Thinking Anglicans

opinion

Mark Chapman writes for Thinking faith about Rowan Williams in Retrospect.

Giles Fraser writes for The Guardian that No, I am not a liberal – I believe that community comes before the individual.
And in the Church Times he writes that It might be legal, but it is not right.

Paul Handley writes this leader comment on the Church Times Peace is part of the Christian DNA.

8
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
8 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
Bill DilworthMarkBrunsonDave PaisleyChris SmithJohn Bowles Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Paul Waddington
Guest
Paul Waddington

There seems to have been very little comment about the recent report on the Church in Wales. It has very radical recommendations and yet nobody seems interested. Is this because everybody has written off the Church in Wales?

ED Thanks, I just published an article on this to correct the problem.

Malcolm French+
Guest

Tempting though it is to get into the complete ignorance of so many CofE clergy regarding the manner of selecting bishops in just about every other Province of the Communion (ie, they aren’t “appointed,” doufus), instead I’ll just point out that the reports of “schism” in North America fall somewhere between delusional fantasy and baldfaced lie. A small number of American Episcopalian and Canadian Anglicans have chosen to decamp for newly created “Anglican Churches. The total number of decampers is something in the order of 4-5% of church membership in the two provinces (including a disproportional number of clergy who… Read more »

Father Ron Smith
Guest

re Mark Chapman’s article on’Rowan in Retrospect’ What a brilliant summation of ++Rowan’s time as the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hobbled by the legacy of Lambeth 10 – the fruit of collaboration with the anti-Gay Primates by his predecessor – Archbishop Rowan has had a tug of two loyalties. First, and perhaps most important for him as Primus-inter-pares, was the need to listen to all sides, to keep everyone together – even when some of the arguments went directly against his own conscience (as per ‘The Body’s Grace’) The second loyalty, which ++Rowan obviously was not prepared to place first, was… Read more »

John Bowles
Guest
John Bowles

It is refreshing, even heart-warming, to read Mark Chapman’s balanced encomium on Archbishop Willams. It is in marked contrast to the disloyal, bitter and intemperate comments concerning him that regularly appear on this website. Given the blatantly secularist composition of contemporary British Society, Archbishop Williams stands as a model of integrity. I have long thought that he is too good for the job, given the present hopelessly divided character of the Church of England. I suspect that through his writing he will continue to occupy a significant place in public debate without adopting a path of interference followed by his… Read more »

Chris Smith
Guest
Chris Smith

If Archbishop Williams “stands as model of integrity” we must be missing some important historical facts about his actions and his words which however unintentional have caused great pain for women in the Church and the glbt community. I have never thought and man “too good for the job” and although I’m sure Archbishop Williams has many fine qualities, he was a weak and ineffective leader. He didn’t lead. He followed and placated the right wing elements within the Anglican Communion. I do not consider his tenure as ABC to be one that unified the many factions. Perhaps no one… Read more »

Dave Paisley
Guest
Dave Paisley

Re: Rowan Williams – where’s the integrity in throwing Jeffrey John under the bus? Twice!

MarkBrunson
Guest

Giles Fraser, once again, poses a false dichotomy. The individual is, indeed, helpless outside the community, but the community is absolutely nothing without the individual. It is a constant sharing back and forth, wave and particle, at the same time.

Bill Dilworth
Guest
Bill Dilworth

Giles Fraser writes of conservatives and liberals, but the labels don’t seem to describe positions I associate with either group. The radically autonomous position he says is liberal would, I think, be considered libertarian here in the States.

I wonder if those labels are really very useful any more, anyway, or if they’ve been emptied of any usable meaning. The whole binary mentality associated with them seems a little poor.