Saturday, August 13, 2011

Sin of omission?

Which post-British riots' speech should the ABC have given? The first one at this link, or the one he did in fact give, reprinted below the first?

People are asking here in NZ whether there could be a similar outburst in one or more of our cities. No Western country is immune these days from some deprivation occurring as a direct or indirect result of the world recession.


Pageantmaster said...

While I understand the reasons for both speeches, in my view he should have given neither.

Instead of either talking about secular breakdown or apologising for society ignoring the church's teaching, and the church's failure to preach it, in my view he should have preached the lesson Christ taught us in his life and death as God become man, dying on the cross to take away our sins and restoring us in God's love, about coming to bring us salvation and a hope, and his teaching that we should love God and one another and expressing his determination to do all he can to preach this message speaking for himself, his bishops and the Church of England.

Then he could talk about how that can be put into practice in caring for one another in the community, supporting struggling families and their children and giving our youngsters opportunity, hope and support with all the effort the church can muster, and encouraging others to commit themselves to do the same.

But for the message of a Christian bishop, it all needs to be rooted in Christ and the hope He brings to mankind.

That would be my suggestion, fwiw.

Peter Carrell said...

Its a good suggestion!