+Cantuar, +York Offer Holiday Banalities

[ OT ] Big time congrats to SF for meeting your pledge goals!  I wish I could have contributed this year.  Seeing you meet your pledge so quickly warms my heart and is a very nice boxing-day gift indeed.

jmc,

A little update on the subscription drive is here.

I couldn’t disagree more.  I thought Rowan Williams’ sermon was superb; (I haven’t read Sentamu’s).

As for a “paean to Gaia,” Pope Benedict and Rowan Williams were quoting John of the Cross, Gregory of Nyssa and Anselm of Canterbury, and echoing numerous Fathers who spoke of the “Book of Nature.”  I am very happy to be in their company and not worried in the least about “Gaia.”

Absolutely agree with #3. +++Rowan’s sermon was beautiful!

Number of times Rowan mentions Earth in his Christmas sermon: 10.
Number of times Rowan mentions Jesus in his Christmas sermon: 2.

Earth 10
Jesus 2

Earth wins.

#5, that’s simply not true. I counted 10 references to Jesus—called the Son, Christ, Jesus, God made human, etc.—in just the first half of it. And, of course, the sermon used imagery from one of THE saints of the Church. Surely the orthodoxy of St. John of the Cross isn’t being questioned?

Yes, there’s valid criticism of +++Rowan’s leadership but applying that lens to everything the man says is extraordinarily unfair.

Greg Griffith,

How about links to the sermons, themselves, rather than (or at least in addtion) to a news article about them?

Thanks,
Martial Artist

Hi teatime.  Rowan’s use of terms such as Son, Christ, God made human, etc., is now understood to fall into the literary category of Legend, based on the hermeneutic that Rowan so helpfully introduced into the conversation last week.  Also, I for one consider Rowan to be an amazingly effective leader.  He has managed to lead over 70 million Anglicans into disintegrating chaos.  That’s a leadership achievement that will be talked about for centuries to come (unless Jesus comes first, with His own lens).

Here is the ABC’s sermon.
Here is +Sentamu.

Jackie,

Thanks,
Martial Artist

I guess environmental “sins” are the latest and perhaps easiest to condemn.  Even the Pope decried “the abuse of energy” in his Christmas homily.  It is of course extremely difficult for an individual to relate to these “sins”.  What do these Christian leaders mean?  Is it a sin to toss a tin can in the trash and not recycle?  Is it an “abuse of energy” to drive an SUV that gets only 15 mpg?  Or are these only collective sins by a nation, i.e., the USA?  They never get specific so I guess we can ignore these laments…

It is hard to take your provocations seriously, Greg G.  (Isn’t the Gaia reference just a tad over the top; ....why, pray tell?)  Unless Christian leaders claim the self and the landscape of the soul for Christ, it is quickly overrun by neo-pagan Gnostics and other quzzlings to the throne which abound in the West.  No need to look to Africa for native animisms and indigenous beliefs; Ancient Greece and our own inventiveness provide us with ample supply of paganisms, both ancient and trendy. 

Why would anyone doubt that the Lord of creation, the maker of all known and unknown, commands and delights in language, whether parabolic speech or epiphanic poetry?  Surely a good orthodox Anglican has read George Herbert; how about, The Dream of the Rood, or poetic translations of Old Testament books?

How are you going to talk about the inner relations of the Trinity and how people are brought into Trinitarian life if you spurn certain kinds of language, including, especially, “...the biblical story of the love affair between God and creation…......When God has become human, then humanity will recognise in his face, in Jesus’ face, its own true nature and destiny.”  Why wouldn’t the “joy of God” issue in divine utterance?  Have inter-nicene wars hardened you to it or clogged your ears? What about all those angelic voices rejoicing at God’s Christ and Mary’s child?  Haven’t we heard a hymn or two about them in the last few days?

Another interesting feature of this homily, is that it seems awfully plain spoken for a mystical subject like St. John of the Cross.  You might say the ABC speaks so plainly here he even sounds American in a trans-Atlantic Christmas present, the analogy for which we need not sully by belaboring.

Merry Christmas to all.

+Rowan’s paean to Gaia? Sorry, I just don’t see it. Some sentimental enviro-speak mush, maybe.

Gregg,

Looks like you over reached on this one.  There are many things to complain about, but these two homilies are strong, unless of course you take a Gnostic approach to a theology of creation and count it as unimportant, or you think there is something wrong with the plight of Palestinians who are truly opressed by Israel’s government.  Let us not forget that there is a small but significant number of our brothers and sisters in Christ among the Palestinians.  I have a friend with whom I work out that fled Palestine because of the persecution.  He is, by the way, a Baptist. 

Must I remind you, Gregg, that greed is one of the seven deadlies… Evnironmental sins [12] are popular to condemn these days, but still sins that need to be condemned.  They are simply a product of greed.  It’s easier to dump mercury in a land fill than to dispose of it properly etc.  Those who waste energy are harming others because they are abusing a finite resource which drives up the price for everyone.  That is part, and only part, of the reason that hard working people have to pay nearly $3.00/gallon for gasoline to get to work.  That doesn’t hurt someone making $100,000/year or more.  It’s awfully hard on someone making $30,000/year or less. 

Let’s all just try not to be quite so reactionary anytime the ABC speaks.

One almost can’t help the comparison with Benedict XVI’s midnight mass Christmas homily:  http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-21388

Chazaq,
+++Rowan did not discount the Nativity or call the narrative a legend. He simply pointed out that the details involving the “wise men” (such as who they were, how many there were, etc.) were more of legend than Biblical proof. There is nothing unorthodox about raising questions concerning the “Hallmark” picture most people have of the events, particularly in the context of the interview from which the “news” story came.

I thought the comments by ++Rowan Williams were appropriate enough, far from being a hymn to Gaia.  It is also true (as teatime says), that the Archbishop did not stray from the Bible in the interview about the Nativity that the press completely misrepresented a few days ago.  At least, we should read what he actually wrote—which was orthodox: he affirmed the Virgin Birth, as he has done over many years and in many venues, including his wholescale opposition to Spong’s heretical “theses”).

Did others also see ++Williams on the television special _IN GOD’S NAME_ that aired Sunday night?  He had a prominent part, along with the following: Pope Benedict XVI; Alexei II, Patriarch of All Russia; Yona Metzger, Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Israel; Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention; Mark Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and president of the Lutheran World Federation; the Dalai Lama; Michihisa Kitashirakawa, jingu daiguji (high priest) of the Shinto Grand Shrine of Ise; Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a prominent Shiite Muslim leader; Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, sheikh of Al-Azhar and a prominent Sunni Muslim leader; Joginder Singh Vedanti, jathedar of the Akal Takht, the Sikhs; and Amma (Mata Amritanandamayi), a Hindu spiritual leader.  Here’s one news story on the program (Denver Post), and I hope we may post something more about it.

http://www.denverpost.com/ostrow/ci_7772826

Quite a tour de force and some very
interesting personal profiles of all these people!  I thought the Archbishop made a very good showing, revealing sincerity and devotion to Christ, even to a very broad, general, and partly skeptical audience.