Saturday, 21 February 2015
Thanks for photos of Lent around the world. This is a time for reflection and, for me, reading the Psalms.
Could those responsible for posting what Rose Hudson-Wilkin has written explain why they have done so? I don't really understand fully what she is saying, nor the way in which she expresses herself - to me it is barely literate. The point seems to be that we should be concerned about the totality of people's lives because God is.
Could somebody please explain the 3rd paragraph - I have read and re-read it and can't understand what the point is? Also in the 4th paragraph, what is a set of political ideology?
This looks incredibly muddled to me, and I'm really confused about what the point is, and what Rose Hudson-Wilkins insights are.
Neil, Rose Hudson-Wilkins thoughtful piece clearly springs from a warm heart - what more could you ask for? She is not a 'revd doctor' and frankly, all the better for it.
While services for Ash Wednesday are on topic: I spotted this morning a nuance that I haven't noticed in liturgy before: in the BCP, the Collect for Ash Wednesday is addressed to the Trinity as a whole; whereas the Collect for Quinquagesima is addressed specifically to the Father; and the Collect for the first Sunday in Lent is addressed specifically to the Son. It got my attention initially because of the beauty of the language used to deliver these points, but it also leaves an interesting issue to explore: are there particular types of prayer that are most appropriately addressed to particular members of the Trinity?
Regarding the enquiry from 'feria' regarding the practice of address members of the trinity separately; there are many examples around, e.g.:
"Our Father......" (at the direction of Jesus)
"Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God...."
"Come, Holy Spirit....." in the Ordinal.
If God really is Trinity as well as One; then surely, one is not neglecting the other Persons when one addresses Father, Son, or Holy Spirit?
Jill, Neil is making a point about clarity. You don't need to be a Revd Dr to be able to write. Rose's piece is either terribly written or terribly edited. Either way it is a poor piece not because it is not at all clear in several places.
I suspect that Rose Hudson-Wilkin wrote it in a hurry and it was not edited with sufficient care. At the risk of sounding pedantic, I do not think copy-editing and fact-checking are always valued enough these days.
Gareth - I had no difficulty understanding it - I might not agree with her philosophy - she has been very rude about traditional Catholics for example - but I would not dream of criticising the quality and style of her writing - unkind and unnecessary in the circumstances.
Jill - could you please then explain the point in her third paragraph, and perhaps summarise what her insights are? I still don't 'get' what Rose H-W is trying to say - and guess it must be something, given she is writing about what Christians get wrong about politics. She is in a unique position in her job, and I would be interested to hear what you think is being said. I've read the piece yet again, and looked up the OT story, but am still really none the wiser. Given how unclear and muddled the contribution appears to be, I also asked why such a weak piece was posted here in the first place.
Jill, I agree with you. And here we have yet another situation where two people in one sense at the opposite ends of the spectrum agree on something important. And in that agreement - and disagreement - we find something essential - and admirable - about the Church of England.
I agree that the piece of R H-W is quite unintelligible. She may be a good person, a good priest and whatever else, but this is a piece of poorly written muddled thinking. It feels as the piece is building up to a point that is never made. Even after ignoring the poor grammar (something I find difficult to do) I can see nothing but strings of words, some of which are made into sentences.
Dorothy L. Sayers wrote that Christian work is work well done. If, as Christians, we are preparing a piece for publication, it behoves us, to the best of our ability, to see that it is clear and accurate. Perhaps, in the present discussion, we are being reminded that in our day one form of Christian asceticism may be pausing to reflect before rushing into print?
To answer Neil's question, I chose the piece by Rose Hudson-Wilkin because I thought it might be of interest to readers. It looks as if that was true for some (but not all) of you. What more can one ask for?
I find it difficult to ignore the rude, patronising, and downright distasteful comments made on this thread concerning the article by Rose Hudson-Wilkin.
If these people are 'Thinking Anglicans' then I think I'm due a period of blissful ignorance.
I for one found Rose Hudson-Wilkin's article thought-provoking, warm-hearted and wise.
Having read Rose H-W's article, I'd say that it looks like a condensed version of a fuller argument that has been hastily reduced to 'main-points'. Sadly this kind of thing makes its way into print quite often, as intelligent and capable writers meet the implacable limitations of space. If Rose's article flows badly and is lacking in detail we might hope that her address at the Temple Church will provide opportunity for elaboration.
"What do bishops know about politics?"
So, was Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott misguided when he broke off from his preparations to produce a new standard edition of the New Testament in Greek in order to interfere in the coal strike of 1892 bringing about reconciliation between the striking miners and the pit owners?