It will come as a surprise to some that in 1990, a British academic theologian named Rowan Williams, now the Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote comprehensively on the “Trinity and Pluralism” in a 1990 volume called “Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered,” edited by Gavin D’Costa, a Roman Catholic theologian of world religions.
The Williams article was in part a book review of Raimon Panikkar’s “The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man.” Panikkar, who spent many years in India as a Roman Catholic priest, is best known for his observation on his faith journey: “I ”˜left’ as a Christian, ”˜found’ myself a Hindu and ”˜return’ a Buddhist, without having ceased to be a Christian.”
A lively, expansive, intellectually inviting quality pervades the Williams essay, characteristic of his writings before he was elevated to his present post. His trinitarian vision is not frozen in time, but represents a steady unfolding of the fullness of Christ, always being discovered, and not locked into any conceptual pattern that reduces the full worth of other religions.
[blockquote] Williams added, “we do not, as Christians, set the goal of including the entire human race in a single religious institution, nor do we claim that we possess all authentic religious insight.” [/blockquote]
Of course, that means we have to ignore all that making disciples of the nations stuff that someone of some importance to Christians said in the Daily Office Gospel reading for Ascension.
[blockquote] Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Matthew 28:18-20 [/blockquote]
#1 Why does making disciples mean we should be of one institution?
The point of the article seems to be that Rowan was once a nice, liberal theologian all in favor of anything goes pluralism – but now supports the “leaden” Covenant. I actually love that ascerbic and polemical sentence with its “leaden”, “bumping”, “shallows” and “so called” – it’s there we see the emotion core of the piece. Quinn doesn’t like the Covenant. FWIW Quinn seriously misunderstands what Williams meant when he wrote of pluralism and diversity. I suggest Williams is actually much closer to folks like DiNoia and Paul Griffiths than freewheeling relativism.
driver8 (#3),
Thanks for a typically incisive and astute comment. I will admit that I’m unfamiliar with the writer, Frederick Quinn+, but his disappointment with ++Rowan Williams is palpable. I was particularly struck by this line, along with the revealing one you highlighted above:
“A lively, expansive, intellectually inviting quality pervades the Williams essay, characteristic of his writings before he was elevated to his present post.”
In other words, Quinn laments what he perceives as ++RW’s dullness and regrettable compromises since leaving academia and assuming the weighty but corrupting responsibilities he has had thrust upon him.
I think you’re right, driver8, that this review tells us much more about Fr. Quinn than it does about the ABoC. But the keen disappointment of illiberal liberals like Quinn and his ilk who had such high hopes that ++RW would support their agenda all the way is slim comfort. For if ++RW hasn’t been exactly a champion of relativism and the seemingly unqualified pluralism Quinn appears to hold dear (as an ism, as a belief system and not just a sociological fact), the sad truth is that ++RW has still done great damage to the cause of the gospel and to the preservation of real unity (as opposed to merely superficial, institutional unity) in the AC.
This ENS article is further evidence that TEC isn’t very grateful for all the help that ++RW has given them, for he has failed to fully embrace the “New Thing” that TEC’s leaders are so committed to promoting. I sometimes wonder if ANYONE likes him much anymore.
David Handy+
Two great comments, guys (#3 and #4). Thoughtful and helpful.