Lately I've been delving into the dark underworld of church websites. All part of the arduous process of searching for a job after graduation. Good to know the lay of the land, see who might be moving on or who might have opportunities for growth in the future.
As I've been looking around I've been struck by how few websites are interactive for users/visitors. Church websites are mainly set up like bulletin boards, places where you can get information (hopefully) about service times, staff, community projects, and so on. These things are essential, but I'm wondering if it is sufficient for modern communities. Think about the popularity of Facebook/Twitter/etc. These are not sites where you go to get information, but places where you join in discussion and find communities of like-minded people and get to know them. They are fast-moving, vibrant, and unpredictable. By comparison, the Rosetta Stone was probably updated more recently than some of the websites out there (and contains more useful information).
Here's a wacky idea - why don't we have members of our congregations contributing regularly to the content of their church website? Wouldn't it be encouraging to read about a particular Home Group and how they've been reaching out to people with the Gospel? How about using our church websites to let people know about touch footy games/surf trips/shopping excursions/movie dates? Is a youth group discussion forum a possibility? At the moment everything is looking very Top-Down and that is rarely a good thing. Let's give Power to the People!
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Back Home Again
He has returned! Yes, after months of procrastination I have chosen to resurrect The Starry Crown for further reflections, both logical and illogical. To tell the truth, I never intended for this blog to lapse into obscurity but pressures of life really overwhelmed me in the last few months and suddenly it seemed that posting random stuff in the public domain was not a life priority. Well, the prodigal son has returned. I hope that over this year I'll be able to bounce around ideas that have occurred to me while enduring the trials of 4th Year at Moore College as well as musical/political/social rants. It is also a good time for a new beginning as I have just returned from Moore Mission at St Philip's York St.
This was a great mission in so many ways. Massive respeckt to Justin, MPJ, and all those at CBF for organizing the program. Many thanks also to Ian Powell for coming in and giving our Sydney Anglican complacency a boot up the backside with refreshing honesty! The time spent on walk-up was productive and I got to speak to many people about Jesus. But the long journeys in from the West to the CBD every day was draining. A less-than-full program also made it hard to feel like we really got off the ground.
But the hardest thing for me was the concept of ministering to the City Worker Tribe. It's no secret that the corporate culture is one where I don't feel at home. More than that, though. I think I'd rather do five years at Long Bay than be chained to a workspace in a glass-framed skyscraper. After a week I could feel the life draining out of me.
I discussed this with a compadre on the way home last night. He quite rightly pointed out that all of us are called to cross-cultural ministry. That is very true. But is it possible to minister to a culture about which there is nothing to admire? When people go on long-term mission my gut feeling is that there has to be something about the place they go that they really like. It might be the history, the language, the culture, or even the food. But what it there was nada, nothing, zero, zip? Can we really 'become like' something we hate? Is it even wise to try? While the apostle Paul was deeply troubled at the idolatry he found in Athens he could still find a way of placing his message in the context of a culture that was on the search for religious truth but hadn't found it.
On the other hand, where do we stop? Exactly how much do we have to see in a culture that is redeemable before we decide that we're the right minister for the job? Will a culture that seems very close to our own social ideals end up subtly corrupting the message we bring? Am I putting culture over Gospel? Where is the wise man in this situation?
On a different note, I went to see the Archibald Prize yesterday afternoon. First time I have ever done that. Some good pictures there, plus a lot of Very Ordinary. I voted for the picture of Archbishop Elliot and his cat for the People's Choice. Go see it!
This was a great mission in so many ways. Massive respeckt to Justin, MPJ, and all those at CBF for organizing the program. Many thanks also to Ian Powell for coming in and giving our Sydney Anglican complacency a boot up the backside with refreshing honesty! The time spent on walk-up was productive and I got to speak to many people about Jesus. But the long journeys in from the West to the CBD every day was draining. A less-than-full program also made it hard to feel like we really got off the ground.
But the hardest thing for me was the concept of ministering to the City Worker Tribe. It's no secret that the corporate culture is one where I don't feel at home. More than that, though. I think I'd rather do five years at Long Bay than be chained to a workspace in a glass-framed skyscraper. After a week I could feel the life draining out of me.
I discussed this with a compadre on the way home last night. He quite rightly pointed out that all of us are called to cross-cultural ministry. That is very true. But is it possible to minister to a culture about which there is nothing to admire? When people go on long-term mission my gut feeling is that there has to be something about the place they go that they really like. It might be the history, the language, the culture, or even the food. But what it there was nada, nothing, zero, zip? Can we really 'become like' something we hate? Is it even wise to try? While the apostle Paul was deeply troubled at the idolatry he found in Athens he could still find a way of placing his message in the context of a culture that was on the search for religious truth but hadn't found it.
On the other hand, where do we stop? Exactly how much do we have to see in a culture that is redeemable before we decide that we're the right minister for the job? Will a culture that seems very close to our own social ideals end up subtly corrupting the message we bring? Am I putting culture over Gospel? Where is the wise man in this situation?
On a different note, I went to see the Archibald Prize yesterday afternoon. First time I have ever done that. Some good pictures there, plus a lot of Very Ordinary. I voted for the picture of Archbishop Elliot and his cat for the People's Choice. Go see it!
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Haven't We Met Before?
Citizens and Legal Immigrants,
If you have been following developments in the noble art of politics (a passtime in Australia something akin to cage fighting) and you live in NSW you may have felt a slight twinge of deja-vu as you pondered the papers over your morning Weetbix. For the second time in a week a major political party facing electoral oblivion took the risky step of ditching a progressive yet flawed leader in favour of a risky conservative. Enough has been written about how this might affect elections in the next 2 years. But it occurs to me that for both the federal Liberals and the NSW ALP the election of new leaders may represent a conservative shift of the political spectrum.
Let me lay my own cards on the table. I believe that the language and policies of modern politics reflect an economic perspective on society with which I don't see as primary. Labels of 'right' and 'left' I find generally misleading as these have come to have economic and sociological implications that I believe need to be reexamined more broadly. As someone who takes a more communitarian view I find myself identifying more with the Democratic Labor Party side of the Labor split that occurred in the 1950s. The DLP's position was that while the rights of the working classes should be protected the way to do this was through supporting community interests rather those of trade unions. The DLP had a large role in Australian politics through to the 1970s and their demise left a void later filled by the Democrats, who were always a party of pragmatism than ideologies (something which ultimately led to their downfall). That said, it is good to see the DLP making a return in Victoria and we may see a return in the Federal Senate in the next decade if forces favour. In summary, I personally have no strong affinity for either the ALP or Liberals as I feel that their policies are derived from a faulty view of society and the role of government. That said, I do support our leaders and try to see the best side in all who step up to a difficult job.
So, what about the changes we have witnessed in the last week? What does this say about our nation and state? There is no denying that social changes have pushed these major parties to take unusual steps regarding their leadership. Despite almost a decade of War On Terror we are no closer to having real stability in our region, seen by ongoing political tensions and high numbers of refugees. Climate change has started to seriously impact our economy and industry is being pushed to change. Add to the fact that despite weathering a major economic crisis amazingly well Australians are nervous about what the next few years may bring. Have our political leaders read the entrails and determined that we need to put on the social brake? Have they perceived the Australian Public as scaredy cats so they brought in The Boxer and The Cheerleader to boost our egos? Is it a preemptive strike to prevent a threat of rising nationalism with burning crosses and pogroms and annexations?
On the other hand, they might all just be completely mad...
If you have been following developments in the noble art of politics (a passtime in Australia something akin to cage fighting) and you live in NSW you may have felt a slight twinge of deja-vu as you pondered the papers over your morning Weetbix. For the second time in a week a major political party facing electoral oblivion took the risky step of ditching a progressive yet flawed leader in favour of a risky conservative. Enough has been written about how this might affect elections in the next 2 years. But it occurs to me that for both the federal Liberals and the NSW ALP the election of new leaders may represent a conservative shift of the political spectrum.
Let me lay my own cards on the table. I believe that the language and policies of modern politics reflect an economic perspective on society with which I don't see as primary. Labels of 'right' and 'left' I find generally misleading as these have come to have economic and sociological implications that I believe need to be reexamined more broadly. As someone who takes a more communitarian view I find myself identifying more with the Democratic Labor Party side of the Labor split that occurred in the 1950s. The DLP's position was that while the rights of the working classes should be protected the way to do this was through supporting community interests rather those of trade unions. The DLP had a large role in Australian politics through to the 1970s and their demise left a void later filled by the Democrats, who were always a party of pragmatism than ideologies (something which ultimately led to their downfall). That said, it is good to see the DLP making a return in Victoria and we may see a return in the Federal Senate in the next decade if forces favour. In summary, I personally have no strong affinity for either the ALP or Liberals as I feel that their policies are derived from a faulty view of society and the role of government. That said, I do support our leaders and try to see the best side in all who step up to a difficult job.
So, what about the changes we have witnessed in the last week? What does this say about our nation and state? There is no denying that social changes have pushed these major parties to take unusual steps regarding their leadership. Despite almost a decade of War On Terror we are no closer to having real stability in our region, seen by ongoing political tensions and high numbers of refugees. Climate change has started to seriously impact our economy and industry is being pushed to change. Add to the fact that despite weathering a major economic crisis amazingly well Australians are nervous about what the next few years may bring. Have our political leaders read the entrails and determined that we need to put on the social brake? Have they perceived the Australian Public as scaredy cats so they brought in The Boxer and The Cheerleader to boost our egos? Is it a preemptive strike to prevent a threat of rising nationalism with burning crosses and pogroms and annexations?
On the other hand, they might all just be completely mad...
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Heavenly Age?
What age would you be if you could choose? Many people as they get older wish they could revisit the glory days of youth when aches and pains and injuries were non-existent. I must admit that as I have reached the age when sitting on the floor produces twinges in the joints I have some sympathy for this position.
However, I have come to the conclusion that if I could be any age I would fix myself at 60. The reason for this is that when you are 60 everything that you do is a plus in the eyes of others. Want to retire? Why not? After all, you're 60 and deserve a good rest. Want to keep working? Go ahead! You're 60 and at your most wise and respected, its a time when you can really get things done. Taking up a new sport/hobby? Isn't it amazing how these 60-somethings can still take life by the scruff of the neck. Want to doze in an armchair? That's the sort of thing that 60 year olds do.
You see? At 60 you are not helpless but powerful! Everyone cuts you slack (except perhaps your life partner!) and you can do whatever you want. Let's hear it for the 60-somethings! I can't wait to join you...
Currently reading: Aristotle, "The Politics"
Currently watching: The Muppet Show series 3
Currently listening to: Mumford & Sons, "Sigh No More" (review coming soon)
However, I have come to the conclusion that if I could be any age I would fix myself at 60. The reason for this is that when you are 60 everything that you do is a plus in the eyes of others. Want to retire? Why not? After all, you're 60 and deserve a good rest. Want to keep working? Go ahead! You're 60 and at your most wise and respected, its a time when you can really get things done. Taking up a new sport/hobby? Isn't it amazing how these 60-somethings can still take life by the scruff of the neck. Want to doze in an armchair? That's the sort of thing that 60 year olds do.
You see? At 60 you are not helpless but powerful! Everyone cuts you slack (except perhaps your life partner!) and you can do whatever you want. Let's hear it for the 60-somethings! I can't wait to join you...
Currently reading: Aristotle, "The Politics"
Currently watching: The Muppet Show series 3
Currently listening to: Mumford & Sons, "Sigh No More" (review coming soon)
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Dark Star Crashes
Greetings My Friends,
I have been remiss. Inattentive. Yes, even lazy! I have been neglecting you, my drones, over the last six weeks, while trying to navigate the difficult terrain of Moore College 3rd Year. But as such I forgot one of the primary purposes of this blog, which was to be an outlet for random thoughts and musings. So I shall now muse on, and whether they listen or refuse to listen they will know that a Blog has been in their midst.
I just finished reading Blair Jackson's excellent biography of Jerry Garcia entitled "Garcia: An American Life". The information about Garcia's side projects was greatly enlightening about the character of one of the greatest musicians of the 20th Century. But even better was his analysis of the shifts in the Grateful Dead's music within the last 15 years. He considers carefully the character of each year, pointing out when a particular tour produced notable experimentation or high points as well as analysing the reasons for certain periods lacking that certain spark. As a result I have been listening to a lot of Dead music during my study time. For those who have not experienced this wonderful band, go scouting on archive.org for some free (and legal) concert downloads. I recommend something from 1974, 1977, or 1990 to get started with.
I love jamming music. Music which flows out of the soul, not as a recital of a strict arrangement but as a step into the unknown to create art on the spot in fellowship with others. I once briefly played in a band with a songwriter who believed that a performance should replicate as closely as possible the band's studio recordings. I thought he was crazy. The band did not last very long.
Free music. Modal explorations. Polyrythms. Sonic effects and feedback. Losing your way and finding it again. The development of a groupthink to bring Truth out of Chaos. Where has it gone? Certainly in the Australian scene it has never been popular. In the 60s we copied the British Invasion. The 70s was blues-based pub rock (with a brief flowering of psychedelic prog now mostly forgotten). The 80s were New Wave. The 90s threw up indie/alt. rock cookie-cutter bands. I can count on one hand the number of local bands I've seen who have truly danced on the edge of madness. That cliff looks mighty high; stay back or you might fall!
There must be some kinda way out of here...
I have been remiss. Inattentive. Yes, even lazy! I have been neglecting you, my drones, over the last six weeks, while trying to navigate the difficult terrain of Moore College 3rd Year. But as such I forgot one of the primary purposes of this blog, which was to be an outlet for random thoughts and musings. So I shall now muse on, and whether they listen or refuse to listen they will know that a Blog has been in their midst.
I just finished reading Blair Jackson's excellent biography of Jerry Garcia entitled "Garcia: An American Life". The information about Garcia's side projects was greatly enlightening about the character of one of the greatest musicians of the 20th Century. But even better was his analysis of the shifts in the Grateful Dead's music within the last 15 years. He considers carefully the character of each year, pointing out when a particular tour produced notable experimentation or high points as well as analysing the reasons for certain periods lacking that certain spark. As a result I have been listening to a lot of Dead music during my study time. For those who have not experienced this wonderful band, go scouting on archive.org for some free (and legal) concert downloads. I recommend something from 1974, 1977, or 1990 to get started with.
I love jamming music. Music which flows out of the soul, not as a recital of a strict arrangement but as a step into the unknown to create art on the spot in fellowship with others. I once briefly played in a band with a songwriter who believed that a performance should replicate as closely as possible the band's studio recordings. I thought he was crazy. The band did not last very long.
Free music. Modal explorations. Polyrythms. Sonic effects and feedback. Losing your way and finding it again. The development of a groupthink to bring Truth out of Chaos. Where has it gone? Certainly in the Australian scene it has never been popular. In the 60s we copied the British Invasion. The 70s was blues-based pub rock (with a brief flowering of psychedelic prog now mostly forgotten). The 80s were New Wave. The 90s threw up indie/alt. rock cookie-cutter bands. I can count on one hand the number of local bands I've seen who have truly danced on the edge of madness. That cliff looks mighty high; stay back or you might fall!
There must be some kinda way out of here...
Friday, September 18, 2009
Can We Do That Again?
Happy Friday!
This afternoon I saw something really weird. I had strolled down to the RTA to renew my licence (as had half of western Sydney). While awaiting the production of said licence, a lady past the first flush of youth and of distinctly Inland Proletariat culture (let the reader understand) was having her photo taken for her licence. This is usually a simple process: sit in the chair, watch the lens, count to three, and your likeness is enshrined on Official Documentation for the next few years. We all know these photos are never our best. In fact, most of us take perverse pleasure in demonstrating how bad they can be to friends and family. Anyway, this particular lady (egged on by her friends) was being a little bit picky regarding her photo. In fact she asked for at least five retakes before the RTA official put her foot down and wouldn't allow any more. I didn't know you could do that!!! I thought that once that photo was taken, that's it, no Ifs Buts or Maybes so long as it meets the official criteria.
I'm the first to admit that I don't make the best photographic subject in the world. I'd prefer most photos of me to be burnt/deleted as soon as they are taken. But sometimes photos have to be taken - weddings, birthdays, first days of school, enbalming parties, etc. You have to take this sort of thing on the chin, smile for the camera and move on. Like many things. You don't always get a second go.
I must admit feeling frustrated with this woman at the RTA. Why does she think that she deserves a better picture on HER licence than the rest of us have on ours? Is it vanity or selfishness? What if all of us wanted six goes to get it right?
But was it that I was more upset with myself for not vetting my own photo? We get so few chances to 'have another go' in life, do we begrudge others when they get a chance? Is that why it is hard to forgive a Christian brother or sister when they hurt us. Jesus says that if a brother come to us seven times in one day begging forgiveness we are to forgive them seven times (Lk 17:3-4). I usually need at least a day to cool off after an argument with someone, whether I am in the right or the wrong. But we are called to a life of Radical Forgiveness. How often do I fall short...
This afternoon I saw something really weird. I had strolled down to the RTA to renew my licence (as had half of western Sydney). While awaiting the production of said licence, a lady past the first flush of youth and of distinctly Inland Proletariat culture (let the reader understand) was having her photo taken for her licence. This is usually a simple process: sit in the chair, watch the lens, count to three, and your likeness is enshrined on Official Documentation for the next few years. We all know these photos are never our best. In fact, most of us take perverse pleasure in demonstrating how bad they can be to friends and family. Anyway, this particular lady (egged on by her friends) was being a little bit picky regarding her photo. In fact she asked for at least five retakes before the RTA official put her foot down and wouldn't allow any more. I didn't know you could do that!!! I thought that once that photo was taken, that's it, no Ifs Buts or Maybes so long as it meets the official criteria.
I'm the first to admit that I don't make the best photographic subject in the world. I'd prefer most photos of me to be burnt/deleted as soon as they are taken. But sometimes photos have to be taken - weddings, birthdays, first days of school, enbalming parties, etc. You have to take this sort of thing on the chin, smile for the camera and move on. Like many things. You don't always get a second go.
I must admit feeling frustrated with this woman at the RTA. Why does she think that she deserves a better picture on HER licence than the rest of us have on ours? Is it vanity or selfishness? What if all of us wanted six goes to get it right?
But was it that I was more upset with myself for not vetting my own photo? We get so few chances to 'have another go' in life, do we begrudge others when they get a chance? Is that why it is hard to forgive a Christian brother or sister when they hurt us. Jesus says that if a brother come to us seven times in one day begging forgiveness we are to forgive them seven times (Lk 17:3-4). I usually need at least a day to cool off after an argument with someone, whether I am in the right or the wrong. But we are called to a life of Radical Forgiveness. How often do I fall short...
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Whose Prayerbook?
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.
On top of filling my mind with modern Roman Catholic moral theology and avoiding a Luke 23 eis-egesis (what you have to do when a passage of Scripture defies all analysis), I have, like many of my Third Year colleagues, been preparing for a Liturgy exam. Front and centre is the tradition of the Anglican Prayerbook, its history and theology. As someone who has come from a sort-of R.C. family I find this sort of thing fascinating. This has been helped by outstanding lectures from Mr Keith Condie, a highlight of the year.
But, as we all know, you don't get good marks by simple regurgitation, so I have been picking away at an Anglo-Catholic history of the Prayerbook for a different perspective. [note to my contemporaries: Make good use of the Free Book table at the MTC Library. Most of it is raving heresy, but there be gold in them thar hills!] A certain canon of Peterborough (probably now long deceased) lays his cards open in a rather vulgar fashion. Significant attention and praise is given to the 1549 book, while the chapter on the 1552 book (the most Reformed of all the Prayerbooks) is entitled 'A Victory for the Extremists'. I was shocked to discover that the Holy Communion service from that particular book is 'a liturgical mostrosity' and that Thomas Cranmer was little more than a wimp, unable to stand up to those nasty bullies from Zurich.
This little book, while now over 60 years old, contains arguments that still have currency in ecclesiological and liturgical discussion. The way that we meet and the language that we use can be very powerful statements about who we and what we believe. If you see someone at a Bledisloe Cup match dressed head to foot in green and gold there are no prizes for guessing who they are barracking for. You don't have to ask them what they think about the Wallabies as its written all over them.
I am not a Cranmer expert. I have read a few Homilies for help with exams/essays, and what I have read gives me confidence that he truly was the strong Reformer I was always taught that he was. Was he cautious? Yes. Did he want to avoid all-out religious war in England? Yes. Does this mean that we have to describe his churchmanship as Broad or even Closet Catholic? No.
In the sweet shop of Christianity, Anglicans are the Assorted Chocolate-Coated Nuts. On the outside we can look fairly similar (if we're on our best behaviour!) but our centre of faith may look and taste quite different. No better place is this seen than the Prayerbook Wars. Everyone wants to claim ownership, both of the Book and of its principle author. No-one is REALLY happy with the 1662 Book. It is not as Reformed as it could be, nor as Catholic as it could be. Those of us who fall on the more Reformed side are happy things aren't as bad as they could be. The Catholics deplore the loss of tradition still present in 1549 and are bitter about the perceived victory of the 'extremists' over Cranmer's original intentions.
So whose Prayerbook is it, the Puritans' or the Papists'? The reality is neither, for Cranmer was neither. We have to remember that the Prayerbook is NOT the same as Scripture. There is a lot of Scripture IN it, but it was never a 'pure' text. It is the work of Assorted Nuts, and is continued to be used and abused by Assorted Nuts. Cranmer would have wanted all his work to be judged by the standard of Scripture, for it is there that we find who we truly are. Our liturgy must come from our understanding of the Gospel, not the other way around. So often in this topic reference is made to systematic considerations rather than biblical ones. Of course, these two are not always in conflict, but it would be nice if sometimes the Assorted Nuts could judge the Prayerbook by the Lord who continues to speak through His Word rather than appealing to the Thomas Cranmer who speaks no more.
Currently Reading: The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson.
Currently Listening To: 'O Death' by Ralph Stanley
On top of filling my mind with modern Roman Catholic moral theology and avoiding a Luke 23 eis-egesis (what you have to do when a passage of Scripture defies all analysis), I have, like many of my Third Year colleagues, been preparing for a Liturgy exam. Front and centre is the tradition of the Anglican Prayerbook, its history and theology. As someone who has come from a sort-of R.C. family I find this sort of thing fascinating. This has been helped by outstanding lectures from Mr Keith Condie, a highlight of the year.
But, as we all know, you don't get good marks by simple regurgitation, so I have been picking away at an Anglo-Catholic history of the Prayerbook for a different perspective. [note to my contemporaries: Make good use of the Free Book table at the MTC Library. Most of it is raving heresy, but there be gold in them thar hills!] A certain canon of Peterborough (probably now long deceased) lays his cards open in a rather vulgar fashion. Significant attention and praise is given to the 1549 book, while the chapter on the 1552 book (the most Reformed of all the Prayerbooks) is entitled 'A Victory for the Extremists'. I was shocked to discover that the Holy Communion service from that particular book is 'a liturgical mostrosity' and that Thomas Cranmer was little more than a wimp, unable to stand up to those nasty bullies from Zurich.
This little book, while now over 60 years old, contains arguments that still have currency in ecclesiological and liturgical discussion. The way that we meet and the language that we use can be very powerful statements about who we and what we believe. If you see someone at a Bledisloe Cup match dressed head to foot in green and gold there are no prizes for guessing who they are barracking for. You don't have to ask them what they think about the Wallabies as its written all over them.
I am not a Cranmer expert. I have read a few Homilies for help with exams/essays, and what I have read gives me confidence that he truly was the strong Reformer I was always taught that he was. Was he cautious? Yes. Did he want to avoid all-out religious war in England? Yes. Does this mean that we have to describe his churchmanship as Broad or even Closet Catholic? No.
In the sweet shop of Christianity, Anglicans are the Assorted Chocolate-Coated Nuts. On the outside we can look fairly similar (if we're on our best behaviour!) but our centre of faith may look and taste quite different. No better place is this seen than the Prayerbook Wars. Everyone wants to claim ownership, both of the Book and of its principle author. No-one is REALLY happy with the 1662 Book. It is not as Reformed as it could be, nor as Catholic as it could be. Those of us who fall on the more Reformed side are happy things aren't as bad as they could be. The Catholics deplore the loss of tradition still present in 1549 and are bitter about the perceived victory of the 'extremists' over Cranmer's original intentions.
So whose Prayerbook is it, the Puritans' or the Papists'? The reality is neither, for Cranmer was neither. We have to remember that the Prayerbook is NOT the same as Scripture. There is a lot of Scripture IN it, but it was never a 'pure' text. It is the work of Assorted Nuts, and is continued to be used and abused by Assorted Nuts. Cranmer would have wanted all his work to be judged by the standard of Scripture, for it is there that we find who we truly are. Our liturgy must come from our understanding of the Gospel, not the other way around. So often in this topic reference is made to systematic considerations rather than biblical ones. Of course, these two are not always in conflict, but it would be nice if sometimes the Assorted Nuts could judge the Prayerbook by the Lord who continues to speak through His Word rather than appealing to the Thomas Cranmer who speaks no more.
Currently Reading: The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson.
Currently Listening To: 'O Death' by Ralph Stanley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)