From the Telegraph (UK) - Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, says wearin the cross is just "a decoration" and not central to Christianity.
Not surprising, considering his record.
Read the whole article : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9137510/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-wearing-a-cross-just-decoration-says-Dr-Rowan-Williams.html
Posts
4 comments:
"And the cross itself has become a religious decoration"
He says that is "has become," not that it is in its essence.
And he's right! Many people have made the cross a religious decoration to wear, instead of something to appeal to. A cross necklace is NOT necessary to Christianity. Rather, what Christ did on the cross is necessary.
How is he wrong?
I don't disagree with you Brett, but it would appear he's throwing his lot in with the secular crowd by giving a nod to their efforts to banish the cross.
Would Dr. Williams say that the cross he wears is merely a decoration? If the UK came to him and said "Hey, you have to take that off", would he comply? I would bet that he would.
No, wearing a cross in not necessary ( I don't wear one ), but a Christian should never be forbidden to wear one.
And THIS is what this case is about - stifling the public expression of faith.
I wear a cross...and find it a bit disturbing that it is said to be a mere decoration...it should be a constant reminder that our Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross for us!
I see your point Brett Adams, and I agree with your observation, to a point. However I think Paul Nichols' point, that he was de facto acknowledging that the cross as a symbol, is irrelevant and can be removed by religious extremists who call themselves 'atheists.' The difference between an atheist and a religious believer is nil. Both 'believe', intensely in their basic premise. But Atheism, like Islam, would ban all symbolism or free expression by all other belief systems aside from their own.
Post a Comment