Rowan Williams and Revelation wrapped up

Posted on January 28, 2009 
Filed under Opinion

Charles Raven“Last Sunday, 25th January, the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered a sermon at Great St Mary’s Church, Cambridge, England as the Diocese of Ely launched its 900th anniversary celebrations. Although barely noticed by the press, it was an event which brought a lamentable truth into sharp focus — that despite centuries of Christian heritage, what now passes for Anglicanism in England has drifted far apart from the faith which GAFCON reaffirmed last year in the Jerusalem Declaration.

While it is the part the Archbishop has played in the advocacy of homosexual lifestyles over the past twenty years which has attracted the most controversy, the heart of the problem is his understanding of the doctrine of revelation. …”

– Charles Raven at SPREAD reflects on one’s attitude to holy Scripture.

You can read the Archbishop’s Hulsean sermon at his website.

It’s interesting to read something of the history of The Hul’sean Lectures. They began in 1777 with four or six sermons preached each year at Great St. Mary’s, Cambridge.

Some of the sermons are available online, such as this 1867 book of four sermons by The Rev. Edward Henry Perowne in which he upholds ‘The Godhead of Jesus’. He wrote about his own aim in fulfilling the purpose of the lectures –

“It is the duty of the Christian minister to resolve the doubts of others, not to engender them by parading his own. … I shall endeavour to shew from the Gospel narrative that the Jesus, of whom the Evangelists wrote, is very and eternal God.” [pages 5–6]

‘If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God who giveth to all liberally. Only let him ask in faith, nothing doubting’ the goodness or power of the Most High. It was with the hope of helping such persons to a right conclusion that this Lectureship was established, no less than to confute the assailants of our Holy Religion. My object will be, in the three succeeding Lectures, to state concisely some of the grounds on which we may rest a defence of this doctrine of the Deity of Jesus Christ.” [page 17]