Ship of Fools: New Archbishop of Canterbury

Thread: New Archbishop of Canterbury Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024615

Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :

An interesting interview with him and his wife here:
an evening with Justin and Caroline Welby

Any views?

By the way, the interviewer is John Mumford, whose son Marcus is the lead singer with the English folk rock band Mumford and Sons.

The bishup left his cabin
To help others in need
Turned his eyes up to the heavens
Said, "The poor are yours to feed"
(from Bob Dylan - Tempest)

[fixed thread title spelling]

[ 13. February 2013, 14:06: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by Clodsley Shovel (# 16662) on :

The questions were a bit soft soap from the interviewer, nice little sermon, I could follow what he was trying to say, which is not always the case with arch******s.....

I get super bored playing bland, normal girls. -
Drea De Matteo

[ 13. February 2013, 06:58: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Of course there's a drum kit involved. God save us from the Vineyard church!

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

I think I'll always have mixed opinions of our Justin.

I liked what he had to say about our western idols having fallen, and I felt for him when he spoke of his late daughter.

But I still get the impression he is a rich boy from a privileged background, trying to mingle with peasants - the open neck shirt and jumper aren't convincing.

The video turned into a sermon, which became increasingly difficult to listen to, and therefore benefit from - who can remember the 5 points all beginning with 'P'? I remember reading his christmas sermon, where he kept talking about us "leaking" the love of God out to the world:

Bishop Justin's Christmas Day Sermon

I thought to myself, yes I get what you're saying to us, but please PLEASE don't use that expression "leaking" - but he continued to repeat it about four more times. Again, ask me what was the gist of the sermon? I don't remember.

So, I hope that he can pull all the warring factions of the C of E together and turn the tide around for christianity in this country, but only time will tell.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I remember reading his christmas sermon, where he kept talking about us "leaking" the love of God out to the world:

...

Again, ask me what was the gist of the sermon? I don't remember.

Sorry to be pedantic, it's a slow Saturday in the office, but surely the first comment makes the second irrelevant...

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I remember reading his christmas sermon, where he kept talking about us "leaking" the love of God out to the world:

...

Again, ask me what was the gist of the sermon? I don't remember.
Sorry to be pedantic, it's a slow Saturday in the office, but surely the first comment makes the second irrelevant...

I see your point, but I don't think my first comment is a good summary of the gist of the sermon.

Well, I suppose I'll have to check...

The title of the sermon is The Triumph of Love
The Triumph of God's love, wisdom and utter vulnerability...
easy to be dispondent about the C of E
trials facing church - Dawkins' atheism + internal warring and declining numbers
dispondent about the world and all it's troubles
Baby in Bethlehem calls us to a different response - one which will transform the world
But we cannot do this (transform the world) unless we worship God in the form of the baby, as did the shepherds
We exist to glorify God, and that is how his love fills our lives and transforms the world around us
We must become weak and vulnerable to receive and transmit His love

Well that's the best I can do - how would I be expected to remember all that? It's OK, but what use is it, if it is so quickly forgotton?

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I remember reading his christmas sermon, where he kept talking about us "leaking" the love of God out to the world:

...

Again, ask me what was the gist of the sermon? I don't remember.
Sorry to be pedantic, it's a slow Saturday in the office, but surely the first comment makes the second irrelevant...
I see your point, but I don't think my first comment is a good summary of the gist of the sermon.

Well, I suppose I'll have to check...

Well that's the best I can do - how would I be expected to remember all that? It's OK, but what use is it, if it is so quickly forgotton?

As I say I was being pedantic, and you make a very valid point in the list you provide in somuch as the 'leaking of love' does not encompasse the whole message of his sermon...

Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :

He seemed very good to me. Direct and succinct but also with a clear sense of mission. His message was inclusive, as was his language. He appeared to rise above the conflicts besetting the CoE and Anglican Church in general. His wife was also very impressive, a very good and strong partnership.

Thank you for posting this, it contained some very nice points for further reflection.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
But we cannot do this (transform the world) unless we worship God in the form of the baby, as did the shepherds.

We exist to glorify God, and that is how his love fills our lives and transforms the world around us

We must become weak and vulnerable to receive and transmit His love.
Well that's the best I can do - how would I be expected to remember all that? It's OK, but what use is it, if it is so quickly forgotton?

Well no wonder you can't remember it, it's a load of bollocks.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Well no wonder you can't remember it, it's a load of bollocks.

(Re. Justin's Christmas sermon) I wouldn't go that far - but somehow, it did seem to lack something. There was vague reference to the Incarnation, but it wasn't very specific and therefore didn't seem to ascribe the glory due to Jesus. I would guess this is part of the C of E's "inclusivity", that you can (say they) understand the Incarnation in several different ways.

This is bad, because the whole point of the sermon was to glorify Christ first, then go out and transform the world. Again, his vagueness made it sound like we could change the world ourselves with no help from God - is that the christian message?

So, sorry to say this, but the more I think about it the more I fear that the C of E just has more wooliness, vagueness and worldly christianity to look forward to - and further decline in numbers attending.

Somehow, Holy Smoke, I don't think that was what you were trying to say, but, oh well...

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I would have said there was more than a vague reference to the Incarnation, myself, but the text of the sermon is available online so people can judge for themselves.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...Somehow, Holy Smoke, I don't think that was what you were trying to say, but, oh well...

Well, I would actually take issue with the three points I listed - copied here for easy reference, and renumbered - especially the last item, which I think is dangerous nonsense. But your views may differ, of course...

quote:
But we cannot do this (transform the world) unless we worship God in the form of the baby, as did the shepherds.
We exist to glorify God, and that is how his love fills our lives and transforms the world around us
We must become weak and vulnerable to receive and transmit His love.

I have indidentally read the whole sermon which BroJames kindly linked to, and I don't think you have badly misrepresented what he had to say, by any means. Re the last point, he comes out with this little gem:

"We receive His love where we are vulnerable and weak, and lose sight of it when we claim strength and power."

Wherever does this come from, theologically? And how exactly is His Grace making himself 'vulnerable and weak'? It really is an insult to those disadvantaged people in our society who are genuinely vulnerable - do they feel God's love? Do they hell.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

Well, I would actually take issue with the three points I listed - copied here for easy reference, and renumbered - especially the last item, which I think is dangerous nonsense. But your views may differ, of course...

quote:
But we cannot do this (transform the world) unless we worship God in the form of the baby, as did the shepherds.
We exist to glorify God, and that is how his love fills our lives and transforms the world around us
We must become weak and vulnerable to receive and transmit His love.
I have indidentally read the whole sermon which BroJames kindly linked to, and I don't think you have badly misrepresented what he had to say, by any means. Re the last point, he comes out with this little gem:

"We receive His love where we are vulnerable and weak, and lose sight of it when we claim strength and power."

Wherever does this come from, theologically? And how exactly is His Grace making himself 'vulnerable and weak'? It really is an insult to those disadvantaged people in our society who are genuinely vulnerable - do they feel God's love? Do they hell.

I would tend to agree with you here, Holy Smoke. It seems to be fashionable in the C of E to talk about God and people becoming "weak and vulnerable", but no-one seems to ever check back on what they've written - if they did they would soon see it makes no sense at all! (sorry Justin)

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
[snip]Re the last point, he comes out with this little gem:

"We receive His love where we are vulnerable and weak, and lose sight of it when we claim strength and power."

Wherever does this come from, theologically? [snip]

That, I think, would be 2 Cor 12, probably most specifically verses 6-10. I'm not convinced the interpretation is correct, but I'm 99% sure that's where this theology is coming from...

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
[snip]Re the last point, he comes out with this little gem:

"We receive His love where we are vulnerable and weak, and lose sight of it when we claim strength and power."

Wherever does this come from, theologically? [snip]
That, I think, would be 2 Cor 12, probably most specifically verses 6-10. I'm not convinced the interpretation is correct, but I'm 99% sure that's where this theology is coming from...

Yes, I stand corrected - I think you are right.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

It seems to be fashionable in the C of E to talk about God [...] becoming "weak and vulnerable", but no-one seems to ever check back on what they've written - if they did they would soon see it makes no sense at all! (sorry Justin)

I think the technical term for the idea is "Incarnation". I never realised only Anglicans believed it.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think the technical term for the idea is "Incarnation". I never realised only Anglicans believed it.

Huh???

Looking at your response again, you've edited my words to say something different to what I was originally saying.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It seems to be fashionable in the C of E to talk about God and people becoming "weak and vulnerable", but no-one seems to ever check back on what they've written - if they did they would soon see it makes no sense at all! (sorry Justin)

I certainly read this as meaning 'it seems to be fashionable in the C of E to talk about God becoming "weak and vulnerable" and about people becoming "weak and vulnerable"'

All ken has done is to point out that God becoming weak and vulnerable is not nonsense, but one of the key features of the incarnation.

Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It seems to be fashionable in the C of E to talk about God and people becoming "weak and vulnerable", but no-one seems to ever check back on what they've written - if they did they would soon see it makes no sense at all! (sorry Justin)
I certainly read this as meaning 'it seems to be fashionable in the C of E to talk about God becoming "weak and vulnerable" and about people becoming "weak and vulnerable"'

All ken has done is to point out that God becoming weak and vulnerable is not nonsense, but one of the key features of the incarnation.

Yes, babies are weak and vulnerable.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0