John, given your earlier insistence - nay dogged insistence - that two views can't both be right, how can Anglican evangelicals really set aside their divisions? Are you willing to acknowledge that there might be other views than your own about the matter of human sexuality for example, something which Anglican Evangelicals are increasingly demonstrating a variety of views about? Andrew Godsall, Exeter
Andrew, I suggest you read the book!
Predictable evasive reply again John. If you answer a question just once, then I will consider buying it. Andrew
Andrew, your question is addressed - at least in part - in the book, as part of a much wider thesis. Now unless you want me to answer it out of context - which I think is pointless - why not fork out the £6.50 and buy a copy, then you'll at least know what I am arguing.Let me make two quick responses, though. First, I didn't say "two views can't both be right". I said two contradictory views can't both be right, which is a philosophical axiom, not a personal opinion.Secondly, no, I am not willing to acknowledge that homosexual practice is acceptable. I can think of a number of reasons why not, but that is a subject for another post.I hope you find reading the book profitable.
JohnYou are very poor at answering questions. You answered your own question and not the one I put to you. I asked very specifically, "are you willing to acknowledge that there might be other views than your own about the matter of human sexuality for example, something which Anglican Evangelicals are increasingly demonstrating a variety of views about?" If you make a call for Anglican Evangelicals to set aside their divisions, tell me practically how you are going to set aside your division (which you have just acknowledged) on that issue specifically. I agree that two contradictory views can't both be right - and have never said they could. What I asked was what you were going to do about those who hold views you do not think are right. That's another question you have not answered. Andrew Godsall, Exeter
Andrew, I did say I thought answering the question would be pointless in the light of the context - or absence of context - regarding this particular book.As to what I'm going to do about those who hold views I do not think are right - what I'm actually doing is what is set out in the book, namely encouraging the pursuit of policies which facilitate evangelism aimed at conversion. I think this also greatly concentrates the 'mind' and mission of the Church and actively encourages the right attitudes and beliefs.
Ahh.. the approach that says 'we are right, you are wrong'. That's definitely a policy that encourages people to put aside their differences. Andrew Godsall, Exeter
Andrew, if you just read back through these posts, you'll see why I'm so reluctant to get drawn into responding.I'm sure you don't realize this, but your 'questions' comes across as more like bait. Whatever answers are given, you're just waiting for a chance to attack the straw man.When people don't answer, you complain, when they do, you just disparage them.Like I say, you probably don't see the problem, but it is very different when you're on the receiving end.I'm not at all looking for sympathy - just trying to tell you how it is and why you don't get much out of me.
JohnThe big issue in the Anglican Communion at present is the fault line between 'conservatives' and those who are prepared to be more open about questions which conservatives believe are closed. The only way forward for all of us is dialogue. You might say I'm 'baiting'. From my perspective I'm simply trying to get you to dialogue, which you come across as simply unable to do. That's perhaps because you don't think dialogue is possible. But for me it's the only possibility. No one else seems to want to engage with you- which is sad as you make some very valuable points. Whilst I might think many of them are wrong, it doesn't mean I wouldn't defend your right to your point of view within the Anglican communion. Does that make sense to you? Andrew Godsall Exeter
Andrew, a true dialogue might be possible, but for some people this medium doesn't work. I think in our case that applies. Rather than 'beat at the air', which I think is what goes on, it would be better to find another medium.
JohnIf this medium doesn't work for you, then I do wonder why you have a blog?Like you, I am not looking for sympathy but let me tell you how it feels to me. It is as if you, and people like Anglican Mainstream and Reform etc believe there is a war, and that people like me are the enemy. And people like me are saying that there are much wiser ways than war to settle our differences. Yet you would prefer to take up arms. Tell me if it is different.....Andrew Godsall, Exeter