Giles Goddard wrote: "InclusiveChurch exists to ensure that the Anglican tradition of inclusion and diversity is celebrated and encouraged. On one level that means, in accordance with our Statement, working so that people are fully included at all levels of the church regardless of their gender, partnership status or ethnicity."
I do wish that IC would start saying what they mean in terms that differentiates their views from the rest of us. Every statement they make is so bland that everyone can agree on face value, but what they mean is more than what they say!
Most groups that IC "includes" are already included by most Anglican groups (though some Anglo-Catholics and conservative Evangelicals believe in "complementarity", rather than sameness of roles). And no Anglican group I know excludes people because they have a homosexual "orientation". Similarly IC 'excludes' people for most of the same reasons that the rest of us would (unrepentant: thieves, violent, adulterers, promiscuous, abusers, etc etc). The novelty is really just that IC wants to include people who are in active homosexual relationships - and see exclusion of Anglicans who disagree with them as tolerable or maybe even desirable.
My prayer for IC in 2006 ? That they would return to real Christian inclusion - on the same basis for all: Repentant sinners forgiven through faith in Jesus Christ, loving God and seeking to become like Him!
It would seem that even the liberal camp has swallowed whole Nigerian Archbishop lead propaganda. By using phrases such as 'the Primates of the Global South' you are perpetuating the myth that they represent southern hemisphere Anglicans (which they do not). Perhaps English post-colonial guilt is partly to blame, but organisations should be referred to correctly. The phrase ' Primates who are members of the 'Global South' organisation' would be less misleading to your readers.
The North-South Coalition of anti-modern Hierarchs?
(or Angry Old Men In Funny Hats ;=)
Dear James, I agree. It seems to be a comfortable position for liberals to take - that the opposition to their moral/religious innovations is from "pre-modern" (read "backward" ?) Africans and Asians. Completely failing to acknowledge that the orthodox view is also supported by most of the large growing Anglican churches in the UK!
If I were being cynical I would expect that the find "Southern" leaders who would support their position and say "see, even the GS are now beginning to understand". Maybe that is part of the reason why there is so much heat over the Nigerian and Malawi incidents.
I think I can fully suggest, Dave, that your prayer will not be answered. Some of us might suggest its because you are praying to your image and vision of God for what you want.
That's very impressive, Dave: together with Mr Shell, in just two threads (thematically unrelated to these three societal ills) you have liberal Christian homosexuals associated with disease, paedophilia AND racism.
What's next? Earthquakes? Floods? The depletion of the ozone layer and global deforestation? All flat tyres? Stale bread? Mildew between the bathroom tiles? Inflation? What?
Dear AM, I'm sorry that you feel that way.. It is not my belief that any particular group are intrinsically more or less virtuous than any other. We are all imperfect. We are all sinners! You may even find something good in "conservatives" ;-) If, when discussing what you see as conservative "intolerance" and said that an extreme form of "intolerance" lead the nazis to try to exterminate the Jewish race, I would not think that you were saying that I was a nazi - or that I was anti-semitic - just that "intolerance" is something to be avoided. And if you suggest that my scriptural interpretation on the issue of acceptable sexual practices may be driven by "homophobia" then I take it as a suggestion that I should examine my motivations.
Merseymike wrote: "I think I can fully suggest, Dave, that your prayer will not be answered. Some of us might suggest its because you are praying to your image and vision of God for what you want."
Dear Merseymike, it is liberals who base their image and vision of God heavily on current human understanding. That is, by definition, much more "your own image" that that of a "conservative - who does his best to base his image and vision of God on the God who revealed Himself through the Christian Scriptures and Tradition.
I'm looking forward to seeing what God does in 2006! Every blessing..
And you base yours on the human understanding of 2000 years ago, Dave. The humans who wrote the Bible.
Dear Merseymike, Yes, I give supremacy to the understandings of some people 2000 years ago - Jesus Christ, His Apostles and others who were inspired to write things that were found authenitic by the early church and chosen for inclusion in the canon of Scripture !
This gives me a significant claim to not be just making it up as I go along - whereas I think that you have no protection from the accusattion that your beliefs and morals are purely the result of your own enculturalisation.
"... all other things equal", dear Dave - that is providing you are right, not wrong ,=)
"Pre-modern" by the way, does not mean "backwards", but pre modern.
And then there is of course anti-modern, which is a different thing alltogether...
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.