tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post8705387953298463244..comments2023-12-17T16:13:06.670-05:00Comments on In a Godward direction: Reading Rowan — Part the FirstTobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-66770961086267354312009-08-07T07:25:10.607-05:002009-08-07T07:25:10.607-05:00I have heard folks from other parts of the Anglica...I have heard folks from other parts of the Anglican Communion also raise questions about the influence of the House of Deputies.Greg Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02002476644435618314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-13061129972726872812009-08-05T12:09:40.942-05:002009-08-05T12:09:40.942-05:00This urge towards a collegial life is reflected in...<i>This urge towards a collegial life is reflected in his longing for an Anglican Covenant, and a Communion bound more tightly not by unanimity of opinion or even uniformity of action, but by a truly radical desire to stay together even in the midst of disagreements.</i><br /><br />Just a question from the pew -- are academicians or scholastics required to sign a formal covenant in order to ply their trade? It seems to me that the Anglican Communion muddled along just fine until some formerly collegial members had a couple of issues (women's ordination, power in the hands of the hierarchy and finally the hook to hang them all from, homosexuality and GLBT issues)upon which to hang their croziers adn insist everyone else do likewise. <br /><br />Whether or not ++Williams wants to understand the polity of TEC, he is but first among equals, not first over all. there is already a denomination (or ten) that have that and Anglicanism/Episcopalianism isn't it or even one of them. I wish the ABC would spend as much time discussing the sections of the Windsor report that he never seems to address and which apply to other parts of the Communion as he does trying to straighten out TEC's thinking -- and polity. If he were only as honest as he seems to think himself to be, he would see that those issues need addressing and not just focus on TEC and its shortcomings as seen by the group that changes acronyms more often than I change socks. <br /><br />Thank you for listening.Linda Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17793936253851743845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-79494538420292060192009-08-03T08:23:41.166-05:002009-08-03T08:23:41.166-05:00Yes, Mark, I do think RW is trying to recast the W...Yes, Mark, I do think RW is trying to recast the WWAC in a more Romish model -- and I do think that to be a mistake, as I think I've made clear any number of times. He is attempting to foster a future institutional unity top-down using material (the past and present WWAC) that is unsuitable construction material. The GAFCON do not want a future other than one in which their view is the only view; the progrressives will only favor an institution with ample room for development. Rowan seems to think it is his task to balance the unbalanceable. Only time may do that -- and if that's his game it doesn't take much skill to play it. I've tried privately and publicly to encourage him to bolder action, but in a way he is just like the worst liberal who thinks that if people would only understand they would agree, and all would be well.<br /><br />More on all this in a real post soon...Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-19735212200850436562009-08-03T01:20:40.302-05:002009-08-03T01:20:40.302-05:00Even if you truly believe that Williams is not att...Even if you truly believe that Williams is <i>not</i> attempting to build his own Rome - borne out by his attempts at centralization - then you are still left with a man who is, most charitably, absolutely clueless and self-involved. <br /><br />If I stand up and declare myself the leader of a worldwide communion, don't others have a right, even a duty, to expect me to address myself in the most articulate fashion? <br /><br />Williams is an absolute failure as a leader. I don't care how bright he is - which I, frankly, haven't seen - nor how long he went to school - which has nothing to do with the pastoral concerns of intelligent compassion and discernment. None of that matters, because he is so abysmally <i>incompetent</i> at forging unity through his own presence and expression. <br /><br />He may bear the title archbishop, but he bears nothing else.MarkBrunsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971990948866488080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-63039515488039183022009-08-02T14:59:50.577-05:002009-08-02T14:59:50.577-05:00Erika, I think that comparison goes rather too far...Erika, I think that comparison goes rather too far. Rowan <i>has</i> spoken out against the violation of GLBT civil rights. Not as strongly or specifically as you or I might like, or think he should -- and I'm not defending his less than forthright condemnations; but neither would I condemn him by comparing him to leaders of the Deutsche Evangelische Kirche. He is no Dietrich Bonhöffer, clearly, but neither is he a Ludwig Müller.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-39339424779238089312009-08-02T13:20:27.412-05:002009-08-02T13:20:27.412-05:00I'm still working on part two, and hope to pos...I'm still working on part two, and hope to post it, probably tomorrow. For now, let me say, Christopher, that you have put your finger on one of the most troubling aspects of Rowan's thought -- one about which I've written extensively -- this whole restructuring of the WWAC into something less a communion and more a union. Aping Rome is not the solution: if I wanted to be part of a world-church I'd never have left Rome! I want to be part of a looser communion -- federation if you insist -- in which development can take place locally before it is accepted or rejected globally -- and not some monolithic entity.<br /><br />You may be right about the use of "the faithful" -- presumably clergy aren't faithful! -- as a neat way to compact and corral the work of the Spirit through the People of God.<br /><br />As to anxiety -- the great therapy I learned is to ask, "And so?" What if TEC were to be no longer part of some "inner" track? "And so...?"Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-17029372756893789762009-08-02T13:04:13.112-05:002009-08-02T13:04:13.112-05:00Tobias
You acknowledge that Rowan has not spoken o...Tobias<br />You acknowledge that Rowan has not spoken out loudly enough against the appalling treatment of lgbt's in some African countries, but you appear to excuse or explain that by explaining that the right has almost written him off and that he has almost no influence in GAFCON countries, and therefore works with TEC.<br /><br />Does a lack of influence really excuse not speaking out?<br />I don't want to blow this out of proportion, but just as an example: but was it right for the German church not to speak out against the treatment of Jews because they had no influence on Hitler?<br />I apologise if I misunderstood you.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-5814203999982451802009-08-02T10:11:04.659-05:002009-08-02T10:11:04.659-05:00I appreciate your trying to be charitable--it is m...I appreciate your trying to be charitable--it is more than I can muster because I think a lot of anxiety is injected into the system every time one of RW's reflections shows up. We each have to deal with our own anxiety, but direct communication helps with this. This communication is not direct or "green" to use a particular version from the VRP perspective. <br /><br />I recognize RW is trying to do better, and I give credit where due. And I recognize it's important to understand where he is coming from though I feel like I've returned to Rome parsing out Papal and Vatican statements consumes the life of the Church, and I think where he is coming from may end up damaging the Communion mortally. <br /><br />I must say that to my mind rejecting violence towarld lgbt persons forthrightly comes a little late and long after some ecclesial-political alliances were allowed to expressly denigrate lgbt flesh, Christ's own Body, while the highest eschalons of the Communion said nothing and blogs were the places crying out. I must ask why it was that such a Communion (with the ACofC as exception) could accept this as not Communion-breaking. I think it points out the dangers of an over-emphasis on consensus as defining hallmark of truth. And why does this recognition now comes in very qualified ways. Language is important, and I don't think it unfair to analyze the way things are parsed together. The difference between a subjunctive and an imperative matter in a prayer and in public statements. Though again, I understand our American English has retained the subjunctive while British English has not--and that could be a rub in my reading. <br /><br />Nonetheless, what I see in this statement is a series of questionable leaps threaded together in some incredibly questionable slides that trouble greatly. For example, our complex history and multiplicity of theologies as Anglicans goes absent. To my mind they are strength and mutually corrective over time--we need not only Evangelical or Anglo-Catholic, but Maurician and broad perspectives and so forth. But here, they are seen as weakness or disappear altogether--that Hegelian tendency to leap over the concrete and historical for processes and unity. <br /><br />On a related note, I would point out that he addresses we laity as "the faithful." I nearly lost it when I read this. This is the address of a Roman Pontiff. As you noted, and as Pres. Bonnie Anderson learned in her meeting with RW, laity seem to need to keep our place, which is be present and largely compliant, if not silent. I have written several times about my concerns in relation to his understanding of the laity. It's very Anglo-Catholic of a certain sort but not necessarily Anglican or very catholic on the whole of history. <br /><br />The Anglican Communion and Anglicanism as he describes its decision-making defies our complex history, indeed, defies the existence of a CofE at all. And moreso, when laity and our ministries are described. We are not the only Anglican Church with a strong laity, with lay participation in decision-making, and a baptismally-rooted ecclesiology (something that is incredibly reformed AND catholic). I fail to recognize in his remarks the Anglicanism I was instructed in when I left Rome or the Anglicanism I have read about in our complex histories and theologies. Lionel Diemel's latest post also zeroes in on this.<br /><br />It is this relegation of the laity to "the faithful" that would be a deal-breaker for me, and I'm afraid (as in how I feel in response to this) that that relegation is implied in the proposed covenantal relationships--again, anxiety. Readings some of the comments about laity by those supporting the Covenant over at Covenant-Communion as well as thoughts on the Covenant about tidying everything up into coherence, I'm not reassured. For us to ape Rome seems a terrible step backward.Closedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04752595488795781895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-45386326268685255772009-08-01T19:53:28.358-05:002009-08-01T19:53:28.358-05:00Tobias, I'll read with interest your part 2, b...Tobias, I'll read with interest your part 2, but so far, I can't help but view the ABC's "Reflections" as an exercise not in theology but in realpolitik--he seems to me to be using this crisis as an opportunity to craft a British curia. I'm also appalled at his willingness (alluded to by you in the comments above) to achieve his eccelsial ends on the pain of LGBT Christians. <br /><br />I begin to wonder if TEC's future lies with the Communion at all--because riding in the back of Rowan's bus is an option I think we must firmly reject.Anglocathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03218740053628978255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-48530634178399104842009-08-01T18:35:20.039-05:002009-08-01T18:35:20.039-05:00grok: Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange ...grok: Robert Heinlein's <i>Stranger in a Strange Land</i> (1961). A novel of great Eucharistic overtone.Christopher (P.)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-92051775909327221632009-08-01T17:00:46.178-05:002009-08-01T17:00:46.178-05:00Gee, I used "grok" in a sermon recently,...Gee, I used "grok" in a sermon recently, thinking it was actually now in vogue amongst millenials and younger. Maybe it's making a comeback...in this part of the world. Or maybe I just have things reversed in my mind. Wouldn't be the first time.<br /><br />Anyway, I think you're right that RW - along with much of the Anglican world - doesn't seem to grok our polity, and more importantly, the full ramifications of our baptismal ecclesiology.<br /><br />What we who are steeped now in the 1979 BCP see as intuitive in D025 and C064, etc., simply raises eyebrows - bushy and otherwise - in many places!<br /><br />All the more reason it was good that we welcomed so many in the wider communion to GC this year.Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07474786207149076221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-46338120903042022002009-08-01T15:24:35.948-05:002009-08-01T15:24:35.948-05:00The ABC? I think he don't grok.
Time warp, i...The ABC? I think he don't grok.<br /><br />Time warp, indeed, Tobias!<br /><br />Sorry, I know this is a very, very serious blog. I should exercise more self-control, but you and Paul tempted me beyond my ability to resist.June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-25230894648942289192009-08-01T14:26:02.959-05:002009-08-01T14:26:02.959-05:00Grok? You tossed me into a time warp there, Tobia...Grok? You tossed me into a time warp there, Tobias. I don't think I've seen or heard the term since I was a Baptist seminarian in the late 60s / early 70s.<br /><br />And yes, the difference between an intellectual grasp of structure and an appreciation of the wisdom of said structure are very different things.<br /><br />Perhaps, just as some today in the US South have not gotten over "the recent unpleasantness," there are Brits who have not fully dealt with the loss of the colonies. (A gross oversimplification, but nonetheless a possible factor.) We produced a Declaration to explain what we were doing then and TEC has been putting out its reasons for what it does for decades now, yet still there are cries for further study.<br /><br />Thanks for your hard work to demonstrate that we have been doing theology.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06090720645937634051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-79249362754473188312009-08-01T13:35:00.330-05:002009-08-01T13:35:00.330-05:00Paul and Billy -- Yes. This is all a big part of t...Paul and Billy -- Yes. This is all a big part of the issue. At some level RW "understands" the TEC polity -- it is not that hard to grasp intellectually. What he fails to -- and I use a word very popular in my youth, but now perhaps not <i>au courant</i> -- grok the wisdom of such a model of governance. Again -- think academic / collegial. He "gets" the idea of a House of Bishops, maybe even a general synod with clergy and lay representation... but two equal houses??? As to the amount of time to "deal with it" -- actually until the present crisis they haven't had to, or wanted to, deal with this reality. Even Barbara Harris did not raise this to such a high pitch. So they are now playing catch-up for having neglected TEC in fundamental ways all these years. Read Paul Marshall's article in ATR a while back: and excellent analysis of the gaps in the WWAC, and the lack of engagement until very recently.<br /><br />Christopher, I hear you. But I also want to say at least in some defense of RW that he is trying to do better. The problem, which I'll get to in the next section, seems to me to be in his hierarchy of values, which I find very questionable, and verging on utilitarian -- the greatest good for the greatest number. This takes the very unfortunate form of "GLBT wait for us to do what is right until more of us come to see what is right for the sake of the 'weaker brethren'" -- the problem being that for Paul that issue was about a matter he believed to be adiaphora (food), and here we are dealing with people's lives. As I say, more on this in the next and succeeding section. In the meantime, I hear you, and concur. This is a serious problem; I can only promise I will do my best to work on it as I am able.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-48810528760588569172009-08-01T10:58:05.977-05:002009-08-01T10:58:05.977-05:00I wasn't speaking per se to American cultural ...I wasn't speaking per se to American cultural differences (though it seems that too is the case), but to the (sub)cultural realities of lgbt persons. Words like "lifestyle" and "choice" have been used to deadly effect, as have words like "conversion" and "change" in his Belgian radio address. Charitably, he is unaware of how these words are used against lgbt persons, but then, I have to wonder how much engaged listening has really occured given his use of such terminology. Maybe he is trying to reconstruct those terms, but if so, he has neither engaged with their damaging use nor with lgbt theologians who have done that work (and yes, they exist contra the claims that they don't). He could just as easily have spoken of lgbt persons in such relationships as living out their Christlike and Christian ascesis or discipleship according to conscience. It would have been more fair and accurate to our self-understanding, would have avoided bugaboo words, but it would also have challenged the his own easy slide from unmarried heterosexual couple to same-sex committed couple that he makes in his points. I'm not an expert in ethics or moral theology, but that slide is problematic. The two are not on the same moral plane in terms of intent or discipline (whether recognized by the Church or not). But again, as I have said, I think his words less nuanced than others claim them to be. And when we're dealing with persons who as Leonardo notes experience extreme vulnerability in many parts of the Anglican world, moral obligation rests on those who speak a word about those people. <br /><br />I would suggest again, that there seems to be too little sense of challenge to the Church in its behavior from Without, either from God or from general society or from creation. I've said it before but Anglicans taking so strongly our sense of Church as Body of Christ (our almost sick devotion to ecclesiology) have a real danger of conflating Christ and Church in ways that leave the Church unable to criticize itself adequately. As if the Church determines truth by consensus without engagement with the rest of the world in science, etc. If same-sex couples can show forth goodness and virtues, their lives are true irrespective of the Church's determination. I am reminded that not long ago, Anglicans would not bless the marriages of the enslaved or mixed race or even in some cases colonialized couples. They too were seen as nothing more than cohabitants. This sense that God cannot from Without offer a relationship different than that of the Church leaves Anglicanism very vulnerable to conflating Trinity and Church, Christ and Church in ways that can become deadly. To my mind, some Luther and Melancthon are remedy in this regard. After all, what does it say about the Incarnation, that the Church does willingly participate in denigration of lgbt persons? It says to me that we haven't taken to heart it implications and the criticism it makes even of Christ's own Body.Closedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04752595488795781895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-91004183403093156552009-08-01T10:55:41.371-05:002009-08-01T10:55:41.371-05:00As for Rowan's resistance to TEC's way of ...<i>As for Rowan's resistance to TEC's way of bishops sharing power with priests and lay people, too bad for him. That's the reality, and he's needs to accept it. He's not our pope yet.</i><br /><br />How much is this resistance shared by the leaders of other Provinces, I wonder? Can it explain for at least part of the opposition to ECUSA?The Religious Pícarohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03620636294081499041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-42659427709849918682009-08-01T10:31:10.024-05:002009-08-01T10:31:10.024-05:00He doesn't really think the House of Deputies ...<i>He doesn't really think the House of Deputies *should* have equal voice with the House of Bishops, for instance.</i><br /><br />I think this expresses a core issue: whether authority should come from the top down or the bottom up (or the center outward?). His reality is appointed bishops and ours is elected bishops. He is uncomfortable with the role of our Senior House. I do not say it means this for him, but for many of us it symbolizes a challenge to ancient hierarchical models. <br /><br />We speak a great deal about the Baptismal Covenant while not realizing that is is not part of all Anglican liturgies and is certainly not part of the mindset of the AC as a whole. I think focus on the Paschal mystery and the ministry of ALL the baptized is the very best part of theological and liturgical change since, say, Pentecost. I believe it is what God intends. But it makes many rather anxious and I suspect +Cantuar is among them. <br /><br />The good old boys' club will not yield power willingly. I realize that is a rather cynical take on it all but I believe it is true. Other parts of the AC may not like that we rejected a monarchical model two centuries ago but I should think they have had enough time to deal with it.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06090720645937634051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-66605638924889598292009-08-01T08:51:40.382-05:002009-08-01T08:51:40.382-05:00As Erika say, the polity of the Episcopal Church i...As Erika say, the polity of the Episcopal Church is not that difficult to understand. A friend of mine suggested that Rowan my not be as smart as many have assumed, that he may, in fact, be rather dim. That begins to look like a possibility to me. Or else, he's brainy but has little common sense.<br /><br />As for Rowan's resistance to TEC's way of bishops sharing power with priests and lay people, too bad for him. That's the reality, and he's needs to accept it. He's not our pope yet.June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-60307965807867350542009-08-01T08:41:42.981-05:002009-08-01T08:41:42.981-05:00Thanks Matt. It was good seeing you at GC. You too...Thanks Matt. It was good seeing you at GC. You too Nathan.<br /><br />Leonardo, Rowan is vocal in his condemnation of assaults on GLBT civil rights -- even in this document. The problem is that the Reactionaries know that he is a "liberal catholic" at heart, and so have already written him off. He has almost no influence in the GAFCON constellation, and probably never did. He works with TEC because we've expressed willingness to work with him.<br /><br />Erika, it's not just our polity, but the American attitude, that rubs Rowan the wrong way. Only part of it is misunderstanding -- there is also (and I'll be getting to this in the last section) a considerable amount of disagreement with how we do things. He doesn't really think the House of Deputies *should* have equal voice with the House of Bishops, for instance. So it's not just misunderstanding, but resistance to the American Anglican Way. Even bright people sometimes fail to grasp things they don't want to grasp.<br /><br />More later... I really hope to finish these essays before I go off on a much needed retreat!Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-41619531676830534762009-08-01T02:16:12.698-05:002009-08-01T02:16:12.698-05:00Tobias
" one of his still very weak points is...Tobias<br />" one of his still very weak points is his lack of knowledge of Americans and our language and cultural identity. This is part of that British insularity."<br /><br />There have been many in Britain pointing that out again and again. Really, your polity is different from ours over here, but it is not that difficult to understand.<br />I have managed it a little, and I am not anywhere near as intelligent as Rowan, and it is not in my job description to know these things about other churches.<br /><br />Either he is not near as intelligent as we think, or he is deliberately refusing to acknowledge differences that don't suit him.<br />I am finding it very hard to put any other gloss on it.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-10807352666732385682009-07-31T18:26:27.642-05:002009-07-31T18:26:27.642-05:00¨It seems that to understand him, we'd need to...¨It seems that to understand him, we'd need to see the world through the same dark glasses as he sees it, and I don't think that's possible, nor is it a fair expectation.¨ GM<br /><br />The most that I know after reading (four times) ++Rowan is that he is not helping LGBT Anglicans in Uganda, Nigeria, Jamaica and beyond survive a ugly and evil witch hunt...also, his actions and words seem always directed against TEC Church (in what appears to me a snide/inhumane way) while avoiding discussion on beliefs held at many other Provinces of the Anglican Communion which are similar to our own. <br /><br />Thanks for helping me sort things out, I´m getting a better glimpse of what may be ¨really is¨, rather what I think really is.<br /><br />Leonardo RicardoLeonardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16667415590825321701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-91427536102669010492009-07-31T15:33:27.182-05:002009-07-31T15:33:27.182-05:00Your assessment resonates with my own understandin...Your assessment resonates with my own understanding of the archbishop's writings as well as with my limited personal experience of him.<br /><br />I do think that Christopher is right, however, that he has deeply Hegelian tendencies, tendencies that have the danger of depersonalizing the human dimension of a crisis and as a result (unintentionally, I would argue) dehumanizing those on all sides who bear the cost.<br /><br />He is even more Dostoevskian than Hegelian, however, which is what I have argued on my own blog, here:<br /><br />http://communioninconflict.blogspot.com/search?q=dostoevskyNathan J.A. Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18208109242962723992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-50336158741906399272009-07-31T12:56:45.483-05:002009-07-31T12:56:45.483-05:00I also appreciate your point that Williams is not ...I also appreciate your point that Williams is not after some sort of unattainable or oppressive unity/uniformity - a regular enough misunderstanding/misrepresentation.There is a significant difference between that and the mutual recognizability Rowan speaks of.<br /><br />I do take your point that he should be more aware of "scare words" like "lifestyle choice" even if, as I think, he does not mean by them what many here take him to mean.Matt Gunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11230570081324464033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-37249087524947988752009-07-31T11:59:39.299-05:002009-07-31T11:59:39.299-05:00Thanks for this, Tobias. I continue to be an unaba...Thanks for this, Tobias. I continue to be an unabashed Rowanian and appreciate what I take to be a fair and accurate explanation of his underlying approach to things.<br /><br />As you say, his thinking does not fit the usual mode of American progressive thinking or that of American conservatives. Which is why both tend to misunderstand him and find him frustrating. But also why both need him.Matt Gunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11230570081324464033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1284851622189510012009-07-31T11:52:59.366-05:002009-07-31T11:52:59.366-05:00Thanks, Christopher. Part of what I'll deal wi...Thanks, Christopher. Part of what I'll deal with in the next section is the whole epistemological aspect of this: and that what Rowan believes (or hopes) to be true may not strike us as being so. As to the complex of language and so on, one of his still very weak points is his lack of knowledge of Americans and our language and cultural identity. This is part of that British insularity. Again, more to follow... Please also realize I am not trying to defend him, but understand him. This is, I think, a part of the listening process, and it is something I can do and take responsibility for.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.com