Friday, 3 June 2005

last week in the Church Times

Robin Gill wrote about human embryo cloning in Knowing the facts of life. He is Michael Ramsey Professor of Modern Theology at the University of Kent.

Another feature article was Understanding Akinola by Canon Dr Stephen Fagbemi who is Honorary Curate of Murston with Bapchild and Tonge, in the diocese of Canterbury.
Addendum: The Nigerian Vision Statement mentioned is here (hat tip to KB)

Theo Hobson’s new book ANARCHY, CHURCH AND UTOPIA: Rowan Williams on church was reviewed by David Martin.

And edited extracts of the recent Fulcrum talks by Tom Wright and Jane Williams were printed. Full versions still available here

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 3 June 2005 at 11:56pm BST
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Opinion
Comments

I'm trying to make sense of Canon Dr. Fagbemi's "Whatever are the Church of Nigeria’s many problems, total commitment to the scripture as authoritative in theology and ethics is not one of them. Neither is absolute commitment to the Anglican Communion."

---in comparison with the article on Hooker (by Fr. Michael Russell, above).

That the Nigerians (whom +Peter Akinola accurately reflects, according to Fr. Fagbemi) are *totally committed*, is not in question. Whether what the are committed TO is properly understood as "Anglicanism," IS.

Is Hooker taught in Nigerian seminaries? (Is Hooker taught in *any* of the Anglican seminaries, anywhere, self-designated "Evangelical"?)

I wonder.

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Sunday, 5 June 2005 at 5:19am BST

I'm amused by the idea that Nigerian Anglicanism would be any less authentically Anglican if it was discovered that Nigerian clerics didn't study Hooker at seminary. We are constantly being told that diversity is a hallmark of Anglicanism, and now we are being told that there is one classic Anglicanism and that ECUSAn theology is an authentic inheritor of that tradition. There's a certain irony here.

Posted by: Andrew Carey on Monday, 6 June 2005 at 1:54pm BST

Indeed, the irony is that in order to have diversity, one must stand up to those who fight against diversity.

Posted by: ruidh on Monday, 6 June 2005 at 5:02pm BST

Glad I can amuse you, Andrew (I think).

"I'm amused by the idea that Nigerian Anglicanism would be any less authentically Anglican if it was discovered that Nigerian clerics didn't study Hooker at seminary."

You wouldn't find it at all . . . problematic? If Hooker weren't taught at a seminary (*anywhere*) purporting to be Anglican? (If Luther weren't taught at a Lutheran seminary, don't you think questions would be raised?)

"We are constantly being told that diversity is a hallmark of Anglicanism, and now we are being told that there is one classic Anglicanism and that ECUSAn theology is an authentic inheritor of that tradition. There's a certain irony here."

*An* authentic inheritor? Absitively, posilutely! (We "ECUSAns" just have Good Ol' Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi)

ECUSA (and the AngChCan) have the distinctions of *not* claiming to be THE authentic inheritor (and then cutting off those debateably non-Hookerites whose views "diverge" from ours): there's your irony.

"In my Father's house there are MANY mansions"

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Tuesday, 7 June 2005 at 8:08am BST

You were questioning the Anglican credentials of the Nigerian Church. If that's not a form of 'cutting off', then I don't know what is.

But most importantly, I would hope that if we in the West make demands on African provinces to study Hooker in order to be authentically Anglican, we might take a little more note of African Anglican theologians who have as much right to be considered part of the Anglican tradition as us.


Posted by: Andrew Carey on Tuesday, 7 June 2005 at 4:51pm BST

To *question* is to cut off?

Because I could have sworn that . . . to CUT OFF (to break communion, to say "you have no share w/ us", to anathematize, to exclude) was to cut off!

[Perhaps I should clarify, that I *don't* mean "to question" along the lines of "Do you, a priori, agree to do everything/believe everything EXACTLY as I do?", but simply the opening line of a conversation? "How do you do? How do you do . . . Hooker, for example?" Being fully prepared to LISTEN to every answer to every question, and to LISTEN, and prayerfully CONSIDER the answers to questions posed to you.]

"They will know we are Christians by our LOVE": it's a nice model, wouldn't you say? [Or---to not beg the question---is there a better one? What do you think?]

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Friday, 10 June 2005 at 8:47am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.