July 23, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

December 17, 2012


Anglican Down Under: Has Gerald Bray lost the plot?

I don’t usually link to Down Under, in large part because the blogger makes a habit of enforcing his commenting rules unequally against conservatives, while allowing revisionist activists to prattle on in violation of his commenting rules. He also continues to promote the false notion that revisionist activists still believe the Christian Gospel and should be treated as members of the Church, even while they also do great violence to the sacraments in general, to marriage, to Christian anthropology, to Holy Scripture, to authority in the Church, and the theologies of the Fall, sin, repentance, redemption, and transformation. He or she has had to violate and twist all of those things in order to cling to his false teaching and promotion of sex acts between men or women.

Nevertheless, there are some excellent comments in this post on Gerald Bray’s also-excellent and refreshingly clarifying article on the women bishops vote in the Church of England. The comments really serve to highlight the distinctions among certain evangelicals and I think they’re important.

To put this into personal terms: I am opposed to women’s ordination and have always been so. I accept that other evangelicals may still be evangelicals and believers and yet support women’s ordination, as long as they 1) use Holy Scripture [however poorly], tradition, and reason to make their cause and 2) acknowledge that those who are opposed to women’s ordination deserve coherent protection for their stance.  Unfortunately, there are evangelicals who support women’s ordination who do *not* do either of those two things, or who maintain one and not the other. This is unacceptable and Bray makes the point incisively.

The discussion on the different types of evangelicals is quite interesting and I commend the comments to you.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

5 comments

Note the comment by “Martin” near the bottom of the comments, about how women priests in CofE mostly get a sub-standard theological education and are pushed out to parishes too small to afford a full-time minister.  Not exactly the glamorous “I’ll be a bishop in ten years time” career that many liberals envisaged.

[1] Posted by MichaelA on 12-17-2012 at 09:27 PM · [top]

I do read ADU regularly, and have a lot of time for Peter+ as a faithful priest and teacher in an environment in New Zealand which is often liberal and not easy for those who hold broadly conservative views such as he does or as the Diocese of Nelson does.  Fortunately in New Zealand it has not yet become as bad as TEC where the conservatives just get shouted down.  His blog is somewhere where people do actually talk to one another across the spectrum and this is now almost unique.

I didn’t agree with Peter+ on Gerald Bray; I thought he had stepped unwittingly into the morass of politics which can be rather poisonous between the ‘Open’ and ‘Conservative’ Evangelicals in England, where some who are ‘open’ are pretty determined to sideline and exclude the conservatives in much the same way as the Affirming Catholics treat the Anglo-Catholics.    Fortunately even in ‘open’ circles there is common ground particularly on marriage, but not it seems on provision for traditional evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics or even traditional broad church members and clergy when it comes to women bishops.

Peter+ has a wry sense of humor and is more than capable of expresssing something tendaciously in the hope of provoking reaction from one side or another.  I haven’t personally noticed a bias against conservative commenters, though there is certainly more lee way for revisionists given, as I believe was the case and perhaps still is on Stand Firm.    I give him credit for taking an interest in Communion affairs outside of the NZ context and allow rather more rope than others for doing so and for trying to get to grips with it all.    I have a lot of time for Peter+, a man who should go places, even in a difficult place like New Zealand.

[2] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 12-18-2012 at 05:57 AM · [top]

When I talk about ‘a difficult place like New Zealand’, I refer to both my impression about the position within the Anglican Church there, and more generally also to a difficult situation for Christians within the culture.  No guarantees, but that is just what I have picked up by reading and watching, and from Kiwi friends here and thus I may be wrong, as I have not been there.

[3] Posted by Pageantmaster [Katie bought Welby] on 12-18-2012 at 07:51 AM · [top]

I agree with you, Pageantmaster, that the blog has many fine points about it.  I was merely explaining to commenters to whom I was referring the link why I don’t link to it and what they should expect both from the treatment of their comments, if they chose to comment, and one particular point of his theology.

RE: “His blog is somewhere where people do actually talk to one another across the spectrum . . . “

I haven’t noticed—in all the years I’ve looked in over there—any talking to one another between the revisionist activists and the conservatives.  I’ve noticed lots of hurled slimebombs, and responses, but no actual “talking to” beyond the most vacuous or sneering.

[4] Posted by Sarah on 12-18-2012 at 08:12 AM · [top]

To a revisionist activist, hurled slimebombs are considered “talking to” others.

[5] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 12-18-2012 at 11:21 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.