Hi. I just contributed a thought on the ‘Protestant Beliefs - Catholic Beliefs’ forum which might help explain why some people are so allergic to Rowan Williams.
Eric.

Robert, your claim about Archbishop Rowan being “totally false and superficialy” is a bit rich, I think, but your claim that “even his accent is false” smacks at the kind of rivalry that exists between the north and south of Wales.  I know that you speak with the same accent as my wife’s ancestors but that accent is no less a truly Welsh accent than that spoken by my relatives in Swnasea.

But regardless of the substance of your claim, my wife’s Aussie accent is no less authentic than mine just because she grew up in Liverpool UK before coming to Oz.

Anglican Archbishop Hails Apparitions at Lourdes

Sad, very sad. I suppose we shouldn’t have expected anything better from Rowan Williams, but it does make me wonder how he could in good faith officiate at the anniversary services for Anglican martyrs such as Latimer, Ridley and Cramner when it appears his beliefs are the diametric opposite of theirs. I can feel a Synod resolution coming on.

Roger Gallagher - 04 October 2008 09:31 PM

Anglican Archbishop Hails Apparitions at Lourdes

Sad, very sad. I suppose we shouldn’t have expected anything better from Rowan Williams, but it does make me wonder how he could in good faith officiate at the anniversary services for Anglican martyrs such as Latimer, Ridley and Cramner when it appears his beliefs are the diametric opposite of theirs. I can feel a Synod resolution coming on.

From the article :

“When our country is crying out for clear biblical leadership, it is nothing short of tragic that our supposedly Protestant archbishop is behaving as little more than a papal puppet.”

It’s more than sad. No wonder I ( and many others ) don’t acknowledge his so-called authority in our church. Liberalism ( or whatever you like to call it ) has caused sections of the church to stray a long way from Biblical principles. Bring back Bible believers ( and heeders ) such as George Carey as ABC. Not that we need such heirarchies. We are called to become members of Christianity not membership of a particular denomination.

Joshua Aldersley - 02 October 2008 11:11 PM

David Palmer - 01 October 2008 10:07 PM

Not to mention those schismatics who want to speak about subordination in the Trinity, boycott Lambeth and undermine Diocesan governance by encouraging embittered churches to join the Province of the Southern Cone.

Joshua, you are all over the place.

Subordination in the Trinity is part of Eastern Orthodox doctrine, following the Cappodocian Fathers. Roman Catholics and confessional Protestants (who you are meeting on this forum) occupy the same ground, being Augustinian in their trinitarian doctrine.

Those who boycotted Lambeth being confessional Protestants share the same trinitarian views as RCs.

Just as a friendly piece of advice, I’d advise that it’s always useful to avoid being too parochial in your comments, otherwise you risk embarrassment when your comments backfire. I know full well what Catholic and Protestant orthodoxy is concerning the Trinity. The point is, a number of very influential Sydney Anglicans have recently sought to undermine this orthodoxy by arguing for subordination in the Trinity.

Personally, I see this as a far more serious issue that those of which the Gafconites have been whinging about and undermining the Communion for. To the best of my knowledge neither the Apostles Creed, nor the Nicean Creed create a “No Fags Allowed” club. However the Nicean Creed does spell out orthodoxy concerning the Trinity. That there would be such a movement to effectively spit on this jewel in the crown of Christendom is truly disgusting. Rowan Williams should take action against the Sydney Diocese for this behaviour.

As I said before, you are all over the place.

It is normal that that people who enter this forum identify who they are, especially when they are offering “friendly advice”. Given that you also appear to have some beefs, I suggest it is time that you do so, so that we know who we are dealing with.

David Palmer - 04 October 2008 10:47 PM

As I said before, you are all over the place.

And as I suggested before, it does you no credit to make such accusations, especially when you show an inability to understand what I am saying.

David, if you’re going to be so rude as to make disparaging remarks, please at least provide the basis of any such insults. To merely say that I’m all over the place, without any further clarification is at best unhelpful and at worst a vicious cheap shot.

David Palmer - 04 October 2008 10:47 PM

It is normal that that people who enter this forum identify who they are, especially when they are offering “friendly advice”. Given that you also appear to have some beefs, I suggest it is time that you do so, so that we know who we are dealing with.

I’m Joshua. Pleased to make your acquaintance.

Can we keep off playing the person, please?

Joshua, there’s a thread called ‘The Introduction Thread’, where you may care to introduce yourself a little more thoroughly.

Cheers,
Andrew

Actually I speak with an English accent , as I live two miles from the border.

Rowan Williams has cultivated an Oxford accent.

He has grown a beard like an Eastern Orthodox bishop

Ah, I see now.

I thought my own beard was after the style of King Gearge V, but now you mention it, it is perhaps after the style of an Eastern Orthodox Bishop.

Cheers
JOHN

Joshua,

Following your last post (#51), I decided to have a more careful look at what you had been saying.

So in posts #5&31;you,
1.  desire respect for the Archbishop of Canterbury
2.  dissociate yourself from the (mainly) Sydney Anglicans who frequent this forum
3.  you are negative, even hostile, to those you describe as schismatics accusing them of holding to subordination in the Trinity (of the Son to the Father, as I understand you), of boycotting Lambeth and encouraging “embittered” churches to join the Province of the Southern Cone.

At this point I said (post #33) you were “all over the place” and went on to say that subordination belonged to the Eastern Church, not the Western Church to which RCs and Protestants belonged, thereby making the three assertions of your post #31 incomprehensible to me.

However, in view of your later post #39, which I confess annoyed me, I now realise the trajectory you are on, which is basically one of antagonism to Sydney Anglicans over the issue of gender roles, ordination of women and such like issues, ie when you spoke of “schismatics” you were speaking of Sydney Anglicans, a point that escaped me.

I note in post #39 that you are aware of the existence of, and reason d’être for Gafcon and your quite explicit opposition to Gafcon relates to the issue of homosexuality (though I doubt exclusively so).

In my post #50 I again accused you of being all over the place, but as indicated above, I see I was incorrect in this and accordingly apologise.

In Post #50, I asked you to identify yourself in the normal way for this forum, but in post #51 you declined to do.

At the risk of being mistaken, and I hope you will correct me if I am, I will take a punt and suggest that you are a non Sydney Anglican quite possibly of liberal views, at least in relation to homosexuality, and also quite possibly a clergyman or theological student. I think you know the views of Kevin Giles or of those who take a similar view as Kevin in relation to the gender issue. Standing outside, for I am not a Sydney Anglican, I judge you to be quite hostile to Sydney Anglicanism (though to be fair Sydney Anglicanism contains a broader range of opinion that is often understood, witness some of the debates on this forum).

If only beards were infalliable indicators of orthodoxy hey?

Right!!!

Robert ian Williams - 05 October 2008 10:41 AM

Actually I speak with an English accent , as I live two miles from the border.

Rowan Williams has cultivated an Oxford accent.

He has grown a beard like an Eastern Orthodox bishop

Is Rowan Williams’ beard the enemy of progress?

Bearded wonders are trying to make a statement
By: Jonathan Wynne-Jones at Oct 3, 2008

Bearded clerics, and the Archbishop of Canterbury in particular, are having their whiskers yanked in the Church Times today.

Giles Fraser, the clean-shaven vicar of Putney, argues that there is a connection between the wearing of beards and a hostility to modernity.

And Rowan Williams’s gnomish growth is follicular proof of the Archbishop’s dislike of the modern world, he says.

The Beard Liberation Front (BLF) may well take offence at such a suggestion, as might the archbishop, but you can see what he’s getting at.

How many bearded prime ministers have there been? Business leaders? Richard Branson apart. In fact, how many respected public figures can you think of who have beards?
Bill Odie? Chas and Dave? David Bellamy? Exactly.

Growing a beard is a statement. It is revealing. It says a lot about what the bearded one stands for, where their sympathies lie and what they think of themselves.

In the case of some it also shows what they don’t stand for, hygiene for example. Rather more worryingly, research carried out by Gillette - not the most unbiased of sources admittedly - has found that the majority of women perceive men with beards to be untrustworthy. Think Alan Rickman in Robin Hood.

You’d hope that clerics wouldn’t face the same issues of mistrust, but there’s certainly some interesting schools of beard amongst the archbishop’s colleagues. The Anglo-Catholic bishops, John Hind in Chichester and Geoffrey Rowell in Europe, are both hairy-chinned, although Geoffrey opts for an interesting chin strap variety.

One look at them is enough to suggest they are unlikely to be supporters of women priests, although it seems to place them more with Orthodox priests than their Catholic counterparts.

How many bearded Catholic clerics have you seen?

Then there are the green bishops, James Jones of Liverpool and Richard Chartres of London. They’ve urged people to snub plastic bags, give the dishwasher a day off and change to energy-efficient light bulbs.

Now maybe they’re taking a stand against razors and shaving foam. The BLF has already spoken out against shaving as a waste of the world’s resources.

Or then again, maybe it’s just an image thing. At theological college, Chartres wasn’t afraid to stand out from the crowd - hardly your typical student, he wore a monocle and walked around with a cane.

While he might look more like a medieval prelate, James Jones has a more business-like, close-cropped beard, that some suggest reflects his ambition and drive. Along with these two is Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham, who goes for an intellectual, “stroke-it-as-I-muse”, look.

Together they are the Church’s bearded troika - three of the most influential figures, who all have had their eyes on becoming Archbeard of Canterbury.
And it may not be too late for them yet, depending on how long Rowan Williams decides to remain in office.

How much will those who select his successor be swayed by the great facial hair debate? There is only one notable clean-shaven contender - the Archbishop of York.

Would his appointment represent a more progressive step into the twenty-first century or is there something to be said for the counter-cultural beard?

link
So, while the world economy totters on the brink of financial disaster, some hyphenated English writer is off in pursuit of hirsute matters. Does having a hairy chin lead to ‘hairy theology’ ?

David,

I’m not entirely sure how you would like me to respond your comments. Moreover, the period of five or six days that had elapsed while I was unavailable made me question the propriety of dredging up an old dispute. That said, you’ve indicated that you wanted an answer, so I’m happy to oblige.

Firstly, I don’t know where you get the impression that I am a liberal. I don’t recall saying anything on these forums that is anything other than orthodoxy Catholic theology. The mere fact that I disagree with actions that undermine the Communion and the level of disrespect for its leader does not render me liberal by definition. Nor does this mean that I automatically align myself with the views of the Episcopal Church in America.

Secondly, I thought I had made it quite clear that another of my problems concerned the attempt by some Sydney Anglican clerics and scholars to undermine orthodoxy concerning the Trinity. In fact, I had not mentioned the topic of the ordination of women until such time as another individual asked me what might motivate these figures to undermine the doctrine of the Trinity, at which point in time I suggested a reason that had been posited. Perhaps what concerns me in this whole exchange is the fact that you have a hard time believing that I could be genuinely concerned about the doctrine of the Trinity. Perhaps this says more about the importance (or lack thereof) you attribute to this doctrine than myself?

Kevin, I think the concern about Archbishop Rowan Williams’ beard is actually an ethnic thing.  Both R i W and Jonathon Wynn-Jones appear to be Welsh and each seems somewhat disaffected by aspects of the Archbishop’s facial hair and accent of speech.

On a more serious note, I admit to being appalled at the tendency to denigrate the Archbishop as a man, rather than simply being critical of the issues under debate in this thread.