Not really, no. No more than Bishop Skylstad (or whoever it is now) is the head of the Catholic Church in the United States. The ABC is the most important bishop in the Communion and he has an important symbolic role. But he has no direct authority over anyone outside the Church of England, just as the president of the USCCB has no direct authority over a bishop not in his province. The Lambeth Conference, like the USCCB, is a consultative body.
Like Pope Benedict, the Archbishop is a brilliant theologian whose words and ideas do not lend themselves to soundbites. If you want to know what he thinks about the basic claims of the Faith, read this. (Note that the first part is by John Shelby Spong–Williams then replies to it. Please don’t be confused by this–until the words “Rowan Williams replies” you are reading material with which Williams disagrees.) This was written ten years ago when Williams was Bishop of Monmouth, but I have no reason to think that his views have become less orthodox on these matters since (indeed, you will note that he refers to having become more orthodox on the subject of the Virgin Birth).
This is in principle what C. S. Lewis said in his essay “Fernseed and Elephants.” A critical literary-historical analysis of the Gospel narratives is fine, but it shouldn’t be prejudiced by the assumption that miraculous events must always be explained away.
I can’t speak directly to the quote in question, but I do have a couple observations concerning your comments. While the “history becomes legend and legend become myth” category of argument being suggested is a valid point to bear in mind, many of us do believe in the historical accuracy of the Gospels. Yes, the details are colored by the cultural and scientific knowledge of the day, the writer’s knowldge, but that doesn’t mean we should discount any details as foolish folklore. Fred Larson, for example, makes some very intriguing astronomical arguements concerning the star of Bethlehem’s origin and purpose. To discount and disregard a portion of the Gospel simply because it doesn’t appear to correlate to your personal understanding is not necessarily the prudent path to take.That incident has been grossly misrepresented
To say the Nativity-texts contain legend (or whatever it may be) is not the same thing as saying they are not true; but they are not true as history - that seems to be certain. For instance, the activity attributed to Matthew’s star is impossible: stars do not “stand over” houses to identify them, nor can they. Nor is there any reason to think Matthew meant to be read in such a fashion - he is not talking about the star or its motion, but about what it means in relation to Jesus; the story is told to emphasise is King & Messiah.- he did not call “the faith…a fairytale or words to that effect”, & those who say he did are liars.
Even if they contained no truth at all, that would not alter the status of the rest of the Christian “story” - the issue of historicity (which people confuse with that of truth, & this again with the issue of inspiration) cannot be settled by sweeping generalisations: each part of the text, as well as the whole in general, needs to be studied.
The Mary Shrine in my Anglo-Ctatholic, not in communion with Canterbury, parish, is Our Lady of Walsingham. Our assistant pries has a particular devotion to Her.
Edwin,
Thank you. Yes, I probably could have worded that section on controversy better. We felt much the same as you have described. The personal controversy and troubles we encountered in the Episcopal Church led us directly to the Catholic Church. Well, it was nearly a direct path. There was a short detour by way of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
I’d just like to note that conservative doesn’t necessarily equal Anglo-Catholic in this context. Just as there are liberal Catholics, there are liberal Anglo-Catholics.
Good point. Well I read Writer’s post, I too was thinking about conservative not equalling Anglo-Catholic, but with the opposite emphasis: I was going to point out that the vast majority of conservatives in the Anglican Communion are Evangelical.
Good point. Another reminder of the danger of generalizing!
Kind of off topic. First of all, TEC and the Canadanian church are by far the minority in the Anglican Communion in their views and practices concerning same sex unions and such. Secondly, this thread is not about contraception, annulments etc.
You are not speaking about the vast majority of Anglicans here. Spong is taboo to most Anglicans. He is heresy for certain! Episcopalians account for a very small fraction of Anglicans worldwide. When we left our Episcopal parish to begin a new Anglican church in the Diocese of Uganda, we had no building to go to, no money saved and no worship equipment let alone a church. We ended up renting the cafetorium of a middle school and make shifting our way into worship equipment. It has taken literally everyone in our parish to make this thing work. God knows that my wife and I have put countless hours into our new Anglican church. Oh, did i forget to mention that our priest and his wife checked their salaries and health insurance at the door when they left with us. Mind you, they have two small children as well. Oh yeah, we left behind the oldest church building in the city and over 500,000 dollars in endowment funds. This is what is known as obidience to God’s Word and it has all been worth it.
Speak for yourself.
I always thought that the Tiber River is polluted. I am not planning on swimming in that river–yuck…
Oh, c’mon, Episcopalians are supposed to be really good at figurative language! We’re allowed to use it from time to time too!