tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post7032681455344987841..comments2024-03-29T17:55:30.203+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Orthodox generosity?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-28984841697218185472022-09-05T17:45:50.801+12:002022-09-05T17:45:50.801+12:00Ron, as an Anglican who follows Richard Hooker'...Ron, as an Anglican who follows Richard Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, you will know that natural law (without ironic apostrophes) is not 'the" basis of Christian ethics (much less belief and discipleship) but is simply one division of the Eternal Law of God, which embraces the order of nature, the Decalogue, the Law of Christ, and the law of man derived according to historical circumstances. St Thomas sketches this very concisely in his Treatise on Law in the Summa. Because natural law comes from God (this is where St Thomas corrects Aristotle), it must always feature in our ethical reasoning. The Bible in fact insists on this: "Does not nature tell you ...?"<br />Miracles are nothing other than the God of creation exercising His Lordship over His creation in extraordinary ways. Christian faith is built on the two Grand Miracles of the Incarnation and the Resurrection. The content of faith is known through reason and revelation. Reason can establish the existence of God by observing the world and the nature of causality but can tell us nothing about the Trinity, the means of salvation, and the Beatific Vision.<br /><br />Pax et bonum, <br />William Greenhalgh Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-48406969563829662702022-09-05T17:11:40.540+12:002022-09-05T17:11:40.540+12:00“The important principle to me it seems - my minim...“The important principle to me it seems - my minimalist theology - is discerning the work of the Spirit.”<br />I read forty years ago of a missionary to a remote and ‘primitive’ tribe in Papua New Guinea or maybe Sumatra, who led a tribesman to the Lord. Later he was amazed and delighted to hear the man talking to Jesus in his own language, clearly seeing him as like himself. That is an authentic work of the Spirit beyond the trappings of an alien culture or religion.<br />Moya Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-27440989865310280822022-09-05T09:38:01.634+12:002022-09-05T09:38:01.634+12:00William; where do miracles and the supernatural fi...William; where do miracles and the supernatural fit into your insistence on 'Natural Law' as the basis for Christian ethics, belief, and discipleship? Are they extrinsic to true faith?Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-60290547169541113022022-09-05T09:34:06.416+12:002022-09-05T09:34:06.416+12:00This comment has been removed by the author.Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-25680656920765084472022-09-05T08:37:40.119+12:002022-09-05T08:37:40.119+12:00Ron, you really ought to have another look at the ...Ron, you really ought to have another look at the foundational text of Anglicanism, Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Am I right in thinking this is a basic text in the training of Anglican clergy, as an extended defence of the Elizabethan Settlement and what makes one an Anglican?<br />You will see of course - especially in 1.2.1 1.10.4 and 1.12.5 - that Hooker's "Law of Reason" is actually very similar to the scholastic understanding of Natural Law. Robert Faulkner of Boston College has explained Hooker's debt to this tradition with great precision.<br />It is a great shame when denominations don't know their own foundational texts, as they are then tossed and turned by the prevailing secular cultural trends. Ad fontes, coetus Anglicanorum! Read once again the judicious Mr Hooker - and see how close he is to Aquinas on eternal law at least.<br />As for Francis: he is ailing and will most likely step down in the coming year.<br />Pax et bonum,<br />William Greenhalgh <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-37886883186782459642022-09-05T04:40:28.422+12:002022-09-05T04:40:28.422+12:00"Given this, it is scarcely surprising that t..."Given this, it is scarcely surprising that those philosophers who accept the Cartesian premises that make solipsism apparently plausible, if not inescapable, have also invariably assumed that language-usage is itself essentially private. The cluster of arguments—generally referred to as “the private language argument”—that we find in the Investigations against this assumption effectively administers the coup de grâce to both Cartesian dualism and solipsism. (I. § 202; 242-315). Language is an irreducibly public form of life that is encountered in specifically social contexts. Each natural language-system contains an indefinitely large number of “language-games,” governed by rules that, though conventional, are not arbitrary personal fiats. The meaning of a word is its (publicly accessible) use in a language. To question, argue, or doubt is to utilize language in a particular way. It is to play a particular kind of public language-game. The proposition “I am the only mind that exists” makes sense only to the extent that it is expressed in a public language, and the existence of such language itself implies the existence of a social context. Such a context exists for the hypothetical last survivor of a nuclear holocaust, but not for the solipsist. A non-linguistic solipsism is unthinkable and a thinkable solipsism is necessarily linguistic. Solipsism therefore presupposes the very thing that it seeks to deny. That solipsistic thoughts are thinkable in the first instance implies the existence of the public, shared, intersubjective world that they purport to call into question."<br /><br />https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/<br /><br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-12135840363511288732022-09-04T18:57:30.872+12:002022-09-04T18:57:30.872+12:00"But honesty demands recognition that God has..."But honesty demands recognition that God has not called everyone to adapt to our shake of the kaleidoscope. Therefore, as we would expect, there are broad and big hearted people living well by orthodoxies that are not at all generous.<br /><br />Their systems are not yet adequate to realities important to us. And they are doing nothing whatsoever about that. If it came to choosing sides, they would not choose ours."<br /><br />Absolutely. Without even trying to value one as better than the other. It would be a paycho-spiritual cultural disaster *and not Spirit-led at all* for, say, a genuflecting pious natural law Catholic to become a Liberal Quanglican. And vice versa. <br /><br />Or, we might also say, for a devotee of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, or a Uighur Muslim, to become Australian Neo-Calvinists! And vice versa.<br /><br />That seems to be the will of God too.<br /><br />But the Spirit is dynamic, and we must also allow it to attract us out of our birth traditions and into new expressions of God's radiance, without also presuming all the attraction will be to Christian forms.<br /><br />The important principle to me it seems - my minimalist theology - is discerning the work of the Spirit.<br />Mark Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03499278196265491516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-59452387886854174782022-09-04T17:27:17.805+12:002022-09-04T17:27:17.805+12:00Moya and Mark; what an interesting conversation! A...Moya and Mark; what an interesting conversation! As for the capacity for us mere humans to be seen to represent Christ (alter Christus) - one hint <br />from Scripture may give us a clue, and it seems to require some action on our part: "Turn towards him and be radiant". Agape. Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-29245256925738100522022-09-04T16:19:56.242+12:002022-09-04T16:19:56.242+12:00"Let the dead bury their dead."
-- St L..."Let the dead bury their dead."<br /><br />-- St Luke ix 60<br /><br />"What I wanted to highlight is his capacity to think and feel in a broad and big hearted way...as a person deeply grounded in Christian faith, his willingness to move into new waters for a moment or more and take on a core belief and experience of the Indian wisdom traditions, and really consider it.<br /><br />"I suppose you could call this a generous orthodoxy."<br /><br />To my mind, this is not a bad start on a provisional working definition that any of us can use.<br /><br />But honesty demands recognition that God has not called everyone to adapt to our shake of the kaleidoscope. Therefore, as we would expect, there are broad and big hearted people living well by orthodoxies that are not at all generous. <br /><br />Their systems are not yet adequate to realities important to us. And they are doing nothing whatsoever about that. If it came to choosing sides, they would not choose ours.<br /><br />But if the Holy Spirit has not opened some mazeway that they have refused, they are not morally or spiritually deficient to standing a post on their parapet and scanning their horizon. In his inscrutable providence, that is what God wants them to do instead of whatever we are doing.<br /><br />Life is short. We can either plunge into the revealed life of God and be changed from glory to glory, or we can fret about why others disagree with us. God does not permit us to do both.<br /><br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52363774920223322832022-09-04T14:59:41.380+12:002022-09-04T14:59:41.380+12:00That’s amazing Mark and wonderful! I guess many sa...That’s amazing Mark and wonderful! I guess many saints have seen and served Christ in other people so it is part of the tradition but how much he is there varies presumably. And maybe some circumstances of life and faith draw him out in greater or lesser ways, whatever their religious experience.<br />Moya Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-75985186729174550752022-09-04T13:14:17.377+12:002022-09-04T13:14:17.377+12:00I agree with most of your post, Moya - and the quo...I agree with most of your post, Moya - and the quotes from Paul and John. <br /><br />Where we might differ is: and God dwells fully in other beings too. As fully as he dwelt in Jesus? I honestly don't know. A large part of me would say: No. But I actually don't know.<br /><br />I remember meeting a Muslim woman once, many years ago, when I was at university studying religion and politics. She came to interview for the vacant position of Islam specialist within the Department of Religious Studies, which included giving a lecture to the students. When she walked up to the podium and began speaking, I was bowled over with her presence. Completely stunned. Breathless. Oh my, who is this? She is so, so....what is the word?<br /><br />I reached inside and then found one word that seemed to perfectly fit my experience - and it was a deeply religious, theological word, and that seems absolutely right. *Grace*. She is full of grace. <br /><br />Oh isn't this strange, I thought: a female Muslim scholar from Pakistan has finally taught me what grace is. Mark Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03499278196265491516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-53252420559837023572022-09-04T12:05:10.916+12:002022-09-04T12:05:10.916+12:00Well, William, I guess what is 'natural' t...Well, William, I guess what is 'natural' to one person might be quite unnatural to another.<br /><br />I'm sorry we Anglicans don't seem to match up the perfection of your Catholicity. However, Pope Francis does seem to be more generous in his understanding of 'orthodoxy' than some of his followers - just like Jesus, who often shocked the institutional 'religious' with his embrace of the marginalised of his society. When he says 'Pax et Bonum', I'm pretty sure he really understands what he is saying - (just like his namesake; Blessed Francis of Assisi).Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-85243327383833896612022-09-04T10:24:30.845+12:002022-09-04T10:24:30.845+12:00For clarification, I don't think Thomas Keatin...For clarification, I don't think Thomas Keating believed in reincarnation. He seems to have held a very classical, orthodox, 'cheerfully dogmatic' view of life after death, which he spoke about all his life. <br /><br />What I wanted to highlight is his capacity to think and feel in a broad and big hearted way...as a person deeply grounded in Christian faith, his willingness to move into new waters for a moment or more and take on a core belief and experience of the Indian wisdom traditions, and really consider it.<br /><br />I suppose you could call this a generous orthodoxy. Mark Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03499278196265491516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-68164790079733140172022-09-04T09:32:10.217+12:002022-09-04T09:32:10.217+12:00Hello, Peter - Through the courtesy of your blog I...Hello, Peter - Through the courtesy of your blog I have stated on several occasions that 1. Natural law is not the Gospel (far from it) but neither is it opposed to it (as nominalists new and old believe) because grace perfects but does not abolish nature; 2. the four fundamentals of natural law (synderesis; the evidence of design in nature; the evidence of design in human beings; the consequence or telos of moral actions) are all taught explicitly in the Bible. If one calls himself an evangelical, this should be integral to his worldview. There was a time until recently (the shadow of neo-orthodoxy and Barth's "positivism of revelation", perhaps?) when just about all Protestants and certainly all evangelicals believed and taught these things. As I said repeatedly, the pages of Calvin's Institutes are replete with references to natural law. I am only reminding Protestants of their own neglected and forgotten inheritance. It isn't a "Catholic thing! By all means "question" natural law - but let us all understand what we are questioning and see where it historically belongs in our own heritage. <br />Understanding human nature as God intended it is how Christians make sense of being male and female, mothers and fathers, forming families, and the meaning of the sex instinct. Reading the Bible informs us (as if we didn't know) that human nature is corrupted by sin and needs the grace of God to correct it. You won't read that in the NYT.<br /><br />Pax et bonum,<br />William Greenhalgh <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-78936385465881791492022-09-04T09:27:54.125+12:002022-09-04T09:27:54.125+12:00Bowman, I think this paragraph of yours bears repe...Bowman, I think this paragraph of yours bears repeating here on A.D.U.<br /><br />"To participate in so much, they seem to rejoice in more, sometimes much more, of everything that helps them to do that. Not just the Lord's Prayer but the psalms; not just sacraments but sacramentals; indeed the cycles of prayer in whole liturgical ordos. Not just a love mantra but the creed understood in some depth; not just the testimony that the Holy Spirit has given the saints since; but all the perspectives on those illuminations that souls praying through them have found. And not just bare harmlessness but the Decalogue followed in a certain mindfulness of created existence; not just canons but the ethos that the Holy Spirit gives to the Body; not just obedience to law but some awareness of what Christ is doing in even civil institutions. To them this is all personal salvation because it mends in their hearts St Maximus's five schisms in the cosmos: between Creator and creatures, things invisible and things visible, heaven and earth, paradise and world, man and woman."<br /><br />(especially, I loved the 'mindfulness' tempered by experience)<br /><br />Agape!Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-6230825556653413562022-09-04T09:16:45.033+12:002022-09-04T09:16:45.033+12:00I think of Ezekiel’s picture of us being in a rive...I think of Ezekiel’s picture of us being in a river, some ankle-deep, some knee-deep, some waist-deep, some swimming but ones like me, if it is getting deeper, keep one foot on the bottom!<br />Moya Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-5013839489850470192022-09-04T09:05:07.387+12:002022-09-04T09:05:07.387+12:00We seem to have broken out into labelling each oth...We seem to have broken out into labelling each other. Have I done it to someone else? If so I apologize*. <br /><br />Also may mean strong feelings are cooking up. <br /><br />* Oh yeah, I do remember talking about DioSouthCRoss as Neo-Calvinists: passive aggressive for my feelings of disdain. Mark Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03499278196265491516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38378384296840746552022-09-04T08:53:35.734+12:002022-09-04T08:53:35.734+12:00Is humility part of Natural Law?Is humility part of Natural Law?Mark Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03499278196265491516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-15026297733513291272022-09-04T08:42:53.498+12:002022-09-04T08:42:53.498+12:00Hi William
There are clearly Natural law failures ...Hi William<br />There are clearly Natural law failures here or hereabouts (including me).<br />You seem to be making a link between that failure and a Protestantism doomed to preach the Gospel of the NYT.<br />Here is another failure on my part: I fail to see that failure re Natural Law necessitates subscription to the Gospel of the NYT.<br />I have many concerns about transgenderism (for example), though they may not precisely align with yours; ditto full-term abortion.<br />Do you have to be so excluding/categorising in your commentary on those of us who question Natural Law?<br /> Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43318704340994995662022-09-04T08:18:49.107+12:002022-09-04T08:18:49.107+12:00Father Ron,
I wonder if a person with a simpler ...Father Ron, <br /><br />I wonder if a person with a simpler faith is at an advantage because they are less encumbered (by beliefs) when they encounter the divine. There's just enough for the riverbanks to hold, without stopping the divine flow heart-to-heart.<br /><br />Those of us who are more encumbered - myself included - perhaps get to experience more joy of the release, of letting go, however.<br /><br />An image from a Rumi story is coming to mind - of a donkey loaded up with books...Mark Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03499278196265491516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-42652726232710003782022-09-04T08:06:48.001+12:002022-09-04T08:06:48.001+12:00I can well understand that some Protestants ridicu...I can well understand that some Protestants ridicule the idea of natural law, not because they understand it (they don't, their expensive prep school education begins in Descartes' stove before moving on to other pressure cookers), but they do instinctively recognise that taking natural law seriously threatens their acquiescence to modern secular liberalism as the unquestioned political ground zero. The Gospel according to The New York Times.<br />And even that is hardly a place of peace and serenity. Can they answer why New York Democrats enthusiastically support abotion up to birth aka infanticide? Can they articulate why this is a grave evil, or do they not wish to offend the 'cultured despisers' of Christianity? Is the unborn child my neighbour? Not in New York or TEC, apparently. <br />Do they understand why lesbians are at war with "transwomen" (police threw lesbians out of a "Pride" march in Wales) and do they know what natural law says about the whole confusion and conflict in the secular mind?<br />Do they understand why J. K Rowling has become persona non grata among 'les bien pensants'?<br />Do they know why "transgenderism" is deeply harmful to girls and women, and not just US college swimmers?<br />Too threatening to actually pick up and read a book by real Christian <br />scholars like Budzsizweski or Edward Feser or Carl Trueman or even to listen to Bishop Robert Barron on a youtube video. Better to attack a straw man or dismiss Aquinas with some opaque and idioglossic joke.<br />As for "spirituality" (what an elastic word!) and "orthodoxy", anyone who wants legitimately to claim the name of catholic Christian should really do some listening to that Doctor of the Church, St Irenaeus of Lyons. It seems to me that all the issues mentioned above were adumbrated in his "Adversus Haereses". Gnosticism is almost the default setting of human "spirituality" and it has plenty of modern reflexes in popular culture (e.g. "Star Wars", mystical Greenism, mystical neo-Maoritanga) as well as exotic sexual "identities". Post-Christian Quakerism is another example of modern Gnosticism.<br />St Irenaeus reminds us in that great work that the Gnostics were adept in taking Christian language and reconfiguring it to mean something entirely different (just as, he said, the jewels in a mosaic of a man could be reconfigured to depict instead a dog). "Not everyone who calls me "Lord, Lord" but he who does the will of my heavenly Father" is the touchstone of true spirituality. <br /><br />Pax et bonum, <br />William Greenhalgh Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-58054536373446816452022-09-04T03:58:41.754+12:002022-09-04T03:58:41.754+12:00ADU is + Peter's airport. And through it pass ...ADU is + Peter's airport. And through it pass many who are *constitutionally* close to one or the other of these relative extremes of Less is More and More is More. They are who they are. And as with those couples, the feelings of each about the other are mixed. Do they get something from Christianity that I do not? But then-- what a crazy way they have of thinking about God! <br /><br />Unlike the couples-- every analogy breaks down somewhere-- we see arguments here that boil down to: "I cannot live with the attrait that I have and the faith to which it inclines me unless I try to tear down the faith of those not like me and the ways they participate in the life of God." Which is like one of our couples thinking that they are not themselves married unless they can convince a very different couple that they are not married. Which is absurd. They all have the same papers from the same source.<br /><br />So that + Peter will spend minimal time as a security guard here-- and so that I will not waste my own time!-- I do not participate in more than shallow conversations at ADU unless I have robust confidence that the participants are well above that need to bolster their own insecurities by fighting with others. To nobody's discredit, this is rare.<br /><br />Sadly for + Peter, but fortunately for my schedule (and yours too, I observe), traveling salesmen nearly always try to sell unicycles here by attacking those of other attraits. "I should not have to show why my unicycle is good. You should just be like me and then you will want to buy one. If you read the right books..." Natural Law was the latest example, but as this is an airport we have seen several a year for several years.<br /><br />Again, it is not common for a heart to charitably comprehend other attraits. Souls do not know what they do not see. Spiritual direction can help this, but then if one has to see that one does not see something to seek spiritual direction... Another topic for another week.<br /><br /><br />BW<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-13802909499280834452022-09-04T03:57:25.068+12:002022-09-04T03:57:25.068+12:00As you will have guessed, this is an analogy.
Th...As you will have guessed, this is an analogy. <br /><br />There are many kinds of Christians, of course. Let's say that there will never, ever be fewer than two extremes. <br /><br />There will always be those who constitutionally see faith as the alone with the Alone. There is usually something other Christians do that seems empty and intrusive to these spiritual solitaries. Within the type, tastes vary. Some shake off ritual that they don't need, others beliefs that they don't need, others morals that they don't need. To them everything that they do not need for their flights to the Alone subtracts from their joy in doing it. The ancient canons oblige hermits to attend church no less than once each year. But also no more.<br /><br />There will always be others who no less constitutionally see religion as *religio*, the ligatures, the obligations, really the ligaments that bind them to God along with his whole luminous creation. As God is not alone, so they are never solitary in the Lord. To be fully alive in him, they participate in wider circles of being-- the teeming life of wild places, those extended families we just mentioned, the crowds of any metropolis, the extended Body of the saints from Israel to whatever future they know, the liturgy as an immensely complex representation of the Light in heaven. <br /><br />To participate in so much, they seem to rejoice in more, sometimes much more, of everything that helps them to do that. Not just the Lord's Prayer but the psalms; not just sacraments but sacramentals; indeed the cycles of prayer in whole liturgical ordos. Not just a love mantra but the creed understood in some depth; not just the testimony that the Holy Spirit has given the saints since; but all the perspectives on those illuminations that souls praying through them have found. And not just bare harmlessness but the Decalogue followed in a certain mindfulness of created existence; not just canons but the ethos that the Holy Spirit gives to the Body; not just obedience to law but some awareness of what Christ is doing in even civil institutions. To them this is all personal salvation because it mends in their hearts St Maximus's five schisms in the cosmos: between Creator and creatures, things invisible and things visible, heaven and earth, paradise and world, man and woman. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-71612336727001064222022-09-04T03:55:05.058+12:002022-09-04T03:55:05.058+12:00Father Ron, I've always liked your comments, b...Father Ron, I've always liked your comments, but... I've liked them more in the past few months. Reading them, I've had the thought that maybe something really good has happened for you? I hope so. :-)<br /><br />*<br /><br />There are never just two kinds of anything, but let's say that there are at least two kinds of couples. <br /><br />For one kind, the quintessence of wedding is an impulsive dash to tie the knot in city hall. A simple moment, theirs alone. Since marriage to them is an act of will, that to them is perfection. Every complication added to that smiling notary sealing a certificate is subtracted from their joy. <br /><br />For another kind of couple, the quintessence of wedding is the gathering, mingling, and in a way merging of their whole social worlds, beginning with the families at the cores of their lives, but including close friends and perhaps their career networks. So there must be ceremony so that others can participate, more of it perhaps for more participants. Participants need hospitality, so that must be planned and arranged, and the details of that must be worthy of the occasion. Big weddings inevitably attract many travelers-- another layer of detail-- and so today those who can are wed in some destination to which their guests might like to travel (three from experience: a beach in Mexico, an estate on Martha's Vineyard, a castle in Austria). For these couples, persons are persons in that they are social beings, a marriage is a new social world, and a wedding is its founding act of hospitality. Insofar as the details show care, they are not distractions, let alone subtractions, but the whole point.<br /><br />If on the day after their weddings, these couples should meet in an airport someplace, each will recognise the other as one of another sort. Each will have mixed feelings. Did they get something from wedding that we did not? But then-- what a crazy way they have of thinking about marriage! Deep differences. Still, I doubt that security guards break up many fights over who had the right kind of wedding. And we know that they are all married.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-84559262552741386062022-09-03T20:55:31.582+12:002022-09-03T20:55:31.582+12:00Bowman, we have started.
We are stretching into ...Bowman, we have started. <br /><br />We are stretching into different, interesting directions. Again, it's a credit to Peter that he *generously* hosts this open exchange without closing it down (or taking a backward step). <br /><br />We *are* discussing orthodoxy.Mark Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03499278196265491516noreply@blogger.com