Ship of Fools: Rowan Williams and post-Christian society

Thread: Rowan Williams and post-Christian society 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=027072

Posted by Brigg60m (# 17210) on :

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 ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by Brigg60m (# 17210) on :

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.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

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

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

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

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

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...

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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?

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

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.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

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??

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

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.

Posted by Elephenor (# 4026) on :

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.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Elephenor
A vote of thanks from me for the neat summary of events!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

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?

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

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?

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

The Church of Sweden is an established church, but it is no longer a state church, an is self-governing.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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 ]

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

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.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

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?

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

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]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

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.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

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).

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

[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 ]

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

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.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

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 ...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0