Interesting keeping a skimming eye on the comments on St Matthew's-in-the-city's own posting of Glynn Cardy's sermon. Commenters are either for the poster - think its humourous, unproblematic, time for the antis to get a life - or against the poster - think Glynn and co are destined for defrocking, hell or worse. Seems there is no room in that particular inn for a reasoned, diplomatic response to the billboard! See how these Christians love one another and prepare themselves for an eternity with their brothers and sisters, not!
(There are some honourable exceptions including one by a friend of mine who is one of a very few identifying himself with first and second names).
"Seems there is no room in that particular inn for a reasoned, diplomatic response to the billboard!"
ReplyDeletePeter, triangulation - placing yourself above the fray with an amused distance - is not a proper response where blasphemy is concerned. Anyone who likes that poster clearly hates orthodox Christianity. Do not allow your friendship with individuals to blunt the word of truth. Proverbs 27.6. We will all appear before Christ.
I think you may be right but missing the point! Glynn will appear before Christ. But will knee jerk fundamentalist frothing prepare him or convince him more than ever that his progressive agenda is needed?
ReplyDeletePeter, pardon me while I wipe away the froth from my knees.
ReplyDeleteYou know the man, I don't. But from what I've read or heard of hid own words, he believes so little in the historic credal faith that he will go his own way regardless.
And if you ever wonder about the mess Anglicanism is in, you have one of the reasons before you.
You are pardoned!
ReplyDeleteJust to add a comment about engaging as Christians - and I begin by relating another true story, to perhaps some detriment.
ReplyDeleteIt was an incensed gathering of broadly conservative types; it was a war meeting. "What was to be done? Jack Spong was coming to town?!" NO! This was not a meeting in Christchurch, just to fend off that possible misunderstanding!
The key coordinator asked the room (of some 175 good folk): "Who has read JS's work? Five of his books? 4? 3? 2? Any book at all?" I do not recall exact numbers; but it was woeful ... I.e. few had actually read anything substantial at all ...
Back to St Matt's and the present controversy. Two levels of analysis are absolutely vital, to my mind. 1. GC has it all wrong at the level of "male sperm" and all that; and Anglican Downunder has well and truly nailed this feature. 2. He has also nailed the second requisite level of analysis, that of systematic theology, which always sits below the surface as either quick-sand or rock foundations (Yes; Matt 7 DOES come to mind).
Bottom-line: when and as we try to engage - even with the likes of dear GC's non theology (koans are more apt perhaps) - I have to agree that "reasoned responses" are vital, as is courtesy. Both of these traits demand that we do our homework at levels 1 & 2 above, re both the specifics and that which is actually being revealed at this particular point. For we need to persist with all of these approaches (reasoned research, courtesy, little froth, symptoms/causes, etc) if only to try to steer our way out of the mess we Anglicans are in ... Coffee time Anon?
Bryden, you've a good orthodox theological mind, I've read some of your pieces, and be assured, I've long ago done my homework on levels 1 and 2 as well. Spong, you'll remember, was likened by Rowan Williams to 'a clever sixth former' in his questions - indeed smarter than a lot of the sixth formers or undergraduates I have taught. But if anyone was impressed by his (very derivative) writings or ideas, that only shows how low the level of biblical and theological knowledge is in the Anglican Communion - esp. in the US.
ReplyDeleteAs for Mr Cardy, it isn't simply a question of anger at smarta**e blasphemers (I know plenty of them), but that one of them should be an Archdeacon in the Anglican Church - a 2ic to the bishop.
And like you, with my rather 'British' temperament I believe too in "reasoned research, courtesy, little froth" etc when dealing with an unbeliever. Is that how you consider Cardy - an unbeliever in need of illumination rather than an authorized teacher of the Christian faith? And yes, Matthew 7 does come to find: 'Not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord ...'
But when I turn to the 'seven woes' further on, in Matthew 23, I find that our Lord had little by way of 'reasoned research' and ZERO of courtesy to the educated religious leaders of his day, whom he called 'hypocrites, blind guides, whitewashed tombs' and host of other invective. No, Jesus would definitely not be accepted by the standards of modern indifferentism to truth.