Comments on: Companions?

By: Robin

Robin — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:41:52 +0000

Ah! But it does! +Idris is Primus (inter pares), but he’s no more a Primate than you or I. This is a delightful distinguishing feature of our Scottish Church. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries there were various suggestions and attempts to restore some kind of Metropolitan Bishop, but they came to nothing.

As for a collective noun, I don’t know. I prefer not to think about such meetings!

By: Kimberly

Kimberly — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:08:26 +0000

So what would you use as the collective noun for Archbishops, Presiding Bishops, Primi (Primuses??), etc?

I have always heard ‘primates’ as a simple short hand and have not assumed that it tells us anything about the form of governance in any particular province.

By: Robin

Robin — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 12:52:43 +0000

No, Kimberley – he ISN’T a Primate. He is merely first among equals and has no powers as a primate or metropolitan.

By: Kimberly

Kimberly — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 07:51:30 +0000

Robin, we don’t have Archbishops but we do have a Primate– right now +Idris, our Primus. Same role. Different title (though of course what it means to be a Primate will also vary from one place to another.)

By: Robin

Robin — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:20:55 +0000

Erp, I’m glad to say we don’t have Primates at all in Scotland! The last one we had was Archbishop Paterson of Glasgow, who died in 1708.

By: Erp

Erp — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:01:59 +0000

Rereading the post, I should point out the bishop to your companion diocese may not have had much choice about going to Gafcon (and not going to Lambeth) without irritating his primate (and the primates in Rwanda, Nigeria, … seem to have a lot more clout than those in Scotland or England). I would certainly agree that sending money (or goods) directly to medical clinics and schools is the best method (but then I have a dim view of religious hierarchies in general).

I suspect in part the bishops were strongly discouraged from going to Lambeth so as to not let them be exposed to gay friendly bishops in an intimate and extended environment such as a multi-day Bible study group. People working closely with the ‘enemy’ often learn to see them as fellow humans. Perhaps +Williams should have had the groups cook and eat together also for one meal a day (assuming sufficient numbers of bishops can cook edible meals) to really force them to work together.

By: John Penman

John Penman — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:17:42 +0000

I think one way out of the dilemma (but it takes a bit of work and research) is not to give money via the hierachy but directly to a project. In Falkirk we no longer send our our donations to Nyakinoni in Uganda via the diocese but direct to the clinic account. Not only do we avoid propping up the “establishment” which makes the homophobic statements, the cash doesn’t sit in a diocesan account for 6 months before going to pay for the nurse.

By: kelvin

kelvin — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:46:13 +0000

Thank you ERP – a helpful question indeed, and I do like when atheists know their Bibles.

To start with, I think we know that most Christians don’t take Jesus’s words literally – they tend not to give to everyone who begs from them.

Notwithstanding that, it is clear that Jesus’s presumption is that we should repay the badness of our enemies with generosity rather than reflecting their hatred back at them.

I think in the case of Rwanda, I made a pretty good case for doing good to those who seem to be opposed to me. Blessings, prayers, shared communion, friendship and support for sending medical aid (for example) all seem to fall within the categories.

What I think I would struggle with is an interpretation of Luke 6 which suggested that in order to do good to enemies we had to give them resources with which they could harm others and damage the wider church. My judgement at the moment, is that giving money to the Anglican Church in Rwanda and particularly passing cash to its hierarchy would do precisely that.

Jesus told us to do good to our enemies but that is not the same as indulging them.

By: David |Dah � veed|

David |Dah � veed| — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:04:11 +0000

Enlighten me please. Why does it seem that Kenny is always the contrarian here?

By: Erp

Erp — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:44:46 +0000

Hmm, as a lurking atheistic humanist around here. How and should one apply Luke 6?

[27] “But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
[28] bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
[29] To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.
[30] Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again.
…
[33] And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.