Comments: Sunday newspapers

WOW thanks for that RW sermon. What a nourishing nibble.

He mentions touchstones which are so near the point of my following of Jesus. Speaking peace in principle to Roman magistrate types, pledging harm reductions that involve honoring diversity, keeping the small feed bags of inquiry and discussion near as I journey into that phenomenal and unfinished birthing of the Body of Christ in our worlds. RW's sermon nicely asks me to consider how I shall live in peace with conservatives who seem to wish me off the planet, including those who also pledge conservative and conformed allegiance, only to ... my like-minded friends and my like-mindedly heterosexual family, the growing new conservative system of patrons and clients, to the complicated global world of honour and manipulation that keeps a campaign for Anglican realignment going.

Then I get puzzled. I feel amazed. Is this guy the very same chef who has been preparing rather crap meals for us on other occasions? Is he capable of burning the toast to carbonized conformities in the name of real Anglican Communion? Did he really say that maybe he would be helping to open new chain restaurants in the near future, where only red raw meat eaters could sit in the main dining rooms, while vegetarians or dessert patrons would be asked to sit, cloistered away on the side rooms?

Is this the cook that seems to have allowed others (especially but not only some bishops who think only they are rubbing shoulders with Jesus as Risen Lord) to slather thick jellies of sweet privilege and prejudice all over that burned toast? Is he the chef who seems so hard to find, let alone who cannot be seen in public picking up a heavy skillet to cook in the kitchen, despite the fact that our dining rooms are filled to overflowing and in certain respects fights are breaking out among the tables, since some diners are saying that they will regurgitate if others are allowed in the dining rooms?

And what happened to that simply delicious menu item, the Elizabethan Settlement scone, that used to be served so often at breakfast that people stopped making a point of ordering it, presuming it would automatically be added to the meal? Now one can hardly find one, ever, in any of our dining rooms. Then, when it does arrive - if anybody sees you savoring it, they may call you names, slap their fists and Bibles on the table next to you, and talk very, very loudly to the whole room about how your gustation is making them nauseous to the point of heart attack?

Posted by drdanfee at Sunday, 2 July 2006 at 5:44pm BST

hehe, i like Wynne-Jones' take. imagine the scene, when the diocese of canterbury, which i hear is pretty liberal, applies to the united states for "alternative primatial oversight." whatever precedent +++Rowan decides to set for for worth, quincy, and whatever, will be back at his doorstep.

Posted by thomas bushnell, bsg at Sunday, 2 July 2006 at 10:34pm BST

This is looking good - liberals are at last getting a bit of backbone and fighting back. This is the way forward - stronger links with the US and if necessary, an alternative stream looking towards the USA, leaving canterbury behind in, as Ben Bradshaw so rightly points out, its own homophobia.

Posted by Merseymike at Sunday, 2 July 2006 at 10:49pm BST

An interesting contrast (not for the first time) between what +Rowan said and what was reported. What's this stuff about "England" with regard to S. Alban? I understand that a Sarum sequence called him "protomartyr Anglorum", but this was an egregious anachronism. No such silliness is to be found in the homily of the soundly Celtic Dr Williams.

As for historicity, I think that nobody really knows any more for certain about S. Alban than they do about S. George!

Posted by Alan Harrison at Sunday, 2 July 2006 at 11:52pm BST

I get annoyed at ++Rowan & then he comes up with something like this:
"the heaviest of our duties at times is that demand to be in loyalty, in solidarity, not only with the people we haven't met, but with the people who don't particularly want to be with us, and don't even want us to be for them"
I am so glad that the Holy Spirit is in charge rather than me!

Posted by Prior Aelred at Monday, 3 July 2006 at 1:37am BST

Mike wrote, "This is looking good - liberals are at last getting a bit of backbone and fighting back."

From your lips to His ears... ;)

Posted by David Huff at Monday, 3 July 2006 at 2:27am BST

It would seem more natural for the whole CoE and +++Rowan to be affiliated with ECUSA, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, and Scotland, than with a bigger bloc headed by a conservative bible-thumping ++Akinola. Somehow these churches will remain in communion with Canterbury, and if Nigeria and its allies are thereby lost, they will come back, with changed leadership, over the next decades.

Posted by Andrew Nadell at Monday, 3 July 2006 at 10:37am BST

"most of the CofE" is never going to join ECUSA but a minority will want to do so.

Have you noticed that most of the CofE is not at all in line with ECUSA? Why do you think the ABC sells the "liberals" down the river at every point. I do not believe he is a cynical politician but he knows where the growth, strength and health in the CofE and global Anglicanism is.

Heard of Alpha? Heard of big, growing evangelical (conservative and charismatic) churches even in England? The CofE may lose its dwindling, subsidised "liberal" wing but that is not much of a loss - just like having a dying limb chopped off - best in the long-term. ECUSA is welcome to give the English "liberals" life-support....and financial support.

70 million Anglicans......most are not going to dance to the tune of a couple of million in ECUSA people, especially given the success of their "inclusive" views, even in the US they are losing 35,000+ people p.a. and so facing extinction in a few decades......Alpha looks to have God behind it rather than ECUSA.

"Liberals" - please join ECUSA. You are only a burden to the CofE and the Anglican Communion. Join or create organisations you do can be part of with integrity. Get out of the victim mentality and stop being parasites, receiving funds taken from evangelicals. Have some "Pride" in your views. Build a great international, "liberal" alliance will last at least a couple of decades with your records of shrinking churches year by year.

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 4 July 2006 at 8:44am BST

"most of the CofE is not at all in line with ECUSA?"

The myth of the undistributed middle. Most aren't in line with Akinola, I guess, but people like me wouldn't extrapolate from that the assertion that everyone was supportive of the most left-wing aspects of ECUSA.

I think here we have a contamination of thought processes by the same sort of 'either/or' hermeneutic which bedevilled (eg) Christology at one point. (You know the thing, used to be in IVP paperbacks in the 70's, 'Jesus said he was God: if you don't agree, then Jesus has to be mad or a liar', thereby excluding a whole range of possible responses.)

To assume a binary 'For' or 'Anti' ECUSA is just as manipulative — there is (as we all know) a very wide range of responses over this within all traditions, and you cannot with integrity reduce it to this neat polarisation, convenient though it may be for some. There are many who aren't keen on what the US Church has done, but are even less keen on Akinola's vision. Where would they fit on this binary matrix?

Posted by mynsterpreost at Tuesday, 4 July 2006 at 1:43pm BST

mynsterpreost - I never gave Akinola as the alternative to ECUSA. ......actually, I would take believing, upholding the articles of the CofE as the alternative to ECUSA.

Never understand how people can with integrity be paid and housed having sworn oaths which they now do not keep...if they intended to do so.

Sorry for being so simple...but then the Lord was not equivocal if we believe his words in the Bible..... but then "liberals" never look at what he said when it does not fit their created religion because it is so much easier to make up a messiah who says "believe what you like and be nice people" - this ain't Jesus Christ if you look at his words.

I am not for Akinola but for Christ - in his own words and on his terms...... he chose a simple fisherman to be the rock on which the church was built because he knew intellectuals would be too clever by half to get the simple message....or they would be too easily subverted!

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 4 July 2006 at 2:57pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.