Thinking Anglicans

The Tablet on Tanzania meeting

The Tablet also has full coverage of the primates meeting on its website today:

Anglicans give US Church months to conform by Victoria Combe

Winds of change by R. William Franklin

‘Through many dangers, toils and snares …’ by Stephen Bates

And an editorial Stumbling towards unity

Update here’s a longer version of the Stephen Bates article from Comment is free which has titled it Tablet of stone.

18 comments

  • Anglicanus says:

    Tablet articles cannot be accessed unless you are a subscriber

  • You do need to register, but you don’t have to be a subscriber for those particular articles, marked “FREE” on the website.
    I do find a problem with that website using Firefox; you might need to use Internet Explorer to avoid difficulty.

  • Prior Aelred says:

    I had no trouble accessing the first three (using Firefox) — the editorial is for subscribers only — can’t say I found anything new, though (obviously I’ve been reading too much about it)

  • Thomas Renz says:

    Why the Anglican Communion matters – a guest comment in the Daily Telegraph by the ABC is at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/02/23/do2301.xml

    One paragraph stood out for me in relation to TA and what I would want to say: “one of the hardest things in all this has been to keep insisting on the absolute moral imperative of combating bigotry and violence against gay people, and the need to secure appropriate civic and legal protection for couples who have chosen to share their lives. These are different matters from whether the Church has the freedom to bless same-sex unions. A negative or agnostic answer to this latter question is frequently heard as a negative attitude to the imperatives of care and respect – and sometimes that perception is sadly accurate, judging from the postbag that arrives here. Yet they are different, and quite a lot of Christians know it and try to act accordingly”

  • Gene O'Grady says:

    There are two kinds of subscribers on the Tablet website — one sort, who pay for the paper magazine, get online access to the full magazine in PDF form; those of us who (in my case) no longer get the print magazine can “subscribe” to certain articles, marked FREE, with just a valid e-mail address. It isn’t Firefox so much as the website that causes confusion.

    And I have to say I found the editorial disappointing.

  • Thomas
    Thank you: the Telegraph article can be found on TA at
    http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002227.html

  • “Light at the end of the tunnel” for Rowan?

    Well, yes, he has stewarded the Windsor process skilfully, and avoided schism.

    But this whole process itself needs to be rethought. Its current tendency is toward alienation of gays (already deeply alienated in other churches) and creeping influence of fundamentalists (in Ireland people are reeling from the homophobic utternces of the Polish President in Dublin — I fear the Windsor process will give a free hand to such hatred within Anglicanism as well).

    I suggest that it is time to work toward an arrangement allowing gay-friendly churches to arrange their own affairs, a live-and-let-live situation. Imposing on all Anglican churches the rigid view of Lambeth 1.10 does nothing to increase love, holiness or integrity, but produces only alienation or hypocrisy.

  • Dear thinking Anglicans,

    Could you please tackle the question asked by a letter-writer in today’s Independent: “How is it that bishops of the Anglican Communion – who have spent decades “agreeing to disagree” over life or death issues such as abortion, war, euthanasia and the death penalty – keep finding themselves on the brink of schism over gay bishops and same-sex partnerships?” I have often wondered at the gap between the liberal attitude to abortion (consulted at the time of its legalization the Archbishop of Canterbury did not object) and the extreme sensitivity about gay issues.

    There must be an explanation for this. What is it?

  • Will the HOB keep the Windsor process going or will they put it out of its agony? To do the latter they must make a broad and clear statement, backed by the laity as well, that puts the ball back in the Primates’ court, forcing them to rethink their Windsor somnambulism, and making it morally impossible for them to react with the communion-breaking punishments they threaten.

  • Laurence Roberts says:

    Thomas the trouble is he has started to think as if he and Akinola are the Church — no no no !
    Remember the Reformation ? Remember Celtic Christianity?

    I am the Church ! You are the Church ! The man / woman sweeping the street and the woman /man in the launderette are the Church !

    oh and there are a little fellowship of discussers, and community builders -worth-shipers — they are Church!

    The true church is blessing ‘these relationships’ ALL the time.

    Williams and Akinola and the rest can’t stop them ! Will never stop this!

    But also, even in his own terms, he is mistaken. I think we all know that that which cannot be blessed, can be beaten up. It is obvious — think the Jews of Europe! Think the Roma of Europe! Think women and domestic violence. Think any vulnerable people or group…………….

  • Thomas Renz says:

    Simon – thanks, I had overlooked your earlier link.

    Fr. Joseph O’Leary – two explanations suggest themselves (1) rightly or wrongly many Christians think that same-sex sexual activity is more unambiguously described in Scripture as displeasing to God than some of the other activities such as “abortion, war, and the death penalty” and thus perceive those who encourage same-sex as not only wrong on matters of interpretation but indifferent to the standards we are supposed to hold in common. The other issues may be bigger and more important issues but there are also seen as more complex.

    (2) Again rightly or wrongly people make a difference between *tolerating* activities and *blessing* them. If we had (proposals for) services celebrating abortion, rejoicing in war, blessing electric chairs etc. , we might focus on these issues more than on sex.

    Disclaimer: I do not mean to equate the morality of the various activities discussed here.

  • Fr Joseph, you asked the question “…”agreeing to disagree” over life or death issues such as abortion, war, euthanasia and the death penalty – (yet – my word) keep finding themselves on the brink of schism over gay bishops and same-sex partnerships?”

    Abortion = their daughters might be raped or have malformed babies, War = they might want to take on the anti-christ i.e. competitors for oil control, Jews, Muslims, Amazons. Euthanasia = they might be glad to see the back of a relative who is going to consume their inheritance in medical bills. Death penalty = well, anyone that hurts them deserves to die, in both this world and the next.

    Being gay? Well, that is willful sin, which voids all your obligations to protect them. They are already “dead” to God so the death penalty has been fulfilled. Euthenasia – well they should have been disinherited by their parents and left no offspring of their own so all the family assets belong to you, so who cares. War – well they don’t belong to anyone and are not in sufficient numbers to matter so they ain’t no military force. Abortion – we haven’t worked out how to get rid of them in the womb and if we keep the legal strangleholds in place we won’t have to worry about their offspring.

    So basically, the difference between gays and the other issues? The other issues might affect them, and the issues of gays are only a concern if we treat them as human beings and citizens in our society.

    It has nothing to do with unconditional love and everything to do with protecting their own self interests.

  • The Dettinger Te Deum, Renz?

    Or does that one not apply??

  • Prior Aelred says:

    “It has nothing to do with unconditional love and everything to do with protecting their own self interests.”

    That is a strong statement, Cheryl — I wish I could disagree, but I fear you are on target.

  • Thomas Renz says:

    Dettinger Te Deum? I thought we were talking about contemporary events. I am afraid I know far too little about the War of the Austrian Succession to have an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the wars involved and my opinion does not matter anyway.

    My suggestion was that if liturgical provision would be made for “celebrating the war” in Afghanistan and Iraq, our divisions on this issue might impair our communion in a way they do not at present.

  • Thou shalt not kill.

    No, doesn’t “apply” either 🙁

  • Thomas Renz says:

    “Thou shalt not kill” is still very much in the book / on the books – hence my point that if you were to start celebrating killing (abortion, war, euthanasia), you would by this act impair our communion.

    Thankfully, this is not at present on the agenda. (Nor can I quite believe that Händel’s version of the Te Deum celebrates war. Whether the service in which it was first used was expressing triumphalism or relief over the end of war, I do not know.)

  • It was the last occasion on which an English King led his troops into battle. It happened on your doorstep – and it was a Victory.

    And you think it’s a Threnodium in d minor!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *