Oh dear!
Where to begin, where to begin?

““What could we possibly mean by saying that a truth expressed in the Middle East 2,000 years ago was truth applicable to everybody, everywhere?”

Huh?

‘Belief in the uniqueness or finality of Christ, in the way it has usually been understood, is something that “sits very badly indeed, not just with a plural society – whatever that means – but with a society that regards itself as liberal or democratic”.’

And so?

‘In the Gospels, Jesus said: “No one comes to the father, except through me.”’

And he has problems with this for people who have a clear understanding of the Gospel?  If I remember correctly, the Roman Church ‘sensitively’ dealt with this issue many centuries ago.

What about the Great Commission?  Are we supposed to superimpose a modifying template of ‘political correctness’ on the specific guidance of the Great Commission?

And this is a surprise coming from +Rowen, why?

Apparently, Mrs. Schori has become the Archbishop’s primary theological advisor. An intellectual once regarded as “deep” has shown how shallow he can be.

You know, I wonder how he’ll explain this to Jesus when he sees him ...

IF the incarnation is fact
IF the resurection is real
IF Jesus WAS divine…
...then we surely have a duty to uphold this TRUTH to all because it renders all other faiths misguided?
#BUT if you secretely doubt the Gospels….then his words make perfect sense.

I think it is now ABUNDANTLY clear what sort of body the C of E wishes to be. Let the faithful choose between faith in Christ and membership of this secular minded body

At the beginning of the lecture, the ABC lists the three objections he sees. The point of the lecture is to answer them. You may not agree with the answers he gives, but it seems a tad unfair to quote his description of the objections and claim (and ridicule him because) they represent his point of view. Here’s the paragraph from which Anglicanfirst (#1 above) draws a line and then postures a “huh?”:

“And that connects with the third group of objections and difficulties which you could call philosophical. Every truth is spoken in the terms of its own culture and its own times. What could we possibly mean by saying that truth expressed in the Middle East two thousand years ago was a truth applicable to everybody, everywhere? Wouldn’t this be to lift our claims right out of the realm of ordinary human conversation to claim something inhuman and actually indefensible and unsustainable?”

Surely Rowan’s not saying that’s a problem he has, but a problem he sees others having and intends to answer.

#6 - sometimes people read what they want and ignore the rest.

The full speech may be found at the provided link.  In the speech he sets out three objections to traditional Christian claims about the uniqueness of Christ. 

The first difficulty is moral. What kind of God is it who makes salvation or eternal life dependent on what’s always going to be a rather chancy matter? What about all those people who never had a chance of hearing about Jesus? What about all those who have heard about Jesus but have not understood or waited to find out? What about the generations before Jesus? What about the whole realm of non-Christian culture untouched for centuries by the Christian gospel? Can we believe in a just God who—in effect—punishes people for not being in the right place at the right time? This is a moral objection based on the character of the God we say we believe in.

But increasingly there’s been a second set of objections which I’ll call political.  If you claim that Christ is the final truth about God and the universe, doesn’t that give you a perfect excuse for trying to shut up anyone who says different? Isn’t this part of the justification for crusading and colonialism and wicked things like that? Isn’t it a recipe for contempt towards a large part of the human race? Doesn’t it simply enshrine with a theological surround or mount, prejudices about the superiority of our culture?

And that connects with the third group of objections and difficulties which you could call philosophical. Every truth is spoken in the terms of its own culture and its own times. What could we possibly mean by saying that truth expressed in the Middle East two thousand years ago was a truth applicable to everybody, everywhere? Wouldn’t this be to lift our claims right out of the realm of ordinary human conversation to claim something inhuman and actually indefensible and unsustainable?

Objection 1 proceeds from dreadfully bad Theology and should be corrected by the application of correct Theology.  God is not a contingent being.  The answer to every question posed in this objection is found in the Doctrine of Election. 

Objection 2 is a red herring.  The potential uses or mis-uses of exclusive truth claims do not speak to their objective truth. 

Objection 3 is simply a rejection of the idea of absolute truth claims.  Modern secular man finds very offensive the idea that he may be held accountable to any objective truth to which he does not give ascent.  But God exists, and God reveals truth to man.  It remains true whether man accepts it or not. 

If you want to understand why the Christian faith is becoming irrelevant in the West, then read this sad cowardly apologetic.  Christianity does not need to be made palatable for the modern world. Christians needs to keep the courage of their convictions and speak the truth to a world that does not want to hear.  We need to stop being amazed that an unredeemed world will find the gospel offensive.  It is not our destiny to be conformed to the desires of man. 

carl

Is he surprised, stating the obvious in obscure language, or attempting to knock down straw men?  Grace is not irresistable and the gospel has always had opponents. It is time to move on from this kind of thinking.

Compair the ABC with Polycarp, who joyfully died for the faith.  Williams denies it and runs away.

Now do we wonder why there has not been action taken against TEC and its heresy?
desert padre

evangelist “bulies”

Not something I could actually find in the ABC’s talk.  However I did find “We are very rightly suspicious of proselytism, of manipulative, bullying, insensitive approaches”, which perhaps amounts to the same thing.

But where?  I have not come across any.  Perhaps the Archbishop trips over them preaching in the streets of Canterbury, or perhaps they wake him up in his palace in London calling for repentence from beneath his windows at 5 am on Sunday mornings [that is before he has his morning bath in ice-cold water, dons his hair shirt and unbrushes his beard]?

Having listened to a few of Dr Williams’ recent sermons, this is certainly not a complaint that could ever be levelled at him.  Indeed if anyone came to any sort of Christian faith through listening to him preach recently I imagine it would be nothing short of a miracle.

One could of course read the whole miserable piece here, but it might help to keep a bucket and mop handy.  Then again one might just like to read what Jesus himself had to say on the subject:
John 8:12-30

Ho hum.

Now for my question I have asked over and over again….why is it relevant to be connected to Canterbury? The See of the Anglican Communion has lost its way.

Brother Michael, I thought of Polycarp, too. Sad.

47The Lord has given us this command,

“I have placed you here as a light for the Gentiles.  You are to take the saving power of God to people everywhere on earth.”

48This message made the Gentiles glad, and they praised what they had heard about the Lord. Everyone who had been chosen for eternal life then put their faith in the Lord.  Acts 13:47-48

The Gentiles were glad and gave thanks then in contrast to today.

Gosh if Dr. Wiliams was a cheerleader his team would never leave the locker room! Christ and his Gospel will endure despite his Schorism and he shall quickly drift into the irrelevant bin of failed human “Scholars”.
Intercessor

The Archbishop quoted the Koran: “And God did not elect to make everybody the same. God has made us to learn in dialogue.”

He didn’t actually quote that out of the Koran, did he? Surely the Koran doesn’t really say, “God has made us to learn in dialogue.” That’s Schori-speak, not Mohammad-speak.

The “bullying, insensitive approach” can be found in the act of Jesus
himself in driving out the money-changers from the temple in
Jerusalem. His political handlers (aka “the Apostles”) should have
advised Jesus to reach out to the moderate elements in the
money-changer community. I am encouraged that the ABC does
not condone such reprehensible behavior.

Actually, plowing through the whole thing, I think the ABC actually says that Jesus the only way to salvation, something ++KJS would likely object to.

18, where?  Why on earth should a Bishop of the Church speak in such convoluted language so that you say:  “I think the ABC actually says that Jesus the only way to salvation…”  Shouldn’t he say so clearly?

Hmmm - has the Anglican Communion gotten the archbishop it deserves, instead of the one it needs?  I cannot wait to see what replacement the then current government of the U.K. names to replace him when he retires.

The ABC has a famously allusive style. That said, in charity, I don’t see the problem with this, unless you’re willing to cop to being in favor of insensitive approaches to people which treat them as if their reflection and imagination were of no interest to us or to God (but then, although he has gored my ox as much as anyone else’s, I don’t disdain him to begin with):

“In short and in conclusion, belief in the uniqueness and finality of Jesus Christ – for all the assaults made upon it in the modern age – remains for the Christian a way of speaking about hope for the entire human family. And because it’s that, we are bound to say something about it. We are very rightly suspicious of proselytism, of manipulative, bullying, insensitive approaches to people of other faith which treat them as if they knew nothing, as if we had nothing to learn and as if the tradition of their reflection and imagination were of no interest to us or God. God save us from that kind of approach. But God save us also from the nervousness about our own conviction which doesn’t allow us to say that we speak about Jesus because we believe he matters. ”

So Jesus is unique and final, for Christians, as a way of speaking.  Not THE way, but a way.  As opposed to the truth, or even a truth, or even a fact.  God is also interested in others’ reflection and imagination, because apparently he’s not omniscient, and is surprised and intrigued and he’s learning things he’s never thought of before.  Obviously, Jesus wasn’t as final as he intended, and he jumped the gun by sending that fellow out in the year zero.  Also, Jesus matters, to Christians.  Pathetic.

The full text of this address was posted on T19 yesterday, and as of this moment has garnered a paltry eight comments.

However a newspaper account of the address with a provocative and misleading headline has drawn 21 comments within ten hours.

Class, read this and then compare and contrast.
“The gospel message: It’s “love one another”
By Other Voices
March 13, 2010, 4:04AM

The Rev. Alistair Begg’s theological interpretation of the Gospel of John, (Messages of faith, Saturday) has been sadly all too pervasive in Christianity for centuries. To continue to read this Gospel, or any of the Biblical canon, in such a superficial manner that it leads the reader to believe that “those who claim to know and honor God, but deny the truth of the deity of Christ, are deluded and dangerous” is to perpetuate a serious untruth about the essential nature of Jesus and his message. This untruth has resulted in a host of egregious behaviors by Christians toward others, including virulent anti-Semitism over the last two millennia.

If we truly desire to seek the essential message of Jesus in the Gospel of John, it would be found in those passages that record the events of the night before his Passion and Crucifixion—namely, the act of foot-washing that he engaged in with his disciples and the giving of the Mandatum novum, the new commandment. To “love one another as [he has] loved [us],” combined with our approaching every human being—Christian or otherwise—with that same sense of profound humility Jesus conveyed in the washing of the disciples’ feet, is the only true path to restoring this broken world.

There is nothing confusing, theologically vague or sentimental about this path to our redemption.
The Rev. Peter Faass, Shaker Heights

Faass is the rector of Christ Episcopal Church. “
http://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2010/03/the_gospel_message_its_love_on.html

Which more correct in their presentation, Faass or Williams or Beggs?

Consider in your answer whether of not acceptability is necessarily a part of the proclamation.

Who made the claims manifestly clear and unavoidable?

Which was the biggest weanie?  Why?

Extra points for monosyllabic word choices and eschewal of obfuscation.

23, Ross I suspect that it is because, fundamentally, the ABC is incomprehensible.  He is unable to speak clearly and understandably.  Jesus, on the other hand is clear:

John 14:6-9   6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.  7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”  8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”  9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Jesus claims deity.  Disagree with His claim, but do not disagree with the fact that He claimed it.  The ABC is unwilling to stand up for Christ.

Of course, the ABC’s style is again rather opaque and hard to follow, but (as I read him) he was actually denying the importance of merely cultural perspectives and supporting the idea of universal truth.  I have to wonder about Ruth Gledhill’s motives since she fully misrepresents the gist of his sermon. To each of the hypothetical objections to Christianity’s uniqueness (which he poses in order to refute them), he does present an answer.  Gledhill chose to focus only on these supposed objections of non-Christians.  Some of the following would have been more representative:

“It’s possible of course that you may feel the objections don’t need to be met and the answer is to give up on the uniqueness or finality of Jesus Christ. For reasons I’ll try to explain a bit later, I don’t think that’s a very sensible or useful strategy.
.........
“You may find that there’s more critical edge if you take something more like the classical belief. But at the very least, if you truly believe that what the New Testament is talking about is a living relationship with Jesus in the Spirit brought about by the gift of God, you will look a little bit skeptically at any claim that this or that cultural or political force can guarantee it.”

No wonder Rome is looking to genuinely Christian Anglican churches to be reunited with and seems to have given up the concept of reunion with Canterbury Anglicans.

Sadly, I have to agree with Ross. 

Once again, people actually are trusting the provocative and misleading headlines to actually reveal the point of RW.  That’s a big mistake—I assume that the headlines are placed there in order for people to cluck and purchase the newspaper.

RW prides himself on being as circumvential as possible but he does eventually state a point which is usually orthodox.  It’s just, as I said, as circumventing as possible so that he can maintain the whole scholarly and objective image.

Whatever.  I don’t particularly care what he has to say, whether orthodox or heretical.  But in this case—as if often the case—the newspaper writer has done him a disservice.

The question before the house should be . . . why does this particular newspaper author wish to do Rowan Williams a disservice.

I don’t know.  One can only speculate.

++Rowan’s ‘style of presentation’ seems to be used in defense of his comments by some of the commentators speaking in defense of his comments. 

We are being asked to ‘wade throught’ his indirect approach in order to see with clarity(?) what he is actually saying or trying to say.

This may be appropriate in a classroom, but ++Rowan is a major church leader speaking in general audience.  He owes it to to that audience to be clear and concise in his presentation.  He, as the ABC, should present to that audience his clear understanding of and committment to the Christology of “...the Faith once given….”

He should not raise “red herring” issues that inject or may induce doubt or a ‘gnostic’ or agnostic spirit in his audience. 

There is no need to raise such “issues,” the Gospel is quite clear in what Jesus said.  Either he accepts the Gospel or he doesn’t, but when he, as the ABC pursues a path of argumentation that opens the doors to the gnostics, agnostics and the atheists to challenge the Christology of “...the Faith once given…,” he comes across as a spiritual leader who doubts the faith that he professes to believe.

But, #29, if one were to engage in the evangelism that this thread is extolling, in the culture of present-day England or the U.S., one would immediately encounter exactly the objections that he raises.  Saying that “the Gospel is clear” is an argument only to those who already believe the Gospel; what do you say to those who do not?

Ross, 29 is right.  And while I hate to disagree with Sarah, I do.  The Gospels are clear.  And Jesus is clear.  It’s only the post-modernists who have difficulty.  Disagree with Jesus, say that He is wrong, but don’t say that He is not clear. What is not clear about:

John 14:6-7   6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.  7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

For heaven’s sake, disagree with Jesus, say the He is nuts.  But don’t say that He didn’t say what He said.

And as for Williams, I don’t much care.  The man can’t communicate.  No one who requires this much translation deserves to be listened to.

“Saying that “the Gospel is clear” is an argument only to those who already believe the Gospel; what do you say to those who do not?”

When those who do not believe in the Gospel perceive, hear or intuit that Christian leaders, especially major Christian leaders, need to posit ‘unbelief’ in order to ‘justify’ their ‘belief’ in the Gospel, then those unbelievers being appealed to, let us say, become ‘less than impressed’ with the Truth of the Gospel.

The realm of cognative existance of the Creator is far far beyond what the mortal mind can comprehend.  Therefore, we believers are left to deal with the Truths revealed to us by the Creator through the prophets, Jesus and the Apostles.

That leaves those of us who are, in discernment and commitment,  believers with a message based upon the prophets, Jesus and the Apostles with a mission to deliver to non-believers The Truth of the Gospel as we have directed to do by the Great Commission.

What “we say” is based the message of The Gospel and upon the presence of The Holy Spirit that is invoked by “...followers of the Faith once given…” as we reach out to unbelievers. Its as simple as that. 

We seek competence in The Truths of the Creator’s message to us and we seek the guidance and the intervention of The Holy Spirit in carrying out the Great Commission.

I really don’t know what else to say except that those who profess to be Christians, who publicly express doubt, even as an apologetic method of discussion in their attempts to spread The Gospel, provide those non-Christians who are told the Truths of the Gospel with ammunition to ‘question’ those Truths.  That doesn’t mean that Christians should not be prepared to deal with beliefs and attitudes that are un/anti-Christian.

So, as to the question, “...what do we say…?”

I say preach the The Gospel and invoke the presence and guidance of The Holy Spirit. 

And remember, the ‘healing ministry’ is part of the Great Commission, therefore, I also say go forth and invoke The healing power of the The Holy Spirit.  The ‘healing ministry’ can be an integral part of the process of bringing non-believers to The Father throught Jesus Christ.

#26 Paula, #28 Sarah and others
I am afraid superficially that may appear to be the case.  However if you do as I did and print off the ABC’s article and read it carefully you may find, as I did, that the ABC has taken the traditional reading of the Gospel passages referring to Christ’s uniqueness and finality; explored his objections and those of society and then redefined these terms in a manner he finds more acceptable, and which opens the way for not ruling out people finding their way to God, by implication, by methods other than belief in Christ.  He is understandably very careful about how far he will go in expressing this, but the implication is clear.

He does not like the exclusive claims of Christianity and Christ in relation to other religions including the Abrahamaic faiths, but also others, and so what he has done is to redefine what they mean, indeed he has “revised” them.

This is entirely consistent with reports I have heard from others who have heard first hand from him his views.

Of course the problem is the revised terms are not consistent with either the traditional meaning of the terms and the way they have been understood, or with what Jesus himself said in many other passages in the Gospels [such as John 8:12-30 I quoted above] in which Jesus is very clear about who he is and what that means for salvation.

There are certainly a good many things we do not know or understand, but that is no reason for a revisionist reading of these passages.

#28. Sarah,

The question before the house should be . . . why does this particular newspaper author wish to do Rowan Williams a disservice.

I personally don’t believe Ruth Gledhill has the horsepower to wade through this presentation. Did she misrepresent what he said? I think the more apt question is,“Did she understand what he said”? Ross wrote that the full text of his address posted on T19 yesterday only garnered 8 comments. I had some free time so I read the full text and was one of those commenters. I would call his current approach Indabba Evangelism. After 21 paragraphs, he finally got to his point. Pageantmaster’s comment (#12) sums my feelings.

Indeed if anyone came to any sort of Christian faith through listening to him preach recently I imagine it would be nothing short of a miracle.

The real Rowan Williams has been replaced by the TEC pod ABC. He’s so busy being transformed by the listening process that while he still believes the truths of Christianity, he doesn’t want to intrude on anyone else’s beliefs. Sound familiar?

#34. Pageantmaster,
If Ruth Gledhill was a real journalist and not a gossip columnist, she would have said exactly what you have stated.

#35/#36 Fr.Dale - I have quite a bit of time for Ruth.  She gets it in the neck from all sides, but in reality she is almost alone in following the arcane movements in the Anglican world.  She is a journalist, not a theologian.  The other thing as has been previously noted is that the headlines in the Times are not necessarily written by the journalists, which sometimes may explain how headlines float free from anything you might read in the article below them.

That said, I am not a priest or a theologian so I suppose I ought to have some humility about expounding on the views of my elders and betters in the church.  I do however try to follow the logic of arguments, although I find in reading religious writers that I do not always find it.

The Archbishop is a better theologian than the bunch of us put together on T19. We ought to have some humility. Frankly, if Anglicanism has a future, it is in the depth of ++Williams and not in the cheap shots and lead-footed evangelicalism witnessed in so many of our posts.

Ross and Sarah, bless you.

Heh - Brother Michael, I found the Archbishop quite comprehensible.  Work harder.

Where postmodernists are generally right is the descriptive claim that most of us now live and engage people who find Jesus incomprehensible (thus the idea of multiple narratives).  They don’t grow up Christian; they are surrounded by a generally pagan ethic.  Their understanding of Christianity is generally through the media.  You see Jesus, Brother Michael, and the resurrection with all it offers, as do I.  But others see paedophilia, homophobia, insularity, gullibility and a variety of other unsavory characteristics.  Or they think we have very active imaginations.

Not that I subscribe to the idea that post-modernism is ethically right.  I don’t think it is logically so, at least.  But it is not wrong on all counts. 

Add that, actually, the way many evangelists try to evangelize doesn’t work.  Most of the time you either have to force people; or feed them.  The “bait and switch” tactics used by evangelicals isn’t as effective as a pretty basic idea:  discover the needs of the people and serve them.  I’d recommend the book Jim and Casper go to church.

Hearts first.  Then minds.

#38 Albany+
A cat may look at a king, and it is entirely open to us to pierce the fog and seek to find out exactly what our leaders are saying.  Being a good theologian does not mean that you are necessarily right.

Now, do you have a reasoned argument to bring to your cheap shots in #38?

#40 Actually John Wilkins I have noticed that it is those brought up in a ‘pagan’ environment, as you put it or perhaps a godless environment, who are more open to hear about Christ.  It is those brought up with a bad experience of church or Christians who are less receptive.

41# What I said doesn’t purport to be an argument nor did I suggest the ABC is always right. If you find the comments here of a higher order and more thoughtful than ++Williams that’s quite fine with me. I don’t—quite including myself.

John Wilkins is on to something more worthy of our time if we actually want to make the Christian case to the culture.  The frustration with ++Williams as a political strategist in our Communion wars seems to drive the reactions here much more than an honest assessment of his theological work in the settings they actually occur.

#38. Albany,

The Archbishop is a better theologian than the bunch of us put together on T19. We ought to have some humility. Frankly, if Anglicanism has a future, it is in the depth of ++Williams and not in the cheap shots and lead-footed evangelicalism witnessed in so many of our posts.

If you want to scold the posters including me, go ahead but don’t use the pronouns “us”, “we” and “our”.  Speak for yourself. If you say that the future of Anglicanism depends on ++Williams be prepared to be opposed by folks like me. I’m not speaking out of arrogance. I’m speaking out of anger and frustration. The reality is that the ABC is not a good communicator. Imagine the majority of the Anglican Communion that does not even speak English and here we are trying to translate what he has said into English in spite of John Wilkins mock exhortation to “Try harder”.

Well, the ABC has done a poor job with the barristers and the financiers, and I don’t doubt that this sterling example of polysyllabic monotonous nuance is going to do just as well with the average listener/Brit/6th former crowd as those.  Whom, precisely, is the ABC attempting to reach with these speeches?  I dare say it is not the twitter crowd, nor the high school aged folk.

I am equipped to follow him.  I have read the entire article.  If I presented that in seminary class for preaching, I should tarred and feathered and lucky to be run out of town on a rail with my life intact.  I have been criticized for use of the word anagogical in reference to interpretive modes regarding scripture.  That was a piece of cake next to this mess of pottage.

It’s not that ideas aren’t in there.  It’s just that very few are going to harry that Mirkwood on the off-chance there might be a fox or rabbit lurking about.  The have better things to do.

Wasted opportunity, again.

Albany+ said,
““The Archbishop is a better theologian than the bunch of us put together on T19.”
The Greeks and other classical thinkers were great at expounding theories and their names are now legendary.  But their thinking was often needlessly complex and over sophisticated, hence, the Earth was considered the center of the Universe until Copernicus and Gallileo came along.  Likewise, ++Rowan has the ability to make things that are straight forward and comprehensible into things that are complex and hard to follow without falling asleep while reading what he has said.

“We ought to have some humility.”
If ++Rowan were my college professor, I would have the humility to ‘hear him out.’  Be he is our leader and I expect him to ‘lead’ and not ‘muddle about’ and ‘muddy the waters’ as he has been doing for too long.  The Communion is in a crisis and he seems to think that all members of the Communion are equally responsible and should just ‘get along’ when the crisis has been deliberately institigated by a relatively small and easily identifiable group of individuals in the Communion.

“Frankly, if Anglicanism has a future, it is in the depth of ++Williams and not in the cheap shots and lead-footed evangelicalism witnessed in so many of our posts.”

There had better be some evangelism in the Communion or there will be no Communion in Britain, Canada and the United States within several generations.  By the way, what’s wrong with carrying out the Great Commission?  What’s wrong with enthusiastic evangelism? Is being “evangelistic” too too unAnglican?  It was this sort of attitude that resulted in the English Church shunning the Methodist Movement.

By they way, I take your “lead-footed” comment as being deliberately perjorative.

#45 Was it a sermon?  I thought it was a speech or an address.  I tend to hear sermons differently than lectures, myself. 

Granted, it’s not Joel Osteen or Creflo dollar.

Wow. The negativity here is off the charts for what IMHO is a thoughtful look at how to present Christ in a very secular society. It seems to me that Rowan is almost always writing/speaking for the very secular British skeptic as much as the Church or anyone else he is addressing at the time. And that’s a very different cultural context than what we have in America.

It amuses me that the ‘bumbling Dumbledore’ routine still tricks so many people who will defend Williams as a misunderstood academic. Let us put his words to one side and merely contemplate his actions. He does nothing to stop the liberal machine rolling out its agenda and also does nothing to stand up robustly for the orthodox. That is enough for me. The rest is a clever game that deflects heat- using clotted rhetoric to confuse and deliberately saying things that can be interpreted by everyone according to taste.

Take for example the last synod in England. He gives a speech that trads might like the sound of - basically accepting that they feel hard done by. He gives the impression of wanting to help us. But does he actually DO anything? Does he actually rise to our defence? No- he allows us to get a kicking every time then rubs his beard and wrings his hands…..

now IF he is as clever as you say- why does he DO nothing in defence of the faithful and also nothing to stem the rise of liberalism and decay….UNLESS that is his ultimate goal working hand in glove with the hand that (financially) feeds him- being ECUSA?

Maybe Chris Johnson should try harder too.  His conclusion:  “I have a request.  After reading Dr. Williams’ piece, does anybody know if Rowan Williams considers Jesus Christ to be the way, the truth and the life or not?  Because I’m pretty much completely stumped.”

http://themcj.com/

Hm.  Brother Michael here are a couple quotes:

“So, ‘uniqueness’ and ‘finality’: we believe as Christians that because of Jesus Christ a new phase in human history – not just the history of the Middle East or of Europe – has opened. There is now a community representing on earth the new creation, a restored humanity. There is now on earth a community which proclaims God’s will for universal reconciliation and God’s presence in and among us leading us towards full humanity. That is something which happens as a result of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus.”

“In short and in conclusion, belief in the uniqueness and finality of Jesus Christ – for all the assaults made upon it in the modern age – remains for the Christian a way of speaking about hope for the entire human family.” 

I’m quite aware that when speaking with other evangelicals it’s nice to have the badge, the seal, the easy label, the reminder of knowing where one stands.  Rowan, perhaps, isn’t lecturing to the already converted - you already know the answer.  He’s lecturing to those people who need a bit more convincing. 

#49 - this is a fair question.  From the reexamining side he hasn’t helped us much either.  Personally, I’m skeptical that any archbishop will save us.  That, perhaps is for God.  And perhaps its up to us to d the work.

So is Jesus unique and final only for Christians or for all.  Is Jesus the way the truth and the life for just Christians (our Truth) or for all humanity?

RE: “Saying that “the Gospel is clear” is an argument only to those who already believe the Gospel; what do you say to those who do not?”

Oh good—I get to disagree with Ross!  ; > )

While I agree with Ross that the headline as usual does a [deliberate?] disservice to what RW actually said, he hasn’t done a bit of good actually communicating to those who do not believe the Gospel.

But then, I don’t think that’s RW’s point either [though he certainly may believe that is his point].  I think his main role in writing for the public is to foster the perception that he’s a scholarly, objective thinker, albeit a Christian.

End of story. 

Those who deem themselves to be scholarly, objective thinkers will no doubt read and nod their heads occasionally.  That’s great.  Of course . . . that’s a very very very teensy percentage of the UK—those who deem themselves scholarly, objective thinkers.  But hey—at least he may have communicated with that segment of few people out of the audience who read the Times!

I’m happy for him.

The trouble with expecting an academic to do something practical like, say, convey the message of Jesus Christ clearly and effectively, is best described in the allegory of the random professor of philosophy who volunteered to take his neighbor’s dog for a walk. All went well except the professor hadn’t noticed, until it was pointed out by the surprised and upset dog’s owner, that he had returned with someone else’s dog. The owner’s dog had been misplaced.

38. Albany+ wrote:

The Archbishop is a better theologian than the bunch of us put together on T19.

—

What a joke.  If this were true, God save us from theologians.  The ABC is, at best, an unclear presenter of a non-biblical theology.  And, God bless her, the PB knows no theology at all.

“And, God bless her, the PB knows no theology at all.”

When people get talking in a group where everyone agrees, lines can be crossed and things can begin to look ugly even though the participants don’t mean it that way. I’m not personally attacking anyone, but I have to ask, does no one here see a problem with using the phrase “God bless her” in such a mocking, insincere way?

#56. MarkP,

I have to ask, does no one here see a problem with using the phrase “God bless her” in such a mocking, insincere way?

And how do you know the mind of CanaAnglican in what was said?

As an aside, this week’s episode of the BBC’s “Everyday Ethics” has a discussion of the ABC’s speech that covers some of the ground the comments here have. In it, one of the commentators, Dr. Wallace Thompson, chairman of the Caleb Foundation (which calls itself “an evangelical pressure group”) says, “Rowan Williams is an enemy of Christ and an ungodly man.” It’s the first thing in the broadcast, which can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/ethics/

#56.  Mark,
Neither mocking, nor insincerity was meant by me.  Please be assured that I pray for the PB and TEC.  Even though I am a member of a CANA congregation in Virginia, I winter in Florida and, for three months each year, attend a wonderful Episcopal church in the Dio. of Central FL.  It is just as orthodox as my home church.

My point, perhaps poorly stated, is that I see little evidence of the ABC being a great theologian, and none whatsoever for the PB.  In fairness to her, I do not think she claims to be a theologian.  Is not the real tragedy here that most of what either of them does is to draw the power completely out of the Gospel?  People, we have Good News, and this is the time of the year to spread it.  May God bless them both and empower them to join us in broadcasting the seed of the Gospel.

#59. CanaAnglican,
What sort of evidence would count for Rowan Williams being a great theologian? Have you found most of his books (e.g., Arius: Heresy and Tradition, On Christian Theology, Lost Icons, etc.) that you have read to be unsatisfactory? Who among contemporary writers would you contrast with Williams as being a great theologian? Is your complaint about his reasoning, his conclusions, or the premises he employs?

You may still have a valid complaint against Rowan Williams even if you do not engage any of these questions. However, then the statement that “I see little evidence of the ABC being a great theologian” perhaps can be stated better in terms of his deficiency in executing his office as archbishop and Anglican primus inter partes.

It is entirely possible to write profoundly and orthodoxly about the incarnation and yet avoid painful decisions that seem necessary for long term health.

#39 Knapsack says:

Ross and Sarah, bless you.

Now there’s a sentence I would have wagered money would never be uttered in T19.

#53 Sarah says:

Oh good—I get to disagree with Ross!  ; > )

And so harmony is restored once again

In any event, I thought this address was quite good, and touched on some pretty relevant issues.  Especially for those of us who live in places like the Pacific Northwest, where professing any religion makes you stand out in the crowd.  In places like this, where people are reflexively pluralistic, you have to enage the kinds of issues that Rowan Williams raises in this address if you’re even going to talk to anyone about any religion, much less Christianity.

Thanks, CanaAnglican (if this were one of those blogs that reveal email addresses, I would have taken this matter up with you directly). Happy to have misread your tone of voice.

60. newcollegegrad wrote:

#59. CanaAnglican,
What sort of evidence would count for Rowan Williams being a great theologian?

I think the evidence would be found in the fruit produced by the effort.  How is the church being built up by those who obscure the Gospel until their presentation of it is totally devoid of the power that is so inherent in it?  Short answer, it is not.  You may say it is not the duty of the theologian to build the church.  But for me it is, otherwise the Word is sold short.  I think the great theologians of history placed stones to build the church, not walls as barriers.  What, in a couple of centuries, will historians say ++Rowan built?

I know my own limitations and training as a physicist, rather than theologian, prevent me from understanding a great deal of what ++Rowen writes, but I am given to understand that I am not alone in finding his writing obscure.  Perhaps that is a mark of genius; keep ‘em guessing.  On the other hand, I find Benedict XVI’s “Jesus of Nazareth” quite uplifting, and throughly readable.  R.C. Sproul can provide deep insights using lucid prose.  Should not an Englishman write English more clearly than a German or an American?

63,

First, the Abp is, after all, a Welshman, and not English by any stretch of the imagination.  They don’t grow eyebrows like that in the Home Counties.

Second… As I’ve said in the thread that posts the actual text of the lecture, it’s not dense at all.  In fact, I’d argue that most of what he’s written for popular reading (his little book on the icon of the Transfiguration, for example) is pretty accessible for a non-popularizer, esp. since some of these books contain real, actual, new research (something that I’m not aware either the Pope nor RC Sproul have done in their books of late… Could be wrong, though, esp with Benedict).  Is it really fair to say RC Sproul is a superior theologian to, say, Thomas Aquinas because Sproul writes more lucidly than Aquinas?

His reputation for being dense is, I think, not entirely deserved, but it does serve to allow people to dismiss him without actually engaging with what he’s written, which can be pretty convenient when people don’t want to be challenged.  In this case, the equating of what he’s written here to KJS’s waffling on the uniqueness of Jesus is simply unwarranted and isn’t based on what he wrote.  It’s simple bias and a hermeneutic of suspicion.  There’s nothing in there that most Christian communities haven’t been saying for years.  But, we don’t like the way he’s handled the Communion Affairs, so we’re not going to engage with anything he says, ever.  At the extreme, it becomes an issue of bearing false witness.

His place in scholarship is secure, as far as I can tell.  In fact, there are times when I wonder what his archepiscopate would look like if he hadn’t been faced with the silliness from TEC…  Where would we have been if he had been ABC in 1920, writing the kind of scholarship.

#64, you say, “In this case, the equating of what he’s written here to KJS’s waffling on the uniqueness of Jesus is simply unwarranted and isn’t based on what he wrote. It’s simple bias and a hermeneutic of suspicion.”  This is certainly true of the ABC’s full text; he is never the shallow windbag that she is.  But he sounds exactly like KJS the way GLEDHILL has described his talk.  I wonder why she chose to put it that way.  But I wonder more why he chose to foreground that part of his presentation that dealt with oppositions to Christianity.  He knows from past instances how the press seizes upon such comments.  I have actually taught Williams’s books and know the profundity of some of them, especially the early ones.  But lately, even in books and addresses, he hasn’t been direct enough to address the emergencies facing the Communion.  For another example—while he’s a good reader of Dostoevsky, I can’t believe that this project (right after the Dar fiasco) was more urgent than his duties to the AC.  He has bitterly failed many of us who were among his strongest supporters for many years.

#64. Isaac,

His place in scholarship is secure, as far as I can tell.  In fact, there are times when I wonder what his archepiscopate would look like if he hadn’t been faced with the silliness from TEC…  Where would we have been if he had been ABC in 1920, writing the kind of scholarship.

I have two problems with this statement. There is no way that the conduct of TEC can be described as silly. This dismisses the magnitude of the internal problems of TEC and their relationship in the WWAC. When you say this you align yourself with the ABC who has called the differences one of “style”. That is a stunning lack of understanding of the problems. The second concern is that you would engage in the fantasy of placing the ABC in the 1920’s. How is this any different than saying that Neville Chamberlain would have been great if he had been Prime Minister in the 1920’s?

Paula, 
The way he structured his presentation is one way of structuring a paper.  You lay out your basic idea, raise the objections, then answer the objections.  It’s a way of not strawmanning the opposition.  He could’ve gone Obj. A/Solution A, Obj. B/Solution B, and so forth, but he chose to write it differently.  Eh. 

Another way of looking at it is lik this… I’m a grad student in counseling now, and one technique is to repeat the client’s statement… ‘What I hear you saying is…’ It’s a way of understanding exactly what the client is saying so it can be addressed correctly.

Fundamentally, I get the impression he really doesn’t care how the press perceives him.  I don’t think he always says exactly what he’s thinking, but I do think he regards the press as an annoying sideshow, something to be tolerated.

I think Rowan is in a spot I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.  Any thing he does with regards to Communion affairs is going to upset someone.  I think he’s legitimately trying to keep everyone together and bring in some kind of organizational discipline while making sure he maintains his position’s limitations.  Revolution from above is always more difficult, more time consuming than revolution from below…. How many years did Israel wait for the Messiah, after all?

Fr. Dale, I use the word ‘silly’ because that’s what a good degree of this is.  Silliness.  Much of what comes from the far left of the Church doesn’t particularly deserve a response, because to do so is to legitimize what they’re saying.  They’re not saying anything new, so my response is to simply restate reality and move on with the ministry God’s given us. 

I had a great aunt who was Bipolar I, and at family dinners and such she would stand up and declare some of the most bizarre things, like we’re all trying to kill her or the moon was going to fall on Moscow and destroy the commies.  Her husband, rather than engaging in her delusions and psychoses, simply said, ‘Sarah!  Sit down and shut up.’  I think it’s pretty instructional.  The ministry of the Church isn’t to go around correct theology like some kind of fretting school marm.  It’s to declare the Gospel, baptize, communion, or move on.  Doing otherwise, I think, shows we’re really not as confident in our message as we think we are.

And as far as playing what ifs… I didn’t know I needed to check my imagination at the door when i sign in to T19.  I’ll remember that next time.

[Slightly edited by Elf]

Isaac, you say, “The way he structured his presentation is one way of structuring a paper.  You lay out your basic idea, raise the objections, then answer the objections.”  The ABC and you and I all know various ways of structuring our comments.  My point is that ++Rowan was irresponsible to structure his presentation this way when he knew that the topic is a major flash point between KJS and most of the Communion—and, moreover, when he knew that the press was looking for such sound-bites.  You will see that I defended his ultimate meaning (above) but I have to say it was unbelievably bad judgment (if not worse) to use this structure in this particular context.  It even makes me wonder if he doesn’t mind the press taking his comments as support for KJS’s “doctrine.”  I agree with you that he is in a terrible spot, but do consider how much of it is of his own doing.  I used to support him stubbornly, quoting from his best works and denying that he could stray from orthodoxy or from sympathy with the orthodox.  As an academic for 40 years, I too liked his manner and his depth.  But he has even worn me down, and I can not help seeing that his unpopularity here has been earned—not as much by this article as by the many actions and inactions that have hurt the Communion.  I can not help reading this address of his in relation to the larger picture.

Paula, I think you missed out a key point I said… Which is that I don’t believe Rowan really cares about the press in the least bit.  I just don’t think it’s on the agenda, and there’s a certain part of me that admires that.  He says what he needs to say to the people hearing him, and treats the press as the pest they usually are. 

I recall a saying about not getting into a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel that seems apt. 

Maybe he ought to take more care; I don’t know and I’m not in a position to offer Monday morning PR advice.  And maybe he has, legitimately, earned dislike and distrust from both sides of the aisle.  But that’s an entirely different question from ascribing an opinion to someone that is clearly not held by that person out of that dislike and distrust.

#52

What matters most, Brother, is that Jesus saved you.  For that I am thankful.  I hope you might pity all the others who will be burning once you reach the heavenly gates.

In my view, Jesus did save humanity.  Whether they like it or not.  Do they need to assent?  I’m leaving that up to God’s charity, which I trust is immense, more immense than mine.  I pray it is more immense than yours.

#69 Isaac

I don’t believe Rowan really cares about the press in the least bit

Not much he doesn’t!  LOL!  You should check out his website, he has learnt to put up the complete text of everything he writes and in particular everything which is reported in the press.  The press has also learnt that he does this, which has led to fewer opportunities for misunderstandings.