Last week’s Church Times had a review of the year 2005. Here are links to the various articles:
January, February
March, April
May, June
July, August
September, October
November, December
Press
Radio
Television
Books
Arts
The Press review, which mentions TA, is not actually a review of items, but rather a discussion about the effect of the web on news. TA readers may find this of particular interest.
I had to chuckle at this (mis-)quote on sexuality (in “therevealer.org” – mentioned in the Church Times Press Review):
“most Christians have rejected the Episcopal position”
A new one for the Kama Sutra ? 😉
Andrew Brown was a bit unfair saying Thinking Anglicans is all about the schism. Also, the term schism is used there to cover a great variety of disputes, personalities, theology, cultural/social issues, politics etc. It seems a bit much reducing all these very different issues together under that term. I’m increasingly coming to view ‘schism’ as not quite the right word to apply in a general sense here. There may be two, three or more lesser schisms threatening to become firm reality, but I don’t think it’s quite accurate to lump it all together as the ‘schismatics’ would have it… Read more »
No, I think he is wrong. But there is certainly a difference in that through the Internet there are more voices to the discussion.
Can’t see that this will change the outcome, though.
Dear Augustus, I think that the schismatics are pretty united – around liberal humanist “truths”. They want to bring about moral and religious innovations that are against scripture, tradition and the teachings of the Anglican communion – and don’t really care what they have to say or do to faithful Anglicans to achieve their ends! Dear Göran, I must say I agree about the internet. The ABofC and others in the hierarchy have been complaining about the effect of email and the internet on how things develop over contentious issues – blaming them for bringing about bad feelings and overreactions.… Read more »
Oh, c’mon Dave: your comment to Augustus above is a *dialogue-ender*, and you know it. Can we at least have a little civility? 🙁
Personally, I have never heard anyone – in hierarchy or no – outside China “complain” that the Internet makes information available to wider circles.
That there are “trolls” out to feed on and foster misunderstanding and agression is quite obvious, but to me a different matter altogether.
Only, without the Internet they wouldn’t be able to hide their identities…
I suspect that Brown’s reference is not to anonymous contributors to blogs, but to the availability of hostile news articles on very public sites such as Virtuosity. Much of the Anglican Communion previously received much of its “news” pre-digested from official sources, and therefore saw very little debate or controversy in print, let alone criticism of new developments. The new technology has meant that articles and news, including controversial interpretations, have been disseminated widely.
People were being arrested in Prague not that long ago for owning a Roneo copier. The internet is much more dangerous.
What about the arts coverage?! Perfunctory was only the first (and politest) word that came to my mind…