Friday, December 14, 2007

From The Archbishop Of Canterbury

An excerpt from the Archbishop of Canterbury's Christmas Message to the Anglican Communion, December 14, 2007:

God loves the company of those who know their need, and that is why he comes at Christmas to stand with them, to live with them and to die and rise for them. He is the God who blesses the poor - not only those who are materially poor, but those who are without the 'riches' of self-satisfaction and complacency, those who know all too well how far they fall short of real and full humanity. And so we are to pass on that blessing to the poor of every sort, those who are without material resources and those who are 'poor in spirit' because they know their hunger and need. Let us ask ourselves honestly whose company we are ashamed to be seen in - and then ask where God would be. If he has embraced the failing and fragile world of human beings who know their needs, then we must be there with him.

Read the rest at the Anglican Communion News Service.

14 comments:

  1. The Advent Letter from the ABC -- my summary - those American blokes allow those uppity laity way to much say in theology and the important things of the church - put them in their place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ann, I haven't made it through the whole long epistle yet. From skimming, I'd say you're right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ABC letter score card - the SF and T19 folks are going nuts over it -- which is good news to me. However he is still scapegoating Gene and saying IMO why don't all you gay people go back in the closet and stop causing me all these headaches.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ann, I don't know if the ABC's goal is to give a little something to everyone, but he won't please anyone with the epistle to the primates. I'm going to have to print the letter out to read it carefully. I have to say that reading it will likely make me crazier than I am already. Sometimes I wonder why I bother to try to figure out what he means.

    His Advent message is quite good, a model for living one's life. The hard part is the practice.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My take on the whole shared view of Scripture bit is that the last two centuries of biblical scholarship and conversation around the same must go on "pause" until everybody catches up. Just another version of you can't do Gospel justice until everyone agrees. It is the tyranny of consensus, something I have seen immobilize vestries.

    There is also the issue of postmodern revocation of privileging sacred texts. I think those outside church confines can understand us saying we believe God is revealed in our Scriptures and that we have encountered God in and through Jesus, but to say OUR book is the one divinely given vessel of truth and all others are human, false, etc. just doesn't fly. It is one thing to say I have encountered Truth and quite another to say someone else has NOT. The churches, by and large, are still saying they have an exclusive and I find that a very paltry view of God.

    There is a true division in the world on how the Bible is understood and interpreted. The more conservative fail to see how anyone can take it seriously while either not taking it literally or at least giving it privileged status. I had thought our oath of conformity, acknowledging it as the Word of God containing all things necessary for salvation would be quite sufficient. Evidently not. How we came up with the very different idea that all things it contains are necessary for salvation is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Paul, How an Englishman, and a scholar, and a gentleman moved from where he was in his thinking and writing in the late eighties and early nineties of the 20th century to where he is now is an absolute amazement to me.

    You say:

    How we came up with the very different idea that all things it contains are necessary for salvation is beyond me.

    It's beyond me, too, because those who take that view are immediately hoist on their own petard, because even they do not believe that "all things it contains are necessary for salvation". They pick and choose from the Bible just as much as the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I echo all of the above comments -except one: Rowan Williams is not an Englishman. He's Welsh!

    ReplyDelete
  8. RR, here is a corrected version of my comment:

    "Paul, How a Welshman, and a scholar, and a gentleman moved from where he was in his thinking and writing in the late eighties and early nineties of the 20th century to where he is now is an absolute amazement to me.

    You say:

    How we came up with the very different idea that all things it contains are necessary for salvation is beyond me.

    It's beyond me, too, because those who take that view are immediately hoist on their own petard, because even they do not believe that "all things it contains are necessary for salvation". They pick and choose from the Bible just as much as the rest of us."

    I tried to do a strike through version, but apparently that doesn't work in the comments.

    No one seems to want him. Do the Welsh want him?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Do the Welsh want him? We did, Grandmere, we did - and as "Archesgob Cymru" (Archbishop of Wales!) he was simply brilliant in both pastoral and theological ways. It all went askew when he changed thrones ...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sigh. God clearly seems committed to using flawed material to build the kingdom. I must trust God. From my limited (and undoubtedly sinful) viewpoint God is going about it all wrong. Still, God is God and I am not, and I must keep that in mind. I am certain that I would muck it all up terribly.

    I am sure Rowan would be happier back in Wales, writing theology and poetry. I do not envy him. Still, I am miffed at him right now.

    ReplyDelete
  11. RR, what happened to him? He's lost his way. Unless, of course, he's got some mad brilliant scheme up his sleeve that we can't work out, but that he sees will put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

    It seems that he would be happier back in Wales. The crown lies uneasy....

    And the scapegoating of Gene Robinson. That is surely not a good thing. But then he turned on his friend, Jeffrey John, too.

    ReplyDelete
  12. God clearly seems committed to using flawed material to build the kingdom.

    Paul - regardless of any specific issue - that is one of the most brilliant theological statements I have read in a long time. It gives me hope!

    ReplyDelete
  13. RR, Paul is one of the best Episcopal blog writers around.

    ReplyDelete
  14. RR, Mimi is one of the most gracious Episcopal bloggers around. When she's not being naughty, and even then she's gracious.

    I would blush, but I must confess instead I have a grateful and very pleased smile. Thank you, Mimi. You have no idea how much your encouragement helps me.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous commenters, please sign a name, any name, to distinguish one anonymous commenter from another. Thank you.