In the Christian life, St. John of the Cross says:
Faith is what happens to our understanding;
Hope is what happens to our remembering;
Love is what happens to our wanting.
To grow up as a Christian is to take that journey from understanding into faith, remembering into hope, and will into love.
There are matters too of institutionalism, from his lecture:
We can construct satisfying stories; we can recreate an imagined past; we take refuge not in good tradition but an artificial traditionalism which is not good. We pretend continuities that are not there. Is the Church an environment in which people can learn to open themselves to joy that can only come by letting go of anxious selfishness and the obsession with 'choosing'? Just as it is a great challenge to the Church to be a dependable place and patient, it is a great challenge for it to be sufficiently still for people to open up, sufficiently quiet and unanxious so people can receive what the ultimate truth of the universe wants to give them.
I quote these in order to wait for the day that the same Archbishop (as the one who lectures) can greet a new bishop in The Episcopal Church without referring to an institutional so-called "gracious restraint" that amounts to 'choosing' (in other words, why not ask instead, 'Is she right for the job or not?') and not for him to seek solace in artificial traditionalism.
Update
You'd expect nothing more than this pathetic institutional response from Fulcrum.
8 comments:
You took my breath away with your observation...thank you.
Leonardo
Excellent, Adrian. Do Rowan's conflicting words demonstrate a divided mind or a forked tongue?
Fulcrum should be required to explain what authority exactly the individuals and institutions it cites have? NONE cover exactly all the granted authority.
As I noted on my little blog, the reaction driven language from "instruments of unity" through "instruments of communion" to "Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion" is an artifact of power seeking, not an accepted institution's evolution.
FWIW
jimB
Well said Sir.
And thanks for the informative link. Perhaps we (TEC) can shift some funding around to mission instead of that silly tea party in Kent. Seems like we've been subsidizing the "host" long enough.
It's all bureaucracy. There seems to be this running theme at this time.
Adrian, when I left my earlier comment, I confess that I had not read the whole of Rowan's lecture. Now I have, and I was moved to laugh out loud at certain of his statements in the lecture as I thought of his recent statement on Mary Glasspool receiving consents. How does Rowan live with such apparent disconnections? Does he compartmentalize Anglican Communion affairs to such an extent that they remain unaffected by his faith, philosophy, and theology? Rowan is truly a puzzle.
I was waiting when he did the lecture. It is partly why I transcribed it, because I knew he would contradict himself as soon as it was back to business. The lecture was so good, but he clearly thinks one thing and acts another.
One of the problems with Rowan is that he lives so much in that realm of understanding instead of the realm of hope. He is also afraid of consequences -- surely the great enemy of action. To invert the proverb, "Fear casts out perfect love."
Post a Comment