What difference ?

Has he expressed any of the fundamentalist views himself? If not, that sounds reasonable to me.

Isn’t he on the liberal side? I read that he conducts gay marriages.

He is pro gay marriage and against Trump's opinions on transgender people in the services.
I can't find what he says on abortion but given his liberal background, I 'd be surprised if he lines up with the anti-abortion factions.
He seems to be evangelist but not fundamentalist as far as I can see.
I can't quite follow the gist of the discussion particularly the reference to the tragic case of Alfie Evans.

He’s pro gay supports LGBT and same sex marriage He campaigns for social justice and social inclusion He’s participated in setting up day centres and summer camps for disadvantaged kids he sounds a pretty reasonable bloke to me
I don’t expect any of us know his stand on Alfie Evans though

He is a priest in the Episcipol Church.

And?

I’ve heard him speak once and praised his sermon, because i enjoyed it, but the chances of my hearing him again are remote, Episcopalian or not and his personal views are his own and his faith, unless he turns up on my doorstep and tries to convert me. Again a remote chance.

According to Wikipaedia,

The Church opposes any legislation which would prevent women from obtaining abortions or information about abortions

Openly gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are eligible to be ordained

The blessing of same-sex relationships is not uniform throughout the Episcopal Church. Bishops may determine whether churches and priests within their dioceses are permitted to use the new liturgies

so they sound on the whole liberal rather than fundamentalist. Can you clarify, Annie, why you consider them fundamentalist? (I'm assuming that from your OP)

I also don't understand why he should be thought of as a fundamentalist because he is Episcopalian, surely they are not the same thing?

I do not think his evangelical style means he is a fundamentalist does it?

All Churches have fundamentalists , I was interested in your views

Well, it seems he isn't one...

How do you know he isn’t? His church only condones abortion if pregnancy has been caused by rape or incest, if the mothers health is at risk, they are against abortion as simply a woman’s choice.

The RC Church is anti abortion and anti contraception yet many members use contraception and have abortions .

The Anglican Church is split on homosexuality, no problem with homosexuals but with practicing homosexuality. I have friends who are Anglican priests and in a gay relationship.

We either accept a church or we do not, not just a bit of this churches doctrine and a bit of another churches doctrine surely

We have the Scottish Episcopal Church which is quite definitely not evangelistic and is often identified here as more akin to high CoE.

If the tenets of the American Episcopal Church are in any way similar to its Scottish. counterpart then the Bishop is not evangelistic.

I’m also puzzled by comment re Alfie Evan??

How do you know he is?

Katek, this was not an attack on the bishop, just he has been topical here. I am curious why some can criticise one church but defend another just on one sermon . It really does seem for most the approval was because some looked uncomfortable.

I notice some who praise him also condemned American fundermentalist Christians for campaigning against abortion and also the fight they led against little Alfie Evans have his life brought to an end.

Isn't there a bit of racial sterotyping here? He is a bishop in the Episcopalian church, which is the equivalent to CofE in this country. Why should what American christian fundamentalists believe have any relevance to him and his beliefs?

I really don't quite understand what the question is?

Bishop Michael Curry is an American Anglican (called the Episcopal church in the US)

What is his connection with the Alfie Evan case?

The connection is - fundamentalists

I do not think that anyone blindly accepts every tenet or edict of the religion they follow. Most will interprete it in line with their conscience.

It is like supporting and belonging to a political party. Most party members do not accept all their party's doctrines and policies and the range of committed party members views within a party often lead to it being described as being a broad church.

I can see no problem in supporting one church while criticising another.

Just because you enjoyed one sermon on one occasion doesn’t mean you support blindly the rest of that persons views ( which we don’t know) Sorry but the OP is employing some strange logic here. I might like a person but not endorse all their viewpoints. I guess if you were a fully signed up member of a particular church you might be expected to take on board their main tenets, but even then members may privately disagree with certain aspects and retain their membership. Catholics and contraception is one example.

I always thought that fundamentalism in religion meant a blind unquestioning acceptance of religions beliefs and practices often as enshrined in particular religious texts. It brooks no discussion or debate, no nuance or acceptance of the complexity of the real world and real human beings. So abortion is wrong in all circumstances, same sex relationships are sinful, women have to obey men, the earth is 6000 years old etc, blood transfusions are unacceptable and so on

I looked up the Episcopal church and certainly today it doesn’t seem to be remotely fundamentalist - it’s evolved and changed in recent decades which is the antithesis of fundamentalism