About halfway through weighing some of the issues that I’ve written about here before, I had a sudden realization: reflecting on Rowan Williams’ letter wasn’t a worthwhile use of my time; writing it was not a worthwhile use of his. The issues at stake have become so trivial—We are not debating right and wrong, we are debating whether there should be trifling penalties for giving offense to other members of the Communion.—that to engage them at all compromises our moral standing and diminishes our ability to speak credibly on issues of real importance.
Amen. The time I spent parsing the Archbishop of Canterbury's letter could have been better spent.
Hear, hear!
ReplyDeleteWell said, Mimi ...
ReplyDeleteJim Naughton for Archbishop of Canterbury!
ReplyDeleteAnd Mimi!
The Archbishop of Canterbury is so entrenched in trying to ¨control¨ a impossible scheme that only he seems to understand...he´s lost sight of common sense (I don´t think he was ever a management type fellow in the first place and he´s allowed his own muddled sense of propriety/punishment to hamper any positive outcome)...truly a waste of time as he doesn´t even realize he´s dealing with many folks who have NO scruples or even good intentions for a positive fellowship through respect and basic decency and HONORA at The Anglican Communion. Lofty Dr. Williams can´t tell the difference between right from wrong and good and bad (mostly).
ReplyDeleteErika, thanks, but I believe Jim would join me in saying, "No thanks".
ReplyDelete+++Rowan's pastoral skills leave much to be desired.
It's too bad that such a good mind isn't using it.
ReplyDeleteI spent the time taking a nap.
ReplyDeleteIt's too bad that such a good mind isn't using it.
ReplyDeleteOr as Dan Quayle said,
"...what a waste it is to lose one's mind, or not to have a mind is being very wasteful, how true that is."
Counterlight, you took the better part.
I think we should do like the good folks in the Church of England and just ignore Rowan Who.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm finally cured of my pride in belonging to a church that is part of the Anglican Communion. I find +++Rowan and most of the Anglican Communion to be both unnecessary and, most sadly of all, unpastoral and in denial that the Spirit could possibly work in many ways and many tongues. Bollocks to the whole AC having to be on exactly the same page --- God never changes but God does call for revisions!
ReplyDeleteWade, I think it's time for the progressives in the Church of England to stop ignoring +++Rowan and his ilk and start planning to wrest control of the leadership of the church from the troglodytes.
ReplyDeleteKitty, I understand what you say, and some days I want to give up on the AC, too, but folks in the Church of England and other provinces don't want us to give up. They see TEC as holding out a very thin lifeline of hope to them.
I think it says a lot that everyone is interpreting the ++XYZ (can I call him that instead of the ABC?) as referring to TEC and ACC, and not to such entities as the Churches of Uganda and Nigeria and the Parish of the Southern Cone, which were (last I heard) all involved in breaking one of the Windsor moratoria about crossing diocesan boundaries. (Not to mention the part of the ten commandments that talks about not coveting your neighbor's property.)
ReplyDeleteKishnevi, did you read the entire letter? +++Rowan did indeed refer to the poachers breaking the moratoria, but he did not call them by name. On the other hand, the XYZ was quite careful to explicitly name the Episcopal Church and Mary Glasspool.
ReplyDeleteLinked at "Thinking Anglicans", yet! Congratulations.
ReplyDeleteLapin, thanks. I'm honored.
ReplyDelete