i will say, as somebody who has 1) personally benefited from Bp. Edgar’s life, ministry, and christian witness (church of the apostles columbia is where i became anglican), and 2) is generally pretty sympathetic to TEC and the amount of wonderful and good things there, it has been hard to feel anything but eye-rolls over this. especially when the situation is compared with the ACNA’s reaction to much more severe causes for “scandal,” regarding the safe-guarding of children and the vulnerable in sexual misconduct cases as well as conduct unbecoming clergy online and in-person. i say the whole thing is absurd because the reaction and response to the service was so severe compared to much greater issues plaguing the church. but you’re right as always in challenging me to live up to my own standards better
I hear you man. That’s the problem with the internet—sometimes the issues that get the most visibility are hardly the most pressing ones. I pray that these veritable causes for scandal you mention are being taken even more seriously than Porter-Gate and that they will be resolved with as much speed as possible under their particular circumstances. Also, thanks as always for being a good sport!
Some members of both sides would actually benefit from a crash course in the opposition’s position. I’ve spoken to many on the anti-WO side who are sick of being reduced to misogynists (while acknowledging that some on their side are), but in my own experience, I’m far more used to see the pro-WO side caricatured as just progressivism, women’s empowerment for its own sake, or any such thing. Almost none of the loudest voices (online, that is) against WO in the ACNA even acknowledge that a scriptural argument exists in its favor.
I agree the mean girl approach doesn’t get us much (except copious amount of followers online, in some cases), but I also understand why people can get frustrated over being so constantly misrepresented.
Haha, appreciate the mention in the round up, brother! 😉
I agree we shouldn’t mimic the mean girls unless it’s during a province-wide bonding/team building exercise where we all make s’mores and watch that classic together.
But you’ll find on close inspection that my piece had a bit more of a substantive point to it.
Namely that the sort of “Here I stand I can do no other” attitude toward’s WO in the ACNA effected by many of the most prominently opposed to it is more than a bit rich, considering they voluntarily joined a body that already practiced it. 😉
Blessings! (And I hope you enjoyed my Lutheran olive branch)
Thanks for this gracious comment. Mean Girls & S’mores sounds like a grand old time haha. Would definitely join!
And, for the record, I completely agree with your reminder that “dual integrities” is a feature not a bug of our province. I would even add that this should be a cause for pride! Here’s hoping
I like the rule you're going over here. It's always best to assume the best about an interlocutor's intentions. I've ventured into a couple of Twitter arguments with Anglicans lately. It's amazing how quickly good people slide into ad hominem. They probably don't even realize that they are doing it. Did you know that anyone who 'speaks in tongues' is 'demon-possessed like a Hindu?'
I've been trying to figure out why God has ordained so much judgment over 'Western' churches. (That's how we end up not being able to 'see' what Bishop Edgar did and not being able to talk about it charitably.) I came to the conclusion this morning that it goes all the way back to our lack of response to the abortion regime. How can God not visit us with confusion when we cannot bring ourselves to defend our children with vigour? (Canadians are much worse than Americans.)
Wow, man. Your theory is worth taking seriously. Thanks for sharing. And I sure hope Anglo-Twitter has not deterred you from praying in the Spirit haha
I’ll continue to contend that the Sermon on the Mount is never out of context (and I’ll add that I fail to live up to it all the time), and I ask how one perennially online personality who makes an income from capitalizing on scandal and creating offense can be immune to accusations of questionable online speech and who gets a pass as “reliably sassy and refreshingly earnest”?
Also since we don’t know each other and haven’t met, here’s a little about me: I have 4 kiddos, I’m a sad sad Cowboys fan, I love root beer floats, and I love Ardbeg whisky.
Speaking of out-of-context... Just kidding😂 I hope you and I can become stack-frens as well. Maybe even real life friends over root beer floats someday. And maybe I do have an Anne Kennedy blind spot. I’ll have to think on that some more.
What I do know for a fact is that I love and revere the Sermon on the Mount just as you do. I also think, however, that you can be troubled by Porter-Gate without inherently violating it
I am not Anglican ( am RC). But I know that sassy and earnest person moderately well from when my husband was ACNA, and also subscribe to her online column and I have to object to your characterization of her. She defends the truth she believes with some wit, and skewers heresies as they deserve. I admit I would wince and protest if she chose to skewer those beliefs of mine she considers heresy, but I would try to discuss and argue with her rather than sulk and say she is a mean girl. I think truth is important, therefore doctrines are significant, and more important than being "nice." I am sure she would pick up even soft brained modernists, or RC's off the side if the road if they had been beaten by robbers or even ran out of gas. That is charity. Letting falsehoods dangerous to souls flourish is the opposite of charity.
i will say, as somebody who has 1) personally benefited from Bp. Edgar’s life, ministry, and christian witness (church of the apostles columbia is where i became anglican), and 2) is generally pretty sympathetic to TEC and the amount of wonderful and good things there, it has been hard to feel anything but eye-rolls over this. especially when the situation is compared with the ACNA’s reaction to much more severe causes for “scandal,” regarding the safe-guarding of children and the vulnerable in sexual misconduct cases as well as conduct unbecoming clergy online and in-person. i say the whole thing is absurd because the reaction and response to the service was so severe compared to much greater issues plaguing the church. but you’re right as always in challenging me to live up to my own standards better
I hear you man. That’s the problem with the internet—sometimes the issues that get the most visibility are hardly the most pressing ones. I pray that these veritable causes for scandal you mention are being taken even more seriously than Porter-Gate and that they will be resolved with as much speed as possible under their particular circumstances. Also, thanks as always for being a good sport!
Some members of both sides would actually benefit from a crash course in the opposition’s position. I’ve spoken to many on the anti-WO side who are sick of being reduced to misogynists (while acknowledging that some on their side are), but in my own experience, I’m far more used to see the pro-WO side caricatured as just progressivism, women’s empowerment for its own sake, or any such thing. Almost none of the loudest voices (online, that is) against WO in the ACNA even acknowledge that a scriptural argument exists in its favor.
I agree the mean girl approach doesn’t get us much (except copious amount of followers online, in some cases), but I also understand why people can get frustrated over being so constantly misrepresented.
Dude we should collab on a crash course. Be the change you want to see in the world type beat
That could be fun, though I’d be shocked if such a thing does not already exist.
Oh if for sure does. Certainly in book form
Haha, appreciate the mention in the round up, brother! 😉
I agree we shouldn’t mimic the mean girls unless it’s during a province-wide bonding/team building exercise where we all make s’mores and watch that classic together.
But you’ll find on close inspection that my piece had a bit more of a substantive point to it.
Namely that the sort of “Here I stand I can do no other” attitude toward’s WO in the ACNA effected by many of the most prominently opposed to it is more than a bit rich, considering they voluntarily joined a body that already practiced it. 😉
Blessings! (And I hope you enjoyed my Lutheran olive branch)
Thanks for this gracious comment. Mean Girls & S’mores sounds like a grand old time haha. Would definitely join!
And, for the record, I completely agree with your reminder that “dual integrities” is a feature not a bug of our province. I would even add that this should be a cause for pride! Here’s hoping
yikes. called out! 😂
Me too
I like the rule you're going over here. It's always best to assume the best about an interlocutor's intentions. I've ventured into a couple of Twitter arguments with Anglicans lately. It's amazing how quickly good people slide into ad hominem. They probably don't even realize that they are doing it. Did you know that anyone who 'speaks in tongues' is 'demon-possessed like a Hindu?'
I've been trying to figure out why God has ordained so much judgment over 'Western' churches. (That's how we end up not being able to 'see' what Bishop Edgar did and not being able to talk about it charitably.) I came to the conclusion this morning that it goes all the way back to our lack of response to the abortion regime. How can God not visit us with confusion when we cannot bring ourselves to defend our children with vigour? (Canadians are much worse than Americans.)
Wow, man. Your theory is worth taking seriously. Thanks for sharing. And I sure hope Anglo-Twitter has not deterred you from praying in the Spirit haha
I think the REC pre-dates the ACNA. I'm pretty sure we had a famous REC church in Burnaby called "St. Margaret's." (Just being pedantic.)
😂
Not Anglican—always game to peer into the Anglican’s business though…
Hahaha you’re always welcome, brother
great piece of writing as per usual. thanks for sharing
Thanks for reading & engaging! Much appreciated
I’ll continue to contend that the Sermon on the Mount is never out of context (and I’ll add that I fail to live up to it all the time), and I ask how one perennially online personality who makes an income from capitalizing on scandal and creating offense can be immune to accusations of questionable online speech and who gets a pass as “reliably sassy and refreshingly earnest”?
Also since we don’t know each other and haven’t met, here’s a little about me: I have 4 kiddos, I’m a sad sad Cowboys fan, I love root beer floats, and I love Ardbeg whisky.
Speaking of out-of-context... Just kidding😂 I hope you and I can become stack-frens as well. Maybe even real life friends over root beer floats someday. And maybe I do have an Anne Kennedy blind spot. I’ll have to think on that some more.
What I do know for a fact is that I love and revere the Sermon on the Mount just as you do. I also think, however, that you can be troubled by Porter-Gate without inherently violating it
Happy to talk by phone one day if you’d like!
Shoot me a text! 604-399-8240
I am not Anglican ( am RC). But I know that sassy and earnest person moderately well from when my husband was ACNA, and also subscribe to her online column and I have to object to your characterization of her. She defends the truth she believes with some wit, and skewers heresies as they deserve. I admit I would wince and protest if she chose to skewer those beliefs of mine she considers heresy, but I would try to discuss and argue with her rather than sulk and say she is a mean girl. I think truth is important, therefore doctrines are significant, and more important than being "nice." I am sure she would pick up even soft brained modernists, or RC's off the side if the road if they had been beaten by robbers or even ran out of gas. That is charity. Letting falsehoods dangerous to souls flourish is the opposite of charity.