We have an Archbishop of Canterbury

[Paidiske]

I do not believe that those opinions are within the Statement of Purpose for this forum, or indeed the CF rule about egregious inflammatory comment about a public figure.

 

[mindlight]

The hyperventilating I'm seeing online about, there's the end of hope for unity (amongst ourselves, with Rome, with Orthodoxy, whatever) is seriously annoying me. None of those folks wanted unity anyway. This doesn't change that. It just says, we're not going to refuse to put our convictions into practice out of fear of other people's bad behaviour.

Given the lack of theological training Mullally has, and her focus on pastoral care as a nurse and a priest I wonder what you mean by convictions and at how deeply they are rooted in scripture. She violates at least three scriptural norms: on same-sex marriage, on being a bishop/archbishop that is a woman and by her views on abortion. But you are right there is no unity between a culture of lies and one of truth.

 

[Paidiske]

Given the lack of theological training Mullally has, and her focus on pastoral care as a nurse and a priest I wonder what you mean by convictions and at how deeply they are rooted in scripture.

I was referring to people upset by the appointment of a woman, and convictions about the validity of women's ordination, and indeed consecration as bishops. And those convictions are profoundly scriptural.

And, I would point out, again, that arguing that the ordination of women is not scriptural, in debate with an Anglican priest who is a woman, is probably not in keeping with the SOP of this forum.

 

[mindlight]

I was referring to people upset by the appointment of a woman, and convictions about the validity of women's ordination, and indeed consecration as bishops. And those convictions are profoundly scriptural.

And, I would point out, again, that arguing that the ordination of women is not scriptural, in debate with an Anglican priest who is a woman, is probably not in keeping with the SOP of this forum.

Are you a bishop? I can accept that the bible would permit women vicars (priesthood of all believers and all that) but nothing higher. This is the standard global historic view of the church community and has been the position of the Anglican church for most of its history also (well not the woman vicar thing which is biblically warranted but not condoned by tradition).

If this debate is not allowed in this forum then all those words about diversity that Mullally has been spouting are just hot air. But like the Nigerian church with 17.5 million members has already decided maybe this short sighted, politically inept and utterly unbiblical decision has already split the church irreversibly. In which case let the feminists and the gays have the ruins of the church while Anglicans reform elsewhere e.g. maybe with GAFCON.

 

[Paidiske]

This is the standard global historic view of the church community and has been the position of the Anglican church for most of its history also

That's an astonishingly historically inaccurate take.

If this debate is not allowed in this forum then all those words about diversity that Mullally has been spouting are just hot air.

Ironically, the Archbishop of Canterbury does not determine the forum rules on CF. I will let the moderators make of this what they will.

 

[mindlight]

That's an astonishingly historically inaccurate take.

Ironically, the Archbishop of Canterbury does not determine the forum rules on CF. I will let the moderators make of this what they will.

Name a mainstream church with female bishops that is not woke or liberal and had ordained these before 1980.

This trigger happy approach to freedom of speech is what is wrong with England right now. You have weaponised language to exclude the truth in the name of offence.

Witnessing to some gay men last week I saw the same approach. They followed the same strategy.

1) Cherry pick the statements, and add a little blind prejudice
2) Do the Drama Queen thing about how offensive the words are to them
3) Come in with the ad hominem attack. In your case (lets misuse the CF rules to penalize free speech).

 

[Paidiske]

Name a mainstream church with female bishops that is not woke or liberal and had ordained these before 1980.

That is largely irrelevant to your claim about the "standard global historic view of the church community." As if there were any such thing.

 

[mindlight]

That is largely irrelevant to your claim about the "standard global historic view of the church community." As if there were any such thing.

I guess that it is a, no I cannot, then.

 

[Paidiske]

I guess that it is a, no I cannot, then.

It's a, this is irrelevant to your claim. And I'm not really interested in debating at length in a thread I suspect is likely to be cleaned shortly.

 

[RamiC]

You are not in England here

Yes I am.

 

[mindlight]

Yes I am.

The point was that only those who actually are salt and light are paying for their freedom of speech and religious expression.

 

[RamiC]

The point was that only those who actually are salt and light are paying for their freedom of speech and religious expression.

I am in England, that was my only point.