Thinking Anglicans

Lambeth: first Friday

Updated
First, the Church Times has a news report by Bill Bowder Bishops rally behind Dr Williams as Conference starts.

And there is a leading article Bishops should do their duty:

…A key constituency, though, is the conservative one. The loss of so many Nigerians, Ugandans, and Rwandans is critical. Given that the Lambeth Conference is not a church council with the authority to legislate for the Communion, one of its most important functions is to enable bishops to inform themselves of other models of the Church. The gay debate of the past five years has suffered from too much niche internet activity, whereby each side has logged on merely to those sites with which they agree. As a consequence, the personal encounters that would formerly have taken place through letters or telephone conversations have been lacking. This has made a face-to-face meeting all the more desirable…

And the Church Times blog carries an item on Blogging bishops.

Anglican Mainstream carries this report Today at Lambeth: Thursday 17th July 2008.

Scott Gunn has a report on Debunking mainstream media: the fence.

The official website has Lambeth Daily – Thu – 17- July. The latest issue of this official news will appear here each day.

There isn’t much news as yet, and Jim Naughton has a good analysis of why this should be so, in Live: Can a quiet conference produce “good stories”?

Added
Rebecca Paveley interviewed Rowan Williams in last week’s Church Times. It is now available online at Defiant amid the doubters.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
21 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cheryl Va.
13 years ago

The claim that “whereby each side has logged on merely to those sites with which they agree” Personally witnessed oer 500 postings removed, plus the references to the said postings later removed. Some might claim that I have never blogged on conservative sites. The editorial history and my non-presence speaks for itself. Once again, some souls rely on the oppressed having no voice so they can whitewash and deny they ever repressed an alternative opinion on their site. Similar to polygamous wife bashers who claims that their wives never complains, and rely on their peers being oblvious or complicit with… Read more »

Erika Baker
Erika Baker
13 years ago

“gay debate of the past five years has suffered from too much niche internet activity, whereby each side has logged on merely to those sites with which they agree.” …and from which they have not been banned by those who cannot bear dissenting voices. The Goddard to Goddard exchange of letters has shown that letter writing alone is not the answer. Unless both sides see each other as faithful Christians, treat each other with absolute respect and grant each other the right to exist and to express their faith with integrity… in short, as long as we can live and… Read more »

Cynthia Gilliatt
Cynthia Gilliatt
13 years ago

I agree that face to face and person to person is to be preferred to some absenting themselves.

On the other hand, last time we were treated to the spectcle of an African Bishop attempting to exorcize a gay man … from which we could learn that person to person does not always work, and from which we could alsolearn about the vast gap in understading of sexuality between that African bishop and most Europeans and North Americans.

Hugh of Lincoln
Hugh of Lincoln
13 years ago

Showdown or shindig? How sad that our big tent Anglicanism has come to be symbolized by the blue one on campus: hard to get in and lots of empty seats. Although the emphasis on retreat, workshops and indaba groups is inspired and allows for plenty of interaction and reflection, the programme looks pretty intensive. Delegates are going to be exhausted and homeward-bound by the time they get down to the nitty-gritty topics on the last few days. A two-hour slot between mid-morning coffee and lunch to discuss “human sexuality” hardly does it justice: that’s just three minutes per bishop! Hopefully,… Read more »

Kurt
Kurt
13 years ago

“Once again, some souls rely on the oppressed having no voice so they can whitewash and deny they ever repressed an alternative opinion on their site. Similar to polygamous wife bashers who claims that their wives never complains, and rely on their peers being oblvious or complicit with the beheading or excommunicating the wives who objected to being mistreated.”–Cheryl Va. Very well put, Cheryl. Most of us have had our posts removed, at one time or another, from liberal blogs like Thinking Anglicans, Father Jake, or whatever. Everyone goes over the line once in a while, myself included. But the… Read more »

the Reverend boy
13 years ago

Second what Erika says. While reading and perusing blogs and newsfeeds are invaluable, nothing is like personal encounters. Isn’t that part of what Incarnation is all about? A huge problem in the is that those with opposing views on issues are increasingly NOT seeing each other as faithful Christians, but apostates and heretics, or at best, backwards.

The ironic things is that while internet and the information age has brought us all closer together, it has at the same time, depersonalized us.

drdanfee
drdanfee
13 years ago

Bravo to Cheryl for tagging up the firm censorship on the leading conservative blogs – proud to be banned, though it does not help speaking across our differences. The post I surmise got me banned from StandFirm, for example, was probably called: Is Anglican Realigment The New Leather? I leave the remarkable and not so hidden parallels to your fertile imaginations. Meanwhile, this heat generated – by queer folks sheer existence and honesty – is demonstrated in a fast-breaking USA report of a father in a conservative Bible Belt state who took to his 18-year-old son returning from a Pride… Read more »

'Golden Mouth'
13 years ago

A member of St Chrysostom’s Church, Manchester is a steward at Lambeth and is keeping a blog. Interesting and light hearted – it gives a young person’s view: http://lambethletters.wordpress.com/

Erika Baker
Erika Baker
13 years ago

“Most of us have had our posts removed, at one time or another, from liberal blogs like Thinking Anglicans, Father Jake, or whatever”

I have never known Thinking Anglicans to “remove” posts. What does happen is that they don’t arrive due to some electronic glitches. They will be posted if you resubmit.
Other reasons for your post not appearing are abusive language or personal attacks on other posters, and simply exceeding the word limit of 400.

There is no policy to silence those the moderators don’t agree with.

Malcolm+
13 years ago

I agree that “niche” interwebbing is part of the problem. Certainly there are those of us on all sides who travel to sites we don’t agree with – and there are sites on both sides that allow and even encourage an honest exchange of views. But I suspect that a majority of controversialists tend to get their news from their own “side” and either ignore any other perspective or simply treat it as false. I have links to some conservative commentators at simplemassingpriest. That said, I explained in one post that there are certain “conservative” sites to which I refuse… Read more »

Ben W
Ben W
13 years ago

Erika,

Intersting the conditions you place on real conversation, “unless you absolutely recognize each other as faithful Christians …” That is the wall built on your side. That is sheer assumption. Simply overlooks the fact that in this case there would be no real issue. What is needed is that you have a basic common reference point (that we might think would be Jesus Christ in the context of scripture but as we see here even that will not consistently be accepted) around which to converse and you want to hear together.

Ben W

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
13 years ago

Ben:

This is precisely the problem…we on the “liberal” side of this issue have no problem recognizing you on the conservative side as faithful Christians seeking truth in your own way (even as we determine that your path is incorrect). On the other hand, you refuse to recognize that WE are also faithful Christians; you insist that, if we follow the path we have chosen, we must not really be Christians.

drdanfee
drdanfee
13 years ago

Well the search for a new viable Anglican common point of reference apparently continues, given our heat and polarizations. In the olden days, replete with plenty of Anglican fudge, I suppose we could have found common ground sufficient for talking and listening in those three classic areas – reason, study of scriptures, and study of traditions. Now of course conservative realignment has thrown quite a few wrenches into the possibilities of reason as a shared arena for diligence, as it claims to be very suspicious of enlightenment era habits of mind, along with having very little to do with very… Read more »

JCF
JCF
13 years ago

RP: “Why is [the AC], then, fragmenting over homosexuality?” Rowan Cantuar: “this particular issue of sexuality is one on which the overwhelming majority… across the world, inside… Anglicanism, still agree. It is still a rallying point” What is the BASIS of this astonishing claim? The railroaded bishops of Lambeth ’98? The “squeaky wheels” of Primates Meetings since then? I’m far from convinced that a “majority of Anglicans across the world” either 1) KNOW (i.e., understand) *OR* 2) CARE about the issue of homosexuality, to any significant degree (much less that it is a “rallying point”). This bit of “conventional wisdom”… Read more »

Erika Baker
Erika Baker
13 years ago

Ben “Intersting the conditions you place on real conversation, “unless you absolutely recognize each other as faithful Christians …” That is the wall built on your side. That is sheer assumption.” It may be. But the problem is that none of us can judge. It really is time that you accepted that there are many ways of reading the Bible. As I suggested on another thread – reading a basic theological summary of the different ways Christians experienced their faith over the last 2000 years is a good start towards understanding that there is no one foolproof way of knowing… Read more »

Treebeard
Treebeard
13 years ago

Heaven knows how the lesbian and gay members of Ben’s family, friends and colleagues–present and future, deal with his attitude to them (& us) !

Ben W
Ben W
13 years ago

Erika, It is at least a start that you acknowlege that you do not operate from a basis in scripture or history but simply from assumption! As you said: “It may be… none of us can judge. It really is time that you accepted that there are many ways of reading the Bible.” If this holds than you have no issue with me (so on this basis I may even, on your terms, have more reason for what I have stated than anything you have presented – simply stop judging!). You say none of “us can judge” and immediately go… Read more »

Ben W
Ben W
13 years ago

Pat, “This is precisely [NOT] the problem.” The problem as it was presented is that you want to co-opt the issue by saying there is no issue. Any person or group can and often does take that position – simply see it our way and there is no problem! Those for instance on the Arian side would have said “just see it as we do and there will be no problem.” Or those affirming polygamy, “just see it as we do and there is really no problem.” AS you put it: “we on the “liberal” side of this issue have… Read more »

Cheryl Va.
13 years ago

Paul did not operate on the basis of scripture when he went to the Gentiles. Paul acted on faith. Paul was not even fully converted before he accepted healing ministry from Annias. Someone he had specifically travelled to Damascus to either murder or silence. Early Gentile Christians were not circumcized nor accepted under the letter of law, they were accepted by their faith alone. Thus Erika’s suggestion “Therefore, if anyone genuinely believes themselves to be a faithful Christian, then that is what they are” is scripturally correct. In fact, those that would refute that statememt are in disagreement with OT,… Read more »

Erika Baker
Erika Baker
13 years ago

Ben “It is at least a start that you acknowlege that you do not operate from a basis in scripture or history but simply from assumption! “ Did I say that? I thought I only said that my basis in scripture is different from yours, and that the weight I give scripture is moderated by the time honoured Anglican method of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. To ignore that this Anglican way of interpreting the bible exists and simply claim that those who follow it are only operating from assumption is not a very educated point to make. Your theology has… Read more »

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
13 years ago

Ben:

As I said, the problem is that you on the conservative side insist that we on the liberal side are not acting in good faith, reading and interpreting Scripture as WE are given to understand it, and remaining faithful Christians for all that. You insist we are ignoring Scripture, because we emphasize different things, or read passages as meaning different things, than you do.

We, on the other hand, generally treat you as acting in good faith. We do not comdemn you as faithless, only as misguided.

21
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x