(no subject) [Matthew's Journal]

You're viewing

emperor's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

←

→

There are 21 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

What did the Americans decide? I can't be bothered to read all that waffle.

Particularly when taking into thoughtful and solemn account the clarity with which the archbishop speaks, it is with sadness that I admit that the press release, can be seen, in a very real sense, rather difficult, for the members of the livejournal community, who value the genuine contributions of the church to furthering the aim of the development of a dialogue between the various groups, to read.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Yes well I've probably had too much coffee today :-) and in any case he seemed to be just rehearsing what I heard on the radio towards the start of the American conference.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I couldn't make any sense of it, either. A bit like reading Dickens at school - which shows what a pleb I am! Anyway, this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5121772.stm

is a little more transparent.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Like a 65-word sentence ...

[link] [parent] [reply]

Pah — easy. Splitting an infinitive by more than sixty-five words is more of a challenge. (-8

[link] [parent] [reply]

Best comment I've read in a long time :-)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Roughly, they appointed a liberal woman bishop to be their head, and didn't go as far as many would have liked regarding not appointing more gay bishops.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Come on! They flat out said they weren't going to do what the Winsor Report said :-D

[link] [parent] [reply]

It's largely illegible for me, since the left-hand menu text appears superimposed on the left-hand side of the main text (and moves down when I scroll down)! Presumably this is a function of my low-resolution screen setting.

I get this too (& I don't think it's screen resolution that's causing it)

Off to read the BBC article which makes more sense & works in Firefox...

[link] [parent] [reply]

Well it happens in 1024x768 - so I hope it isn't resolution :-)

[link] [parent] [reply]

I wonder if it's a Firefox problem?

[link] [parent] [reply]

It doesn't happen in lynx :-)

[link] [parent] [reply]

adblocking the script called float.js or hover.js or whatever it was seems to help - but then the text runs over onto the blue portion of the background.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Interesting... it seems like a pretty good outcome given that a full schism was on the cards.

At the end of the day one group defines Christianity in a certain way and the other group has a different source for it's definition. It was pretty inevitable that this would happen.

There are two things I'm far from clear on, here.

Firstly, which part of the Anglican Church is going to be the mainstream with which the pseudoquasidemischismatic portions become "associated" rather than "constituent"? If things happen in the envisaged way, is this going to be a communion that welcomes homosexuals and women to high office with some associated churches that don't, or vice-versa?

Secondly, implicit to this scheme working is that conservative and liberal (his word) elements will divide along roughly the same line on all issues. What happens when they discover that support for gay bishops is completely independent (in the statistical sense) of support for weddings held in marshmallow fluff? Do they suddenly end up as four constituencies, with more dichotomies to come?

Do they suddenly end up as four constituencies, with more dichotomies to come?

with any luck... ;-)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Does anyone think there's any realistic chance of the C of E becoming "associate" rather than "constituent"? No? I thought not. It's not often the Prayerbook Anglican in me comes out, but if there's one of the 39 Articles that I feel strongly about, it's "the Bishop of Rome hath no authority in this realm of England", and the same goes in spades for the Bishops of anywhere else. I worry about what sort of centralisation and authoritarianism is going to be imposed on the "constituents".

[link] [parent] [reply]

Yes, but as a non-Anglican watching this situation through the news it's very easy to spot a bunch of homophobic Nigerians on the one hand and a cluster of liberal New Englanders on the other. I have this impression that CofE middle England is quietly sitting in the middle drinking tea, nibbling biscuits and waiting for all the fuss to die down.

If it's suddenly explained to the CofE that the two groups are irreconcilable and therefore they have to pick one or the other with which to stand… which way do they leap? Does the CofE want gay bishops? After what happened to Canon Jeffrey John, it looks quite borderline to me. What if the CofE itself schisms?

If we take it for granted the CofE has to be a constituent of the Anglican Communion, this all boils down to what the CofE decides. If the CofE is split, do we take it for granted that it comes down to what the Archbishop of Canterbury himself decides? If so, should he not now express his personal view on the matter more clearly?

While I'm no fan of the Pope's er… pontifications, Rowan Williams seems to be adopting the opposite extreme of nearly total passivity. To offer spiritual guidance to his Church is surely his job, not merely to nip down the road to Spar for more custard creams while the Americans and Africans argue the toss?

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think it would take a General Synod decision to determine which way the C of E goes, wouldn't it? If they voted for internal schism, it might also take an Act of Parliament.

I suppose it may also technically be the case that York could go one way and Canterbury the other, but there's no obvious reason to think that views amongst English Anglicans divide along archdiocesan lines.

[link] [parent] [reply]

October