Saturday, 7 January 2006

Church Times: 2005 in review

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



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.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 7 January 2006 at 12:59pm GMT
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England

I had to chuckle at this (mis-)quote on sexuality (in "" - mentioned in the Church Times Press Review):

"most Christians have rejected the Episcopal position"

A new one for the Kama Sutra ? ;-)

Posted by: Dave on Saturday, 7 January 2006 at 11:15pm GMT

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 for strength in numbers. It's more a loose union of the disaffected.

Each of these, and other, groups and skirmishes have their own backgrounds, dynamics and agendas. There may be some similarities and 'types', but they are each distinct capable of existing without their fellow disaffectionees.

The fact of these groups and skirmishes and trends and disputes and problems and what have you, raises questions about the nature and history of the Anglican Communion and how it fits with the modern world, locally and globally. How are we to address these questions? By looking carefully at each of them and examining them and acknowledging them for what they are in themselves and not just reducing it all to a global theme of separation we are calling 'schism' (although that theme does need looking at too, in its own right).

Does anyone agree with his final thought? That the ordination of women would never have happened if 'computer networks had come up to speed ten years earlier'?

I can't see how he reaches this conclusion.

Posted by: Augustus Meriwether on Sunday, 8 January 2006 at 2:27am GMT

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.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Sunday, 8 January 2006 at 2:32pm GMT

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. But I suspect that this is mostly the reaction of a hierarchy that is used to being able to control the information flow.... Knowledge is power!

Posted by: Dave on Sunday, 8 January 2006 at 4:39pm GMT

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? :-(

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Monday, 9 January 2006 at 6:26am GMT

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...

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Monday, 9 January 2006 at 12:03pm GMT

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.

Posted by: Martyn Sandford on Monday, 9 January 2006 at 10:53pm GMT

What about the arts coverage?! Perfunctory was only the first (and politest) word that came to my mind...

Posted by: k1eranc on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 at 11:22pm GMT
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.