Monthly Archives: February 2008

Sacred spaces?

Posted on by
Reply

Eddie Arthur writes:

Until recently, I was more or less ambivalent to the architecture and decoration of church buildings. … However, as I grow older, I realise that the surroundings can help me to develop a sense of awe and wonder.

In support of this, he quotes from ThinkChristian, who is in fact at this point quoting The Aesthetic Elevator:

We should build spaces crafted specially for a human-divine encounter with God.

Ah, but how should we design such spaces? Is our traditional church architecture, a pastiche of mediaeval cathedrals, necessarily the best design? Is this in fact a completely subjective matter? In support of this idea, I think Eddie should also have quoted this from the same ThinkChristian post:

The fact also remains that different people will always own different aesthetics, and attempting to satisfy all at the same time is unrealistic.

Eddie and ThinkChristian both omitted this part of the original post from The Aesthetic Elevator:

perhaps we shouldn’t build sacred spaces at all.

I tend to agree. We need functional spaces, buildings to meet in. But it is not for us humans to declare them sacred or presume to make them “crafted specially for a human-divine encounter with God”. If we are to “develop a sense of awe and wonder”, we should do this not through buildings which then become idols, but by beholding and reflecting the glory of God, 2 Corinthians 3:18.

Intellectual Arrogance and the Archbishop

Posted on by
Reply

Ruth Gledhill writes in The Times – not in her blog but in a proper newspaper article – about Archbishop Rowan Williams:

Although he is a holy and spiritual man, danger lies in the appearance of the kind of intellectual arrogance common to many of Britain’s liberal elite. It is an arrogance that affords no credibility or respect to the popular voice. And although this arrogance, with the assumed superiority of the Oxbridge rationalist, is not shared by his staff at Lambeth Palace, it is by some of those outside Lambeth from whom he regularly seeks counsel.

Neither the Archbishop nor his staff regard his speech as mistaken. They are merely concerned that it has been misunderstood. This characterises the otherworldliness that still pervades the inner sanctums of the Church of England.

I share with Dr Williams his Oxbridge rationalist background (as does Bishop NT Wright). I studied at Clare College, Cambridge a few years before Williams became Dean and Chaplain there. Jane Paul who later became Mrs Williams was a fellow student with me, and we worshipped together at the college chapel.

At Cambridge I saw this rationalism and intellectual arrogance at work, and to some extent I shared it. But then, called by God as I believe, I left the ivory towers and my plans for PhD studies to get a job in the real world of Essex, and to join a real church. Now, after 30 years and various travels, I am back in Essex and both living and worshipping on a former council estate used for housing single parent families and people with drug problems. And quite frankly I am much happier to be away from the world of intellectual arrogance and instead in touch with and listening to, although often not agreeing with, ordinary people in the real world.

Meanwhile, press coverage (summarised here; see also this BBC analysis) remains largely hostile to Williams. But the Church of England at its General Synod seems to have largely closed ranks around him, even giving him a standing ovation. Perhaps this is because the majority share Williams’ Oxbridge rationalism and are at least tinged with his intellectual arrogance. Only a small minority at the Synod, led by long-term critic Canon Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream (ironically also an Oxbridge rationalist) is publicly criticising him. So it looks as if Williams will survive this crisis unless he chooses to go himself. But the cost has been immense to the credibility of the Anglican church in this country, and even more so in places like Nigeria and Pakistan.

The most worrying thing is that Dr Williams doesn’t seem to care what ordinary people think or say. As Ruth Gledhill puts it,

Dr Williams holds such populist tendencies in disdain. … The difficulty [his chief adviser] and the Archbishop’s other advisers face is that Dr Williams does not believe he is in a hole, or that if he is, it is a false hole, one dug for him by the media.

The wisest fool in Christendom

Posted on by
10

According to Jeremy Paxman on the BBC programme Newsnight last night (Friday) (click “Watch Now” on this page, but probably only until Monday), King James I was called “the wisest fool in Christendom”,

because he never said a foolish thing or did a wise one.

But Paxman suggested that Archbishop Rowan Williams has inherited this mantle.

I was privileged to meet this morning (Saturday), for the first time, one of Paxman’s guests, John Richardson, who blogs at The Ugley Vicar and Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream. We met only hours after Paxman interviewed Richardson, at the meeting where I also heard Bishop Pete Broadbent speak. Richardson drew my attention to another wonderful quote from Paxman on the programme:

How do you solve a problem like sharia?

You need to get the pronunciation right for this: rhyme with “Maria”.

The Archbishop’s comments on sharia law have apparently generated easily the biggest response the BBC has had to any story – 17,000 comments in 24 hours, the great majority critical of Williams. Continue reading →

Broadbent quiet on Lambeth and GAFCON

Posted on by
Reply

I just got back from a talk by Bishop Pete Broadbent of Willesden, as advertised here. This was an interesting talk on the subject “United We Stand”, a very positive one in fact but I wonder how realistic this positive attitude is.

In a previous post I pointed out that Broadbent was not among the 21 evangelical bishops in the Church of England who wrote to the Church of England Newspaper urging their fellow Anglican bishops around the world to attend the Lambeth Conference.

At this morning’s talk Broadbent declined to answer a question about whether he would attend the Lambeth conference, the Global Anglican Future conference (GAFCON), or both. He did mention that there were 35 evangelical bishops in the Church of England. Of these, 21 signed the letter to the Church of England Newspaper, and two, Nazir-Ali and Benn, are known to have rejected Lambeth in favour of GAFCON. This leaves 12, including Broadbent, who as far as I know have not made their position public. They are probably wise to do so. Nevertheless, given his general attitude I would be surprised if Broadbent stays away from Lambeth, although he might also attend GAFCON.

Rowan Williams and Sharia law: the debate continues

Posted on by
Reply

Astonishingly, Archbishop Rowan Williams’ comments on Sharia law are still the top story on the BBC news website after more than 24 hours. It is very rare that any story, let alone a religious one, keeps that top spot for so long. In the latest article there, the Archbishop

is said to be overwhelmed by the “hostility of the response” after his call for parts of Sharia law to be recognised in the UK.

Yesterday I repeated, but did not answer, Ruth Gledhill’s question: has the Archbishop gone bonkers? John Richardson in one place gives a short but straight answer:

No, but I’m not sure about his advisors.

On his own blog, Richardson writes at much more length an explanation of his position, which is well summarised in his post title: Dr Williams and Sharia: wrong suggestion, right concern. Continue reading →

Has Archbishop Rowan Williams gone bonkers?

Posted on by
10

For once this is nothing to do with the Lambeth Conference or the fragmentation of the Anglican Communion. And it is not me asking this question, but Ruth Gledhill of The Times. The occasion for asking is Williams’ astonishing call, reported by the BBC, for “certain aspects” of Islamic Sharia law to be introduced in the UK. To their credit, politicians of all main parties have rejected this call. But it is extremely worrying that a man who heads the established church in this country could even consider making this appeal.

Ruth Gledhill’s commenter Tom Jackson writes the following:

To say I was dumbstruck this afternoon when I read the Archbishop’s comments would be an admission that somehow, I expected better of him.

But these latest observations by Rowan Williams just serve to demonstrate once again just how unfit to lead the Anglican Communion this man is. …

The Archbishop should resign, should go and make way for someone more suited to such high office to take his place.

I agree. And if he did, that might help to sort out the Lambeth mess as well, although it is getting a bit late for that.

Another quiz: What is the Kingdom of God?

Posted on by
Reply

I just found this quiz entitled What is the Kingdom of God? As this subject interests me, I will put myself in a theological box, as they put it in the post where I found the link to this quiz, even though it is not Friday. So here are my results:

What is the Kingdom of God?
created with QuizFarm.com
You scored as The Kingdom as a counter-systemThis approach has been adopted by Anabaptist and similar groups who saw themselves as recapturing the essence of true Christianity in opposition to a “Christianised” society and an institutional church.

The Kingdom as a counter-system
92%
Kingdom as a Christianised Society
67%
The Kingdom as Earthly Utopia
50%
The Kingdom is mystical communion
42%
The Kingdom is a Future Hope
42%
The Kingdom as Institutional Church
33%
Inner spiritual experience
33%
The Kingdom as a political state
33%

Interesting to see that I came out with the Anabaptist position of a Christian counter-system, although I wasn’t consciously thinking on those lines. But, and this is one of the points which I had trouble explaining to John Hobbins in our discussions on pacifism, I don’t take this to the extreme of withdrawing from the world, and so some of my answers reflected my position that I should be seeking to bring the values of this counter-system into the wider society.

Why is Easter so early this year?

Posted on by
Reply

I am writing this primarily as an article for Baddow Life newspaper, for which I am one of the editorial team; hence the local references. I thank Liturgee for a comment on Lingamish’s blog which led me to an informative post on this subject. I have also made use of this Wikipedia article, this one and this one. Also a Google search found me interesting comments on this blog post.

Easter Sunday this year is unusually early, 23rd March. This causes difficulties especially for schools, and in fact this year Essex children will be back at school for four days after Easter and before their main spring holiday. At least it may mean that this year there are daffodils still in bloom to decorate our churches.

In fact Easter has not been this early since 1913. The earliest possible date is 22nd March, but the last time it was on that day was in 1818. These dates are determined by complex calculations which go back to the 6th century: Easter is the Sunday after the first full moon on or after 21st March, supposed to be the day of the spring equinox. This year the moon is full exactly on 21st March, and so Easter is on the following Sunday.

There have been many proposals to fix the date of Easter, which would certainly make things easier for schools. Parliament passed the Easter Act of 1928 to do just this, but it was never implemented. The Roman Catholic church has accepted in principle a fixed date if a consensus could be reached among churches, and the Church of England position seems similar. But at the moment no such consensus is likely.

One reason for this is because a fixed Easter would break the link with the Jewish feast of Passover or Pesach. The original events of the Easter season, the death and resurrection of Jesus, took place at this festival season. Passover is a celebration of the night when the Israelites fled from slavery in Egypt, which for obvious reasons was at full moon. Easter is similarly a celebration of how Jesus delivered us from slavery to sin and death, and it is important for some that the link to Passover is retained.

As the ancient Israelites used a lunar calendar, and modern Jews still do for religious purposes, Passover was always celebrated at full moon, the 14th day of the first lunar month Nisan. The Christian feast day is supposed to be on the nearest Sunday to this date. But in fact over the centuries the calculations have diverged, and so in some years, including this one, Passover is a whole month later than Easter.

Eastern Orthodox churches also often, including this year, celebrate Easter about a month later than western churches. This is mainly because they calculate the dates according to the old Julian calendar which is 13 days behind our Gregorian calendar.

This Easter, watch out for the full moon and remember how its light helped ancient slaves to escape from Egypt. Then remember that, as the psalmist wrote, God’s word to us in the Bible is “a lamp to my feet and a light for my path”. By this light we can follow the way which Jesus Christ has opened up, to escape from anything that enslaves us and find true freedom.