Comments: Archbishop's sermon from St Paul's Cathedral

And the Daily Mail did not like it!

Posted by John at Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 9:03am BST

If the Daily Mail did not like it - then it must be good. Well done Archbishop Rowan for not only giving due honour to the Queen for sixty years of devoted and dedicated service to date but also for exercising a prophetic ministry in front of all those politicians. I had understood that two out of the three leaders of our main political parties were professed atheists - but they all seemed to be joining in heartily in singing the hymns.

Posted by Father David at Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 11:22am BST

Well done Archbishop Rowan from me too.
And well done the A.B.C’s web-site
I went on-line within minutes of the end of the service to find the sermon’s text there already and people already Tweeting merrily away - looked to me like a 90% approval rating – even from atheists!!

Posted by Sue Dilworth at Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 12:40pm BST

Sorry to say that I found Rowan gruesomely sycophantic.

Posted by John at Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 12:43pm BST

Sycophantic. Really.

You mean, sycophantic as in this bit?
"Moralists (archbishops included) can thunder away as much as they like; but they’ll make no difference unless and until people see that there is something transforming and exhilarating about the prospect of a whole community rejoicing together – being glad of each other’s happiness and safety. This alone is what will save us from the traps of ludicrous financial greed, of environmental recklessness, of collective fear of strangers and collective contempt for the unsuccessful and marginal – and many more things that we see far too much of, around us and within us."

Or maybe this one?
"This year has already seen a variety of Jubilee creations and projects. But its most lasting memorial would be the rebirth of an energetic, generous spirit of dedication to the common good and the public service, the rebirth of a recognition that we live less than human lives if we think just of our own individual good."

Posted by LAB at Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 2:24pm BST

I think the Queen deserved wise counsel and not just praise. I found Rowan Williams' sermom nearly as crass ( if not as vulgar) as the compares at the jubilee Rock concert. I felt so sorry for the Queen when she was called Mummy by Prince Charles.

God save the Queen

Posted by robert Ian Williams at Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 3:02pm BST

Wonder of wonders - forget the Dail Mail the Church of England comes in for some rare and unusual praise in the Press in the form of an excellent Leading Article in The Times newspaper entitled "Right and Wrong". The subtitle reads - "Some great institutions rose to the occasion of the Jubilee weekend. Others didn't". A contrast was drawn between the BBC's coverage of the Thames pageant which treated the event as an entertainment rather than history and the risk taken by the Archbishop of Canterbury in using the occasion to preach the social gospel. "Sycophantic" and "crass" Rowan's fine words were certainly not - but a much needed and hopefully heeded prophetic clarion call in these difficult recessionary days.

Posted by Father David at Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 5:27pm BST

To RIW. You may remember that Charles said the same thing to his mother ten years ago. If you think the Queen is so straight-laced and not human as to think was offended, you are mistaken, but it says a great deal about you. If a mother is offended to be called such by her child, given that it's not secret that Charles is her son, what kind of person would she be? It's clear that her family is very important, especially her relationship with Charles and his children. Not only are they the line of succesion, but there is real affection. William and Harry both have said wonderful things about their grandmother. What would we think if Charles had acted toward her as if he were a stranger?

Posted by Adam Armstrong at Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 6:25pm BST

"I felt so sorry for the Queen when she was called Mummy by Prince Charles." -- Robert Ian Williams on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 3:02pm BST

I watched the Jubilee concert, tape delayed, on an American commercial TV station in a tidy two hours, commercials included, and it left me wondering what the network left out.
The cameras showed ABC Williams several times, and he seemed be having a jolly old time. For a brief interval, he could ignore cheeky Americans and self-righteous Africans (or is that the other way around?), and all the raucous squabbling in the Anglican Communion, and watch a really, really good show.
Maybe I'm too egalitarian for my own good, but I thought the "Mummy" comment was endearing. Last time I checked, RIW, Prince Charles is the Queen's son, is he not? He's been steadfastly and dedicatedly waiting in the wings for, what? 30 years or so? He’s aged before our eyes patiently waiting his turn. Who better to call her Mummy?
“I” felt sorry that Her Majesty had to see the spectacle of some female singer with no sense of propriety singing her set while wearing a cloth Mad Hatter-style hat that mimicked, or mocked, or paid tribute to the Crown Jewels, while wearing a leather dress that would have done a dominatrix proud. But the queen’s coronation and my birth are separated by one year plus a day, so maybe I’m getting old.
I hope ABC Williams enjoys his retirement. He deserves it.
I hope Prince Phillip fully recovers, and
This commoner from across the Pond tips his hat to Her Majesty, and wishes her well. She is a grand symbol of continuity, endurance, and aplomb.
May she be happy and glorious.
God save the Queen!

Posted by peterpi - Peter Gross at Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 7:22pm BST

The bits directly about the queen I found sycophantic. I still do. I am glad RIW (like me, not English) felt something the same.

Posted by John at Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 8:34pm BST

I thought the bits directly about the Queen were genuine. I know it's hard to say something truly positive about a public figure without appearing to be sycophantic... so how can it be done?
To say that she has fulfilled her vow to dedicate herself to her country, to say that this is truly a difficult thing to do, and to say that it shows in her face and in her smiles that it has not broken her but made her the person she is, is nothing more than truth.

Whatever we think of the monarchy as an institution, there are few who doubt the personal dedication of the Queen. Just think - aged 86 and having to spend a whole afternoon standing on board a cold boat watching thousands of other boats parade past you, without sitting down, without giving the impression that you're ever bored, that you might be tired, in need of a cup of tea... that small public vignette alone says so much.

A Jubilee sermon is not the place for criticism of the system or of the person we're supposed to celebrate.
It is a place for finding genuine things that are praiseworthy - and I think Rowan did incredibly well.

Posted by Erika Baker at Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 9:30pm BST

Objections to the Prince of Wales calling his mother "Mummy" seem misplaced. If he'd done it during a ceremonial exchange ("I, Charles, Prince of Wales, do become your liege man of life and limb and of earthly worship and faith and truth I will bear unto you to live and die against all manner of folks, Mummy") it would be one thing, but otherwise I'm betting that the Prince is a much better judge of what to call his mother when than anyone else is likely to be.

Posted by Bill Dilworth at Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 10:44pm BST

The Queen called Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother "Mummy". Why would she object to having her children call her that?

Posted by Richard at Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 10:47pm BST

I am sure that I recall the Prince of Wales referring to his mother as "Mama" rather than the more familial "Mummy" in his Jubilee tribute programme to the Queen where he sat watching old cine film of when, with his young parents, he and his sister Anne were shot as children at Sandringham, Balmoral, aboard the Royal Yacht Britannia (surely H.M deserves a replacement as a Diamond Jubilee Present - after all she has done for this nation and Commonwealth) and other locations.
However, I think it would have been more in keeping with his image if Prince Charles had called the queen - "Mater" - which would, I am sure, have been greeted with the same response from the assembled throng as did "Mummy". Whatever, this is not in any way a constitutional issue - merely a bit of harmless fun which added a touch of gaiety to the proceedings.
Like Peter - I wish his pater well, a speedy recovery and a happy 91st birthday this coming Sunday.

Posted by Father David at Thursday, 7 June 2012 at 8:20am BST

L'eglise, c'est l'etat.

Doesn't seem quite right, somehow, does it?

'What would Jesus say?' Good question: impossible to imagine that he wouldn't have done a bit better than this.

Posted by John at Thursday, 7 June 2012 at 9:01am BST

I'm not English (though sycophantically Anglophile and unfashionably monarchist, I'll admit). I found the sermon rather moving, and I don't really think any of it was "directed at the Queen," though parts of it were *about* the Queen. Archbishop Rowan strikes me as the last person to try to grease up to ER, though perhaps that's just me being sycophantic again.

Posted by rjb at Thursday, 7 June 2012 at 9:31am BST

"'What would Jesus say?' Good question: impossible to imagine that he wouldn't have done a bit better than this."

No doubt you're right, John, but it seems rather a high standard to hold our bishops to...

Posted by rjb at Thursday, 7 June 2012 at 10:16am BST

Fr David, did you notice that when Charles is talking ABOUT her he seems to say "mama" as in "my mama is the queen" but when talking TO her he calls her "Mummy", or "Your Majesty" depending whether he is speaking informally or formally? But I noticed he did not once call her "Ma'am" (correctly pronounced the American way - "spam"- and not the Cockney way as Barbara Windsor did to rhyme with "harm"; this seems reserved for the way the police address senior female officers). Ma'am is what people are supposed to use after the first use of "Your Majesty". I am sure books have been published on the subject of how you should address your betters - probably largely out of print now:-)

And talking sycophancy - you could not have got more sycophantic than Rolf Harris as he compèred his bit of the concert.

Posted by Tom at Thursday, 7 June 2012 at 1:43pm BST

OK, fair cop. I unreservedly apologise to all concerned. Marking makes me grumpy.

Posted by John at Thursday, 7 June 2012 at 5:21pm BST

As a Brit I thoroughly enjoyed the jubilee celebtations and thought Prince Charles referring to HRH as "Mummy" helps keep the royal family looking genuine. Have to admit am a little bemused by the comments written by my bretheren from other shores - I wouldn't think to comment on President Obama in this way..

As a clergyman was grateful for talking about the effects of HRH's faith in her good works etc, very dissappointed that she didn't talk about the cause of her faith in the LJC! A missed opportunity.

Posted by Bob at Thursday, 7 June 2012 at 5:27pm BST

for 'HRH' read 'HM'.

The BBC got castigated for making that elementary mistake. But enough of such arcane and off-topic posting. Surely the real point of the sermon was to laud dedication and service to the common good -- wherever it occurs,

And for reminding the nation of that eternal truth, the Archbishop deserves all our applause, I suggest. And speaking of the Jubilee "its most lasting memorial would be the rebirth of an energetic, generous spirit of dedication to the common good and the public service, the rebirth of a recognition that we live less than human lives if we think just of our own individual good."

Posted by Simon Kershaw at Thursday, 7 June 2012 at 9:45pm BST

"For HRH read HM" - quite so. Although I did not hear it myself one of my churchwardens reliably informs me that during one broadcast HM was referred to as the "Supreme Governor of the Bank of England".

Posted by Father David at Thursday, 7 June 2012 at 11:16pm BST

H.M. The Queen has given of herself, selflessly, for the past 60 years. The Archbishop's address did no more than acknowledge that fact - and was definitely not 'sycophantic as some might claim. Her Majesty lives in the real world - which has changed and she has had to change with it. Would that the Church of England could be more accommodating to that change, with its acceptance of Women and LGBT people as acknowledged bearers of the Image and likeness of God - no less than Men or Heterosexuals.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Friday, 8 June 2012 at 12:54am BST

The 'What would Jesus do,say,think?' is one of the most absurd and witless rhetorical questions ever coined. It is invariably used when individuals have argued themselves into a corner. The 'historical Jesus' was confined to his time and responded to it. The 'preached Christ' is perennial and the Gospels are a result of that tradition. It is preposterous to extract from this tradition a weapon to score points that appeal to nothing more than emotion.

Given Queen Elizabeth's strong but quiet faith resulting in her vocational dedication, God would acknowledge her fidelity. Archbishop Williams went to the heart of her reign and simply stated what is true. Sycophancy did not enter the question. He simply appropriately responded to the occasion. How could he do otherwise than by making a fool of himself?

As for Jesus, it is not surprising that many agnostics see him as little better than a Middle-Eastern fanatic. The answer to 'What would Jesus do, say or think?' is 'Which Jesus?' There are so many described in the scriptures, some of them contradictory, that the question can be turned on its head. The Gospels are not biographies.

Posted by John Bowles at Friday, 8 June 2012 at 10:36am BST

I am surprised to find myself agreeing with every word John Bowles writes.

Posted by Erika Baker at Friday, 8 June 2012 at 10:55am BST

Indded. The 'WWJD' is all but meaningless. Mind, my Significant Other seeks to subvert this silliness by suggesting bracelets reading 'WWJacobD' and 'WWQD', which I leave you lovers of the Wisdom tradition to interpret for yourselves.

Posted by david rowett at Friday, 8 June 2012 at 3:17pm BST

Tom -

a propos the books on how to address your "betters"
Crockford still has a delightful two pages on
"how to address the clergy".
Though it clearly isn't working - a lot of people just call me "mate".

Posted by JeremyP at Friday, 8 June 2012 at 3:47pm BST

Sorry to see that, Erika. To my mind there is a world of difference between grumpy exaggeration (duly apologised for) and offensive ('absurd', 'witless', 'preposterous' etc.)ignorance:

(1) 'The Gospels are not biographies.' On the contrary, majority opinion in NT scholarship is that that precisely is what they are. The view can of course be disputed, but no NT scholar nowadays would accept 'the Gospels are not biographies' as a knock-down statement.

(2) Since we are all supposed to be imitators of Jesus, 'what would Jesus say/do?' could hardly be a more relevant question, especially in this case, because, you will recall, Jesus had rather a lot to say about 'the Kingdom', held the view that 'the kingdoms of this world' are the fiefdom of the Devil, and was crucified on the charge of being 'King of the Jews'. The middle item is not my personal view, but, imagine, could Jesus have brought himself to address a queen as 'Your Majesty'? How did Paul address Nero? He could NOT have said 'Lord'. Both of them might have managed 'oh queen/king', but that is the full extent of it. Anything more (from their point of view) would have been blasphemous.

Posted by john at Friday, 8 June 2012 at 7:03pm BST

Clearly 'John' has not heard of redaction criticism, nor does he identify any of the contemporary New Testament scholars who believe, he maintain, that the Gospels are biographies. They are theological statements aimed at early Christian communities with specific questions.

Synoptics did not aim to write history proper. Although they adopted a biographical literary form their life of Jesus was intended principally as a vehicle for the preaching of the early Church. The Gospels cannot be expected to provide more than a skeletal outline of Jesus of Nazareth as he really was. They present Jesus in theological terms subordinate to the preached Christ. This is elementary for all who have had a theological education.

For the 'What would Jesus do/think/say?' brigade it is the solypsism of St John's Gospel that has turned him into the milksop he never was.

The difference between Nero and Queen Elizabeth II is that he was a pagan emperor and she is a consecrated Christian monarch whose devotion to Christ is proclaimed annually in her Christmas broadcasts. 'John's' illustrations in his third paragraph are anachronistic to the point of absurdity and represent nothing more than an uneducated opinion. Or perhaps he is a fundamentalist Evangelical?

Posted by John Bowles at Friday, 8 June 2012 at 8:48pm BST

The valid point John Bowles is making, to my mind, is that we all ask What would Jesus Do and we then all come up with the answer that reflects exactly what we would do.

There is no objective answer to the question, just like there is no objective answer to any of the religious and life questions to which we search Scriptures for answers.

If there was, we would not be as diversified in our personal theology and our different ways of assessing moral questions and our certainty that OUR interpretation is biblical and What Jesus Would Do.

Posted by Erika Baker at Friday, 8 June 2012 at 9:00pm BST

The answer to WWJD may not be objective, but it can still be a useful moral tool, and doesn't always give us the answer that reflects what we would like to do. The other day at Dunkin Donuts two extremely sketchy looking young men were asking everyone who went in or came out if they had jumper cables. I gave them an automatic "no" on the way to my car even though I was pretty sure I did have cables because: (a) I had things to do other than help strangers start their cars, (b) they were scary looking, and (c) get a job, you dirty hippie!.

Although not in the exact words "WWJD," once in my car I did ask myself if refusing to help others out of self-centeredness, fear, and snobbishness (and lying about it on top of that) was exactly Christlike behavior. I ended up giving them the jump.

They turned out to be quite pleasant people.

My point is that WWJD is not a tool for historical research, or the verbal equivalent of the Magic 8 Ball (do you have those in Britain, I wonder?), or a rhetorical device. It's a moral tool to remind us of our priorities.

Posted by Bill Dilworth at Saturday, 9 June 2012 at 12:15pm BST

"It's a moral tool to remind us of our priorities."

I agree, that's very true and the example you give is a very good one.
But it is also one that highlights that the moral priorities WWJD reminds us of are precisely the ones we already have, at least in principle.
And then, it helps us to overcome our own laziness or aprehension and do what we "deep down" know we ought to do.

I believe, though, that we only ever answer the question WWJD in terms of what is already part of our moral make-up.

If I believe something to be truly immoral or wrong, no amount of someone else quoting WWJD at me to support THEIR interpretation of the issue will change my mind.

Posted by Erika Baker at Saturday, 9 June 2012 at 3:13pm BST

"If the Daily Mail did not like it then it must be good" Having criticised the Daily Mail - I feel, now having read Tom Utley's article, that I must recant for as Mr. Utley points out - Rowan wrongly attributed Her Majesty's speech of dedication to the time when her father died but in actual fact it was delivered several years before that sad occasion to mark Princess Elizabeth's 21st birthday when she was in South Africa at the time. Dear, oh dear - a great academic like Dr. Williams not doing his research properly - whatever next? Nevertheless this slip up does not detract from what was by any standard a first rate sermon. However, such an error would surely never have occured when Richard Chartres wrote Robert Runcie's sermons for him. So, I can only conclude - Chartres for Cantuar.

Posted by Father David at Saturday, 9 June 2012 at 3:21pm BST

Tom Utley's article

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Saturday, 9 June 2012 at 5:09pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.