After centuries of rather tense coexistence, serious trouble developed in the last half-century. North American liberal Anglicans proved to be adept at church politics, gained control of the church hierarchy, and promoted a steady stream of theological innovations that assaulted the core beliefs of the conservatives.
Bishop Ingham, for example, has suggested that we should “stop thinking of ourselves as created beings” and stop thinking of Easter as “something understandable.” Perhaps not coincidentally, Anglican membership has declined steadily in North America.
In contrast, the dominantly conservative “Global South” Anglican churches have been growing explosively. More than two-thirds of all Anglicans now come from Africa, Asia or South America. And they are now tasked with mediating the divorce of the North American church.
Can we assign blame in this ecclesiastical divorce? Was one of the parties “unfaithful” (pun unavoidable)? Liberal Anglican spokesman Neale Adams summarizes the liberal vision as: “a big-tent church . . . open to a wide variety of theologies, and we think that’s good.” To my ear, this is a bit like the cheating husband saying, “Ours is an open relationship, embracing a wide variety of extra-marital affairs.”
The liberals seem to be genuinely astonished that anyone would have a problem with this — saying, in effect, “You can teach that Jesus rose from the dead, if you like, but don’t hassle us if we teach that he didn’t.”
And not a single mention of sex except as analogy. Gee, it could almost make you think the conservatives weren’t completely about bigotry and homophobia.
I resonate with the quote
It strikes me as strange how modern-progressive-evolved-im ok your ok-liberals could be so viscous in tearing down any argument that is not there own. I’ve been insulted and mocked by bishops and priests publically as soon as I offer a conservative point of view.
In a similar way, why do Bishops and Exec Counsels quote the letter of the law – when they keep breaking that law every three years?
I’m a simple layman – perhaps someone could enlighten me 🙂
3, they argue what ever argument advances their agenda at the time. They are unfettered by consistancy. They will freely violate the canons when it suits them and enforce them when it suits them.
I’m glad the writer was finally identified at the end of his screed, so that the reader would know that this is an op-ed and not a news article. Those of us up on this nonsense would spot it right away, but other readers may not. This is typical anti-TEC/ACofC propaganda that paints these bodies in the most lurid colours and insults all of us who maintain the true faith once delivered expressed in the Nicene Creed and Chalcedon. I expect these kinds of attacks to continue unabaited well after the splits. The piece expresses the tone of someone undergoing a divorce who will not let go even after the divorce, but will continue to express his bitterness and animus toward the “ex.”
RE: “The piece expresses the tone . . . ”
Yeh . . . and your above comment expresses the tone of a man whose ex has walked out of the house — willing to leave all of her belongings just in order to [i]get away from you[/i] — and he stands on the front door-stoop screaming down the sidewalk at the ex about how he doesn’t care and he’ll show her. ; > )
And yes . . . I’m betting that those sorts of neighborhood bellows down the sidewalk will continue unabaited as well, long after the ex has hailed a taxi and departed.
Not that it matters either way. BfB cares not about the opinions of the writer of this excellent article nor do reasserters like me care about the bellows-down-the-sidewalk of folks like BfB.
Consistency from liberal? The definition of a liberal is: A person who is so open minded his/her brain has fallen out.
Sorry my bad…..however liberals cannot maintain a logical argument. When cornered by an illogical conclusion from an imperfect premise, they quickly revert to feelings or moral relativism. My wife thinks it’s a mental illness. I think they just haven’t grown up enough to take responsibility for their words and deeds.
I’m sure to take heat on this one, but as I near 60, I really say what I mean and mean what I say!
My, actual history instead of the revisionist version. BfB, I think that struck you as bad, somehow. Do you recall the end of the dream in THE GREAT DIVORCE when the beams of light have the solidity of Truth? Seems like that here.
Very fair of the author to include the actual teachings of Ingham apart from the issues of sexuality. That moves the issue to the real issue instead of the revisionists’ preferred ground of feeling issues instead of doctrine. One might hope that Canada would actually administer the justice so “sought for” by their allegations of “injustice”. Caesar is notoriously fickle.
BfB – if you are truly expressing the Nicene faith, then why haven’t the worst offenders against that faith been expelled? Why have you allowed bishops and priests to express things such as faith in Jesus Christ not being necessary for Salvation or the Resurrection being simply a thought in the minds of the Apostles or that Scripture is not binding on the Church?
Nicene ecclesiology requires nicece faith and that faith must be defended by discplining those “bishops” who teach against it.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
what Br. Michael says has a troublesome corollary: Those who have no fixed principles have a liberty of argument that the principled cannot have. That is, for the unprincipled, there is no avenue that must not be taken; all is permitted. For the principled, there are many avenues closed by virtue of their contravening principle. The up’s then have many more options, both to attack and to retreat. In open debate, this leaves the p’s blocked and vulnerable. Accordingly, when the up’s debate, many, perhaps most, listeners conclude that the up’s have the better position, the better arguments, for sheer numbers and what is now called flexibility is on their side. LM
Sarah – maybe more like Steve Martin in the movie “The Jerk,” standing in his bathrobe, holding a thermos, saying “I don’t need you.”
Still BfB, you get an “A” for writing the most humorous line I’ve read in awhile:
[blockquote]…his is typical anti-TEC/ACofC propaganda that paints these bodies in the most lurid colours and insults [i]all of us who maintain the true faith once delivered expressed in the Nicene Creed and Chalcedon[/i].[/blockquote]
That was rich.
This is actually the second article (that I am aware of) that Michael Davenport has written regarding Anglican issues. His first was written in response to Michael Igham’s Easter sermon in 2005, wherein Ingham cast doubt on the resurrection. Also well worth a read:
[url=http://www… ]acl.asn.au/pdf/QuantumU.pdf[/url]
Take two:
[url=http://www… ]http://www.acl.asn.au/pdf/QuantumU.pdf[/url]
Sorry, I can’t seem to make the link work (elves?)
[i] It just worked for me [/i]
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=d584ccb1-ab95-4770-9ded-4c09295af8e1
Sorry, I meant the second Davenport article that I tried to link to above…
Farstrider, sometimes the blog screws up links. If one copies the following and replace the “dot” with “.” it should work
www”dot”acl”dot”asn”dot”au/pdf/QuantumU”dot”pdf
It is an interesting response. The author has a PhD in theoretical physics and rebuts Ingham’s invocation of the quantum mechanics and, in particular, uncertainty principle. It would be interesting to have Nick Knisely comment on this, too (if he hasn’t already). Nick also has a PhD in particle physics, I believe.
To all intents and purposes, no one should invoke quantum physics outside the realm of quantum physics except to make a joke, because the people who want to apply it to the social, moral or philosophical issues that they are concerned with don’t understand it well enough to not talk nonsense.
Ed the Roman, B.S. Physics