So the Gospel is written so that we may recognize that (as the hymn has it) ”˜this is our story, this is our song’. Just as when Peter begins to speak of Jesus ministering, loving, dying, rising, the excitement of recognition is too much to contain, and the Holy Spirit floods and invades. And what of us, as heirs of the apostolic witness, how do we begin to tell a story that makes things happen? Because that’s our charge, that’s our task, and we have to tell the story of Jesus in such a way that all those who listen say to themselves, ”˜Yes: this is my story and I never knew it. This is the world in which I belong; this is my inheritance, though I have never lived there.’
So we seek to speak in words that evoke that kind of recognition, knowing that””in the phrases of the Old Testament lesson this evening”””˜The word is not far from any of us.’ And if we tell truthfully and joyfully the story of Jesus, then the Word of God embodied in that story and in that person, will indeed not be far from any of our hearers.
In these last two weeks we’ve often spoken, both in the bishops’ and in the spouses’ conference, about telling our stories. It’s almost a cliché, isn’t it? In a good and properly organized Christian meeting we tell our stories. And that is right and proper, because one of the most significant things any believer can ever do is to say, ”˜Come, and I will tell you what he has done for my soul.’ But as we listen to one another’s stories, I hope and pray that i we have also heard and recognized the one story that makes a difference, the one story that changes the world, that changes how we see ourselves and God and everything. And if that has been part of our experience in this conference, then perhaps we can go back to our local apostolic ministries””and I should add that I mean lay and ordained apostolic ministries here””to tell the story of this meeting, this Lambeth Conference, in such a way that it becomes itself a story that makes things happen. We can ask God to strengthen us and enable us, so to talk about what we’ve received here that something shifts and grows and deepens in the Christian communities to which we belong. We can try to tell the story of the Lambeth ’08 Conference so that something happens, so that Christ comes alive in others.
[blockquote]And if that has been part of our experience in this conference, then perhaps we can go back to our local apostolic ministries—and I should add that I mean lay and ordained apostolic ministries here—to tell the story of this meeting, this Lambeth Conference, in such a way that it becomes itself a story that makes things happen. [/blockquote]
Indeed, that’s already happening! Marc Andrus and JJ Bruno have said it’s full speed ahead with non-celibate gay clergy and SSBs. Way to show them who’s boss, Rowan.
A few questions that came to me as I read this;
Is story the correct word here? Did Peter share Jesus’ story, or did he witness historical events so that he knew thay had happened? When I think of the word story the first thought I have is the Hardy Boy books I read as a child.
If by story he did mean what Jesus actually accomplished on the cross and by his resurrection, doesn’t he weaken the point by using the same word in describing our response? How important is my story after all? Did the apostles spend a lot of time sharing how Jesus’ “story†led them to new heights of success and glory? Suppose my story is one of failure. Does that mean Jesus did not atone for my sins on the cross and make possible my eternal life in his resurrection?
Luther talked about the distinction between the theology of the cross and the theology of glory. The first is objective and the second subjective. In this sermon I hear the theology of glory.
One further question: is the story coming out of Lambeth really in line with the great Story of Jesus’ coming to remake our world? I fear that there is much of Lambeth, much of it, that has not spoken that message.
#2 is correct. The ABC is manipulating language as all the liberals have. The narrative we read in the gospels is not a story. To use that word subtly implies a fiction,something made up. It is of course a metaphor, but in the liberal hands, these connotations are made to seem as if they are denotations. In short, the abc has his manicured hands on a shiny half-truth, and it is half truths that are most difficult to deal with because they are, if I may put it this way, bi-valent. The gospels may be treated as if they are stories, as may the OT, an exciting narrative with a complex plot and fascinating characters. Read this way, the whole tale is coherent and purposeful.
But we do not read the events of the Normandy invasion as if it were a complex plot with fascinating characters. We read it as a reflection, as accurate as it can be made, of an external reality, something that exists outside of and superior to ourselves. When there is a one-to-one relationship between the external event and the perception thereof, we say we have our hands on the truth. But the abc’s “story” is not at all like that; because the telling of the others’ stories suggest that we are in the virtual world, wherein the truth is marked by the vividness and intensity of the narration, not the correlation to objective events.
If a story, Christ is a character. If history, Christ is a fact. The abc consistently blurs the distinction. So he wants to tell the story of Lambeth. What does that mean, or promise or portend? The bishops become characters, what they say and do, plot. Think again how this adumbration of Lambeth makes Lambeth plastic, its denoument subject to the author. And did they live happily ever after? Have we all been successfully Panglossified? Larry
#2 and #4,
Semantics guys. Just because you associate the Hardy Boys with the word ‘story’ does not mean that is what is meant. Story need not be fictional. And yes, he does believe those things ‘actually happened.’ Perhaps if you read more of his actual writings rather than blog responses you would know that.
#5 Among rabbits, the issue of semantics is of no consequences. Among humans, the function of and use of semantics is, if not everything, it is much. YOu have not paid attention to the meaning of “story.” MUST it be a work of fiction; not as metaphor it doesn’t. But how is it commonly used, what connotations surround the words and how do they color our understanding? Story implies the creation of an author and we usually treat it that way. “What kind of story is that?” we say. “Interesting story but I don’t believe a word of it.” And even, as containing fascinating fictions, “the storied halls….”
Your response, Adhunt, is untutored and inaccurate. I have heard this often (as an English teacher) from those who believe that semantics is a synonym for English-teacher-poopery. The very same people always say that the study of grammar and syntax is utterly trivial. Semantics is in fact the intelligent computer by which raw experience is made into meaning. You are human precisely because semantics makes you so. LM
As a physicist with great interest in semantics, let me challange all of you to go back to the source of the word, story. I am not at all a defender of ++Rowan, but let me say he is a scholar and will select his words classically.
Classically, the word comes from the “Old French” word “estorie.” They grabbed it from from Roman (Latin) usage which probably dates to the time Jesus was crucified. In Rome it was “historia”.
Even my English dictionery starts out “1.a. A connected narration of past events. b. A history. 2.a. An account of some incident. b. A report; statement. c. An anecdote, esp. an amusing one.”
Thus, the first five possibilities for the word make no mention of fiction. That comes when literature is considered and allows for either prose or verse, and either truth or fiction.
As one interested in semantics, I appreciate one has to understand a speaker in the context of his education. If he says, “I don’t got no money.” Forget the double negative, the chap is broke. However, the educated person in the same circumstance should surely say, “I have no money.” To the uneducated brain, if you are broke you can start no sentence with the words “I have”, since clearly you do not have!
Clearly Rowan has. He has classical education. Please cut him some slack when he uses his native language. classically.
STORY = HISTORY
You may not use it that way, ever. But I’ll bet he does most of the time. Now, I have to get back to writing my memoirs. I’m trying to get my story onto paper.
Best Wishes, — Stan
P.S. Forgot to mention that when I was a kid studying the Bible (still do as an old man), we were told that much of the Bible is called history because it is “HIS story”. I doubt the Romans got their word that way!
Some in TEC believe history comes from his story – that which is written by males. Since everyone’s ideas are true, who is to say otherwise.
#6,
I myself am majoring in ancient languages, and as those writers tended to be even more nuanced in ‘semantics’ than all but the greatest of English writers I am no stranger to the way in which words (not least in inflected languages) can be used to explain minute details. What you are missing is a basic principal of interpretation, one which is taught in hermeneutics 101. That is, I should not believe that because Plato used a word one way that if that word should show up in the New Testament it will carry the same meaning and nuances. Lanuage, and especially words, change meaning and shade depending on all sorts of backgrounds: When was it said? What is that writer/speakers educational background? etc, etc… Words gain their meaning by context, not by “how they are commonly used” as you say. And so, based on ++Williams various writings and sermons that I have heard and read I can say with confidence that some here are accusing Rowan of using ‘story’ in a way that, given the history of his positions on the Resurrection etc.., he does not mean.
If Larry M. is right, then I suppose we need to banish the hymn Rowan is quoting — “Blessed Assurance” — from the hymnal. “This is my story, / This is my song: / Praising my Saviour, / All the day long” — Arrant liberalism!
His story stated … implying a factual recounting
He shared the story of his childhood … also implying a factual recounting of events
This is the story…. implying either a factual or fictional basis
It’s just a story … implying a fictional basis
What matters is NOT the word “story” but the context.
Semantics?
“Let your yes be a yes and your no be a no”.
Jesus, the Lord.
(Bible)