But what, finally, about the issue of the innate exclusivism of revelation-based faith and communities of faith? We have noted that any claim about what is good for humanity as such will have about it an element of exclusivity: it is the reverse side of trying to hold to a perspective of universality and equality in the human world. We cannot, however passionately we want to avoid ‘sectarianism’, settle for a philosophy that believes radically different things are good for different sorts of people ”“ different races, sexes, classes ”“ without entrenching a politics that would be rightly objectionable to most of our contemporaries and which would make nonsense of any discourse of rights. David Martin, in the book referred to a little way back (Does Christianity Cause War?), notes that ‘universality itself sets up a boundary…The announcement of peace sets off a profound tension’ (p.159), and concludes that such conflict is an inescapable aspect of our human condition. No-one can identify the argument that will establish convincingly for everyone that their variety of universalism is correct (and this holds for post-religious spirituality as much as for anything else). The question is, Martin suggests, less about the universal character of the claim than about how we imagine (that word again) our methods of commending the vision.
The better we understand the distinctiveness of religious claims, the better we understand the centrality within them of non-violence. That is to say, the religious claim, to the extent that it defines itself as radically different from mere local or transitory political strategies, is more or less bound to turn away from the defence or propagation of the claims by routinely violent methods, as if the truth we were talking about depended on the capacity of the speaker to silence all others by force. Granted that this is how classical communal religion has all too regularly behaved; but the point is that it has always contained a self-critique on this point. And that growing self-awareness about religious identity, which has been one paradoxical consequence of the social and intellectual movement away from such an identity, makes it harder and harder to reconcile faith in an invulnerable and abiding truth with violent anxiety as to how it is to be defended.
In short, as religion ”“ corporate, sacramental and ultimately doctrinal religion ”“ settles into this kind of awareness, it becomes one of the most potent allies possible for genuine pluralism ”“ that is, for a social and political culture that is consistently against coercion and institutionalised inequality and is committed to serious public debate about common good. Spiritual capital alone, in the sense of a heightened acknowledgement especially among politicians, businessmen and administrators of dimensions to human flourishing beyond profit and material security, is helpful but is not well equipped to ask the most basic questions about the legitimacy of various aspects of the prevailing global system. The traditional forms of religious affiliations, in proposing an ‘imagined society’, realised in some fashion in the practices of faith, are better resourced for such questions. They lose their integrity when they attempt to enforce their answers; and one of the most significant lessons to be learned from the great shift towards post-religious spiritual sensibility is how deeply the coercive and impersonal ethos of a good deal of traditional religion has alienated the culture at large. But, more importantly, if we who adhere to revealed faith don’t want to be simply at the mercy of this culture, to be absorbed into its own uncritical stories about the autonomous self and its choices, then we need to examine the degree to which our practice looks like a new world. And if this debate drives us Christians back to thinking through more carefully and critically what the great Anglican Benedictine scholar Gregory Dix meant by describing Christians as a new ‘species’, homo eucharisticus, a humanity defined in its Eucharistic practice, it will have served us well. ‘The unleavened bread of sincerity and truth’ is the gift of the Easter Gospel, we are told in the liturgy; ‘Lord, evermore give us this bread’ (Jn 6.34).
This is what Williams is best equipped to do. This is an excellent essay, acute and perspicacious………and yet, underneath the operation of his highly trained intellect, I sense the liberal agenda coloring much of what he says. Still, a first rate essay, worth considering and re-considering at some length. Larry
Could someone, please, explain to me the AB’s expression “post-religious”. Your work is cut out for you as I still do not understand “post-modern”.
#2, I think he just means that once upon a time, culture in the European West was utterly dominated by religion… and now it’s not.
Thanks Ross
I imagine that this essay will please the Archbishop of Canterbury’s advisors at the Anglican Consultive Council (ACC) because the ABC only attempts in a very obscure way to “advise”, he certainly does not command or require and he does not quote Scripture or proclaim the Authority of Scripture.
Thus he seems to fulfill the requirements that the Rev. Canon Gregory Cameron, deputy secretary general of the Anglican Consultative Council deems appropriate for a Bishop of the Church:
“We must get our ecclesiology right,†he stressed. “Lambeth bishops cannot command and require. They can only commend. Therefore when any of the instruments speak, they don’t speak as law but as advisors. Like the [British] monarchy, they do not rule or govern, but they can be consulted.â€
Unfortunately, Canon Cameron seems to be uninformed about the fact that Christianity has always relied on the Authority of Scripture, NOT the Authority of the Monarchy, this explains the resiliency of the Christian Church throughout the years. Christians recognize that there is a higher power.
Canon Cameron’s essay may be read here:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/11792/
Will someone please tell me why we need bishops?
Because when they do what God intended for the office, it is a singular blessing to the Body of Christ.
We can’t throw the entire episcopate out because of a few bad examples.
God led the early Church to be set up in a certain way, and that is how it should be.
Of course, you might just as well ask “Why do we need pastors” or priests or ministers. They are all offices of the Holy Spirit and I’m sure we can all think of glaring examples of those who have led the flock astray instead of feeding it.
Pax et bonum!
(I assume your question was more rhetorical than serious, but felt someone might want an answer anyway).
Jim Elliott <><
[blockquote]he does not quote Scripture or proclaim the Authority of Scripture[/blockquote]
To take only the short excerpt above (out of a 9-page text), which part of the following did you not understand to be an appeal to the authority of Scripture and a quotation from the same?
[blockquote] If we who adhere to revealed faith don’t want to be simply at the mercy of this culture, to be absorbed into its own uncritical stories about the autonomous self and its choices, then we need to examine the degree to which our practice looks like a new world. And if this debate drives us Christians back to thinking through more carefully and critically what the great Anglican Benedictine scholar Gregory Dix meant by describing Christians as a new ‘species’, homo eucharisticus, a humanity defined in its Eucharistic practice, it will have served us well. ‘The unleavened bread of sincerity and truth’ is the gift of the Easter Gospel, we are told in the liturgy; ‘Lord, evermore give us this bread’ (Jn 6.34).[/blockquote]
If you want to understand the Archbishop’s theology, it might help to actually read what he has written. I will admit that if you are only interested in attacking him, confusing yourself with facts might be a disadvantage.
“The growing presence in Europe of a substantial and confident form of classical religious practice in the shape of Islam has put the quest for detached non-sectarian spiritual capital in perspective: post-religious spirituality has to compete with an articulate corporate voice which stubbornly resists being made instrumental to the well-being of an unchallenged Western and capitalist modernity.”
Not, you will note, a Christian voice. Interesting. Very interesting.
Dale Rye, post 9,
I wanted to go to bed early tonight but since you challenged me to read the whole thing I printed it out and read it. I have to admit that I did not realize there was more to this than was printed on this page.
After hopefully (as usual) reading the whole text, I had to conclude that the ABC simply did not refer to Scripture except for the few times he mentioned the revealed faith and I did not get the impression that he was talking about the faith as revealed in Scripture.
I realize that the subject of this essay is religion, not as I had hoped about our Anglican Faith and I am sure that you realize that a reference to the “great Anglican Benedictine scholar Gregory Dix” is not a reference to Scripture.
Much as I admire the present Archbishop and feel for him in what is a tremendously difficult role- I cannot help but note how he delights in writing academic theology above preaching a definite faith for the church. I say this comparing his speeches with those of Pope Benedict. Both are superb academic theologians but wheras one uses scripture all the time and puts forward the faith in simple terms the other is wooly in the extreme and rarely expounds dogma as ultimate truth,
I think this is the achilles heel of the English church- intelectual ability was certainly worshipped more than Jesus at my theological college (Westcott) and people delighted in debate far more than mission. One only has to ask why ‘academic hoods’ are worn at evensong in many churches – what has this to do with faith??
Don’t get me wrong- we MUST use brains as Christians – but I just question if a smug post enlightenment intellectualism has become the true idol of many Anglican clergy?
“We cannot, however passionately we want to avoid ‘sectarianism’, settle for a philosophy that believes radically different things are good for different sorts of people – different races, sexes, classes – without entrenching a politics that would be rightly objectionable to most of our contemporaries and which would make nonsense of any discourse of rights.”
Er, not sure how to square this with Williams’ apologia for incorporating Sharia lite into British law.
rugbyplayingpriest: you make a fair point about the intellectual snobbery – but also the insularity – of a lot of liberal-leaning Anglicanism. There are plenty of highly educated people who love the Lord (and the Bible), but to listen to some smug liberals, you’d think they had the monopoly on brains. Of course that isn’t true – overall the episcopal leadership of Nigeria and Uganda is better educated than that of Tec and the Church of England when it comes to counting PhDs.
Dom Gregory Dix could write plain words with plain meanings.
This man cannot.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
A fun thing to do with things Rowan writes is to randomly scramble the word order and reassemble the sentences using cognate word forms. Then you realize everything he says is nonsense and the Archbishop of Canterbury is playing a big joke on everybody. For example, the title and first sentence quoted by Kendall may be rearranged as follows:
[i][b]Change and Spirituality: Is Territory Religious?
But what, innately, about the finality of the exclusive issue of faith-based communities and the faith of revelation?[/b][/i]
See how that works? In Rowan’s world, word order doesn’t make much difference, but cranking out long randomly-generated sentences gives him something to do.
Jim it was. I agree with what you said, but sometimes I do wonder. How are things in Tallahassee?
I do not ordinarily defend the ABC, but his evaluation of, and the distinctions required for, spirituality and denominational Christianity is careful, clear and necessary. Yes, his prose is involuted and wordy; it is not for those who struggle with academic prose. But his argument that spirituality is empty of noesis (if that word is correct here) and cannot bring the life of the spirit to bear on real things in the real world, is essential reading and a necessary sense for underst eanding the function of the church, as opposed to the etherealism of “spirituality.”
See Library Jim’s comment above, which is exactly right. Why do we need bishops, who do we need priests? Because Christ gathered apostles about him and gave them directions to lead. But more than that, one may ask why we need presidents and supreme courts. This has always been the position of the classical anarchist. The answer is too simple: We need leaders. Without them, the result is not freedom, but chaos. Larry
Library Jim,
I agree that the Anglican Communion does need leaders but there are times when it appears that the Archbishop of Canterbury does not perceive himself as a leader but rather in the same way that the Deputy secretary general of the Anglican Consultative Council perceives the role of Bishops when he states: “Lambeth bishops cannot command and require. They can only commend. Therefore when any of the instruments speak, they don’t speak as law but as advisors. Like the [British] monarchy, they do not rule or govern, but they can be consulted.â€
I pray that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the recognized leader (not Monarch) of the Anglican Communion, will always refer to Scripture and carefully consult with the Primates of the Communion, rather than deferring to the judgment of the Anglican Consultive Council.