Starting with the observation that the term “moderate” isn’t really applicable, bls reframes the question as a matter of self-definition away from the “wings” of the Church. If the wings are wings because they represent ideological positions, then a person who is not on the wing is not an ideologue. Bls continues:
“I am not an ideologue, because I prize the truth. Ideology is a fantasy; it is a political or philosophical position taken at a discrete point in time – usually in reaction to a fact or condition of the world (and so is therefore often reactionary itself) – and then elevated into a truth hardened in stone for all eternity. It is, therefore, false by nature. We know that there have as yet been no complex truths revealed to human beings at a particular point in history that have stood the test of time without revision. Ideology contradicts reality.
I am not an ideologue, because I understand dynamic systems to be the method by which all living things evolve and flourish, and by far the most fruitful philosophical approach to the world. (Note that I did not say that dyanmic systems are ‘the most correct systems.’ I don’t know whether they are or not; I’m simply acknowledging what has been observed in the world around us.)”
I really like this way of reframing the issue. I like the last point as well – “The Anglicanism is an anvil which has worn out innumerable hammers…”
Read the rest here: The Topmost Apple: Why I am not an ideologue