“MORALITY, LIKE ART, means drawing a line someplace,” Oscar Wilde once observed. Anglican bishops historically wield the pen, drawing the line between error and truth, between right and wrong doctrine.
Yet at some point in the mid-20th century, the bishops of the church began to abdicate this responsibility – even before the American Church reformed its ordinal in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, removing the injunction to bishops that they “banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word.”
Where once the church celebrated Anglican comprehensiveness, it now celebrated diversity. Confessionalism morphed into conversation, as those charged with guarding the faith suffered a loss of nerve. The church, like the universities, the arts, literature and other repositories of high culture in the West, was trampled underfoot by the long march of the left through the institutions.
THE 2008 LAMBETH CONFERENCE of Anglican bishops in Canterbury July 16-August 3 was a milestone in this march of relativism. While nothing extraordinary happened – no fist fights or beatific visions – a number of prelates came away from Lambeth realizing the Anglican Communion no longer worked. Its structures were not a place for holy men, but for hollow men: bishops who knew in their hollow hearts they were stuffed with straw, trapped in a purposeless whirl of apathy and spiritual torpor called “dialogue.” The Anglican Communion had finally broken, coming to an end “not with a bang but a whimper.”
“Great minds….”? Just posted this myself. I think he speaks to the HoB’s actions with respect to the Windsor Process in an informative way. I also think he characterizes the ABC in a way that captures what it is that he (++Rowan) is trying to do and what he is trying to not do. This also is helpful in an analysis of the Episcopal Church’s relations with the world wide Anglican Communion. For some this is very important.
George Conger in this essay joins the ranks — they are ever-increasing ranks, to judge by the tone and substance of comments on this blog — of Anglicans who think that their commitment to traditional orthodoxy releases them from any obligations to charity or truthfulness.
I share their theology but deplore their recent statements and attitudes. When Conger writes that “paramount among . . . the intellectual and theological principles that have guided [Rowan Williams’s] academic writings . . . is the belief that truth is unknowable,” that is simply slander. It is a falsehood and is easily shown to be a falsehood.
First, note that Conger must confine himself to Williams’s “academic writings,” because he knows it’s impossible to affirm such nonsense of a man who preaches sermons that include passages like this: “And when the bread and the wine are raised above the altar, as they are broken and shared, see there the rainbow of God’s promise. Through all the storms, that light continues to shine, because God never forgets who he is, God is faithful to his promises; let us not forget who he is. Let us not forget what he gives us, let us not forget what he calls us to do, what he calls us to share in his world: ‘… two things: I am a great sinner and Jesus is a great saviour.'” (From Williams’s great sermon at Zanzibar last year, quoting John Newton.) Conger has to hope that we don’t read or hear the sermons, or has to assume us that somehow they don’t count. But they do count. It’s dishonest to try to factor them out of the equation in judging Williams’s theological views.
But even if you just read Williams’s academic work — say, his little treatise [i]On Christian Theology[/i] — you can easily see how nonsensical Conger’s claims are. Throughout that book Williams is concerned to show the limits of pluralism and the necessity of making judgments based on Scripture, and the necessity of being judged [i]by[/i] Scripture. It is a book highly critical of theologies that see truth as elastic and pluralism as limitless. Conger has taken a handful of Williams’s explorations of negative theology — itself an ancient and honored tradition in Christianity — and treated them as Williams’s summations of his own theology. The barest acquaintance from those quotes in their context — and Conger only quotes from one of Williams’s many books — would demonstrate that. Even then, one passage that he quotes, in which Williams says that “heresy is possible,” would make no sense if Williams believed that “truth is unknowable.” If truth is unknowable then how is heresy possible? How is the idea of heresy even comprehensible? And I could cite many other books by Williams that would make these same points equally well.
This is immensely frustrating to me. It beaks my heart to see some of my fellow reasserters so indifferent to truth. The only thing as grievous is indifference to charity, and I’ve seen plenty of that too. Rowan Williams may be a terrible ABC; he may be incompetent, wishy-washy, and many of the other things that reasserters say about him. But that does’t give us license to say [i]anything[/i] we want to say about him. We [i]must[/i] be bound by truth and love in what we say about one another.
“We must be bound by truth and love in what we say about one another”
Why? I thought that truth was unknowable.
“Via Negativa” Ain’t it the Truth.
I tire of the defenders of Rowan who cite this sermon or that speech. Rowan’s writings basically play no part in George Conger’s analysis. Rather it looks at the actions (and more importantly the glaring non-actions) of the hapless man.
In my book, his statement that “a homosexual relationship can be equivalent to Christian marriage” nullifies any number of orthodox sounding platitudes he might have spoken in his prolixity. And even if that statement doesn’t disqualify him, his actions do. He is thoroughly compromised by them. Rowan Williams’ main purpose is to lead the Anglican Communion to cleansing schism. There is simply no way that the AC could be rid of the Martin Dudley’s, the John Chane’s, the Gene Robinson’s, the Katherine Jefferts Schori’s without such cataclysmic separation. Rowan Williams’ overarching incompetence is providing for that cataclysm.
I note there is also another essay by George Conger, somewhat shorter, but just as scathing found at the IRD website, [url=http://www.theird.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=807&srcid=807 ]here[/url].
“Rowan’s writings basically play no part in George Conger’s analysis.” Conger says they do.
“Rowan Williams’ overarching incompetence is providing for that cataclysm.” A very plausible point. I am sometimes inclined to say the same myself. But his incompetence, or his heterodoxy, or any other shortcomings do not give us license to say things about him that [i]are not true.[/i]
Dr. Jacobs (#2),
I agree that George Conger’s summarization of ++Rowan Williams’ theology is a distorted charicature of his overall views. But I don’t think it’s as grossly unfair as you seem to do. While overstated, George is nonetheless on the right track, I think. In particular, I think George is dead on target in his emphasis that the kind of hesitancy and indecisiveness the ABoC shows in drawing firm, clear ethical lines in the sand is incompatible with the role of being at the hub of the AC in a time of theological chaos and crisis.
As an English professor, I don’t know what you think of George’s citation of the T. S. Eliott poem “Hollow Men,” at the start, but I find it quite apt myself. And quite devastating.
I’m glad Kendall posted this long and very useful history of recent developments that led up to this summer’s Lambeth Conference. George doesn’t normally indulge in such exercises in editorializing, and he normally is content to just report news in the fair and reliable way that he is justly praised for doing. I thought this essay was an admirable piece of work, bringing together a lot of information in one place. I printed it out, and plan to keep it for future reference as a very full summary of recent events that illustrate the ongoing disintegration and unraveling of Anglicanism.
Still, I’d agree that ++RW shouldn’t be made the scapegoat for all the manifold ills that trouble Anglicanism today. He is not an outright villain, in the same way that the PB is, or +Michael Ingham of New Westminster is etc. But sadly, the brilliant theologian who occupies the most important position in the AC has utterly failed in his pastoral duties. And I think later historians will probably judge him even more harshly than George Conger has done here.
And I hope, Dr. Jacobs, you don’t deem that an example of the very kind of uncharitable and inappropriate language you were lamenting in your post. I don’t take pleasure in censuring the well-intentioned ABoC so severely. I do think he is a man of integrity trying to do his best in an exceedingly difficult, complex, and unprecedented situation. But he’s the wrong man for the job.
It’s a classic case of a terrible mismatch. Both theologically and temperamentally, he’s unsuited for the daunting task he faces at this momentous time when the AC stands at the crossroads at the beginning of the New Reformation of the 21st century.
Respectfully,
David Handy+
Wheaton ’77
I don’t normally post comments in response to criticism of my articles as I prefer to allow the stories to stand or fall on their own. However, Dr. Jacobs accuses me not of error but dishonest, and argues that I have unfairly caricatured Dr. Williams’ theology. It is true that I did not attempt a systematic exposition of his thought on an article about the Lambeth Conference. The constraints of covering this minor theme in the article would not have permitted me to go farther afield in search of selections from Dr. Williams’ works to illustrate what I see as a theological rationale behind his political method.
I encourage him to read my Oct 2004 article in Touchstone, ‘Graceless body broken’—to see a short essay focused on this topic.
However, Dr. Jacobs charges me with being dishonest in my presentation of Dr. Williams’ writings, and cites the sermon in Zanzibar as an example of Dr. Williams’ faith. I was fortunate to have heard the sermon delivered in Swahili and English in the cathedral in Zanzibar that day, and do not, and did not, question Dr. Williams’ Christian faith.
I questioned the appropriateness of the apparent application of the via negativa strain of his thinking to the problems facing the Anglican Communion. The conversation is incapable of ending, in Dr. Williams’ schema.
Now Rowan Williams is a difficult “readâ€, and his language, or perhaps his meanings, are inconsistent—one need only look at his address read on June 5 to the Society of St Alban and St Sergius on the role of the bishop as compared to his treatment of the same theme in his retreat lectures at Lambeth.
As Dr. Jacobs objects to my having selected only one work of Dr. Williams to support my contention that the via negativa—the unknowability of God—and hence of final truth plays a role in the worldview Dr. Williams has brought to the prosecution of his efforts as Archbishop of Canterbury let’s look at some other quotes:
“Those who claim to speak in the name of God†he wrote in Lost Icons (LI) in 2002 “will always be dangerously (exhilaratingly) close to the claim that in their speech, their active presence, the absent God who is never an existent among others is actually present: a claim of stupendous importance in legitimating any bid for power.†(p 162)
In Touchstone I wrote that Dr. Williams’ doctrine of revelation is that we cannot know God—and that God resents our attempts to define him or claim him for our own cause: God “passes annihilating judgment on our efforts to be right and secure, defended by God against others.†(Open to Judgment, p 37) We must be willing “to go into the desert when the security of pictures and ideas fades away, where all theologies finally give way to Godâ€. (OTJ, p 110)
In his essay the Discipline of Scripture (DoS) Dr. Williams argued that he could not stand with those who would put ‘Truth before Unity’
“Our time – perhaps more than earlier Christian ages, or perhaps more self-consciously than earlier Christian ages – is characterised by profound conflict in many areas as to what is authentically Christian – conflicts over areas of sexual and personal ethics (especially in the West at present, the admissibility in the Church of overt homosexual partnerships), over economic and public matters (the Church’s relation to capitalism), and over the major issues of war and defence (the legitimacy of the nuclear deterrent). Honesty compels the admission that none of these questions is likely to be ‘settled’ in the foreseeable future, especially not by appeal to what is commonly taken to be the ‘literal sense of Scripture’ (i.e. particular clusters of quotations). Yet peaceful coexistence in an undemanding pluralism is an inadequate response when the matters at issue seem to relate to basic questions about how the gospel can be heard in the struggles of contemporary social existence. There is a case for protest, even for ‘confessional’ separation over some issues. But … the existence of conflict and even conscientious division may not be a sign of eschatological polarization but a necessary part of that movement of the story of God’s people and their language towards the one focus of Christ crucified and risen that is the movement of Scripture. There can be an exacting patience in the debates of Christians; the confidence … that it is worth struggling for the life of the Church in and through the awkwardness of dissidence and conscientious protest imposes the discipline of ‘staying with’ the public life and liturgy of the tradition, rather than seeking the shortest solution of a newly constructed community of the perfect.â€
In Dr. Williams’ 2003 Sarum Theological Lectures on Church History he argued that over time the nature of unity has evolved. While the early church had no Bible—common canon of Scripture—around which it could gather, it did have its visible Christian life and witness of its martyrs.
While the churches of the Reformation could not agree upon a common confession or ecclesiology, they reformation churches were able to recognize in one another a Christian way of life/practice.
Finding unity in the Anglican Communion today takes a different road than in the past, he argued, such that we must “apprentice ourselves to the truthâ€, in faith that “the Spirit will lead us into all truth†but not expect that process to be without “conflict or even conscientious division.â€
Or for a more recent book, take 2007’s Wrestling with Angels: “theological language has to open out on to a sort of darkness – not the darkness of obscurity or confused ignorance, but the darkness of sheer resistance to the finite mind on the part of the divine. And at the same time, theological language must be the language of a community of persons actively engaged in the common life of building the Body of Christ. Doctrinal formulae are neither a set of neat definitions nor some sort of affront to the free-thinking soul; they are words that tell us enough truth to bring us to the edge of speech, and words that sustain enough common life to hold us there together in worship and mutual love.†P xiii-xiv
Or jump back a bit to his 1989 essay “The Incarnation as the Basis of Dogma†Dr. Williams argued that dogma is not the end product of theology, but the mark (or test) against which theology is measured. Citing Dietrich Bonheoffer’s “religion-less Christianity†Dr. Williams wrote:
“Bonheoffer’s attack on the jargon of ‘religion’ is far from being a liberal reformist proposal that hard words be made easy or strange words familiar; he is concerned that the real moral and spiritual strangeness – and thus the judgment – of the Gospel should again become audible. If we should now learn a greater reticence in talking fluently about ‘incarnation’ and ‘atonement’, it is because they have become the familiar words of religious talkers. They no longer bring the Church to judgment, and so no longer do the job of dogma. They have become simply ideology in the most malign sense. And, of course, ‘conversion’ and ‘judgment’ are easily conscripted for the same ends, if the theologian is interested primarily in a truth-telling that is confined to systematic explanation and comprehensive conceptualities.â€
What I understand Dr. Williams to be saying here, is that dogma serves to “bring the Church to judgmentâ€. It does not serve as a fixed truth, but a vehicle for returning the church back to the foot of the cross.
I could go on, in this vein, but I believe that an argument drawn from Dr. Williams’ writings can be made to support the assertion that his theology is that of a perpetual quest, an unending conversation. Hence, truth is unknowable.
That is not to say there is no truth, but that man cannot know it.
I would remind you that the article was about Lambeth 2008—not Williams’ theology, hence the focus on what happened—with a run up to how we got to where we did.
I think David Handy’s criticisms about ++Rowan are perfectly reasonable.
George Conger’s response is, simply, not coherent. He writes, “I would remind you that the article was about Lambeth 2008 — not Williams’ theology.†Perhaps I am hallucinating, but I see several paragraphs about ++Rowan’s theology in Conger’s essay. In my understanding, that means that ++Rowan’s theology is one of the things the essay is about.
And what am I to make of the claim that Mr. Conger [i]simultaneously[/i] believes ++Rowan to hold that truth is unknowable [i]and[/i] has full confidence in the Archbishop’s Christian faith? How could that be? Someone who thinks that truth is unknowable could certainly never affirm the Creeds as true, or confess that Jesus Christ is Lord — so how could such a person be a Christian at all?
Yes, I am afraid that I do think the essay is dishonest, especially now that I know that Mr. Conger heard ++Rowan’s sermon at Zanzibar. That means there can be no excuse for claiming that ++Rowan thinks that truth is unknowable — though there is one possible caveat. If Mr. Conger is acknowledging that Rowan did indeed say that “God is faithful to his promises,†but is also claiming to [i]know[/i] — by some mysterious psychic insight — that he added the silent addendum “But truth is unknowable, so I am not really affirming thatâ€; and claiming likewise to [i]know[/i] that when he affirmed that “I am a great sinner and Jesus is a great saviour†he added that same caveat — then in that case the essay is not dishonest. Is that, then, the claim? That though ++Rowan has public affirmed the truths of the Christian faith hundreds of time, and proclaimed them as Truth, that he has secretly withdrawn those very claims? And that George Conger alone knows this?
My suggestion to Mr. Conger would be threefold: first, that he place his cherry-picked passages from ++Rowan’s work in the context of those hundreds of public affirmations; second, that he quote some of the passages that so evidently contradict his chosen view of the Archbishop, explaining how he accounts for them; and third, that he try practicing some charity.
From George Conger’s essay: “Dr. Williams is a consistent thinker. Since his enthronement he has not deviated from the intellectual and theological principles that have guided his academic writings. Paramount among these is the belief that truth is unknowable.”
From his comment above: “Now Rowan Williams is a difficult ‘read’, and his language, or perhaps his meanings, are inconsistent.”
Which is it?
I will add — as if I have not had enough to say! — that [i]not one[/i] of the passages from +Rowan’s writings that Conger quotes comes within a hundred miles of the notion that truth is unknowable, and some of them explicitly reject that view. For instance, when ++Rowan talks about “doctrine bringing the Church to judgment” what he means — the context makes this abundantly clear, even the invocation of Bonhoeffer, who loathed theological liberalism — is that the job of dogma is to pronounce judgment upon the Church. And how can it do that if it is not true?
This would be obvious to anyone not determined to convict the Archbishop of [i]every possible[/i] crime, not just the errors and weaknesses and other shortcomings that may very legitimately be laid at his door.
Wonderful conversations. I really love this sort of thing. I had one with myself as I approached a stop sign. But at some point I actually had to stop. That is, actually do something. I don’t see that the ABC is actually willing to do anything. And for me that is where the rubber meets the road.
Dr. Jacobs,
Yes, Dr. Williams is a consistent thinker—hence the recurrent themes of the essays I cited that run from 1989 to 2007. Yes he can be opaque at times. I do not see how these are contradictory proposals.
Yes, I believe that it is possible that those who believe in the “darkness” of the knowledge of God, can still be faithful Christians.
No, I won’t write the essay you think I ought to have been written. You can do that yourself and bring to bear the hundreds of citations from Dr.Williams work that contradict the passages I have selected to illustrate my article.
You complain of errors of interpretation, calling them dishonest. Yet you challenge me to practice charity after making such a claim? Might I ask, what do you know about my thought processes in preparing this article that would allow you to make a claim of dishonesty? How do you know what I know?
I am not persuaded that a denial based upon the strength of your feelings is sufficient to vitiate Dr. Williams statements.
My feelings about Williams are well summarized by Albert Einstein –
[blockquote]”Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.” [/blockquote]
I did not know, until reading Mr. Conger’s article, that Williams had never been a pastor of a congregation. I think this is a distinct handicap for him. I don’t care how brilliant one is as a theologian, if you have not faced life’s hardships and tragedies with parishioners and answered the hard, theological questions they have about life and death, you are merely throwing around academic jargon that is removed from life’s hard realities. I cannot speak for theology, but when you are getting a scientific education, you are constantly reminded of the need to always remember Occam’s Razor.
It is much like the relationship between theoretical mathematics and engineering. Mathematicians will take their postulates and bend, twist and contort them to see what happens. Sometimes an engineer can actually make something useful out of their theories. Until their usefulness is proved, however, they just remain elegant theories.
I therefore conclude that Williams is magnificently unsuited to his current position and should have stayed in academia where his theological writings could continue and possibly become useful in a practical sense. I am sure he is a wonderful man and someone with whom you could have a very stimulating conversation, but he really seems to be the wrong man at the wrong time, thrust into the wrong job.
Mr. Conger, I don’t claim that you made errors of interpretation. You have clearly shown that you know that ++Rowan has said and written many things that contradict your claim that his “paramount principle” is the belief that truth is unknowable — you have heard him in person make powerful claims to truth! — but you have also said that you have no intention of quoting such statements. It is what you yourself say you know that I appeal to, not what I claim to know about you. The kindest thing that could be said about your position is that it is indifferent to truth, and it would not be charitable to pretend otherwise.
Mr. Jacobs, would you kindly provide the quotes that Mr. Conger has omitted?
Br. Michael, what’s wrong with the handful of quotes I have already provided? Why not start with just one: “God is faithful to his promises.” If ++Rowan believes that truth is unknowable, then why did he make that claim? Did he mean “God is faithful to his promises, but I am not saying that that’s true”?
“Rowan Williams may be a terrible ABC; he may be incompetent, wishy-washy, and many of the other things that reasserters say about him. But that does’t give us license to say anything we want to say about him.” My question to you Dr. Jacobs is, “Is this supposed to be a defense of the ABC?” I think what you have said is quite enough.
No Dr. Jacobs, I cannot agree with you. Perhaps I don’t understand what you are driving at. Your responses so far have been either ad hominem attacks on my integrity, or a non sequitor. Why you chose to make the charge of dishonesty I am at a loss to understand, and your assertion that I know it to be dishonest based upon my knowledge of Dr. Williams’ work is not credible, nor do I accept your assertion that my words are incomprehensible .
Yes, I sat through Dr. Williams’ sermon in Zanzibar, as I have sat through his sermons at a number of other pan-Anglican venues. I see no contradiction between the proposition that Rowan Williams is a Christian believer, and that he believes truth is unknowable. The quotations that make this very point are his, not mine. If he has said things that contradict these statements please be so kind as to produce them and then set them side by side and explain the contradiction you believe exist, but are so far unprepared to show.
If you believe I have falsified his quotes show me where. If you believe he has changed his mind, since these statements were made. Show me where.
I urge you to read Dr. Williams Lambeth retreat lectures, his presidential addresses, and his statements to the media—they sound this theme again and again. At the Lambeth Conference, one heard these themes sounded by Dr. Williams. Now there were no lectures on the via negativa, but the concept of unknowability—or if this phrase sticks in your craw, let’s use a different phrasing—-that certainty in these matters is not to be ours—and hence the conversation must continue, was at Lambeth.
I am rather unimpressed with your proofs. To use your quotation…God is faithful to his promises. And this relates to the argument how? Does this mean that the conversation is closed—that it’s meaning, in Dr.Williams’ mind, is defined and knowable as a matter of dogma? Do you honestly believe Dr. Williams would say that x, y and z are the promises of God, and that one can have certainty as to the who/what/when/where and why of these promises.
Your charges that a fraud and dishonest caricature have been foisted upon the readers of the Christian Challenge is incomprehensible to me and so far has not been supported by anything more than your outrage—and profound as that may be, fails to impress.
Let’s take a recent example. On July 18 in his fourth retreat lecture Dr. Williams said:
“Once upon a time, part of what held the Anglican family together was common prayer, literally the Book of Common Prayer. And many early missionary Anglicans thought that they were doing their job simply by translating the Book of Common Prayer into any and every language they encountered. It was a noble enterprise and its motive was right, but it has taken us sometime to realize that common prayer is more than just having the same book in your hands. But if we don’t have that kind of common prayer, can we find other ways of praying together? I just put that before you as a suggestion, something which some of you might like to reflect on and which probably some of you are already experiencing. Can we find a way of connecting a small group of our brothers and sisters by sharing a similar way of life? How would that change our relationship? Is that which allows the care and attention which goes on in the monastic tradition. It is that which allows us also to call each other to account, nor from a distant height of condescension, but as sisters and brothers together.
I’ve said that as bishops-in-communion we need to be a kind of church together. We need to model sharing, honesty, and common prayer. That means, I believe, that faithfulness to our Anglican identity is faithfulness to each other as much as it is faithfulness to some norm or standard of teaching: the two go together.â€
Now this is not a didactic on apophatic theology, but behind this plea for unity before truth, one hears that truth is unfolding …there is no norm or standard of teaching in a post dogma, post Book of Common Prayer Anglican world that is sufficient as now known by which we may exclude some from church.
I urge you to look at some of the other work on Dr.Williams’ views on the unknowability of God, as well as reread him yourself. I’ve pulled down a few more books and papers from my shelf, and direct your attention to chapter 3 of A Difficult Gospel, the Theology of Rowan Williams, and the discussion of Williams views on the unknowability of God. And Williams’ lecture on The Creed and the Eucharist in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries given at the University of Bonn in 2004, or his chapter “Knowing the unknowable†in New Directions in Islamic Thought (2008) and of course his book, Arius: Heresy and Tradition.
Dr. Williams views are subtle and complex—and at times can be opaque. Yet you assertion that Dr. Williams utterly rejects the proposition that God, or its cognate, Truth, is unknowable. Show me where he says this and explain to me how it relates to his other body of work.
Again, the article was about the Lambeth Conference. It described what happened in Canterbury, and provided a chronology of events leading up to the conference, as well as a quick smattering of quotes that shows the theological roots that may have motivated these actions.
I prefer to think the motivations for delay and obfuscation were theological, for otherwise that leaves us with the prospect they were products of mendacity or incompetence.
Mr. Conger, you are evasive, to say the least. First you say that ++Rowan’s ideas are consistent, then that they are inconsistent, then that they are consistent but opaque (though if they are opaque, you couldn’t know whether they are consistent or not). I point out that one cannot believe that truth is unknowable and also affirm the truth of the Creed, and you reply that a Christian can believe in “‘the “darkness’ of the knowledge of God†— thereby changing your claim, since such “darkness†is not the same as the claim that truth is unknowable. In this most recent missive, you reaffirm your claim that ++Rowan believes truth to be unknowable, then waive it (“if this phrase sticks in your craw, let’s use a different phrasingâ€), then reassert it.
You write, “To use your quotation…God is faithful to his promises. And this relates to the argument how?†Why, in the most obvious and direct and explicit way possible: it is a truth-claim. It is a dogmatic claim, in fact two of them: that God is a God who makes promises, and that he is a God who keeps them. Someone who believes that the truth is unknowable couldn’t say those things: he would have to say “We do not know whether God makes promises or keeps them.†Therefore that single statement by ++Rowan — which you heard him make, in person — is sufficient to disprove your claim about his “paramount principle.â€
You ask whether I “honestly believe Dr. Williams would say that x, y and z are the promises of God, and that one can have certainty as to the who/what/when/where and why of these promises.†But that’s irrelevant to the argument we’re having: we’re not debating the particulars of his theology, we’re debating whether you’re telling the truth when you say that he believes that truth is unknowable. And you are not telling the truth when you say that.
But, since you ask, my answer to your question is Yes, I “honestly believe Dr. Williams would say that x, y and z are the promises of God,†because he has done so many, many times. Look, for instance, at his Introduction to Faith: “All we possess when we set out on the journey is two fundamental promises from God. The first, very simply, is the promise that God considers every moment of your life worthwhile; that God your creator is committed to your human joy and fulfilment, and the joy and fulfilment of the whole world around you, human and otherwise, and that he will not desert you even when you run away from him. The second promise is that there is nothing that God will not do or face to secure your joy and fulfilment, and that the inexhaustibility of that promise is revealed in the life, death and new life of Jesus Christ.†Or this, from another sermon: “God will not guarantee to keep us safe and successful, but he promises his companionship and his forgiveness through the words and the work of Jesus.†I could keep going, but you get the point.
(I don’t think he would say we have certainty, though, but then, neither would any other serious biblical theologian: we can have [i]confidence[/i], but we still have to live by faith. Or so Our Lord and St. Paul say.)
I don’t see the point of your long quote from ++Rowan’s retreat lecture, since by your own admission it doesn’t address the questions of negative theology. But it’s also not even a dogmatic statement at all — it doesn’t address dogma. He’s talking about relationships there — which, to my mind, is something Rowan does all too often. But again, that’s not the point at issue between us.
Obfuscation and double speak. This is not the first time that people have read his writings and draw directly contradictory conclusions. That tells me that the fault does not lie with the readers but the source. Alan Jacobs finds malignant motives in George Conger, where George Conger was trying to ascribe to Rowan Williams more benign motives.
As I said, the premise is of the article is not the words but the actions of Rowan Williams. These have been much less opaque and have had one overriding goal: assiduously avoid consequences of the actions of the TEO and subvert the will of the Communion by making a process of every document and pronouncement. Processification is an apt neologism whereby Rowan Williams has killed one document after another. Does anyone seriously believe that the Covenant processification won’t follow in form? What folly to pin one’s hope on that!
But thankfully GAFCon is moving beyond Rowan Williams.
Howsoever one decides about Williams, his words or his actions or his inactions or inability to action, the Anglican Communion is certainly hollow as a result of his failure to address the issue in any substantive fashion and preventing substantive response by the Primates or Lame-beth. Jolly good debt run-up, that!
It seems important to blame Williams for Lambeth’s “failure”, but I really have to doubt whether it could have succeeded, by anyone’s standard of success. The Americans (and for that matter, I would suggest, the Canadians and even some of the Brits) could not really lose, because any sufficiently egregious demand could be met with a pull-out. They did better than they could have, in that the communion did not set up a competing church on their territory. One could also count their avoidance of any communion-wide condemnation as a success, though I think it could also be argued that getting condemned by the reactionaries would in some ways count as a success.
The GAFCONites didn’t fare that well either, in that the communion didn’t do anything like discipline against the the Americans. But it also seems as though they didn’t actually intend any such result, because if they did, they wouldn’t have pulled out in such numbers. Therefore I have to conclude that either they didn’t care if Lambeth failed, or they wanted it to fail.
THis adds up to a situation in which the two factions that had to be mediated (or at least dealt with) both were invested in positions that directed them towards sabotaging Williams’s efforts, no matter what those efforts were. If success is the only measure, then I think we can count Lambeth as a failure, at least for American non-reappraisers. But I cannot see how Williams’s personal theological opinions, whatever one thinks they are, have anything to do with this failure, other than some level of commitment to Anglican tolerance. It’s hard to imagine how a Cantuar clone of Akinola, for instance, could have “succeeded”. An ultimatum would have surely simply resulted in the exodus of the Americans, and might have had disastrous consequences for the C of E.
This is a useful and thorough piece by George Conger. I was unaware of the papers seen by Dr Zahl which explain a lot. Thanks for posting it.
I, too, was unaware of the leak to Paul Zahl+. It seems that we orthodox have long been viewed as a merely a problem group that needs to be manipulated. Very comforting.
* It seems important to blame Williams for Lambeth’s “failureâ€, but I really have to doubt whether it could have succeeded, by anyone’s standard of success. We have been so conditioned by Rowan’s and others poor leadership that our expectations are nil. Could Pope Benedict stood strong? Of course.
* The Americans… could not really lose, because any sufficiently egregious demand could be met with a pull-out. This is indeed the threat of the bully as evidenced by Ms Schori starts out a sermon with her wretched “Greetings from Micronesia,…” Less invertebrate-like leadership would call her on this. Certainly Cranmer would have.
* They did better than they could have, in that the communion did not set up a competing church on their territory. I think he should add…”yet.” In fact, people are saying that the orthodox North American province might be just weeks away.
* I think it could also be argued that getting condemned by the reactionaries would in some ways count as a success. and The GAFCONites didn’t fare that well either, in that the communion didn’t do anything like discipline against the the Americans. Lamebeth was, indeed, a success for the revisionists. No question. Rowan killed it with more processification (see #20) – this time the we had the indaba process. But Mr Wingate seems to not realize that GAF Conference was just the beginning.
robroy wrote, “But Mr Wingate seems to not realize that GAF Conference was just the beginning.” I would say, “amen” to that. It concerns me that allot of excellent minds within TEC are still devoted to hanging on to an untenable situation. I have seen no evidence that the leadership of TEC is even listening to the voices of moderation within TEC.
Alan Jacobs, I have greatly enjoyed your discussions on the Mars Hill Audio Journals, and some of your essays as well.
In a comment above you said: “You write, “To use your quotation…God is faithful to his promises. And this relates to the argument how?†Why, in the most obvious and direct and explicit way possible: it is a truth-claim.”
Do you believe that anyone at all believes that “truth is unknowable?”
In my experience, many make that claim that “truth is unknowable” yet also make “truth-claims” all the time. I sat in grad school under unashamed post-modernists who proudly trumpted that there “is no truth” and “there are no lies” . . . and yet repeatedly made “truth-claims.”
They would merely have responded that their “truth-claims” are of course contingent on the discourse community in which they reside, and are, of course, not absolute. So they took it a step further than George Conger claims that Rowan Williams took it — there is no truth, rather than “truth is unknowable.” Yet were still able to grandly fling about truth-claims till the cows came home.
If Conger’s claim that Rowan Williams believes that truth is unknowable were true — I do not think that pointing to Rowan Williams’s various “truth-claims” actually disprove Conger’s claims.
Come now Dr. Jacobs, this will not do. You first assert that I am dishonest, then pull back somewhat to say I am evasive, yet offer no evidence apart from your own strongly felt views.
You say “not one” of the quotations I offer supports the argument that Dr. Williams believes that truth is unknowable. This is absurd.
What does Dr. Williams mean by writing ““theological language has to open out on to a sort of darkness – not the darkness of obscurity or confused ignorance, but the darkness of sheer resistance to the finite mind on the part of the divine.” Does it mean that our finite minds are capable of knowing the divine? Of course not—your passion to be right in the face of the evidence has gotten the better of you.
The portions of my essay you dispute consist of five paragraphs. They say: Dr. Williams is a consistent thinker. Since his enthronement he has not deviated from the intellectual and theological principles that have guided his academic writings. Paramount among these is the belief that truth is unknowable. Certainty lies only with those who lack critical self-awareness: “For the fundamentalist, the will of God is clearly ascertainable for all situations, either through the plain words of scripture (as received in a particular but unacknowledged convention of reading) or with the aid of supernatural direct prompting: Christian revelation is there to offer clear and important information – how to be right,†he asserted in his 1994 book Open to Judgment (OTJ, p. 221).
When God does illumine us, “when God’s light breaks on my darkness,†he stated, “the first thing I know is that I don’t know – and never did†(OTJ, p. 120).
This denial of certainty is what the reign of Christ over us means: “Christ’s is the kingship of a riddler, the one who makes us strangers to what we think we know†(OTJ, p.131).
For Dr. Williams, theology does not reveal God; it reveals that there is no revelation, no single knowable truth. He who claims possession of the truth, and uses it to exclude others from the fellowship of the church, shows by his very actions that the truth is not in him.
In practical terms, this means the church should not be quick to draw lines. “Heresy is possible,†Dr. Williams concedes, “but before we throw the word around, we need to remember that orthodoxy is common life before it’s common doctrine†(OTJ, p. 264). Hence the mission of the church is to stay together, united by this common life while it seeks the (centuries) long pursuit of common doctrine.”
Without offering evidence, you proceed to make a personal attack on my integrity. Lacking evidence for this attack you shift from my sin of dishonesty to the sin of being evasive. I respond by producing citations drawn from 1989 to the present that support my contention that “For Dr. Williams, theology does not reveal God; it reveals that there is no revelation, no single knowable truth. He who claims possession of the truth, and uses it to exclude others from the fellowship of the church, shows by his very actions that the truth is not in him.”
Rage is not an argument. Vitriol is not a substitute for reasoned debate. I have laid out my argument with facts—why do you not respond in kind? The onus is on you to show that what Dr. Williams has written over the past 20 years does not accord with what you hope to be true.
Rather a poor showing so far.
Please do not misunderstand me, Mr. Conger — I mean to say that what you write here is evasive [i]in addition to[/i] being dishonest. You began with dishonesty — saying things about ++Rowan that you know from personal experience not to be true — and have progressed from there to evasion.
You say that I have failed to provide facts. To the contrary, I have provided many, and you have ignored them all. You asked how one of my citations of ++Rowan was relevant, I obediently showed how it was relevant, and explained the elementary logic involved — and now about that you say nothing.
You expressed doubt that ++Rowan makes truth claims (since truth is unknowable), I cited several truth claims — and now about that you say nothing.
You expressed doubt that ++Rowan “would say that x, y, and z are the promises of God”; I cited quotations that supported the point — and now about that you say nothing.
I have made [i]arguments[/i], Mr. Conger — claims supported by evidence. You would do well to learn the difference between that and “rage” and “vitriol.” The distinction is vital!
I could go on. You have not responded to a single fact or argument that I have provided — you have merely restated your same points over and over again, simply [i]asserting[/i] that all those quotations from ++Rowan [i]somehow[/i] mean that he thinks truth is unknowable, though he has never said such a thing, and I have now given you many quotations that prove the opposite. (All of your quotations are of the “in other words” variety: you quote someone, then roundly declare that “in other words” he is saying what you want people to believe he says.)
I could try to respond to your further accusations of ++Rowan — for instance, I could point out that there is a difference between saying that we cannot not something wholly and saying that we cannot know anything at all about it; or I could ask you, if you doubt that God “resists” our attempts to know him, if you have read the latter chapters of Job — but what would be the point? Why would I expect you to respond to those arguments when you have not responded to any others?
This is frivolous of you, Mr. Conger. If you’re not willing to respond to facts or arguments — if you just want to pretend that I haven’t offered either — why bother replying at all? When you’re willing to take responsibility for your words, and to pay attention to mine, please do let me know.
How sad Dr. Jacobs that abuse and name calling are the tools by which you waging this debate. Need I remind you that the topic is my essay, not your beliefs. I have amply shown my arguments to be true, yet you persist in responding with name calling. The consensus of the literature supports my view, as do Dr. Williams own words. You may try to evade the argument—which again is what I have written in the Christian Challenge, not what you believe–but so far you have not shown much promise.
I have refrained from responding to you on the level of personal vilification—other than to say your plea for charity is not born out by your actions. I will not address questions of your character or intelligence or motives, as you have mine.
I will say I am disappointed by your lack of intellectual rigor and childish behavior—do respond to Rowan Williams if you do not care for his phrasing or arguments—they are what I have shared.
Mr Conger’s reporting and answers to inquiries are substantive, woud that the ABC were.
RE: “You asked how one of my citations of ++Rowan was relevant, I obediently showed how it was relevant, and explained the elementary logic involved . . . ”
You stated that Rowan had made a truth-claim, and seem to believe that if someone makes truth-claims they cannot at the same time believe that truth is unknowable. But this is clearly not the case, since many philosophers who steadfastly believe that truth is unknowable — or even does not exist — make truth-claims all the time, with perfect equanimity.
I do not see how any of Rowan’s truth-claims could somehow disprove the idea that Rowan also believes truth to be unknowable.
It is not really whether GAFCON was just the beginning of something, as I do not doubt that. I think now, as I thought at the time, and I do not see anyone seriously denying, that GAFCON is a manifestation of an organized schism in the works. Cantuar, by virtue of his office, surely must oppose this, whatever his personal beliefs may be; an archbishop of Canterbury who thinks otherwise should resign. Much of the following discussion is therefore predicated upon taking sides as to this schism or the possible schism of a departing ECUSA.
That leads me to revisit the two problem passages. I have not read the particular passage from which the excerpts were taken, and on top of that it is reasonable to question whether a 14 year old book should be taken as representative of the bishop’s current views. Surely more recent material is available. But in any case, the analysis of RW’s supposed views is contaminated, as I see it, with a common heresy held at both extremes of the dispute. Williams is quoted as addressing fundamentalism, a term whose definition isn’t given (and which, in the present, is ambiguous if not tendentious); but I would at least assign to it that Protestant sense of certain theological deduction. And I wish I did not have to keep referring to the lack of context, but it doesn’t seem to me that he means the GAFCONites to be included here, necessarily– unless of course they want to volunteer. The problem is that Conger’s analysis requires the contrast between the fundamentalists and the relativists to be dichotomous, and it is not so. And not only is it not so, but Anglicanism has classically denied that it is so, because it is not so. When one looks at the views of actual individuals, the situation is simply not dichotomous. There is a large liberal faction that is utterly orthodox on trinitarian and Christological theology, but which (for whatever reason) hold liberal views on sexuality. Members of the opposition keep trying to tag them with the views of someone like Spong, and that is utterly dishonest where it isn’t simply ignorant and bigoted. In the other direction there is a very large conservative component which is at best uneasy about the GAFCONite maneuver of delivering their certainies as inarguable dogma; they want the communion to thrash out what is inarguable. (That’s the point of the whole Covenant movement.) In the context of all of this I really cannot accept Conger’s analysis as accurate, and never mind whether it motivates Williams’s actions.
Zahl’s material presents similar issues of reliability. Zahl has his own history as a conspicuously polarized participant, so I’m reluctant to admit him as an unbiased witness. I cannot doubt that Williams wanted to avoid a dunciatory confrontation, for whatever reason; and I cannot doubt that Zahl very much wanted such a confrontation to happen, for very clear reasons. I think Conger did and still does desire such a confrontation. But the argument that RW wanted to avoid such a confrontation because he was/is a member of the liberal camp does not convince me. There are other reasons to avoid that, and it seems to me that Williams has, over the years of his presidency, articulated them over and over. I think the failed Indaba effort came out of the same impulses, and that part of the reason it failed was that the two factions were too committed to acting as factions than as people (as witnessed for instance in the testimony of the bishop of Tasmania).
My personal assessment of the the whole situation is that it has become dominated by these two factions, both of whom are not only heedless of the destruction their schismatic strategy may (and I thnk will) bring about, but which they actually welcome as a validator of their side’s righteousness. In that light delay on WIlliams’s part may be a reasonable long-tern tactic, if it gives the Anglican remnant a chance to coalesce into a faction of its own.
C Wingate writes, “I think now, as I thought at the time, and I do not see anyone seriously denying, that GAFCON is a manifestation of an organized schism in the works. Cantuar, by virtue of his office, surely must oppose this…”
Firstly, schism is a verbal dart, thrown out merely to gain talking points. Secondly, the office of bishop requires him, “with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same.”
Paul Zahl+, called for the orthodox to “surrender unconditionally.” Attempts by Mr Wingate to malign the godly Paul Zahl+ are reprehensible.
What is the greatest threat to the Anglican Communion? The Episcopal revisionists, of course. They are the ones sowing division. Mr Wingate wants Rowan Williams cowering to the threat of the likes of Ms Schori of taking her marbles and leaving the game. George Conger tries to ascribe to Rowan more noble reasons for Rowan’s failures (and Mr Jacobs objects to this magnanimity). I am less sanguine than George Conger and think that Mr Wingate is more correct that Rowan is simply afraid to stand up to the bully and call them on their bluff.
Robroy, I chose the word “schism” after reconsidering more euphemistic terms. I have said on a number of occaisions of late, including comments in this blog, that I hold one cannot be an Anglican without acknowledging that some situations demand schism as a response, so I’m not going to accept being tagged with using “schism” as a slur. In any case, the point isn’t whether or not such a schism is legitimate, but rather to note that (in my opinion of course) the GAFCONites have ceased to have concern for the institution of the communion as a whole.
And as far as the office of a bishop is concerned, you’ve just handed KJS and any number of revisionist tyrant bishops authorization for their acts. ECUSA has decided, and the orthodox– um, the reactionaries, for ECUSA has, by your standard, a new orthodoxy– are to be driven into line. The point again isn’t so much who is going to win such a contest, but rather that Anglicanism historically hasn’t taken such a belligerent (and in my opnion, pride-filled) attitude towards enforcement of whatever one’s orthodoxy is today. If it weren’t for the paradox of it, one could endorse Cantuar’s authority to drive out both the revisionists and the GAFCONites as being unconformed to the Anglican way.
I am trying to search out the context of the this supposed statement of Zahl’s and thus far I haven’t found it. I don’t think that leaving one’s property behind is so complete a surrender as to avoid any hint of schism, particularly as the issue of leaving one’s orders behind pertains to clerics. Absolute resistance to schism means not leaving. However, I am willing to consider that I’ve misunderstood the extent of Zahl’s identification with the more agressive elements of the GAFCONite faction. Nonetheless it is not malign that I have doubts about his perspicacity as an observer of the whole affair, nor a reflection upon his godliness.
Of course the revisionist tyrants of ECUSA are the proximate cause of the communion’s troubles. But they are not the only ones sowing division. There may be a difference in any given person’s sense of moral justification over whether ECUSA is expelled or suceeds from the communion, but for someone in ECUSA, the outcome is the same. And I don’t know that Williams is afraid to call 815’s bluff, if for no other reason than I don’t think it is bluffing. What he’s doing is, for some value of “working”, not working. But the two obvious “remedies”– replacing him with an aggressive member of one of the opposing factions– is, for me personally, not working even worse. With whatever respect I might have for Conger’s magnaminity, I don’t agree with his characterization of Williams’ thought; and what’s worse, I think the character of that misunderstanding is pervasive, and that it is impeding working with Williams.
It’s nearly impossible for people to observe the events of the past five years, along with the central figures in those events, without attempting to come up with reasons for the behavior of the various central figures, including those of Rowan.
My own thoughts about Rowan Williams have been a bit different from some posted here and probably a bit simpler. I see him as a man who holds two views or values, both somewhat in conflict with one another.
I think it’s pretty apparent that he doesn’t believe that sexuality issues are communion-dividing or, if they are, that they should be. On the other hand, he doesn’t want the Communion to divide.
So in spite of his progressive views, he doesn’t want to lose the conservatives. This is actually to his credit — compare and contrast the transparently acted-upon ideas of Schori — “let the primitives leave.”
So to me, the goal for Rowan is to try to set things up over the years to continue to bring both sides to the table and “not divide.” He’s right about one thing — the fact that people keep showing up [although somewhat fewer every year, it seems] provides evidence that his strategy is working.
I think long-term, his hope is that if he can keep things from exploding by progressive activists somewhat moderating their time-trajectory, and conservatives not leaving, eventually things could “die down.” I personally think his hopes are vain, in part because he is misreading the progressive activists as well as the conservatives . . . and in part because my theology precludes this from happening . . but hey, I could be wrong.
With regards to Rowan’s rhetoric that George Conger brings up in his article, I think its motives are different from “he doesn’t believe truth is knowable” . .. though I can certainly understand someone sifting through various possibilities of motives and coming up with that one to explain Rowan’s actions!
I think Rowan wheels out the old “it’s all so dark, so vast, so impenetrable” language when he’s aware that if he says something with clarity or directness, one big swath of the Communion wlll fall into a frenzy or when he’s speaking to a divided audience.
He doesn’t say that sort of thing, for instance, when he’s pronouncing on Milton.
Before people jump on me and say how harsh I am with Rowan — or others jump on me and state how awful Rowan is for acting this way — I think all of us do this [i]in matters that we think fairly trivial or unimportant.[/i]
How many parents have wheeled out precisely the same line when confronted with squabbling children over some toy or a treat? “It’s all so dark, so vast, so impenetrable — therefore who can know whose toy it was to begin with. Children, this is not communion dividing. Peter, stop flaunting the toy in front of Katherine and share it equally every five minutes. Katherine, stop your squalling and running after Peter.”
That doesn’t mean Rowan is a bad person [other than that we are all bad people] or that he is not a Christian or that he is satanic or anything else particularly awful. It merely means that he doesn’t think these issues are communion-dividing, other than that, of course, some parties really really care about them, and of course he’s concerned about that.
Apologies for the late posting but I am just reading John Websters wonderful essay “Rowan Williams on Scripture” in the newly published book, [i]Scriptures Doctrine and Theology’s Bible[/i]. It may be more accurate to see that Rowan consistently affirms not skeptism about an encounter with the divine but “the acceptance of both the mobility of the creaturely condition and the impossibility of representing God in a single contingent form.” In other words in Rowan’s thought, apophasis is redefined as “the interminable and unsystematic knowledge of God in time.” Put more simply – the impossibility of theological closure.
Typo – it should be: apophasis is redefined as the “indeterminable and unsystematic character of knowledge of God in time.”
Webster writes, “the concern to prevent closure is never far from Williams’s mind.”
Webester has four reflections:
1. Does Williams’s theology acknowledge that Scripture is a gift from God intended, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to lead the church into truth?
2. Why does William’s not see the gift of the canon of Scripture as limiting Scriptural polyphony and incoherence? Why is his theology not exegetically driven?
3. Does Williams’s emphasis on the uncontainabilty and inexhaustability of Jesus miss something about Jesus perfection? Is Jesus not just the pattern of christian representations but also their author?
4. Does Williams’s account of cultural poetics and hermeneutics attend enough to the specifically christian dimensions of interpreting Holy Scripture?
driver8,
Thanks for calling our attention to John Webster’s take on ++RW’s theology in the book you mentioned in your #37, Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible. I hadn’t seen it yet, and I’m glad to know about it and will have to check it out.
A few brief comments here.
First, I’m glad to see you posting again, driver8. You’ve been lying low for a while, and I’ve missed your often penetrating and stimulating contributions to this blog and SF. Please keep posting.
Second, I think part of what accounts for Rowan Williams’ deep resistance to theological closure is as much a matter of his personality as his theological convictions. In the familiar typology of the Myer-Briggs Temperament Inventory, I think it’s abundantly clear that Dr. Williams is an extreme P on the P vs. J axis. That is, he’s clearly a “Perceiving” type vs. the “Judging” type.
Of course, that P vs. J distinction has nothing to do with being judgemental or non-judgmental, and everything to do with whether you instinctively seek closure or resist it in terms of gathering data before making decisions. P’s like RW (and I’m one too) want all the data we can get before making a decision. J’s are more pragmatic and recognize more readily that some decisions just can’t be put off, and so you make the best decision you can with the data you’ve got and move on. Academics tend to be P’s. Effective leaders in the world of business, politics, and yes, the Church, are more often J’s.
Finally, G. K. Chesterton had some delightfully witty things to say about people who never seem to be able to make up their minds. I don’t recall the exact quote, but somewhere he says that the whole point of opening your mind, like opening your mouth, is to be able to close it again on something! Or in the words of St. Paul in Romans 14, precisely with regard to matters of adiaphora, “Let each one be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5).
Or as I love to put it: An open mind is like an open door or window. It needs screens to keep the bugs out! Alas, ++RW keeps propping the windows to the AC open without the necessary screens, and so we have all too many mosquitos, pesky flies, and even hornets buzzing about.
David Handy+