Learn from that master of vacuous verbiage Fred Hiltz. In the quotes below, I suspect he was attempting to shatter the Guinness World Record by using “conversation” in five consecutive sentences. That would have been a monumental – nay Herculean – achievement; as it is, only four of the sentences are consecutive.
On the bright side, there is one case where two instances of the word are kept from interfering with each other by the interjection of a mere pronoun: good effort, Fred.
I wonder what this Regional Primates meeting is actually about?
From here:
ARCHBISHOP FRED HILTZ HOSTS REGIONAL PRIMATES’ MEETING IN TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA
“I am very happy to welcome all of the primates of our region of the Communion. This is a meeting that is conversational. We are not making decisions or pronouncements. We are being invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury to come together in our respective regions to have conversations. These conversations will then feed into the Lambeth design group for Lambeth 2020.”
“I take the Canadian contribution to the conversation of Lambeth 2020 very seriously. It is for all the bishops – not for just the Primates – to shape the agenda.”
“At the last meeting of the Canadian House of Bishops, we had good conversations about the Instruments of Communion and how they bolster the life and witness of the Communion as a whole. We also reflected on the theme of Lambeth 2020: God’s Church for God’s World.”
Notice the gender-inclusive language — hehehe (if you’ll pardon the expression).
A.S. you are challenging me today to dig into the revised revisionist dictionary once again.
CONVERSATION: Playing the Progressives’ game by the Progressives’ rules. If you are Orthodox, you cannot have a satisfactory “conversation” with Progressives unless you discuss their agenda on their terms, using their language and working towards their conclusions. “Come, let us reason together!”
You are absolutely right. Fred Hiltz and his apostate colleagues are interested solely in their apostasy. They have no interest whatever in the authority of Scripture and believe that their word is superior to THE WORD. The Anglican Communion is rapidly losing any claim to Christian and will continue its slide into the abyss as long as these apostates continue to believe that the sole requirement of a bishop is the colour of his shirt and collar. Clearly we know who holds the leash!!
It is long since past the time to call so-called liberals by the correct name – APOSTATE. One can be liberal or conservative in the style of worship but there is only one stand for the faith and that is to uphold and recognize the authority of Scripture.
This sounds like an episcopal coffee break. At Starbucks I imagine. I hope none of the participants are flying to this modest event. That would be far to extravagant and environmentally scandalous. It is good to know that no decisions will be made – except of course who will pick up the tab for the coffee.
‘Guinness’ ( the ‘World Record’) just has been surpassed by the ACC’s fellow travelers of Scripturally doubtful “conversation”, so deeply indebted to the former ACC Editor of the former ‘Presbyterian Record’ of untimely end; now supplanted by ‘Connections’ whose Winter ed. 2018 records the Incumbent PCC Moderator, signatory to Church speculation before it becomes Church law, employing “conversation” five times in one paragraph.
Acknowledging the current state of “deep pain” and “significant divisions” within that Branch of The Vine, he, on behalf of all twelve ‘Rainbow Communion’ PCC Moderators,calls for “respectful” conversations. Such Christian humility and charity must needs be among themselves only; at the 2018 General Assembly the selfsame Moderator cut down or cut off the faintest hint of Scriptural Protest/Reformed “conversation” on the subject.
Still, echoing the late, Scriptural Reverend Dr. William Klempa’s May 11, 2016 ‘Open Letter’ to the now defunct ‘Record’, they enjoin “speaking the truth in love” + Ephesians 4:15 as they profess “none of us knows exactly WHERE The Triune God of grace may lead the Church”,:also enjoining to “following Jesus…him our Living Way” + John 14:6.
_______________________________________________________________________
Gives counter-intuitive a whole new meaning.
A good idea, that, following Jesus. As I wrote long ago, “It has been left to us of the late Twentieth Century to suggest that for Jesus, Who regarded the canonical Jewish Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God, the rightness of homosexual expression or conduct was an open question. Such an opinion could be maintained only in a period where knowledge of New Testament background was at a premium. The notion is if possible more implausible than that He would have been open-minded about heterosexual relations outside marriage. There can be no doubt that the prohibition of all extramarital genital contact must have held for Our Lord as it did for His society. The reaction to any teaching or living on His part which suggested compromise at this point would have been extreme; practice would have given the religious authorities grounds for a capital charge; at the very least some echo, considering the aberrations of which the Lord was accused, must have found its way into the record. Given that He set up as a rabbi of sorts, if His views, let alone His practice, had been at all suspect, it is unimaginable that they would not have been made an issue. The suggestion is equally ludicrous when it comes to Paul: in that respect as in others he never ceased to be a First Century Jewish rabbi. He could, furthermore, never have risen so far so fast as a Pharisee if there had been any breath of that sort of scandal about him. Jewish sensitivities in sexual matters were such that certain strict ideas about prohibited degrees were something which the Council of Jerusalem, even in the interests of settling the Great Row about the terms upon which Gentiles could belong to the people of God, could not jettison as merely cultic. Since hindrances to table-fellowship, without which you do not have one church, were in question, the issue was not core-πορνεία but fringe-πορνεία. There was certainly a fortiori no argument between Jew and Gentile about what constituted gross sin.”
Thank you for these crucial truths themselves grounded in “the whole counsel of GOD”: in His post-Temptation contest with the devil, defeating him three times with the Deuteronomic “It is written”, our LORD then fulfills this Incarnate “written” Authority in His home Synagogue in Nazareth:”The Spirit of The LORD is upon Me…This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears” + Luke 4; its corresponding post-Crucifixion+Resurrection Incarnate Authority re-affirmed in + Luke 24:44 “These are the words…that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in The Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me,”
No room there for development of doctrine; or for any relativistic “cultural assumptions” in those Christ-centered affirmations about Himself, His Kingdom and Believers in Him. None: “The WORD that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the Last Day.” + John 12:48. Amen.
At the PCCGA, June, 2018, in his defense of promoting progressive doctrine on human sexuality re. LGBTQI, the Incumbent Moderator declaimed, with the clear approval of both GA Clerks,
“This is the General Assembly, and the authority and power rests here!”
+ + +
Ecclesia Reformata semper Reformanda secundum Verbum Dei.
The WORD of GOD is above everyone and every thing.
This obsessive-compulsive use of “conversatIon ” to refer to a means, as if it were an end in itself, reminded me of something. After a bit of searching I found it. The warning about such a means-as-an-end, or putting secondary things first, is (in French)
“on cause mieux quand on ne dit pas causons”
(i.e. one converses better when one does not say: let us converse).
It was used by Keats, and by CS Lewis in a context of mistaking a means for the end that the means was intended to serve. Lewis’s examples were:
“The woman who makes a dog the centre of her life loses, in the end, not only her human usefulness and dignity but even the proper pleasure of dog-keeping. The man who makes alcohol his chief good loses not only his job but his palate and all power of enjoying the earlier (and only pleasurable) levels of intoxication.” [First and Second Things]. Both Keats and Lewis quote it in French as if they expect the reader to know it. My own education in that regard is deficient, and I have been unable to track down its origin,
This is a possible origin [ http://lewisiana.nl/essayquotes/#first ] :
On cause mieux quand on ne dit pas Causons…
From the Mémoires du prince Eugène de Savoie, écrits par lui-même (Duprat-Duverger, Paris 1810), p. 183. The fact that Lewis quoted from a source like this is almost certainly due to the fact that his brother was an accomplished amateur historian of 17th-century France.