Michael Bird responds to Muriel Porter

From here:

…Muriel Porter has [written] a tirade against the greatest evil facing world Anglicanism, viz., Sydney Anglicans. Now I might have a more inclusive view of women in ministry than some of my Sydney Anglican friends, but I would point out that (i) There is a lot more diversity in Sydney Anglicanism than Porter admits; and (ii) The Diocese of Sydney employs more women in ministry than any other Anglican Diocese in the world (even if not in ordained priesthood ministry). I have no intention of defending the Sydney Anglicans (they are more than equipped to do that themselves). But in my mind Porter’s attack is not just on Sydney Anglicans, but on all Anglicans all over the world who hold to the Creeds, Prayerbook, and 39 Articles, i.e., the orthodox. The irony is that her purportedly inclusive brand of Anglicanism is anything but inclusive of anyone who disagrees with her. What is more, she treats African Anglicans as little more than puppets controlled by Sydney Anglicans. Porter is so blatantly condescending towards Anglicans in the global south that it is almost unbelievable that anyone could be that arrogant. I mean, it is borderline racism, and I wonder if an African Anglican would agree with me here? Her rant is indicative of the liberal Anglicans who are absolutely livid that African and Asian Anglicans refuse to comply with their theological revisionism. The mere fact that Global South Anglicans have any voice or vote in the communion and dare speak against their former colonial masters is positively outrageous for Porter. They must have been coaxed, cajoled, and coached into orthodoxy by Peter Jensen ”“ I mean, really, who actually believes this non-sense? For a response to Porter, see Mark Thompson’s review of her book at the Anglican Church League.

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, - Anglican: Commentary, Anglican Church of Australia, Anglican Provinces

2 comments on “Michael Bird responds to Muriel Porter

  1. wyclif says:

    I have a distinct feeling that the Diocese of Sydney isn’t very concerned by what Muriel Porter thinks. She’s based her career or discrediting SydAng and I think the Michael Jensen piece (and Michael Bird, who is independent of and not a member of Dio Sydney) effectively puts all that down. Back to their regularly scheduled programming…

  2. MargaretG says:

    Peter Carrell in New Zealand also has some comments on Muriel’s views regarding the influence of Sydney on the New Zealand church here:

    and here

    In the second one I particularly like this paragraph:
    [blockquote] In the words of the late Donald McKinnon, a man who had a great impact on Rowan Williams, theological liberals often combine “a nearly complete scepticism” with “an ecclesiological fundamentalism”. In other words, they will cheerfully abandon traditional beliefs, but are fiercely defensive of the outward paraphernalia of church life. [/blockquote]