Comments: opinions for Ascensiontide

The more articles I read by Riazat Butt the more I respect that journalist. She is very honest, espcially about how Muslim women are being treated by their faith community, the umam.

Posted by John Henry at Saturday, 3 May 2008 at 10:28pm BST

"the articulation of a moderate eirenic Islam" -- Robert Ellwood's Cycles of Faith: The Development of the World's Religions would certainly provide additional strategic parallax for any such effort.

"the works of the Sufis" -- isn't it interesting that when people make religion narrow and brittle the first thing they do is kick out the mystics? Wahhabism hasn't much use for Sufis, and certain conservative American Christians I know give pretty short shrift to folks like, oh, Meister Eckhart ("Desert of the Godhead? Must be an atheist!"). Such people and their understandings of their faiths finally can't sustain themselves historically. Weber was right -- religion must be charismatically renewed or it dies -- and that renewal requires a revisioning of the deep truths of a tradition that is of necessity partly mystical. Kicking out the mystics is a first step to historical oblivion.

Anybody know what the GAFCON guys (I assume they're mostly guys, anyway) think about Christian and Anglican mysticism?

Posted by Peter of Westminster at Sunday, 4 May 2008 at 11:05am BST

I don't think the British have a set of stories strong enough to do the job that the Chief Rabbi would want, and I'm not sure it matters either. Robin Hood and King Arthur are obvious ones, but they just are what they are. A complex society perhaps does not need a central story, but it does need to communicate.

Posted by Pluralist at Sunday, 4 May 2008 at 3:17pm BST

“His spirit has never left the Church of England. Its US wing is dragging its own congregations into court in order to seize their property, for daring to object to bishops who make up their own religion. In the 21st century, can't we see the back of horrible old monsters like Laud?”--Roger Pearse

Rubbish! The neo-Puritans here are trying to steal the silver on their way out of the Church door. These people are the “horrible old monsters” who hanged peaceful Quakers on Boston Common, and most of us American Episcopalians are glad to be rid of them!

Posted by Kurt at Monday, 5 May 2008 at 2:11pm BST

It was Puritans, of course, who murdered Archbishop Laud.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Monday, 5 May 2008 at 4:42pm BST


There is nothing you can acknowledge or affirm about Laud as worthwhile? Since when has mere name-calling ever brought healing or peace?

Ben W

Posted by Ben W at Monday, 5 May 2008 at 5:48pm BST

"There is nothing you can acknowledge or affirm about Laud as worthwhile?"

You realize many of us would ask you the same question about Gene Robinson?

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Tuesday, 6 May 2008 at 1:19am BST

Ben, Kurt was quoting from a comment on Howse's article, a comment that described Laud that way.

Kurt was speaking about the Puritans, of which Laud was emphatically not one.

I hope this clears up the misunderstanding.

Posted by Ren Aguila at Tuesday, 6 May 2008 at 2:28am BST

Thank you, Ren Aguila.

Posted by Kurt at Tuesday, 6 May 2008 at 3:21pm 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.