I have never shot fish in a barrel before; but, if I did, I'm sure that I would find it has absolutely nothing in common with attempting to interact with your thinking/writing! (it's Friday, can we have a little fun--we don't' want to be too serious all the time--American whimsy and all
And, now in lieu of a smooth transition . . .
When you concluded your last post with the following:
Quote:The temptation offered by the idea of a 'Generous Orthodoxy' lies perhaps in a syncretic 'anything goes' direction. One of the attractions for some of contemporary Anglicanism is that if offends few coming to it from outside. It makes few, if any demands, and forces few, if any, to search their souls. Is that really a generous reaction to a fallen world though?
I thought, "boo" syncretic 'anything goes,' and no[!], that is not a generous reaction to a fallen world at all! And, then possibly provoked by your story about the female vicar where she:
Quote:. . . was very honest in admitting that for her it was part of a wider agenda of female empowerment,
I began to consider what you had said as it relates to such things as agendas.
In many ways this takes us right back to the beginning of this discussion . . . what are our motives? what are our intentions? are we agenda driven? or are we driven by S
Do you see what I am saying here? Do we desire the God's will be done and God's Kingdom come (above all other particular interests)? Or do we desire something else? And, as I said above in another post, we all have our own callings, don't we? We are not all prophets or evangelists or pastors, and so on. We do not all have the same gifts. But, we should all be driven by the same thing I think, the aspiration to live in and the service of the Kingdom of God.
I am thinking now of the Indian man that owns a store in Peter's neck of the wood. This Indian man who I think is a Hindu is praying for Peter, and Peter is praying for him. And, I realize that this example kind of clouds the issue a bit, but let's keep up with it. From Peter's point of view, I would think that Peter is praying for the path of this Indian man to be one of the Path of Christ. In other words Peter is praying for the salvation of this man. So in this case what is Peter's agenda? What method is Peter employing?
Peter is not condemning this Indian shopkeeper. He is praying for the salvation of this mans soul. Peter is not judging him as a disciple of Satan and then walking away in disgust. It appears that he is praying for this man in love that he would know the love of Christ and become a learner of Christ. And, even more so Peter stands ready with a Christian education program to offer to this man if this would ever become a reality in the life of this man. To which I would like to suggest is a very good definition of a Generous Orthodoxy.
There is not syncretism here, there is not comparative theology at work, and best of all no solipsism anywhere to be found in all of this (as you have defined it elsewhere)! But, at the same time, there is no anything goes way of thinking involved in Peter's prayers and hopes for this man. As evidenced by his work here on this site and in other places there are clear-cut lines drawn as it relates to the proclamation of Christ, it is freely admitted that in the end, Peter and this Indian man do in fact stand on separate shores. But, there is a most heavenly balance here, isn't there? There is a most divine equilibrium employed here whereby the Truth is spoken in Love! All motives and intentions are on top of the table in a way that I think demonstrates very well a Generous Orthodoxy.