Thanks for this opportunity to keep in touch with this important angle of the Anglicans in America.
'The richness of the tapestry of God': agreed. But such a perspective is predetermined by a prior (not necessarily fully examined) commitment to the ideology of 'inclusivity', whose self-contradictory and question-begging nature (inclusive of what? of everything? of everyone who wants? of everyone, even those who don't want? Who says?) is illustrated by the above post, which clearly wants to exclude certain approaches, and would only be truly happy to include certain individuals if they agreed to abandon the said approaches.
Practically anything in the world which has a definition at all is defined to exclude far more that it includes. That is what 'definition' means: setting boundaries.
Consequently, whatever word excludes nothing (apart from, say, 'the cosmos' etc) has no identity, does not describe anything real.
What is, is so blessedly diverse perhaps, that it also suggests that what ought to be, is similarly and even more fully diverse. The glory of God is a cosmos fully alive.
The lexicons & narratives of defining, first or foremost by saying what something is not, cannot be a comprehensive path for way too many reasons to list here. I've been passing round Gerard Manley Hopkins' poem, Pied Beauty, lately. A trout is not itself, mainly because it is not a flower or not an elephant. Nor does New Testament witness encourage us to rest safely and narrowly, only in a world of mutually exclusive opposites, one of which is always solid and full and real and blessed, while the other is simply an empty negation. Alas. Lord have mercy.
Good points Christopher, but I'm afraid you'll make no headway pointing out the obvious. I found out a long time ago that liberals mean tolerant of only what they like when they say "tolerant" and inclusive of only what they like when they say "inclusive". I don't like the positions they take, but that has never bothered me as much as the Orwellian doublespeak.
Re Christopher Shell's post & query got me praying and reading my Bible on inclusivity & the universal Hope of the Republic, Commonwealth or Queendom of G-D :
JOHN 1 : 3,4,7 & 9
JOHN 3 : 16a
LUKE 24 :47 ACTS 1: 5 & 8
REVELATION 22 : 1 thru 7
SECOND ISIAH in toto...
'Behold the mountain of Adonai in latter days shal rise...' (Malachi)
'Baruch attah Adonai eloheinu
Adonai Echad '
'on that day the LORD shall be One, and known as One....'
from The Jewish Liturgy of Shabbat
"The commitment to Anglicanism is heartfelt, and it is worth repeating that the sense of Anglican identity is undoubtedly stronger here than in some other churches of the Communion."
It's nice to see at least two CofE-ers "get" us.
Not even us cradle-Episcopalians (of which I am one) "inherit" our Anglicanism: it's something we had to CHOOSE. We have to *love* BCP worship. We have to *want* to be formed by "Scripture, Tradition and Reason". We have to decide for ourselves that "the historic episcopate, locally-adapted" makes sense, in terms of our (forgive the redundancy) handed-down tradition, and (a *part* of!) our polity.
"Stronger" Anglican identity, indeed.
God bless TEC! :-D
The great Christian hopes of 'the Lord will be one and his name one' and 'God will be all in all' are at the expense of the *exclusion* of everything either sinful or unrepentant. Whether that be obliterated, absorbed or whatever, it is still excluded. And that is a good thing, to anyone who has suffered its consequences.
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.