Category Archives: Rowan Williams

Rowan Williams and miracles: a response to John W Martens

Posted on by
2

This is a reply to an article by John W Martens. For it to make sense, you should read his article first.

John,

Thank you for the response to my comments.

I attempted to post this reply to your article on your blog, but it seems that Blogger has a maximum of 4096 characters in the response box, so I have had to write my reply here. I didn’t want to do that since I thought it would create too much jumping around in the unlikely event that someone might want to read through the whole exchange.

I’ll start by returning to my suspicion that when Rowan Williams uses the word “miracle” he means something different to what I mean when I use it.

I am willing to go along with the plausibility of the idea that the transition from proto-humans to humans occurred when they became aware of a call from God. What eludes me is how this “call” could be anything other than supernatural.  If it was supernatural, it was outside nature and was an intervention in the normal processes of nature: it “tinkered” with nature. If it was not outside nature, yet still came from God, it means God himself is subject to his creation and its laws: he is a victim of its causal phenomena.

I’m not sure your saying:

“Williams is asking for us to see God as immanent and always present and always active in the processes of nature and being and not intervening from “the outside,” a trap into which I think David Jenkins falls.”

helps much in resolving that problem since God’s immanence and resulting activity in the processes of nature either has to be contained by nature and thus subject to it or not. If not, then it is still intervening from “the outside.”  From the confines of my “outside” trap, I would suggest that if you “den[y] the separation of God from nature” you teeter perilously close to a different trap: pantheism.

When Terry Nichols says “nature is not a closed system but an open system within a larger, divine context”, I think he is assisting my case, not yours. A system being “open”, implies that there is something outside the system which could influence it. When a door to my house opens, a breeze is likely to enter; if there is nothing outside my door – a vacuum – the reverse would happen. Either way, there has been intervention in my system. That is, unless Nichols wishes to render the same service for the word “open” as Williams seems to want to do for “miracle”: reduce it to unintelligibility.

Your use of the word “arbitrary” in relation to God’s action in the world puzzles me. Why would one assume that when God intervenes, it must be “arbitrary”? To say that implies action without thought – capricious as Rowan Williams puts it – a sort of divine flailing about. I presume you would admit that a human mind acts with a degree of free will in the universe? My intention in typing this sentence originates in an immaterial part of me – my mind or soul – and has physical results in the material world. If that is not arbitrary and capricious (I’m presuming on your generosity in granting me that it isn’t), why must God’s acting in the world be arbitrary and capricious? God is a person and, as such, must be able to act in the world to a much more sophisticated degree than the people who bear his image.

I would agree that “miracle” as defined by David Hume, a violation of the laws of nature, is something that Rowan Williams has an aversion to, but I would argue a few things: first that God’s acting in the universe does not necessarily violate the laws of nature any more than the acts of any immaterial free agents – human minds – do. The Hume objection only makes sense for an isolated or closed system: if the universe is not causally closed, the Hume definition doesn’t hold. Second, this type of objection is only relevant to a Newtonian view of the universe. Quantum Mechanics describes the universe as a system constrained by probabilities rather than laws. Bradley Monton (philosopher of religion and science) pointed out:

“I think that all miracles are pretty unproblematically compatible with the GWR [Ghiradi-Rimini-Weber] theory….. So for changing water into wine, it’s not a big deal – you’ve got a bunch of individual particles (electrons, protons etc.) that are composing the water, and they can all have GWR hits such that their positions are redistributed to the locations that would be appropriate for them to compose wine”.

That still would take God’s intervention, of course.

In conclusion then, I’ll repeat the definition of miracle that I made in one of my earlier comments: “an event in the external world brought about by the immediate agency or the simple volition of God.” I still think my saying that Rowan Williams’ remarks imply that he does not believe in miracles is justified on the grounds that he has redefined “miracle”: that is cheating. I would say the same for Christian thinkers who reason along the same lines.

Rowan Williams debates Richard Dawkins at the Sheldonian

Posted on by
8

The archbishops of atheism and Anglicanism have a polite chat in which Dawkins does a Bertrand Russell and declares he has really been an agnostic all along and Rowan says he doesn’t believe God “intervened” when humans came to be or, by implication, in miracles.

 

Richard Dawkins to debate Rowan Williams

Posted on by
Reply

The event is actually billed as a “Dialogue” – a mini-indaba, no doubt – and will take place on February 23rd at the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford. That’s the same venue where Dawkins didn’t debate William Lane Craig.

The fact that Dawkins has agreed to this “Dialogue” is a measure of his confidence that he will make mincemeat out of Rowan Williams.

Judging by this clip, I suspect his confidence is not entirely misplaced:

My favourite part of this exchange comes at the point where Rowan tries to explain miracles, specifically the Virgin Birth:

Rowan: Here you have a long history of preparation for the coming of God in a new way, here you have a particular life, that of Mary opening itself up to the action of God in a certain way and then there is an opening. Something comes through, something fresh happens which is not – if you like – a suspension of the laws of nature but nature itself opening up to its own depths – something coming through.

Dawkins: I’m not sure what that means.

Rowan:  It’s poetic language.

It sounds to me more like a description of a cosmic bowel movement than “poetic language.”

Rowan on rioting

Posted on by
4

From here:

A minister hit out at the Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday for comparing City bankers to the rioters who tore apart Britain’s cities over the summer.

[….]

Dr Rowan Williams raised eyebrows on Sunday by saying the rioters were no worse than the bankers and that ‘bonds of trust’ had broken throughout society.

In his Christmas sermon, he said: ‘Whether it is an urban rioter mindlessly burning down a small shop that serves his community, or a speculator turning his back on the question of who bears the ultimate cost for his acquisitive adventures in the virtual reality of today’s financial world, the picture is of atoms spinning apart in the dark.’

There is one very minor difference that seems to have escaped Rowan Williams’ attention: for the moment, banking is legal whereas burning down someone else’s shop isn’t. This must be a concept too mundane to impinge on the atoms in Rowans’ brain ‘spinning apart in the dark.’

 

 

Turning the tables on Rowan Williams

Posted on by
Reply

Rowan Williams, having bungled his job as leader of the Anglican communion, now confines most of his bon mots to setting the British government straight. David Cameron, taking his cue from the Archbishop of Canterbury has a few suggestions of his own:

David Cameron last night called on the Archbishop of Canterbury to lead a return to the ‘moral code’ of the Bible.

In a highly personal speech about faith, the Prime Minister accused Dr Rowan Williams of failing to speak ‘to the whole nation’ when he criticised Government austerity policies and expressed sympathy with the summer rioters.

Mr Cameron declared Britain ‘a Christian country’ and said politicians and churchmen should not be afraid to say so.

Will Rowan Williams, after being revived with smelling salts, respond by pointing out that declaring Britain a Christian country is not inclusive enough for the Church of England? Will he repeat his plea to adopt sharia law? Will he point out that, as a Druid, he is free of dogma and any fixed set of beliefs or practices and can’t understand all this “moral code” and “Bible” nonsense.

Or will he give his anti-capitalist inclinations full expression by joining the other dishevelled, bearded man in a Christmas protest at St. Paul’s?

Rowan Williams is the only Anglican left who still remembers the “moratoria”

Posted on by
Reply

For those who wish to brave the fog of  the Windsor Continuation Group Report and peruse the moratoria, they can be found here.

In summary, “gracious restraint” (a phrase subsequently mangled into meaninglessness) was asked for:

  • Consecration of Bishops living in a same gender union
  • Permission for Rites of Blessing for Same Sex unions
  • Interventions in Provinces

Since the forming of ACNA and ANiC, no further “interventions” have occurred, so that leaves the other two – which have never stopped occurring.

This has led Rowan Williams to have an Advent Moan:

These questions are made all the more sharp by the fact that the repeated requests for moratoria on problematic actions issued by various representative Anglican bodies are increasingly ignored.  Strong conscientious convictions are involved here.  No-one, I believe, acts out of a desire to deepen disunity; some believe that certain matters are more important than what they think of as a superficial unity.  But the effects are often to deepen mutual mistrust, and this must surely be bad for our mission together as Anglicans, and alongside other Christians as well.  The question remains: if the moratoria are ignored and the Covenant suspected, what are the means by which we maintain some theological coherence as a Communion and some personal respect and understanding as a fellowship of people seeking to serve Christ?  And we should bear in mind that our coherence as a Communion is also a significant concern in relation to other Christian bodies – especially at a moment when the renewed dialogues with Roman Catholics and Orthodox have begun with great enthusiasm and a very constructive spirit.

The fact is that the North American Anglican Provinces aren’t interested in theological coherence, are continuing to press ahead with same sex blessings – full blown marriage to follow shortly – the ordaining of actively homosexual clergy and the legalised persecution of those who refuse to go along with them. The word “moratorium” is never mentioned.

It’s hard to take Rowan Williams’ complaining about everyone ignoring the moratoria too seriously, when he himself not only welcomes Bishop Michael Ingham, who has a same-sex partnered Dean and continues to bless same sex marriages, to Lambeth for a pally chat, but offers to look for a replacement priest for St. John’s Shaughnessy on Ingham’s behalf.

Taking pride in the Anglican processes

Posted on by
1

While I worked for IBM I was an avid follower of Dilbert, the cartoon character who seemed to understand how IBM works better than the executives who pretend to run it. One of my favourites was pinned to my office wall. In it, Dilbert spent his entire week accomplishing nothing other than fulfilling the demands of the institutional processes surrounding the task – the actual task was never completed. At the end of the week, he concluded that, if he was to take pride in anything, he had to take pride in the processes. The strip was entitled, “We take pride in our processes.”

Such is life at IBM: few executives care what gets done as long as the attempt adheres to the process. To accomplish anything worthwhile demands an intricate knowledge of an underground network of people willing to conspire together to circumvent the elaborate obstacles erected by entire divisions of bureaucrats, the object of which is to prevent anything happening any faster than the pace of continental drift.

I sometimes think that Rowan Williams, with his indabas and listening process, should work at IBM after he retires: he would fit right in.

Here is an article by the ever perceptive Charles Raven:

The strategy behind Williams’ address was not to promote his views on homosexuality directly, but to reflect on the process by which moral decisions in general should be made – not so much to play the game, so to speak, as the more ambitious task of actually trying to define what the playing field should look like. And this is the enduring significance of his address thirteen years later as he continues to promote ‘indaba’ and ‘listening process’ strategies which focus on the process of decision making, while all the time kicking the can down the road in the hope that the institutionally messy consequences of closure can be avoided.

Rowan Williams to quit next year

Posted on by
2

From here:

Dr Rowan Williams is understood to have told friends he is ready to quit the highest office in the Church of England to pursue a life in academia.

The news will trigger intense plotting behind the scenes over who should succeed the 61-year-old archbishop, who is not required to retire until he is 70.

Bishops have privately been arguing for Dr Williams to stand down, with the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, telling clergy he should give someone else a chance after nearly ten years in the post.

Better late than never.

 

Riotous Rowan pontificates on the looting

Posted on by
Reply

Rowan Williams offers ecclesiastical wisdom – or lack thereof – on the rioting in the UK:

Aug 11 (Reuters) – England’s most senior cleric on Thursday gave his first reaction to riots across the country, saying the government’s stated priority of building stronger communities was now a matter of urgency.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said the violence would “intensify the cycle of deprivation and vulnerability” in Britain, in a statement emailed to Reuters.

“The government has insisted on the priority of creating stronger, better-resourced local communities. This priority is now a matter of extreme urgency. We need to see initiatives that will address anxieties and provide some hope of long-term stability in community services, especially for the young,” he wrote.

I’m unsure as what kind of cycle of deprivation would include in its deprivations Blackberries with which to organise looting parties. I have no doubt that, had the government provided more community centres – offering free Blackberries, perhaps – they would have been looted too.

Rowan Williams has, predictably, placed the blame for the rioting on the government for not providing adequate community services, while, at the same time, missing the obvious fact that the government is to blame for not protecting its citizens.

The kind of long term stability that Rowan is looking for is not provided by governments but by families. What is his church doing to strengthen families? Oh, right, it’s promoting same sex marriage; that should do the trick.