It's the least reflected upon public holiday in NZ today. Oh, there is the odd piece in the media about the significance of this day in the history of improvements to society, but nothing like what we get for ANZAC Day or Christmas or Easter. Even Queen's Birthday weekend will be addressed with a list of honours for the great and good of our society.
But a holiday is pleasant, especially in the spring, so no one thinks this one is past its 'use by date'!
A cursory glance around the net offers somethings which catch my eye:
PJ O'Rourke on the forthcoming US elections will not at all amuse any Democratic leaning readers here, but he writes like the wind. Oh that some writers on politics had his flair to write sentences like these which sum up his argument, "This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order."
John Richardson at The Ugley Vicar posts a sermon which neatly reminds us that the Reformation was not a mistake but a necessary correction in the history of theology.
The 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible is coming up next year. An excellent opportunity for unadulterated fanzine writing, what with no one particularly organised into societies and promotional groups to remind us of the significance of (say) the Geneva Bible. Susan Elkin helpfully reminds us that the KJB was a point in evolution of contribution of biblical English to English life, not a 'creatio ex nihilo' to which we pay unrestrained cultural homage.
Thinking Anglicans, as always, can be relied upon to draw our attention to negative, critical, antagonistic writing about the Anglican Covenant. May I remind readers that the Anglican Covenant is a bit like the Reformation: it is possible to understand it as a mistake that should never (have) happen(ed), but there was and is a reason for each, and in both cases it flows from the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and recognition that there is only one gospel not two gospels.
If only a PJ O'Rourke was writing ++Rowan's speeches, we might have a better groundswell of support for the Covenant. It is not stick to beat people with, it is a restraining order on unchecked diversity being blessed by the name 'Anglican.'
PS Noticed later, thanks to Anglican Taonga:
Gile Fraser on Multiculturalism and Liberalism ... I wonder if Howard Pilgrim (a commenter here) will note Fraser's belief that liberalism emerged from the English Civil War, not 1000 years ago (as was recently argued here :) ).
A fairly deep reflection on 'global Christianity' at The Immanent Frame. Here is a teasing taster or tasty teaser:
"Drawing on Paul’s abrupt conversion, and on what they understand as his commitment to making Christianity a universal religion, these philosophers have put Christian categories back at the center of debates over how to think about society and its potential transformation. Although their relationships to the truth claims of Christianity are varied, they have made it possible for philosophers and other kinds of critical thinkers, not just to think about religion, but also, in important respects, to think with it, or at least with some of its conceptual, and sometimes its narrative, resources."
OK, I will rise to your bait, Peter:- "I wonder if Howard Pilgrim (a commenter here) will note Fraser's belief that liberalism emerged from the English Civil War, not 1000 years ago." Giles Fraser, an excellent fellow who should be compulsory reading for all conservative Anglicans, and I are referring to two different things. His "liberalism" is an aspect of English politics, prominent since the Civil War. Mine is an aspect of the gospel transforming the life and faith of the church throughout its history, including at least the last 1000 years of Anglicanism - well before the Reformation, that is to say.
ReplyDeleteN.B. You may not have noticed that in my previous comment, in the thread you refer to, I posit an essential dialogue between conservative and liberal theological streams going back to the dawn of the scriptural traditions. Is that worth a response?
What did you find to like about Mickey Rourke's rant, Peter? You say that he writes like the wind. I say he passes wind instead of writing. Was there anything in his string of accusations that has any evidential basis? Is you write like him, you would have no readers!
ReplyDeleteHi Howard,
ReplyDeleteThanks for rising!
I see your point re liberalism; but at the time of the English Civil War was 'theological' liberalism and 'political' liberalism distinguishable?
An ancient dialogue between 'conservative' and 'liberal' since the dawn of scriptural time? Could be. I certainly see signs in the OT of an ancient debate, e.g. between the Deuteronomist and the Chronicler, but whether that can fairly be described, without anachronism, as 'conservative' v 'liberal' is something to ponder.
PJ O'Rourke: ranter, yes; wordsmith, yes; acute critic of democratic socialism and socialist democrats? Yes! I think in the midst of the rant and its excessive use of the word 'hate', O'Rourke maks an important point. Do those on the political left truly believe in prosperity for the citizens of their nation, and are they committed to principles which will create and nurture prosperity rather than foster dependency on the state? (There are other questions to ask in politics, such as asking those on the right whether they have something to offer those squashed by profiteering and heartless business practice.)
"Micky" O'Rourke? Tolle, lege! (vel modo 'lege' si i-pad non habes...) - it's P.J.! - and he's still funny after all these years, as only a rightwing ex-Rolling Stone writer could be. But for a somewhat deeper (and hardly pro-Republican) swinge at America's decline under Obama (and before), look at Mark Steyn's latest fusillade, on how America has become the world's leading debtor nation in under a generation, such that the INTEREST on US borrowing (from China) will soon be enough to pay for China's military expansion into - the Pacific. The Pacific a Chinese sea, eh? If Steyn is correct, the financial, economic and cultural rot is a lot deeper and more pervasive than we are willing to admit.
ReplyDeleteAs for Giles Fraser - thanks for the Labour Day laugh! Fraser's grasp of history is as shaky as his understanding of Reformation theology. He should stick to reading Nietzsche.
Al M.