Rowan Williams on the State

"The modern state needs a robust independent tradition of moral perception with which to engage. Left to itself, it cannot generate the self-critical energy that brings about change – change, that is, for the sake of some positive human ideal. As a guarantor of security, internal and external, and increasingly as a broker and provider of people’s ‘market’ requirements, it is not equipped to work as moral forum. The increasing assimilation of the state, in ways that would have startled Wilberforce’s contemporaries, to the provider of goods demanded by a population means that the primary question is likely to be about the means of provision rather than the ideology cal desirability of what is demanded. Quite understandably, the experience of command economies in the twentieth century and the appalling oppressiveness of systems that have had clear definitions of ideological desirability have strengthened the case for a severely neutral state apparatus and have reinforced the growth of the ‘market state’. But this leaves it with a set of questions about its moral legitimacy that cannot be left indefinitely ignored."

Rowan Williams

English Hymns and meta-narrative

England is a story. Is a story that has come define the sceptered island and to a large part, the English speaking western world. It is a story that is full of contradictions. Notably, this story is founded upon the principles of freedom, liberty and equity; however it is fed and sustained by the story of empire.
The English story is constituted and defined by its own meta-narrative - which is most commonly expressed in the national and anthems of England.
This story tells of England, the divinely appointed vicegerent who is allotted as the steward on this globe of freedom and right, of morals and justice. Not only is this the "White Man's burden", it is every decent Englishman's burden - to bring "civilisation to the uncivilised"; to resist the tyranny of European tyrants, whether it be 1940, 1805, 1588, or 60AD; to set men free and stave off the encroaches of popery; to challenge the ugly power off rule at home (1215, 1641, 1688), and give power to those who don't have it (begrudgingly in 1830 and 1833). This is the story of Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the Armada, Waterloo, the Charist movement and so much more. This is a land of hope and glory, where the people shall never be slaves, and the King, crowned as Solomon to the splendour of Handel, shall be sent victorious and reign happy and glorious over his new Israel.
This is the English story, well, at least what we've been told for the past three centuries. This next series of posts will analyse how famous English Hymns and Anthems were written as an embodiment of this story. Until then, ponder these words:

When Britain first at Heav'n's command

Arose from out the azure main;

Arose, arose from out the azure main;

This was the charter, the charter of the land,

And guardian angels sang this strain:

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!

Britons never, never, never will be slaves!

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!

Britons never, never, never will be slaves!

10 points for the identity and location of the statue. Another 10 points for the irony in the symbolism of the statue.

This is my Father's World

This is my Father’s world, and to my listening ears
All nature sings, and round me rings the music of the spheres.
This is my Father’s world: I rest me in the thought
Of rocks and trees, of skies and seas;
His hand the wonders wrought.

This is my Father’s world, the birds their carols raise,
The morning light, the lily white, declare their Maker’s praise.
This is my Father’s world: He shines in all that’s fair;
In the rustling grass I hear Him pass;
He speaks to me everywhere.

This is my Father’s world. O let me ne’er forget That though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.
This is my Father’s world: the battle is not done:
Jesus Who died shall be satisfied,
And earth and Heav’n be one.

This is my Father’s world, dreaming, I see His face.
I ope my eyes, and in glad surprise cry, “The Lord is in this place.”
This is my Father’s world, from the shining courts above,
The Beloved One, His Only Son,
Came—a pledge of deathless love.

This is my Father’s world, should my heart be ever sad?
The lord is King—let the heavens ring. God reigns—let the earth be glad.
This is my Father’s world. Now closer to Heaven bound,
For dear to God is the earth Christ trod.
No place but is holy ground.

This is my Father’s world. I walk a desert lone.
In a bush ablaze to my wondering gaze God makes His glory known.
This is my Father’s world, a wanderer I may roam
Whate’er my lot, it matters not,
My heart is still at home.

Malt­bie D. Bab­cock, 1901.

H/T the OC Supertones.

Augustine on love and worship

What do I love when I love you? Not the beauty of any body or the rhythm of time in its movement; not the radiance of light, so dear to our eyes; not the sweet melodies in the world of manifold sounds; not the perfume of flowers, ointments and spices; not manna and not honey; not the limbs so delightful to the body’s embrace: it is none of these things that I love when I love my God. And yet when I love my God I do indeed love a light and a sound and a perfume and a food and an embrace – a light and sound and perfume and food and embrace in my inward self. There my soul is flooded with a radiance which no space can contain; there a music sounds which time never bears away; there I smell a perfume which no wind disperses; there I taste a food that no surfeit embitters; there is an embrace which no satiety severs. It is this that I love when I love my God
And yet, when I love him, I do indeed love a certain kind of ligh, a voice, a fragrance, a food, an embrace; but this love takes place in my inner person, where my soul is bathed in light that is not bound by space; when it listens to sound that time never takes away; when it breathes in a fragrance which no breeze carries away; when it tastes food which no eating can diminish; when it clings to an embrace which is not broken when desire is fulfilled. This is what I love when
I love my God.

Confessions 10.6

H/T Byron. 10 points for the location of the picture

Going Beyond Evangelicalism (part 1 of 2)

This interview with John Stott was originally published in 'Working
Together', the magazine of the Australian Evangelical Alliance. The
second half will be included in the May 2007 issue of Oz-e-Con.



QUESTION (TIM STAFFORD): AS YOU SEE IT, WHAT IS EVANGELICALISM, AND
WHY DOES IT MATTER?



JOHN STOTT: An evangelical is a plain, ordinary Christian standing in
the mainstream of historic, orthodox, biblical Christianity. So we can
recite the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed without crossing our
fingers. We believe in God the Father and in Jesus Christ and in the
Holy Spirit. Having said that, there are two particular things we like
to emphasise: the concern for authority on the one hand and salvation
on the other.



For evangelical people, our authority is the God who has spoken
supremely in Jesus Christ. And that is equally true of redemption or
salvation. God has acted in and through Jesus Christ for the salvation
of sinners.



What God has SAID in Christ and in the biblical witness to Christ, and
what God has DONE in and through Christ, are both, to use the Greek
word, 'hapax', meaning once and for all. There is a finality about
God's word in Christ, and there is a finality about God's work in
Christ. To imagine that we could add a word to his word or add a work
to his work is extremely derogatory to the unique glory of our Lord
Jesus Christ.



YOU DIDN'T MENTION THE BIBLE, WHICH WOULD SURPRISE SOME PEOPLE.



STOTT: I did actually but you didn't notice it. I said Christ and the
biblical witness to Christ. But the really distinctive emphasis is on
Christ. I want to shift conviction from a book, if you like, to a
person. As Jesus himself said, the Scriptures bear witness to me.
Their main function is to witness to Christ.



PART OF YOUR IMPLICATION IS THAT EVANGELICALS ARE NOT TO BE A
NEGATIVELY INSPIRED PEOPLE. OUR REAL FOCUS OUGHT TO BE THE GLORY OF
CHRIST.



STOTT: I believe that very strongly. We believe in the authority of
the Bible because

Christ has endorsed its authority. He stands between the two
testaments. As we look back to the Old Testament, he has endorsed it.
As we look forward to the New Testament, we accept it because of the
apostolic witness to Christ. He deliberately chose and appointed and
prepared the apostles, in order that they might have their unique
apostolic witness to him. I like to see Christ in the middle,
endorsing the old, preparing for the new. Although the question of the
New Testament canon is complicated, in general we are able to say that
canonicity is apostolicity.



HOW HAS THE POSITION OF EVANGELICALS CHANGED DURING YOUR YEARS OF MINISTRY?



STOTT: I look back – it's been sixty-one years since I was ordained –
and when I was ordained in the Church of England, evangelicals in that
church were a despised and rejected minority. The bishops lost no
opportunity to ridicule us. Over the intervening sixty years, I've
seen the evangelical movement in England grow in size, in maturity,
and certainly in scholarship, and therefore I think in influence and
impact. We went from a ghetto to being on the ascendancy, which is a
very dangerous place to be.



CAN YOU COMMENT ON THE DANGERS?



STOTT: Pride is the ever-present danger that faces all of us. In many
ways it is good for us to be despised and rejected. I think of Jesus'
words, 'Woe unto you when all men speak well of you.' Going back to
the 'hapax', it's a very humbling concept. The essence of
evangelicalism is very humbling. You have William Temple saying, 'The
only thing of my very own which I contribute to redemption is the sin
from which I need to be redeemed.'



WE HAVE ALSO SEEN AN IMMENSE GROWTH OF THE CHURCH WORLDWIDE, LARGELY
AMONG EVANGELICAL LINES. WHAT DO YOU SEE AS ITS SIGNIFICANCE?



STOTT: This enormous growth is a fulfilment of God's promise to
Abraham in Genesis 12:1-4. God promised Abraham not only to bless him,
not only to bless his family or his posterity, but through his
posterity to bless all the families of the earth. Whenever we look at
a multi-ethnic congregation, we are seeing a fulfilment of that
amazing promise of God. A promise made by God to Abraham 4,000 years
ago is being fulfilled right before our very eyes today.



YOU KNOW THIS GROWING CHURCH PROBABLY AS WELL AS ANY WESTERNER DOES.
I WONDER HOW YOU EVALUATE IT.



STOTT: The answer is 'growth without depth'. None of us wants to
dispute the extraordinary growth of the church. But it has been
largely numerical and statistical growth. And there has not been
sufficient growth in discipleship that is comparable to the growth in
numbers.

Guest Rant by Michael Wells

Today, John Woodhouse said that acceptance of the bible as the only word of God IS Christianity. Not evangelical, not christian, but Christianity.

Hows about that Jesus fella huh?

Wilberforce

It has now been 200 years since the British stopped trading African slave around the Globe. 200 years since Wilberforce, one of the founders of my new employers, was victorious in the British Parliament. The Anglican church out at Wilberforce is celebrating, but I wonder how we modern evangelicals would react in similiar circumstance today. I heard several times during uni in conversation at from the pulpit that peolpe don't have a problem with slavery and so if they were placed in similiar circumstances, wouldn't attempt to end slavery..."because the bible doesn't say to".

Of course, the problem has seemed only to have become worse in these past 200 years. According to CMS UK, there is now some 27 million people ensalved. 27 million people in slavery! And as a christian in a western succesor state to the British Empire, I don't know how to approach this problem, because the story I've grown up with is that slavery stopped in the 19th Century. How can I bring the Lordship of Jesus and the achievment of his resurrection to bear on this question?

Let me mull over this for a few days. But you may like to cheek out this publication from CMS-UK.

10 points for telling me where the statue is and who lies next to Wilberforce.

Theological loving

Some of you may remember this little incident from last month. I received a fair bit of feed back, both on and off the blog. I've done some thinking, read a bit, thought and talked about it, felt like crying, laughed with my friend at Moore when he repeated the story of being told he goes to an emerging church by a college lecturer, and even reached an epiphany on a train trip with Alison (which I'm starting to forget).

What I've been thinking through is that: a. Jesus Christ is Lord, and everything that statement means is true; b. my basis for identity is in Christ; c. as is everyone else who confesses with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believes God raised him from the dead (Romans 10); d. the basis for our relationships within the church (and indeed to the world) is grace - welcome one another just as Christ welcomed you. Given all this one should: i. make sure you tongue is always seasoned with salt (Matt. 5, Col. 4); ii beware of reducing people in "us" and "them"; iii avoid using labels. They can scar people for life, and are a cheap tactic for winning arguments; and iv be wise and make sure you know what the current labels are. It is useful to know what the present "doggiest" theology is when you deny it, or on the odd occasion, affirm it.

Anyway, here is a small quote from Gunton I found yesterday (when speaking on the method of historical and systematic theology):

"Our doctrinal past is best understood if its representatives are taken seriously as living voices with whom we enter into theological conversation. We shall sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with what they say, and that is what it means to take them seriously. In his Church Dogmatics Karl Barth is able to treat even opponents of the Christian faith as theological partners in conversation. Accordingly it can be argued that historical theology should be a theological discipline not because we have decided in advance what to find, but because we approach our predecessors as theologians who have something to teach us."

Colin Gunton, "Historical and systematic theology", The Cambridge Companion to Christian Theology, pp. 6-7. Words in red originally italic.

PS. I start a new job this coming Monday, working for CMS NSW in mission education.

10 points for the picture. Hint: Think Benelux.

Alvin Plantinga on the God Delusion

Alvin Plantinga, writing in Books and Culture, has this to say:

Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying. I shall put irritation aside, however and do my best to take Dawkins' main argument seriously.

Anglicanism 7: What could have been

Diarmond MacCulloch dreams of the Church of England under Queen Jane Grey:

"What would the Church of England have looked like if, instead of Queen Mary's triumph, Queen Jane's quite reasonably hereditary claim to the throne had succeeded in establishing her regime? The Lady Mary would have had to have been effectively neutralized before Edward's death, and one fears that neutralizing before Edward's death, and one fears that her forr good would have involved the block, in a return to Henrician savagery. The Lady Elizabeth could have been married off to Lord Robert Dudley, a good catch for a royal bastard, and a good chance for them both of a happy love-match. Archbishop Cranmer, living his allotted three-score years and ten or beyond, could have produced the third version of his Prayer Book, in the light of friendly criticism from Continental reformers whom he respected, like Martyr, Bullinger and Calvin; he would have been succeeded as Archbishop by Nicholas Ridley or Robert Holgate, with energetic younger reformers like Edmund Grindal ready to make their mark and pick up good ideas from the best reformed churches of Europe. John Knox, mellowed by an increasingly successful career in the Church o Engkand, would have been appointed Bishop of Newcastle, benevolently taking no notice of the advanced congregations in his diocese who received congregation sitting; this was a practice in any case increasingly common throughout Jane's Church, despite Archbishop Cranmer's grumbles. The reform of canon law would have been achieved, the 1553 primer and catechism would have become the standard, the Forty-Two Article would have been unmodified by Elizabethan sacramentalist hesitations.
Out in the parishes, the meterical psalms in the style of Geneva would quickly have spread: these were the best secret weapon of the English Reformation making its public worship and private devotional practice genuinely popular throughout increasing areas of the kingdom. This congregational music would also have taken over in the cathedrals, now devoid of choirs or polyphony, and with their organs (where they survived) used mainly for entertaining for entertainmnet, in the Dutch fashion. The conservative nobility would have continued the sullen public compliance with religious change which they had shown under Edward VI, their private celebration of ceremonial worship tolerated ass eccentricity, like the Lady Elizabeth's patronage of choral music in her own chapel. The traditionalist higher clergy would have died off in senior Church offices and in the universities, with no possibility of like-minded replacement: since the universities produced no major haemorrahage of exiles in the 1560's, the Jesuits and other religious orders would have found it difficult to recruit potential clergy to train for their attempt to treat Jane's England as a mission field. England would have become the most powerful political player in the reformed camp, with Cranmer a cordial if geographically distant partner with John Calvin. There is a potent symbolism in the fact that it was Cranmer's son-in-law who translated Calvin's Institutes into English, and Cranmer's veteran printer who published it. With a Cranmer-Calvin axis, the profile of Reformed religion across the whole Continent would have been changed, and with the help and encouragement of Bishop Knox, the Reformation in Scotland might have followed a close path to that in the Reformed Church of England.
That is the history that never happened."

Anglicanism 6: Cranmer, or Laud, or...part ii

Cranmer and the "via media".

"Standing as he did in the developing Reformed tradition of Europe on the 1550's, Cranmer's conception of a 'middle way' or via media in religion was quite different from that of later Anglicanism. In the nineteenth century, when the word 'Anglicanism' first came into common use, John Henry Newman said of a middle way (before his departure for the Church of Rome) that 'a number of distinct notions are included in the notion of Protestantism; and as to all these all our Church has taken via media between it and Popery. Cranmer would violently have rejected such a notion: how: could one have a middle way between truth and Antichrist? The middle ground which he sought was the as Bucer's: an agreement between Winttenburg and Zurich which would provide a united vision of Christian doctrine against the counterfeit being refurbished at the Council of Trent. For him, Catholicism was to b found in the scattered church of the Reformation, and is was his aim to show forth their unity to prove their Catholicity."

Thomas Cranmer, Diarmaid MacCulloch, p. 617.

Anglicanism 5: Cranmer or Laud, or...part i

Well, having posted several quotes from the likes of Archbishop Williams and Bishop Ryle, and having re-read part of MacCulloch's work on Cranmer last night, I may have thought of a new way to look at the question of Anglican identity. It may just be that the answer lies, in part, in who we understand to be the true founders of "Anglicanism". From my own reflection, I think there are at least 3 possible sources for the legitimate Anglican identity.
Firstly, there is the 16th Century Anglicanism of Cranmer, Parker and Hooker. This is the Anglicanism of the Tudors, Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth I (not so much Mary I, because she had a tendency to burn them). This source is most likely to be termed "Classical Anglicanism", associated as it is with the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal and three orders, and the Articles of Religion. And it has been this source that has until recently influenced the direction of Anglicanism most.
Secondly, there is the Anglicanism of the early Stuart period - the Carolinian Church. This is where Archbishop Laud and his descendants in the High Church and Oxford Movements would feel most at home.
And thirdly, there is the Anglicanism influenced not so much by an English theologian or Lord of Cantur, but the Anglicanism imitating Calvin, and even Richard Baxter. Although not mutually exclusive form the first source, if not used well, this third source may ride rough shot of the first source.
There is potentially a fourth source in the various incarnations of liberal protestantism. And although this may claim to large (cashed up) sections of the Anglican Communion, I don't think it can hold a legitimate stake in Anglican identity.
Now all that is left to do is describe the three sources and try and determine which source is bona fide.

Anglicanism 4

To have a break from Rowan Williams, here is a warning to the "true church"
from JC Ryle.

"On this rock I will build my church, and the gates
of hell will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18)

This is that Church to which belong the Lord's precious promises of
preservation, continuance, protection, and final glory.  "Whatsoever,"
says Hooker, "we read in Scripture, concerning the endless love and
saving mercy which God shows towards His Churches, the only proper
subject is this Church, which we properly term the mystical body of
Christ."  Small and despised as the true Church may be in this world, it
is precious and honorable in the sight of God.  The temple of Solomon in
all its glory was nothing, in comparison with that Church which is built
upon a rock.

Men and brethren, see that you hold sound doctrine on the subject of "the
Church."  A mistake here may lead to dangerous and soul-ruining errors.
The Church which is made up of true believers, is the Church for which
we, who are ministers, are specially ordained to preach.  The Church
which comprises all who repent and believe the Gospel, is the Church to
which we desire you to belong.  Our work is not done, and our hearts are
not satisfied, until you are made new creatures, and are members of the
one true Church.  Outside of this Church there can be no salvation."

I wonder how many of today's evangelicals would be uncomfortable with the last line and be tempted to change it to "Outside of this faith..."? mmm.

10 points if you can tell me how many people were bishop of Liverpool prior to Ryle.

Some pictures of my fingers one week, and ten stitches later.

These are the least gory pictures...

bring on the resurrection.

Anglicanism 3

Williams once again on Anglican Identity:

"The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible. The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history. Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place – to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the church’s life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices – with a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies of a historic ministry not universally recognised in the Catholic world, with limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is thought possible or acceptable."

I know one theo-blogger doesn't consider just posting quotes to be blogging, but here you go.