Talk:Gregory Dix

Removed
This part was removed from the main body of the article, since it needs expansion and recasting in encyclopedic and NPOV language: Theologically, he was criticised for the suggestion that one could give God anything. (This is a terrible misrepresentation of Dix, at least from what I've read in The Shape, which shows concern to establish the totality of the liturgical action as anamnesis, as was the case historically, in his view.) Liturgically, the Offertory seemed to some to pre-empt the words of the Eucharistic prayer where, in the Roman rite an intention to 'offer' is found (as also in the English Methodist rite). (This thought is garbled how does it follow from what precedes? There's at least two things being said here?) His thinking, which was supported by the Parish Communion movement, was also criticised as representing a rather woolly social gospel. (Clarify (or wikilink) who this movement was; eliminate rather woolly unless that's an exact quote attributable to someone at the time. Explain how his thinking - remembering that his focus was on liturgy and the history of liturgy - could be associated with the social gospel.)
 * I think Edonovan has has read too much into the article he has cut. Dix was certainly criticised by Colin Buchanon as above, misrepresentation or not. Mascall's liturgical criticisms of the Offertory can be found in his book Corpus Christi. Thirdly, Buchanon has criticised Gray on the social gospel aspect of the Offertory. Far from exercising bias, as Edonovan alleges, I have tried to represent Buchanon with whom I disagree. The movement can be identified in the footnote ref. to Gray and Hebert. I am surprised that Edonovan, who is very confident, does not know of the Parish Communion movement. Maybe it is not known in Lancaster county but it and its influence are wellknown in the UK. I may attempt a piece on it. My brief remarks could have been more felicitously worded but they did not warrant a machete. RA

Neutrality of the assessment of his work
The section on his scholarship contains a great deal of what seems to me to be editorial opinion and cherry-picking of the various reactions to Dix's work, and it is painfully under-cited. It also seems to be colored by an Anglican-turned-Orthodox perspective. I'm guessing that a more balanced portrayal is going to produce different reactions from different quarters, but obviously the import of his work within Anglican circles is what needs to be presented most prominently. Mangoe (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have tightened it and the following section. It was all over-written, and should now be more acceptable. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I wonder if someone could put the paragraph about Diarmaid MacCulloch in context: it's not clear to me how that is about Dom Dix rather than Diarmaid MacCulloch. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)