What is this thing about imposing fancy titles on people that everyone, on both sides of the dividing issues, seems to be developing? Inclusive Church says that the president at its Eucharist is "Rt Revd Carlos Touché-Porter, Archbishop of Mexico and a Primate of the Anglican Communion."
According to the Anglican Communion website, his title is "Presiding Bishop of La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico & Bishop of Mexico." ( http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/diocese.cfm?Idind=330&view=alpha ) He's not an archbishop. (I've been whining for a year on this subject about Venables; I don't need someone else to whine about!)
And what is a "Primate of the Anglican Communion"? I've never heard that term before. He's the primate of La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico. The other term makes him sound like a cardinal and a member of the Anglican Curia. I would think that Inclusive Church would not want to encourage this tendency toward grandiosity that seems to be developing.
Bishop Carlos refers to himself as the Archbishop of Mexico and is Primate of the Anglican Church of Mexico. He is therefore a primate of the Anglican Communion.
Not to be picky, but if the reference is to be used about any primate, the person would be a Primate "in" the Anglican Communion rather than "of" it.
Not sure that I see Richard Burridge as 'inclusive' in the sense of 'Inclusive Church'. As I understand him, he is totally inclusive in saying the Gospel is for all (sinners etc.) but fairly prescriptive once everybody is inside.
"As I understand [Richard Burridge], he is totally inclusive in saying the Gospel is for all (sinners etc.) but fairly prescriptive once everybody is inside." - Posted by john
I don't know anything at all about Richard Burridge.
I DO know that Inclusive Church IS "fairly prescriptive" re sin. As always, the rub is ***WHAT CONSTITUTES SIN*** (which is dependent on one's INTERPRETATION of Scripture, Tradition and Reason).
I'm really tired of this canard, that "Inclusive Gospel", or "Inclusive Church", means "including [i.e., rationalizing or justifying] sin." This is NOT true!
Not my implication.
I do know a bit about RB. I think that he's fairly prescriptive on the gay issue, i.e. he's not one to allow (much) for historical circs., progressive revelation, etc.
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.