Wednesday, December 01, 2010

The 'Broad' Church of England

Click to enlarge.


Blogger AncientBriton said...

If only it were that easy to enlarge the Church of England Your Grace.
As the church for 'broads', the smaller it gets!

1 December 2010 at 23:55  
Anonymous Francis said...

Hmm. If only it were that simple!

Where, on that scheme, does the Economist place the "traditionalists" (widely so called, even by themselves) who are looking at joining the RC Ordinariate - given that traditionalists supposedly dislike popery? Is Forward in Faith a traditionalist body?

So many of the terms are question-begging. What is the reader supposed to make of the difference between disliking "modernism" and disliking "anything new"? Etc., etc.

Not saying I could necessarily have done a lot better in the space available. But Anglicanism, God bless it, is a lot more "varied" (euphemism for mixed up, confused?) than that table suggests!

2 December 2010 at 00:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aren't you going to acknowledge The Economist as the source ?

2 December 2010 at 02:16  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Hm, seems I'm a High Church Traditionalist with Low Church tendencies ... now pass the ammunition!

2 December 2010 at 03:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Can't you read? Click on the source?

2 December 2010 at 08:03  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

It's a chronic weakness of human nature to categorise things and put them into neat boxes. In that way, concepts are reduced to mere labels and stereotypes - which then saves considerable effort otherwise expended in careful thought and consideration.

2 December 2010 at 08:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have always wondered whether the traditionalists (Prayer Book etc) were considered High Church or Low Church. So it seems they come under neither heading! What were they known as back in the day before the rise of modernism?

2 December 2010 at 09:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why does it say that the "High Church" dislikes gay-bashing? I thought that they hated gays.

2 December 2010 at 09:46  
Blogger Willie said...

I always remember that the those tempted by the Ordinariate are flirting with becoming part of a Church that has covered up child abuse for many years and whose role in many foreign "adventures" not least in the Balkans has not been fully revealed.
I am uncomfortable with the thoughts of women Bishops but I think the choice of moving is much much worse.

2 December 2010 at 10:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder what this means.

You can do the same thing for a lot of other kinds of movement. Feminism, for example, or marxism.

Perhaps it's what people are like. We can't agree, and we can't even agree to disagree, but at least we can agree that we ought to agree to disagree...

2 December 2010 at 11:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

YG - you have left out traditional Anglican Catholics, who are certainly not simply 'High Church' and are certainly not Liberal Catholics.

It is all very amusing, but all Churches are, in their different ways, something like this - except for small sects who expel everyone who deviates from the party line. I have met RC's who are more 'liberal' than any Anglican, and Evangelicals who go horse racing. It takes all sorts.....

2 December 2010 at 14:19  
Blogger killemallletgodsortemout said...

Hmm. High churches dislike gay-bashing? I think not.

God is great. Organised religion is not.

2 December 2010 at 14:58  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Critics say ? my goodness I could say a lot of things .
This just adds some succor to some opinons , it does not say what we are bound by or for that matter it may show how poor theologically we have become .
Over the years many bishops have held certain positions mainly on modernity cultural interactions of the church , avoiding perscriptive theology in a liberal popular culture .This sort of nursing approach perhaps is pastoral ,but why have we gone down the road of not proclaiming the presence and relevence of god , manifest in christianity as being the source of what makes us living stones . Why is the gospel of eastenders more relevant than the bible or the liberal opinons and positions more relevant than communion and trying to live out your life with the bible .
If we muse upon televisual tripe who are we handing our faith over to ? Are we not processing somthing that is adrift to the word .

2 December 2010 at 17:10  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older