Thursday, April 10, 2014

FacebookShare on Google PlusTwitterHootsuiteLinkedInHootsuiteBufferCustom Sharing Tool
Let’s get one thing out of the way at the start.  This post and the past several Anglican posts preceding it should most definitely not be interpreted as anything close to a changing of the Editorial mind about the Anglican Communion or the “official” Anglican tradition in general.  Since both are dead, both should lie down as quickly as possible.

That said, if past performance is indicative of future results, Justin Welby should have emphatically walked back his controversial remarks of the other day by now and Anglican Journal just gave him a chance to.  But my gracious lord of Canterbury wouldn’t take it:

What I was saying is that when we take actions in one part of the church, particularly actions that are controversial, that they are heard and felt not only in that part of the church but around the world…And, this is not mere consequentialism; I’m not saying that because there will be consequences to taking action, that we shouldn’t take action. What I’m saying is that love for our neighbour, love for one another, compels us to consider carefully how that love is expressed, both in our own context and globally. We never speak the essential point that, as a church, we never speak only in our local situation. Our voice carries around the world. Now that will be more true in some places than in others. It depends on your links. We need to learn to live as a global church in a local context and never to imagine that we’re just a local church. There is no such thing.

You know what that means and I know what that means.  But over at Naughton’s, they don’t have the slightest conception of what that means.  Tobias Haller:

Justin, we understood you the first time, and your concern is noted. It is also misplaced and wrong, and it is exactly consequentialism, phrase your call for “consideration” how you will. The essence of a charge of being “inconsiderate” is based on unintended consequences. I think your comments in the interview comparing same-sex marriage to adultery are far more inconsiderate, inflammatory, and damaging, and will likely continue to fan the flames of homophobia.

Perhaps you are the one who needs a lesson in “consideration.”

I left the following comment over there but I seriously doubt that it gets in.

So you’re suggesting that it was actually wrong for the Anglican left to demand that Gene Robinson be unquestioningly accepted as an Anglican bishop? And that the Anglican left is equally wrong for condemning Nigerian and Ugandan Anglican episcopal support of laws passed in those two sovereign nations?

Because “local context” goes both ways. Just sayin’.

No comments: