Sunday, 14 October 2007

one bishop on Lambeth

Alan Wilson, who is Bishop of Buckingham in the Diocese of Oxford, has written on his blog:

What kind of party spirit am I on? Someone asked me if I’m going to the Lambeth conference.

Read it all…

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 14 October 2007 at 4:30pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

Wonderful. This should be sent to all the bishops in the communion.

Posted by: Matthew B on Sunday, 14 October 2007 at 6:59pm BST

Nice! Approve! Recommend!

ps does he want to borrow my stab-proof vest for Lambeth?

Posted by: dodgyvicar on Sunday, 14 October 2007 at 9:02pm BST

Beautiful. He reminds us that Jesus sat and ate with Judas. Appropriate imagery as there are those who self-profess with pride that their strategies include guerilla warfare to maim and destroy others'. In Latin America, one strategy was to hand over enemies to "death squads", the Judases of our time.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Sunday, 14 October 2007 at 9:40pm BST

"In Latin America, one strategy was to hand over enemies to "death squads", the Judases of our time." Cheryl Va. Clough

And the beat goes on at a slightly different pitch...what is it?..."the animals change but the circus remains the same!"

Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 3:27am BST

I sent it to my bishop. We need more Bishops like Bishop Wilson to speak up. When holiness, humility and humor combine, it is a wonderful thing.

Posted by: edgar on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 5:28am BST

I wonder what this means, bishop?

1 Corinthians 5:11
"But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one."

(note - it is not just one particular sin mentioned here (so it is not appropriate to cry persecution) - a lack of repentance on any of the various sins mentioned by St Paul should not be acceptable in the church leadership)

Posted by: NP on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 8:44am BST

1 Corinthans 5:11

And where did Jesus say the same thing?

Posted by: Erika Baker on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 9:33am BST

What needs be discussed first, NP dear, is how authentic this passage can be - including all of prestent (that is early 13th century) "chapters" 4 and 5, from 4:17 (with its mentioning of "Timothy" of Pastorals fame) to 5:13.

For whatever co-habitating with one's fathers 3rd or 4th wife may be (5:1), it most certainly isn't porneía; prostitution, in a n y sense - sacral or otherwise...

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 10:08am BST

I wonder what this means, NP?

Matthew 7.1-3

'Judge not, that you not be judged. For with what judgement you judge, you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.
And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?'

You will have noticed on Bishop Alan's blog a link to the following - what he appropriately describes as a Matthew 7.1 free zone:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UhSyyrcqDKM

Goodness NP, I think your cover may have been blown!

Posted by: Matthew B on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 10:11am BST

I'm so glad you mentioned 1 Cor 5:11 NP.

Are there no greedy among your brethren NP?

Are there no revilers? You might be described as a reviler yourself, no?

As to sexual immorality - the whole point, as you well know, is that those who defend loving, life-long, faithful homosexual relationships, and those who aspire to them, do not accept that they can be characterised as sexually immoral - quite the contrary.

So, let's get back to the easy bit. Where do you stand on revilers?

Posted by: badman on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 10:31am BST

"Goodness NP, I think your cover may have been blown!"

Hardly, this woman didn't mention Lambeth 1.10 once!

Posted by: Erika Baker on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 11:11am BST

So many picking up the torch! I pray you have more success than me, NP is a difficult nut to crack. Romans 14 and 15 aren't a part of NP's Bible. And Jesus telling us not to judge means nothing, and Paul, as NP has so often told us, gives us "authority" to judge. And it's all about judging, Christianity is a religion of judgement.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 1:48pm BST

Erika - do you really want to defend your position that unless you have something from the lips of the Lord it is has little or less authority? (note, it is not a strong position)

badman - again, interpret in context. 1 Cor 5 has the context of dealing with immorality in the church and people justifying certain sins. You quote a passage about not judging which is part of teaching aimed at teaching all about our universal sinfulness..... and it comes from the same Lord who also teaches about wolves looking like sheep (clear implication there is avoid the wolves) and the same God who inspired the whole bible.

We have to interpret any verse in the light of its passage, its book and the whole bible to see what God means....do we not?
So, we see Lev food laws directly overturned by Peter in Acts and by the Lord in Mark 7... no point worrying about prawns.....

Re the bishop who wants an "anything goes" Lambeth - well, there is zero biblical support for that, especially as we are talking about a conference of leaders as there are very clear (OT&NT) biblical standards for leaders.

Posted by: NP on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 3:27pm BST

Forgive me, NP, but I did not quote a passage about not judging. You seem to be confusing me with someone else.

I put a pointed challenge to you about revilers, and I will be interested if you care to re-read my post and respond, specifically, to that.

Posted by: badman on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 3:59pm BST

"Re the bishop who wants an "anything goes" Lambeth - well, there is zero biblical support for that, especially as we are talking about a conference of leaders as there are very clear (OT&NT) biblical standards for leaders."

As I am unable to find any reference to "Lambeth" in the bible at all, I find this comment utterly impossible to understand.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 4:09pm BST

NP,
If what people say contradicts the spirit of the gospels and especially Jesus' words, then, yes, I find it difficult to see how they can be right.

I'm not sure why you think that's a weak position.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 4:11pm BST

badman - sorry about that....anyway, to your points re revilers or the greedy - there is nobody to my knowledge preaching that "greed is good" or "we are called to revile"..... so, unless you know of bishops who are unrepentant on these issues, like certain TEC bishops are re certain issues, we do not have a problem.

Let me say, if we had a bishop preaching "greed is good", I would be just as much against that as any other attempt to justify a sin.

I am very pleased to see the chap in Harare being dealt with.... nice one ++Malango!

Ford - 1 Cor 5:12 stands....I am not making it up. We are warned to avoid false teaching and, therefore, to make appropriate judgments, are we not?

Ford - coping with disputable matters is handled in Romans...but a matter is not disputable just because some do not agree with the position of the church. You really think people would have St Paul's support in telling me that Lambeth 1.10 should not stand?

Posted by: NP on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 4:43pm BST

"it is has little or less authority? (note, it is not a strong position)"

So, the fact that Jesus didn't tell us to pray to His Mum is not a strong argument? I knew it wasn't, glad you agree.

"We have to interpret any verse in the light of its passage, its book and the whole bible to see what God means....do we not?"

Unless of course we try to do that WRT homosexuality, in which case you accuse us of fudging, selling out the Gospel to the world, and not believing in anything at all. This is the point: you accept any kind of argument when you agree with the outcome, but condemn exactly the same style of argument when it supports something you disagree with. Thus, it is not the quality of the argument or what it cites as authority. What is important to you is that the argument support something you already agree with.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 4:50pm BST

How silly of me! I thought the subject of Peter's vision was not the food per se; I was under the impression that real subject was Cornelius himself. I'll just have to stop looking for allegory and symbollism in the text.

Posted by: David Bieler on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 8:02pm BST

"...unless you have something from the lips of the Lord it is has little or less authority..."

The person who quotes Paul against Jesus actually wrote this?

Korach bickering at its most absurd.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 8:57pm BST

"You really think people would have St Paul's support in telling me that Lambeth 1.10 should not stand?"

Actually, yes, I do...because I think Paul was bright enough to realize that our understanding of the natural world and of human sexuality has changed--for the better--and thus realize that what he THOUGHT he understood about God's revelation nearly 2000 years ago was mistaken.

Of course, that also presumes that all our translations of Paul's word from Greek into English are correct in the first place, a presumption I am not always willing to make.

Somebody here probably knows this--did Paul write and speak Greek, anyway? Or are even our "original" Greek versions of his letters already translations?

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 9:48pm BST

Pat:

I have a feeling Paul almost certainly did read and write Greek: he couldn't have made use of the Septuagint (LXX) otherwise. Josephus seems to have relied on the LXX in his citation of Jewish scripture, so we can assume that it was widely adopted even in Jerusalam. And there is textual evidence that Paul relied on the LXX in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and elsewhere.

I doubt also that Paul would have been addressed the Areopagus in anything other than Greek, given his extensive travels in the Greek speaking world, and the early Christian communities outside Palestine, chiefly made up of Gentiles, would have been overwhelmingly understood Greek.

The earliest manuscripts we have, of course, are in Greek, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that they were a later translation of something else (I think George Lamsa suggested Aramaic), or that corruptions occured during transcription.


Someone sensibly pointed out in another thread that trolls sulk away if people ignore them.

Posted by: Matthew B on Monday, 15 October 2007 at 10:40pm BST

Pat - do you make the same argument re greed?
Do you argue that we should not criticise greed in the church because we really cannot be sure that the bible actually is down on greed?
Do you read any other book in order to get it to mean the opposite to what it says consistently?

Ford - do you really think reading scripture in context supports in effect ditching Lambeth 1.10?
Either certain behaviours are "incompatible with scripture" or they are not..... so, was the 1998 problem that the AC bishops did not know that they should read scripture in context?

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 7:06am BST

"there is nobody to my knowledge preaching that "greed is good" or "we are called to revile".....

So unless you preach that it's ok to do, you may go and do it to your heart's content?
And where in the bible do you find evidence for that?

Posted by: Erika Baker on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 8:09am BST

Erika says "So unless you preach that it's ok to do, you may go and do it to your heart's content? "

Where did I say anthing of the like?

"By no means"...might be St Paul's answer.


Erika - I hope you can see the difference between all being sinners and actually trying to justify a sin, preaching it is good.

So, no, it is not ok to be unrepentant with regard to any sin whether one preaches against it or not.

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 10:04am BST

The bible is quite clear on greed, NP. "Thou shalt not covet..." is pretty straight-forward.

But there's no similar straight-forward "Thou shalt not..." regarding sexuality at all, except for adultery--not in either testament.

And don't point me to something in Leviticus or Deuteronomy...if we're not expected to follow the rules about clothing, or food, or land use in those books, why single out the ones about sex? (Especially since you keep insisting on using modern terms the authors had no knowledge of to interpret ancient words.)

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 11:28am BST

Can someone remind me where the legal protection and rights for eunuchs exist? How are they protected in terms of marriage, inheritance, caring for dependant e.g. legal jurisdiction to authorise medical treatment if their child is in an accident?

After all, these were covenants promised and enshrined before Jesus' incarnation - you know those things that Jesus and his priests had supposedly completely fulfilled.

e.g. Isaiah 56:3-8 "...let not any eunuch complain, “I am only a dry tree.” For this is what the LORD says: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant — to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off. And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD… these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer... for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”…"

There are those who refute or ignore God's repeatedly promised everlasting covenant of peace made to the Daughter of Zion, Levi, and others. They forget that “the” messiah is meant to be a prince of peace (Isaiah 9:6-7).

Ezekiel 17:18-24 makes it clear that God despises those that break his covenant, and that God brings life to the dry tree and dries up the established tree of those who forsake God. Yet a tender sprig from the topmost shoots of a cedar will be planted on a mountain and will produce branches and bear fruit and birds of every kind will nest in it.

In Ezekiel 16:59-63 that God promises that the covenant of peace will again be remembered and our sisters, both those who are older and younger will be received on the basis of a new covenant from the LORD.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 11:37am BST

"Either certain behaviours are "incompatible with scripture" or they are not"

Well, you don't seem to care if your behaviour is compatible with Scripture, so where do you get off hurling this at everybody else?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 12:25pm BST

Ford says "So, the fact that Jesus didn't tell us to pray to His Mum is not a strong argument? I knew it wasn't, glad you agree."

ok, I guess you are slightly tongue-in-cheek on that one Ford but...

I am saying to Erika that just because we do not have a record of what the Lord said on a particular subject, we cannot then assume he agrees with us and use that to dismiss other OT and NT verses.

The Lord is on record as coming not to abolish the law...and he was not that soft on sin (eg Mark 7 or Matthew 5:30 "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell."

Don't think people have much evidence for the Lord being accomodating when it comes to sin..... so, we should pay attention to Him and repent in response to God's grace and love(Romans 6:1-2)

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 12:27pm BST

And according to his blog site, Bishop Alan is an alumnus of Wycliffe Hall.

Posted by: cryptogram on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 2:23pm BST

Lambeth 1.10 = Council of Nicaea, or so NP would have us believe with his/her breathless repetition, and "challenge" to anyone who crosses quills with NP.

Sorry, but that's nothing but male bovine manure, NP.

Posted by: Jerry Hannon on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 4:15pm BST

Ford - for the umpteenth time, 2 wrongs do not make a right ........ you would have a point if you had me on record trying to justify any behaviour "incompatible with scripture"....but you do not but even if I am a hypocrite and a sinner (which I am), the church should stand for biblical truth

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 4:19pm BST

Jerry - no, the strength of Lambeth 1.10 in my eyes is only that is refers to scripture and correctly identifies certain behaviours as incompatible with it....

I do not see the liberal ABC or his Lambeth Palace politicians getting Lambeth 1.10 amended or deleted next year, do you? Guess why?

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 4:27pm BST

NP
I think a number of us here on TA believe that you spend much of your time here reviling those of us you don't agree with, calling us liars, deliberately ignoring scripture etc.

I suspect you believe you are simply pointing out false teaching and that you are required to judge.

Even if that were the case, you display such a self-righteousness, such a lack of understanding and compassion for those you talk to, and such a lack of charity, that "reviling" really describes many of your contributions quite well.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 4:41pm BST

"it is not ok to be unrepentant with regard to any sin whether one preaches against it or not."

You keep talking about what people teach, yet here you are saying it's not whether or not they teach against a particular sin, but whether or not they are repentant. Fair enough. I agree in principle, though I am not so rigid on the matter, me being a sinner myself and all, and hardly qualified to question God's choice of bishop for His Church, Paul not having given me his special grace of judgement. So why then do you idolize as "Godly leaders" bishops who are decidedly unrepentant? You only demand repentance for sins you don't like. You are quite happy with, even defend those whose sin does not conflict with your particular world view. And I wasn't overly tongue in cheek. You're the one who looks scornfully down on people because "Jesus didn't tell us to pray to His Mum." You can't claim that something you don't like is worthy of scorn because Jesus didn't say to do it, then turn right around and claim something is OK because Jesus didn't mention it. You're just justifying your own behaviour and twisting Scripture to do it. So, someone who manipulates Scripture to justify his own behaviour, which is clearly contrary to Scripture, condemns everyone else for doing the same thing. Now why should I give him any credence, would you say?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 5:18pm BST

Can't help noticing that while Ford, Erika, Cheryl and many others post their comments to NP using their full names, NP hides behind a set of initials. I don't wish to suggest that this is a cowardly act, - perhaps it is just habit. However, I do wonder:
1. If he/she would be a little more respectful of others if he/she "came out" and used his/her real name.
2. Where he/she finds the time to take on so many correspondents. The cynic in me wonders if he/she is paid to do this work, hence the secrecy.

Posted by: Andrew Innes on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 5:54pm BST

"for the umpteenth time, 2 wrongs do not make a right"

And for the umpteenth time, I am not, have never, claimed they do.

"if you had me on record trying to justify any behaviour "incompatible with scripture""

I have. Many times. Each time you have produced a fudge argument as to why that particular behaviour is acceptable. Such arguments are no more acceptable for behaviours you like than they are for things you don't like, NP.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 6:46pm BST

Yes, NP .... If your point of view is intended to promote Christianity, shouldn't you be able to accomplish that end with love and charity?

OR perhaps it is about condemning others which is to imply that you are somehow better than they are.

A speaker I heard recently recalled that when an unchurched person was asked what their impression of a Christian was, they replied: "someone who thinks they are better than everyone else".

Is this the version of Christianity you wish to promote? If so you are doing an excellent job!

And please realize that although your ostensible position on issues is different from mine, I appreciate the time and effort that you apply to this board, in order to maintain a dialogue of opposing viewpoints.

Since you have that difficult task, I hope that you can learn to defend your viewpoints in a fair and exemplary way, rather than damaging your own cause by resorting to meanness.

Let's take it up a notch, shall we?

Posted by: Bautista on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 9:19pm BST

Jesus promised gentleness and he refused to stone the adulterous woman.

What does forgiveness mean in some families? If you don't sin, then I won't beat you with the belt or rant accusations at you? That makes sense; such parents only beat and insult their children because they sinned. If their kids never misbehaved, they would never be in trouble.

Silly me, I thought we were talking about a loving and forgiving God the Father. I didn't realise some are worshipping the Accuser.

"I do not see the liberal ABC or his Lambeth Palace politicians getting Lambeth 1.10 amended or deleted next year, do you?"

Nope, they're not going to change a historical document made at a rigged gathering that sabotaged dialogue before and during the conference.

I think things are going to be very different next year. How different and in what forms, I do not yet know. God, Jesus and Spirit are moving in so many fields so rapidly that it is impossible to predict. I do know that walls of oppression are crumbling, tools of repression are being blunted, and the glamour that hid the acid in accusations dissolved.

Ezekiel 36:32-36 "I want you to know that I am not doing this for your sake, declares the Sovereign LORD. Be ashamed and disgraced for your conduct, O house of Israel! “‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: On the day I cleanse you from all your sins, I will resettle your towns, and the ruins will be rebuilt… They will say, “This land that was laid waste has become like the garden of Eden…” Then the nations around you that remain will know that I the LORD have rebuilt what was destroyed and have replanted what was desolate. I the LORD have spoken, and I will do it.’"

Isaiah 55:8-15 "“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts… my word that goes out from my mouth… will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace... This will be for the LORD'S renown, for an everlasting sign, which will not be destroyed.”

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 9:42pm BST

NP: "I do not see the liberal ABC or his Lambeth Palace politicians getting Lambeth 1.10 amended or deleted next year"

It has to be remembered NP, that Lambeth is NOT the Communion´s Parliament! The vast majority of bishops are not elected - they do not represent us in that sense. (Although they should be elected in my view, given how political the Communion has become).

Get back to the original concept of Lambeth - pray and worship together, focus on matters of what it means to be a bishop, and calm theological discussion with no "Resolutions". A sort of episcopal team-building exercise. I´m pretty sure ABC won´t allow Lambeth 2008 to resemble the debacle of the previous one, so Lambeth 1:10 is effectively dead in the water.

Onward to the listening process...

Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 11:22pm BST

NP posted: "I do not see the liberal ABC or his Lambeth Palace politicians getting Lambeth 1.10 amended or deleted next year, do you? Guess why?"

Why? Because, NP, it isn't important. Besides, that one resolution has also been taken wholly out of context by people, like you, who only wish to focus upon things they like, rather than things they don't like. But, Lambeth resolutions have no juridical authority anyway, NP.

Also, as has been said, so many times, by so many people, the Church Universal has changed over the millennia, as God's gift of human reason has combined with scripture analysis and scientific research and thereby caused wise men and women to reach different conclusions on various earlier beliefs of the Church.

And, it wasn't "seven days," in case you were wondering.

Posted by: Jerry Hannon on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 11:51pm BST

Bautista - you seem very judgmental....but pls explain what "meaness" you mean.


Jerry says of Lambeth 1.10: "it isn't important. Besides, that one resolution has also been taken wholly out of context by people, like you..."
- just me and a few mad Reform types or also the Primates of the AC and TWR?

Jerry also says " the Church Universal has changed over the millennia".....indeed and have you noticed, Jerry, that TEC(USA) is out of line with the vast majority of Catholics and Protestants in the US (let alone the world).....since you care about the views of the "Church Universal"

Hugh - it is very tough to join a Lambeth in which some bishops are unrepentant about breaking agreed Anglican positions, condoning actions which our bishops have said are "incompatible with scripture".
There is little integrity in pretending we all agree and can hold contradictory positions in the AC on important issues like the authority of scripture. Please note it is not just "conservatives" who are unhappy with the situation, the JSC fudge and the last 4 years being wasted with endless meetings and no decisions while the AC and TEC(USA) congregations are damaged. The "leadership" we have had into making fudge forever (but never decisions) is like death by a thousand cuts.....all turning up to Lambeth for a very expensive talking shop will not really be productive. We need a solid basis on which genuine unity and trust can be built.

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 7:12am BST

Andrew

Just a little while ago someone "in the know" (i.e. who knew NP's name before the pseudonym) commented about how their postings had deteriorated since the name change. So loss of respect is an issue.

Whether they are being paid, are devoted or obsessed is a matter of conjecture. Not my place to judge.

Just know that their fruits are nasty and not consistent with the gentleness promised by Jesus.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 8:28am BST

Andrew - you worry about "NP" but do not worry on other names eg "cryptogram" and "badman" above....why is that?

How do we know your name is really Andrew?
How do we know you are not paid?
How do we know you are some anti-liberal trying to squash discussion here?
(easy to ask questions, ain't it?)

As I have said before, I am quite addicted to talking to people here....it is interesting seeing the arguments people come up with and testing them. I think we make progress sometimes but at least both sides are informed of other views.... this is "Thinking Anglicans" after all and not "Liberal Anglicans", right?

I prefer to think about the ideas rather than whether they are made by a person who is male, female, white, not white, liberal, conservative etc etc...... so, it does not matter if the post comes from a crazy rabbit or just some initials in my book. It is the ideas which matter and the support from scripture for arguments made.

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 11:01am BST

"Jerry also says " the Church Universal has changed over the millennia".....indeed and have you noticed, Jerry, that TEC(USA) is out of line with the vast majority of Catholics and Protestants in the US (let alone the world).....since you care about the views of the "Church Universal""

SOMEBODY always has to initiate the changes before they become universal.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 11:25am BST

"pls explain what "meaness" you mean."

Good luck, Bautista!

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 12:34pm BST

Trolls go away when people ignore them.

Posted by: JPM on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 2:22pm BST

NP prays me in aid for his pseudonymity. "cryptogram" is a cryptogram. One blog owner commented that it is far too easy to solve. Put together the hints given over many months and look at the appropriate reference book (OK, let's make it easy, Crockford) and you shouldn't have too much difficulty. And I have posted en clair.

NP could stand for anything. I think I did have the name which lurks behind the initials (Trinity Hall?) but it could just as easily stand for Numbskull Prot, Nice Prebyterian, Not Predestined...

Posted by: cryptogram on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 3:42pm BST

The subject matter here is Alan Wilson's opinions about attending Lambeth. I am not approving comments which do not relate to this. (Maybe some of the most prolific commenters will get the hint soon....)

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 3:53pm BST

Well, I liked Bishop Wilson's comments very much (a very sensible Church of England bishop) -- apparently the Crown Appointments Commission sometimes works (but suffragans are nominated by the diocesan, aren't they?).

Posted by: Prior Aelred on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 8:30pm BST

Or even a German political organization of the 20's and 30's, Cryptogram.

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 1:56am BST

I prefer to think about the ideas rather than whether they are made by a person who is male, female, white, not white, liberal, conservative etc etc......

NP

I understand: it is so much easier, cleaner. No messy feelings or life experiences to be considered. No pain, your own or others, to be felt.

Posted by: Andrew Innes on Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 11:31am BST

NP

I'd be interested in your reflections on the link between the world of ideas, and the particularity which seems to me to be inherent in the Christian faith. Jesus was not an idea, and the incarnation seems to me to be of great significance.

When Jesus was asked by a lawyer (and lawyers deal in ideas and principles, which are then applied to particularities) 'who is my neighbour?' in the context of the command to love, he told a story of a particular person, as it happens a samaritan man. Part of the dynamic of this was to challenge someone who was used to going from the general to the particular (and that is my tendency too) - to offer a challenge to look at the world the other way round.

Then there are the quotations about being called by name (and with the significance of naming in scripture, this undoubtedly means being called in our particularity - not to downplay issues of sin and holiness) and about the hairs of our head being numbered.

Written discussions perhaps exhibit a bias towards ideas, which are not absent (in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek etc), and it is as well to be aware of the danger lest we distort our faith.

Posted by: Mark Bennet on Friday, 19 October 2007 at 8:32am BST

Hello Mark

I do not disagree with you.

I find it interesting that some who disagree with stated Anglican positions (eg Lambeth 1.10) when talking to those who want the church to stick to its current interpretation of scripture, want to know about and talk about their opponents....rather than the scriptures and their meaning.

It does not matter if VGR or Akinola were defending Lambeth 1.10 - what matters is what people say on the issues rather than criticising the individual who will, invariably, be a sinner.

Seems to me, we have a more productive discussion if we focus on the issues......but, Andrew, this does not mean that pastoral care is not given to individuals. It just means that talking about emotions and suffering does not convince many that certain behaviour is in fact compatible with scripture. The issues and the Ford's "clobber verses" have to be addressed. WE have to speak the truth....but do it in love, for sure.

Posted by: NP on Friday, 19 October 2007 at 11:02am BST

NP

Part of Lambeth 1.10 is to listen - to find out about and to get to know each other, in particular across a specific fairly intractable divide.

This does bear on our understanding of the scriptures, because, for example, only thus can we understand whether the phenomena we see in people's lives are the same ones the scriptures are talking about

Posted by: Mark Bennet on Friday, 19 October 2007 at 3:26pm BST

Nobody seems to have noticed that Bishop Wilson is the other half of the appointment which included Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading.

Posted by: Commentator on Saturday, 20 October 2007 at 11:11am BST

Mark - we have been "listening" for decades while some exploited "don't ask, don't tell" policies.... the time is coming for decisions in the AC and greater integrity amongst the clergy

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 at 10:01am BST

It does not matter if VGR or Akinola were defending Lambeth 1.10 - what matters is what people say on the issues rather than criticising the individual who will, invariably, be a sinner."

But it matters very much, NP. This is the point. If someone by his actions shows that he has no respect for Scripture and only follows those parts of it that he likes, he has no right to accuse others of that. If he preaches lies and claims they are truth, he calls doubt on everything else he says. Yes, he will invariably be a sinner, but there is a difference between someone who piously acknowledges some abstract innate human sinfulness and someone who seeks for truth and acknowledges his own failings. The latter is credible. The former is not. One can't use lies or slander in the defence of truth, NP. If one does, one shows one has no knowledge of the truth, and no interest in it. By repeatedly defending such people, you show yourself to be more interested in making people agree with you than in defending the truth. This is why I joke about having to change my world view because you agree with me. Frankly, I don't trust you to know what is right and what is not, since your entire motivation seems to be to force others to your narrow view of things. Truth, even reality, are not allowed to stand in the way of that goal. You're just not a reliable judge of truth and right. Same goes for +Akinola. He says so much that is plain wrong, so much that gopes against the Gospel, how can he be trusted to preach that Gospel?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 at 6:47pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.