Perhaps I ought to revise my view that the awkwardly written letter to other primates surely could not be from Archbishop Williams, because this also reads so badly:

>The birth and life of Jesus don't first of all change our ideas – they change what's actually possible for us. They set us free.

They set us free by re-establishing our dignity on a new footing. Because God himself, God the Son, has taken our human nature to be his, every human being is touched by that transforming fact.This was achieved not by enlightened and progressive European intellectuals convinced theoretically of the equality of human beings, but by Christian people who were passionately persuaded of the dignity of lives touched by the incarnate Word of God, people who knew that slavery was both a terrible affront...<

Which begs the question why it took them so long, and what was the spirit of the age that led these Christian people to become, then, passionately persuaded?

This Christmas message should be communicative theology, and it is not. Perhaps people should be caught up in a great rebellion, not against God, but against what cannot be understood.

In addition to my previous post, Rowan Williams is right to highlight slavery and ask who are the slaves today. It is difficult to wish someone in slavery or bondage a Happy Christmas, but perhaps the whole story of Christ offers the possibility of hope as was shown in the negro spirituals.

Katharine Jefferts Schori's message was very clear, that there are ways in to see something of the possibility of human fulfilment, even in a child's responses.

Her other message is right: the rejection of an elected leadership by some bishops and continuing to seek reconciliation. Unity is not the same as uniformity, and this is where a mistake continues to be made by some.

Oh and Rowan Williams' article in The Big Issue is the height of clarity and communication. So a Happy Christmas to him too and the best for the year ahead.

Could someone please teach Rowan about Anthony Robbins and/or Neuro Linguistic Programming?

He would know that prayers need to be framed in the literal, not in a I hope not for the negative.

Further, God is a literalist, so prayers using negative wording lead to negative outcomes.

His prayers for his book and family are fine.

Some suggestions to re-frame his prayers:

I am looking praying for being fitter and thinner.

I am looking forward to major breakthroughs at some significant meetings early this year.

I am praying about the discussions around Trident will lead to a realisation that peace is the only way forward and that funds invested into well-being will be more successful in manifesting global peace.

I am praying that Israel, Lebanon and Palestine will lead to a great "ah ha" moment where all major parties choose to embrace healing and reconciliation. Where all parties choose to behave in a manner that brings honor to God by choosing behaviours and affirmations that dignify and respect boundaries and look to the long term for their great grandchildren.

I am looking forward to a world reinvigorated with faith, leading to a renaissance of hope and cooperation. I am looking forward to a world where children are fed, souls are respected, and ecosystems nourished to provide for transgeneration renewal.

As usual, KJS speaks to the issues directly, while RW starts off speaking to the issues, then falls into the definitional/presuppositional traps already laid for him by the ways that conservative Anglican thinking so exclusively frames important issues in a no exit, tilted, skewed grab for all the breathable air there can be by conservative definition in the world's conversation and truth rooms.

That RW can so consistently stumble at such similar definitional/presuppositional points hints to me that maybe he has now been sufficiently bullied by conservative Anglicans, so that he dare not inquire further into their typical conservative definitional/presuppositional claims. Heavy is the head and heart that wears the mitre. Maybe.

If so, this is a great, great intellectual and spiritual loss for Canterbury and for all of us. The real dilemma for many of us who continue to stand by while Canterbury dances with Abuja and a covenenat that tilts towards African dictatorships of many sorts we heretofor might have presumed too un-Anglican to occupy our worrisome attentions - so the real dilemma is, how in the world to help? When Canterbury tends to shut the doors on Tikkun, if anybody who is not Abuja tries to help?

I think RW's new year's article reads more clearly than some of his musings - at least it is a pretty particular wish to be able to lose weight.

My own musings go on and on as I try to master the art of the endless, run-on sentence. So who am I to throw stones? Except of course that I am not supposed to lead the Anglican Communion back to its roots in the Elizabethan Settlement. Maybe RW is not supposed to do that, either?

Whatever was I thinking when I got confirmed in this church in college?

Ah, the follies of youth, of wishing/praying/working to better things. Will RW ever offer the rest of us an Anglican embrace that does not have him fingering the mandatory conservative Anglican knife edges, just beneath his robes? Penalism just gets so smarmy sometimes as it anticipates being able to shive you, right where it counts.

Maybe we need to take up a collection and get RW a bowflex? The magic keys to fitness and weight management for almost everybody are diet - a solid diet - and exercise - for many who are older, low impact regimens. Also helps a lot to clear the head of all the day's toxins.

A word from Saint Nike to RW: Just do it.

Merry Christmas for Tikkun, peace out.

I was bored on Christmas Day until dinner preparation, so I produced something about an archbishop (who might it be?) and ordinary domestic events. This either might amuse or tell about the condition of my soul:

http://www.change.freeuk.com/learning/relthink/archbishopday.html

Incidentally, I know I am accused of the same tendency myself; I can fly off overcomplicated words. Years back I was sat in an adult education computer class and, because of the manner of my speech, the stand-in teacher asked, "Are you a clergyman?" My wife since then (who's from Russia) has frequently mentioned my elaborate speaking style, as it is called in education theory. So I am a pot calling a kettle black.