Comments on: Fluff and nonsense

By: john

john — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:58:24 +0000

N de K,

Sorry I can’t agree with you. I simply can’t get past the quite egregious narcissism of said person’s self-presentation. I know it’s an inevitable danger of ‘blog-world’ but there are, or should be, limits. I should make it clear that I do not find the same phenomenon on this blog, or on Father Jones’, or on Father Hunwicke’s.

By: john

john — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:23:03 +0000

Whatever one’s own ecclesiastical position, one doesn’t have to like, or even respect, everything about this speech to see what RW was trying to do on the particular issue. He can’t crack a whip. Nor can the corporate ‘big five’ (some of whom are pretty dislikable whatever one’s point of view). What he can do, most earnestly, is exhort his people, all of them, to ‘see the you in me and the me in you’, or whatever that ghastly but worthy hymn says. If we all do that, we can do a deal here. I find this rather moving. If it were in my power, I would do this deal. Difficult for both sides. Both sides would have to hold their nose. But having done it, they should get on with implementing mutual love and respect. What a wonderful demonstration of Anglicanism that would be!

Of course, this sort of argument will always attract the contempt of absolutists. More fool them. There is a church for them. Funnily enough, when they get into it, they find that in practice it isn’t nearly as absolutist as they supposed. No church is. So RW’s appeal is not only virtuous, it is actually grounded in simple realism.

By: StevieD

StevieD — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:10:29 +0000

I would like to endorse Nick’s comments about Fr L’s blog, although I suspect you already go there occasionally.

By: Nick De Keyser

Nick De Keyser — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:07:20 +0000

Dwight Longenecker has an excellent piece on his blog “Standing on my Head” http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2010/02/archbishop-of-canterbury-church-may.html
It’s all been said before and we know all that, but its worth a read to remind us of why we are where we are.
DL’s blog on the whole is worth a regular visit – click on “Blog Home” in the lh column on the above site
(also posted on +Edwin’s blog)

By: John Marshall

John Marshall — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:34:55 +0000

Er, obviously I meant “building bridges”, not “fences”; we already have too many of those.

By: John Marshall

John Marshall — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:22:46 +0000

It seems to me, Fr Ed, that you have already left the Church of England, in spirit if not in fact. Your constant unkindness about Rowan Williams and the CofE feels distinctly ‘demob happy’. If I am right, and you have been “called home” as you put it (I thought you had always regarded the CofE as your home), then why the need for the constant stream of invective? Surely you are already sailing serenely up the Tiber on the ‘Barque of Peter’, leaving the turmoils of the CofE behind? If you have not, and you intend to stay within “this corrupt communion” (how can you now?), then you might be wiser to start building a few fences before your line manager calls you into his (soon to be her?) office for a crisp word in your shell-like.

By: Petros

Petros — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:23:18 +0000

Better to hold Abp. Rowan in our prayers than subject him to constant criticism. He is for us; many are against us.

When in the Church in Wales his will prevailed over the intransigence of the current Archbishop Barry Morgan in the appointment of a Provincial Assistant Bishop and doubtless there would have been replacement for Bishop David Thomas if Abp. Rowan were still in charge of things there.

All may not be lost and we need every friend we can get.

Petros

By: whoknowsthetruth

whoknowsthetruth — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:09:40 +0000

Apostolic, I didn’t ever say that I was in favour or otherwise of the ordination of Women (to either the Diaconate, Priesthood or Episcopate), just that I had RC friends who couldn’t wait for the day that there was a new Pope.

My main point was that I struggle with Fr Ed’s recent constant barrack against ++Rowan. I appreciate that he doesn’t think ++Rowan helpful or providing of leadership at this point in time. However, he is currently an Ordained Minister in the Church of England that provides for him a roof over his head, a stipend etc., and that I don’t think his public rants at all helpful or well advised. There is enough mud-slinging going on in the church as it is.

If Fr Ed was in many other positions, there would be a much less charitable stance towards him and his public condemnation of someone at the head of his organisation. Whether or not Fr Ed chooses to go to Rome, I would appreciate some moving on. If he does wish to join Rome, as Mr Happy suggests, I suspect the authorities won’t be as forgiving.

By: Bill Dilworth

Bill Dilworth — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:30:50 +0000

“For ++Rowan did nothing to discipline the American church over the gay issue…”

Good Lord, Father, just what powers do you imagine the Archbishop of Canterbury to have that he can “discipline” a Province of the Anglican Communion? AFAIK, the only thing he can do is not invite bishops to Lambeth, and he in fact did refuse to invite a canonically elected and consecrated bishop of the Episcopal Church.

By: Father David

Father David — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:26:03 +0000

Unlike Bishop Edwin I have not yet given up Hope that something significant and worthwhile will emerge following my predicted defeat of what the Manchester Revision Committee is likely to propose at the July Synod. Nor do I believe in a “Fuzzy Felt” Church and Gospel as the good bishop seems to imply. The Gospel I believe in and proclaim is full of Hope.
Anyway, bishop, I thought that we were meant to be on the same side? So all power to “The Power Five” as they endeavour to use their best persuasive powers to save our beloved Church from further impending rifts.