tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post8049886559367525836..comments2024-03-28T08:30:20.260+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: Post-GAFCON at All Souls, 5: Panel DiscussionAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-57329357149650188902008-07-03T13:29:00.000+02:002008-07-03T13:29:00.000+02:00I've put a post up on my blog here explaining my t...I've put a post up on my blog <A HREF="http://elizaphanian.blogspot.com/2008/07/declarations-from-jerusalem.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> explaining my thinking in more detail.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-64364879961702310102008-07-03T08:30:00.000+02:002008-07-03T08:30:00.000+02:00Mr Foster - I see that as a charitable interpretat...Mr Foster - I see that as a charitable interpretation of GAFCON's statement, which is quite possibly the best way to interpret it (and if correct I would have no argument with it). What it _can_ mean, however, is that the church is not allowed to develop its own understandings of the faith over time. Which I wouldn't agree with (and which is why I said I would _tend_ to see it as reactionary).Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-54445474619503008562008-07-03T03:26:00.000+02:002008-07-03T03:26:00.000+02:00--In England, though, the CofE does mean Canterbur...<I>--In England, though, the CofE does mean Canterbury.--</I><BR/><BR/>What of York, then?<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://canaris1.wordpress.com" REL="nofollow">Michael Canaris</A><BR/>SydneyMichael Canarishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03395963110177542389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-23124348723827786662008-07-03T00:44:00.000+02:002008-07-03T00:44:00.000+02:00Mr. Norton, I don't think GAFCON's emphasis on the...Mr. Norton, I don't think GAFCON's emphasis on the 1662 BCP is particularly intended to be "reactionary," but rather to mark our common theological and liturgical ground. Essentially the 1662 Book is the only Prayer Book that the entire world-wide body of Anglicans has in their heritage. To use, say, either the English ASB or any of the US books that descend untimately from Scotland's own early modifications of 1662 would be to privilege one part of Anglicanism over another. Why should African Anglicans care what British or American Anglicans have done to modify the heritage of the 1662 Book in recent decades? Using the 1662 Book as a common doctrinal standard in GAFCON is a necessity born of our present de facto diversity. BCP 1662 is our common link.<BR/>The Rev. R.W. Foster<BR/>St. Vincent's School<BR/>Bedford, TX USATexanglican (R.W. Foster+)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07490925636491370254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-68707448206788828182008-07-03T00:38:00.000+02:002008-07-03T00:38:00.000+02:00As a post-Christian, now humanist, I think that th...As a post-Christian, now humanist, I think that the only reasonable outcome from all this is a split. The fact is that here we have people with almost entirely differing views within the same organisation.<BR/><BR/>Something has to give.....naturally, I have no sympathy at all with the right-wing theological conservatives, but irrespective of my view, the two camps will have to separate.<BR/><BR/>Anglicanism (the name is a clue) is the church which looks to Canterbury, and so those who wish to shift their focus elsewhere will be the ones who will no longer be Anglican in that sense. But they can call themselves what they wish. In England, though, the CofE does mean Canterbury. Have you bought a new HQ and redundant cathedral for the first FOCA who leads the English breakaway?<BR/><BR/>Mike Homfray<BR/>LiverpoolMerseymikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07231364271812168188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-34817842568853596872008-07-02T20:02:00.000+02:002008-07-02T20:02:00.000+02:00I would see that as 'of its time', and open to rev...I would see that as 'of its time', and open to revision by the mind of the church, as happened with ASB and now common worship - which is why I tend to see the emphasis on 1662 in the GAFCON statement as more than a little reactionary.<BR/><BR/>But on the other point, I'll try and spell out what I had in mind in a post on my blog. I'll put a link in here when it's done.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-38716208901911982942008-07-02T19:41:00.000+02:002008-07-02T19:41:00.000+02:00It's amazing that Packer can say he can be "friend...It's amazing that Packer can say he can be "friends with Anglo-Catholics"<BR/>That's enormously Christian of him!<BR/>It's a bit like saying he could even have friends who are black.<BR/>And there was I thinking the Faith was about Love. Silly me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-81848245671260859262008-07-02T19:39:00.000+02:002008-07-02T19:39:00.000+02:00SamOn atonement and sacrifice, how are you with th...Sam<BR/><BR/>On atonement and sacrifice, how are you with this: "Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world ..."<BR/><BR/>A bit long, I know, but thorough. I would see that as prism through which to understand the biblical material including, re your other post, on penal substitution.<BR/><BR/>On the Jerusalem church (I presume you mean in the Bible, not the GAFCON venue), there was clearly a 'circumcision' (and the rest) faction. Not sure where that is leading, though.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-85486206276399086242008-07-02T19:23:00.000+02:002008-07-02T19:23:00.000+02:00Hi John,I think we've just discovered a vast diffe...Hi John,<BR/><BR/>I think we've just discovered a vast difference! And one that would take a long time to unpack - as I suspect we disagree on what 'orthodox', 'catholic', 'sacrifice' and 'atonement' mean - just for starters!!<BR/><BR/>I had a read of your essays on Rowan a while back, but I'll go and have another look.<BR/><BR/>You seem to agree that he's not a liberal though. By 'liberal' I mean someone whose perspective on the faith is formed by Modernist philosophy, enlightenment categories of thought. The reason why I see Rowan as distinctly anti-liberal is because those categories of thought are a) what he spends most of his writings criticising, and b) he criticises them from a perspective rooted in scripture-mediated-by-tradition, which I would call 'orthodox' or 'catholic'.<BR/><BR/>This is why I'm stunned by Packer's comment that Rowan 'is by confession a Liberal'. I react to that in the same way someone familiar with Obama would react to him being described as 'by confession a conservative'. Either the word 'liberal' is being used _extremely_ loosely, or else the description is being used for purely political purposes.<BR/><BR/>On the other matter in hand... do you think that the Jerusalem church viewed it as sinful (or rendering unclean) to eat prohibited foods?Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-37777463744612169692008-07-02T19:06:00.000+02:002008-07-02T19:06:00.000+02:00Rachel,Love I can do, patience sometimes wears thi...Rachel,<BR/><BR/>Love I can do, patience sometimes wears thin!<BR/><BR/>On the Bible texts thing, be aware it is not simply a case of lining up some quotations and saying, "There you go." Try arguing for example, whether or not sexual intercourse is right for a couple who are committed but not married. I'm sure it is wrong, but there is no 'text' to prove it.<BR/><BR/>It is more about concepts than texts, but these concepts are found critically within Ephesians 5:22-33, deriving from Genesis 1:26-27 and 2:18-25, extrapolated within 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and reflected within Titus 1:5-9 and not forgetting Mark 3:13-19 and parallels.<BR/><BR/>As I keep saying, I personally don't regard the acceptance of woman incumbents as entailing a false gospel.<BR/><BR/>Nor do I think the 'inclusion of gays' is a false gospel (in fact I've just been in contact with a member of True Freedom Trust to try to address how we can give a higher profile to 'included gays' in our churches).<BR/><BR/>The Global issue is about condoning and blessing sexual acts the Bible condemns. To advocate <I>those</I> would be a 'false gospel'.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-76972071648335956032008-07-02T18:17:00.000+02:002008-07-02T18:17:00.000+02:00Hey Guys Madeline and John - where's the love?You ...Hey Guys<BR/> Madeline and John - where's the love?<BR/><BR/>You know the whole 'iron sharpening iron' thing - that's what we should be doing. John - have you thought about my questions yet? I wanted a straight-forward answer on which Biblical texts are brought to defend the idea that women should not be Bishops. Also, why is a gospel that includes gay Christians and has women as incumbents a false gospel?<BR/><BR/>In Christ<BR/>RachelRev R Marszalekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01831340057673771787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-65866147078264922832008-07-02T14:58:00.000+02:002008-07-02T14:58:00.000+02:00Dialogue also means not patronising others. Go lea...Dialogue also means not patronising others. Go learn.madeline bassetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04754901757473592547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-78579303654343514092008-07-02T14:49:00.000+02:002008-07-02T14:49:00.000+02:00MadelineThat's an improvement! Dialogue means seek...Madeline<BR/><BR/>That's an improvement! Dialogue means seeking to understand other people, and therefore to represent them in the best light, as well as to present our own viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>I hope you will appreciate I'd rather allow a fair amount of latitude on this blog. You don't give us your location, despite my preferring this, but I still post your comments - and are you really named after a PG Wodehouse character?<BR/><BR/>However, there's no point in just posting remarks which show we really dislike others and their views.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-15985323363419602412008-07-02T14:39:00.000+02:002008-07-02T14:39:00.000+02:00So try Tony Benn and Enoch Powell uniting against ...So try Tony Benn and Enoch Powell uniting against the Common Market. See? Lots of examples of extremists meeting at the edges. Anglican Mainstream is just another example of this pattern. As for flies; where I come from, the phrase is 'like flies round ****'.madeline bassetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04754901757473592547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-40678442113910111432008-07-02T14:07:00.000+02:002008-07-02T14:07:00.000+02:00Madeline,It was mostly this bit: "A left-wing bigo...Madeline,<BR/><BR/>It was mostly this bit: "A left-wing bigot has more in common with a right-wing bigot than either has with a liberal. Look at the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Look at Reform and Forward in Faith."<BR/><BR/>Unpacking that to give the terms meaning, to show that the parallels are just and to indicate how they apply to the Christian organizations cited would, I think, not be worthwhile as a contribution to a discussion.<BR/><BR/>A word of advice I read a long time ago: "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-42930132258832437212008-07-02T14:03:00.000+02:002008-07-02T14:03:00.000+02:00It seems fair comment to me. Which bit do you obje...It seems fair comment to me. Which bit do you object to?madeline bassetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04754901757473592547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-5211746040480466242008-07-02T12:22:00.000+02:002008-07-02T12:22:00.000+02:00Madeline,I just want to caution you that your comm...Madeline,<BR/><BR/>I just want to caution you that your comments are becoming less than erudite.<BR/><BR/>There is no obligation for me to post here what is merely derogatory.<BR/><BR/>JohnAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-85486276372513668812008-07-02T12:20:00.000+02:002008-07-02T12:20:00.000+02:00Sam,I'm really baffled as to how you think Rowan W...Sam,<BR/><BR/>I'm really baffled as to how you think Rowan Williams reaches his theological conclusions "via a very conservative (Anglo)catholic route".<BR/><BR/>If you've not read them already, can I commend to you my own articles on Rowan Williams's theology which appeared in <I>New Directions</I>?:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://trushare.com/93FEB03/FE03RICH.htm" REL="nofollow">Theology in the Dark</A><BR/><A HREF="http://trushare.com/94Mar03/MR03RICH.htm" REL="nofollow">Theology at the Boundary</A><BR/><A HREF="http://trushare.com/95APR03/AP03RICH.htm" REL="nofollow">Open to Question</A><BR/><BR/>In them, and also in the talks I gave which are linked on this site, I identified Rowan Williams' theology as being uniquely his own - which is one reason why he has been so widely misunderstood by erstwhile Liberal friends.<BR/><BR/>If you check the index of some of his books, however, you will find a remarkable absence of terms like 'atonement' or 'sacrifice' (surely the latter matters to an Anglo-Catholic theology). There is also little or no engagement with the Old Testament background.<BR/><BR/>RW's theology is interesting, but far, I would say, from orthodox.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-61884128350411498252008-07-02T12:18:00.000+02:002008-07-02T12:18:00.000+02:00Ah, Rachel. A left-wing bigot has more in common w...Ah, Rachel. A left-wing bigot has more in common with a right-wing bigot than either has with a liberal. Look at the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Look at Reform and Forward in Faith.madeline bassetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04754901757473592547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-2293541029166816762008-07-02T12:04:00.000+02:002008-07-02T12:04:00.000+02:00I just think it's amazing that Conservative Evange...I just think it's amazing that Conservative Evangelicals feel that they have more in common with the Catholics than other Evangelicals who simply don't feel the way they do about Gay people and women!Rev R Marszalekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01831340057673771787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-32065354719932792502008-07-02T09:18:00.000+02:002008-07-02T09:18:00.000+02:00Packer: "The present ABp of Canterbury who is by c...Packer: "The present ABp of Canterbury who is by confession a Liberal is making it hard for the rest of us to feel anything other than that we could get on better without him."<BR/><BR/>That's an astonishing declaration of theological ignorance. How Rowan can be described as a liberal is beyond me. I can see how some of the conclusions that he reaches (eg his published teachings on homosexuality) can be described as liberal, but that is simply a superficial reading, for he gets to that point via a very conservative (Anglo)catholic route. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, because his rejection of liberalism is deep and wide ranging, he is <B>less</B> of a liberal than Dr Packer.<BR/><BR/>I'd second the texanglican's comments above though, about the possibility of 'reasoning together'.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-792175274946090472008-07-02T01:41:00.000+02:002008-07-02T01:41:00.000+02:00Thanks RW,I think an audio will be available. Keep...Thanks RW,<BR/><BR/>I think an audio will be available. Keep an eye on the Anglican Mainstream and Gafcon sites.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-18494596254841121272008-07-02T01:38:00.000+02:002008-07-02T01:38:00.000+02:00On the whole as an Anglo-Catholic priest in the di...On the whole as an Anglo-Catholic priest in the diocese of Fort Worth, TX I am pleased with what you report. If ++Jensen and Dr. Packer, who have a reputation as neo-Puritans, can take this eirenic attitude toward Anglo-Catholics it bodes well for the future of orthodox Anglicanism in the post-GAFCON era. I think we can "reason together." <BR/><BR/>While I wish the account of Dr. Packer's remarks didn't have that "with qualifications" reservation, its tone toward Anglo-Catholicism is remarkably positive for a self-described Calvinist. Will video or audio of the actual event be available?)<BR/><BR/>The Rev. R.W. Foster<BR/>Chaplain, St. Vincent's Cathedral School<BR/>Bedford, Texas USATexanglican (R.W. Foster+)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07490925636491370254noreply@blogger.com