Who needs enemies if you have friends like that?

[tree_and_leaf]

I am not a fan of the anti-gay Anglican crowd at GAFCON, but I trust that some of them are at least slightly embarrassed to have Mugabe vocally agreeing with them.

Also, a link to a thoughtful article by Savitri Hensman on the divisions within Anglicanism. The point that the homosexuality issue (and, indeed, the ordination of women) isn't really about traditionalists v radicals, because both camps contain people who are very conservative in some ways and liberal and others. The point is, of course, deciding what part of the tradition you think is really important - and Anglicanism is so diverse that there is really a continuum of traditions, or at least the tradition involves not only diversity but contradictions. Actually I think this is, or ought to be, one of the better things about Anglicanism - if nothing else, it ought to serve as a reminder that no one human understanding of God or indeed of the church is adequate - but it complicates matters considerably. (IAMC, as oursin would say). But then, as someone who would have to answer the question 'Are you a liberal or a conservative Anglican' with 'Yes', I suppose I would say that....

Comments

[parrot-knight.livejournal.com]

I saw Mugabe's speech about his respect for the Queen, the royal family, and the British people, and his call for the exorcism of 10 Downing Street, and his comments on the Archbishop of Canterbury's 'loss of Christ' on television. I don't want Mugabe's version of Christian love to flourish, thank you.

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

I'm another who'd answer that question with 'yes'.

It's bad that I'm amused that GAFCON is going on at the same time as the Jerusalem Pride march, isn't it?

That's the thing about the 'hardline conservatives' - they're hardline on very different things. Some of the evangelicals won't allow women to read the gospel in church (because Paul says women shouldn't speak in church) and don't actually really believe in bishops or priests at all. And then there's the FiF lot, who are also anti-OOW, but not quite so anti-gay (gosh, I wonder why?)... if they all split off in one group from the nasty nasty liberals (who also aren't exactly covering themselves in glory recently) there'll be a realisation at some point that they have less in common than they might think.

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

I'm having a little difficulty with "hard-line Anglicans". Hard-line on what, exactly, please? I mean, is it code for " we are righteous the righteous ones, don't say you're gay" or "reactionary throwbacks who hate homosexuals" or "do what you want with your willie, but leave the BCP alone" or "antidisestablishmentarianism" or "church and state together forever"? It's a bit like saying "hard-line BBC viewer".

[tree_and_leaf]

It's a fair cop - in this case it means, broadly, reactionary throwbacks who hate homosexuals (and generally women, but they don't shout quite as loudly about that). But as sacred_sarcasm noted above, the anti-homosexual crowd often haven't much in common other than their position on gays (so to speak).

ETA: you've seen the Eddie Izzard Anglican Inquisition sketch, haven't you? ("Cake or death!")

[tree_and_leaf]

Good God, no!

[tree_and_leaf]

I'm another who'd answer that question with 'yes'.

We should get a badge!

It's bad that I'm amused that GAFCON is going on at the same time as the Jerusalem Pride march, isn't it?

Probably, but I'm over here in the evil corner with you!

That's the thing about the 'hardline conservatives' - they're hardline on very different things. Some of the evangelicals won't allow women to read the gospel in church (because Paul says women shouldn't speak in church) and don't actually really believe in bishops or priests at all. And then there's the FiF lot, who are also anti-OOW, but not quite so anti-gay (gosh, I wonder why?)... if they all split off in one group from the nasty nasty liberals (who also aren't exactly covering themselves in glory recently) there'll be a realisation at some point that they have less in common than they might think.

That's exactly the point, though I can't imagine what you mean about FiF [/sarc]. (Though I wonder if, in some cases, the anti-OOW doesn't spring ultimately from the same cause. Nasty icky females!) Alas, virtually no-one is covering themselves in glory; I suppose it was no better in the third century, but that doesn't cheer me up all that much...

[parrot-knight.livejournal.com]

I've not seen the Izzard sketch, but I have seen Not the Nine O'Clock News 'Are you a gay Christian?' - the issue was very live c.1980 too.

[tree_and_leaf]

I'll look for it later - it's on Youtube somewhere. The 'Not the Nine O'clock News' one is new to me, though.

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

I certainly have had more sensible discussions about OOW with evangelicals (although they struggle with what a 'priest' is, and I can't ever quite explain properly) who at least say 'the bible says no, so it's wrong' - of course, there are a hundred reasons why that's not a great argument, but it does make internal sense, ish. Whereas, certainly the couple I know, FiF people do tend to have a 'well, it's just wrong' attitude. Icky girls

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

I suppose it was no better in the third century, but that doesn't cheer me up all that much...
What do you mean? The early church was the utter epitome of wonderfulness and clarity and godliness and they all got on and had things right. This is why we want to return to that authentic Christianity! Whaddya mean you don't think Peter and Paul got on that well!?

As for third century, that sounds worryingly like we're into Patristics and the church being taken over by factionalism and academics, rather than the CLEAR WORDS OF JESUS (except they hadn't quite decided what those were...)

[wellinghall.livejournal.com]

Talking of Mugabe, I bet you never thought of him as Gollum:
http://news.accra-mail.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=548&Itemid=59

[azdak.livejournal.com]

I remember in one of the Not The Nine O'Clock News books there was a form to fill in to apply to marry into the Royal Family. Under "Religious Denomination" it said "If Church of England, please state whether or not you believe in God."

As the bishop said the the actress

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

I was thinking that might be the implication in this case (and I suppose it is very Anglican to say it thus ;-) ).

Anglican Inquisition sketch
I have now. (And he's right about Risk and Australasia)

[liadnan]

It's worth noting that there's far more complexity than is apparent from the outside on our side of the Tiber too. Says the liberal catholic devotee of what is now known as the Usus Antiquor. Whether the wave of converts expected by some would be an entirely positive thing for us remains open to severe doubt. (Particularly if the SSPX come back into the fold as well.)

[tree_and_leaf]

*boggles*

No, I hadn't!

[tree_and_leaf]

Oh, certainly. And if I were Catholic, I wouldn't be enthusiastic about the prospect of waves of ex-Anglicans (though I'm not sure it would take very great proportions; the evangelical anti-gays-and-women certainly wouldn't want to go over to Rome, and I think that some sort of Anglican Free Church is a more likely scenario. But I don't know)

Are the SSPX the same as the sedes vacantes lot?

Re: As the bishop said the the actress

[tree_and_leaf]

Modern Anglicans have, I admit, got horribly mealy mouthed! ;)

[tree_and_leaf]

And then, of course, there was the 'Yes, Prime Minister' episode abut choosing a bishop:

Sir Humphrey: I don't think he'd be a good choice, Prime Minister. I've heard he's a bit of an extremist.
Hacker: An extremist?
H.A: Yes, they say he believes in God.

Not that I think any of that is entirely fair, mind. Not entirely.

[liadnan]

Not quite: the SSPX are the original Lefebvrite lot, and are explicitly not sedevacantist. There are several loonier branches and bits and pieces to the right, including in particular the SSPV, who I think are sedevacantist (plus the Feenyites, who are just mad and Jansenist to boot). (Apropos of this trend in names, see this for a small bit of fresh air).

Lefebvre ordained four new bishops for the SSPX against the direct orders of the Vatican: excommunications followed. Rome is currently trying to bring them back into the fold: they have until the end of the month to respond. Rather guiltily I am hoping that (as seems likely) they say "no".

[tree_and_leaf]

Ah, thank you for the clarification. And also for the very amusing link.

One of my favourite satires of a certain type of Anglican (and one I'm fairly familiar with) is here: http://www.affirming-laudianism.org.uk/

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

Do you know about the Unfriendly Catholics? http://www.fuc.org.uk/

Highly entertainin'

[tree_and_leaf]

Oh yes, FUC is brilliant too. Especially the Azazael Programme, and the comment on the heretic of the week ('We suspect he may be a woman. Or at least have been in the same room as one. FUC abhor this sort of behaviour."

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

Here is the application form for Frankly Unfriendly Catholics, should you wish to join:

Application for Membership of FUC

Name:

Title: Rev / Rev Dr / Right Rev / Right Rev Dr / Other

Address:



Last Confession:

Average Mass Attendance (per day):

RPM*:

I the above hereby swear that I have never ever ever received the sacrament from a woman, not that it would be the sacrament if I had, which I haven't, furthermore I have never received the sacrament from someone who has received the sacrament from a woman. I therefore affirm that I receive the sacrament from men, manly men, even if they are laced up to the eyeballs, I have definite proof that they are men, and men are the only people I have received the sacrament from.

Signed:

(*Rosaries per minute)


I also giggled quite a lot at the list of things they affirm: gin, maniples, east-facing celebration, closets.

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

Have you taken the test to see if you're a FUC wit?

[tree_and_leaf]

The affirmation list is Not Work Safe - on grounds of causing unwary readers to giggle like loons!

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

I don't know of any spoof evangelical anglican clubs I could join - have you ever come across any, or is it further proof that Anglo-Catholics Win At Humour (TM)? ;)

[tree_and_leaf]

Borderline. While on the whole I tend to think that going to Mass is always a good idea, it does not include situations where you've hit an artery! Though I fear my application would not impress them....

[liadnan]

You're probably right about no waves this time. There have been recent moves from one of the older Anglican splits (TAC) but reading between the lines they seem to have got a mild brush off from the Vatican (ie they were told they'd be welcome as individuals in the usual way through the usual process).

[liadnan]

Absolutely splendid.

[el-staplador.livejournal.com]

Like a mighty tortoise, eh? Or rather more like tectonic plates: very slowly in opposite directions, causing almighty upsets when they collide, but ultimately leaving the whole looking more or less as it did before.

[azdak.livejournal.com]

Not that I think any of that is entirely fair, mind. Not entirely.

Spoken like a true Anglican ;-)