi-socialists, one election of a 'real' Labour government away from dropping the 'quasi-'.
The middle masses today are capitalists. They like growing personal capital (especially owning their own homes and small businesses, with opportunity to share in larger businesses via the sharemarket). They want top dollar when they sell a car and to pay bottom dollar when they buy - they think markets are a good thing (albeit keen to retain state-funded education and health services).
If there is one significant error eating away at the voting share of both the NZ Labour Party and British Labour Party it is the not so hidden presumption that these parties do not really embrace capitalism. I think the voters see and hear that, and are nervous. Blair's Labour Party and Lange/Douglas then Clarke/Cullen's Labour Party did embrace capitalism and the voters trusted them enough to re-elect them several times.
But the current amazing embarrassment at the success of Labour governments under those paradigms serves the present parties poorly. In reacting to what is interpreted as a period of socialist heresy (i.e. a reign of neo-liberal 'terror'(!)), these two Labour Parties are returning to principles but have not let go of aspirations to govern again.
No one can serve two masters. As best I can understand the two situations, both the NZ and British Labour Parties are torn between wanting to be faithful socialists and wanting to be in government. To be the latter they need voters who do not agree with the former principles. That is a bit of calculus which does not yield a positive sum!
Are they doomed to never return to power?
Probably not. One day electoral sanity will return.
But, in the meantime, how many people will suffer because governments in NZ and the UK will not be constrained by leftist motivations to build fair capitalist societies and to eradicate poverty?
Epilogue
I have noticed here in NZ some talk about our electoral cycle in which the norm is swapping between National and Labour led governments of two to three terms each. Well, I have news for you: there is another electoral pattern, produced through 1949-1975 in which twenty six years of government produced just 2 x three year periods for Labour. Who is to say that we have not returned to that pattern? Wake up, Labour!!
Spiritual and Sacred Links - Monday 29 September 2014
(Supplied by an English colleague)
I hope some of this will be encouraging and that
you are richly blessed and rewarded by a deepening relationship with God this
coming week.
WORSHIP
1. The bells of All Saints, Harpole, in
Northamptonshire - BBC Radio 4
2. Sunday Service from Emmanuel Church, Didsbury -
BBC Radio 4
3. Choral Evensong from Derby Cathedral - BBC Radio
3
4. Sunday Holy Communion livestreamed from St
Helena's Church, Beaufort, South Carolina at 10:15 am Eastern Time, 3:15 pm
London Time
5. Sunday Hour - BBC Radio 2
6. Archived choral services from the chapels of
King's College Cambridge
and St John's College, Cambridge
SERMONS AND TALKS
7. Andy Hawthorne, founder of the Message Trust -
BBC Radio 5 Live - MP3
or online [26 September]
8. Evangelism - Chris Russell - Fulcrum Pivot Point
Audio [starts 8mins 30 secs in]
9. Putting God First: Christian Wholeness - Bishop
Graham Kings - St Paul's Sherborne Audio [Romans 12:1-21]
10. The Ethics of Sex, Marriage, and the Family -
Professor Christopher Seitz - North American Lutheran Church Conference,
Charleston Video
Text – ACI
PRAYER
Please pray for the Ebola Crisis this week; for
Christians and all facing persecution and crime in Iraq; for the persecuted
church and in particular in the Middle East, Nigeria, Egypt, China and Hong
Kong; for peace in Ukraine, Israel and Gaza; and for the Diocese of South
Carolina.
11. Iraq Region:
What's the threat of Islamic State to the Church
worldwide? – WWM
more Media Reports from FRRME
12. Topical Prayers - Church of England
Ebola: Sept 29 – Oct 5: A week of prayer for the
Ebola Crisis - Lent and Beyond
Nigeria and Senegal: stable – for the moment – WHO
Egypt: Newsletter from Bishop Mouneer Anis
China: Children arrested during raid on Chinese
church – ICC
Hong Kong: Tear gas and clashes at democracy
protest - BBC News
South Carolina: Prayers from Lent and Beyond
CURRENT AFFAIRS
13. Sunday Programme - current affairs with Edward
Stourton - BBC Radio 4
14. Food for thought
Muslims need Truth and Love - Mark Durie - Bible
Society Australia
Praying for ISIS - J John
Way of Truth and Justice: Understanding Islamic Law
Khaled Abou El Fadl - ABC Religion
Luther: The monk who wasn't good enough - Nathan
Buzenitz
I am the Good Shepherd, the Good Shepherd giveth
his life for the sheep - Glen Scrivener - The King's English
Sharing the Gospel simply - Leon Brown
FINALLY
15. How do Christians approach the workplace? - St
Helen's Vimeo
16. Beautiful Scotland - JohnDuncan Vimeo
Friday, September 26, 2014
Can I be bothered?
There was a time here on ADU when I got quite bothered by what ++Katharine Jefferts Schori was up to or whom or which diocese she was down on. Now that she is likely not seeking re-election as PB of TEC (noting Preludium's astute point about the fine subtlety of her precise words) I find myself not much bothered.
I am wondering why!
Possibly it is because my previous bothering was linked to the future of the Communion, a future which ++KJS (and other like-minded leaders) seemed intent on driving towards a specific, and to my mind uncongenial character. (Anglican Curmudgeon has a post on the 'unraveling' of the Communion which is worth a glance at this time.)
Now, I wonder whether the Communion is so fractured, its nets torn and frayed, its warm bonds of affection cooled to the point of freeze that the future of global Anglicanism lies elsewhere than in a TEC-shaped Communion.
Where the else is, I am not sure. Quite possibly with the Global South movement.
Perhaps also my lack of bother is due to the pressing concerns of our own church in the South Seas. We face our own fractures unless we - better the Spirit of God - can persuade ourselves that we can find new paths for remaining together in the face of considerable diversity. (Behind that sentence lies a longish paper which one day may see the light of day here).
One of the contributory causes of our pressing concerns is the example of TEC. Under ++Katharine's presidency it has failed - in my view - to show the rest of the Communion how to live with diversity of approach to controversial issues. Consequently, down here, Down Under, I worry that fellow Kiwi Anglicans assume there is only one way to incorporate the blessing of same sex partnerships: at the expense of those who disagree. Hovering over our church at this time of Motion 30 seems to be the spectre of TEC: 'as they have gone, so must we' lurks in the background of some conversations.
I reckon we can find another way. There is a win-win way forward. All may stay, none need go. Where TEC has gone, we do not need to go.
I can be bothered fighting for the future of ACANZP!
PS Here is the most adulatory commendation of the PB you could imagine yourself writing.
PPS Can any American readers enlighten us on trouble at the General Theological Seminary? The staff are on strike!
I am wondering why!
Possibly it is because my previous bothering was linked to the future of the Communion, a future which ++KJS (and other like-minded leaders) seemed intent on driving towards a specific, and to my mind uncongenial character. (Anglican Curmudgeon has a post on the 'unraveling' of the Communion which is worth a glance at this time.)
Now, I wonder whether the Communion is so fractured, its nets torn and frayed, its warm bonds of affection cooled to the point of freeze that the future of global Anglicanism lies elsewhere than in a TEC-shaped Communion.
Where the else is, I am not sure. Quite possibly with the Global South movement.
Perhaps also my lack of bother is due to the pressing concerns of our own church in the South Seas. We face our own fractures unless we - better the Spirit of God - can persuade ourselves that we can find new paths for remaining together in the face of considerable diversity. (Behind that sentence lies a longish paper which one day may see the light of day here).
One of the contributory causes of our pressing concerns is the example of TEC. Under ++Katharine's presidency it has failed - in my view - to show the rest of the Communion how to live with diversity of approach to controversial issues. Consequently, down here, Down Under, I worry that fellow Kiwi Anglicans assume there is only one way to incorporate the blessing of same sex partnerships: at the expense of those who disagree. Hovering over our church at this time of Motion 30 seems to be the spectre of TEC: 'as they have gone, so must we' lurks in the background of some conversations.
I reckon we can find another way. There is a win-win way forward. All may stay, none need go. Where TEC has gone, we do not need to go.
I can be bothered fighting for the future of ACANZP!
PS Here is the most adulatory commendation of the PB you could imagine yourself writing.
PPS Can any American readers enlighten us on trouble at the General Theological Seminary? The staff are on strike!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)