Two archbishops on the doctrine of revelation

Evangelicals within the Church of England are coming to terms with the appointment of the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams.

Press statements from the main evangelical groups have expressed varying reactions, from a cautious request for further clarification of the Archbishop's views on issues such as homosexuality, to a condemnation of Dr. Williams as a 'false teacher'.

Part of the Reform press statement of December 2002 reads: 'The Council recorded its deep regret that as a result of his views and his new position of leadership within the Anglican Communion, Dr. Williams is, in the Bible's terms, a 'false teacher'. It also noted concerns about Dr Williams's published views in other areas of biblical doctrine. The Council was conscious of the imperative in Romans 16.17 to, 'Watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them'. It therefore decided that there was a requirement for those who are committed to the authority of the Bible formally to distance themselves from the new Archbishop of Canterbury and such teaching.

Whatever the appropriate reaction to Dr. Williams's appointment, one thing is certainly clear, namely, that the major issue at stake is the doctrine of revelation. By way of personal response I set myself the task of reading one of Dr. Williams's books (no easy task, I can assure you!) entitled On Christian Theology. I have tried to compare Dr. Williams's teaching in this book with Dr. Peter Jensen's latest book The Revelation of God.

The Archbishop of Canterbury

Dr. Williams believes that we need to be more aware of how language works. The language used in celebration, communication and theology is going to vary. This is fair enough, of course. But those who have spent any time reading his works and his popular teaching, will be aware that he does not seem to believe that God speaks in clear propositions and, apparently, is unable to communicate clearly to his people.

Dr. Williams is not a 'liberal' in the usual sense of the word. A liberal theologian looks at a passage from the Bible rather like we look at a painting. We view the painting in order to get something out of it for ourselves, but we do not feel obliged to wrestle with what the painter had in mind when producing the work of art. We feel at liberty to 'bounce off' the painting with our interpretation (synchronic reading).

Dr. Williams's view of Scripture is a little more complicated. He says that we do need to examine the text of Scripture in its historical setting. But in order to appreciate what the text meant we need to get into the mind of the church community who received the message. Once we have done that we can read this text in the context of the modern church community and grapple with the meaning for ourselves (diachronic reading).

Whilst this is a more desirable way of reading the Bible than the liberal view, it is far from ideal. In Dr. Williams's view, Scripture is human beings' attempts to come to terms with God's revelation, rather than the Word of God. By reading the Bible in this way it becomes possible for modern readers to come to conclusions from the text which would be completely alien to both the author and the first church community. A classic example of this is in the case of homosexuality. I would want to say that, though the modern reader is living in a culture that in many ways is very different, what the Bible said then is still applicable now without massive re-contextualisation (e.g. Romans 1.26-27).

The Archbishop of Sydney

His book addresses a key question: How can God be known? It is an age-old question. Traditionally the answer has been found through an understanding of the revelation of God, supremely in Scripture. In modern times this assertion has been vigorously challenged.

While the modern theological student is often taught, 'The Bible is no longer thought to be bound up with the character of God', Dr. Jensen affirms that, first, the mighty deeds of God include speech (e.g. Sinai); secondly, Christianity is relational and relationships need words. This is most obviously true in human relationships. Without trustworthy language, faith and trust do not develop (pp.25-6).

The truths on which we base our faith depend on God's verbal self-disclosure. Trust needs truthful speech (John 17.17, 20-21). Christian revelation is basically verbal. This is the way that God makes covenant with his people (p.87).

Scripture is revelation. The Jesus Christ whom the gospel calls us to trust for our salvation is the same Jesus who fulfils the words of promise in the Scriptures (p.92). God is the author of Scripture and rules us by his word. We note the etymological link between 'author' and 'authority'.

The Bible is a book of promise and fulfilment (2 Kings 24.44; 2 Corinthians 1.20).

Faith is indispensable in all relationships, especially when we relate to one another on the basis of promises ... Furthermore, the inability to trust the words of another corrupts a relationship ... The opposite of faith is not certainty, but doubt (cf. James 1.51) (p.197).

God reveals himself in order to make relationship with us. Hence the fundamental revelation is in the gospel which fulfils all God's promises and brings us into covenantal relationship.

Concluding thoughts

I am appreciative of the breadth of research and reading which I have found in Dr. Williams's books. Moreover, I also value his concern to apply Scripture through the discipline of diachronic reading. The warm welcome he has received in the popular press is an indication of his desire to communicate theology in a contemporary and relevant manner. There is some irony here, though, for he is far from easy to read or understand. In some instances, because his approach to language is very different, he seems to obfuscate simple concepts, and thus is of little value to the average reader. One assumes that it would not be acceptable for the modern reader to discover new meaning from the texts of his book, which he, as the author, never anticipated!

My understanding of his theological method, and his approach to hermeneutics, gives me cause for much concern. Classic hermeneutical questions relate to two fundamental issues. First, how did God communicate to the original audience who were responsible for recording the revelation of God for our benefit (did they record the words of God?)? Secondly, what is our role as Bible readers in the modern world? How do we relate to the understanding in such a way that we can show that meaning for today?

It seems to me that the way in which Dr. Williams answers these fundamental questions about the revelation of God is very important. It is my own view that his conclusions are often out-of-step with historic methods of biblical interpretation, and his hermeneutics enable him to arrive at conclusions in many areas of Christian theology which are alien to the original meaning of the text.
Clearly the theological issues raised by Dr. Rowan Williams are a matter of grave concern for Anglican evangelicals. There may well be a place for political action in response to this theology, which includes distancing oneself from false teaching. However, it is also important that we remember the New Testament pattern for dealing with error in the church. These are days when Christian leaders will have to be prepared to contend for the faith (Jude 3), and they must also be prepared to suffer for the gospel's sake. This should not come as a surprise to us, for the equation of 2 Timothy 3.12 is clear, although the modern Western church has largely lost sight of this truth.

The pastoral epistles give a model of how such disputations should be undertaken. The church leader should not be quarrelsome and argumentative. Rather he should teach with patience and correct gently (2 Timothy 2.24-26). Such work must happen even if the results of the teaching are not always heeded, as 2 Timothy 4.1-5 makes clear.

The church leader should engage in reproof, rebuke and exhortation with the Word of God. But this should be undertaken with long-suffering and prayer, and a realisation that the message will often not be heard. These are going to be testing days for evangelicals in the Church of England and we need to hear again the boldness which is called for by the Pastoral Epistles.

The Rev Dr Simon Vibert is Vicar of St. Luke's, Wimbledon Park, London, and chairman of Fellowship of Word and Spirit.

The full text of 'By Word and Spirit' may be ordered from The Fellowship of Word and Spirit, c/o 86 All Hallows Road, Bispham, Blackpool, FY2 OAY (www.fows.org).