Our Pluralist

There seems to be a greater confusion between the Fulcrum ACI approach I highlighted between pluralist as a concept and Pluralist as me. There is now a reference to "our pluralist", meaning me, in one discussion thread of Fulcrum. It seems that I have become their pluralist in order to highlight what what to measure against or they want to resist. Art says, in agreement and disagreement (or, to use some language, throws the dog a bone):

On this score, I agree with our “pluralist”, that a series of autocephalous groups are a possible form of reconfiguration. Though whether such reshaping (I will leave these terms as synonymous for the moment) can be effected without Canterbury and remain “Anglican” also remains to be seen.

...

Many are simply captured by their secular culture of pluralism and are incapable, it seems, of discerning the difference between that and a robust Christian theology of creation, as this applies to cultural formation among various peoples. To be sure; our “pluralist” will/might not like this line of conversation; but having visited his web site fairly often, he is delightfully symptomatic!

I doubt I am typical. I am more thoroughgoing than many a classified 'pluralist'. My view is this. The world in which we live - evolved biologically and culturally - throws up signals of transcendence. If this world is to be affirmed, according to Christian tradition of affirming the material, and supposing that these signals cohere, then this is the world of "creation" rather than any other to affirm. This is not just secular, in that it is theological-incarnational, but nor is it oppositional to the secular. Art wants something more top-down imposed and doctrinal, and more fanciful.

My autocephalous approach is entirely consistent with my signals of transcendence view of the world and Churches in the world. It likes to think that Anglicanism is sensitive to culture, and should continue to be so. It is more complicated than this, however, because much of Anglicanism is scared of the world - which is why its liturgies continue to be feudal in culture, language-structure and belief, even if the language has been modernised in terms of thees and thous becoming yous. There is a sort of 'transcendence value' to archaism, and I don't dismiss it, but Anglicanism with its many overlaps and qualifications does have the means to be more sensitive than some.

It is a necessary consequence of autocephalous organising that there is geographical overlap. Bonds of friendship and recognition Church to Church might avoid geographical overlap, but don't count on it. If GAFCON organises, there will be overlap, as there will be adventurism.