Monday, 5 March 2007
Barry Morgan lecture in Ireland
The Archbishop of Wales delivered a lecture in Cork. There was a news report about this.
Read the original press release, and the full text of the lecture as a PDF file at “Scripture and Sexuality – our commitment to listening and learning”.
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on
Monday, 5 March 2007 at 11:25am GMT
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
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 least some notable teachers of the Reformation, he/she at least recognizes that the Church universal's understanding of scripture and tradition has indeed changed over the millennia.
Then the critical point becomes one's belief in whether that possibility ended in the sixteenth century, as NP's words could be construed, or whether it was some later date in history, or whether God's Spirit could still be acting in the world, and will until the end of time.
NP apparently believes that Christianity is now static (apparently from the 16th century forward), while I believe that we are learning still, and will learn more long after NP and I are gone from this world.
"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 in the early 1970s and continue to reject it. It should not surprise you that a lot of people who remain RC, among them some RC educators at the university level as well as ordinary parishioners, also reject it.
Different theologians, in various branches of Christianity, come to very different conclusions on so many points, yet I accept that they are all sincere and most are very careful in their learning and teaching.
You and I seem to differ on whether correct teaching ended at some point in the past, or whether it continues today, and will until the end of time.
I seem to remember something called the Protestant Reformation, and I thought that the Anglican church was a product of that Reformation.
Christianity, my friend, has not been static in its understanding of scripture and tradition.
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?
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 again, it also read it as justification for the downgrading of women!
I suppose I'm just not happy with unargued blanket statements. Typical wishy-washy anglican deserving of a slow and painful death, I guess.