Today it is our distinct privilege to have board Williams with us on the line, the Right Reverend and Right Honorable Lord Williams of Australia formerly served as the 100 and fourth Archbishop of Canterbury from 2002 to 2012. He currently serves as the master of Magdalen College of the University of Cambridge and will soon take offices, the Chancellor of the University of South Wales, Lord Williams is acknowledged internationally as an outstanding theological writer, scholar and teacher. His most famous books include tokens of trust and introduction to Christian belief, wound of knowledge, Christian spirituality, from the New Testament to St. John of the Cross, and the book that we'll be discussing today, areas heresy and tradition. Lord Williams, thank you so much for joining us.
Thank you for the invitation.
To begin with sir how are you adjusting to your new life as chancellor and master of the College of Cambridge?
Well, I'm finding it a wonderful opportunity, and God given opportunity really to go back to some hard thinking about theologies and study. And sometimes said, now that I've stopped being Archbishop, I can start becoming a human being a Christian again.
Tell us, sir, about your research interests? What are the projects that you're most interested in? In reengaging?
Well, there are two main areas that I'm working on at the moment. I've been invited to deliver the Gifford lectures in the University of Edinburgh, Scotland later this year, which are an annual foundation of lectures dealing with natural theology, that is the rare those areas of ordinary human experience that prompt us to ask questions about God. So I'll be delivering these lectures on theology in the philosophy of language, looking at some of the areas of how we speak and how we think about our speaking, that seemed to have some transcendent implications that seem to map onto the way we talk about God and Jesus Christ. That's one major area. And as you can imagine, that's taking up quite a bit of time and energy. But I also retain interests in history and theology of the early church. And I'm, literally as we speak, trying to finish off an article about the British church in the fifth and sixth century.
We'll look forward to seeing that. Certainly, we begin by discussing your book areas, heresy and tradition. May we jump right into that certainly. Wonderful. My first question is, in the original version, in the 1987 study of areas heresy and tradition, you write the problem of heart X areas is that he had not digested racial Watkins areas areas suffers from not having studied in late 19th century Cambridge. And by this, you seem to mean that scholars have positioned areas as the other against which the scholars are then presented their own theological agendas. Since your study appeared, there's been a flourishing of scholarship on areas all I think grappling with that main thesis that he has been looked at differently depending on the background of the original author. Which of these studies in which trajectory do you find most promising for futures for future studies of areas?
Well, I hope that the the conversation and some of the discussion that opened up in the wake of my book helped people to be a little bit more aware of the ways in which they projected the other that they wanted to argue with onto the history of areas, though, as one of the reviewers remarked in my own book, I, I was guilty of just the same thing that my areas suffered from not having read cold, but I think there was, there was some truth in that, because part of the argument of the book is that half an easier thesis opponent has a much more robust doctrine of the freedom of God in Revelation. And I suddenly owe something to Khobar to there. But I think what's happened in the last 20 to 30 years in areas scholarship has been a number of attempts to to locate him, perhaps rather more adequately as a biblical experiment. I've also, in some of my own subsequent work, suggested that he's working with the language of early Christian liturgy of worship, that that that has an influence on what he's doing. I think that what I argued in the book about the philosophical influences on areas hasn't really won a great many adherence. And I think I may have stated that aspect of the argument. Certainly my former colleague, Christopher steed wrote a very demolishing thought of us arguing that I overstated that side of it, and while I don't entirely accepted, I think I may well have concentrated too much on that. And I then became rather more interested in in the way in which it impacts on worship and the reading of the Bible.
Do you think at some point you'll return to this direct study of areas?
I really hadn't. I found it absolutely absorbing when I was working on it. I think I've become a bit more interested in some other areas in the early church. But it remains something that I I try to keep up with try to read around. We'll see. We'll see. I think that the issues that are there remain absolutely central for Christians. And we don't really get a full understanding of the depth and breadth of the gospel unless we have a some grasp of what the issues are there.
In her book, from nicea to calcium, the scholar Francis young explains areas his position as a deduction from the premise that God is under arrived. And what I understand the mean there is that because God is in and of himself on begotten, therefore the son who is begotten cannot be God. This is a wonderful shorthand to explain to students areas theology, what what is your preferred way to explain areas as basic position?
Well, I think Francis young, has put it extraordinarily well as she invariably does. She's really one of the most wonderfully impressive scholars in the whole field at the moment, we're privileged to know her work and know her. But I think what I might say about it is something a little more like this, that areas, the question what, what is it that God and only God can do? And only God is completely independent, only God is completely free. Now, the New Testament has so much language about the dependence of the Father and the Father, the sons will being subjected to that of the Father and so forth. That if Jesus truly does incarnate embody god, there's something very strange going on. Surely, therefore, says areas, it's possible to say, Well, Jesus embodies some extraordinarily lofty, and wonderful spiritual principle, but it still falls short of God. And his opponents really come back by taking exactly the same line but turning it on its head. What is it that any God can do? Well, God exercises his freedom to save us. Jesus undoubtedly exercises his freedom to save us. So isn't that sort of godlike as it gets? Mustn't We, therefore whatever the problem is, say that what is going on in in Jesus, what is embodied in Jesus is nothing less than the freedom of God. And then we move on to sorting out the problem is about how we understand those biblical texts about Jesus's obedience and so forth.
And one of the angles perhaps, of Francis Young's areas is that he's entirely sort of run by his logical deductions. He's this brilliant logician, and he's sort of a victim of his own prowess in this regard, you paid areas as much more of a biblical scholar, what are some of those biblical emphases that enter areas of theology?
Well, I'm not sure that I would divide from Francis particularly on that subject. There's a very large section of my own book on areas of philosophy and logic, suggesting that indeed, he does inherit both a logical technique and a kind of cosmology a picture of the universe, which, if you like, prevents him from reading the New Testament quite as radically and freshly, as he could have done. Suddenly, as a biblical scholar heiresses, I think, perennially puzzled by a small number of texts. For example, the text in Psalm 45 You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity. So God, Your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness above Your fellows. And area says, well, that's clearly a prophecy, about the Messiah, the Anointed, is Jesus. And there, there's talk of God, Your God, God is not the same as the Messiah. God has anointed the Messiah because of his, his virtue. And areas clearly is worried about that. There's also the text in Proverbs eight. And the Lord created me at the beginning of his ways that prophecy, about wisdom, the wisdom of God, or wisdom of God has always identified with the Word of God but logoff and so, once again, Eris says, you know, this can't be something about God made flesh It must be some grace, heavenly power. Those are the kinds of texts which people we know, we're arguing about a lot. And one of the things I've been interested to query a bit since I wrote the book has been precisely the history of the interpretation of some of these texts like that one from the Psalms, which has a long history of argument. Also, of course, in the New Testament, there are those moments where Jesus apparently says he doesn't know what the Father knows, as Matthew of that day, and that no one knows not angels in heaven, not even the fund that only the Father. There's the text in one Corinthians about the son, giving over the kingdom to the Father, all of those things. And I think what, what one might say is that the New Testament and the Old Testament also naturally use a dramatic metaphorical way of talking about heavenly relations. While at the same time, and this is what gives, I think, the theology of the mainstream church, it's its energy at the same time. The New Testament makes it unequivocally clear that the action that is going on in Jesus is God's action and nothing less. So we have to pick our way through the minefield metaphors and not allow ourselves to either ignore the metaphor or to take them literally, and come up eventually with something about something rather like the creed of the customer.
Thank you for the response. Lord Williams, in your text, again, areas in heresy tradition, you right, there is a sense in which nicea and its aftermath represent recognition by the church at large that theology is not only legitimate, but necessary. This text is really a study of Orthodoxy, isn't it? Areas is the archetypical heretic, and you're doing a rather than demonizing him, you're humanizing him, in a sense, trying to understand the process by which this theology came? How does one identify real doctrinal continuity?
That's a very interesting question. Let me just scroll back for a moment. You're quite right, I was trying to show how areas his mind works, because I don't believe that it's ever much he was trying to defend an orthodox position unless you understand why people might find it difficult. Otherwise, he will be answering questions that people are asking. And I think when I used that phrase about the necessity of theology in the church, I was saying, it's quite tempting at times to say, Well, we, you know, we go on, saying whatever was said, and thinking what we've always sung, and please don't press too hard about how it all make sense. It's all a bit difficult. And what I see happening in the, in the fourth century, is quite a lot of Christians prepared to say, well, we don't want to be pressed too hard on this. Area thing is, but look, it doesn't make sense. And, increasingly, of course, a number of brilliant and imaginative theologians like Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa, saying, Alright, it ought to make sense, God's given us minds. Let's put on to the grindstone and really work it out. And I think that's, that's what's going on in that period. It would be nice just to go on saying the same things just to go on using the dramatic the metaphorical language of the Bible and the hymns. But when, when the temperature is turned up a little bit, as you might say, and people are saying, I can't say that it doesn't make sense. You've got to do the hard work. And I think that's that's part of it. Now, you asked about continuity. And I suppose you could put the question like this, a Christian in, let's say, the second century, who didn't have a creative that thought, who didn't even have a complete Bible in the sense that we understand it in a single bound volume. And when they were still debates about some of what went in and went out of the Bible. What did they have in common with a Christian 300 years later, who had the Creed's, who had the canon of the Bible firmly established? And I think the answer is basically this. It is. The belief about God in Jesus Christ takes an initiative which arises out of the very heart of his being an initiative which is not dictated by, by us, our imagination, our thoughts, our expectations, even our needs, but something which arises out of the very being of God. Now, they believe that in the second century, they believed in the fifth century, and praise God, we believe in the 21st century two. And really what's happening in the language of the Creed's is just people standing back and saying, Hold on a moment. Let's see if we can find a way of crystallized that conviction. That's what's going on. And Jesus arises out of the very heart of God crystallizing that in a way that makes them whether it hangs together intellectually, without losing anything of the emotional devotional power of the language we've been using so far. And I would still say that the continuity of Christian orthodoxy and the continuity of identity, identify ability of Christian faith, lie in that belief. God does something in Jesus Christ, which arises out of his very own nature has got. So that leads us to the very complex, rather surprising conclusion that we must imagine that in God's eternity, there is relationship, there is a giving and receiving father and there is son, and there is outpouring and sharing and spirit, and just saying what's going on, and Jesus opens the door into the very character of God, you end up with that doctrine of God, the Holy Trinity.
Can a theologian have confidence that the doctrine of the Trinity that you've just articulated so brilliantly for us, that that can be seen? Looking forward into the future of theology? Can we chart orthodoxy based on that formula? Or is this something that we can only see in hindsight?
I think that in the history of theology, there are moments that you can't revisit, you can't just press the rewind button. When you've got some points, it's as if people say, Ah, yes, right, I've got that. No, we can move on from there. And I think fourth century is one of those moments, where, after a huge amount of prayer and struggle and conceptual complexity, people come to the point of saying, Yeah, we, we, whatever we've had God, we have got, at least this, at least, that the God who was working Jesus Christ is the true God, the Eternal God, we've got to say, at least, the God we meet in Jesus Christ as a God, who his Father, Son, and Spirit. It doesn't give us a complete map of what happens in heaven. That just is not given to us. But it tells us, if you like what the what the shape of the space is, in which we grow into maturity in Jesus Christ. And I would say that, in a sense, the entire doctrine of the Trinity, growth from Jesus's command His disciples to say, Our Father, when we pray, that is, that is what is made possible by his life and death and resurrection. That is what some poor identifies as the gift of the Holy Spirit, we come into a relation of absolutely free access to God, the Father, murder association with Jesus Christ and the power of the Spirit. And out of that came then and still comes now, in some sense of how we have to talk about God.
Thank you so much, sir, for that reflection. If I may ask just a quick autobiographical question about about this particular study, when you entered this field of research, did you realize all of the ramifications and all of the specific conclusions and their influence might have on Orthodoxy in general? Or was it more the individual, specifically Aryan debate that drew you into this study?
I don't think I did realize the ramifications. I'd written a little bit about the subject in my earlier book, which you mentioned the word of knowledge. And I did think, in my remarks there, I'd got it quite right. To be honest, I'd always been aware that there was some unfinished business. And I think what really prompted me to write was a couple of books, one in English, and one in German, which came out in the 1970s. On areas, and there was a footnote in one of his books, the German book, which I looked at, that's interesting. And it was just a few words. And I began to look up the background, that footnote which referred me to a particular philosophical texts, and then I pulled and pulled and the thread kept coming. But it was, as I worked through the details of the history and the philosophy, that I began to see that there was a very large question here about Well, as I said earlier about the freedom of God about the doctrine of the Trinity carries forth that crystallization of our belief in the freedom of God. And as I said earlier, it's quite true that theology of Karl Marx made a big impact on me earlier on I'd written some years earlier, a long essay on the Trinitarian theology of bots. I suddenly saw how these things clicked together and also prompted me to think a little bit about the process by which we arrive at a formulation of faith. It's not overnight. It's not a logical argument, but a slow process of testing out one concept, one phrase after another, and very gradually finding something and hang together.
Two years after your original study on areas you penned an article entitled, does it make sense to speak of pregnacy in orthodoxy that appeared in a fish riff that you produced for Henry Chadwick? And in this essay, if I understand your argument correctly, you argue that orthodoxy emerges from the interconnectivity of Christian communities? Would you be willing to briefly explain your conclusion? And then tell us whether this principle of what Orthodoxy is perhaps informed your leadership as Archbishop of Canterbury?
I'm curious. I think what I'm hearing in the article is there's no one absolutely clear formula for Orthodoxy in the pre Nicene period, and we wouldn't expect it there isn't a single worldwide institution with a clear leadership. It's a company that obviously with my Roman Catholic friends, I don't believe that there is, in an early period, a single source of authority in the way that some people believe the Pope's office. So what was it that held Christians together? What was it that made them recognizable to each other in that early period? And I would underline very strongly that word recognizable? What is it that allows one Christian to look another in the face and say, Yes, I see, we have the same face. Now, I argued in that article that some of that is to do with the way in which early Christians exchange texts exchange the stories of early lives, especially Martin's. And they, of course, coalesce around reading the same scriptures. Are you read that book as well? Yes, I understand I recognize. And that process of working out what it is you recognize when you recognize another Christian, as a believer, I think that's that's quite an important element in how the notion of orthodoxy comes together in that early period. So instead of looking for one, one set of words, one primitive baptism, or creed, or whatever, watch the process by which Christians learn to recognize one another. Because out of that mutual recognition comes a sense of what it really is that we hold in common. So you're right in assuming that that had some, some connection with the work I tried to do as a bishop, and as an archbishop. I can't remember who said it, but somebody did say that only the whole church knows the whole truth. In other words, you need other Christians, their prayer, their thoughts, their perspectives, in order for both of you, all of you to grow as fully as you can into the truth and fullness of God's grace. So you have to be very, very, very slow to pass company with other Christians. Sometimes it happens, sometimes there comes a point where a Christian may look at another and say, I'm sorry, I just don't recognize any longer. What's happening there. I don't quite know what it means to pray alongside you. I think if if I encountered a Christian community where it was completely optional, but he believed in the divinity of Christ, where the resurrection, the passion and the resurrection, were just kind of legendary extras. Well, let's say out in the world of the Jesus Seminar, all that matters was, you know why things of Jesus who was a good man, I'd say, Well, I respect all Hudson's all very impressive, but I just don't see what it means really to be praying together. But that's quite a long stop. You know, there's a long way down the line. Sometimes we're quite eager as Christians. When we meet, disagreements about this or that particular issue to say, Well, I'm sorry, I can't recommend anything you say that. You don't agree with me about drinking alcohol or pacifism or whatever? I'm sorry. I don't have anything to do with you. I would say we need to be very slow about that. And that was part of what I I tried to serve as Archbishop of Canterbury, trying to keep people at the same table as long as possible and say, Well, okay, we have massive disagreements here about sexuality or whatever. Does that mean we're now completely unrecognizable to each other? Oh, can we talk about this?
Thank you so much for your response. Sir. Would you be willing to continue to reflect on that just for a moment and if you were speaking to an ecumenical audience or if you are an advisor for an ecumenical project, how can one apply this principle in modern day ecumenical work?
I'd say, first of all, it's a matter of spiritual attitude. you approach your fellow Christian, saying, Thank God, what do you have to show me and to give me in my fellowship with these people, I approach this situation, in the confidence that there is something which will feed my discipleship. Otherwise, it's not worth doing. So I asked God, show me what's going to feed my discipleship here. And that means, of course, show me something about about Christ. Show me some dimension of the face of Christ that I've not yet seen. Or show me some insight, some depth in a reading a passage of scripture that I haven't seen. So we approach with prayerful eagerness with a willingness to be taught. And that doesn't mean that I go into a conversation, let's say with a rabid Catholic colleague, saying, Well, you may be right, I may be right about this, that or the other I, I may be completely wrong about the papacy, you may be right. I don't go in with that attitude. I go in saying, Well, I have reasons for saying what I say and standing where I stand. But there is a call upon both of us. From the Christ, we both acknowledge as Lord the Christ, we both acknowledge, as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Christ, who is very clearly bigger than both of us. And that's what I want to hear about. So well, you know, that some pulpits were inside the pulpit facing the preacher, as the text from John 12, we would see Jesus, I suppose that's what he ought to carry with you until we came in conversation
toward Williams, if we can close with this question, that is, despite the tremendous variety and the expressions of Christianity around the world, what is it that gives the church for essential unity?
Three, but on through the Holy Spirit. I mean, that very seriously, because the Holy Spirit in Scripture, the, the power and presence and person of God, which brings the prayer of Christ alive in each one of us. It is in the Holy Spirit that we pray Abba, Father, Paul tells us in Romans and Galatians, in other words, in the Holy Spirit, we are brought into the awareness that we our sons and daughters, adopted in Christ, into the life of life of God. So the theological answer always has to be the Holy Spirit. And I think that the baseline of everything that we say about the church, the Unity has to be fair, we are being being changed from glory to glory, we are being transformed into what what we do not yet understand all the natural John. And we are, above all, being taught to pray about father, day by day in all circumstances, in the name of the power of the Spirit of Jesus. So that's the, I think, the fundamental of unity. Now that most Christians believe that is the gift that we're given in baptism. And so in the great majority of instances of speaking with other Christians, our identity as baptized people criticize, but I'm also aware of those historically, Christian groups like the Salvation Army who don't practice water baptism. And I don't, for a moment believe that they are unrecognizable as Christians to the rest of us simply because they will talk about our being adopted sons and daughters with just as much robustness your eyes. So I don't lose too much sleep over that I can recognize
that. Lord Williams, we're extraordinarily grateful that you'd be willing to share your afternoon with us. Thank you so much for your insights into these questions.
Thank you for the approach and for this conversation. I was grateful to be part of it, to be part of it.