tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11887927.post3885845501614613028..comments2023-10-28T07:31:15.417-04:00Comments on New Virginia Church Man: Denominational DivisionJohn B. Chiltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18208312356775869565noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11887927.post-69414065257862869962008-02-29T21:55:00.000-05:002008-02-29T21:55:00.000-05:00Yes, they should. And peace be with them, after we...Yes, they should. And peace be with them, after we count the silverware after they've left."Ms. Cornelius"https://www.blogger.com/profile/16970201479637588558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11887927.post-46250786995920009822008-01-12T19:47:00.000-05:002008-01-12T19:47:00.000-05:00On Episcopal cafe you blogged "I also have trouble...On Episcopal cafe you blogged "I also have trouble with Archbishop Jensen. Yeah, he's an archbishop but his title gets bandied in a way that would make you think he's the archbishop of Australia (which he isn't) or at least that he represents New South Wales in the global South (which he can't)."<BR/><BR/>Archbishop is his title. he doesnt get to choose another one. The Australian structure is different from other Anglican provinces to be sure. And I agree that this sort of complexity is confusing. <BR/>Perhaps it is a antipodean habit. New Zealand has three archbishops (one for each tikanga - or non geographic cultural identities within the church) and rotates the primacy between them. Is it wrong for New Zealand to do this - even if it is confusing to other Anglicans?<BR/>When I talk to him I call him "Peter". Australians and new Zealanders don't tend to be fussed about titles. He is not the sort of guy to claim titles or perogatives he is not entitled to. It is not his fault that his title follows a different style to TEC.obadiahslopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12171750694869713588noreply@blogger.com