|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Rowan Williams and post-Christian society
|
Brigg60m
Apprentice
# 17210
|
Posted
The ex-Archbishop of Canterbury (I actually have great respect for him but he does remind me of Whisperin' Bob Harris of the Old Grey Whistle Test)has written in the Sunday Torygraph that Britain is now a post-Christian society, in which worship is not widespread.
This has inevitably led to people like Nick Clegg calling for the separation of Church and State.
This is fine by me - but what then becomes of the Church of England???
Karl Barth once advanced menacingly on Anglican Stephen Neill with the question "What is Anglican theology?", to which Neill rightly replied that Anglican theology is that there is no theology. The unity of Church and State through its Supreme Head, Governor, has been the meaning of the Church since its foundations, and Richard Hooker's Laws of the Ecclesiatical Polity is a meditation on this. Since they kicked out non-conformists in 1662, the Anglican Church ceased to be a national church, and became an Established Church.
So what becomes of the Church when it eases to be an Established Church? Will it develop an Anglican Dogmatics. Wills its smile fade like the Cheshire cat?
But think of all its holdings, its welth. The German theologian Karl Marx once said that the Church of England would rather give up 38 of its 39 Articles rather than lose 1/38th of its income.
Interesting to speculate?
[thread title edited for clarity, albeit less hilarity]
[ 27. April 2014, 18:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 12 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brigg60m
Apprentice
# 17210
|
Posted
Sorry, Alan, I'm always saying that.
I am not really very reverent, am I? Must set aside a time for penitence.
I actually have a great deal of respect for Archbishop Bean, really. I love his books, and his learning. He strikes me as a man who can take a bit of ribbing - lol
thanks for the background reading.
Posts: 12 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
There being no Biblical passage to discuss here, this thread appears better suited to Purgatory, so off you go. Hold on to your colored ribbon markers.
Mamacita, Keryg Host
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think you mean Rowan Williams rather than Atkinson. A bit of a Mr Bean moment there?
For background, I think these are the articles referred to. Rowan Williams comments in the Telegraph with follow-up from Nick Clegg.
Wasn't the Nick Clegg article first, earlier in the week, in response to Cameron 'we're a Christian nation' and then the interview with +Rowan in response to that?
I think +Rowan has spoken the most sense I've seen in this discussion that Cameron's comments sparked, making as he does a distinction between the nation as believers and its heritage.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
Absolutely, what Carys says. I too think Nick Clegg's response about disestablishment came after Cameron's comments, and now Rowan Williams follows on the heels of both.
And I too think he's very wise is saying yes, we are a Christian nation in terms of heritage (tho A C Grayling wrote an interesting essay in The Times pointing out how much of our heritage is in fact Greek and Roman due to the Classics training of the country's leaders for so long) but not so much in terms of practice and church-going.
Disestablishment?? I go back and forth on this. I love the heritage and tradition that goes along with it--coronations etc being in a religious context, the Queen as defender of the faith, etc. But then when someone explained to me (perhaps on these boards) that the reason the UK doesn't have an updated version of the BCP, as the Episcopal Church does, is because Parliament would have had to vote on it and they couldn't agree on a version, I started wondering if having a State church was such a great thing...
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
The OP seems not to have realised that there are Anglican churches around the world that are not established and they seem to manage to have a sense of mission and purpose.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
How interesting that Rowan Williams should write this not a week after Justin Welby writes quite clearly that we are a Christian society.
Is it the done thing for a former ABofC to come our of the woodwork and publicly contradict his successor?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How interesting that Rowan Williams should write this not a week after Justin Welby writes quite clearly that we are a Christian society.
Is it the done thing for a former ABofC to come our of the woodwork and publicly contradict his successor?
Yes it is. It's a discussion which everyone is allowed to engage in.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
It probably isn't the 'done thing' for an ex-ABC to come out criticising a successor; but the issue of established religion generally is of such current importance, due to the Islamic version thereof, that questions about 'done things' are in the same territory as rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.
As usual when this topic is raised the one question nobody seems to be asking is whether Anglican establishment is a biblical concept in the first place; yet that is the one really important question about it. You may argue about Christianity possibly having a place of some kind in the state (Alan Cresswell and I have crossed metaphorical swords on that on other threads on the Ship) - but the NT, I submit, not only doesn't teach establishment as an option; it also rejects all manner of things that go along with establishment, and offers positively an alternative view on relationships between Christians and the states they live in. That being so, establishment can't be a good CHRISTIAN thing, and should be dropped as soon as the state will allow it to be (not that the church is really the state's business in the first place!)
As a challenge, can anybody point me to a clear NT passage in favour of establishment??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
... And I too think he's very wise is saying yes, we are a Christian nation in terms of heritage (tho A C Grayling wrote an interesting essay in The Times pointing out how much of our heritage is in fact Greek and Roman due to the Classics training of the country's leaders for so long) but not so much in terms of practice and church-going. ...
It's not that interesting. It's been said many times before. And it's wrong.
What he's attributing to the classical civilisation of the ancient world is not what it was actually like, but a combined projection onto it of different versions that first the Renaissance, then the founding fathers of the USA and finally a collection of ordained public school headmasters in the nineteenth century set up, each influenced by its predecessor illusion. The real classical world, especially in its Roman expression, was a thoroughly unpleasant place to live completely untempered by assumptions about life that most of us, including IMHO A C Grayling, would regard as essential.
All the inhabitants of the three eras I've just mentioned had grown up in societies where certain Christian assumptions were so much part of the air everyone breathed, that it was impossible for them to see in the ancient world that they found so inspirational quite how alien that world actually was, or how much that they regarded as desirable, just was not there.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How interesting that Rowan Williams should write this not a week after Justin Welby writes quite clearly that we are a Christian society.
Is it the done thing for a former ABofC to come our of the woodwork and publicly contradict his successor?
Welby's remarks are more nuanced than you give them credit for being. He says the UK is a Christian country in one sense (has a Christian heritage) and not a Christian country in another sense (current churchgoing). To be honest I'm struggling to fit a fag paper in the gap between what Williams says and what Welby says.
Carey's ability to shut up while Williams was AboC was something like Nessie or the Yeti - there were occasional anecdotal sightings but no real evidence.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What he's attributing to the classical civilisation of the ancient world is not what it was actually like, but a combined projection onto it of different versions that first the Renaissance, then the founding fathers of the USA and finally a collection of ordained public school headmasters in the nineteenth century set up, each influenced by its predecessor illusion.
Which is really no different to the way so many Christians argue that Christianity mustn't be judged by what has actually been done in its name, but rather by some projection of what Jesus apparently wanted. There seems to be no limit to the extent the No True Christian fallacy will be wheeled in whenever expedient.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026
|
Posted
I think this has pretty much been cleared up already, however...
On 9 April David Cameron made a short speech at the start of the annual Downing Street Easter reception for church leaders in which he quoted with approbation Eric Pickles about being 'proud of the fact we are a Christian Country'.
This speech, intentionally or not, attracted a little press attention and he followed it up with an article in the Church Times (16 April) defending and expanding on his comments. This generated further press coverage.
The British Humanist Association organised a letter from 55 public figures to the Telegraph (20 April) contesting the description of Britain as a Christian country. Various other figures responded to this.
Among these, Nick Clegg responded on his Thursday (24 April) 'Call Clegg' radio show to a caller very critical of Cameron, by saying he didn't find the description controversial, but that in the long run disestablishment would be in everyone's best interests (it has been a pledge in his party's manifesto for as long as I can remember).
The same day the Archbishop of Canterbury published (and publicised) a short blog on the subject.
At some point last week (whether before or after his successor's comments - very similar in content if not wholly in tone - is unknown) Rowan Williams gave an interview to the Sunday Telegraph to help publicise the reissue of his poetry by a new publisher. He was pressed by the interviewer for his, characteristically thoughtful, answer to 'the question of the week', which was extracted and run as a separate story. It's a good interview.
P.S. Rowan appears to have at least three new books due out this year (hooray!), none of which seem likely to cause Justin to lose sleep.
--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)
Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Elephenor
A vote of thanks from me for the neat summary of events!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Elephenor,
Thanks for that. A much better job than mine ... I just pulled a couple of articles from the Telegraph site and assumed the order was as suggested in the OP.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As usual when this topic is raised the one question nobody seems to be asking is whether Anglican establishment is a biblical concept in the first place; yet that is the one really important question about it. You may argue about Christianity possibly having a place of some kind in the state (Alan Cresswell and I have crossed metaphorical swords on that on other threads on the Ship) - but the NT, I submit, not only doesn't teach establishment as an option; it also rejects all manner of things that go along with establishment, and offers positively an alternative view on relationships between Christians and the states they live in.
As I recall, we'd established a continuum of options - at one extreme a situation where the Church and State are the same thing, at the other where Christians have no involvement in the State at all (including standing for office, voting, writing to MPs etc).
I would say that the NT Sctiptures argue pretty conclusively against the total non-involvement option (if only because it's practically impossible to meaningfully help the poor and needy without getting involved in the politics of society). I would also say that the other extreme is something the NT is silent on, but that could be argued on a "Church as a continuation of the Nation of Israel" position and building on the OT. Though that would, IMO, be a very weak and not very convincing argument.
Which leaves us with a whole range of options in the middle ground, which includes the Establishment model of the CofE, where I think the NT offers limited evidence to support or rule out many options.
Perhaps instead of going through a general discussion of "resident alien" status, are there specific texts you consider that make the Establishment of the CofE untenable on Biblical grounds?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brigg60m:
Since they kicked out non-conformists in 1662, the Anglican Church ceased to be a national church, and became an Established Church.
I haven't come across the distinction between a national church and an established church before. Could you or someone unpack it a bit? What are the implications of this?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
hatless, I'm also a bit puzzled by that distinction between 'national' and 'established'. I'm guessing Brigg60m is distinguishing between a church which simply assumes everyone is a member and a church which consciously doesn't represent every citizen? I had thought Anglicanism was already using the word 'established' of its status before 1662 - anyone able to confirm this?
Actually 1662 intended to confirm the effectively totalitarian status of the CofE by penalising non-conformists; it was the later 'Act of Toleration' which truly accepted a religiously divided nation by legalising non-conformity (at least in its Protestant form).
Alan Cresswell - I'm not trying here to put the full Anabaptist view; just to challenge 'establishment' as a way of relating Church and state. And also in this case I'm initially challenging others to show NT support for the privileged establishment status, as opposed to a more general idea of Christian participation in a democracy from a position without special privilege, which many Anabaptists would accept though others remain wary.
The "Church as a continuation of the Nation of Israel" position fails I think simply on the internationalism of Christianity. The Church is indeed a continuation of the nation of Israel (not a 'replacement' as some suggest), but by its nature as a body of the born-again/personally-faithful throughout the world, it can't be identified with any earthly nation.
You comment that in the 'middle ground', "... I think the NT offers limited evidence to support or rule out many options". Given that the various forms of 'Christian country' were still in the future, you can't really expect detailed support or ruling out of specific options. I'm suggesting that what is said nevertheless speaks firmly against national links and should ideally have prevented the effective 'establishment' of Christianity in the Roman Empire, and therefore of all the varieties - including the Anglican model - which have developed from that since.
What texts might you suggest could support Anglican-style establishment?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
The Church of Sweden is an established church, but it is no longer a state church, an is self-governing.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
A letter I wrote to one of the national dailies last week (before Rowan's comments became known):
"So Nick Clegg has called for a separation of Church and State, and an end to the monarch’s position as titular head of the Church of England.
His comments have, predictably, raised many hackles: yet Nonconformist Christians have been arguing for disestablishment over the last five centuries! We reject any equating of “State” and “Church” and the notion of any one religious group being given a privileged position.
However we do not believe that religion is such a private affair that it must never be mentioned in public nor be excluded from politics and moral debate. It is interesting that politicians in so-called “Christian” Britain get howled down if they mention their faith; while in the secular US it is possible for religionists to actively promulgate their political views – however much we may abhor them!"
It got publishd!
[ 28. April 2014, 11:22: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
While Williams is talking sense, as always, I hope he doesn't get into the habit of commenting on national issues. His public silence during the first year of his successor's reign has been a welcome contrast to his predecessor's behaviour.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I think discussion of whether Britain is non-Christian, post-Christian or whatever, begs the question of whether we ever were Christian, and if so, then in what sense?
Two reference points spring to mind. (Faulty, fuzzy mind that might be misremembering, but I'll try and look up the references later.) The first is from the diaries of James Woodforde, who was a parish priest in rural Norfolk around the end of the 18th century. In a parish of - one might reasonably assume - at least a few hundred souls, he thinks it worth noting that 23 people came to church on Easter Day. I got the impression from the diary that the usual congregation was somewhat less. (Woodforde rarely notes church attendance, buit often describes his dinner menu at exquisite length. His usual way of describing his Sunday morning is that he "went to church and read prayers".)
My second reference point comes from my recent re-reading of Geoffrey Rowell's The Vision Glorious, which tells the story of the 19th century Catholic revival in the CofE. He quotes 19th century sources that claim that less than 2% of people in inner urban areas ever went to church, and that many children had never even heard of God.
With stories like this, can we say we were ever a "Christian" country? - or is such a claim really just a bit of soft-focus Tory nostalgia?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by k-mann;
quote:
The Church of Sweden is an established church, but it is no longer a state church, an is self-governing.
I'd need a more detailed explanation of that before daring to comment on it. What is the position with your own (I presume) Lutheran church in Norway??
Baptist Trainfan - like it! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Adeodatus
Yes, I don't know much about the 18th century, with regard to church attendance, but my memory is that from 1800, the working class basically didn't go, whereas the middle class continued to go. Of course, one might be cynical and argue that this was more to do with respectability than devotion. But there were various evangelical revivals, and I think Jane Austen was partly affected by one, and I suppose it shows in 'Mansfield Park', which has a clergyman who is not a joke, quite unusual.
Certainly, my grandparents, and their friends, were not church-goers. I think I had heard of God, but Christianity was a foreign field to me, until I went to a posh school.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
You only have to read studies such as E.R. Wickham on "Church and people in an industrial society" ( Sheffield) to see that the vast majority of people in UK were not Christian in any meaningful sense. Even if people wanted to go to Church there weren't enough seats! By 1881 the population of Sheffield numbered 284410 people. There were 196 places of worship open. They accommodated 96000 max. Of these 96000 only 15000 were "free". So, if you couldn't pay for your pew there was no chance of getting a seat even if you wanted one. Which most people didn't.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
If I recall correctly, the Church of Scotland is a national church but not an Established church. I think in practice what this means is similar civic recognition to what the CoE gets, but without being part of the Lords or in government in any way. Is this correct, Scottish Shippies? I am guessing this is the case due to sectarian tensions, is this right? If so, it seems a sensible way for the CoE to go.
For me personally, anti-Imperialism is part of Christianity, and this is the main reason why I am uncomfortable with a church being part of the government. Being outside of the government also enables the Church to challenge the government without a conflict of interest. I don't think this should lead to religion being a Get Out Of Jail Free Card by the way, as some extreme US Republicans and some Anabaptists interpret the separation of church and state. The state does have a duty to protect people, and sometimes this conflicts with particular religious groups (eg JWs and children needing blood transfusions).
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What he's attributing to the classical civilisation of the ancient world is not what it was actually like
Which is really no different to the way so many Christians argue that Christianity mustn't be judged by what has actually been done in its name, but rather by some projection of what Jesus apparently wanted.
I think, firstly, there is a difference between claiming that the ostensible cause of an action was not the actual cause, and claiming that the facts on the ground were otherwise than they were. I'm sure that there are ardent Catholics who deny that anything at all unpleasant happened in the Middle Ages. The idealisation of the Classical World that Enoch describes is more like that than it is like acknowledging the evils but claiming Catholicism wasn't causally operative in them.
Also I think ideological constructions of Jesus tend to stick closer to the text than ideological constructions of classical philosophers or statesmen. Perhaps because there's more blank space in the former case so less to be ignored, but still.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
[Tangent] Has anyone else seen the cover of the latest Radio Times? I can't find a link to it, but it's a recent photo of Billy Connoly, with white hair and beard - when I picked it up I assumed it was Rowan.
PS Found a link. [/Tangent]
[ 29. April 2014, 15:42: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
The OP seems not to have realised that there are Anglican churches around the world that are not established and they seem to manage to have a sense of mission and purpose.
Rowan Williams was Bishop of Monmouth and Archbishop of Wales before crossing the Severn. The Church in Wales is disestablished, a fact which he said was behind his lack of concern about the CofE's future should it go the same way.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
The OP seems not to have realised that there are Anglican churches around the world that are not established and they seem to manage to have a sense of mission and purpose.
I doubt establishment is very important to most Anglicans within the Church of England for that matter ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
