Hello friends

Have a read of this

Why is it that when I read anything Rowen Willams writes I feel like I need a translation???

arrgh.. pdf..  sob..  so much scrolling up and down..

[quote author="Rowen Atkinson"]arrgh.. pdf..  sob..  so much scrolling up and down..

As usual, Jakob was right .  :)

Glenn

Adam wrote:

Why is it that when I read anything Rowen Willams writes I feel like I need a translation?

Remember guys,

A lack of clarity is very rarely an indication of profundity.

A lack of clarity is very rarely an indication of profundity.

And your proof of this is?

I had no problems understanding what Dr Williams was saying. In fact I thought it was crystal clear that he is calling for readers/members of New Directions to consider how we are going to move forward as a communion… He basically was stating what the situation is: it’s messy. I think he was gently suggesting that we should not lose sight of the fact that those we disagree with are nevertheless brothers and sisters - even if we, or they, believe one or the other is stretching the boundaries of what it means to be Christian. He implied that this commonality, above any other sort of commonality, is what creates a basis for discussions about the future of the Anglican church.

It disappoints me that all you guys can do here is sneer at what he has to say. Why is this? Because you perceive him to be a godless liberal?

*sigh*

Dialogue is made difficult, if one party occupies itself solely in sneering and jibing at the other. It’s a self fulfillment, really, of exactly the situation Archbishop Williams is describing and attempting to address…

Nunc?
Excuse me?
I was making a general observation, not a personal attack!  And my proof is all those sermons you’ve heard that sounded so deep, complex and well argued, but you never got anything worthwhile out of!

Hi Nunc,

Hope you study is going OK and not overwhelming you too much! Keep us posted on any inroads you make with the pastoral care issue!

[quote author="Nunc"]It disappoints me that all you guys can do here is sneer at what he has to say. Why is this? Because you perceive him to be a godless liberal?...Dialogue is made difficult, if one party occupies itself solely in sneering and jibing at the other.

I think this is a over-generalisation and somewhat unfair. I didn’t feel that the guys were sneering at him. I personally understood the jist of what he was saying (as you outlined) but was, frankly, rather confused by the structure of the article and what, in my opinion, is an overuse of complex language, grammar, sentence structure and vocabulary. It almost felt like he had gone out of his way to make the article as complex as he could when the point he was actually making is fairly simple.

And I understand Scott’s comment in that context-

[quote author="Scott"]A lack of clarity is very rarely an indication of profundity

I might have misunderstood but I think what Scott is saying is that if a piece of writing lacks clarity to an individual it does not automatically mean that the author of the article has a great intellect whilst the reader is actually lacking in intellect (shown in his/her inability to understand it).

There was a girl at my high school who wrote the most complex essays I have ever come across and every time I read one of them I felt like a witless fool (because I found the language and structure intimidating because I didn’t always understand it)- until one day when one of my teachers said a very similar thing to me that Scott wrote above.

I don’t think it was intended as a derision of Archbishop Williams in the way you seem to think it is. I also have to say that I thought that the Archbishop’s humility (particularly in the final sentences) was commendable.

In terms of dialogue suffering because of the jibing and sneering of one party at another- well with all due respect (<--seriously) I think previous threads on this board bear enough tesimony to the fact that this is indeed a two way street (dare I say with one lane being more frequently trafficked than the other)- something that at times seems to be conveniently forgotten.

Without reading the article Adam referred to, passing judgement on what it says or commenting on what anyone else has said, I just thought that I’d mention that in The Briefing this month there are similar comments about a different article:

Interchange this month has mostly concerned Graeme Goldsworthy’s article ‘The heartbeat of effective ministry’. No one had any complaints about the content, but a few readers were concerned with the delivery; in particular, the academic-level vocabulary used in parts of the essay. Peter Hawkins of Dundas suggested that the gospel, being “uniquely simple and infinitely challenging”, has no need of complicated language. Tony Kryger had similar comments:

I have to admit that I struggled to understand the meaning of hermeneutical spiral, hermeneutical centre and hermeneutical principle; I falied to understand the significance of presuppositional parameters, dogmatic presuppositions, theological presuppositions, presuppositions of Christian theism and presupposition of medieval scholastic theory; I scratched my head over imperialistic domination, metanarratives, exegetical conclusions and dehistoricizing tendencies; but I completely gave up when I came to implicit docetism of allegorical interpretation.

Of course Graeme was not deliberately trying to baffle his audience (readers of his introductory books on biblical theology would realise he is a skilled communicator). For the many students and scholars who read The Briefing, concise technical language such as that used above can be useful in conveying an exact meaning. However the academic style is not for everyone, so if you were put off by the vocabulary of this article, we are sorry; we won’t do it to you too often!

I think that Mr Kryger pointed out very well what we all feel at times - out of our depth in terms of vocabulary! We have already seen that even when we use the same word, we sometimes have different understandings of what it means.

Surely the best thing to do is to ask someone who does understand to help! Nunc’s summary of what the article was saying seemed quite clear to me (although as I said, I haven’t read the article).

If those who have the ability and gift to comprehend uncommon words or terms are able to clarify, summarise and simplify things for us all, this will be mutually beneficial and hopefully no one will get upset.

Just my thoughts…

:)

I don’t think it was intended as a derision of Archbishop Williams in the way you seem to think it is. I also have to say that I thought that the Archbishop’s humility (particularly in the final sentences) was commendable.

Ok. Point conceded. I guess was a bit touchy about it…

Adam Gregory wrote:

Why is it that when I read anything Rowen Willams writes I feel like I need a translation???

This article is written for a popular market, brother, I think it is about as straightforward as Rowan gets (I notice Rowen Atkinson has corrupted your spelling :-). You may find it hard to understand due to unfamiliarity with this sort of OxBridge eloquence that is in fact the usual mode of writing by educated sorts in England. He does use some theological jargon which if unfamiliar may also obscure understanding for you.

I didn’t find it difficult to understand myself, but I remember it took me a while to get into this style through the likes of CK Barrett (now one of my favourite writers). When you get used to it, you will find it quite an economical style of expression. I like it because it means I can enjoy reading something even if I completely disagree with them, just because they use language so well.

Nunc has summarised it well, but I think left out the most interesting bit - which is that Rowan seems to open the door for the kind of reforms Peter Jensen has been suggesting:

“...I think it is worth working at structures in Anglicanism that don’t either commit us to a meaningless structural uniformity or leave us in mutual isolation...I’m assuming that as Anglicans we have enough theological reservations about the RC model of visible unity to make it worth our while exploring how ‘structural complexity’ can witness to the supernatural character of the Church…
...I suspect that (at the General convention) those who speak of new alignments and new patterns, of the weakening of territorial jurisdiction and the like, are seeing the situation pretty accurately.”

He goes on to caution us about potential danger in that model, but seems to concede it the most likely scenario.

That’s why this article is a big deal and being quoted all over the place. It gives a little insight into Dr Williams’ mind on the likely future of the Anglican Communion.

I hope that helps clarify things for you, brother.

Cheers
Matt