As part of his current brief trip to Canada the Archbishop of Canterbury has given a lecture The Bible: Reading and Hearing to students at Wycliffe and Trinity theological colleges in Toronto. The full press release from Lambeth Palace is below the fold but here is the first paragraph.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan WIlliams, has told an audience of theological students that both intensely liberal and ultra conservative readings of the Bible are ‘rootless’ and are limited in what they can contribute to the life of the church. In the Larkin Stuart lecture, delivered today at an event hosted jointly by Wycliffe and Trinity theological colleges in Toronto, Dr Williams said that Christians need to reconnect with scripture as something to be listened to and heard in the context of Jesus’s invitation to the Eucharist and to work for the Kingdom.
The full text of the lecture is online here and here.
Archbishop – church needs to listen properly to the bible
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan WIlliams, has told an audience of theological students that both intensely liberal and ultra conservative readings of the Bible are ‘rootless’ and are limited in what they can contribute to the life of the church. In the Larkin Stuart lecture, delivered today at an event hosted jointly by Wycliffe and Trinity theological colleges in Toronto, Dr Williams said that Christians need to reconnect with scripture as something to be listened to and heard in the context of Jesus’s invitation to the Eucharist and to work for the Kingdom.
“… The Church’s public use of the Bible represents the Church as defined in some important way by listening: the community when it comes together doesn’t only break bread and reflect together and intercede, it silences itself to hear something. It represents itself in that moment as a community existing in response to a word of summons or invitation, to an act of communication that requires to be heard and answered.”
This, he argues, is crucial in the way in which the communities of Christians are informed by what the Scriptures say:
“Take Scripture out of this context of the invitation to sit at table with Jesus and to be incorporated into his labour and suffering for the Kingdom, and you will be treating Scripture as either simply an inspired supernatural guide for individual conduct or a piece of detached historical record – the typical exaggerations of Biblicist and liberal approaches respectively.”
“For the former, the work of the Spirit is more or less restricted to the transformation of the particular believer; for the latter, the life of the community is where the Spirit is primarily to be heard and discerned, with Scripture an illuninating adjunct at certain points.”
Dr Williams says that neither isolating texts from their contexts nor dismissing them as limited by prevalent cultural understanding were helpful approaches. Quoting from St John’s Gospel, Dr Williams said that Jesus’s teaching that ‘no-one can come to the Father except by me’ (John 14 v 6 ) could not be used simply as a trump card in discussions with other faiths: the verse needed to be heard in its full biblical context as the development of the question posed by his earlier saying, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.’ (John 13 v 33).
” … This certainly does not suggest in an direct way a more inclusive approach to other faiths. But the point is that the actual question being asked is not about the fate of non-Christians; it is about how the disciples are to understand the death of Jesus as the necessary clearing of the way which they are to walk.”
Similarly, St Paul’s denunciation of homosexuality in Romans 1 v 27 also needed to be properly heard as an ancilliary point in an argument about another matter entirely. That did not diminish its force but made it harder either to discard it or to use it as a definite proof text.
“It is not helpful for a ‘liberal’ or revisionist case, since the whole point of Paul’s rhetorical gambit is that everyone in his imagined readership agrees in thinking the same sex relations of the culture around them to be as obviously immoral as idol-worship or disobedience to parents. It is not very helpful to the conervative either, though, because Paul insists on shifting the focus away from the objects of moral disapprobation in chapter 1 to the reading / hearing subject who has at this point been happily identifying with Paul’s castigation of someone else … Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law- abiding. “
Christians cannot pick and choose amongst the texts of scripture, he concluded; the whole of the Bible needed ot be understood both as inspired and inspiring – the work of the Holy Spirit:
“It is the spirit that connects the periods of God’s communicative action towards humanity and thus connects the diverse texts that make up the one manifold text that we call Holy Scripture. The Spirit’s work as ‘breathing’ God’s wisdom into the text of Scripture is not a magical process that removes bilblical writing from the realm of actual human writing; it is the work of creating one ‘movement’ out of the diverse historical narratives and textual deposits that represent Israel’s and the Church’s efforts to find words to communicate God’s communication of summons and invitation.
“The Spirit through the events of God’s initiative stirs up the words and makes sense of them for the reader/hearer in the Spirit-sustained community. As Karl Barth insisted, this leaves no ground for breaking up Scripture into the parts we can ‘approve’ as God-inspired and the parts that are merely human; the whole is human and the whole is offered by God in and through the life of the body; always shaping and determining the form of that life. “
A magnificent address. However, I stumble on some of its claims — how would the total acceptance of Scripture be compatible with the moral judgment we are forced to make on genocidal texts such as Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15? On Romans 1, it can be argued that as in the case of Conciliar documents the binding force accrues to the conclusions not to the arguments used on the way there. What Paul says about homosexuality in Romans 1 is just the conventional moral rhetoric of the times — you find similar stuff in Stoic, Platonist and Hellenistic Jewish… Read more »
I don’t think an appeal to the middle as such is an argument that would hold up, though I see he does not actually do this in substance. I’ve seen the Bible “listened to” in two different church communities. In the Unitarians, it was an occasional, haphazard, by choice selection according to aesthetic or ethical inspiritation. It is a sort of Treasury of the Bible approach. What Williams is talking about is something more specific, and I think it comes down to a clearer identification with a continuous community recreating eucharistic events as interpreted by Paul and the early community,… Read more »
There was a time not that very long ago when I found pretty much everything the Bishop of Monmouth and Archbishop of Wales had to say exciting and inspiring. These days, I can practically feel my enthusiasm for the Gospel ebbing every time Cantuar opens his mouth.
The feminine notes the passage “…it is the work of creating one ‘movement’…” and would remind readers that God is both masculine and feminine, and that the feminine is capable of multitasking (even if some males are in denial). God can make everlasting covenants with Jews. If honorable and reasonable “everlasting” covenants to Jews are rendered void, then why would “everlasting” covenants with Christians, Muslims or any other faith or philosophical stream have any “everlasting” characteristics? That is both the warning and the promise of Isaiah 28:14 to Isaiah 29. e.g. 28:18 “Your covenant with death will be annulled; your… Read more »
“Now this gives little comfort to either party in the current culture wars in the Church. It is not helpful for a ‘liberal’ or revisionist case, since the whole point of Paul’s rhetorical gambit is that everyone in his imagined readership agrees in thinking the same-sex relations of the culture around them to be as obviously immoral as idol-worship or disobedience to parents. “ Ah, but it is a great help to the liberal case. It says that Paul’s statement about homosexuality is based on his audience’s opinion. Furthermore, that opinion is informed by the same-sex relations “of the culture… Read more »
My response is found at
http://anglicanresistance.blogspot.com/2007/04/williams-on-listening-to-scripture_8826.html
I agree with Fr. O’Leary about genocidal texts.
On the whole, Williams has said some helpful things, but he does not make sufficient provision for the hermeneutics of suspicion. Anti-Kingdom and anti-Gospel ideologies are present in Scripture and much of what it says or implies about the relationships between women and men must be rejected outright.
This is very thoughtful, well-crafted, and solid, once one gets past the purely rhetorical attempt to claim the middle ground. But I’m surprised at +Rowan’s belief that this model for reception and interpretation of the Bible is news to anyone, or certainly anyone who has attended an Episcopal seminary in the past half-century. It is precisely a lifetime of attention to scripture in the context of the life of the eucharistic community that has led this (self-proclaimed) liberal to the conviction that the consistent biblical affirmation of regard for the stranger and outsider, of loving one’s neighbor, and of promoting… Read more »
I agree with Pluralist when he says the ABC should move on to ask questions of the meaning of the text (although, it is not surprising he did not do so at this time)
Reading – Hearing – Believing……Acting.
(no point just hearing and reading, even in context)(see St James’ comments on mirrors)
A small clarification. The address by the Archbishop of Canterbury was not given to theological students. That meeting was a closed one and took place before the morning press conference. The lecture was a public one, following the granting of honourary degrees by the University of Trinity College Toronto and Wycliffe College. The audience included several Canadian Bishops but was primarily composed of laity and clergy from several parishes. There were about 800 people in attendance. Many of them were alumni and alumni of Trinity College and St. Thomas’s Angican Church, the intstitutions sponsoring this special lecture. An earlier one… Read more »
Father O’Leary I think we take Paul “seriously” when he says ….all Cretans are liars but not shallowly/literally if that makes sense -we treat it as the quote that it is from one of their own prophets -what does it mean when he says “This testimony is true” -presumably again we treat it seriously that Titus would face those problems of lying etc -not because Paul thought of the Cretans as a unique race that had a problem with the truth but because Paul knew that what that quote hit upon was the truth about humanity generally and true on… Read more »
When will we get past the idea that Paul was condemming ‘Homosexuality’. There was no such thing in his understanding or in the understanding of the culture of his day. Men were men only and if they chose to have sex with other men it was a deliberate perversion of their natural attraction to women, or an engagement in idolatrous worship. Our understanding of Homosexuality as an orientation which is ‘natural’ [God given?] is recent. This has yet to be absolutely proven but the trajectory of study certainly points in that direction. I for one agree with what the Bible… Read more »
Science and reason have informed us that same-sex couplings occur in many species in the animal kingdom. There must be a very important evolutionary reason for a minority of any species to show a tendency towards same-sex behaviour, and for this not to have been eliminated by natural selection. As a biologist, ++Katherine Jefferts-Schori understands this. She helpfully blew the whistle on the locker-room mentality and ignorance of some of her fellow primates, who compared gays to murderers and paedophiles. In a wonderfully frank interview with Richard Dawkins linked to on another thread, Richard Harries accepts that science has given… Read more »
I note that RW’s argument about Romans 1 is essentially the same as that developed and advanced by James Alison in his latest book ‘Undergoing God’. A fine ollection of essays it is, too. And we know which side James comes out on…
Incidentally, on the ‘texts of horror’ which various people refer to: I assume Rowan would say that interpreting these in communion would lead to the conclusion that they are warning rather than affirmation.
“It is not helpful for a ‘liberal’ or revisionist case, since the whole point of Paul’s rhetorical gambit is that everyone in his imagined readership agrees in thinking the same sex relations of the culture around them to be as obviously immoral as idol-worship or disobedience to parents.” Say wha??? How does Paul’s assumption that all his readers REJECT PEDERASTY do any harm to liberal Anglicans—and more to the point, LGBT ones? Heck, since we LGBTs are the ones who get (falsely!) BLAMED for child sexual abuse, we’re more agin it than anyone else! In trying to play the ol’… Read more »
sometimes it is hard to listen to Rowan work so hard to craft a sensible and moderate middle when I think of his: -refusing to come to our Presiding Bishop’s investiture -throwing his friend Jeffery Johns to the wolves -unwillingness to stand up to bullies like Akinola -willingness to warmly welcome other African bishops who have innocent blood on their hands -telling a Dutch reporter that his earlier writings in favor of equal rights for gays and lesbians were just trial balloons and not really his real position, and -his fight against the equal rights legislation in England. Sometimes it… Read more »
Bob – you actually believe what you wrote?
The “liberals” who just ignore verses they do not like are much more convincing than your contrived argument….which can be twisted to justify all sorts of modern sins.
Dr Williams treats present letter to the Romans (the words en Romä are not found in the early witnesses), which consists of 2 different letters; Romans and Phoebe (present Romans 1:7b-12 + 16:1-16, 20b), as if it were one letter unquestionably by Paul himself, and as if the well attested contributions of the competing Editions of Marcion (c:a 140), the Pastorals’ circle (c:a 150-160), Clement of Alexandria (the p 46, not – I repeat not – used by today’s editors), and the Byzantine redaction (400-500, which we still retain today for Romans, only) and others were un-known. Is this the… Read more »
Liberated from the garbage heaped on it by anti-modern “translators” Romans 1:18-25, couched in the terms of Deuteronomy 5:8-9a, addresses Idolatry; Cults. It is probably a 2nd century re-working by Marcion or somebody (a couple of dozen un-characteristic/un-paulinian words) heavily influenced by Hellenist a-theistic philosophy. It expresses the Alexandrian Museion’s explanation for Polytheism: the peoples abandoned The Highest Being for creatures of their own making, descending into idolatry and foolery. It is parallel to certain passages in Jewish Hellenistic literature which, although never “canonical” in any sense in Judaism, has been liberally claimed as a witness (“This is a Rabbinical… Read more »
Church leaders and members could probably do with ‘a season of fasting’ from the Bible.
What books would you suggest for reading instead ?
My money is on Riders in the Chariot by Patrick White (Penguin)
NP
“Bob – you actually believe what you wrote?”
I’m getting very very tired of your tone of conversation.
Yes, people on this forum generally believe what they write.
They write it with honesty and with integrity and fully informed by their own faith.
I respect your postings in that fashion, although I don’t agree with much you say.
But if we’re to continue to have any kind of meaningful exchange, please do us the honour of respecting our sincerity, even if you cannot respect our views.
Erika; whether or not NP would self-designate as a fundamentalist I don’t know. It’s his business, though Barr years ago observed that ‘fundamentalist’ is a term shunned by those who occupy what I might term a fundamentalist position. But Barr also observes that the idea that a fundamentalist can engage in a dialogue with a non-fundamentalist is largely a ‘liberal’ dream. Though the ‘liberal’ may construe things as a discussion of a range of possible opinions, a fundamentalist ‘knows’ only one of those opinions to be permissible, therefore those who hold opinions contrary to hers/his are unenlightened (so dialogue is… Read more »
I take your point, mynsterpreost.
I would still hope that a fundamentalist would be able to defend his views with actual arguments, taking into account what his “opponents” have said, and not just ignore them or attack them rudely and personally.
Unless we assume that fundamentalist positions by definition have no intellectual merit, that at least, should be possible. But then, I’ve always been an optimistic dreamer!
I couldn’t agree more about the worship songs.
Amongst the misdemeanours St Paul cites in Romans 1, which ABC conveniently left out, are “debate”, “without natural affection”, “backbiters”, “implacable”…
I rest may case
Erika – I asked the question becaues Bob’s because I cannot imagine St Paul, for example, ordaining VGR – given what he wrote and how he handled St Peter when he was in error (when Peter was not being inclusive enough!) Mynster – ouch – you throw the “fundamentalist grenade” at me! Well, I believe in following the teaching of the bible,a fine Anglican tradition, and if that makes me a fundamentalist, I accept the title. Rowan Williams says Lambeth 1.10 is the “teaching of the church” so the CofE and AC is a happy home for a fundamentalist like… Read more »
Life of Brian:
Brian: “You’re all a bunch of conformists!” (modern day “fundamentalists”)
The crowd: “No we’re not, no we’re not!”
A solitary voice: “I am”
The irony is that the one who does not fit in is the one who aspires to be in, whilst those who are in are trying to pretend to be more than what they are so they can prove that they are different.
btw
what is ‘a new worship song’ ?
Have I missed something ?
Mynsterpreost, I’m glad for the opportunity to ask this ignorant sounding question, but what is the difference between an Evangelical and a fundamentalist? I sincerely don’t know. I do know that some Evangelicals find the term ‘fundamentalist’ insulting, but I also know that they use the word ‘Evangelical’ to mean “Bible based/believing”, the implication being that the rest of us base our faith on, what, the Necronomicon? I am well familiar with that bigotry, and find ‘Evangelical’ a difficult word to use because of it. I will not allow them to disparage my faith from my own mouth. Other than… Read more »
Bob,
“telling a Dutch reporter that his earlier writings in favor of equal rights for gays and lesbians were just trial balloons and not really his real position”
This is new to me – is there any evidence for this?
H Ford – I thought these links may help with your question.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Evangelical-David-Martyn-Lloyd-Jones/dp/0851516262
http://www.eauk.org/about/what_is.cfm
Erika, see:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/27/ngay27.xml
Erika said “Unless we assume that fundamentalist positions by definition have no intellectual merit…” Barr suggested that fundamentalism was a result of over-intellectualisation. The arguments are internally cohesive to a remarkable degree, it’s the connections with the world beyond which are problematic, and are often construed in ‘bunker’ format. Laurence: no, you most emphatically HAVEN’T missed anything with regard to new worship songs…! Ford, Barr (again, only book I’ve ever read:-) ) suggested a significant difference between UK and North American usage, where ‘Evangelical’ in UK meant more like ‘mainstream Protestant’ in US, and ‘Fundamentalist’ in UK roughly parallelled ‘(conservative)… Read more »
Cheryl: Life of Brian. It’s not the woird ‘conformists’, and the crowd agree, rather than disagree.
The sentiment expressed by Brian, who is trying to get people to stop mindlessly following him, is something like “Remember, you’re all individuals”. Then they shout back as one, “Yes! we’re all individuals!”… until one loan voice cries, “I’m not”.
Delightful moment.
Thanks, NP, but the first was a link to Amazon.com. The second didn’t make it clear at all. It seems to be saying that fundamentalists are Evangelicals who are more conservative. I take particular issue with: “As such, they seek to maintain and present the authentic teaching ‘once for all entrusted to the saints’ (Jude 3).” My problem is that they would see the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints” to be found in Scripture alone and of course it is not. Scripture, to make an analogy, is not the computer. It is instead the user’s manual.… Read more »
“Dr Rowan WIlliams, has told an audience of theological students that both intensely liberal and ultra conservative readings of the Bible are ‘rootless’.” Considering some of the posts above, it’s a good point to make however. As mysenpreost wrote” …a fundamentalist ‘knows’ only one of those opinions to be permissible, therefore those who hold opinions contrary to hers/his are unenlightened (so dialogue is about conversion) or wilful so dialogue is about dismissing the faith of the other)” Can this not be true of people on the both sides of the argument? There are definitely “conservatives” with such an attitude that… Read more »
“Neither side really wants to see the other side’s point of view and admit they might be wrong” I really wish that every Anglican who knows this to be true would say it. We need the real Anglican mainstream to stand up and cry loudly “A pox on both your houses!” If those of us who think this said it, I think both sides would get quite a shock! In my search for truth in this, I have been forced to look at people’s behaviour, “by their fruits you shall know them.” Well, I’ve ended up reluctantly siding, more or… Read more »
I think this is a good and helpful restatement of the relationship between Scripture and the Eucharist in the context of Christian community. But I don’t recognise ++Rowan’s depiction of “liberal” theology, as in, “for the latter, the life of the community is where the Spirit is primarily to be heard and discerned, with Scripture an illuminating adjunct at certain points”. As a self-confessed liberal in a very inclusive parish, it’s clear to me that we have reached the positions we have as a result of sustained listening to and wrestling with the text as it stands – trying to… Read more »
Hi Ford Sorry, the amazon link was supposed to get you to a book called “What is an Evangelical” by Martin Lloyd Jones. He was not Anglican so that may be good or bad.
Evangelical Anglican – pls see John Stott as a great example and his book “Issues Facing Christians Today” may be of interest as it shows how a great, faithful man would approach various issues from an evangelical Christian perspective
Ford,
I don’t think you can tell whole groups by their fruits, only ever individuals.
“it shows how a great, faithful man would approach various issues from an evangelical Christian perspective”
I do not question his faith, NP, though I do question the things he has faith in. You’ve heard, no doubt, the joke about the nuns, the car with no gas, the chamber pot, and Ian Paisley. WRT Evangelicals, those are my sentiments. I was asking about the difference between a fundamentalist and an Evangelical, however, and I’m afraid I’m none the wiser.
Sorry to double post. Erica, I think when a group speaks to a certain issue as a group, you can then tell that whole group by their fruits. So when the cabal of conservatives led by ++Akinola schemes and plots to get their way, celebrates impending schism with a dinner rather than share the Eucharist with their fellow primates, draws up drafts of how they will go about taking power in TEC, and accepts funding from wealthy Americans with ties to IRD, then these are the fruits by which that particular group can be judged. It is not a judgement… Read more »
A couple of things. My understanding of fundamentalist is a person who subscribes to Darby’s premillenial dispensationalism [which has given rise to ‘Left Behind’ rapture ideas]. He [I think] was the first to coin the term ‘fundamentals of faith’ in his system. It also included what he called a literal interpretation of Scripture. Evangelicalism has more of an emphasis on winning souls for Christ whether or not they adhere to what they believe is a literal reading of Scripture. While most Fundamentalists are evangelical, few Evangelicals are fundamentalist. …and yes NP I do believe what I said. Thank you Erika!… Read more »
A long time ago I tried to tackle this fundamentalist versus evangelical definition as a piece of sociology of religion. First of all it was clear that fundamentalists were as selective as anyone. What was clear was that for definitions they referred to other people making definitions. So it was not that every word was true, but something else. Then there was the problem of traditionalists and what I called conversationists. On the face of it a traditionalist Prot can be as fundamentalist as a conversionist Prot. The difference is that one defends the Church (understood as Prot, Reformed etc.)… Read more »
Nonanglican, note that the ABC has used the word Neanderthal in the following speech:http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/2005/050217.htm
“But I still think that it is important that we must not give way to the temptation to say ‘truth would be clear if only some people would go away’. And, once, again, on both sides of the debate, that is what I hearing. ‘truth would be clear if only those Neanderthal bigots would go away’… ‘truth would be clear if only those servile followers of contemporary culture would go away’. I’m not sure that’s true; in fact I’m pretty sure it isn’t.”
Ford – do you not find “fundamentalism” amongst “liberals” too? (I would not criticise anyone for holding their views strongly and believing they are right- even if that gets them the dreaded “F” label
For a short collection of examples of the 2nd Millennium European academic sexualization of Biblical Cultic, Household and Social concepts (mostly pertaining to the 2nd, 7th and 10th Commandments), I refer you to the first 4 paragraphs of Robert Gagnon’s instantaneous critique of Dr Rowan William’s Canadian utterances on Romans 1.
Sexual immorality, sexual impurity, ashamed, the sinful desires, the Flesh, deeds of the body, sin in the flesh, immoral sexual activities, licentious acts, lyings or beds, prohibited sexual behaviors, slaves of sin, lacking in sexual self-restraint, unrepentant sexual immorality…
http://robgagnon.net/RowanWilliams'WrongReading.htm
Fundamentalists = Anyone who does not agree with me!
NP,
Isn’t part of what it means to be a fundamentalist the conviction that only your view is right and that others can only prosper if they subscribe to it too?
If that’s true, then there can be extreme liberals but not fundamentalist ones. We hold our views strongly but are not too bothered about what others think – as long as they don’t try to interfere in our lives.
As we keep repeating – we’re very happy for you to be part of our church, it’s the fundamentalists who cannot accept us as part of theirs.
Oh, please, NP! You find extremists in any group of humans. I’m talking about two words used to describe what may or may not be separate groups of Christians. Is it the sake, for instance, that both groups would believe the Bible to be literally true? Do they share the same disresepct for other religions? Do they practice glossolalia? These are only examples of the things I am ignorant of. I would criticize people if they thought it acceptable to tell an 11 year old child of another denomination that he and his family were going to Hell if they… Read more »
Methinks Dr Gagnon doth protest too much.
Ford – I wish you could spend some time with evanglical Anglicans – I really think you would get on well with many that I know in, for example, Sydney. (I am being serious and mean nothing more than what I say) Well Erika, since I do not at all buy the postmodern nonsense that would have contradictory views all being equal and none right, I do think there are right and wrong interpretations of scripture and in that sense, you might call me a fundamentalist. Someone once said “And if any place will not receive you and they will… Read more »