Rowan Williams' Theology
In light of the recent discussions about the head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, it may interest my readers to look at Garry Williams analysis of Rowan Williams theology and his response to Alister McGrath's upbeat assessment of the Archbishop at the Latimer Trust website.
Garry Williams is Undergraduate Course Leader Church History and Doctrine at Oakhill College in London, which is one of the manistays of Evangelical Anglicanism.
Here are some other articles by John Richardson:
1. Theology ‘in the Dark’
2. Theology at the Boundary
3. Open to Question
Nothing new to informed Anglicans, I know, but I thought I'd list them any way.
Garry Williams is Undergraduate Course Leader Church History and Doctrine at Oakhill College in London, which is one of the manistays of Evangelical Anglicanism.
Here are some other articles by John Richardson:
1. Theology ‘in the Dark’
2. Theology at the Boundary
3. Open to Question
Nothing new to informed Anglicans, I know, but I thought I'd list them any way.
posted by Timothy Davis | 12:53 pm
8 Comments:
After reading the quotes from Rowan Williams' writings again, it is clear that he professes his own unbelief, e.g. "[With people like John][w]e aren’t called to believe and endorse all they say, only to ask ourselves what we are taught here about the strangeness and sometimes the terror of the Word of God to fragile minds."
I guess this says what RW would think of me: "The rantings of John the Divine about his theological rivals are part of the by-product of the very vision of the Living One that shows these ravings for what they are, by showing the radical and unconfined purpose of God in Jesus Christ."
Well, that's one way of saying you're a naughty boy if you call soemone a heretic! Guess he doesn't like the way John calls him Balaam!
RW says that the Apostle John was a bit unsettled in his mind. Who is more unsettled in his mind when you read their writings: John or RW?
Isn't it interesting that McGrath's piece on R. Williams has been almost entirely borne out by events?
FWIW, G. Williams didn't seem to have understood where R. Williams was coming from.
Custard, do you know where RW was coming from? Garry Williams quotes again and again from RW. Can't you spot the heresy?
Why don't you point out the heresy, just so we know exactly what we're talking about?
I think RW's main problem is amazing lack of clarity - his points are all very subtle (and for that, and other, reasons I don't think he was a wise choice as ABC). He also goes further down the path of postmodernism than I'm comfortable with, though still holding onto faith in Jesus as he does so.
For example, the section in GW's critique entitled The System-Questioning Silence of God could be well explained if RW was engaging with post-modern rejection of metanarratives which claim power by establishing that God's supreme revelation of himself was not a book - it was the person who is in a real sense the metanarrative.
Custard, I can't reply just now as I'm about to go on holiday. You wll see a post I created a few nights ago, but don't think I'm writing that, but ignoring you. I treat your comments with the utmost respect.
Maybe someone else will point them out to you, but they are so obvious as you should see them, e.g. the inspired and infallible nature of the Scriptures, which is fundamental to the faith.
One of my problem with infallibility is that I've never actually seen it clearly defined in such a way that explains how it applies to Psalm 19 or Bildad's speeches in Job (for example) and still leaves it with any meaning that Williams would disagree with for any other passage.
Have a nice holiday.
Custard, please see Article XIII of the standard statement on Biblical infallibility, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy of 1978. This article could do with some expansion, but it is a succinct statement of what historic Evangelicals believe.
Post a Comment
<< Home