Comments on: Still shocking http://www.thurible.net/20100209/still-shocking/ The Blog of the Provost of St Mary's Cathedral, Glasgow Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:21:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Zebadee http://www.thurible.net/20100209/still-shocking/#comment-9910 Zebadee Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:35:17 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=6767#comment-9910 Brian I totally agree with your comments. I have asked the question for some time " Why do we need an Anglican Communion?" Is the concept of an Anglican communion all about power? Brian I totally agree with your comments. I have asked the question for some time ” Why do we need an Anglican Communion?” Is the concept of an Anglican communion all about power?

]]> By: Brian http://www.thurible.net/20100209/still-shocking/#comment-9904 Brian Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:07:32 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=6767#comment-9904 Much of the contortions through which Dr Williams put himself arise from the silly idea that a formal international organisation can purport to be a "church" at all. Let Archbishop Rowan to lead the English church and let the Americans, Canadians, Malaysians, Australians, etc., etc., to each manage their own affairs. In other words what USE is the Anglican Communion and what value is an international covenant? God's covenant in Jesus Christ will do just fine, thanks. Why on earth, for example, should the institutional decisions of American Episcopals be of the slightest concern to Malaysian Anglicans, other than in mutual love, personal fellowship and prayer. Much of the contortions through which Dr Williams put himself arise from the silly idea that a formal international organisation can purport to be a “church” at all. Let Archbishop Rowan to lead the English church and let the Americans, Canadians, Malaysians, Australians, etc., etc., to each manage their own affairs. In other words what USE is the Anglican Communion and what value is an international covenant? God’s covenant in Jesus Christ will do just fine, thanks.

Why on earth, for example, should the institutional decisions of American Episcopals be of the slightest concern to Malaysian Anglicans, other than in mutual love, personal fellowship and prayer.

]]> By: JCF http://www.thurible.net/20100209/still-shocking/#comment-9903 JCF Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:45:55 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=6767#comment-9903 Rowan blamed oppression of Malaysian Christians on ordaining partnered gay Americans. That's a DISGRACEFUL "Blaming the Victim" . . . for making more victims! Those who OPPRESS are responsible for it. Period. End of discussion. TEC's Bishop of New Hampshire---and Suffragan Bishop-Elect of Los Angeles---have had NOTHING to do w/ that oppression. Rowan is an embarrassment to the Cantuar cathedra. I want him outta there! Rowan blamed oppression of Malaysian Christians on ordaining partnered gay Americans. That’s a DISGRACEFUL “Blaming the Victim” . . . for making more victims!

Those who OPPRESS are responsible for it. Period. End of discussion.

TEC’s Bishop of New Hampshire—and Suffragan Bishop-Elect of Los Angeles—have had NOTHING to do w/ that oppression.

Rowan is an embarrassment to the Cantuar cathedra. I want him outta there!

]]> By: Robin http://www.thurible.net/20100209/still-shocking/#comment-9901 Robin Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:20:40 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=6767#comment-9901 I told you all this months ago ;-) I told you all this months ago ;-)

]]> By: Rowan Williams and the middle ground « Anglican Samizdat http://www.thurible.net/20100209/still-shocking/#comment-9897 Rowan Williams and the middle ground « Anglican Samizdat Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:28:17 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=6767#comment-9897 [...] Liberals are upset because Rowan is still not “fully including” homosexuals in the life of the Anglican church, even though he did issue a rather grovelling apology – perhaps what was missing was an obsequious Obama Bow™. [...]

]]> By: Tim http://www.thurible.net/20100209/still-shocking/#comment-9895 Tim Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:44:37 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=6767#comment-9895 Ryan, I would also laugh if I weren't being surprisingly serious. Andrew, yes: unity (with some glossing over integrity) from a heterosexual standpoint is just like "ecumenism" that says "you can come back to the true church any time you like". Is there anywhere, ever, and example of Jesus showing "restraint"? Just pondering on the nature of conservatism... Ryan, I would also laugh if I weren’t being surprisingly serious.

Andrew, yes: unity (with some glossing over integrity) from a heterosexual standpoint is just like “ecumenism” that says “you can come back to the true church any time you like”.

Is there anywhere, ever, and example of Jesus showing “restraint”? Just pondering on the nature of conservatism…

]]> By: ryan http://www.thurible.net/20100209/still-shocking/#comment-9894 ryan Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:03:28 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=6767#comment-9894 Am appalled as everyone else with ++Rowan's statement, but I couldn't let this : >>I think that should be called the Palpatine manoeuvre. go without a : lol! :-) Amusingly, I have a Emperor Palpatine Pez dispenser which looks uncannily like Pope Benedict. Practically speaking, there's no real danger of the SEC signing up to the covenant I hope? Am appalled as everyone else with ++Rowan’s statement, but I couldn’t let this :

>>I think that should be called the Palpatine manoeuvre.

go without a : lol! :-)

Amusingly, I have a Emperor Palpatine Pez dispenser which looks uncannily like Pope Benedict.

Practically speaking, there’s no real danger of the SEC signing up to the covenant I hope?

]]> By: Rosemary Hannah http://www.thurible.net/20100209/still-shocking/#comment-9893 Rosemary Hannah Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:54:22 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=6767#comment-9893 I never find Williams very easy to understand, and I find his use of English terribly convoluted, leading to my doubting how far I follow the intent of his words. As I understand it, and I could easily be wrong, what he is saying here is that Christian integrity must be exercised with regards to the edification of others. In very very general terms I would tend to agree (with many caveats). Granted this is so, I would then say that all committed and loving human intimacy with other adults would tend to be edifying, in this sense. Further, I would say that same sex commitment would be especially so. The negative popular cultural suggestion is: most people should leave a relationship if the going gets tough; men are especially likely to leave a relationship if the going gets tough; same sex relationships are especially likely to be lacking in commitment. Therefore any long term committed same sex relationships tend to speak strongly of the same loving kindness we associate with God. I would think the logical out working of Williams's hypothesis would be the especial desirability clergy and laity who are in same sex relationships. I'm with you in suspecting that this is not however what he meant. Logic is a bit of a Pandora's box, isn't it? I think he is running into this error because he confuses what ACTUALLY edifies others, with what pleases them. There are a number of very vocal people in the church who are greatly displeased by same sex relationships. This does not mean that same sex relationships are not, in fact, very edifying for society. Do I make any sense? I never find Williams very easy to understand, and I find his use of English terribly convoluted, leading to my doubting how far I follow the intent of his words.

As I understand it, and I could easily be wrong, what he is saying here is that Christian integrity must be exercised with regards to the edification of others.

In very very general terms I would tend to agree (with many caveats). Granted this is so, I would then say that all committed and loving human intimacy with other adults would tend to be edifying, in this sense. Further, I would say that same sex commitment would be especially so. The negative popular cultural suggestion is: most people should leave a relationship if the going gets tough; men are especially likely to leave a relationship if the going gets tough; same sex relationships are especially likely to be lacking in commitment. Therefore any long term committed same sex relationships tend to speak strongly of the same loving kindness we associate with God.

I would think the logical out working of Williams’s hypothesis would be the especial desirability clergy and laity who are in same sex relationships.

I’m with you in suspecting that this is not however what he meant. Logic is a bit of a Pandora’s box, isn’t it?

I think he is running into this error because he confuses what ACTUALLY edifies others, with what pleases them. There are a number of very vocal people in the church who are greatly displeased by same sex relationships. This does not mean that same sex relationships are not, in fact, very edifying for society.

Do I make any sense?

]]> By: Andrew Heatlie http://www.thurible.net/20100209/still-shocking/#comment-9892 Andrew Heatlie Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:31:59 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=6767#comment-9892 I welcomed Archbishop Rowan's profound words here, until I went back to read the jarringly illogical sixth sentence which discloses he is still thinking about inclusion coming from a heterosexual standpoint only... which logically is not in itself truly inclusive at all. Perhaps he should reread his seventh sentence also, then reconsider? Let's remember he is trying to nurse the whole Communion along together... but a deal more honest integrity and patient tolerance worldwide is going to be needed than this article displays. I welcomed Archbishop Rowan’s profound words here, until I went back to read the jarringly illogical sixth sentence which discloses he is still thinking about inclusion coming from a heterosexual standpoint only… which logically is not in itself truly inclusive at all. Perhaps he should reread his seventh sentence also, then reconsider?
Let’s remember he is trying to nurse the whole Communion along together… but a deal more honest integrity and patient tolerance worldwide is going to be needed than this article displays.

]]> By: Tim http://www.thurible.net/20100209/still-shocking/#comment-9891 Tim Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:45:49 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=6767#comment-9891 I think that should be called the Palpatine manoeuvre. What an idiot - we've had real liberty (in the form of inclusivity) over here in the basically liberal camp since forever. Not our fault others refuse to see or honour that. I think that should be called the Palpatine manoeuvre.

What an idiot – we’ve had real liberty (in the form of inclusivity) over here in the basically liberal camp since forever. Not our fault others refuse to see or honour that.

]]>