Archbishop of Canterbury on US election

Regarding the US election, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams said: 'It's been an amazing demonstration of the vitality of the democratic process. A record turnout. And the sense therefore that the issues in the election, the issues about the outgoing American administration, have actually stirred the moral imagination of the United States in ways that people didn't expect. Given the sort of turnout that we have in British elections it would be quite nice to have an election one of these days that stirred our imagination to that extent.'

The Archbishop was speaking briefly on the US election result in questions at the end of his William Temple Foundation address at St James' Picadilly last night. His main address, on the welfare state and pluralism, was similar to one he delivered at Toynbee Hall recently and will be up on his website shortly.

Listen to this brief clip from the Q&As and my question that prompted his response is there.

I was a little late for the lecture but you can listen to the second half of it here. Long experience of reading the Archbihop's speeches has in any case shown that, in good academic tradition, he always leaves his best arguments and conclusions to the end.

Also for those interested in the establishment of the Church of England,listen to his response to Brian Pearce's question. The Archbishop argues that the Church's established status is not an exclusive privilege but there to be used by all.

Comments

[J Pearce]

Dave, before you take on the complexities of English libel law, of which you appear to know nothing, I suggest you concentrate on your grasp of basic English.

Here are my two statements which you have reproduced to make some sort of cheap jibe:

"I have never said that I "believe" in God.. "

"I don't believe I have ever expressed the opinion that I don't believe in God."

They are not mutually incompatible statements! You will note the use of quotation marks in the first statement. This denotes the meaning of "believe" as of that defined by religious parameters, i.e. I do not believe in God WITHIN A PRE-DEFINED RELIGIOUS FRAMEWORK.

That’s still leaves plenty of scope outside of a religious framework.

The second statement is perfectly straightforward, albeit a double negative.

Basically, it all adds up to one simple summarisation - I'm agnostic. Which I DO believe I've made clear on numerous occasions.

Now, is that clear enough for you or do I have to get Janet and John?!

Ps - if you do reply, can you keep it under War and Peace length this time, please?

[Kate]

Dave:

See a shrink NOW. I find your incessant love letters a little overwhelming.

[David Smith]

Kate:
‘No 'unfounded speculation' or 'libel' exists.’

Far from coming out of it, Kate, you seem to be moving ever deeper into it that ‘Dream World’ world of yours.

Perhaps my latest post to you on the ‘Islam-Christian peace talks in Rome’ thread will help to bring you back in touch with a degree of reality on this issue.

[Kate]

David Smith writes: "Here, as elsewhere, ... published abusive, unfounded, speculation (AKA libel)...."

What? Not AGAIN! No 'unfounded speculation' or 'libel' exists. The terms "overambitious, egotistical, unselfconsciously arrogant and quasi-messianic" ARE indeed factual - and would appear so to any "reasonable person" with access to innumerable David Smith posts advertising his superior access to God and quasi-Divine powers e.g. four hour cures.

SO what, apart from malicious stalking and/or a chronic victimisation complex, is the point of these repetitive, delusional claims?

JPearce posted (to Fr Mark) on personal experience of debating with David Cohen. He did not, at any point, reference David Smith.

David Smith availed of an opportunity to harass: "JPearce ...... David Cohen, like ME ...has considerable understanding of, the contents of the New Testament, and therefore of the TRUE IMAGE and nature of GOD ... "
[My caps]

What deluded arrogance. I doubt even the Pope would claim such extreme privilege!

It is further evidence, if any is needed, of the accuracy of JPearce's terminology. Puffed up with self-regard, Smith is oblivious to the fact that:

There are literally millions of people with the surname Smith in the western hemisphere; on top of that, 'Smith' is on legal record as the most commonly used pseudonym.

The variations are a legion - Jack Smith, John Smith, Sam Smith, etcetera! Until David Smith publishes his exact location and/or business address, he cannot be accurately identified. Ergo he cannot be libelled.

NO other contributor to this site consistently exhibits such inflated grandiosity and personal malice - not even Dear Geoffrey who (albeit unintentionally) is often hilarious - our own Victor Meldrew.

[David Smith]

J Pearce now:
'I have never said that I "believe" in God.. '

'As usual Dave, you are hilariously and entirely wrong AND you are still trying to peddle the same old canards!.. '

'I work from known FACTS, Dave.. '

BUT

Posted by: J Pearce | 8 Oct 2008 11:51:21 :

'I don't believe I have ever expressed the opinion that I don't believe in God.'

Who, I wonder 'J', works from KNOWN FACTS? And just who is right or wrong here?

Under the circumstances, would it be fair to say that someone like you - who contrasts their own firm attachment to facts, reality, and truth to the apparently deluded state of another - is themselves fairly 'severely deluded'?

But J Pearce.. yet again!!:
'Therefore, IT APPEARS THAT only the severely deluded amongst us...Funnily enough Dave, this is your entire modus operandi.'

Here, as elsewhere, you, 'J', actually 'work from' published abusive, unfounded, speculation (AKA libel) - a KNOWN FACT that you seem intent on re-inforcing with every successive post that you make to or about me.

This is fast becoming almost YOUR 'entire modus operandi'. You tell me on another thread that I am 'humourless'. But I think it would be a strange person who found any of this kind of thing 'funny'. Don't you?

[j]

"All I would like to see is an end to the public image of Christianity being dominated by a few miserable old g*ts, frankly. It embarrasses me and makes me ashamed, basically, that the great broad and urbane cultural and spiritual tradition which I come from should be reduced to the level of a few angry old men's problems with social adjustment."

Fr Mark, I wouldnt worry. It's more the reputation of the internet, that, than the Church.

Even atheists like me dont think that they represent the real nature of the church. In fact, with some honourable exceptions, that's been the most frustrating thing about blogging.

WLTM Christians with GSOH and also GSOethics, no bigots.

I'd have been interested in more moderate and thoughtful views on my problem, selfishly, that I blogged on Somalia, but I didnt get many takers. Not enough opportunities for gay-bashing and sectarian hatred, you see ;) (I dont mean you- though I'd be interested in your insights)

[J Pearce]

As usual Dave, you are hilariously and entirely wrong AND you are still trying to peddle the same old canards!

I have never said that I "believe" in God. As an agnostic, I do not discount the possibility of the existence of God. There is a difference which you have deliberately chosen to ignore.

I work from known FACTS, Dave. There is no known verifiable recording of any encounter with any God in the history of mankind. There only exists unverifiable myths and legends.

Your New Testament is a book composed of several other books, compiled during different points in history, written by several different authors, all of which were entirely human.

It is impossible to verify whether the God described in various parts of the NT actually exists; this is before we even attempt to ascribe human-behavioural traits to a plane of existence far beyond our capability to rationalise.

And this is even before we start taking into account the various differing descriptions of "God", as provided by any number of the worlds other religions.

Even more pertinently, many of your fellow Christians are quite happy to say that we cannot ever "know God".

Thus, given all the available evidence, it is not possible to accurately describe God, due to the multitiude of conflicting interpretaitons of what God is - and the fact that we cannot know if God actually exists.

Therefore, it appears that only the severely deluded amongst us, the overambitious, the egotistical, the unselfconsciously arrogant and the quasi-messianic, would lay claim to "knowing" God - and by extension, lay claim to "interpreting" Gods wishes.

Funnily enough Dave, this is your entire modus operandi.

[David Smith]

Andrew Holden:
'His Judgement is the other side of the coin of his Love - it fixes rather than destroys, as any considered reading of scripture will show.'

Any 'considered (and complete) reading of scripture' will show that Jesus went around saying: 'Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.'

The goodies and the 'fixing' are all there waiting for us, but the gateway to receiving them is...REPENTANCE.

And where did David Cohen say anything about 'destroying' anyone?

This looks very much like just another straw man and distraction to me!

[andrew holden]

"If disobedience to God's word, and disloyalty to the Church and its teaching make you happy, it is no wonder that you find it uncomfortable when your perspective is questioned."

Actually it is just that astounding arrogance that makes me distinctly uncomfortable. It seems that you are setting yourselves up as the arbiters of what God says and what the Church requires - and sitting in judgement on others when, so far as I can see, you have no authority to do so. I don't see the Church taking your tough and uncompromising stance at all - except in the sectarian movements.

Personally where I to broach such things with anyone I'd be trying to display a great deal of humility and reserve any judgement for the one to whom it belongs.

I'm also astounded by the negative understanding you have of God and his judgement. His Judgement is the other side of the coin of his Love - it fixes rather than destroys, as any considered reading of scripture will show.

Or do you belong to that group of Christians who see God as an avenging tyrant rejoicing to shed the blood of sinners?

[Fr Mark]

David Cohen: I'm not at all uncomfortable at being disagreed with (unlike, it seems any of the illiberals on here - I don't condemn you for having a miserable and impoverished view of both mankind and God, for example - that's your own business).

All I would like to see is an end to the public image of Christianity being dominated by a few miserable old g*ts, frankly. It embarrasses me and makes me ashamed, basically, that the great broad and urbane cultural and spiritual tradition which I come from should be reduced to the level of a few angry old men's problems with social adjustment.

[David Cohen]

Mark

If disobedience to God's word, and disloyalty to the Church and its teaching make you happy, it is no wonder that you find it uncomfortable when your perspective is questioned.

[Fr Mark]

Wow, David & David, lovely religion you have there, being a member of it would be so life-enhancing for me, can't wait to be allowed to join it (if the therapy can succeed in making me an ex-gay), hope you'll let me into your club one day ...

You've never thought that lightening up a little might occasionally help with a sense of perspective, then?

[David Smith]

David Cohen:
'Rev Mark...would far rather talk about anything other than the possibility of God's judgement upon human disobedience...The domestic arrangements of the papal household at Avignon are not a matter which affects anyone's salvation. Repentance...most certainly is.'

You are right David, of course, about repentance and salvation. And it certainly does seem that Mark wants to avoid facing the one thing that is truly perhaps the most needful for the individual and for this nation as a whole right now.

Those who find facing such things 'dreary' on this earth may well, I fear, indeed find Judgement Day itself considerably more 'harsh' than those who have already begun attending to their need for this (as against God's standards set out in the Bible, rather than their own) in the here and now.

[David Smith]

J Pearce:
'David Cohen's...behavioural trait, common amongst most orthodox Christians, to remodel God in his own image.'

David Cohen, like me and one or two others on this blog, has clearly read and clearly, from what he has written on this blog, has considerable understanding of, the contents of the New Testament, and therefore of the true image and nature of God with which its pages are laden. You, 'J', have not. Yet you say you believe in God.

Wouldn't you say then that, in any discussion on who is or isn't modelling God in his own image, to describe yourself as skating on thin ice, hardly covers it? Wouldn't struggling to get a grip and to climb back out of the icy cold water be a more accurate description of your current position?

[George Parr]

David Smith:

"The New Testament DOES teach that God's love is unconditional. There are no pre-conditions to God loving us"

In this, you are in agreement with Andrew Holden elsewhere. His argument centres on Christian scripture being 'correctly understood'. I have been discussing this with him and have also quoted David Cohen's post regarding conditionality. Aside from our profound differences over homosexuality - by what means is it possible to define 'correctness' in interpretation in this instance? It seems that dialectic argument, designed to test the truth of opinion, is often informed not by facts, but by personal bias i.e it is used to mean whatever you want it to. What is your view?

[David Cohen]

David Smith

I have no doubt about Rom.5.8 as quoted.

But the original statement made by Rev Mark was of a very different kind - and you will see from his latest contribution here that he would far rather talk about anything other than the possibility of God's judgement upon human disobedience, which he has evidently discounted in favour of an unbiblical universalism.

The domestic arrangements of the papal household at Avignon are not a matter which affects anyone's salvation.

Repentance - which assumes that one has seen the need for it - most certainly is.

[Kate]

Dear Fr Mark

'Let us laugh and let us sing/We are blessed by everything/ Everything we look upon is blessed'
(WB Yeats)

As I have written elsewhere, your energy and compassion are inspirational. Long ago, one of the first Anglican clergymen to exert influence on my thinking was interrogated at the church door by a grumpy parishioner: "Are you saved Sir?".

"I am" replied my friend, "Are you?"

Whereupon we heard a testimony of time and place; delivered with grim intensity and ending with the words: "Washed clean in the Lamb's blood of life for 30 years" before he stalked away.

My friend twinkled and said: "Dear, dear. A pity there is no evidence of the joy of it!"

I have never forgotten that encounter. No pasarán!

[J Pearce]

Fr Mark,

Having experienced David Cohens argumentative "skills" (cough) first hand myself, I would like to confirm his tendency towards portenteous misanthropy and the disturbing behavioural trait, common amongst most orthodox Christians, to remodel God in his own image.

Our Mr Cohen also likes to boast of his academic credentials at any given opportunity. Although how anybody can claim to be educated, when they studied theology, is entirely beyond me...

[David Smith]

David Cohen:
'In answer to David Smith, God's love and God's judgement upon sin are not to be separated or set off against one another.'

I haven't done that. In fact, quite the reverse. Which part of: "His call to us to 'repent'...is A PART OF His love for us" do you get this idea of yours from, I wonder?!

You give the impression by what you say that, if we are naughty boys or girls, God stops loving us temporarily - or permanently if we persist. (AKA Conditional love.) If you really think this then you know nothing of the essential 'agape' element of God's love and Jesus' death on the cross.

Romans 5:8 sums this up perfectly:
'But God shows and clearly proves His own LOVE for us by the fact that WHILE WE WERE STILL SINNERS, Christ died for us.'

God doesn't stop loving people because they are in sin, but (in His love) He does not condone or love that sin too.

[Fr Mark]

Oh dear, David C, your language is all that old dreary harsh catalogue of sin, judgement, disobedience, opposition. There are other things to think about in life, you know, even in theology. Why not discuss the domestic customs of the Papal Household in 14th Century Avignon, the spirituality of the Gilbertines, or the missionary movement of the Russian Orthodox Church as an instrument of expanding empire? Any of them would probably get us further in our Christian spiritual lives than doctrinal finger-pointing.

[David Cohen]

Mark, the place where I did my theology degrees taught me that soteriology was part of theology itself - not an optional extra, as you seem to imagine.

In answer to David Smith, God's love and God's judgement upon sin are not to be separated or set off against one another.

The atonement, in which love and justice meet, allows us access to God's grace if we first heed the call of Jesus to repent. If we are determined to remain in opposition to God, we can hardly expect him to bless our disobedience.

[David Smith]

David Cohen:
'The New Testament teaches that God's love is not "unconditional" as you have asserted. God asks of us metanoia - repentance - if we desire forgiveness and reconciliation with Him.'

The New Testament DOES teach that God's love is unconditional. There are no pre-conditions to God loving us. His call to us to 'repent' does not negate or suspend His love for us. In fact it is A PART OF His love for us - because He sees that sin is bad for our quality if life, and acts - by His call to repentance and the offer of forgiveness and healing - to try to get us free of it.

What God's love is NOT is amoral. I think that this is what you are trying to say.

[Fr Mark]

David C: yet again, you leap to unfounded (mis)judgement and insult. It wasn't the way I was taught to argue when I did my theology degree - perhaps it was where you did yours? Theology suffers at the moment from being invoked to do little more than confim the sociological petty-mindedness of the ignorant, unfortunately. Theology doesn't have much bearing on how the conservatives conduct debate - indeed, their only aim is to shut down debate, so theology isn't of much use to them.

[David Cohen]

Mark

Your latest comment amply confirms the impression that you don't know too much about theology, which is hardly advisable for someone purporting to be an ordained minister.

[Fr Mark]

David Cohen: I don't think I have been airing my theological views on the blog. If you want to know what I think about the Double Procession of the Holy Spirit, or the natures in Christ, just ask. But don't confuse 1950s English middle class moral constipation with theology, please.

[David Cohen]

Mark

If you don't want people to pass comment on your theological views, then putting them on a blog is not the best way to ensure this.

There is no scriptural injunction against judging theological opinions. Those who make doubtful assertions can expect to see them challenged.

The New Testament teaches that God's love is not "unconditional" as you have asserted. God asks of us metanoia - repentance - if we desire forgiveness and reconciliation with Him.

[Fr Mark]

David Cohen: "Jesus did not write a blank cheque for any kind of behaviour"

I didn't say that he did. What you shouldn't do is presume to judge my theological views - you know nothing about them at all, except for the facts that I am in favour of equal treatment for women and gay people - and they are hardly unusual intellectual positions, are they?

You should not pass judgement on the faith of others. Full stop. I would think this is a fairly obvious and basic part of the teaching of Jesus; and, on a practical level, it would save you from the charges of smugness and self-righteousness.

[David Cohen]

Mark

Jesus did not write a blank cheque for any kind of behaviour. On the contrary he asks for repentance before we can receive the gospel. Mark 1.15. This is not what is meant by "unconditional".

But since you arrogate to yourself a title specifically forbidden by Jesus, I am not surprised that you fail to understand the priorities set out in the New Testament and in the Gospels in particular.

There are many clergy like you, sadly, including many of the bishops, whose agenda is anything but the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Fr Mark]

David Cohen: you really have, I am afraid, no right to make any judgements about what I might believe about repentance. Making judgements about other people is something Jesus condemned, isn't it? As is becoming a stumbling block to others.

Don't you think "you appear to be a clergyman of some kind" is rather patronising? It sounds as if it might be appropriate for Lady Bracknell to have come out with... but then, how comfortable are you with post-Victorian Britain?

[David Cohen]

Mark

You neatly list a few of the bishops left in the Church of England who seem to have a clue about Christian leadership.

You appear to be a clergyman of some kind. But I am not surprised that you are a purveyor of BBC religion, in which repentance plays no part.

[Observer]

Wish we could vote for who gets to be ABC..... I would not vote for professors who are best suited to ivory towers.

[P Surtees]

If Rowan Williams believes that following Jesus Christ, in particular Jesus' teaching that he is the only way to come into a right relationship with our creator God, is indeed 'fantasy land' then what qualifies him to lead a group of people (large parts of the church of England) who choose to do just that?

[Fr Mark]

David Cohen: "Sadly, that "mission statement" sums up most of the leadership of the Church of England these days. No gospel, just New Labour nostrums"

So that New Labour liberal C of E leadership includes, then, such jewels in the intellectual firmament as My Lord of Carlisle, who thinks being fair to gay people causes floods; My Lord of Hereford, who thinks he should be allowed to break all the anti-discrimination laws protecting gay employees whenever he wishes; My Lord of Winchester, who argues passionately that Christianity should be modernised and brought up to date by allowing the remarriage of divorcees, but equally passionately that we should never bring our doctrine on gay people up to date; or My Lord of Rochester, who believes that 2000 years of Bible-based tradition should be jacked, and women ordained, but that 2000 years of homophobic Christian tradition should not be done altered?

I could go on... but politically correct our bishops ain't; and how competent they are to communicate the Christian message of God's unconditional love to all in England in 2008 is very much a moot point.

[David Cohen]

Sadly, that "mission statement" sums up most of the leadership of the Church of England these days.

No gospel, just New Labour nostrums.

[J Pearce]

I think we can answer Phil Martin's dissertation with a simple, one line reply. It goes like this:

Rowan Williams lives in the real world and not in some religious fantasy-land.

[Phil Martin]

I'd like to lodge a complaint about our leadership.

Why does the Archbishop spend so much time talking about "pluralism" and social structures like the welfare state?

Why does he persistently draw the attention of believers and non-believers alike to social systems and structures that can offer no more than a momentary and illusary sense of well-being?

If he is a genuine and earnest man, which I think he is, the answer to these questions must be that he simply has not grasped the enormity of God's plan and the reality of eternal life.

He does love his neighbour, almost without doubt, but he shows no sign of truly understanding his neighbour's most pressing problem.

When non-believers face God's just wrath on the day of judgement, will Rowan be able to say "I told you about this, and you didn't listen" or will they be able to say to him "why didn't you tell us about this? Why were you rabbiting on about friendly dialogue and the benefits system?"

It is telling that the "mission statement" of the church at which Rowan Williams was preaching, St James's Picadilly, does not mention God or Jesus once:

St James's Church mission statment:

"St James's Church is part of the Church of England and Anglican Communion within the world-wide Christian Church. We understand ourselves to be called to -

1) gather as a body which welcomes and celebrates human diversity, including spirituality, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation

2) to create a space where people of any faith or none can question and discover the sacred in life through openness, struggle, laughter and prayer

3) to a common commitment to be in solidarity with poor and marginalised people and to cherish Creation

(We don't manage it all the time, so we try again)"

[Chris Gillibrand]

Seem to remember that Rowan Williams was once thought of as "The Change".