tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post1913176224581022556..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: Building Bridges and naming episcopal visitorsMark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-29729326586913391272007-09-22T22:37:00.000-04:002007-09-22T22:37:00.000-04:00What we have is a clash of world views with eterna...<I>What we have is a clash of world views with eternal consequences.</I><BR/><BR/>Although there are Christians on both sides, that's true.Ecgberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06354592772973677609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-85603825851286361412007-09-21T17:24:00.000-04:002007-09-21T17:24:00.000-04:00Speaking of those who burn bridges and those who b...Speaking of those who burn bridges and those who build them ... <A HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/22/nrowan122.xml" REL="nofollow">Jonathan Petre is reporting in the <I>Telegraph</I></A>: <BR/><BR/><I>Meanwhile, conservatives angrily dismissed a plan announced by the head of the American Church, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, to appoint eight bishops as "episcopal visitors" for American traditionalists who reject her authority. <BR/><BR/>One said: "It has just gone too far. It is like asking people, knowing what we know, would you like to board the Titanic and sail with us. What we have is a clash of world views with eternal consequences."<BR/><BR/>In a sign of their growing frustration, a handful of the most conservative bishops walked out of the House of Bishops' meeting, saying they could contribute nothing more to it.</I>Lisa Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00881671380217888810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-79334763552217199382007-09-21T12:50:00.000-04:002007-09-21T12:50:00.000-04:00I'm not sure that things are going to be as tidy a...I'm not sure that things are going to be as tidy as you suggest. I wouldn't expect a formal breach between those Windsor/Network bishops who have declared doom on +Rowan and the Communion and those whose ecclesiology requires that they stay within TEC as events transpire over the next few years. <BR/><BR/>Apart from that point I think you are probably on track, although much will depend on what sort of statement emerges from the bishops in NOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-72921005113546494122007-09-21T11:50:00.000-04:002007-09-21T11:50:00.000-04:00A good post on Thinking Anglicans http://tinyurl.c...A good post on Thinking Anglicans http://tinyurl.com/38ttbe :<BR/><BR/><I>In the midst of this current 'crisis', with its accusations of apostacy and proclamations of orthodoxy, I can't help but be reminded of some words by Ken Leech in 'Subversive Orthodoxy':<BR/><BR/>"I want to suggest that there are two ways of looking at orthodoxy, and here I want to draw on some ideas...by Rowan Williams.<BR/><BR/>The first view sees orthodoxy as a closed system, determined, watertight, a package, a comprehensive ideology, total, complete. We are programmed by it, captured by it, imprisoned within it. It stifles thought and distorts perception. Within its confines no real conversation is possible, and self-scrutiny is banished. It's closest political analogue is the fascist state. And this is no figment: we recognise it, we know it well.<BR/><BR/>The second way to see orthodoxy is as a tradition of shared speech, shared symbols, a living community of revelation and discourse, a tradition which makes critical engagement possible. Indeed it is only an orthodoxy of this kind which makes critical engagement possible. Tradition is not static but dynamic, not stifling but liberating. Orthodoxy is a tool, not an end. It looks beyond the conceptual climate of the present to its source events and documents, and there is a constant dialogue, a critical encounter, and dialectical relationship, between the received tradition and contemporary insights, experiences, and struggles. It is out of such encounters that significant changes and renewals occur."<BR/><BR/>"...[W]hat is often mistaken for orthodoxy today is in fact what orthodox thinkers of the past saw as heresy: the desire to have everything cut and dried, clear and precise, the desire to remove contradictions and ambiguities, the mistaking of the part for the whole. Some would say that the holding together of apparent contradictions and ambiguities is of the very nature of the orthodox project...[O]rthodoxy is an attempt to hold together unresolved and apparently contradictory truths: transcendence and immanence, divine and human natures, impassibility and passion, and so on. Heresy resolved these contradictions by coming down on one side or the other. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, held contrary truths in tension, defined parameters, and so made further debates, clarifications, expansions, revisions, and dialogue possible."</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-67745185803323253692007-09-21T11:13:00.000-04:002007-09-21T11:13:00.000-04:00A later post at Stand Firm has the same resolutio...<A HREF="http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6123" REL="nofollow">A later post</A> at Stand Firm has the same resolutions as coming from Bishop Jenkins, and with a letter attached. That letter is quite interesting, in and of itself; most notably for the inclusion of Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin as a signatory. I'd be interested to know his about his participation, and whether he is in New Orleans.<BR/><BR/>As for the proposals themselves: I can't imagine these would pass without some significant adjustment. First, the House has so far not thought it in its competence to take a position <I>ad infinitum</I>; yet "until a new concensus is reached across the Communion" would be just such a commitment. Further, since there are still those arguing that the phrase "the standard of teaching across the Communion" is prescriptive instead of simply descriptive, I don't think most bishops will be convinced.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, it's worth noting that DEPO and the "Primatial Vicar" model offered by Bishops Griswold and Jefferts Schori was rejected by just those this group would hope to retain. The reasons were that they wanted not only pastoral oversight but jurisdictional oversight from outside the Episcopal Church. I can't imagine Episcopal bishops will agree to release jurisdictional oversight - most don't think they <I>can</I> - and I can't imagine the committed separatists will settle for anything else.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.com