01Nov How Anglicans see authority and leadership

One Anglican vision of authority and leadership can be seen in this discussion between two prominent Anglican women theologians. Its worth watching!

 Visit this website

8 Responses

  1. Mary O Vallely

    This is very unfair! I suggest you delete this clip. It is so easy to mock and unworthy of the ACP to even consider posting this. Ok, I nearly fell asleep viewing but then a conversation between any two theologians, male or female, might have the same effect on me. It is unfortunate that these two happen to be female. I am sure that there is no sexist bias in the ACP or could there be a little whiff of it lying there that I hadn’t noticed before, imbibed with your training in those male seminaries? God forgive ye all if that is so and may we stamp on it now and eradicate it totally. Delete this comment and I’ll return with an even longer, more irate one!!

  2. pat rogers

    Hi Mary,
    I wonder if you may be taking a darker view of this video than is warranted. Posting it does not seem to intend a critique, still less a mockery, either of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or of the competence of women theologians. Granted, their 20-minute conversation is very discursive rather than incisive, but it does lay stress on the archbishop’s role as a listener, and a builder of consensus, both of which are central concerns of the ACP. Saying this, I do not think that our ACP members would want the papacy to model itself fully on the Anglican model, but we might benefit from their willingness to have dialogue to a significant degree.

    However, I also wish that if links to other videos are going to be similarly offered in the site, the persons placing the link could well identify themselves, and write at least a paragraph about why and how that video relates to the ACP agenda.

  3. Pól Ó Duibhir

    Perhaps this debate, actually involving the Archbishop of Canterbury, is more enlightening.
    It is also interesting to see the extent of common ground between Williams and Dawkins. The latter’s debate with Cardinal Pell, who was circumscribed by a load of dogma which made him easy meat, was a different matter entirely.
    The lesson of the comparison for today’s Roman Catholic Church is surely to go with Vatican II and beyond it, rather than retreating into pre-Conciliar “certainties” which may, at the end of the day, have much less meaning.

  4. Teresa Mee

    I think the two historians were spot on in their analysis of the style of leadership we have seen in recent Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and in their suggesting that people limit their expectations to the humanly possible.
    Our Pope is an absolute ruler of a few billion people as well as being Absolute Monarch of Vatican State. He is also in direct succession to Peter. The scope of his infallibility is not clear, however often defined. All of that is a lot to swallow. It’s left me with a lot to chew on.
    Mary, the mockery you refer to seems to have gone over my head.

  5. Mary O Vallely

    I apologise profusely for my earlier comment. I think my good sense/tact/diplomacy filter was blocked. (blame that heavy barometric pressure again) However, worse than that I was unkind and unfair to the two women theologians, the Anglican community and also to the ACP moderator(s) but I know that I will be forgiven. Thank God yiz are still Christians!!
    There is a wonderful quote about friendship by a lesser known Victorian novelist, Maria Muluck.
    “Oh the comfort, the inexpressible comfort, of feeling safe with a person, having neither to weigh thoughts, nor measure words, but pour them all out, just as they are, chaff and grain together, knowing that a faithful hand will take and sift them, keep what is worth keeping, and then, with a breath of kindness, blow the rest away.”
    I ask you to apply that “breath of kindness” to my first comment and would that I could erase it myself.
    Hope to apologise in person on 9th and 10th November. If you keep looking down you’ll find me close to the floor, suitably chastised and shrinking by the minute. Mea culpa.

  6. Kevin

    I don’t know much about any of these things but I don’t find anything shocking about this at all. It all seems quite healthy to me. The man as they understand, in his role, is ‘a focus of listening’ and cannot and should not be expected to be all things to all men and women. Does not have all the answers and makes mistakes. Human. They can agree to disagree and don’t live with anxiety if they do come to different conclusions to the Archbishop. I am not sure two men would have these insights. That there are many voices and the important thing is to respect and accept the other as Christian. I don’t really know what the roles of archbishops or popes are really meant to be, so I might be hearing this the ‘wrong’ way. Seems a more fluid than rigid hierarchical system.

    Knowing you as a voice of calm and reason Mary. I am curious to know why this is ‘sexist.’ What’s so bad in what they are saying.

  7. Kevin

    Forty years in desert for Mary O’ V and no sugar in her candy floss 😉

  8. Joe O'Leary

    “Cardinal Pell, who was circumscribed by a load of dogma” — or rather by a lack of thought and preparation and a fatal penchant for silly digression (about the Germans). To go on tv with the world’s most famous evolutionist and to make a schoolboy error suggesting one had not read a single book on evolution (homo sapiens descended from Neanderthals) is incredibly careless. It makes the Catholic Church look needlessly silly. We saw the same carelessness, and complacency, in his handling of the new liturgical translations (“are” in your presence instead of the correct “stand” in your presence on the grounds that the laity should be kneeling…)