Gordon Cheng wrote:
I'll repeat some of what I said in the hope that it sticks this time—which is that I am very interested in hearing how the comments Muriel has made are viewed within Melbourne Anglicanism. She seems to have been given a de facto role in speaking up on behalf of the diocese, and it would be good to hear of other responses. Are her comments seen as essentially irrelevant and to be ignored (as one contributor was suggesting before his comments disappeared)? Or are they seen as expressive of a mainstream liberal view within the diocese (which was the other suggestion being put)?
Gordon,
I'm going to speak generally because this is a "public" forum and there appears to be a general discomfort out there about get too specific. We can discuss specifics in our private email.
Melbourne diocese is not uniform. There are fairly distinct, and often mutually incompatible, theological parties. (I'm sure you remember this from your time down here.) No individual speaks on behalf of the entire diocese (except perhaps the Archbishop?). Any other individual claiming to speak on behalf of the diocese, whoever they might be, is probably either misled or suffering from a mild case of grandiosity. He/she/they may be respected and taken seriously by one party but not necessarily by others. If any such individual may be so (un?)fortunate as to get their personal opinions published in the secular press, this does not change the fact that they are only likely to be representing one viewpoint among many. The flip side of course is that no one is "essentially irrelevant and to be ignored" (quoting you). Everyone, even the most extreme among us, will have
some other people to whom they are highly relevant.
I think Phool's comments are also very helpful. Thank you Phool. (Try not to mention so many names next time because that is frowned upon here.)
I refer you to the statistics hosted on this site, prepared by Jenny George, which demonstrate the variegated nature of Melbourne diocese. These statistics
may give you an indication of just how much support
may be behind (or not behind) the public remarks of any given individual, assuming you can figure out which party's view that individual represents. But even then you can't assume that everyone within a single "party" will think the same way about things! Life is complex, and so are people.
Let me finish by reminding you, dear Gordo, that we are, in theory at least, living in a democracy where each individual is entitled to their personal opinion and freedom of speech without fear of censorship. People can therefore be expected to speak up publicly from time to time -- they may even express views which you and I might find quite bizzare -- and the rest of us can freely choose whether to agree or disagree with them. Thank God that even the Anglican church does not have a Gestapo or KGB forcing us all to conform to a single point of view!
Hope that helps!
Jereth
