Saturday, 18 July 2009

opinions after General Convention

Jim Naughton writes about the Bishop of Durham and the General Convention in Face to Faith in the Guardian.

Giles Fraser writes in the Church Times Afghanistan war: we must see it through

Last week, he wrote If marriage has friends like these . . .

Geoffrey Rowell writes in The Times that At the heart of the common life there lies humility

Donald Reeves wrote in the Church Times last week about Kosovo, Where paranoia and prejudice rule.

And there was a back page interview with Europe expert James Barnett.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 6:57am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Opinion

Disappointed with Giles Fraser. He seriously regards the pathetic Taleban as a world terrorist threat! His concern is not with the Afghan people, for whatever they may have suffered from their local fundamentalists (thanks to the powerful backing of the USA in Cold War times) they have suffered much more from the US and UK bombing them blindly. The Afghan war stinks just as much as the Iraq one.

Jefferts-Schori is excellent -- she builds the theological premises for the future (when the de facto moratoria are set aside) and at the same time she does what she can to meet Canterbury's concern over present strains. What a contrast between her humanity, humility and wisdom and the puerile performance of the Bishop of Durham!

Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II on Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 8:00am BST

Great article by Giles on marriage!

By the way I feel sorry for the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans - the resulting acronym makes them sound like characters from a Ben Stiller film.

Posted by: Sam on Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 11:31am BST

Jim Naughton's piece is wonderful. It's an excellent summation of the action of GC 2009, from what I can see.

Spirit, the problem with the Taliban isn't so much what they are able to do themselves, but what they allow to happen to Afghanistan when they are in power - before 2001, it became a headquarters for people who really *were* international terrorist threats. Failed states like Afghanistan or Somalia are not victimless crimes, even discounting the internal suffering they undergo. They pose a threat to the larger community of nations, and it's an international responsibility to do somthing with them.

Posted by: BillyD on Saturday, 18 July 2009 at 10:21pm BST

Giles Fraser's essay on marriage should be expanded to include what neo-fundamentalists are doing to Christianity in general. Their shrill and "tinkling cymbals" may be an attraction (such as the mega-churches) at least in the U.S., but in the long run they are doing great damage to the Gospel of Christ.

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Sunday, 19 July 2009 at 12:10pm BST

"in the long run they are doing great damage to the Gospel of Christ."

It's easy to see End Times imagery in it all, eh? All this Beast stuff, and an Enemy of the Gospel getting control of the world and suppressing the truth. I confess, I'm not much of an apocryphalist, but there's times when I hear some Pentecostal or something preaching about the imminent destruction of the world a la Tim LeHaye, and it seems to me so obvious that if we are to attach the imagery of Revelation to any modern force, surely it must be to the right wing fundamentalists and megachurch type people. I sometimes pick up a copy of LeHaye's tales and search the cover for a covert '666' printed somewhere. It seems so obvious. Yet they see it quite the opposite. What sin is it that when I read Revelation, I automatically see the Beast and his minions as Fundamentalist Christians?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 24 July 2009 at 2:07pm BST

Even to use the term 'fundamentalist' is a descent into cliche. I have no doubt you would also term thus plenty of people who strongly criticise LaHaye.

Your interpretation of Rev. is wrong and without supporting evidence:
-The beast does not even make a show of being Christian, but is out-and-out antiChristian.
-He has worldly power; 'fundamentalists' don't, or not to the same extent.
-He is based in Rome, the city of the seven hills. The 'fundamentalists' are not. [Not that the Catholics are the antichrist either.]
Rotten exegesis, or rather eisegesis deriving directly from existing prejudice.
In fact, your very assumption that Rev has to pan out as written is itself fundamentalist.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Monday, 27 July 2009 at 12:33pm BST

"The beast does not even make a show of being Christian, but is out-and-out antiChristian."

Which, as I thought was relatively clear, is precisely why I tend to see the Beast in fundamentalists.

"He has worldly power; 'fundamentalists' don't, or not to the same extent."

I'd argue that point. Fundamentalists until recently had the ear of the leader of the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth. They even now have the ability to influence that nation's policies. They are actually quite powerful.

"I have no doubt you would also term thus plenty of people who strongly criticise LaHaye."

Probably. Believeing the Left Behind/Rapture nonsense does not define Fundamentalists, though it is a secondary trait.

And, please, Christopher, if you see this rather humourous sneer at fundamentalists to be evidence of me giving Revelation a literalist meaning, well, you need to get a sense of humour, or at least to apprecaite that others have one different from yours. Revelation is a deeply cryptic book, one that barely made it into the Canon, and that is not read publically in some Churches even now. The last thing I would do is read it literally. Condemn me for the sin of sneering at my Fundamentalist brothers and sisters, I deserve that, but really, after three years, do you actually think I'd read Rev literally?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 27 July 2009 at 4:08pm 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.