In this critique by David Aaronovitch of an article by David Freedland he makes the statement "when the Christian churches wanted to modernise, they stopped holding their services in Latin" ( http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/110333/learning-hebrew-just-a-minor-lamentation ).
This is a misreading of history.
The English Reformation was not an attempt at 1960s-style modernisation but the realisation that England was an elect nation - the elect nation.
As I understand it the Anglican narrative goes:
God called Abraham out of the city of Ur to found his chosen elect people.
Over the millenia the chosen people grew in numbers, encompassing other nations (the Jebusites etc), experiencing purgations and purifications.
The Temple was built, the trials and exiles were endured, the prophets spoke.
The Messiah arrived fulfilling all the prophecies.
At this point the chosen people became those who accepted the Messiah ("I am the way, the truth and the life, except through me none can enter the kingdom of Heaven").
Once again the chosen people grew in numbers, encompassing other nations (the Armenians, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons etc), experiencing purgations and purifications.
The Early Fathers interpreted the scriptures, the patriarchs governed the church, the Apostles confirmed their successors - an unbroken Apostolic line of successors bishop to bishop leading to the confirmation of the bench of bishops that sits in the House of Lords to this day.
The One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church encountered snares and fell into error, requiring the catharsis known as the Reformation.
From the Reformation the Anglican church emerged (in the eyes of English people) as the true elect nation - purged of error, anointing monarchs, maintaining intact the Apostolic Succession.
This "election" was made irrefutable law in the Thirty-Nine Articles.
At this point a new language was necessary for the elect nation to speak to God, and hence the King James Version and the Book of Common Prayer. Even at the time of composition these writings were regarded as holy (holy meaning set apart) and consecrated in the sacraments ("This is the word of the Lord, thanks be to God"). That is why David Aaronovitch is mistaken in describing the Anglican holy books as modernised - no modernisation can be possible in a linguistic election that was intended from before the beginning of time.
Of course, you either believe this or you don't.
And if you don't believe it you are welcome to your own beliefs - there is complete religious toleration in the United Kingdom (although toleration is as far as it goes).
You are welcome to interpret your own religion Mr Aaronovitch, but what you are not entitled to do is interpret someone else's religion for them.
This is a misreading of history.
The English Reformation was not an attempt at 1960s-style modernisation but the realisation that England was an elect nation - the elect nation.
As I understand it the Anglican narrative goes:
God called Abraham out of the city of Ur to found his chosen elect people.
Over the millenia the chosen people grew in numbers, encompassing other nations (the Jebusites etc), experiencing purgations and purifications.
The Temple was built, the trials and exiles were endured, the prophets spoke.
The Messiah arrived fulfilling all the prophecies.
At this point the chosen people became those who accepted the Messiah ("I am the way, the truth and the life, except through me none can enter the kingdom of Heaven").
Once again the chosen people grew in numbers, encompassing other nations (the Armenians, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons etc), experiencing purgations and purifications.
The Early Fathers interpreted the scriptures, the patriarchs governed the church, the Apostles confirmed their successors - an unbroken Apostolic line of successors bishop to bishop leading to the confirmation of the bench of bishops that sits in the House of Lords to this day.
The One Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church encountered snares and fell into error, requiring the catharsis known as the Reformation.
From the Reformation the Anglican church emerged (in the eyes of English people) as the true elect nation - purged of error, anointing monarchs, maintaining intact the Apostolic Succession.
This "election" was made irrefutable law in the Thirty-Nine Articles.
At this point a new language was necessary for the elect nation to speak to God, and hence the King James Version and the Book of Common Prayer. Even at the time of composition these writings were regarded as holy (holy meaning set apart) and consecrated in the sacraments ("This is the word of the Lord, thanks be to God"). That is why David Aaronovitch is mistaken in describing the Anglican holy books as modernised - no modernisation can be possible in a linguistic election that was intended from before the beginning of time.
Of course, you either believe this or you don't.
And if you don't believe it you are welcome to your own beliefs - there is complete religious toleration in the United Kingdom (although toleration is as far as it goes).
You are welcome to interpret your own religion Mr Aaronovitch, but what you are not entitled to do is interpret someone else's religion for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment