We were told that we were to treat the Conference as a pilgrimage, and it did have such a feel, but for me it was like being involved in the pilgrimage of the life cycle of the butterfly, egg, larva, caterpillar, chrysalis, butterfly. The conference for me felt like the chrysalis stage. The caterpillar entering this stage spins thread around itself which hardens into a protective shell. On the campus of the University of Kent, we were in just such a protective shell, with the world and its pressures and reporters kept at bay.
Inside the chrysalis shell the caterpillar turns into a soft, squidgy jelly like blob. Its structures soften and dissolve and something new begins to appear. And then the miracle occurs, out of this soft, squidgy confusing, not now, not ‘yetness’, the body of the beautiful butterfly is formed and in the fullness of time, breaks out and flies.
At Canterbury the Anglican Church allowed itself to risk being changed through the liquid of conversation and challenge across cultures and beliefs. It’s not at all certain that minds were altered but positions might have been softened and if so there’s a chance that something beautiful might emerge in the future which is nothing quite like we’ve known so far. The Anglican Communion might yet fly anew better fit for purpose.
Oh, please. Puhleeze. We have read all sorts of touchy-feely piffle over the last few weeks, but this belongs in the book of World Records. How can he read what he has written and not throw up? In a way, this is paradigmatic TEC and the touchy-feely movement left over from the
oleaginous 70’s liberal, the sort of thing one gets from people with tie dyed shirts and a penchant for doing native dances. What can this man’s sermons sound like? Larry
[blockquote]At Canterbury the Anglican Church allowed itself to risk being changed through the liquid of conversation and challenge across cultures and beliefs. It’s not at all certain that minds were altered but positions might have been softened and if so there’s a chance that something beautiful might emerge in the future which is nothing quite like we’ve known so far. The Anglican Communion might yet fly anew better fit for purpose.[/blockquote]
I know my remark will be perceived as cynical, but from my view that will not make it miss the mark, so I’ll risk it.
In other words, the bishop of Southwark’s paragraph could be truncated to, “The Anglican Communion: Syncretism ‘R Us.” Folks, what the orthodox are being asked now is to participate in full-on pursuit of making syncretism a standalone religion.
I think the bishop’s new flying machine is going to have a V E R Y tough time trying to take off, as it appears to be missing its wheels.
[i] Ad Hominem comment deleted [/i]
and the same Bishop who will delight in us flying anew without any traditionalists because he voted to sling them from the church at General Synod and even moved to wrap up the debate before anyone could have a change of heart and show some compassion. I have 0 respect for this man. He is hugely in favour of liberalism and shows little love for those who would disagree.
He probably was on the sauce wnen he wrote this screed.
#1
Come on, Larry, don’t hold back–tell us what you really think! 😉
uhhh…upon further reflection…what?
This sounds more like Heddly Lamar from Blazing Saddles than from a Bishop. I have looked hard for two words in this slovenly missive…Jesus Christ.
Intercessor
[blockquote]Inside the chrysalis shell the caterpillar turns into a soft, squidgy jelly like blob. Its structures soften and dissolve and something new begins to appear. And then the miracle occurs, out of this soft, squidgy confusing, not now, not ‘yetness’,[/blockquote]
This is what $6,000,000 buys?? Please explain that to the hungry tonight Dr. Williams.
Intercessor
spin, spin and more spin, here in UK all the liberal press is telling how wonderful Lambeth Conference was.
Remember, this is the same bishop who unsuccessfully tried to jettison conservative clergy when they became a bit too independent in meeting the needs of their ministry when the bishop refused to. +Tom is quite big and somewhat ruthless on playing everything by the book (emphatically with lower-case ‘b’). It makes one wonder how deep his liking for “informed disagreement” really is. If we treat each other the way +Tom tried to treat Coekin, how will his “squidgy blob” so poetically turn into a butterfly?
#5 ha ha ha ha well, let me say that I HAVE held back my real opinion because the elves would send Luigi for my kneecaps. (No no elves I don’t rilly mean that, just jocularizing. You don’t even KNOW Luigi, do you? Right? ) Ever So Self Disciplined in Maine
Athanasius Returns
Couldn’t agree with you more and I’ll even go you one better:
[i]”“The Anglican Communion: Syncretism ‘R Us.†[/i]
I think the Anglican Communion is going to be a more akin to the fast food chain slogan of Burger King…….[i]Have it your way![/i]
TEC is a fine example of the ideological machine painted up as a butterfly that comes forth when you’ve killed the living caterpillar.
OK, cutting through all the warm and fuzzy piffle (to borrow an excellent word from Larry-(many thanks LM)) what does this entire mess boil down to?
I think that this is classic Hegelian Dialectics in action, albeit dressed up in flowery imagery. We have a [b]thesis[/b], Lambeth 1.10, and we have the [b]antithesis[/b], SSM blessings and elevation of those violating Lambeth 1.10 to Priests and a Bishop. The [b]synthesis[/b] process of the last Lambeth conference seems to be clearly described here in this sentence: “Its structures soften and dissolve and something new begins to appear.”
The shorthand for this process is: THESIS + ANTITHESIS = SYTHESIS
Now, for matters of politics, religion, and science, the Hegelian Dialectic may be quite useful, I suppose. However, in matters of morality (and worse, spirituality) it has fatal flaws. The process has an [i]a priori[/i] that assumes both the THESIS and it’s ANTITHESIS carry sufficient equality that they may be considered together and combined. The process also has an [i]a priori[/i] that assumes both the THESIS and its ANTITHESIS are flawed. That is, there is an [i]a priori[/i] that disallows immutable Truth as a possibility.
Let’s look at an extreme example:
GENOCIDE IS PERMISSABLE
+ GENOCIDE IS NOT PERMISSABLE
—————————————————-
SOME GENOCIDE IS NOT PERMISSABLE AND SOME GENOCIDE IS PERMISSABLE
There is no room in this process for immutable Truth. The process makes an assumption that the belief that “genocide is not permissible†cannot be an immutable Truth. The process begins by disallowing the possibility that either the thesis or the antithesis can be an immutable Truth.
Now, if neither the thesis nor the antithesis is an immutable TRUTH, the process does not have this fatal flaw. In fact, it can be useful and helpful. As an example:
CATHOLIC + PROTESTANT = ANGLICAN
It is the classic “via mediaâ€. The process can be quite beneficial…[b][i]if[/b][/i] neither the thesis nor the antithesis are immutable Truth. (Both Catholics and Protestants might argue against the “benefits” of Anglicanism, but considering the target audience of this blog, I will take the risk.)
The crux of the matter is that both reappraisers and reasserters consider their positions to be immutable Truth. Neither side can accept that there can be a synthesis (a position that I agree with). Therefore, the Dialectical process is doomed to failure in resolving the current conflict because the positions held by both sides are mutually exclusive. (However, I have suspicions that certain elements of the reappraisers are using the Dialectical process in a cynical gambit to bring about gradual acceptance of their position…a lá Antonio Gramsci.)
The Law of Non-Contradiction (A ¹ Ā) disallows mutually exclusive propositions from being viewed as combined, therefore the Dialectical process is the wrong way to go about resolving the current crisis. What is needed is deductive reasoning to determine which proposition is Truth. The reappraisers, when not engaged in the Dialectical process (see above suspicions), have been busy using [i]inductive[/i] reasoning to prove their case. That is precisely what the “To Set Our Hope on Christ†collection of anecdotes was all about. However, inductive reasoning is not logically valid. It cannot legitimately be used to come to come to a logical conclusion. It can merely be used as a tool to point us in a direction to apply our deductive reasoning.
If reappraisers want to “engage†reasserters, they will need to abandon the dialectical process, understand the limitations of inductive reasoning, and begin at the mutually held [i]a priori[/i] definitions (if any exist) and proceed with a deductive argument from that point. Anything less is intellectually lazy and fundamentally schismatic. So far as I can tell, “less†is all that they have done. The reappraisers have not engaged the vast majority of Christianity with any rational argument for their position. They have not done the hard work of identifying their commonly held definitions of terms, nor have they offered a systematic and logically valid argument for their position, starting from those terms. Instead, rather than support their week argument with reason, they merely “shout louderâ€, as if volume determines Truth. This may explain why reappraisers think that reasserters are not listening.
Of course, you need to take my opinion with a grain of salt. I am an Evangelical from the Pietist tradition and I hold a fundamentalist view of Scripture. In short, to most Anglicans and Episcopalians, I am a rube at best and an agent of Satan at worst.