Tuesday, December 26, 2006

more incoherence in the media

Here is this from Slate Magazine. But what did I expect (from Slate)? The incredible thing is the fundamentalistic citation by liberals of such things as the Council of Nicaea as some kind of sacrosanct bedrock of church polity. Bob Williams is quoted thus: "One bishop is not supposed to intrude upon another's jurisdiction. This has been true since the Council of Nicaea." Yes, well, practicing homosexuals are not supposed to be consecrated bishops; this has been true since the Council of Nicaea.

Astrid Storm's (the author's) overall point seems to be that the orthodox are a (Nigerian!) fly in the ointment of her mannered religiosity. How difficult that must be. But I'm confident the orthodox aren't intending to disturb the staid and pointless church-going of the Rev'd Storm and her party. With David Booth Beers's and +++++KJS's leave, most of us would love to slip quietly out the back.

Hat tip: Garland.

1 comment:

J-Tron said...

Bob Williams is quoted thus: "One bishop is not supposed to intrude upon another's jurisdiction. This has been true since the Council of Nicaea."

This is misleading. The Council of Nicaea, as far as I'm aware, was not the first body to establish the importance of diocesan boundaries. It nevertheless is important to maintain such boundaries, as once they are disregarded the Church itself becomes simply a mutual admiration society.

Yes, well, practicing homosexuals are not supposed to be consecrated bishops; this has been true since the Council of Nicaea.

Equally misleading. As far as I know, the Council of Nicea did not debate the relative merits of gay and lesbian bishops. Nor did anyone use the term homosexual, for that matter, prior to the late nineteenth century.

On an unrelated note, when will there be a Whitehall podcast? Cast away, WB! Your public demands it.