What can one say other than this is a very good lecture, not just in its content but in its method.
It does bring to the fore the question why Rowan Williams wants to push instruments of communion to be more than they have been, in that rather than achieve a unity they will institutionalise disunity.
It might have been an idea if he’d explained his absence from the meeting, for a start. That sort of determination not to see conservative forces in the United States meddling with Primates from Africa might have been helpful at some point.
Caliban
17 years ago
Anything Barry Morgan has to say is worth listening to, and this is no exception. Calm, reasoned, and prophetic.
Laurence Roberts
17 years ago
We already know he was on a long planned sabbatical. He sent his apologies.
An excellent lecture. A calm reflective voice in a troubled Anglican world.
NP
17 years ago
“A calm reflective voice in a troubled Anglican world” . . . . . but ditching 2000 yrs of understanding of scripture and tradition!
Jerry Hannon
17 years ago
NP writes: “A calm reflective voice in a troubled Anglican world” . . . . . but ditching 2000 yrs of understanding of scripture and tradition!”
He/she seems to follow the guiding principle of spinmeisters and propaganda chiefs: If you repeat a lie often enough, some people are bound to fall for it.
I would like NP to tell us the precise year in Christendom, or cutting him/her a break simply the correct century, beyond which no further understanding of scripture and tradition was considered possible.
NP
17 years ago
Jerry, since you ask for a date – from the Garden of Eden onwards, human beings have never had the right to make up rules to suit themselves…..
So, Peter, Paul, James, Augustine, Luther, Calvin et al……all the greats in 2000 yrs of teaching and tradition – they taught what you want to hear?
You talk about spin!
Jerry Hannon
17 years ago
I appreciate NP’s courtesy in responding, but am puzzled by the contradiction in his/her statement: “…from the Garden of Eden onwards, human beings have never had the right to make up rules to suit themselves….. So, Peter, Paul, James, Augustine, Luther, Calvin et al……all the greats in 2000 yrs of teaching and tradition – they taught what you want to hear?” I had asked NP for the time in history “beyond which no further understanding of scripture and tradition was considered possible.” If NP is citing the new interpretations and teaching, by human beings, from the Apostles right through at… Read more »
Mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)
17 years ago
“Jerry, since you ask for a date – from the Garden of Eden onwards, human beings have never had the right to make up rules to suit themselves…..”
Ah, 4004 BC then….
NP
17 years ago
Thanks for the exact date, Mynster!
Jerry – the point is that there is a principle at stake and it is about authority.
Remember the snake’s clever question?
The whole point of Gen 1-3 is to show who is in Supreme authority and what happens when we rebel against his clearly expressed will….that is why I am not for people making up ethics to suit themselves and contradicting the authoritative teaching we have had for a long time now.
Jerry Hannon
17 years ago
For NP, I appreciate your thought process, and particularly your indication that the concept of refined understanding and teaching is actually possible (ignoring whether I was accurate in interpreting your remarks as indicating that you believed the baseline was the sixteenth century), since that is what has happened since the beginning of Christianity. Moreover, while I have been an Anglican for nearly thirty-three years I was been raised as a Roman Catholic, and being the product of eighteen years of Catholic education, I also understand a concept that focuses upon some kind of monolithic authority. However, I rejected that concept… Read more »
Erika Baker
17 years ago
NP, you’re still not answering the question.
Seeing that biblical understanding has changed a little since Gen 1-3, even in the most conservative churches, the question is valid: Up top which point do you accept the change as legitimate and would you say the Holy Spirit has nothing new to teach us?
mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)
17 years ago
NP Suggested The whole point of Gen 1-3 is to show who is in Supreme authority and what happens when we rebel against his clearly expressed will I wonder whether that is indeed the quod ubique, quod semper of Gen 1-3 (setting aside the NIV-obscured hiatus at 2:4a). I’m not at all sure that the Jews see it as such, and (as one OT scholar put it) what are we to make of a story which includes in its dramatis personae a talking snake? It may be, of course, that the post-Augustinian millennium interpreted it as such – but then… Read more »
What can one say other than this is a very good lecture, not just in its content but in its method.
It does bring to the fore the question why Rowan Williams wants to push instruments of communion to be more than they have been, in that rather than achieve a unity they will institutionalise disunity.
It might have been an idea if he’d explained his absence from the meeting, for a start. That sort of determination not to see conservative forces in the United States meddling with Primates from Africa might have been helpful at some point.
Anything Barry Morgan has to say is worth listening to, and this is no exception. Calm, reasoned, and prophetic.
We already know he was on a long planned sabbatical. He sent his apologies.
An excellent lecture. A calm reflective voice in a troubled Anglican world.
“A calm reflective voice in a troubled Anglican world” . . . . . but ditching 2000 yrs of understanding of scripture and tradition!
NP writes: “A calm reflective voice in a troubled Anglican world” . . . . . but ditching 2000 yrs of understanding of scripture and tradition!”
He/she seems to follow the guiding principle of spinmeisters and propaganda chiefs: If you repeat a lie often enough, some people are bound to fall for it.
I would like NP to tell us the precise year in Christendom, or cutting him/her a break simply the correct century, beyond which no further understanding of scripture and tradition was considered possible.
Jerry, since you ask for a date – from the Garden of Eden onwards, human beings have never had the right to make up rules to suit themselves…..
So, Peter, Paul, James, Augustine, Luther, Calvin et al……all the greats in 2000 yrs of teaching and tradition – they taught what you want to hear?
You talk about spin!
I appreciate NP’s courtesy in responding, but am puzzled by the contradiction in his/her statement: “…from the Garden of Eden onwards, human beings have never had the right to make up rules to suit themselves….. So, Peter, Paul, James, Augustine, Luther, Calvin et al……all the greats in 2000 yrs of teaching and tradition – they taught what you want to hear?” I had asked NP for the time in history “beyond which no further understanding of scripture and tradition was considered possible.” If NP is citing the new interpretations and teaching, by human beings, from the Apostles right through at… Read more »
“Jerry, since you ask for a date – from the Garden of Eden onwards, human beings have never had the right to make up rules to suit themselves…..”
Ah, 4004 BC then….
Thanks for the exact date, Mynster!
Jerry – the point is that there is a principle at stake and it is about authority.
Remember the snake’s clever question?
The whole point of Gen 1-3 is to show who is in Supreme authority and what happens when we rebel against his clearly expressed will….that is why I am not for people making up ethics to suit themselves and contradicting the authoritative teaching we have had for a long time now.
For NP, I appreciate your thought process, and particularly your indication that the concept of refined understanding and teaching is actually possible (ignoring whether I was accurate in interpreting your remarks as indicating that you believed the baseline was the sixteenth century), since that is what has happened since the beginning of Christianity. Moreover, while I have been an Anglican for nearly thirty-three years I was been raised as a Roman Catholic, and being the product of eighteen years of Catholic education, I also understand a concept that focuses upon some kind of monolithic authority. However, I rejected that concept… Read more »
NP, you’re still not answering the question.
Seeing that biblical understanding has changed a little since Gen 1-3, even in the most conservative churches, the question is valid: Up top which point do you accept the change as legitimate and would you say the Holy Spirit has nothing new to teach us?
NP Suggested The whole point of Gen 1-3 is to show who is in Supreme authority and what happens when we rebel against his clearly expressed will I wonder whether that is indeed the quod ubique, quod semper of Gen 1-3 (setting aside the NIV-obscured hiatus at 2:4a). I’m not at all sure that the Jews see it as such, and (as one OT scholar put it) what are we to make of a story which includes in its dramatis personae a talking snake? It may be, of course, that the post-Augustinian millennium interpreted it as such – but then… Read more »