Advanced search Click here for the website of the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby

This is an archived website containing material relating to Dr Rowan Williams’ time as Archbishop of Canterbury, which ended on 31st December 2012

Skip Content
 

'Risen Today': The Resurrection as Good News Now

Thursday 28th February 2008

Part two of 'Bishop of Winchester's Lent Lectures' given by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the bishops, clergy and laity of the Diocese of Winchester during a Pastoral Visit to the Diocese.

The lectures were held in The Guildhall, Winchester

Read the transcript of the lecture below, followed by the questions & answers - or click here to go directly to the Q & A transcript.


Transcript of the lecture:

'Risen Today': The Resurrection as Good News Now

The subject for this afternoon is 'Risen Today' and what I want to do is spell out a bit further, in five broad areas, where I think the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus Christ today impacts directly on our lives, on what we want to communicate to people around us, and to the world in general: five dimensions of the Good News that are rooted in the resurrection.

First: to believe that Jesus is risen is to believe that when you've worked it all out, Jesus is the point where human histories converge. But that implies of course that there is such a thing as a human being. To say humanity exists, that there is such a thing as a human being, is to say there is something about being human that is non-negotiable: we are human because God has created us like this and we are human because God has destined us for communion with him through Jesus Christ and whatever human being you meet in any situation whatsoever, there is something absolutely central, non-negotiable about that. There is such a thing as humanity. Because Jesus is Lord, and if all human stories converge on him—if he is, as Browning said in his wonderful poem on the Fourth Gospel, 'the groom to every bride', the one who completes every human life—then there is such a thing as humanity. And that means we have grounds for resisting all those things that get in the way of humanity: all those ways, subtle and unsubtle, that human beings have invented to stop themselves and other people being human beings.

So we begin with that firm pronouncement, that if Jesus is risen, there is a human destiny. Every human life has something about it, distinctive, immoveable, given by God, given in the hope of Christ. And I've always been very taken by those theologians, especially in the Eastern Christian world, who've emphasized that human beings were made with dignity and liberty and glory so that, one day, they would be proper companions for Jesus Christ. Human nature was endowed with all its gifts so that it would one day be a proper vehicle for the transforming work of God the Father. So without underrating the capacity of human beings for destructiveness and for getting their world in a mess, the resurrection imposes on us a very high doctrine of humanity. It tells us not only that God exists, but that we do, and that we have a purpose and a destiny. And if it's true that the resurrection tells us there's never going to be any change in the frame of reference in which God relates to us, that's the kind of conviction that leads people to resist so bravely when they're up against de humanizing or inhuman systems. The people who resist de humanizing tyrannies in our age or in any age, are on the whole people who believe not only in God but in humanity. Not in humanity in a sort of humanistic and optimistic sense but believe that humanity has its dignity and its glory because it's called to communion with God in Jesus Christ.

So there's a first dimension of Good News: if Jesus is risen, human beings really exist, and they exist for a purpose. And there's something about them that can't be taken away by tyranny or convenience, by functionalism or totalitarianism, by the hard totalitarianisms that we've seen so much of in the twentieth century, or by the soft totalitarianism that erodes our sense of what's humanly distinctive in a more comfortable culture. And that also says something about how we approach the Bible. It may sound a slightly odd connection to make: but bear with me for a moment. If this is true, if human beings really exist and they find their destiny and their hope in relation to Jesus, then there is something about that book which conveys to us the reality of Jesus that remains resonant and real for any and all kinds of human being. There's something about this book that is fundamentally human as well as divine. And human beings as they read it may expect to find themselves addressed in the depth of their humanity, challenged and enriched. That's a sort of footnote to what I've been saying about human nature at large. It means that wherever we go, with the biblical story in our hands with the vision of Jesus in our eyes, there is a perfectly proper expectation that human beings will resonate with what's being spoken of. They may not quite know how they do it or why, and they may not do it in the ways or at the times or in the contexts where we'd like them to. But we go on in mission, because of that conviction that there is such a thing as the human heart and human destiny. And that these words will find an echo in some way.

I find that quite exciting because there are all sorts of ways of reading the Bible, as you well know, but Christians read the Bible not as a document from history, but as a world into which they enter so that God may meet them. That's what the Bible's there for, and that only makes sense in the light of a resurrection belief. I've argued once or twice in the past that the whole doctrine of Christ's Lordship develops and fleshes itself out in the early Church in the very process of mission. You understand more fully who Jesus is, the more people you try and share him with. Because people recognize him, though they come from wildly diverse backgrounds, they recognize him though their humanity is very diverse, they recognize the humanity they share with him and so open up their own humanity to God. Something similar may apply to how we use the Bible. It does still amaze me (and I speak as no fundamentalist) that the Bible continues to be a book that decisively, critically illuminates the humanity of people from such wildly diverse cultural backgrounds. And whatever the challenges there are about interpreting it in those various backgrounds, it's still that story, those words, which have that effect. I think that's all to do, somehow with the resurrection.

So moving on to the second dimension of Good News: the world really can change. If the resurrection is about that all-important, decisive, central moment around which the whole history of the world pivoted, turned into a new direction; something has happened within history that has altered what is possible. Someone has made an irreversible breakthrough in the definition of humanity, which can never be undone. To believe that the world can change, that God can turn history on its pivot, is to believe in all sorts of human situations that it is possible for things to be different. And I think that's the basis of all the ways in which Christians are regularly and systematically a nuisance to people who want a tidy world. The Roman Empire was, in many ways a very efficient and comprehensive and well-run organization. Unfortunately, it didn't have room for the vision of humanity that the Gospel introduced. And thus Christianity was a major nuisance to the Roman Empire. It was a major nuisance to the Third Reich and a major nuisance to the Soviet Union. It's quite a problem in China, and it's got its moments in the UK too! And it's because of that sense of 'the way things happen to be is not the way they have to be' that Christians go on being tiresome in society, to say 'well, actually it could be that human beings could live into a bigger space, a higher vocation, a greater glory'. One of the wonderful things that Christianity always says to human beings in absolutely any situation is 'there's more to you than you think'. That's not to buy into the awful, sentimental, modern nonsense about 'you can be anything you want to be' (actually, you can't). It does say 'the way things are is not the way things are destined to be. Under God, with wisdom, discernment and courage, you can find out what changes are possible, because the world can change'. God can be known and served: human beings can live differently: the body of Christ shows us there are ways of living together as human beings that are not tribal, violent, exclusive and anxious. That's quite a bit of Good News to be going on with. It's what St Paul talks about when he writes in Galatians 6 about life in the Spirit. It's about that counter-cultural reality which says to the world around 'it doesn't have to be like this, there's more to it than that.' It's living at odds with the world's systems of rivalries, the world's systems of mutual exclusion and fear. And all of that is about living really, truly and fully in God's future, beginning now. God can rule now, already, the Kingdom has drawn near, is at hand, round the corner, on the doorstep.

St Augustine, when he wrote his great treatise on the City of God, said that the Kingdom of God was the lives of the Saints. Holy people show what it's like for God to rule. And I find that a very illuminating way of thinking about the Saints, that they're where the Kingdom of God is and you can name your own saints, not just the ones in the windows or the calendar, but the people you know, who have shown the Kingdom, the possibility of things being different. There is such a thing as humanity. Human history can change. God can rule here and now.

But it's not just about here and now, and here's the third dimension of Good News. In the sort of perspective we've been outlining, death is real and yet conquerable. You don't have to deny the reality of death, in fact there couldn't be anything worse than denying the reality of death, because that is encouraging people to live out a lie. What you can say is that God is never at the end of his resources when we are at the end of ours. When we face death, God says 'I'm on the far side of it', and a relationship with God is therefore not exhausted by the set of horizons we're use to here and now. Eternal life, not just life after death and not just some sort of survival of death. (Christians really ought to be much more unpleasantly critical than they often are of the idea that we survive death. We don't.) We die, and God brings us to life. That, I believe, is the biblical proclamation; it's not that some little bit of it somehow hangs on rather half-heartedly for some indefinite period, but that God re-makes us. And that of course, is ones of the things that enables us to face, honestly, our fear of death and annihilation. I've sometimes said our belief in eternal life and resurrection life with God in heaven doesn't depend so much on what we believe about our humanity, as if there were a little immortal bit of it that hung on, it depends on what we believe about God: that God is the God who raised Jesus from the dead, the God who raises the dead, the God who brings what is from what is not, who brings life out of death. So, that's the third aspect: not a bland proclamation that we can hope for immortality in the general sense of surviving things, but the ability to confront death and the utter reality of the loss and the tragedy involved, knowing that God is greater, and that our horizons, bounded by death, are not God's horizons. And when we've learned to look death in the face, then all kind of other fears and anxieties perhaps fall into perspective. I think that's quite an important aspect of preaching the resurrection.

In addressing our fear of death, it addresses so many others fears as well, because so many of our fears are actually the fear of death, defeat, annihilation, powerlessness, the fear of not being there, not being able to make our presence felt or make our will real. And God through the preaching of the resurrection says to each one of us – as of course Jesus says so often, so firmly in the Gospels – do not be afraid. It is so telling that the words of Jesus after the resurrection to his disciples are, again and again, 'Don't be afraid!' Or elsewhere, 'I have overcome the world', or 'It is I.' And when the very roots of our anxiety and fear are challenged in that way, I think it's part of the process by which we come to be less afraid of one another, of what's different or uncomfortable. When we face what's really other – the person, or situation, culture, philosophy, religion – quite often the anxiety with which we approach it, is an anxiety that perhaps we won't survive the encounter. But, if God has said to us 'don't be afraid, I've overcome the world', well, what is there to be afraid of? It's a big thing to take on board, but I think that fundamental fearlessness that ought to come if we really heard the Gospel of the resurrection begins to affect and dissolve so many other of our fears. It's this absolute sense of rootedness in what God has done that pervades the letters of Paul. It's to do with the confidence that we have that a place has been cleared for us, a place to stand, a place where we belong with Jesus in the presence of God the Father.

The fourth dimension of Good News the resurrection has to say to us is quite a practical one – about our prayer. I think all I've said so far really obliges us to think quite hard and quite freshly about prayer. It's far too easy to fall into the way of thinking of prayer as a sort of 'storming' of heaven, a campaign: somehow we've got to get enough petitions together to make God change his mind; or we've really got to exert a bit of pressure on God to make him do what we want; or even God's a very long way off and we've got to make a lot of noise to attract his attention; and all the various distortions of prayer that are around. (They're nearly all, incidentally, contained in Elijah's rude remarks about the priests of Baal – but that's another story!) If all this is right, if we are being introduced into a new world, the place where Jesus is, then prayer is most deeply 'allowing God to happen in us,' the Spirit bringing Christ alive in us, being in the place where Christ is real, with the Spirit coming into us to bring Christ alive in our own hearts. This is very much what St Paul writes on virtually every page, especially of the Corinthian letters. We enter in the Spirit, into the place of the risen Christ, saying 'Abba, Father'. We let Christ literally 'take place' in us, happen, live in us. And that is one of the roots of silent and contemplative prayer, where in suspending our own concerns, words and fussiness, we let God be in us. We breathe in, deeply, taking the Holy Spirit into body, mind and soul, so that Christ may breathe out. Breathe out and the words 'Abba, Father' say what he has to say, eternally, to God the Father. The practice of silent prayer, with that in mind, I think, rests on the resurrection mystery, that Christ has made a place for us. And I don't think we could make very much sense of the distinctively Christian understanding of contemplation, without that resurrection dimension. There are, of course, plenty of techniques and traditions in the religions of the world that value contemplation or meditation in silence. And from many of them we can learn, and I have learned a huge amount. But for us to make something like Christian sense of it all, I think we need that Trinitarian perspective, grounded in the resurrection. When I come before God in silence, I come before God allowing the Holy Spirit to put Christ's words into my mouth, to let my breath breathed anew by the Spirit, carry the words of Christ, and just let the Trinity be where I am when I pray.

I don't think we could make any sense of the practice, without belief in the resurrection, without the belief that Christ, having passed from death to life, belongs now in God's eternity. As one French theologian put it 'Jesus is tipped over into the eternal life of God'. Standing eternally before God: holding our place there before God, so that where he is there we may be also (John 12).

Prayer does not have to be an attempt to get God's attention, not an action we perform on God all the time, but the action God desires to perform in us to bring us to life. And when people are faced with deep anxieties about their prayer life, it can at times be of the greatest importance to say to them 'prayer is also letting God be God'. And if you're feeling that you're exhausting yourself with the endless effort to concentrate properly, to get from here to there (wherever there is) you may very well need to hear the good news that prayer is also God being God in you, if you let him. It's not simple, or without hard work because letting God be God in you requires you to do a fair amount of spring-cleaning en route. But that's perhaps for another day. The Good News is that prayer is given to us as well as achieved, that prayer is not something we squeeze out with effort, but something that happens when we let God be God. A fine phrase of one Roman Catholic writer is: 'prayer is the mist that God sucks out of our marsh'. But that's perhaps a little negative: I prefer to think of the breathing in and breathing out of the body in prayer as the visible, sacramental image of the Holy Spirit speaking in Christ to the Father – in us.

And then, fifth, our worship too is about God coming to be in our midst, but God also coming to deal with the wholeness of who we are. I spoke of the resurrection of the body and its meaning being at least in part, that all that we are is of interest to God. And so to proclaim the resurrection is to say 'God's purpose is the transfiguration, not the cancellation of history in the material world'. God does not want to rub out what's there so that he can do something better, God is interested in all that we have become as historical and material beings, and that's what he will raise up. Which of course, gives a very serious and very profound theological valuation not just to our bodily and material selves, but to the material world in which we live. Belief in the resurrection has something very significantly to do with how we look at our environment. And I would say with great seriousness that part of the Good News that Christians have to utter and express in a world very anxious about that material environment, is that the matter of this world is God's before it is ours: that it requires our respect because God sees it and thinks it good. And that the affirmation of Jesus' resurrection, the great decisive change in the middle of material history, bears on how we see the material world as a whole. It touches our thoughts about the environment: it bears on climate change and energy usage and carbon footprints and all the rest, which may seem a very long way from Acts 2, and yet is not so far when you think it through. It grounds also the understanding of the Church's worship as sacramental, sacramental life which is not just a sort of magical attitude to things, but the belief that the material things of this world—water and bread and wine—can become precious carriers of the purpose and work of God, when they're brought into relation with the risen Jesus.

The importance, in our Eucharistic liturgy, of calling the Holy Spirit down upon ourselves and upon these material things is that we are actually asking in our eucharistic prayer for God to do some thing resurrection-shaped in the middle of our worship, for him to bring himself to life, as the bread is broken and the wine is shared and as we stretch out our hands and open our mouths. Without going into the immensely complicated details of the history of controversies over the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I would want to say there are two absolutely basic things about Christ's presence in Holy Communion that we need to hold fast to. One is that it is the action of God; the second is that God shows what he means in the things of this world. And in all that there is a resurrection-shaped event going on in Holy Communion. So the resurrection tells us something about how God sees history and matter, the stuff of our ordinary experience; how God is free to transfigure it in relation to Jesus; and how that transfigures our own understanding of our bodies and the environment in which we live, giving us very good reasons for being very suspicious of any Christianity that ignores the value of the body and that ignores the value of the environment – and yet looking not just for affirmation but also for transformation.

And all of this reminds us that the purposes and meanings of God are not just about what goes on in our heads, but about what we do with our bodies. The ethics of both sex and economics are grounded here. What we do with our bodies matters, speaks, communicates. What we do with our possessions matters, speaks, communicates. And that's why the resurrection has a decisive impact on how we think through moral questions. Christian morality is never just 'rule-keeping', it's always about how ourselves, our souls and bodies become signs of who and what God is: signs of faithfulness, generosity, grace and mercy. When my beloved and respected former colleague Oliver O'Donovan wrote his first really major book many years ago, he entitled it Resurrection and Moral Order: and there's a long, very sophisticated argument to say that belief in the resurrection is the foundation of all ethics. I think the Paul of I Corinthians would have understood that very well.

So, in all of that the resurrection appears to us as we preach it today, not simply as an isolated miracle of the past that confirms Jesus' authority – that may be part of it: but the resurrection is that present reality, that climate of belief and experience which orders and organizes the reality of the Church and the contours of our life together, life in the Body of Christ and life in the Spirit of Christ, which are so very much the same thing as St Paul sees it. The resurrection is what prompts into existence that new language that Christians speak, in their words and in their actions. The resurrection is the ground of how we make sense in what we do as much as in what we say.

When we preach the resurrection today, are these the things we preach? We can rightly, I think, preach that Jesus was raised from the dead by God the Father in the power of the Spirit, as the Scriptures say. We can rightly preach that this event truly happened and made a difference. But I think we do need to spell out that difference as fully and as freely as we can, to spell it out in terms to address a culture in which, over the last century, various kinds of totalitarianism have pretended humanity is negotiable. The Gospel of the resurrection preaches into that and against that. Humanity is not negotiable. We preach into those places and environments of despair, where people don't believe that change is possible and don't believe that God's rule can already be real in the hearts and the lives of human beings. We preach into an environment where people assume we're moving towards a death that is simply the end of any story, and our relation with God – if we have one – is just in this life. We preach into and we preach against a view of prayer that is anxious, fearful, and takes for granted God is a long way off. We preach into and against an environment in which the body, the material world is underrated and abused. Is that what our sermons are going to be about, this Easter Sunday? Well I rather hope that some of that might creep in somewhere, because I think our world, for all those reasons, desperately needs the Good News of the resurrection, needs to hear the liberating further dimension that the Gospel establishes for us.

But if we stop preaching that, and if we stop talking about the resurrection, I think that (as I suggested earlier) the long term result is not just that we have tactfully removed a rather awkward bit of Christian belief. You remember (those of you who like me love Fawlty Towers) the moment where Mr Stubbs comes in to see the work that Mr O'Reilly has done on the fabric of the hotel building, and looks up to discover that Mr O'Reilly has put in a little wooden partition in one place and says 'My God, that's a supporting wall!' Well I feel like that about the resurrection really – removing the resurrection is an O'Reilly-type job in Christian theology: 'That's a supporting wall!' I want to say, and all sorts of things start falling off if it's not there. It leaves us with no real Christology; leaves us with not a great deal of mission impulse and mission confidence that what we're actually talking about is something capable of transforming any human situation; leaves us with a very thin and diminished version of what the Church really is turning it all too readily into a human association of people who happen to like each other or agree with each other – which as we know is not what the Church is really like! It leaves us very little in ethics except a set of rules. It doesn't have that sense that our mortal selves need to become radiant and potent with the sense of conveying God's meanings – that's what ethics is about. And sadly there are a few signs in our day that the Church has come quite close to forgetting what the resurrection truly is, and how radical the proclamation can be.

But rather than fight all the various tendencies piecemeal in the Church that might lead us to think this, rather than just fighting the thinning out of ethics, the misunderstandings of the nature of the Church, and the drying up of the mission impulse, let's once in a while get right back to the centre of it and restore something of what the initial burst, explosion, of resurrection faith is all about. Let's try to be once again this Easter—and please God every Easter, not to say every Sunday or every day—amazed and even, like the women at the tomb, frightened by the scope of the proclamation put before us – the proclamation that Christ is risen indeed, and risen today.

© Rowan Williams 2008


Questions and Answers:

Question:

'Where was the risen Christ when children were being abused in Jersey?'

Archbishop:

Somebody said to me that there's always the risk of underrating evil. The short answer to the question has to be that the risen Christ was, as he always is, in the people he has called to him who are called to make such abuse impossible: who are called to resist all those things which lead people into horrendous and cruel and inhuman actions. Then many Christians would say, as I would want to say myself, in some sense the risen Christ is in those victims, his wounds re-opened in them. Always risen, and yet never without the wounds. Pascal in the seventeenth century said 'Jesus will be in agony till the end of the world, and we must not sleep during that time'. That's a phrase that holds both those things together – our calling, that we have to keep awake, and the agony of Jesus in the vulnerable, in some way persists through that time, holding that together with belief in the Resurrection. It's part of this 'living in the overlap' in the most difficult way possible and nothing said about that ought to make it comfortable. The Resurrection is not a comfortable doctrine, actually. It's an exhilarating, life-changing belief, but it's not there to make us feel better. And from time to time it's very important that we allow our 'feeling better' to be punctuated by the reality of that continuing agony, and therefore our continuing call.

Question:

'What actually is the concrete difference that the Resurrection makes? What's practically available to us, post-Resurrection, that wasn't, pre-Resurrection?'

'What is available to us that wasn't available to Moses or Isaiah?'

Archbishop:

What's practically available to us post-Resurrection is the freedom to know God as Father. It's there as a metaphor, patchily, occasionally in the Old Testament. It's there as something utterly foundational and comprehensive in the New Testament. I think that's the difference: because of the Resurrection, we know God in a fuller, and therefore a radically different way, and we receive the Spirit in a different way, bringing this particular form of life to being in us, which is Christ-shaped. And what God made known to Moses or Isaiah is real, true and transforming,but itself looking forward all the time, to something deeper and greater, which is what the Resurrection is about.

Question:

'How do you balance silence in prayer with the role of intercession?'

'How do you tell the difference between the voice of God and sanctified common sense?'

Archbishop:

I've yet to hear any absolutely infallible and credible recipes for recognizing the voice of God straight away. If I ever get the chance to talk to the prophet Samuel about it, I may well ask him! I think the voice of God is much more like the gradually flowering discernment with the help of other Christians and with the help of your own common sense, thinking 'that seems to me to be the course of action; that chimes/resonates with the sort of God I'm praying to'. And it doesn't very often happen rapidly. It may be for some people who are deeply steeped in prayer and mature in holiness and whose minds are so habitually aligned to God, that that discernment process is a bit shorter. But for most of us, I think, there is quite a bit of that checking it out and turning it over, matching it up with how God works in your own life and in other people's lives.

Question:

'A question about Eucharistic liturgy and 'de-cluttering'.'

Archbishop:

I think nearly all liturgy needs a bit of de-cluttering and it's not so much a matter of having fewer words as having a bit more space between them. It's about the style in which we do our worship. I've been in highly elaborate (some would say fussy) services where there's still been a degree of spaciousness because people are taking their time and not looking anxious and tense about what they're doing. Orthodox liturgies are often like that. I've been in circumstances which I find more where I settle in, where not very much is said or done and the pace is slow and the spaces are obvious and the words are few. There are many ways of it going right and many ways of it going wrong as well, and the going wrong is always when you're trying to fill the space, you're trying to keep talking, to look or sound good: and when the atmosphere of worship conveys anxiety, mental and spiritual clutter, then something's wrong. So, I think I would just come back to that fundamental question about anxiety and the messages we give off as we conduct worship. We need to keep examining ourselves about it.

Question:

'Should we expect things to get better because of the Resurrection, or just to get worse and worse, as Jesus said in Matthew 24?'

Archbishop:

How do you preach that!? In a way it's where I started with the question about Jersey. A lot of me wants to say that I don't expect things to get better or worse. I know with all my believing heart that God is victorious in Jesus Christ and that nothing in heaven or earth in this life or the life to come can separate us from the love of God in Jesus Christ. Now, that doesn't tell me whether tomorrow is going to be better or worse than today, it doesn't necessarily give me a confident programme of social reform that I can carry through on the grounds that I believe this is how the kingdom of God comes in. Nor does it lead me to think that it's all necessarily going to get worse and that the appropriate response to our present social situation or whatever is in the literal sense, apocalyptic. Jesus asks, 'when the son of man comes, will he find faith one earth?' As if Jesus is saying to us 'nobody's going to know exactly what it is that's there at the point when it's all wrapped up and he's revealed in glory'. There is no fixed programme for the future because there is always freedom. But the very fact of that freedom is established more deeply, more lastingly by the Resurrection victory. So I think we need to preach what so many of the spiritual masters have recommended: and that is detachment, not in the sense of chilly detachment, but in the sense of being able to look with equanimity at a difficult future and at a promising future and, as St Paul says (II Cor 8.2, 9), to know how to abound and how to endure poverty. The reality of God and the trustworthiness of God and the finality of God's victory in Christ don't depend on things just getting better: which is consoling really, given that we're at present in a very uncertain period in the history of our country and our continent and indeed our civilization, and a very challenging and uncertain point in the history of our Church.

Question:

'If change is possible, what sort of changes need to happen within the Anglican Communion for the Lambeth Conference to happen with integrity?'

Archbishop:

I'll answer that at the level at which it matters to have it answered, and that is: the Lambeth Conference will take place with integrity when people come to it prepared to give thanks for each other as fellow Christians; prepared to be honest with each other; and prepared to let go of certain things for the sake of the integrity of the Body of Christ. That's the challenge to everybody coming to the Lambeth Conference, myself included, and it doesn't make for an easy meeting or an easy prospect: but it's what we have to pray for.

Question:

'Do we struggle for justice etc with the expectation of change in the world? Or do we do these things as obedient citizens of the world to come?'

Archbishop:

I think you may see that part of the answer to that has already been suggested. We do things for justice and so forth because they're right. We do things because they reflect the glory and the justice of God. That's why we do any righteous action: we do it so that God's gift in us may bear fruit. And if that changes things substantially in the world, well hooray! If it doesn't, God is being honoured. But what Christians do know is that even small things in the economy of God can make a bigger difference than you could ever imagine, and that's one reason why it's worth doing things because they're right. You never know what seeds a righteous action might sow. I am reminded of the wonderful story of Desmond Tutu's account of his first meeting with Trevor Huddleston, when Desmond was a little boy in Soweto, and how he'd seen Trevor raising his hat to Mrs Tutu. This was the first time Desmond had seen a gesture of affectionate respect towards a black person from a white person, and that was part of the beginning of his journey. I think one can reasonably say that he made a fair bit of difference in this day and age! And I don't imagine that when Trevor raised his hat to one of the local ladies in the Soweto parish, he thought he was starting the train of events that would finally explode in the Desmond Tutu we know and love: he did it because it was the right thing to do; honouring God and God's people. So, never mind the scale; do it.

Question:

'In what ways would you challenge the underlying worldview of atheistic scientists like Richard Dawkins?'

Archbishop:

I think I'd probably tell him he's wrong!

It's actually been quite interesting in the last year or two, getting to know Richard Dawkins a little. In his own sphere he can write the most wonderful things about the mysteries of God's world – it's exhilarating. Where I would challenge him would be to ask if there is any way of understanding that the exhilaration in the richness of reality which is the mainspring of his scientific research, could be connected with the act of faith? Because to go into scientific research is in itself an act of faith, you believe that it's going to make sense. Here's a problem you don't see the way out of: well let's start on a hugely complicated, risky, expensive process of research, on the off-chance that it may finally come together. I think that's a bit like the act of faith, a trust that the world is trustworthy.

Richard and I have had a couple of conversations on this, and quite recently we were recording together something to celebrate centenary of Darwin. And interestingly, he does understand the sense of awe and excitement in the scientist's relationship with the world: and yet I think he feels that the way we believers talk is so irrational, sentimental and empty that he just cannot see any connection. So there's the challenge, and those are the grounds on which I'd want to try and meet him and engage. 'Do you see that there is an element of stepping outin faith, you're not always acting on evidence, you're projecting what the world just might be like?' There's something in common with faith. 'Do you see also that the overflowing exuberance of scientific research itself has an element in it of love and gratitude, and that maybe the natural thing to do with love and gratitude is to direct them towards their proper source?'

I think we can have rather better conversations at that level, rather than just going round and round (as we sometimes do) with arguments about the nature of creation, what Christian theology does and doesn't claim about it, and so on. Scientists are very interesting to talk to, and so many of them – while they don't like being thought to be conventional Christians – do have a religious dimension in their approach to their work, and I would underrate the importance of that in our culture. The trouble is – and Dawkins bears some responsibility for this – that we have a climate in which it's taken for granted that science is about hard stuff and religion is soft, and flabby and soppy: that science asks the hard questions and religion gives easy answers to hard questions; that science is precise and religion is woolly, and so on. Those are the things we need to challenge in our culture as a whole. Because so many people have bought into what is actually a thoroughly mythological and sentimental view of science, as the way in which we control the world. And the work of John Gray – a philosopher from the London School of Economics – is very interesting on this, because he is a non-believer and is very, very critical of this rather false, exaggerated view of what science can deliver.

Question:

'Can the Church of England carry on as the established Church, when the future king wants to be known as 'defender of faiths'?'

Archbishop:

I think so, because whatever he wants to be known as, he will be known as Defender of the Faith – it's on the pound coins! Or to be a little more precise: the monarch of this country is at the moment not simply instituted by some constitutional process, but anointed in the context of a service of Holy Communion. That's what the monarchy of this country still is, and as long as that's the case, something is still there. Whatever the individual views of the monarch - and I guess many monarchs over the last few hundred years have had some quite strange individual views about religion – that is how our polity, our state system overall, recognizes where its centre is. I find myself very much in two minds or more about the desirability of establishment in principle, having been for a long time very happily, a bishop in a disestablished Church, where day to day I didn't notice very much difference! What I'm a little apprehensive about is if you have a push for disestablishment coming from the sort of people who just want to see religion marginalized in public debate and discussion: that would be bad news for both Church and State. Can we cope as a Church without the State link? Of course we can – this is the Church of God! But at the moment I don't feel I want to join any kind of Gadarene rush towards disestablishment, precisely because we are at a rather delicate time in our understanding of the place of religion in public in this country. I wouldn't particularly want to collude with those bits of our culture that want to push us to the edge and say that the natural way of being a citizen in this country is to be secular: it's just not true. So, I have mixed feelings, but I don't worry too much about what Prince Charles may have said.

Question:

'Given that that the Gospel began in the Greek culture, how much do we have to adapt to make sense of the Gospel to people today?'

Archbishop:

I think that what happens at every point as the Gospel moves out and around in the world, is that it takes hold of different cultures and it changes them. The Gospel began in a Greek culture and it began - as Acts 17 reminds us – with an extremely un-Greek emphasis on the resurrection of the body: which is why the Athenians got so panicky when Paul started talking about resurrection instead of all these nice general philosophical ideas. So the Gospel made a difference in Greek culture. Some people have rather superficially said that the Creed represents the triumph of Greek philosophy in the Church: no, it doesn't, it represents what the Church did to Greek philosophy. The Creed represents the battered and bruised remnants of Greek philosophy when the Gospel of the Resurrection had been let loose on it for a couple of centuries, making its own new language and categories. We may think these are Greek, alien, remote ideas, but they were ideas forged as the Church grappled with the intellectual world of its time and brought out new things. I think that's always the pattern. It will be very interesting to see what kind of theology comes out of China in the next century, where the Church is growing at the most phenomenal rate - the conservative estimate is fifty million protestant Christians already, and that's probably too conservative, the figure is nearer ninety million – and Christians that I've met in China are seeking to find ways of being authentically Chinese and orthodox-ly Christian. It's no easy task, but it's a rather exciting prospect and it means we can never just say it's a matter of being faithful to the Gospel and ignore the culture, but waiting to see what difference the Gospel makes as it engages. What doesn't change about the Gospel is the sense of knowing who the God is that we worship; the God who raised Jesus from the dead, the God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the God who continues to speak in Scripture, to act in the Sacraments, to live in the Body of Christ. That doesn't change, because everything flows out from that, all the cultural engagement flows from that newness, the real good news, and all these things are fresh in the light of the Resurrection. So I don't think we can predict in general terms what differences will be made, but yes we engage with our culture we try to make the most of it, we try to make it serve a proclamation of these things and from time to time we need to be shaken up a bit by being reminded that some of what we thought was intrinsic to our way of talking about God, is actually cultural. There are plenty of instances of that in the history of the Church. So, no generalities, but I think we need a clear sense of where the fundamentals are, and then be prepared for some adventures.

Question:

'Does facing the fear of death really banish all other fears: of failure; of loneliness?'

Archbishop:

I wouldn't like, again, to generalize about people's experience but what I was suggesting was that behind the fear of failure and loneliness is often just the fear of being out of control: and death is perhaps the ultimate form of being out of control; the ultimate passivity and helplessness. And maybe if that fear of passivity and helplessness can be addressed by the good news: that communicates itself to, and makes a difference to, all the other fears from which we suffer.

Question:

'How do you communicate the story of Good Friday and Easter when it's 'not even on the agenda of our post-Christian society?'

Archbishop:

One of the ironical advantages of being a post-Christian society is that stories we find familiar and perhaps even over-familiar can become very fresh and very converting for people who are hearing them for the first time. And I would say this is opportunity, not just crisis. When on occasion I've been doing school assemblies in non-Christian schools, I've sometimes asked if anyone knows the story of the Good Samaritan, or whatever, and the general answer is 'no', and then you have the chance to tell them the story for the first time. And what strikes me again and again is how amazingly gripped they are by these stories when they hear them for the first time: that's an opportunity. But I think we need a strategy (and some people have got one) of using all the literary and imaginative and artistic resources of our day, to convey the Christian message. The Bible Society has done some brilliant little dramas, some of which were on television a couple of years ago, with Gospel content but with very little overt or familiar religious language. And there's a great deal can be done in that way: I think we need very, very sophisticated apologetic strategies to get such narratives across, and I think it can be done.

Question:

'How will my father, who died when I was young, recognize me in heaven?' (Question from a ninety-nine-year-old woman)

Archbishop:

I can't give you, obviously, a clear answer about that, because I'm not in heaven. And yet, it seems to me that what we're promised is not simply the slightly fairy-tale picture of people, as it were, recognizing each other across a crowded room in heaven: what we're promised is that we are taken into God's nearer presence together and that all the relationships that have been part of us and our reality on earth, are part of the Resurrection reality. And whatever in that is represented by 'my father recognizing me' is there: how, I don't know. But that's the trust; that we are there together; all those formative relationships are there.

Question:

'People have used religion to inoculate themselves against the Good News?'

Archbishop:

Getting out from under religion is one of the things that is very very challenging for Christians and others, and the difference between religion in this rather negative sense and belief in the Gospel, is that religion is so often about what I do and the Gospel is about what God does. That's the bottom line. When people are most anxious and most pre-occupied about 'what should they do?' should do, can do, have done, might do: they do need to be reminded that God does. God acts, and has acted in Christ, and is acting now. That's why good worship moves us away from pre-occupation with what we can do, or should do etc to a focus on what God is doing, will do, in the light of what God has done.

Question:

'Should the Church year begin with Easter rather than Advent?'

Archbishop:

No. I think Easter has to come as the climax of the story and I value the Church year beginning with Advent for the very simple reason that I think we all need annually to be brought back to the point where we haven't yet seen it; to be reminded that there's so much we haven't yet grasped. And for four weeks to behave as if we've never heard the Christmas story, to behave as is we were Moses and Isaiah, is very good for us because all being well, when the moment comes, we might just think 'my goodness, I never noticed that'. And I think, for a lot of us there's something about Christmas which does have that element in it, just a moment when a line in a carol strikes us, even when we've sung it three thousand times, and we think 'gosh, that's true isn't it?' and something comes together. The process of livingthrough from Advent to Easter: walking through the process matters just as doing Holy Week properly, matters, starting with Palm Sunday and working right through to Easter Day. During that Holy Week we have to be the crowds welcoming Jesus; the disciples running away; the crowd shouting for Jesus' blood. We have to be there in the middle of it, and only then, with all the guilt and the muddle and the misery that implies, do the alleluias of Easter morning really mean what they should mean. So, no short cuts there: we start with Advent.

Question:

'How can we make our voices heard through the fear being stirred in part by the media in our own situation?'

Archbishop:

I think you go on telling the good, ordinary stories. When there are scares about Muslims, or young people or whatever in the media, it's very important for all of us to be ready and willing to say 'but these are our neighbours and I can tell you why I think they're our neighbours, I'll tell you this story and this story about it. Often the local media will be friendly and helpful and supportive about good stories. The national media is allergic to good stories. I see no quick way round that, but it is important to go on being ready to say 'who are our neighbours?' and if that rings any scriptural bells for you, well and good.

Question:

'From all that you've shared, what one point would you choose for a primary school assembly this Easter?'

Archbishop:

Well, as somebody who really loves doing primary school assemblies, I find that rather a welcome question. I think it might be this: the disciples ran away from Jesus, and lots of other people hated Jesus and hurt him; and neither the disciples running away nor the hate and the hurt made a difference to what Jesus wanted and what Jesus did. And when we run away and when we hate and hurt, God doesn't run away. God didn't run away from Jesus, he brought him back from the dead. So, when you're frightened and inclined to run away, when you're thinking it's hard to do the right thing, and when we're inclined to be unforgiving and hurtful or you're aware that you've done something wrong, God's not run away. Easter is about God not running away. He didn't run away on the cross, he didn't run away in the tomb, he brought Jesus from the dead.

Question:

'What is the role of the parish priest today?'

Archbishop:

It is to be in the middle of both the Christian and the non-Christian community as somebody who 'keeps the door of the empty tomb open' in people's lives. Someone who holds that openness of the world to God: that through that great emptiness, the empty tomb, and the stone moved aside; through that God came through and made a difference in the world. And we who preach the resurrection have that responsibility – our holding that door open. Now that means in terms of the Christian community that the parish priest is someone who preaches and celebrates and – if that's your tradition – hears confessions too: keeping the doors of grace open, reminding people in the household of faith that again and again God comes in and is free to come in. But in the wider community - because the parish priest is as we all know, not just there for the believers – it's finding all the ways possible of saying to folk 'there's more to you than you realise', 'things are possible that you didn't know'. And that's where the parish priest's involvement in all sorts of community work and regeneration and keeping the wheels of common life turning, is a theological thing: not just doing it for secular reasons, but doing it out of obedience to the Risen Christ. And that sense that here is someone in the middle of a community 'keeping the door open' I think that's the very heartbeat of the parish priest's life, and I find myself immensely moved by the courage and the imagination with which parish priests up and down the country do that day after day, hour after hour. I so glad that that is done.

© Rowan Williams 2008

Back · Back to top