tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post5873601683492134044..comments2023-12-17T16:13:06.670-05:00Comments on In a Godward direction: Mrs Ashworth is misinformedTobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-78537650908326454882010-01-23T10:09:51.784-05:002010-01-23T10:09:51.784-05:00Dear Geoff,
Thanks for stopping by -- you would fi...Dear Geoff,<br />Thanks for stopping by -- you would find NY a very diverse and welcoming place. While I don't know the rector at Resurrection well, we have met and he is cordial and caring, and struggling, as so many of us do, with the difficulties of aging buildings and an increasingly anti- or non-Christian (or at least church-oriented) culture.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-40753516637373218972010-01-23T08:54:42.672-05:002010-01-23T08:54:42.672-05:00Thank you, Johm. Not to rehearse my discussion wit...Thank you, Johm. Not to rehearse my discussion with Dr. Null, but I think you misunderstand the import of the Article concerning "expound" and draw a mistaken conclusion from it. The issue in the sentence you cite is the practice of setting one text of Scripture against another -- not the interpretation of a particular passage of Scripture in and of itself. As I noted to Dr. Null, the King's Men (including Cranmer) were precisely guilty of this when they overruled the Deuteronomy Levirate provision with the Levitical brother's wife prohibition -- which is what the Articles forbid. Instead they should have taken the two texts in consonance, with the incest-by-affinity law having one specified exception: a childless brother's widow. Of course, that isn't what Henry wanted.<br /><br />And yes, there are many different readings of Scripture on the issues surrounding sexuality, as there are on many others. So it is true that no specific magisterial declaration has been made declaring that Scripture isn't against X, neither is there one affirming the positive. In the absence of such an explicit reference to Scripture's position, one must rely on the statements that do exist concerning same-sex couples -- which is, as I hope you would admit -- the rationale for the upset by the Evangelicals: they know what the position of TEC is and they don't like it.<br /><br />Finally, I am all for coexistance -- as you point out, we have managed to embrace dual or multiple opinions concerning the two sacraments mandated of Christ, so to do the same for things "commonly called Sacraments" and perhaps of merely human devising (isn't that the Evangelical view?) As you admit, there is at least one woman bishop evangelical; and I can attest that there are plenty of gay and lesbian Evangelicals -- and in fact I myself place a high premium on the authority of Scripture: which is precisely why I object when people assert it says something that it doesn't.<br />I think an outspoken opponenent of WO would have trouble, as I alluded. But then, one wonders why an outspoken opponent of WO would want to be in TEC; and this is where self-exclusion comes in.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-78067747639776456222010-01-23T02:52:07.912-05:002010-01-23T02:52:07.912-05:00Tobias, The article also contains the word "e...Tobias, The article also contains the word "expound". The church is not to "expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another".<br />So the church is required not to teach against scripture, in that it is teaching from scripture. And given that TEC uses a lectionary, Sunday sermons are surely scripture based.<br />I agree with you that the consecration of Bishop Robinson and various GC motin amounts to a declaration by TEC that "gay and lesbian couples are living within the bounds of Christian morality" as TEC sees it. <br />Yet that is different from a declaration that scripture does not negatively speak to it. It MAY be that some in TEC believe that scripture speaks negatively but that the church can move on from St Paul. It is impossible to tell - the votes for Bishop Robinson may reflect many different understandings of scripture. <br />I think it is reasonable to suggest that acceptance of evangelicals or some other type of christian thinking in a body of christians should in an episcopally orgainised denomination be measured at the diocesan level. So if by "universal acceptance" you mean "generally accepted in each/most diocese/s" I plead guilty!<br />I simply don't know whether schism is the only way forward. I have (reluctantly) to acknowledge that Erika and people who argue similarly from within the evangelical camp have a point. <br />I rather hope that the CofE can come up with a system that allows women bishops and those who believe that they should not exist to live together in the same church. After all we have had catholic and reformed views of holy communion in the same church for centuries, why split on gender?<br />Yet I know of one minister who believes in an all male priesthood who has taken up an appointment in Melbourne where the regional bishop is a women and she is to conduct the induction service. (They are both evangelicals and so the FiF anglo catholic theory of 'taint' is not an issue.) <br />My guess is that the Bishop is prepared to induct someone she knows believes she should not be a bishop, and will teach that way, and that the minister is prepared to be inducted by her, respecting her as a person. Australians don't much go in for obeying bishops as a rule - we have an egalitarian ethos.<br />I wonder though whether an outspoken opponent of women's ordination would make it in TEC?John Sandemanhttp://eternity.biznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-65033826334509669542010-01-22T23:37:05.642-05:002010-01-22T23:37:05.642-05:00John, ultimately it all comes down to hermeneutics...John, ultimately it all comes down to hermeneutics, whether of Scripture or of the Articles and Homilies themselves. I would strongly disagree with your statement (and Null's if that is his assertion) that Article 20 requires the church not to teach on any subject that is contrary to Scripture. This is far too broad and unsupportable, though of course he is entitled to that opinioin. <br /><br />First of all, the key word in the Article is not "teach" but "ordain" -- which must be taken in context with the later "decree / enforce" -- this is not about teaching per se, but about making dogmatic statements. (It has nothing to do with "ordination" in the sense of ministry!)<br /><br />Beyond the interpretation of the Articles we have the interpretation of Scripture itself. Scripture nowhere explicitly states that a bishop cannot be in a same-sex relationship. You may say that is obvious -- but it is not Scriptural. I have in fact written a book on the subject, which I commend to your attention. It was published by our Church Publishing Company -- and while I do not pretend that gives it any official standing, it is an indication of the worthiness of its consideration. TEC as a whole has made it clear -- I would say abundantly clear -- both in the consecration of Gene Robinson and in the votes at GC 2009, and in a number of other resolutions, that while acknowledging a lack of complete consensus, faithful gay and lesbian couples are in fact living within the bounds of Christian morality, and that the Scripture does not speak to this in a negative way. As I have written an entire volume on the subject, I don't wish to recapitulate my version of the argument here.<br /><br />As to tolerance, you misunderstand me. By "as a whole" I did not mean in the abstract or in general. I am merely acknowledging the fact that there are some particular people in TEC who are less than tolerant of the Evangelical position. You now appear to have changed your level of evidence or standard, from "no persecution" to "universal acceptance." (For instance, an Evangelical would very likely not be sponsored by St. Clement's Church, Philadelphia -- but I doubt an Evangelical would even wish to be a member of that parish!) I am simply noting the fact that TEC is not monochrome, and parish differs from parish, diocese from diocese. But that being said, I know of no diocese in TEC in which an Evangelical would be denied ordination on the basis of being an Evangelical, as a matter of practice. (There may be reasons for denying acceptance into ministry for other reasons.)<br /><br />I agree with Erika on the issue of the ordination of women being a bit more difficult. Absolute opposition to the ordination of women is very rare in TEC, at least in my experience. TEC has moreover made the ordination of women a part of its ordinal -- thus it becomes more difficult to "protect" someone who goes beyond simple disapproval and denies the possibility that women can be ordained and holds that position as an article of belief.<br /><br />So at this point, I am not sure what else to say. We have wandered rather far from the matter of property disputes; I think I have answered your initial questions about how possible it is for an Evangelical to function in TEC. Ultimately, are you suggesting that schism is the only way forward?Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-37856236155078579762010-01-22T17:39:45.363-05:002010-01-22T17:39:45.363-05:00Br Tobias, your description of the Diocese of New ...Br Tobias, your description of the Diocese of New York is heartening. If I ever get to spend some time studying at General, I'd very much like to serve at the Resurrection, but I'd be very uncomfortable having to cope with a bunker mentality. Good relations with the diocese are A Good Thing.Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00324636915206892169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-65730525987339992122010-01-22T17:32:19.835-05:002010-01-22T17:32:19.835-05:00Tobias:
Article 20 Ashley Null said "‘establi...Tobias:<br />Article 20 Ashley Null said "‘established the definitive Anglican principles for biblical interpretation". This article takes the authority of scripture beyond things necessary for salvation. The church is not to teach anything on any subject that is contrary to scripture.<br />(Null gave the 2009 Moore College Lectures and taught a MA course on the articles at the college - but I can't find his material on the cool looking re-designed website!)<br />"..And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation."<br />In installing +NH as bishop it is clear that TEC has changed its mind, but there seems to be nowhere where TEC (as distinct from individuals) has endorsed an interpretation of the Bible on this matter. The GC does not appear (please correct me) to have endorsed a detailed report on what the bible says about this matter. In fact it is not uncommon to read that TECians saying that we should act and let theology follow.<br />Article 35 in a general manner endorses the homilies.<br />Thus Homilies book 2, homily 10<br />"Thus if yee will bee profitable hearers and readers of the holy Scriptures, ye must first denie your selues, and keepe vnder your carnall senses, taken by the outward wordes, and search the inward meaning: reason must giue place to GODS holy spirite, you must submit your worldly wisedome and iudgement, vnto his diuine wisedome and iudgement. Consider that the Scripture, in what strange fourme soeuer it bee pronounced, is the word of the liuing GOD. Let that alwayes come to your remembrance, which is so oft repeated of the Prophet Esaias: The mouth of the Lord (saith he) hath spoken it, and Almighty and euerlasting GOD, who with his onely word created heauen and earth, hath decreed it, the Lord of hostes, whose wayes are in the Seas, whose paths are in the deepe waters, that Lorde and GOD by whose worde all things in heauen and in earth are created, gouerned, and preserued, hath so prouided it."<br /><br />As to your point, Tobias, about TEC and tolerance: The weakness is your phrase "as a whole". For the pewsitter, tolerance in the abstract or general sense is not the point at issue. Will his/her<br />bishop, encourage and support evangelical ministers through seminary and into parishes in their diocese is the key for them? And the stoutest supporters of TEC here cannot say the universal answer is "yes". Erika and Lionel have a point - some conflicting beliefs are more easily accommodated within a single church than others.John Sandemanhttp://eternity.biznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-62570826410417402732010-01-22T12:57:48.671-05:002010-01-22T12:57:48.671-05:00Thanks, Deacon P. That is certainly how Luther and...Thanks, Deacon P. That is certainly how Luther and Hooker understood it: the extent to which Scripture "preaches Christ" or "the Eternal Gospel."Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1827270299103401942010-01-22T12:54:47.559-05:002010-01-22T12:54:47.559-05:00John, I recall the conversation with Dr. Null, and...John, I recall the conversation with Dr. Null, and would be interested in reading his take on the Articles. I have no doubts to his (or others') sincerity, nor do I wish to enter into a "Nor our sort of Anglican" competition (I'll leave that to the Evangelicals.) All I am pointing out is the objective fact that the Articles of Religion and the Lambeth Quadrilateral (to take two important documents in the history of Anglicanism) make no reference to the "authority of Scripture" except in relation to the church; rather both refer to its "sufficiency unto salvation" -- a notion you appeared to me to dismiss as a somewhat parochial minority view peculiar to TEC (unless you were including Scotland with "Episcopalians"). I don't wish to be a "literalist" but I do think one has to begin with the actual texts. As I see it, and I think the text support my claim that the issue of "authority" is neatly balanced between church and scripture (the latter treated in some sense like a constitutional document that the church in every age must interpret and apply). Thus the Articles give authority to the church to apply the Scripture (analogously to Christ's instructions to the Apostles) and the church is limited only in that it cannot require what cannot be demonstrated from or is contrary to Scripture; it is free in areas not addressed by Scripture to offer counsel and direction, though it cannot mandate that its counsel be followed. <br /><br />So the question before us is not really the abstract issue of "Does the Scripture have authority?" but rather "How does the church exercise <i>its</i> authority in the interpretation and application of Scripture." The vexed questions of the ordination of women and the marriage of same-sex partners (and their capacity for leadership in the church) are all matters of debate in which we look to Scripture -- but it appears to be clear that the church as a whole is not of one mind. It is not a matter of "TEC doesn't respect Scripture" but rather "TEC has come to a different interpretation of Scripture on these issues." Still, TEC as a whole is willing to tolerate in its body those who disagree -- which, again, is the point of this thread: the false claim that those who disagree are being systematically excluded or persecuted.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-2802978166094296362010-01-22T12:47:12.617-05:002010-01-22T12:47:12.617-05:00The "all things necessary to salvation" ...The "all things necessary to salvation" which the scriptures contain is Jesus Christ. They also contain a lot that's not about Christ and hence is not authoritative or doctrinal.Ormonde Platerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05145096672539029672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-85974884211709312232010-01-22T09:23:51.698-05:002010-01-22T09:23:51.698-05:00Tobias,
a couple of years ago, you interacted with...Tobias,<br />a couple of years ago, you interacted with Dr Ashley Null on the 39 articles and scripture. He gave the 2009 Moore College lectures on the 39 articles and scripture. (I can't link them sadly). As with your earlier interaction I guess you would disagree with his thesis that the articles do imply a high view of the authority of scripture beyond things pertaining to salvation.<br />As to who has moved from a true Anglican position: I believe that depends a lot om where you are viewing things from. From a province like TEC, I can see that evangelicals can be seen as innovators. from a traditionally evangelical province. the more liberal parts of the communion are seem as the innovators. I this matter I can see how both points of view are logically and sincerely held.John Sandemanhttp://eternity.biznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-46104461922000680192010-01-22T08:47:17.949-05:002010-01-22T08:47:17.949-05:00Thank you, John. That is helpful,
Yes, my list w...Thank you, John. That is helpful, <br /><br />Yes, my list was "off the cuff." I would have to learn more about this "authority of Scripture" issue -- as I believe most evangelicals are as selective in their application as many liberals; and if they want to go beyond the official standards of the Articles of Religion (sufficiency unto salvation; liberation from observing the ritual law; nothing to be required without proof) then I think they make a good case for being the ones who have departed from Anglican norms into some other Christian culture. That, it seems to me, is the issue here. If people want to move away from the classical Anglican formularies (while ironically holding them up as banners) into a more restrictive model for the church, that is a decision I can honor and respect, though I do wish they would remain as part of the "big tent" the Elizabethan Settlement tried to pitch. (I would say the same for the Ultramontane Anglo-Catholics.) The issue here is that Mrs. Ashworth is trying to portray ANCA not only as the "true Anglicans" but as persecuted and put-upon. The first is only true if they stay, the second is based on their refusal to stay in a place where they cannot tolerate the fact that they do not rule. Had they taken AMiA's route, I would have no quibble with their freedom to do so. However, the one foot on sea and one on land approach, and the violation of civil law inherent in what they are doing with the property, is problematical.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-19163778132619703092010-01-21T23:36:40.367-05:002010-01-21T23:36:40.367-05:00A common definition of "Evangelical" is ...A common definition of "Evangelical" is Bebbington's quadraliteral from his "Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s".<br />Missing from your (off the cuff?) definition is a strong belief in the authority of scripture. This moves beyond the "all things necessary for salvation" view of many/some Episcopalians to all areas of faith and life (not that scripture talks about everything!). <br />I would not major on a cry of "persecution" but were I to have left TEC I would have regarded it as a sad separation. I would have taken the AMiA's view of property, making a clean break. But that is easy for me to say.John Sandemanhttp://eternity.biznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-91299921427547627812010-01-21T23:07:41.724-05:002010-01-21T23:07:41.724-05:00John, I don't know what you mean by evangelica...John, I don't know what you mean by evangelical. It isn't synonymous with theologically conservative. If you have a point you want to make I am all for your making.Jim Naughtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03860752046479938764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-26152434183054989572010-01-21T21:04:49.215-05:002010-01-21T21:04:49.215-05:00Tobias,
"Eternity" is my newspaper not ...Tobias,<br /><br />"Eternity" is my newspaper not my name! I fumbled the form somehow...<br /><br />JohnJohn Sandemanhttp://eternity.biznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-50602608656873857292010-01-21T18:24:47.323-05:002010-01-21T18:24:47.323-05:00- some 18 miles away.
Martin, from my place in th...<i>- some 18 miles away.</i><br /><br />Martin, from my place in the bayou country in south Louisiana, I prefer an ocean and the height of the US between me and the CofE.<br /><br />I visited your country. I remember most the art museum in Cardiff, attending a tattoo at the Castle, lovely scenery in the countryside, and the Bristol Channel.June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-68252353494336676302010-01-21T17:58:13.405-05:002010-01-21T17:58:13.405-05:00"Eternity" (John?) that is a fair point,..."Eternity" (John?) that is a fair point, and I alluded above to the apparent fact that "Evangelical" has come to be focused in some minds on attitudes toward the sexuality of ordinands. That, to me, is a sad reduction in the meaning of "Evangelical." <br /><br />I take Evangelical to mean focused on the Gospel, holding to the primacy of Christ and his saving acts (from incarnation through Resurrection -- though centered on the Cross); acknowledgment that all have fallen short, but are capable by grace through faith of participating in that salvation, etc.<br /><br />However, as I've tried to make clear, even if what you really mean when you ask "Is there room for Evangelicsals?" is, "Is there a place for people who disapprove of gay or women clergy in the Episcopal Church?" the answer is a resounding Yes. They are even able to attend VTS, GTS and CDSP (more liberal seminaries.) If they choose not to because they are offended by the presence of those who do not think as they do, that is not a matter of "persecution" or "exclusion" except by their own actions. If they want to attend a seminary where no one will disagree with them on these matters, it is true that their choices are more limited. But that does not constitute exclusion.<br /><br />That is the point of this discussion: the falsehood of the report passed along by Mrs. Ashworth. (Though I was primarily addressing her misrepresentation of the property disputes.)Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-74886216190212998732010-01-21T17:08:21.623-05:002010-01-21T17:08:21.623-05:00Tobias,
as ever blog argument has its traps, and i...Tobias,<br />as ever blog argument has its traps, and its probably my fault that we have run this far without defining "evangelical" which is not all that easy to define.<br />Now I do not own that word so I will turn to what might be reasonable examples.<br />I would say for example "Christianity Today" is a mainstream evangelical magazine, and to use UK examples Oak Hill, St John's Nottingham and Wycliffe in Oxford are examples of evangelical seminaries (St John's is less conservative, Oak Hill more so).<br />VTS which has a partnered gay staff member, Dr. Ruthanna Hooke, and gay students able to live together (please correct me if I am wrong) stretches the definition of mainstream evangelical in my view. And yet I take your point about shibboleths.eternity.biznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-63390553553857492932010-01-21T16:52:50.985-05:002010-01-21T16:52:50.985-05:00Well Grandmere I am a little closer to the Church ...Well Grandmere I am a little closer to the Church of England than you - some 18 miles away.<br /><br />Though it sometimes seem a lifetime away!Martin Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05741108069763152456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-88631549445231707742010-01-21T12:56:38.311-05:002010-01-21T12:56:38.311-05:00John, I have never taken a census on this question...John, I have never taken a census on this question, but knowing the parishes in NY fairly well, I would say roughly a third are "evangelical" in the mainstream sense. Perhaps a dozen are more towards the right-hand shore of that stream. Another third would likely identify as "High Church" or "Catholic" though again only perhaps a dozen or so as old-line Anglo-Catholic. The rest are somewhere in the middle. <br /><br />On the "liberal/conservative" spread, I could say with confidence that about a quarter or more of the parishes would not consider someone like me as a pastor, and a few would not even wish me to preach.<br /><br />I think this is a fair representation of TEC as a whole, from my experiences and travels.<br /><br />As to candidates for ordination, I think the spread is about the same -- judging by the parishes that sponsor them. I also have to echo the words above that bishops will often send a candidate from an evangelical parish to a more "catholic" seminary, and vice versa, in order to broaden their experience. I know that we have candidates for ordination at Virginia Theological Seminary, which by its heritage and current practice is mainstream Evangelical.<br /><br />Hope this further information is of help.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-91583040996956922962010-01-21T09:58:53.484-05:002010-01-21T09:58:53.484-05:00Jim, so how many evangelical parishes in Washingto...Jim, so how many evangelical parishes in Washington? How many postulants at evangelical seminaries? Tobias, what about New York? By asking those questions I don't wish to be combative, but some quantitative information might help.John Sandemanhttp://eternity.biznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-82237051711165451352010-01-21T08:37:40.853-05:002010-01-21T08:37:40.853-05:00Thank you, Jim. I am on retreat but checking in fr...Thank you, Jim. I am on retreat but checking in from time to time. It appears there may have been a hiccup with Google / Blogspot over the last few days, and comments didn't reach me. I will have to investigate.<br /><br />But again thanks for addressing the slanders about the state of the "persecuted minority" in TEC. Even the "liberal" dioceses make room for "evangelicals" (and isn't it strange that opposition to women and gays in ministry should now be the shibboleth or touchstone for evangelicalism!) but there are many, many dioceses in which, like England, gay or lesbian persons can only serve as clergy from within the closet.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-83255606939992446182010-01-20T23:32:04.299-05:002010-01-20T23:32:04.299-05:00I thought I had chimed back in, but it seems my co...I thought I had chimed back in, but it seems my comment didn't appear. We have conservative rectors. I think many of our postulants choose their own seminaries. Bishop Ed Salmon, retired of South Carolina, is the interim at one of our parishes. He succeeded Paul Zahl. The bishop has twice given Peter Akinola permission to speak in the diocese, although he only came once. Several years ago we passed a conscience resolution at our convention that got support from both Integrity and the American Anglican Council. All of this is well-known and can be verified by a google search. Thus the left wing gulag that is the Diocese of Washington in the minds of various fantasists with Web sites.Jim Naughtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03860752046479938764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-24330304475351619252010-01-20T19:15:25.215-05:002010-01-20T19:15:25.215-05:00Unlike TEC my opinion of the CofE is unprintable!
...<i>Unlike TEC my opinion of the CofE is unprintable!</i><br /><br />And you're "over there", right Martin? Then, you know better than I, surely.June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-75624433034259611272010-01-20T18:47:30.130-05:002010-01-20T18:47:30.130-05:00Thanks for the additional thoughts, and particular...Thanks for the additional thoughts, and particularly for those providing further information for John concerning the half-truths he has no doubt heard.<br /><br />Dahveed, I did not receive a post from you on this thread. Was it lengthy? I learned a year of so ago that Blogspot will silently reject any post over 4,096 characters.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-15051172439393681342010-01-20T16:31:05.240-05:002010-01-20T16:31:05.240-05:00Dr Primrose,
Thankyou for confirming that LA is a...Dr Primrose, <br />Thankyou for confirming that LA is a diocese where candidates from conservative seminaries are accepted. And I agree that it is significant that they head parishes. The question is how typical is that of other dioceses, left leaning or not? I hope Jim is able to tell us about Washington.<br />Lionel,<br />I wonder if Bishops who want to send conservative candidates to (more) liberal seminaries send their more liberal candidates to conservative seminaries. Some Bishops may, but others may not.<br />In the TEC diocese of New Hampshire, those who opposed a gay bishop did not find it easy to stay. The CofE is still struggling with having women bishops and keeping many of those opposed in, and it is not proving easy. My point is simply that they are trying, and that they believe there should be one church not two. <br />Marshall,<br />You are absolutely right - bishops have a key role in approving training and licensing. If a bishop has a pattern of not licensing ministers for one particular sort of church or approving the training of ministers of this sort of church, it is easy to see how those people will consider they cannot thrive in that diocese.<br />Erika,<br />You may be right when you say there is no middle way. Many in my diocese would agree. (And I am in the diocese of Sydney). If you are right I suspect that the Australian model will be the future for the Anglican Communion. Like our dioceses there will be a range of provinces with very different flavours and a weak central voice. and a considerable amount of cross border church planting.<br />I thank the posters here for their challenging and informative responses.John Sandemanhttp://eternity.biznoreply@blogger.com