Thinking creatively about Europe
- 2016-05-25
- By ReimaginingEurope
- Posted in History, Identity, Rowan Williams
The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Dr Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury and now Master of Magdalene College Cambridge
At the Faith in Europe AGM last year, the Rt Revd and Rt Hon Dr Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury and now Master of Magdalene College Cambridge, gave a talk titled Thinking Creatively about Europe. The text of this talk was compiled from notes by Philip Waters and approved by the Rt Revd and Rt Hon Dr Rowan Williams. Reimagining Europe is indebted to both Faith in Europe and the Rt Revd and Rt Hon Dr Rowan Williams for allowing the transcript of this talk to be posted on this site.
“I would like to focus on a number of aspects of European identity. Two obviously important constituents are the Classical heritages of Greece, to which we owe the idea of democracy, and of Rome, which has mainly meant organised militarism. However, it is not enough to think of European identity just in terms of these two legacies. There is also the Christian legacy, and other legacies.
There were no weekends in Ancient Rome. This is not a frivolous point: weekends are markers for the passage of time in a religious context. With weekends we mark the reliving of the human story of the life of Jesus weekly and yearly; and this is tied in with the evolution of the European individual. Boris Pasternak said that Christ is a human life printed on the world. Nobody is exempted from this image: slaves, the poor, women. Yes, this legacy lies under the debris of patriarchy; but as Thomas Aquinas said, there are some areas of human life that are ineradicable.
Europe also has its Muslim and Jewish legacies. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are a family quarrel rather than a clash of civilisations. We need to remember that Medieval Catholic theology was crucially informed by influx from the Muslim and Jewish peripheries.
The mix of legacies means that Europe has had a history of at best conversation and at worst confrontation about authority: who should we listen to, who should we obey? In debate over the rights of state and church the insight persists that there are two schemes of reference, the political and the spiritual: they overlap but they are not the same. It is not necessary to go into detail about the differences between Eastern and Western Europe, or between Catholic and Protestant: the above generalisations hold equally for all of them. To take one example, John Calvin’s ideas on the relationship between realms of power are more like those of Thomas Aquinas than they are like those of Martin Luther.
One of the problems we face today is the idea of the clash of civilisations, and the suggestion that one of those civilisations is Western democracy. This idea forgets the ineractions throughout history which have created that very Western democracy. Without an understanding of history, the idea of the superiority of Western democracy seems to be self-evident. ‘Over There’ dwell peoples who do not know the self-evident benefits of democracy; and the reason usually given is that they are religious. One of the effects of modernity is strangely enough to drive people to radicalism. ISIS is an example of how the introduction of Western values in the form of confrontation leads to simplification of a heritage, in this case Islamic. There is no place for approaching any modern problems from a standpoint of triumphalism. What we can say is that a series of providential insights have been given within Europe which are to be shared with other parts of the world.
All this is relevant for a consideration of Britain and Europe. There is no way we can talk about British values which are opposed to European or indeed wider values. My fear is that if Britain steps back from Europe it will be stepping back from its own heritage. In Britain we have not done too badly in sharing with and learning from others. In talking in isolationist terms we run the risk of nailing our colours to a myth.”
About the author
The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Dr Rowan Williams is currently Master of Magdalene College Cambridge. before taking up this post he was the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, Metropolitan of the Province of Canterbury and Primate of All England, offices he held from December 2002 to December 2012. He was previously Bishop of Monmouth and Archbishop of Wales, making him the first Archbishop of Canterbury in modern times not to be appointed from within the Church of England
Sir
The good Archbishop’s whole thesis has begun a wrong footing. The ‘clash of civilisations’ is not about borrowing this that or the other from legacies such as Greece, Rome, etc.
Rome did not give human rights - that idea came from Christians (human rights were unknown in ancient Rome).
‘The Kingdom of God’ has always been on a trajectory of collision wherever it is manifested.
Thus during the Wesleyan period it clashed with the chronic alcoholism of Hogarth’s ‘Gin Lane’ and gave the working-class abstinence, prudence, moderation and caring for one’s neighbour.
The call for Scottish independence would never have come with such stridency when the Christian faith was ‘muscular’ and men found their identity in Christ and referring to each other as brothers.
You speak about the debris of ‘patriarchy’ may I remind you that the Doctrine of Hierarchy (God, men, women and children - and in that order) was believed in up until the 18th century. Look at the plays of Shakespeare (‘What my foot my tutor?’) or study Milton’s Paradise Lost). (By the way Milton was not of the ‘Devil’s Party’ as you suggest in your book on Dostoevsky (Faith, Culture Religion and Language(?)) he was enunciating the classic doctrines of the Christian faith as attested to by Christian critics of his day.)
Thus identity was not found in interaction with Rome (persecution); Greece (not philosophy but Christ). As to the ‘Other’ that the ‘clash’ is directed at, that phenomenon was last seen strident in 17th century England.
If Britain steps back from the EEC, which is not the continent, but a organisation, we will be stepping back into our heritage.
The only myth, is that we are better off, by surrendering our sovereignty, to a body which has democratic standards similar to North Korea.
It is controlled by unelected commissioners, and has a powerless parliament.
It appears that the former Archbishop is trying to say that this British heritage is a myth. At least when it is conceived as something separate, unique or better.
After all, we have - apparently - been ‘informed’ by an ‘influx’ from the peripheries, and crucially too; as if what we were ‘informed’ about couldn’t be home-grown.
In contrast, it has been argued that once England was separated from territorial entanglements on the continent in the 15th century, and then by Henry VIII separating England from the supra-national authority of the Papacy, England developed unique political and legal traditions; ones which subsequently informed the world.
The former Archbishop does not note that ancient Rome’s military legacy was not inherited by Britain. It was only inherited by the authoritarian states of Prussia, Russia and Jacobin France. All these had legal and political systems different from Britain. The only cause of war in Europe in the 20th century was the fault line between Germany and Russia; one that the EU has not chosen to heal in coveting the Ukraine.
The former Archbishop’s view of British heritage springs from his perpetual concern about European triumphalism. He hasn’t noticed that after fifty years of the culture of repudiation there’s no triumphalism left. At least none in Europe. His concerns about triumphalism would be better focused on a new kid on the block.
Oh by the way Archbishop, Anglicans cannot possibly vote to remain within the EU (a supra-national State) because they have signed up to the Articles.
XXXVII. Of the Civil Magistrates
The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.
So far the European Union is no more than a rather strange international organisation established by treaty between its sovereign member states, but the intention has always been that eventually those member states would be stripped of their national sovereignty and be legally subordinated within a European federation.
That was clear from the start, with the 1950 Schuman Declaration that the EU takes as its starting point:
http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/symbols/europe-day/index_en.htm
and it is still true now.
But that is NOT what the British people want. Maybe other peoples in Europe do want it, but not the British according to numerous opinion polls.
So the answer is simple - we don’t want to be part of it, so we should not be part of it, we should leave.
Your Grace
Please note a principle described by the Lord in Scripture. The new wine of the EU superstate cannot be poured into the old wineskins of the nation-states. It’s Brexit or burst.
You may say ‘burst’, but, good heavens, think of the mess.
If there is a clash of civilisations you do not appear to have considered that one aspect of it is that between Britain’s political and legal tradition and those of the continent, which, as of course you know, are different. To illustrate with another principle given by the Lord, can an unshrunk piece of cloth be stitched to an old garment? Note to laundry: the new piece will tear in the wash.
To want to retain Britain’s legal and political traditions is not to claim superiority for them. Rather it proceeds from love and gratitude for all that they, and those who have upheld them, have given us. In your concerns about triumphalism have you forgotten love and gratitude for a dear old relative? After fifty years of the culture of repudiation there’s nothing left of triumphalism. Triumphalism has become one of the tired clichés of the world.
Your view of Europe as religiously diverse is not that much different from that of the EU Commissioner on Financial and Monetary Affairs who was reported in Le Figaro recently as saying that Europe is not Christian, but rather is diverse.
It would be helpful to the debate as a whole if establishment figures and celebrities campaigned openly for the replacement of countries with a superstate - if that is what they really want - rather than dressing up this objective as sharing, caring, working or what have you. Those who want to ‘retire’ nation-states have already determined whose authority they should obey.
You mention British values, and there’s an image that accompanies your post of the government’s booklet on British Values. Just to be clear, ‘British values’ really means left-liberal values, not specifically Christian ones. If there’s a triumphalism it is in these left-liberal values that you need to look for it.
There are things that were not accepted in any exchange of civilisations; such as the ancient Greeks’ practice of infanticide.
In your last paragraph you perpetuate the myth that wanting to leave the political union of the EU has the purpose of isolationism. And also the myth that the EU is Europe.
Your Grace,
you are so right.
Ancient Rome’s horrid legacy of militarism is still being perpetuated in the EU’s desire for its own army.
Just to clarify your point about ancient Rome. It was an authoritarian society that was obsessed with autobahns and concrete.
You say that in Britain we have not done too badly in sharing with and learning from others. Let’s not forget that the others have not done too badly in learning and sharing from us.
You say that we need to remember that Medieval Catholic theology was ‘crucially informed by influx from the Muslim and Jewish peripheries’. What exactly was crucial about it? Let’s not forget that those peripheries were once informed by others. (By the way, I note the judicious use of suggestive words such as ‘influx’).
That Western Democracy is “self evidently” the best social organization mankind as thus far achieved is self evident.
Look at the choices being made by individuals all round the world. Mas influx of people into countries that are western democracies away from countries that are not.
The legacy of Britain is that it spread western democracy all round the world. Where the British were there long enough or brought their culture and democracy, those countries are stable with high levels of human rights. Where the British were there only a short time and were unable to bring their culture, democracy has failed; demagogues, divisive power grabbing populists and kleptocrats rule.
Is Britain better off out of the EU? That is a question for the democratic vote of the people.
Given that membership of the EU had removed the right of Britain to protect its own borders, population and citizenry and therefore its culture; I would think that BREXIT is a good thing