The Lord Archibishop of Sydney (Anglican) recently spoke at that centre of Anglican humility and equity Abbotsleigh girls' school in the very ordinary working class suburb of Wahroonga . . . hang on, no I got that all wrong. It should be:
True to the Anglican obsession with privilage, wealth and elitism, Peter spoke at the exclusive and very expensive Anglican girls' school Abbotsleigh, which is impossible for ordinary folks to use, breeds a contemptuous and unbiblical superiority and keeps Christian families from being an influence in public schools . . .that's better.
He was on the subject of 'The Holy Spirit' [I always regarded the Spirit as a person, not a subject!]. He said:
If the Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth, think how you can depend on the bible. If you get the big picture straight, you won't be led astray as easily by the details of Scripture.
Except of course, when you read Genesis 1, the meaning of which is only available to the highly schooled academics at Moore, not ordinary folk.
Now, when ordinary folk read Genesis 1, they pretty much think that the Holy Spirit wants us to understand that God created the world by fiat in six days. We read other parts of Torah, and find out that he wants us to understand that the creation event occured about 6000 years ago.
Assuming that the Holy Spirit does everything on purpose; I expect he wanted Genesis 1 to say what it says on purpose: for our instruction, not as a distraction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Eric,
I think what the great Archbsihop means by "If the Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth" is He is truth only as far as SADists allow Him to be.
And as for "think how you can depend on the bible", I guess he means you can depend on the Bible as far as it can be twisted to align with "science" or the views of such postmodern Anglican icons as John Dickson.
This is quite clear from their belief that 6 days can mean whatever THEY want 6 days to mean. After all, I've heard them say, "If God wanted to He could have created in 6 days, but from my perspective is this what the author of Genesis 1 is saying? Would the author have thought in important to record exactly how long God took? I don't know if he would have." Such erudite words that honestly seek to know the mind of God!
Peter, Peter, Peter, how disingenuous you've become.
Eric, I may be slower than average but it took me a while, some years ago, to understand some of the SydAng language. For example an Anglican I met insisted his minister considered 6-day creation to be 'truth.' I was initially pleased about this but then a little light flickered deep in my mind! Please ask him if the days were 24 hour days as we experience them. He indeed asked and reported back in dismayed tones- no he says the days were not days but vast periods of time!
Think about it, the good Rev. had people convinced he saw Genesis as truth. But how can he when he says 6-days does not mean 6-days? I discovered that the good Rev. and other Anglicans had redifined 'truth' to mean something which has value but it never happened, the event described never occurred in history!
Isn't this simply equivocation?
Apparently in the AngloLingo if you wish to convey that that which was written actually happened in history you call this 'true truth.'
Beeblinkinbeezaar!
So please forgive my scepticism when I read that Peter Jensen said 'If the Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth, think how you can depend on the bible.' What price truth? What does he mean by 'truth.' And therefore what is it we can depend upon from the bible?
Considering his other reported comment-'If you get the big picture straight, you won't be led astray as easily by the details of Scripture.'-we are left with 'truth' which does not mean what most Christians would take it to mean, and details of Scripture best ignored. Just swallow the broad-sweep of the story and don't worry about the rest.
I suppose when you reject the straight-forward details of Genesis, without biblical or gramatical basis it's best to sweep the pesky details under the carpet!
What sort of leadership is this?
When are 6 days not 6 days? Well, when you are a Barthian, a Kierkegaardian, or a Bruegemannian, perhaps.
Or even a SADist!!
It all hangs off a brand of Idealism that allows the Bibles unitary reality to be sundered into an upper and a lower story with different and incommensurate frames of reference. An importation into the Bible, not something that flows from it.
Post a Comment