Letters
from 12 to 19 September 2004
If you'd like to
write a letter of your own, click here.
Reading sermons
online
I have been
enjoying your site for several months now.
I think there
is plenty of fine preaching out there. Furhtermore, the internet
has made it much easier to access these sermons. I have the privilege
of attending a wonderful parish, St Bart's in New York City, that emphasizes
good preaching. I have commented to our Rector Bill Tully on more than
one occasion that the compiled sermons would make a great book.
Here is a link
to the archives: www.stbarts.org/sermons.htm
Enjoy,
James Marion
St Bartholomew's Epsicopal Church
New York, New York, USA
13 September 2004
Hearing sermons
online
Re your comments
on the publishing of sermons. We are working on putting audio recordings
of our vicar's sermons on the internet. I wonder if anyone else is
doing the same and how often anybody downloads them.
Robert W. M.
Greaves
All Saints Anglican Church
Jakarta, INDONESIA
robertg@rad.net.id
14 September 2004
Those who are
providing streaming audio or other sound format sermons might like to
reply to Mr Greaves directly at robertg@rad.net.id.
Once given, never
read again?
Apparently
you have not kept up with homiletical theory in the last twenty
years. Current thinking is that a sermon is an "event" that happens
in a particular place at a particular time in the context of a
particular community. Written sermons are left-brain, linear, frozen
products that can never recreate the setting of the sermon.
In other
words, a sermon is meant to be heard -- 'Faith comes through
hearing'
-- not read. Collections of sermons are truly 19th-century
anachronisms, and may be left in the dusty archives.
Bill Fulton
St Andrew's Episcopal Church
Florence, Oregon, USA
billfulton2001@yahoo.com
17 September 2004
Some of us can't hear sermons; either we read them or we miss
them. Our homiletics expert tells us that this homiletical theory is about 30 years old, and that it doesn't preclude
written
sermons.
People, not 'issues'
In a letter
posted on your site last week, a writer complains that all this talk
about homosexuality seems to be a distraction from the more important
issues. This type of statement can only come from someone who doesn't
know what's at stake in the 'homosexuality
issue'.
There are parts
of the world -- parts of the Anglican world -- where people are imprisoned
or executed for homosexual activity. In the United States, gay, lesbian,
bisexual or transgendered (GLBT) persons are murdered every week because
of that identification. It is believed that a high percentage of teen
suicides in the U.S. are associated with unresolved negative feelings
about and absence of support for kids dealing with their developing
homosexuality. In many (most?) countries it is acceptable to take away
livelihoods, children and homes, and limit access to legal protections
solely on the basis of sexual orientation.
Taken as a whole
and looked at globally, the death, dismemberment, and disenfranchisment
of GLBT persons is a huge issue that certainly does rise to the level
of the other issues the writer listed. We mustn't compare pain or try
to rate who suffers more, but to minimize the suffering of GLBT persons
by reducing it to a mere issue that is distracting us from dealing
with more important matters is do just that. To minimize the seriousness
of the 'homosexuality issue' is to evaluate the pain of GLBT persons
and judge it to be less than the pain and suffering of others. This
is arrogant presumption.
As always, thanks
so much for your very helpful and informative site.
Jay Hulsey
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
jhulsey@eden.edu
17 September 2004
After the FAQ...
Thanks for all
that you do in keeping us up to date in the communion.
In the news
re the Eames Commission the Q & A section is interesting, but does
little to inform the lay person what he or she is to do should an [ECUSA]
diocese or province be declared out of communion with Canterbury.
This is a critical
question for us common layfolk, who seem to matter so much less than
the clergy these days.
Davis d'Ambly
St Mark's Locust Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
d_ambly@msn.com
13 September 2004
A brother in
the via media
I have read
Anglicans Online for serveral years and liked the tone of it even though
I am socially conservative (that is contradicted by leftist leanings
on education, taxes, etc.). Your evenhandedness is something that I
like and that you draw on not only our history, but that of the wider
Catholic Church. Though I am socially conservative I would like for
my fellow conservatives to sit down and shut for at least a few months
and give Bishop Robinson a chance-after all, he is legally a bishop
in the Church, so let the man do his work.
When Bishop
Cate Waynick was elected I was very unhappy but she was our legally
elected bishop so I listened to her teaching, which is throughly Christian
and Anglican, and decided to continue to attend the parish church and
stay the course.
Bishop Robinson
was subjected to intense investigation and the allegations brought
against him were found to be false or trumped up, so why not give him
a hearing and let him carry on his ministry? Why not trust the Lord
and follow events over a few years? Is there not a practice if not
doctrine among Anglicans of receptionism whereby we wait and watch
until we discern the will of the Lord?
Your brother,
Barry Brown
Christ Church, Madison
Switzerland County, Indiana, USA
17 September 2004
Earlier letters
We launched our 'Letters to
AO' section on 11 May 2003. All of our letters are in our
archives.
|
