Re: #4 — I would say that “What is God calling us to do now?” is precisely the question to which we discern an answer by reference to Scripture, tradition, and reason.
I think it is very good that this is being tackled head on, that it is being discussed by the house as whole, and that it is being done early at this General Convention.
One of the many unnoticed stories of General Convention 2006 was that the special committee got bogged down and overwhelmed and failed to get material to the House early enough so it could be properly digested and acted upon.
Indeed Ross in number 5, although only with Reason in a Hookerian sense, and with the sources understood in proper priority. But I still think it is the first not the third question.
I have been asked by a number of people if there is anyone liveblogging this discussion and would be grateful if people could post links of those doing so.
[quote]Kendall, could you please explain what “Reason in a Hookerian sense†is? As we know it is not reason as the Enlightenment defines reason.[/quote]
I hope both [b]Br. Michael[/b] and Rev. Dr. Harmon will pardon me for cutting in, but [url=”http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/05/right-reason.html”]this article[/url] might provide a helpful introduction to Hooker’s concept of “Right Reason”. It is from a Continuer blog, if that matters. I express no particular opinion of Continuing Anglicans or that blog, it’s just something I read a short time ago and it came to mind. [i]Caveat lector[/i].
Let me say also that I do not by any means consider myself qualified to pinch-hit for Dr. Harmon, but I suspect he may be a bit busy just now, and the piece came to mind.
13, thank you. The point is that what Hooker means as “reason” is not how we generally understand it today. If we are going to throw Hooker around then we need to do it correctly.
Thank you for Passing By; I shall track this article. For a number of years I have been fed up with folk merely reciting Hooker with little appreciation that HIS understanding of ‘reason’ was essentially more akin to Thomas than Kant and all after him – including ourselves …! For we are simply not schooled in the art of [i]Sic et Non[/i] either.
The Committee of the whole on B033 just started.
Randy Dales says there are 5 choices:
1–not take any new action
2–reaffirm B033
3–overturn B033
4–affirm the canonical process and only the canonical process as that which will apply, and thus to disavow any extracanonical requirement
5–make a statement about where the Episcopal Church is now, with disagreement and a wide range of practice.
The Deputies have just been sent to have individual conversations on these questions:
what is my story on B033
what is our story on B033
What is God calling us to do now?
so if my story comes first and then our story comes second
how come God comes third?
and what abut scripture and tradition?
Just asking.
Re: #4 — I would say that “What is God calling us to do now?” is precisely the question to which we discern an answer by reference to Scripture, tradition, and reason.
I think it is very good that this is being tackled head on, that it is being discussed by the house as whole, and that it is being done early at this General Convention.
One of the many unnoticed stories of General Convention 2006 was that the special committee got bogged down and overwhelmed and failed to get material to the House early enough so it could be properly digested and acted upon.
Indeed Ross in number 5, although only with Reason in a Hookerian sense, and with the sources understood in proper priority. But I still think it is the first not the third question.
Kendall, could you please explain what “Reason in a Hookerian sense” is? As we know it is not reason as the Enlightenment defines reason.
I have been asked by a number of people if there is anyone liveblogging this discussion and would be grateful if people could post links of those doing so.
Gay Jennings has just asked the deputies to return to their seats.
This reminds me of some parishes after the passing of the peace!
The committee of the whole is now in recess until Friday 10 a.m. Pacific Time.
[b]Br. Michael[/b] [url=”http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/23959/#381356″]8[/url] asks:
[quote]Kendall, could you please explain what “Reason in a Hookerian sense†is? As we know it is not reason as the Enlightenment defines reason.[/quote]
I hope both [b]Br. Michael[/b] and Rev. Dr. Harmon will pardon me for cutting in, but [url=”http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/05/right-reason.html”]this article[/url] might provide a helpful introduction to Hooker’s concept of “Right Reason”. It is from a Continuer blog, if that matters. I express no particular opinion of Continuing Anglicans or that blog, it’s just something I read a short time ago and it came to mind. [i]Caveat lector[/i].
Let me say also that I do not by any means consider myself qualified to pinch-hit for Dr. Harmon, but I suspect he may be a bit busy just now, and the piece came to mind.
Hope that’s helpful.
regards,
JPB
13, thank you. The point is that what Hooker means as “reason” is not how we generally understand it today. If we are going to throw Hooker around then we need to do it correctly.
Thank you for Passing By; I shall track this article. For a number of years I have been fed up with folk merely reciting Hooker with little appreciation that HIS understanding of ‘reason’ was essentially more akin to Thomas than Kant and all after him – including ourselves …! For we are simply not schooled in the art of [i]Sic et Non[/i] either.