In the battle to capture the soul of Anglicanism, the great loser -after the Anglican Communion itself–would seem to be the Archbishop of Canterbury, who in a desperate attempt to preserve the unity of the Communion has submitted to the machinations of an anachronistic evangelicalism which pretends to “complete” the English Reformation by imposing a monolithic uniformity on the manner in which we interpret Scripture and carry on the contextual ministry that our culture requires.
When he was appointed by the Crown to the See of Canterbury, the gentle Rowan Williams tried to ingratiate himself with the radical evangelicals in the Church of England, who did not find him congenial to their subversive plans to take over the soul of the Communion.
The Archbishop was acting in good faith and desirous to extend the hand of friendship to all factions, since he did not have to please anybody, much less those who had nothing to do with his appointment.
Once enthroned, Rowan Williams found himself caught in the web of a plot of international dimensions in which radical British evangelicals, ultraconservative American schismatics and an ambitious African Primate, with his band of assenting minions, had joined forces to capture the soul of Anglicanism, at the same time that they advanced their own particular agendas.
Up until the last meeting of the Primates in Dar es Salaam, the Archbishop of Canterbury tried to woo the leaders of the conspiracy by yielding to the majority of their wishes. As was to be expected, the ringleaders took Rowan Williams’ acquiescence for weakness, and redoubled their efforts to make him sanction an American schism.
Although he has not fully submitted to their demands, I do not understand why is it that he does not put a stop to Peter Akinola’s grandiloquent harangues, or to his incessant interventions in the Episcopal Church, or respond accordingly to his bullying threats, such as “We will definitely not attend any Lambeth Conference to which the violators of the Lambeth Resolution are also invited as participants or observers.” (2006 report of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa). Neither do I understand Rowan’s reluctance to meet with the House of Bishops.
If the Archbishop of Canterbury allows the conspirators to have their way, they will not only validate an American schism, but alienate the other 21st century Anglican Provinces, and, in effect, render asunder the Anglican Communion by erecting their own ecclesial body where his primacy and moral authority will become superfluous.
Let us pray for Rowan Williams as he faces the greatest challenge of his life.
–Sergio Carranza is an Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles; this article appears in the June issue of Angelus, a publication for clergy in the Diocese of Los Angeles and is reproduced here with permission
This article is a case study in “projection”.
The bishop said,
“Once enthroned, Rowan Williams found himself caught in the web of a plot of international dimensions in which radical British evangelicals, ultraconservative American schismatics and an ambitious African Primate, with his band of assenting minions, had joined forces to capture the soul of Anglicanism, at the same time that they advanced their own particular agendas.”
This is a real “flip.”
That is, a better argument for conspiracy within ECUSA or the CofE could be made for the impact that revisionists have had over the past 40 years. It’s sort of like group of people invading and changing an institution and then charging that the original inhabitants of the institution have invaded the invaders.
(changequote)”“Once enthroned, Rowan Williams found himself caught in the web of a plot of international dimensions in which radical Canadian liberals, ultraliberal American schismatics and ambitious American Primates, with their band of assenting minions, had joined forces to capture the soul of Anglicanism, at the same time that they advanced their own particular agendas.†(/changequote)
ITSM that the liberals are the ones who are out to capture “the soul of Anglicanism.” They are the ones urging radical change in our beliefs and our praxis. They are the ones employing canons in ways they were not meant to be used and are changing such long standing traditions as inviting only the baptized to Holy Communion and changing the moral teaching of the Church to fit the culture.
“The soul of Anglicanism” is not found in “and it hurt no one, do as ye will.” That is paganism. The “soul of Anglicanism” is found in the idea that we are reformed catholics who believe the Faith has it has been handed to us, preserving the Tradition of the Church while allowing freedom of expression in that Tradition.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
The above is the language of the demagogue. When one sees words and phrases like “minions” and “ultra conservative schismatics,” we are listening, not to argument,but to snarl words (to use Hayakawa’s useful phrase) in the service of what has come to be called “venting,” working off personal animus but shouting and namecalling. The essay posted here does not deserve anyone’s time, since its sole purpose is to malign and to relieve hostility. LM
An undisclosed objective conducted over a 40-year period to deny the teachings of the bible and of the Nicene creed appears a lot more to be a “subversive plan to take over the soul of the Communion” than does a defensive action by group of Bible-believing evangelicals.
By the way, +Carranza in person (at least in his sermon to my evangelical parish in DioL.A.) is much better at being subversive about his anti-Gospel views. It is good that he has revealed himself at this time. He is one of the finest examples of the type of theology that has ruined the Diocese of Los Angeles.
desperate attempt ; machinations of an anachronistic evangelicalism; monolithic uniformity; contextual ministry; radical evangelicals; subversive plans; caught in the web; radical British evangelicals; ultraconservative American schismatics; leaders of the conspiracy; bullying threats; conspirators;
I think I read this paperback when I was a teenager.
My, isn’t it amazing how powerful a single person, +Akinola, is! Not that the reappraisers believe in any such thing, but if they did, they would surely deem him the anti-Christ. 😉
“The contextual ministry that our culture requires” – This phrase exposes the bishop’s commitment to something other than the specific revelation of God’s will in the historic Jesus Christ. It is evil to present one’s-self under the banner of revealed religion while continually re-fashioning what one preaches and teaches to suit the current culture. God became incarnate in our human flesh in order to transform us into agents of God’s Kingdom in the world. If Bishop Carranza truly thinks that it is the present world that is absolute and God who should adapt, then Satan can claim another friend in TEC’s episcopate.
How is it that we conservative evangelicals who are simply trying to uphold what (with apologies to my Anglo-Catholic brothers) the Church of England has taught for the past 450 years (and the church before that for a further 1550 years, give or take a reformation or two) are now suddenly “Radical?”
Or is this Bishop simply displaying a rather exaggerated sense of irony?
Another propaganda piece from the group restructuring Christianity.
Capture the soul of Anglicanism? Say what? The soul of Anglicanism is a fly (or maybe a moth) flitting around? I am sorry, reverend Sir. The soul of Anglicanism has already been captured. It is owned wholly and solely by one Jesus of Nazareth, shown to be the Christ by His resurrection from the dead, ascended on high, Who will sit on a Throne on the Last Day.
Anacronistic evangelism? Of course it is anachronistic, you twit. Preserving the faith once delivered to the Saints is BY DEFINITION anachronistic. We cannot simultaneously hold to the one true faith and discard it at the same time. And the revisionists have chosen to discard the one true faith (refusing to accept the Ancient Documents and refusing to assent to the Name of Jesus, for starters).
Monolithic uniformity? I sure hope so. It was Jesus who said He wanted us all to be one. Sounds pretty monolithic to me. Contextual ministry? Whatever happened to making disciples from all nations? Again, Sir, the context is the Kingdom of Heaven (which is not of this world). The context is not this present age, which is passing away.
That is just the way it works.
Enthroned? One enthrones a monarch. Cantaur is a Primate, and, indeed only Primus inter pares, although certainly not in the same way that the Pope is first in the Roman Catholic Church. I thought that once on a throne, one held that position until death. Cantaur serves a fixed term. I have personally met a former ABC.
Sanctioning an American schism? Cantaur does not have the authority either to sanction or quash the American schism, which has already taken place.
Archbishop Akinola’s graniloquent harangues? Methinks +Carranza has spent too much time with his thesaurus.
Maybe he should spend time with the Bible. Oh, I forgot. The Bible is sexist, misogynistic, and repressive.
Oh, well.
I need to grow a moustache so I can twirl it to complete this laughable caricature. This rant doesn’t even meet the standard of The Daily Kos.
Whose “grandiloquent harangues”?
make that “graniloquent.” Don’t want to make it grander than it is….
Congratulations, kb9gzg, you have just earned one free pass to the laffin’ place.
wa6kko
Absolute rot! Not about anything but the decision to consecrate an active gay bishop in the face of communion procedures, teaching and the pleas of provinces, bishops and an archbishop not to “do your own thing”.
But I will join him in his prayers for the ABC.
After the HoB arrogantly rejected the primates unanimous request, the ABC extends an invitation to all but one and says he will come running to their beckon call to “listen” to their lesson in Episcopal polity. Is that not enough for this bellicose son of the bellicose Bruno? I guess not. Let us expel the evangelicals!
OK, OK it’s just too tempting to make fun of these people: “Uncool, man! Like, we’ve been having groovy rap sessions for 40 years and now some uptight aborigines want to lay a heavy trip on us ’cause of some Gospel or something. But we’re like, the wave of the future, dig? I mean, really. We are! We are!”
But then the sight of a consecrated bishop of the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church coming this unhinged is more sad than funny (though I love the “21st century Anglican Provinces” schtick – and where, pray, are the rest of us?). And the fact that he can actually do some harm lends a more serious note. I do agree with him on one thing: we should all pray for Archbishop Williams and the Church.
Thanks, Br_er. I do feel a chuckle welling up from deep within.
BabyBlue had a similar reaction: +Carranza has “jumped the shark”:
http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/06/jumping-shark.html
The “soul of Anglicanism” as presented by Bp Carranza is nothing more than the “spirit of this world” dressed up in funny robes.
Larry Morse, I would tend to agree with you when you wrote:
The essay posted here does not deserve anyone’s time, since its sole purpose is to malign and to relieve hostility.
Very true. EXCEPT. It was foisted on the entire diocese of Los Angeles as part of an official diocesan publication. That fact, unfortunately, does make it newsworthy. The fact that bishops now feel they can vent in such a way in a public wide-circulation document is quite astounding. (This is obviously not new for +Carranza, he’s been doing it for years). We have truly lost civil public discourse in many cases.
If this had been a personal e-mail from +Carranza to some buddies we could have ignored or dismissed this. But alas, this is very much intended for wide public consumption. As Kendall might say “Ugh.”
The more unhinged they become – the smaller TEC will be when the divide finally comes. Plenty of red meat there for the new “faithful” -but not very Christian-like much less what one would expect from a Bishop. Conservative parishes left in LA should hand a copy out on Sunday.
Oh yes, please pray for the conservative parishes left in L.A.
I don’t believe it is ad hominem, in this case, to say, “idiot.”
It is interesting to compare this to Les Fairfield in the preceeding post.
Phil,
Here I disagree with you. I don’t think that Bishop Carranza deserves the title “idiot.” No one really does.
I would ask that we respond in charity or in satire to the Bishop. Since this is in the Diocesan publication by one of the diocesan leaders, we can assume that emotionally laden words like “minions, “radicals,” and “subversive” are part and parcel of what the Diocese of Los Angeles thinks of the reasserting clergy and members of the Episcopal Church. That is unfortunate and shows the Bishop Carranza (if not the leadership of the Diocese of Los Angeles and reappraisers in general) to be more interested in propaganda and power than in truth and reconciliation.
I would hope that the Ordinary of LA will disavow this article and ask for a formal apology from Bishop Carranza.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
In 2004, three Los Angeles parishes left for Uganda. At the end of 2005, a Superior Court judge ruled that the three parishes own their own property. The judge also threw out Bishop Bruno’s suits against their vestries and said that TEC had no business partaking in the suit. The diocese promptly appealed. In just twelve days, the case will be heard. Do you think there’s some connection between this screed and the court case? It wouldn’t surprise me if this catches the eye of the Los Angeles Times—by design. Bishop Carranza has been described as “Bishop Bruno’s attack dog,†often expressing opinions that +Bruno won’t utter publicly.
To me, this smacks of desperation. The outcome of the appeal will determine whether other California parishes can leave TEC with their property and without having to defend themselves in court. Believe me, there are more parishes just waiting to see what the next judge decides.
Hmmph all this ranting about conspiracy and not one, mind you not one mention of the Vatican. Boy do I feel left out. We Catliks have earned our place with the other nefarious plotters for world dominion by anachrostic evangelical forces. Just wait till Pope Benedict XVI finds out about this. Those black helis will be hovering over this guy pronto. They can be quickly diverted from CardinalMahoney.
And will other readers please join me in saving up their aluminum foil scraps. We could make this guy a dashing beanie.
Newspeak 101.
#25, 26
Used colloquially, the word is offensive. Used scientifically, it =could= fit: it applies to one “generally unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers.”
w.w.
#27 Philip Snyder posted:
I was going to reply to Philip by alluding to snowballs in Hades, but #28 Sue Martinez described the situation more succinctly:
I don’t advise waiting up nights for a retraction.
You’re right, Phil Snyder. I slipped up, because I’ve lost all patience with the other side. I’m tired of this overblown language that – in my opinion, hence my earlier comment – I don’t think can be seriously used unless one has totally lost touch with reality.
I’ve absolutely had it with “radical,†“ultraconservative†and “schismatic†being applied to people that believe nothing more than what Christians have always believed. As we know, Episcopalians are quite via media in the uncorrupted sense of the word, and yet, what do we get?
“Suddenly we see tension between the women-ordainers and the no-girls-allowed faction, between the cryptopapists and the happy-clappies, between the no-remarriage-after-divorce element and the serial polygamists, etc.â€
“Frankly, if their long hoped for revolution comes, I don’t see how all those factions will remain together for very long. All that unites them now is shared hatreds …â€
“… floor-wallowing and prophecy schools (only $150 to be a prophet!) and crude literalism …â€
“What is more, the very existence of gay men is a standing rebuke to that phallocratic privilege that means more than the existence of God to a lot of minds out there.â€
These come from a heavily-trafficked reappraiser blog, one on which I’ve spent many months conversing, but, at the end of the day, it’s always “hater,†“bigot,†“misogynist.â€
As I re-read Mr. Carranza’s remarks, I again don’t see how they rise to the level of intelligent discourse. But, I should not have personalized it by calling Mr. Carranza an idiot; rather, his piece is idiotic.
Scary. Especially coming from Double J Bruno’s Los Angelos Institute of Thuggery. I mean, who ever thought JJ would need an attack dog? Good grief, isn’t he sufficient to the need himself?
Phil (#33), is it fime for all of us to fast for a time from the reappraiser blogs?
Of course, we’d also have to sign up the likes of K. Harmon and those who post to Stand Firm. Probably wouldn’t work.
#33 – Phil – In the words of Tony Soprano to a whining Carm…..”Poor you!” You might “believe” in Christianity but you don’t practice it by calling Bishop Carranza an “idiot”…..I don’t care how frustrated you are.
So, I will be the lone voice on this post and commend the Bishop for his insight and his willingness to speak truth to power. He is one of my bishops and, although I’m sure he is amused at being called one of “+Jon Bruno’s attack dogs”, Sergio Carranza has and will continue to speak up and speak out fully on his own accord. And I, for one, love what he has to say!!!!
I agree with your first paragraph, Fred, which is why I said I should not have done so.
“render asunder” says everything about the level of education.
Fred (#36) – To what “power” is Bishop Carranza speaking “truth” to? The ABC doesn’t have power – except to invite or uninvite. The HoB in TECUSA has made that abudantly clear. All the “Power” in TECUSA is held by Carranza and his “minions” (his own word, not mine). It sounds to me like a desparate plea to confirm his own values by making the people who disagree with him to be less than human. Instead, they are “minions” or “radical” or “subversive.”
If Phil was wrong, then all reasserters that describe people who hold the faith delivered to them as “ultra-conservative,” “schismatic,” or “ultra-” anything are also wrong. The difference is the Phil has repented of his error. I have been described as homophobic, mysognistic and as a hate monger. These do not describe any argument I have made, but are directed at me personally. All such “arguments” that denigrate the individual(s) rather than take on the argument are wrong and should not be celebrated regardless of which side they support.
Phil repented of his ad-hominem attack. Will you apologize from yours and/or disassociate from those with whom you agree?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Fred-Speak truth to power? Whose truth to what power? TEC has done and can do as it pleases with not so much as a by your leave from CofE or ABC. PB Schori,+Bruno, etc run their diocese and fifedoms with impunity. We have been informed that Episcopalian polity prevents TEC from bending to the primates request. It has been pointed out that the ABC has no real power. What power is +Carranze speaking truth to? A tiny missionary diocese of Bishop Akinola’s ? The parishes that have left TEC? The few remaining reasserters? What truth? The truth that TEC is not beholding to anyone? The truth that TEC can command all to listen but never bend it’s ear?
Phil Looks like we had some of the same thoughts at the same time, you were just quicker than I. Dave
My! That bishop sure uses big words.
#42, yes he does use big words, sometimes combining them into a foolish rendition of ungrammatical English as #38 mentions…. but in the end, all you end up with from his screed, is a diatribe of nothing but anger and bile.
When +Sergio unloads his broadside in this drive-by, firing (he thinks) at firm targets he can identify as “radical British evangelicals, ultraconservative American schismatics and an ambitious African Primate, with his band of assenting minions” he is actually on a mindless fire mission, shooting at shadows over the horizon.
We here in Los Angeles are sadly, used to such drive-by shootings.
Rather, IMO, he speaks only to his own underlying uncertainty, that all his *targets* may actually hold the high ground in all this.
Carranza sounds like he studied homiletics at GRANMA, the newspaper of the Cuban Communist Party. He has certainly mastered the “grandiloquent harangue.”
Phillip Snyder – You’re kidding right? Disavow myself from those with whom I agree? Why? Because someone else made comments that made poor Phil lose his cool? They made him stoop to name-calling? They tossed around some labels that he didn’t like? Gosh, I wish I could muster up some sympathy. The fact of the matter is that this site has a reputation for attacking anything and everything that doesn’t spew the “party” line. It is often vicious. Thus the elves. So, what I see is, that you can dish out the name calling, but if someone gives it back to you….it’s “boo hoo, woe is me.” Here’s what often passes for “intelligent” discourse here: as evidenced above: First he’s an idiot. Then it’s his grammer. Then his vocbulary. Then his education. NONE of which has anything to do with what he said. It’s attack for the sake of attack. It hardly protrays a loving Christian community does it????
Oh, golly, Marge, Fred just used the “U” word!
George, you don’t mean it!
Yes, Marge, he said (stage whisper) unloving.
Oh, woe! Oh, woe!
So, Fred, what power is Sergio speaking truth to? I think it’s a figment of paranoid imagination: the conspiracists. But, since it is non-empirically verifiable, he seems to be speaking to nothing. (Unless you BELIEVE and FEEL the conspiracy yourself, of course.)
Reply to #45. who said
“Then it’s his grammer.”
Fred, the correct spelling of “grammer” is “grammar.”
And, your comment is filled with emotion and does not lend itself to a reasoned and dispassionate debate of the serious issues presented by the bishop’s statements.
Fred, Yes. I mean to disassociate from the statement that attacks people and not positions. If you remember, I called Phil on his use of the term “idiot.” I disassociated myself from his statement. I agree with a lot that Phil writes, but I disagreed with his calling +Carranza and “idiot.” While there are those who get out of line on this blog, they are usually few and far between and more often than not it is the blog members who call each other to task. I now call you to disassociate from the name calling and personal attacks in +Carranza’s article.
If +Carranza had made substative arguments, then we could debate them. Instead, he has made nothing but personal attacks. Substative arguments are not made with words like “minion” “subversive,” “schismatic,” “radical,” “ultraconservative,” “grandiloquent harangues,” or “bullying threats.” These are the words of personal attack.
I now call you, in the name of Jesus Christ, to disassociate from personal attacks made by any person you see – whether you agree with that person’s positions or not.
In Christ,
Phil Snyder
#48 – Philip Snyder – Now I know you’re kidding! The word “ultraconservative” is an attack? “Radical?” “Subversive”? Come on, now. These aren’t personal attacks. Where do you draw the line? Any adjective is an attack? Or, are only the adjectives you disagree with? Regardless, they certainly don’t justify calling the person who used them an idiot. Call him wrong. Call him uninformed. Not an idiot. And no, I will not diwsavow myself or my support for Bishop Carranza. I will, however, apologize for misspelling “grammar”. Sorry.
I think # 1. rwkachur nailed it with: This article is a case study in “projectionâ€.
Taken in that context, consider Fred’s “Truth to Power”.
They have worked so hard for so long to gain positions of power, but always see themselves as the oppressed and powerless. Why?
I propose that we are unwilling bit players who have been cast in a re-enactment of a drama from long ago and far away when they were truly powerless.
Deja Vu, are you suggesting that we reasserters are the codependent enablers who feed the need of these people to feel like an oppressed minority?
Fred,
When did holding the same teaching that the Church has always held made one “ultraconservative?” When did working to keep the teaching of the church make one “subversive?” (as regards the Church, not society. Christians are subversive regarding society.)
Can you show me one substative argument that the bishop makes? No. All he does is throw around emotionally laden adjectives. He gives no evidence – just assertions.
Of course, you may be so uneducated in the ways if discussion and rhetoric that you can’t tell the difference between a reasoned debate and a playground bully calling those he doesn’t like names.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I feel nothing but disgust for what +Carranza says and does.
I think it’s called jumping the shark.
bb
RE: “The fact of the matter is that this site has a reputation for attacking anything and everything that doesn’t spew the “party†line. It is often vicious. Thus the elves.”
Nope. The elves are here to manage the vast array of traffic here — you know, Kendall’s blog actually gets a lot of traffic . . . due to the fact that Kendall actually allows people to post comments here of differing views, rather than deleting any comments that differ with those who are insecure with their irrational, incoherent views and who can’t bear critique.
Just think! Rather than the progressive bloggers behaving in a vicious, catty manner as a “solo voice” on their own blogs, Kendall allows people to mix it up here.
Kinda nice, when one compares to those loving, kind, inclusive, affirming, communal, dolphin-like progressive blogs we are all so fond of. ; > )
For the record:
idiotes – Greek – the self-contained
Sergio is self contained. Ergo, (you do the math).
The simple fact is that the ECUSA/TEC is arguing that it is self-contained. It solely knows the “truth”. All others must bow to its superior understanding (gnosis). Thus, ECUSA/TEC is a study in the problems of idiotognosis (or gnosoidiotes?). ?Either in English or Greek the problem of “I have no need of you” is clearly ECUSA/TEC’s problem. Sergio is a symptom.
Oh, please, Fred. “Poor Phil?” LOL, I wouldn’t want to defend the stuff I quoted, either.
BTW, you’re wrong on this one, too: “Here’s what often passes for ‘intelligent’ discourse here: as evidenced above …” Actually, the record will show several comments reacting to the substance of Mr. Carranza’s rant before I chimed in, so the insult didn’t come first. But, at the end of the day, his piece is – well, I’ll use your pleasant suggestion – “wrong,” but wrong in an unhinged, paranoid sort of way.
As I read Deja Vu (#50), I’m torn between Dr. Mabuse’s Braxton’s Lear and Shakespeare’s Macbeth Act v. Sc.5…
What Sue Martinez (#28) didn’t tell you is that the gentleman in question is the ostensible rector of the alleged TEC parish–or at least the tiny remnant (last count: 3) thereof–of All Saints’, Long Beach, CA, one of the three subject churches of the diocesan appeal being heard on the 18th. All Saints’ is no longer a part of his diocese, nor his province, and yet…
Absolutely, West Coast Cleric! However, if you look up All Saints’ on the TEC “find a church” website, they still have The Rev. (and Network Dean) William Thompson listed as Rector, as well as our phone number and address. (There are similar listings for the other two former parishes.) Therefore they are sending all who inquire via the Internet to our Ugandan Anglican parish! Furthermore, the TEC whizzes have copied and pasted the membership and offering statistics from 2002 into the columns for 2003, 2004 and 2005 on the famous “Charts” because they don’t have any numbers for those years. http://12.0.101.92/reports/PR_ChartsDemo/exports/ParishRPT_672007125031AM.pdf (Ditto for the other two parishes.) +Sergio and his master will not loosen their grasp of us until the last court tells them to let go. As I said earlier, it smacks of desperation. No matter–all are welcome through our doors, no matter how they find us, even the good bishop–I think.
curioser and curioser
#38
Bit surprised by that. I still recall ‘differentium’.
Back in 2005, Bp. Carranza-Gomez described conservatives as a motley assemblage of the Fundamentalist persuasion, an unholy assemblage of gross ambition, bad hermeneutics, poor eccesiology, conservative money and plain homophobia among other things.
Why should Professor Moles, both a Classicist like me, and also presumably someone with some feeling for English idiom in its historical development, be “surprised”? Google for titusonenine and the Latin terminus technicus or technical term differentium, and it will be plain that I use it correctly and with precision. Search the lexica for “render asunder” and it will be manifest that the bishop has misused somewhat archaic ‘Language of Canaan’-type English for “tear apart”, cf.
“By schisms rent asunder
By heresies distrest”.
I find it extraordinary that a bishop in the church of my birth and baptism should abuse any element of his native language which evokes Bible-translation and ecclesiastical tradition of the most familiar kind. Such abuse argues a level of quite unsuitable sub-education.
If on the other hand the bishop has been mistranscribed, it would be wise in future to proofread his material before it goes out. Or is he perhaps not a native speaker after all?
It is my concern that sloppy English is so often the surface sign of sloppy thinking, more rhetorical than precise.
I have to say that when I saw the name ‘Bishop Sergio Carranza’ on a headline, my eyes lit up, and when I read it I wasn’t disappointed. I have been waiting for a comment from him.
What a hoot!
As a self-confessed ‘radical British evangelical’ I want to ask one question. Where do you Americans get these guys from?
Please, please – more quotes from Sergio! I enjoy a good laugh in the morning.
I’m actually showing my age when I say that the bishop’s article reminds me of “rants” published by Marxist organizations during my college days in the late 70’s/early 80’s in the Philippines.
If Fred truly likes what his bishop has to say, then he can enjoy his bishop’s writing. It’s a matter of taste. I personally don’t like it. If it was intended to be a opinion piece, then so be it.
However, given his position as a bishop of the church, he must be more circumspect in what he writes. He is in a position of authority and teaching, and must be held to higher standards. This article is just a rehash of what he has been accusing those who don’t agree with him: radical evangelicals, ultraconservtive, conspirators, etc..
Fred says he speaks the truth to power. Honestly, I still don’t understand what that means. I would prefer that he speak the truth in love.
Bishop Carranza is not a native English speaker.
From the Diocese of Los Angeles website:
With such an impeccable curriculum vitae, why would Bishop Carranza leave his Mexican episcopate to become an assistant in L.A.?
Carranza-Gomez’ [ his proper name ] bio indicates he has never married, has no children, did his pre-VTS college work at the University of Mexico, where the native tongue is presumably Spanish. When one suggests he is speaking to power, he is presumed to speak to boss and fellow VTS alum Bruno, also an alum of Cal State LA, the Denver Broncos tryout squad, and the Burbank PD, where he said he shot and killed at least one perpetrator in defense of his partner. Bruno is a man described by another fellow VTS alum and classmate, Don Armstrong, as ” a phony then and still a phony today” on this site a couple of years ago. This, one presumes, is the ‘power’ to whom Carranza-Gomez speaks.
#63
Still more surprised. (a) We’re supposed to observe anonymity on this blog, aren’t we, if contributors request it, as I do? (b) ‘differentium’ exists, but as a genitive plural. Use of it as a neuter singular is a gross solecism, although I grant you it occurs in ignorant, vulgar, late Latin. But that surely isn’t your tongue? I’m afraid I think you were working back from ‘differentia’ plural to ‘differentium’ singular. But it’s ‘differens’.
John, I certainly did not intend to ‘out’ you: you had earlier given us all your surname in your email address on this blog, and not knowing your rank, I added “Professor” as an honorific in the N. American manner. I believe that I have seen something that you have written on Tacitus, and have, perhaps wrongly, connected your surname with that.
Differentium is modern scientific and philosophical Latin for “distinct character, specific type”, and has been for decades. One meets it all the time in such discourse. Having a biologist daughter, I find that she uses it to refer to a subset of genus. I suspect that it has found its way into philosophy via biology. My Latin grammar is still good, but this is English Latin we’re talking about.
I still resist the attempt to make bacteria and phenomena into singulars, but other purist battles were lost before we were born. “I.e.” and “e.g.” are already regularly, perhaps fatally, confused.