Archbishops at prayer and at play

Maggi Dawn continues her series on her discussions with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York with some observations on them at prayer – and at play. This human story shows that Rowan Williams is not just a leader and an academic, but is also a man of genuine spirituality:

Informal, made-up-on-the-spot prayers are part of their habit of life too. There was a moment when Archbishop Sentamu was about to address a large audience, but had a really sore throat. Archbishop Rowan came to find us, and immediately knelt down beside Archbishop Sentamu to pray. Not in five-syllable words or liturgical language, mind you. He just prays to Jesus, like you and me.

As for play, they don’t have much time for it, but Maggi got this reply from Sentamu to her question “What do you do to relax?”:

“I go to the gym every day,” he replied. “Every day?” I said. “When I’m in York, every day,” he replied. “It’s important. You have to look after yourself.”

There was a brief pause while he looked at me intently. He has this way of looking at you that makes you feel at once scrutinised with great honesty, and yet deeply met with God’s love.

“But what about you?” he asked. “What do you do to relax? I hope you are looking after yourself?”

Good question, Archbishop, for Maggi, for me, and for my readers.

Don't burn food to stop global warming

It is about a year since I first got involved with Avaaz.org, when I signed one of their petitions about Zimbabwe. Avaaz.org is an international campaigning group working for

stronger protections for the environment, greater respect for human rights, and concerted efforts to end poverty, corruption and war.

I have signed several of Avaaz.org’s petitions. I don’t support all their campaigns, and I think that some of you my readers might not support some of the ones I support, especially related to climate change. But I would expect all of you, at least all who call yourselves Christians, to get behind the one for I have just received an e-mail, with the subject line

Biofuels: the fake climate change solution

Whatever your overall view on global warming issues, you should be concerned about rising food prices for the poor (and perhaps for yourselves!). So please join me in expressing your support for this campaign, through the main link for this campaign and in other ways.

By following that link you will find a summary of the issues. But oddly enough I can’t find online the text of the e-mail I received, although it is publicly available and not copyrighted. Also posting the text including the footnotes is the only way that I can link to the sources Avaaz.org quotes, which demonstrate that there is real research behind this campaign. So here is the whole message, except for the sidebar and the end matter (also I have replaced the visible URLs in some links with the word “link”, they should still work as links):

Dear friends,

Each day, 820 million people in the developing world do not have enough food to eat1. Food prices around the world are shooting up, sparking food riots from Mexico2 to Morocco3. And the World Food Program warned last week that rapidly rising costs are endangering emergency food supplies for the world’s worst-off4.

How are the wealthiest countries responding? They’re burning food.

Continue reading

Yes, Jesus really did rise from the dead

Ruth Gledhill asks Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Or perhaps she is simply reporting the question, as asked of Rowan Williams by a friend of Father Geoffrey Kirk (no relation). No doubt Williams’ answer would have been deep and philosophical, maybe not even comprehensible. But I prefer the answer of her commenter “A Renegade Priest”:

Yes He did; I spoke to him this morning, he’s alive and well, reigning in glory, and he sends his love, to you and to everyone.

Indeed! If we can’t give this kind of answer for ourselves, the deep and philosophical answers are never going to be convincing.

The Evil Zwingli Meme

I haven’t actually been tagged on this Evil Zwingli Meme:

1) Post something rude about Zwingli. (Outrageous slander especially welcome.)
2) Tag someone who is NOT Jim West.

But I have read about it from Doug at MetaCatholic and from Nick at Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth. Of course this meme will not multiply exponentially as memes are supposed to if only one person is tagged each time. So, since while Nick doesn’t tag me he does mention and quote me, I will take that as a substitute for a tag and make this a response to the meme.

This meme of course will make little sense to anyone who doesn’t know blogger Jim West, the blogosphere’s one man fan club for Zwingli, the Reformer who apparently started a revolution by watching someone eat sausage.

But that is not a rude enough thing to say about Zwingli. I could be rude in a serious way, relating to how he persecuted and put to death the first Anabaptists. But instead, to be simpler, I will just repeat what I originally posted as a comment on John Hobbins’ blog, which Nick just found again:

I’m sure Zwingli would have had Jim West burned at the stake for his attitude to Scripture, if he hadn’t first had him drowned for being a Baptist.

Of course I wouldn’t want anyone to misinterpret this as rudeness about Jim West rather than about Zwingli. I wouldn’t dream of being rude about any living person on this blog. Well, maybe not …

Meanwhile I tag Lingamish, who has been commenting on this and no doubt longing to be tagged despite hating memes, Esteban Vázquez because I know he can find something rude to say about Zwingli if he wants to, and Jim West, who I am sure will be entertaining if not rude. Since I am breaking the rules by taking up this meme without being tagged, I claim the right to break them even further by tagging more than one person and including Jim himself.

Satire: Episcopal Priest is "The New Billy Graham"

Another satirical post, adapted from this comment I made last October at Tominthebox News Network.

IBI, NIGERIA: The Reverend Eustace Lovejoy is a puzzled man. Back home in a country town in Washington state, he is Rector of a small and dwindling Episcopal congregation. But here in a remote part of Nigeria, where he is making his third visit to a mission hospital to bring humanitarian aid, his sermons attract crowds of tens of thousands. Locally he has been hailed as the new Billy Graham.

Gentle Wisdom’s correspondent asked Rev Lovejoy what he was preaching. He replied, “Here in Nigeria I preach the same as I do every Sunday at home, that we should all love one another, and especially we must love gay and lesbian people. Most of my congregation in America have left, because there is such homophobia there that people want me to preach a different message sometimes. In fact now the dozen or so who attend are nearly all from the town’s tiny gay and lesbian community. But when I come over here it seems the whole district wants to hear me. And then before I have even finished preaching hundreds of them come forward for me to pray for them. What I don’t understand is, why does it happen only over here?”

Gentle Wisdom then spoke to Rev Lovejoy’s interpreter, Paul Wukari, a local pastor. This was difficult because of his heavily accented English. Asked why there was such a huge response when Rev Lovejoy spoke, he said that at first crowds came to see the white man. Also rumours were going round that he was giving out American goods. But Pastor Wukari claimed that they continued to come because of the power of the preaching they heard.

In response to a question about Rev Lovejoy’s sermons, Pastor Wukari admitted that he was puzzled by them. “I know what he is saying about loving one another, and of course we should especially love people who are happy and joyful. But I get lost when he talks about lesbians, the word isn’t in my old ‘English-Yoruba Dictionary for Schools’. So I have to stop translating what he says and start preaching my own sermon. Usually I get to preach to only a few hundred, so I take my chance to present the gospel to thousands. Rev Lovejoy is often still going when I get to the appeal, but he has to stop when hundreds come forward to give their lives to Christ.”

Rev Lovejoy said that he was considering an invitation from the hospital to take up a full time position as chaplain there. “But”, he said, “I don’t think my partner would want to come. He’s a sensitive man who can’t bear heat and creepy-crawlies.” Anyway, it seems that the invitation might be withdrawn. When Gentle Wisdom mentioned Rev Lovejoy’s partner to the chairman of the hospital’s trustees, the local bishop, he replied, “What, you don’t mean to say he’s a sodomite like that Bishop Gene Robinson? This is an abomination! He will burn in hell for ever! He had better go home immediately before the local people find out and tear him from limb to limb.”

What punctuation mark am I?

I can’t resist these quizzes. I came to this one from the results at Eternal Echoes. It’s actually a rather silly one based on a very small number of questions. But the results are fairly close to the mark. I don’t have a history of excelling in leadership positions, but that is because for various mostly good reasons I haven’t actually been in many.


You Are a Colon


You are very orderly and fact driven.
You aren’t concerned much with theories or dreams… only what’s true or untrue.You are brilliant and incredibly learned. Anything you know is well researched. 

You like to make lists and sort through things step by step. You aren’t subject to whim or emotions.

Your friends see you as a constant source of knowledge and advice.

(But they are a little sick of you being right all of the time!)

You excel in: Leadership positions

You get along best with: The Semi-Colon

What Punctuation Mark Are You?

The Archbishops on blogging

Maggi Dawn, a college chaplain in Cambridge, recently met the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and had the opportunity to discuss blogging with them. Thanks to Dave Walker at the Church Times blog for the tip, and a great cartoon to go with it. Here is the part about blogging of Maggi’s conversation with Archbishops Rowan Williams and John Sentamu:

I began by asking them how much they knew about the blog-world, and what kind of effect – positive or negative – they thought blogging, facebook and similar media are having on Church life and spiritual concerns.

“They are clearly part of the whole knowledge economy”, said Archbishop Rowan. “They have encouraged people not to take in passively what’s produced – it has opened up a more interactive environment for the sharing of knowledge – a democratisation of knowledge. And clearly that is bound to affect the Church at every level.”

Is the democratisation of knowledge always a good thing, though, I asked him? Does it flatten a desirable level of expertise?

“It can certainly flatten expertise,” he replied. “But perhaps the more worrying issue is that in can in some ways encourage unreflective expression – it’s possible simply to think it, and say it, without any thought. When that happens in personal conversation, there is a humanising effect. But on the screen, it’s less human.”

Then the Archbishop of York chipped in: “On the other hand, people have found real friendships through blogs, who would never have otherwise met each other – it’s a worldwide connection, people really do “meet” you on your blog. When I cut up my collar the response online was enormous – that’s when I realised just how many boundaries can be crossed with blogs.”

He thought for a minute, and then added, “But you know, when people write without thinking, it can get very difficult; it can be offensive and troublesome. The best of what’s there on the blogs is from those who take a little time to reflect before they publish. But there is no choice about whether we engage with this new media. It’s the world we are in – the Church has to engage with it!”

Well, considering how negatively the blog world, including myself, reacted to Archbishop Rowan’s comments about sharia law, I might have expected him to have a less positive attitude. It is good that he welcomes, if with some reservations, the democratisation of knowledge, thereby distancing himself from the intellectual arrogance he has been accused of. But both Archbishops are right that there is a tendency for bloggers, including myself, to write without thinking first.

Yes, indeed the Church of England has to engage with these new media, if it is not to fade away into irrelevance, even more than arguably it already has. But, practically, in what ways will it engage? There are some great Christian initiatives in this area, but they tend to be from individuals or small groups rather than being sponsored by the Church of England in any formal way. In some ways this is the nature of these new media. But the central and diocesan authorities need to engage with them as well. And first they need to understand them, in ways that judging by the sharia law controversy they have failed to understand the more traditional media.

Maggi promises more from her chat with the Archbishops tomorrow. I will be watching out for it – although I may not have time to post more for a few days.

Packer denies the Trinity?

The following passage from J.I. Packer’s 1973 classic Knowing God was quoted by Marilyn in a comment on the Complegalitarian blog, and I have checked and slightly corrected it from my 1975 copy (p.64):

It is the nature of the second person of the Trinity to acknowledge the authority and submit to the good pleasure of the first. That is why He declares Himself to be the Son, and the first person to be His Father. Though co-equal with the Father in eternity, power, and glory, it is natural to Him to play the Son’s part, and find all His joy in doing His Father’s will, just as it is natural to the first person of the Trinity to plan and initiate the works of the Godhead and natural to the third person to proceed from the Father and the Son to do their joint bidding. Thus the obedience of the God-man to the Father while He was on earth was not a new relationship occasioned by the incarnation, but the continuation in time of the eternal relationship between the Son and the Father in heaven. As in heaven, so on earth, the Son was utterly dependent upon the Father’s will.

Thus Packer’s way of teaching the eternal subordination of the Son is to claim that the Son has a “nature” which is different from that of the Father, according to which it is “natural” for him to do one thing and “natural” for the Father to do something else. Note that in the context Packer is clearly referring to the divine nature of the Son, not his incarnate human nature.

Doesn’t that conflict with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, according to which the Father and the Son have the same divine nature (homoousios)? Doesn’t it contradict these extracts from the Athanasian Creed?

we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. … Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, … One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

Doesn’t it go against Philippians 2:6, where we read that Christ Jesus was “in very nature God” (TNIV)? In orthodox Trinitarian thought, the pre-incarnate divine nature of Christ is not some second-class divinity, not a “nature … to acknowledge the authority and submit to the good pleasure of the first [person]”. No, it is the same nature, substance or essence (ousia) as that of the Father.

Perhaps Bishop Ingham is right to accuse Packer that “that he has publicly renounced the doctrine … of the Anglican Church of Canada”, which presumably still requires him to ascribe to the Apostles’, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. In fact, of course, Packer wrote the words in question long before he moved to Canada, so perhaps he should never have been licensed to minister there.

For the orthodox view, I quote the church father Basil as quoted here:

We perceive the operation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one and the same, in no respect showing differences or variation; from this identity of operation we necessarily infer the unity of nature.

Satire: Election in Texas

Elder Eric of Tominthebox News Network posted on Obama Explains Election Process. His satirical post is hilarious but also reveals his Calvinist presuppositions.

Here is my take on the same subject, originally written as a comment on Eric’s post – perhaps the start of a series of satirical posts here:

In this election year Texas voter, and fringe member of an evangelical church, John Doe is puzzled. He sees that he has the opportunity to elect Obama or Clinton, McCain or Huckabee as President. And he sees all the campaign materials from them. But then he hears in church that God may or may not elect him to eternal life. So he has decided to mount his own election campaign. He is having leaflets printed and TV adverts prepared with the message, “O God, vote for Doe!” He is not sure yet of the most effective method of delivering his campaign message. One technique he is trying, suggested by a friend who had read Revelation 8:4, is to burn some of his leaflets along with incense. He plans to broadcast his TV ad upwards into the sky. But he is also targeting his leaflets and TV ad, recorded on DVD, at people he thinks are especially close to God, of whatever religion to hedge his bets, in the hope that they will put in a word for him with the one Voter who counts in his race for eternal life.

Giles and Sunlyk head to head on the Trinity

Already this month Nick Norelli has posted about the Trinity at least a dozen times, mostly in connection with his Trinity Blogging Summit. I have not yet had time to read most of these posts. But I have read one of the first of these dozen posts, Giles’ Reply & Paulson’s Response, which I quote in full here:

Following Matt Paulson’s critique of Kevin Giles’ Trinitarian theology came a reply from Giles and a response from Paulson. I have not yet read either of these but will probably post some thoughts when I have done so.

Now Matt Paulson is apparently the real name of Phantaz Sunlyk, whose discussion of the eternal subordination of the Son I recently critiqued. I did not respond earlier to Nick’s post quoted above as I was waiting for him to read and post his thoughts on the reply and the response. But he has not yet done so, although some of his commenters have, and Nick’s own contribution to the blogging summit is relevant. So now I am myself reading the reply and the response, and the comments, and posting my own thoughts here.

Continue reading