Why blog my (naturally, obviously, of course, indeed) profound thoughts when others are writing much, much more profoundly? :)
Four articles have caught my eye in the past week, and while they all have something to say to the enduring quest of this blog, what it means to be Anglican in the world today, none directly speak to that quest, so, a little holiday from the "purity" of usual focus here :).
In no particular order of priority ...
(1) What does the Bible say about a question du jour such as immigration? RNS has an insightful and challenging article, comparing The Books of Ruth and of Ezra, by Erin Galgay Walsh and Marshall Cunningham, titled "In the Bible's Immigrant Story, a Model for Humanizing the Vulnerable".
(2) Speaking of the Bible, RNS also has an article about Pope Leo XIV's notable use of Scripture in his (and Pope Francis') recently published apostolic exhortation, "Delexi te" ("I have loved you"), "Pope Leo Stresses Scripture as Foundation of Christian Concern for the Poor." makes the point:
"In the past, Catholic social teaching was based on papal documents and appeals to the natural law. Scriptural passages would be sprinkled in like seasoning on a well-prepared meal, but Scripture was never at the heart of the argument.
As Protestants embraced “sola scriptura” (by Scripture alone), Catholics prided themselves on teachings that were based on both faith and reason. The church’s teachings were heavily dependent on Aristotelian philosophy as interpreted by scholastic philosophers and theologians. Scripture served as “proof texts” to foregone conclusions.
Catholics were expected to accept this teaching on papal authority. Others were expected to be convinced by the clarity of the argument.
The advantage of appealing to reason, not faith, was that it allowed the church to engage in dialogue with secular thinkers. The disadvantage was that it was dry and uninspiring. It also made it difficult for Protestants to appreciate Catholic social teaching.
“Dilexi te” (“I have loved you”), the new apostolic exhortation issued Oct. 4 by Pope Leo XIV, is different. This is a document addressed to Christians and it is steeped in Scripture."
My own wondering is whether Pope Leo, being an Augustinian, is a "steeped in Scripture" theologian because, well, that was how St. Augustine wrote his theology!
(3) First Things carries a fascinating essay by noted theologian Hans Boersma, "Modernity and God-talk" which digs deep into how we understand God in God's essence and attributes, finds shortcomings in the standard Western theological way of discussing this matter (i.e. Aquinas not up to scratch!!) and heads into Eastern Orthodoxy with its "essence and energies" distinction, and sees that as, well, more helpful ...
(4) Back to RNS, this time to the important subject of both humanizing Palestinians and remembering them, especially our Palestinian brothers and sisters (that is, in the context of proposals to rebuild Gaza without much actual reference to Gazan Palestinians, continuing violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank and in the context of the Knesset making actual legal moves to annex the West Bank, even when Vice President Vance was in Israel and visiting the Knesset).
"They couldn't help Gazans. So they wrote a book they hope might offer comfort and wisdom" features two Palestinian Christian brothers from Jerusalem, John and Samual Munayer, who have written a The Cross and the Olive Tree: Cultivating Palestinian Theology amid Gaza, published last month by Orbis Books. This book is a collection of essays by young Palestinian Christians in Israel and abroad which offers reflections "on how liberation theology can offer hope in the midst of destruction."
4 comments:
Hi Peter, thanks for this! I've visited your link no.1, about Ruth, and I love her story so it was a joy to read the article. As a bonus I found another wonderful article there, I'd like to share it too - about an unexpected friendship between a rabbi (Pittsburgh) and the Black minister from an AME Church in Charleston - a friendship that came about because of tragedy - mass shootings at Tree Of Life synagogue and Mother Emanuel AME church.
"...this week marks the seventh anniversary of Myers’ and Manning’s unlikely friendship — one that has led both men to believe that love is stronger than the hate that seeks to divide us."
https://religionnews.com/2025/10/27/tree-of-life-rabbi-and-mother-emmanuel-pastor-7-years-of-a-friendship-forged-in-tragedy/
[Just for context, ages ago I'd watched a video from a Remembrance Weekend for the "Emanuel 9" so I already had an awareness of the folk there, and Rev. Eric Manning]
https://www.foxcarolina.com/video/2022/06/17/raw-video-mother-emanuel-ame-church-kicks-off-national-bible-study-years-after-charleston-church-shooting/
Oh, (2) Dilexi te, is wonderful!
I've downloaded the pdf of Dilexi te and not read much of it yet but this made an impression:
Love for the Lord, then, is one with love for the poor. The same Jesus who tells us, “The poor you will always have with you” (Mt 26:11), also promises the disciples: “I am with you always” (Mt 28:20).
I was like.. that's a great connection!
Thanks for that article also, Peter.
I'm hoping to hear from others soon :)
Although I read but did not get around to commenting on the previous blog it sprung to mind when reading your second article of interest +Peter regarding the Catholic publication and specifically the comment on how Papal documents of the past weighed too heavily in on reason and lightly on scripture, leading to them being dry and uninspiring 😏 contrasted with the concern shown re GAFCON’s new venture as having the Bible as it’s primary point of reference. Good on the Catholics I say. It seems to ‘easy’ to seemingly make theological teaching more palatable by relegating scripture to second place after reason and tradition and doctrine.
I understand the Presbyterian’s also have the Bible as the primary authority in their governing documents. While I appreciate liturgy in its concise rendering of our faith, and I find meaning and wisdom in tradition, neither hold the sway for me that Jesus/God/Holy Spirit and the Bible do. I therefore personally hold the Bible as more of an authority than doctrine or liturgy, these I see as guides formed by saints as opposed to the last word on a matter. Notwithstanding, I would have some hesitations about how the proposed communion’s leaning in regards to how they might interpret the Bible or what they emphasise or prioritise. This if anything I see as our human propensity to be parochial and want the scripture to say what we want it to.
My own experience contrasts with some of the reasons you gave +Peter regarding why the Bible can not be the central authority. I suspect because looking at the Bible academically is something I have found doesn’t work for me - I get the points but whenever I have done so I find examining the Bible in this way to be empty. I find it difficult to separate scripture from Jesus, of course I know the Bible is not literally Jesus but for me they are intertwined Jesus being the Word of God. When I returned to faith I received a scripture verse while praying only I didn’t know it was one, until months later while reading when to my surprise I found it was in the Bible. I prayed for two years every day for a person to come to faith, all earthly circumstances or odds were against this, I prayed that it would be so because God said in his Word that He would draw all men to Himself (after an older lady at church told me when I enquired that the Bible said if we prayed according to His will it would be done - but how did we know his will?, and she said what is in the Bible is His will). At the end of two years the person ended up praying and asking God if he was real to show him by the end of the weekend (lol I know!! Brave)… He attended a church that weekend and someone from the pulpit gave a word of knowledge that hit him hard, the next week he had a dream that symbolised Baptism and four weeks later he was baptised. It is for these reasons that I am convinced scripture is God breathed despite the wrestling we all do with different passages and supposed contradictions.
While the Pharisees were rebuked for knowing the scriptures but not knowing the God of the scriptures Jesus also told them if they had believed Moses they would have believed Him (for Moses wrote of Him). Now I am assuming Jesus is referring to the Hebrew Bible which therefore indicates the authority Jesus himself placed on scripture. I sense from this there is a difference between intellectually knowing the scriptures and believing what they say and taking them to heart so to speak.
And well this is mostly me just mulling things over….
Your "mulling things over" is interesting... thanks, Jean!
Post a Comment