It is a particular pleasure that on this historic occasion we are able to come together as bishops of the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches in this country to greet you, Your Holiness, during a visit which we all hope will be of significance both to the Church of Christ and to British society. Your consistent and penetrating analysis of the state of European society in general has been a major contribution to public debate on the relations between Church and culture, and we gratefully acknowledge our debt in this respect.
Our task as bishops is to preach the Gospel and shepherd the flock of Christ; and this includes the responsibility not only to feed but also to protect it from harm. Today, this involves a readiness to respond to the various trends in our cultural environment that seek to present Christian faith as both an obstacle to human freedom and a scandal to human intellect. We need to be clear that the Gospel of the new creation in Jesus Christ is the door through which we enter into true liberty and true understanding: we are made free to be human as God intends us to be human; we are given the illumination that helps us see one another and all created things in the light of divine love and intelligence. As you said in your Inaugural Mass in 2005, recalling your predecessor’s first words as pope, Christ takes away nothing “that pertains to human freedom or dignity or to the building of a just society”¦ If we let Christ into our lives we lose absolutely nothing of what makes life free, beautiful and great. Only in his friendship is the great potential of human existence revealed.” [Inaugural Homily, Rome, 24 April 2005]
Our presence together as British bishops here today is a sign of the way in which, in this country, we see our task as one and indivisible. The International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity and Mission has set before us all the vital importance of our common calling as bishops to be agents of mission.
“Our task as bishops is to preach the Gospel and shepherd the flock of Christ; and this includes the responsibility not only to feed but also to protect it from harm. Today, this involves a readiness to respond to the various trends in our cultural environment that seek to present Christian faith as both an obstacle to human freedom and a scandal to human intellect. We need to be clear that the Gospel of the new creation in Jesus Christ is the door through which we enter into true liberty and true understanding: we are made free to be human as God intends us to be human; we are given the illumination that helps us see one another and all created things in the light of divine love and intelligence”.
Sometimes in “saving it from harm”, you have to illustrate standards that could protect it from itself–giving it a license for “free-for-all” is something that could actually harm it.
Ah, Jesus…now a “doorway”…
This is what I could easily call “Educated Counterculturalism”.
Jesus is Lord and Savior, not a door to a Deism that gives humanity license to do whatever it wants.
“Our fervent prayer is that this visit will give us fresh energy and vision for working together in this context in the name of what a great Roman Catholic thinker of the last century called ‘true humanism’ – a passionate commitment to the dignity of all human beings, from the beginning to the end of life, and to a resistance to every tyranny that threatens to stifle or deny the place of the transcendent in human affairs”.
I hear a lot of idolatrous “human” talk here, instead of talk of the Triune God.
We do not as churches seek political power or control, or the dominance of Christian faith in the public sphere; but the opportunity to testify, to argue, sometimes to protest, sometimes to affirm – to play our part in the public debates of our societies. And we shall, of course, be effective not when we have mustered enough political leverage to get our way but when we have persuaded our neighbours that the life of faith is a life well lived and joyfully lived”.
“In other words, we shall be effective defenders or proclaimers of our faith when we can show what a holy life looks like, a life in which the joy of God is transparently present”.
A life well-lived and joyfully lived? You might be able to get that from any old faith; not to mention if you add some reefer then it might all look ‘holy’, too…and of course, “protest” also got worked in there…
The dominance of Christian faith in the public sphere–maybe that wouldn’t be such a bad thing–did Christian terrorists bring down the World Trade Center?
What is most glaring here, in reading the ABC message followed by the papal one, is that the Christian worldview of these men is incompatible; just, e.g., as mine is with TEO.
Thank you, Your Holiness, I’m with you.
Who is Rowan’s audience here? I truly believe that he never really considers this most important aspect of public speaking. Most everything that comes out of his mouth always sounds like a lecture at university.
For some reason, when I think of clarity the following comes to mind. I wish Rowan, and others like him, could find similar clarity in their public pronouncements.
Rowan is an academic; Benedict is an academic. Both are brilliant theologians who admire each other’s work. The difference is that Benedict was elected leader of a Church that have very strict, defined, and black-and-white codes with a VERY defined mantle of leadership, and all of the support which goes with it. Rowan was appointed leader of a Church where he has no real mantle of leadership and no support in a global leadership role.
I can’t help but think that Benedict sympathizes with the quandry of being plucked from academia to be the leader of a global federation of churches in a time of crisis. Despite the pope’s extensive, recognized authority and very real powers, he, too, has been heavily criticized for some of his writings, affiliations, and decisions. He probably understands better than anyone the difficulties Rowan faces. Unlike Rowan, Benedict has a strong political political streak that Roman prelates must develop as par for the course.
Ugh, make that a Church that HAS …
And quandary.
I shouldn’t write when I’m not feeling well, sigh. Apologies for any other misspellings and grammatical errors.
I’m really sorry that so many people are so convinced that Abp. Williams is unorthodox that they are simply unable to read what he says in its clear sense. This isn’t cultural relativism, but a call for the churches to stand firm against the modern cultural environment. It represents an appreciation of the real contributions of the current Pope to that debate over the last 50 years.
The Gospel of Jesus (which the Abp. has clearly defined elsewhere as the orthodox proclamation that “Christ has died, Christ has risen, and Christ will come again”) is the door to the Way that is Jesus Himself. There’s nothing unorthodox about that. The speech in no way suggests that our Lord himself is merely “a doorway” among others.
The reference to “true humanism” isn’t idolatrous–it’s from Jacques Maritain, a very, very traditionalist Thomist philosopher and theologian who has influenced both the current Archbishop of Canterbury and the last two Bishops of Rome.
A life well-lived is not something you can get from any old faith. No, “holiness is at its simplest fellowship with Christ; and when that fellowship with Christ is brought to maturity, so is our fellowship with one another.” Again, that is Christian to its core, not relativism in any sense. It is as strong a statement of how we are saved through a personal relationship with our Lord and Savior as any Evangelical might wish.
On the other hand, the reference to “the dignity of all human beings, from the beginning to the end of life,” is as strong a pro-life statement as any Roman Catholic might wish, and is entirely consistent with the Archbishop’s long-time public convictions. How, exactly, is that a “license for free-for-all?”
Again, I wish people could read Rowan Williams without the presumption that he is a generic Liberal Protestant like so many of our TEC bishops. He is very different from that slanderous judgment. His personal theology has far more in common with Benedict’s than it does with the Presiding Bishop, for example.
I concur with Dale and there is, in general, extraordinarily much to learn from Rowan.
I’ve certainly heard “respecting the dignity of every human being” used as a stamp of approval or conduit for same-sex “marriages”.
And I’ve never met a PhD who couldn’t parse the language; it comes with the territory.
The “beginning to the end of life” easily begs the usual question of “when does life begin”? If a viable pregnancy is terminated prior to the detection of fetal heart tones, is that a “justifiable” abortion?
I understand the Archbishop’s audience, and there’s a lot in his speech that, for obvious reasons, he would not feel the need to make clear to a layperson. But, I believe that there’s just enough nebulous counterculture in it for me to dislike it. Sick, but yet one sign of intelligence can be the ability to twist your “opponent’s” argument and use his own “stuff” against him.
I fully admit that maybe I’m crazy or I have a lot to learn. Yet I have a feeling that the Pope may have seen a lot of it my way–and thus felt the need for an academic, albeit polite, Scripturally-based rebuke.
Maybe the Archbishop’s “personal theology” resembles Pope Benedict’s more than KJS, but he sure has a knack for throwing in with the latter a lot more frequently than the former.
The Pope obviously leads despite any criticism leveled at him.
And the lack of a primates’ meeting for years, plus all the gamesmanship regarding the ACC and Standing Committee of the Primates/Anglican Communion or whatever it’s being called these days, doesn’t demonstrate anything else BUT a “strong political streak”.
Dear Trad Lady
I have heard the Archbishop give a very powerful defense of unborn children, on the grounds that they, like the rest of us, the elderly, and the disabled are created with the capacity of a holy relationship with their creator. When we relate to them, and particularly if we consider harm to them through abortion, euthanasia or anything else, we should be aware that we are treading on Holy ground. Whatever else, he really isn’t on that path at all.
If you use KJS as your touchstone of heresy you’re going to convict a lot of orthodox believers.
“Whatever else, he really isn’t on that path at all”.
To be honest, I’m not saying he is–I simply believe that alluding to the evil of abortion by using that “from the beginning to the end of life” phrase presents too much a hair-splitting opportunity. Had he simply said “the unborn” I would have had nothing to add on that score.
#10 Trad Lady
I am not sure I understand where you are coming from with these hyper-critical comments. Are you Anglican, Catholic, where is all this coming from?
The Archbishop is not a supporter of abortion.
I’m not saying he’s a supporter of abortion–I’m saying I didn’t like his choice of words regarding it. Pageantmaster, I don’t think you have lacked for being hypercritical of the Archbishop, either.
Re: #6, I also never said there wasn’t a lot to learn from the man–I’ve said that there are some things he says that I dislike.
To be honest, when I get through a stack of about 6 books, I’d like to read his book on Dostoevsky.
You didn’t really answer my question Trad Lady.
Pageantmaster,
In the thread on the Pope’s Lambeth Palace remarks, I asked,
[blockquote]Is anyone under the illusion that [if we are to reject “pluriformity” between Anglicans and RC’s], the single “form” will necessarily be Latin-Rite Roman Catholicism? If Anglicans are not going to be “pluriform†about the divine right of the Pope to exercise immediate ordinary jurisdiction throughout the Church, we have no excuse not to immediately submit ourselves to Rome.[/blockquote]
To which two questions, Trad Lady’s answers were,
[blockquote]No, and ok!!![/blockquote]
Which I think makes her position clear.
The most honest answer I can give is that my religious preference is “in limbo”.
I cannot accept that the Archbishop is some grace filled man doing his best. If he believes in orthodoxy he should be giving a clear lead and condeming those watering down the gospel and destroying the Anglican tradition. That he speaks in double speak and allows the liberal agenda to be rolled out says everything. He could not even vote for his own measure in the last synod but abstained.
Ask yourself how wonderfully refreshing the Pope’s words are? Why? Because our own spriritual leader runs with the hares and hunts with the hounds and almost never stands up to secularising forces. Name me a time when he has stood up for the Gospel in a clear and driven way?
#15 Thanks Trad Lady. I would hope your time in limbo is reduced, that is if I believed in it.
I think AB Rowan does open himself up for criticism through the fuzzy way he expresses himself, but it is difficult when one’s every word is scrutinised and parsed. Nevertheless, although I would agree that every human being is made in the image of God, and has the capacity have a close relationship with the Creator and is for that reason perhaps “holy ground”, I do not believe that Christ exists in other human beings per se. The Holy Spirit may well indwell in those who have accepted God and become his children changing them towards his likeness. IF this is what the Archbishop means, then I agree with him, but not otherwise.
But if there is misunderstanding, the ABC has only his fuzzy pronouncements to blame.
#16 RPP I agree, I look at what the Archbishop does, not what he says anymore, and what he continues to do, and I suspect will continue to do at the upcoming Primates Meeting, is to put division over unity, and protection for the outrageous KJS over the interests of the Communion, and indeed the remaining role of his office, which he has so diminished that people on all sides have lost respect, and stopped listening to him.
Tragic, but there we are. The Communion has to move on, probably without him.
But I have no crystal ball.
I love the ABC’s Christmas message 2008 (see [url=http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2063]here[/url]). To quote the portion I have posted above my desk:
[blockquote]God chose to show himself to us in a complete human life, telling us that every stage in human existence, from conception to maturity and even death, was in principle capable of telling us something about God. Although what we learn from Jesus Christ and what his life makes possible is unique, that life still means that we look differently at every other life. There is something in us that is capable of communicating what God has to say – the image of God in each of us, which is expressed in its perfection only in Jesus.
Hence the reverence which as Christians we ought to show to human beings in every condition, at every stage of existence. This is why we cannot regard unborn children as less than members of the human family, why those with disabilities or deprivations have no less claim upon us than anyone else, why we try to makes loving sense of human life even when it is near its end and we can hardly see any signs left of freedom or thought.
And hence the concern we need to have about the welfare of children.[/blockquote]
My post above is not to say he has been successful in navigating the treacherous course he set out on – keeping all together without discipline for any – nor to say that was the right course. It was, in my view, exactly the wrong course. I have become able over time, however, to appreciate those times he does stand firmly for the things of the Gospel: It seems to me he has been clear that Jesus is [i][b]the[/b][/i] way, not [i]a[/i] way; he has made statements like the one above (and a number of others) which are quite non-PC – and this has been important as Britain’s rules on bioethics have been in a terrible downward spiral.