In a message dated 8/29/05 3:43:38 PM, woolsey@... writes:


> Maybe this little exchange here between Frs Jack & Mark Clavier has helped 
> to
> bring some of the discussion on this list into a little better focus.  It 
> seems
> the perspective of most of the APA is that the 39 Articles are good, but
> not absolute.  In other words, they define points that all Anglicans should 
> be
> aware of, and maybe even strive for, but not necessarily be restriced to on 
> all
> points.  We, as Anglicans, are perhaps free to not take them so 
> legalistically
> binding.  You don't mean to "dis" the Articles, or ignore them, so from your
> perspective you are giving them their place w/o elevating them above what 
> that
> place should be.  Thus you are confused why any in the REC would seemingly
> challenge your claim to allegience to them.  This is my interpretation when 
> you
> say that you esteem them, but they are not confessional.  Please correct me 
> if
> this is inaccurate.
> 

Dear Fr. Mark,
I think you have done a really fine job of getting to the nuanced positions 
here. Your summary is fair minded, attentive, intelligent and responsible. 
Thanks. There is a subtle difference (not deal breaking in my opinion) between the 
two traditions, but I think that difference is part of the tension in 
historic Anglicanism. It creates a tension, but not necessarily a bad one. After all 
the same wind that rips apart a sail, an eagle uses to sore above the clouds. 
I wonder how others view your analysis?
gms+

--
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@...