Rowan Williams on being a person and freedom
By Mark Vernon on Thursday, October 11 2012, 14:54 - Personal observations - Permalink

Rowan Williams seems on fire in the last few months of his Canterbury tenure.
His recent Theos speech was a little dense but brilliant on the different between being an individual and being a person - roughly, the notion of being an individual abstracting us from life (individuals have rights, for example); whereas the notion of being a person takes us into our lived, embodied uniqueness, vulnerability and mystery - in the sense that to be a person is to 'overflow' natural categories of being in possession of this or that human capacity.
And I was just reading his speech to the Roman bishops. He is surely right that the attractive side of Christianity these days is coming out of the religious communities that live a profounder vision of what it is to be human than the one available in consumer culture. (He's thinking about Taizé, Sant’ Egidio, the Focolare.)
What is particularly brilliant about his analysis, I think, is recognising that Christians must navigate the shadow side of themselves to find 'freedom from self-oriented, acquisitive habits and the distorted understanding that comes from them'. (There's something similar in the psychodynamic understanding of narcissism.) Though it is very hard to do, not least in the church, I feel, partly because it takes leaders who have themselves undergone that journey to lead others through it. Hence, he also admits, the church routinely fails to live this promise and so looks as 'anxious, busy, competitive and controlling' as any other human institution.
When Christians live that freedom, it is naturally attractive. Williams' continues:
'What people of all ages recognise in these practices is the possibility, quite simply, of living more humanly – living with less frantic acquisitiveness, living with space for stillness, living in the expectation of learning, and most of all, living with an awareness that there is a solid and durable joy to be discovered in the disciplines of self-forgetfulness that is quite different from the gratification of this or that impulse of the moment.'
He quotes Henri de Lubac a few times, whom I'm now off to read. ‘He who will best answer the needs of his time will be someone who will not have first sought to answer them.' ‘The man who seeks sincerity, instead of seeking truth in self-forgetfulness, is like the man who seeks to be detached instead of laying himself open in love.'
There's something in that on the difference between atheistic and theistic notions of meditation...














Comments
‘The man who seeks sincerity, instead of seeking truth in self-forgetfulness, is like the man who seeks to be detached instead of laying himself open in love.'
There's something in that on the difference between atheistic and theistic notions of meditation...
I think I see what you are getting at, but cannot atheists seek sincerity, and cannot they lay themselves open in love? It might be that detachment is the precondition for love, as opposed to selfish desire.
Yes, but RW's form of meditation means believing you're a part of a loving god's creation and finding calm and solace there. Athesit meditation means reflecting on a life atop of a swirling, meaningless void. Not particularly consoling:-)
@Karl - I wouldn't exactly say Buddhist meditation involved reflecting on a life atop of a swirling, meaningless void.
Well, Bill, perhaps we can differtiate between Buddhism and Atheism. The latter in its true form admits of no ready system by which we may label reality. Buddhism, for all its lack of a personal deity, still comprises a metaphysics, meditaiton techniques, a path to enlightenment etc.
@Karl: Precisely - no personal god. There is much wonder in the universe that one can contemplate, without need for a personal god. It's far from a meaningless void.
That's a matter of opinion, Bill. You can certainly wonder: wonder why there is so much horrific suffering in the world and what's the point of it all. A far more worthy object of wonder than all of the pretty colours and the nice music, no?
In the photo that you featured with the Roman Bishops did you notice that there were no women present. Such is of course always the case when these chaps get together to discuss the future of humanity. Never mind that half the human race is not even represented at their various gabfests.
Furthermore if you check out any of the many images available on the internet of their really big time grand theatrical occasions, including when Benedict was installed as Pope, you will find that they are all celebrations of very worldly uber-patrirachal power.
There is of course also the tragic irony that all of the potentially good things that were launched by Vatican II have now been shut down. They are now quite literally dead in the water. This shutting down process was deliberately and systematically engineered by John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict. This dead in the water shut down will remain in place for at least several generations because the church as created in the image of Ratzinger is now firmly in control of his hench-men that he has appointed.
This superb site provides all kinds of useful imformation re the politics and cultural implications of Ratzinger's church.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colko...
Two recent standout essays are; 1. Hans Kung Speaks Again 2. Synod for Evangelization? Or Remaking the Church in the Elitist Image of Opus Dei.
In his recent book The Pope's War Matthew Fox describes the process whereby Opus Dei and similar uber-patriarchal "traditionalist" groups took over the church. Fox also describes the cultural implications of this takeover, and calls for the church to reinvent itself so that it is truly universal.
It is interesting that both Hans Kung and Matthew Fox were excommunicated for "heresy".
I completely agree. Getting lost in an adventure often yields great rewards.