It Was the Royal Wedding for Pete's Sake . . .

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, conducted much of the royal wedding.  On such an important occasion, viewed by billions around the globe, you would think a trip to the barbershop earlier in the day would have been in order.  On a day when not a hair, a pleat, or a medallion, was out of place in the entire city of London, here's the Archbishop looking like he's been living in his car.  A particular scene from The Princess Bride comes to mind. 

At the very least, the Archbishop could have trimmed those massive eyebrows!  

It was the royal wedding for Pete's sake!

Comments

[hb]

Must be the DNA as I was thinking the very same thing! Those brows were disgusting! I guess he thinks he looks more "priestly."

[Lisa]

A barber and a dentist.

[Si]

A haircut was needed as well, but the 'Archdruid' has to keep up his hippy credits out of church politics.

Worse was Princess Beatrice - wearing ridiculous hats and far too much mascara while sitting behind the Queen, distracting from Her Majesty's majesty, ought to mean getting sent to The Tower. Her sister Eugenie wasn't much better either.

[Mark Donaldson]

Wow. Never would have thought comments like this from this website. I'm a bit disappointed. I'm more concerned with whether he preached the gospel to the royal couple. Not whether he went to the dentist or barber.

[Scott Roper]

I don't know what you're talking about, I like his look.

Now if he and the rest of the Church of England could just dispense with the priestly vestments...

[Craig Boyd]

The priestly vestments are secondary, a non-essential one way or the other, really. What the Anglican Church needs to do is to get back to their Calvinist roots as they once confesssed ithem in their 39 Articles of Faith.

[Rana]

"Wow. Never would have thought comments like this from this website. I'm a bit disappointed. I'm more concerned with whether he preached the gospel to the royal couple. Not whether he went to the dentist or barber."

me too. thank you.

[DG]

Ah yes. Because a humorous commentary on a priest's appearance clearly precludes any concern for gospel proclamation.

Also there have been plenty of posts on this blog that aren't primarily concerned with spiritual things... I mean, he's a Yankees fan...

[Philip Walker]

He has a style to keep up, you know. Rather like the Mayor of London, who had to turn up looking just a little dishevelled, or he'd lose his street cred.

[John D. Chitty]

My wife made the same complaint. But, as far as I'm concerned, he's the archbishop--he's got nothing to prove.

[Scott Roper]

Well they need to get (back) to the Westminster Standards. Vestments might not even be secondary, but I disagree that they are "non-essential one way or the other."

[Charloes L. Baker]

The Archbishop's short comments were vacuous. "Priestly vestments?" Maybe it is we who ought to return to cassock/surplice,stole and that marvelous 1662 Prayer Book. But then, the Archbishop altered the vows.

On the other hand, it was a dignified, reverent service. The singing of Psalm 122 (not paraphrased) was commendable.

[Si]

The main sermon was by the Bishop of London, and it was not massively clear, and there have been mixed reactions as to it's gospel content.

The 39 Articles aren't Calvinist (or aren't deliberately, though Calvin's theology plays a large role) - they are Protestant though. The 'via media' that so many think is between Protestant and Catholic is between the Protestantisms of Wittenburg, Geneva and Zurich (though not so much on the Zurich), though the Anglo-Catholics have been around since the beginning and are somewhat tolerated by the wordings of the prayer book and 39 articles.

[Craig Boyd]

So, maybe I am looking at it through tulip colored glasses? Could be. Wouldn't be the first time. : ) Some of us find it difficult to make separation between the way of salvation commonly called "Calvinism" and that which is called "The Gospel."

My point: The right Gospel over the right vestments.

Craig Boyd

[Pastor Chris]

Part of the dishevelment is due to the fact that he had just removed his miter. It just goes to show that the clothes especially the ridiculous vestments of the C of E can also "unmake" or perhaps unmask the man...

I agree, though, that the main point is that 2 billion people missed hearing the Gospel. The ultimate "judgment" that he will face for that (James 3:1) is sufficient . I would give a lot to have 10 minutes (or even the 7 that the Bishop of London took) to present the Gospel to 2 Billion people.

For all those who are sympathetic to NT Wright (I am not), but I really am curious what (if anything) the Bishop of Durham would have done that would have been different than the Bishop of London? I haven't found any public comment. If I was Anglican and allegedly evangelical, I would have been beyond embarrassed at the lack of Gospel content in that "sermon".

May God have mercy and raise up men committed to sola Scriptura to lead a new reformation in Britain.

[Chris Sherman]

I did a google translate on Rowan Williams words, here's what I got;

"Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam.. And wuv, tru wuv, will fowow you foweva.. So tweasure your wuv. Have you the wing? "

[Chris Sherman]

The condition of his hair was better than some of the crazy hats.

[William the Contractor]

There's Reformed Anglicanism, which I believe is Calvinistic, and very good from what I gather. This is J.I. Packers denomination.

[Jim King]

This humorous look at the disheveled-looking Archbishop is in no way demeaning to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Naysayers, get over your self-righteous judgement.

[Pastor Chris]

@William - J.I. Packer has left this denomination over the homosexual marriage issue and formed his own with the rest of the evangelical Canadian Anglicans. The "via media" of Anglicanism is and always has been fundamentally flawed.