Jim - There is no left/right equivalence at all. Spong has been completely transparent about what he believes and his hopes for the direction of the church. It is almost as if Fr. Jones criticizes Spong and Pagels in order to display his "centrist" credentials. They have not been underhanded in any way. Nor been grasping for power. He may not trust their positions theologically and not like them personally, but that's different than not trusting someone because they are actually trying to covertly subvert institutions and polity with secret meetings and pledges as Akinola, the GS, the Network, Minns and Duncan have.

C.B. - I don't make a left right equivalence. I say what I think about some folks I can't trust on the left, and what I think about some folks I can't trust on the right. That's not equivalence. Observing a house out of my left window and a cow out of my right window is not establishing equivalence. Neither is saying "I don't like houses or cows." As to C.B.'s claim that Spong and Pagels have never misled -- this is false. In my revised piece I did redact out the Pagels stuff only because it seemed to long-winded of me. But, clearly Bishop Spong has indeed misled theologically -- and Pagels has verifiably misled in terms of poor quotations and even made up ones in her books. To say they haven't done so for power is absurd. Both Spong and Pagels have become very powerful in publishing circles -- both financially and in terms of influence. Both have achieved success in my view by offering material of dubious intellectual weight. To assert as CB does that I have a 'personal' problem with either is absurd, and based on no facts. I don't know either one. And what do I care? I'm sure they're very nice -- but believe it or not -- I'm talking about their ideas, not their personalities.

Jim,

As I've written before, this "both sides", left-right dynamic suggested by centristists (not the same thing as moderates or those somewhere in the middle) is itself a power orientation. Fr. Jones has been very clear lately of his hopes for centralization, and using left-right disguises this dynamic from the center. I've written on this before:

http://regula.blogspot.com/2006/07/betwixt-and-between-anglicanism-as.html

http://regula.blogspot.com/2007/01/anglican-identity-feeling-disconnected.html

I think the best part of Fr Jones' blog is the cartoon..LOL! Otherwise....

The argument that somehow being in the center is a 'power orientation' is bizarre. "Power is made perfect in weakness" is indeed what I believe. But being in the center means observing that some of the folks on either extreme are -- in fact -- on either extreme. I'm certainly not making such observations from a 'power orientation.'

I'm sorry Fr. Jones but when I read your blog I note all sorts of considerations of authority that have nothing to do with power in weakness, especially in light of your insistence lgbt folks must sacrifice for the whole, that insistence is not your power in weakness. Saying one is in the center often disguises one's politicking in the Church while blasting the left and right, something you often do. You too have a politics and have been staking this out for some time and it looks a lot like centralization. Using "power in weakness" disguises this reality.

Christopher -- I don't know you or what you are really talking about. I will read your works and get a sense of it. But, to me, you sound like some sort of Marxist demagogue. But in a good way, I'm sure.

Christopher -- I've had the chance to look over your blog which you reference above. I see that we share many common interests in books, music, etc. I also found your writing compelling enough to give me pause -- and I thank you for it. I retract calling you a 'demagogue', but I think there is clearly a Marxist streak in your analysis of power and politics. I have nothing to say now other than, I will try and read your stuff and hear what you're saying. This will take time. I may respond via my blog -- and if so I will reprint your stuff there.

Fr. Jones,

The fact that you would call me a "demagogue" is truly stunning, though your retraction is duly noted. I see problems with the way "center" is used to suggest being above or beyond politics and negotiations of power; your use of centrism (which I see as distinct from someone who is moderate or somewhere along the political spectrum) comes across as quite political. I doubt I'm alone in this observation.

I have read very little with regard to Marxism; most of my thinking on matters of power and politics is from the Niebuhrs and Bonhoeffer. My analysis, if anything, has more to do with a recognition that we are never politics-free, nor without some negotiation of power and authority. It's in that sense very rooted in Sin. In eschatological terms of Christ what I am saying is that centrism too is politics as you outline it in your posts and as with all political movements is under judgment as is all politics. The point is to be ware lest we confuse our politics with Christ or the unity of the Body.

Christopher - I actually think I agree with you on a great many things. But what is 'stunning' to me is your hermeneutic of suspicion -- several times you have asserted that I am dealing falsely. Many people would be more 'stunned' to be called a liar than a demagogue. Consider the violence of your own language perhaps before you go to far in considering mine. If in fact, apart from your pugilistic style, you mean to suggest that all ideological constructs, and institutional ones, and national ones, and otherwise are loci for the powers and principalities of this world -- then you and I agree. William Stringfellow aptly points this out in his book on James. I have no interest in forming loci of power for the sake of power -- or in thickening up extant loci of power -- and I am aware of how such things are dangerous. But, just as you and your partner have entered into covenant relationship, so I argue ought the wider fellowship of the Anglican Communion. If this is somekind of power play -- or if you continue to believe I am disguising my true malevolent intentions with words -- than there is no point in talking to each other. I don't suspect your motives -- yet you seem to suspect mine.

Finally -- it is odd but perhaps apt that this interchange between Christopher and I occurs in the comment thread to a piece I wrote about 'Who Can Be Trusted?'

I don't know who you can trust, but I know anglicancentrist does have at least one fact wrong: the Diocese of Newark is in north ern New Jersey, not southern New Jersey.

dolsen:

Can't we agree to put the Diocese somewhere in the middle of the state, regardless of where it actually is?

Just for the sake of argument.

Clearly -- you can't trust me! I've revised the piece thanks to some of the comments here. I have come to agree that giving the appearance of 'left-right' equivalence undermines my goals. As well, I have realized that speaking to Jack Spong (and misidentifying the location of Newark) serves no real purpose. So -- I've redacted it. I'm always quick to self-edit, especially when reasonable people say, "Hey -- bozo -- that doesn't make any sense -- and, moreover, Newark isn't even where you say it is!" Thanks to Jim for a good blog.