The Career and Prospects of Providence in Modern Theology

An international conference 7-9 January 2008 King’s College, University of Aberdeen

Sarah Coakley
David Bentley Hart
Nicholas J. Healey
Alister E. McGrath
Charles Mathewes
Francesca Murphy
Cyril O’Regan
Katherine Sonderegger
John Webster
Philip G. Ziegler
and others

This conference aims to break fresh ground in the analysis of divine providence by exploring a range of current proposals concerning its form, significance and viability within contemporary thought.

The character and interrelation of divine and human agency lies at the contested heart of modern theology. Since the Enlightenment, the classical doctrine of providence has been aggressively criticised within both theology and philosophy. Following on the cross-fertilization of early-modern eschatologies and the doctrine of providence, the idea of providence did not so much go into decline as migrate into secularized forms. In light of the divergence of such humanistic approaches from classical theological conceptions of providence, contemporary restatements of the idea require careful consideration: what exactly is to be recovered? A metaphysical account of the doctrine grounded in divine omnipotence? A thoroughly historicized notion of providence? Or, perhaps something altogether different?

By inviting scholars to examine the development of the idea of providence within intellectual history, the axial role of providence in modern systematic theologies, and the reformulation of the classical idea of providence after Hegel, we hope to advance the frontiers of investigation of the doctrine of providence at the present juncture.

‘Following on the cross-fertilization of early-modern eschatologies and the doctrine of providence, the idea of providence did not so much go into decline as migrate into secularized forms’

‘Eschatologies migrate into secularized forms’? Now that is an interesting remark. I wonder who could say more on this subject?

– and thanks to Andy Goodliff, always first with the news

Scots Catholic bishops show how to address the public square

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

1. We, the Catholic Bishops of Scotland, greet you in the name of the risen Christ. As we continue to celebrate the mystery of Easter, we renew our hope in Jesus Christ as the source of our salvation.

2. Elections to the Scottish Parliament and to Local Authorities are approaching. Each of us is called to make practical political choices for the sake of the common good of the people of Scotland. These choices should be made in conformity with our faith in Christ.

3. The Bishops recognise that many people in politics work conscientiously to achieve good, and we commend them to you. At the same time we cannot fail to notice a conflict of values in society. This conflict of values is reflected in the political sphere in policies, social legislation and regulations which are seriously at odds with the insights and values of our Christian faith and of other faiths.

4. The Bishops remain deeply concerned about legislation which allows abortion, embryo experimentation, easy divorce and civil partnerships. We have always campaigned against poverty, deprivation and injustice. We have raised our voices against a new generation of nuclear weapons. We foresee with apprehension a campaign to legalise euthanasia. We find ourselves having to counter criticism of the very existence of Catholic schools, in large part prompted by an agenda which aims to remove religion from the public sphere.

5. As well as these serious matters, Government has advanced proposals which imply a stealthy and unjust attack on the freedom of religion itself and on the rights of conscience. Earlier this year new regulations were enacted at Westminster which could prevent Catholic adoption agencies from carrying out their work according to the Catholic and Christian vision of family life. Last year, in the face of widespread opposition, the Scottish Parliament extended the right to adopt to unmarried and same sex couples. These dubious innovations are detrimental not just to the good of the Catholic community but to the common good of humanity as a whole. They deserve to be challenged at the ballot box.

6. The coming elections give us an opportunity to vote wisely and to choose the best political representatives for our communities. Many of those standing share our Christian values. There are signs of a desire for an authentic Christian voice in politics serving the common good of people of all faiths and none.

7. Your Bishops urge you to use your vote to support the candidates who offer the best chance of bringing the voice of a truly human and Christian civilisation to the decision-making chambers of our country. We invite you to look beyond the superficially attractive and fashionable to recognise those policies and values which are most in tune with the dignity of the human person and with the common good of our society.

8. To help you vote, we attach with this letter a number of questions you may wish to consider yourself and put to your election candidates.

9. Our faith is in the risen Christ. We are all to witness to Him even in our political choices, in the hope that we can make his love for all men and women more effective in our country!

May God bless you all.

Yours devotedly in Christ,

Scottish Catholic Media Office Catholic Bishops urge voters to challenge attacks on Christian values “at the ballot box”

The Scottish Catholic Media Office provides a service to the press and media, offering them information and guidance on the activities of the Church in Scotland. The Office is responsible to the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland through its National Communications Commission, whose President is Bishop Joseph Devine.

“The Church cannot fail to be ever more deeply involved in the burgeoning world of communications. There must be an active and imaginative engagement of the media by the Church.” Pope John Paul II

Notice that this statement begins with a doxology. This is the only way an announcement or document of the Christian Church can begin. Let’s pick up some of these good habits, shall we?

Now I want to see an English, Anglican (and Catholic) Media Office. It would look like the Anglican Communion Office but will present the views of the Church of England, in the closest possible association with the Roman Catholic Church of England and Wales, to the nation, its government and media. It will be more than a news service (press statements of church news). It will set out the proposals of the Christian Church for the public policy of this nation. Its pronouncements should be shorter versions of the speeches of our remarkable Archbishop of Canterbury, but they will be issued by the bishops of the Church of England as a whole, wherever possible together with the Conference of the Roman Catholic bishops.

Can you fix that for me?

'The Theology of John Zizioulas'

Copies of The Theology of John Zizioulas arrived here today. The book is published in May, and so far is visible on only. Ashgate have the Contents page and Introduction. Here’s the blurb.

John Zizioulas is widely recognised as the most significant Orthodox theologian of the last half century and acclaimed advocate of ecumenism. From his indepth knowledge of the intellectual resources of the Church, Zizioulas has argued that the Church Fathers represent a profound account of freedom and community that represents a radical challenge to modern accounts of the person. Zizioulas uses the work of the Fathers to make an important distinction between the person, who is defined by a community, and the individual who defines himself in isolation from others, and who sees community as a threat to his freedom. Zizioulas argues that God is the origin of freedom and community, and that the Christian Church is the place in which the person and freedom come into being.

This volume offers a critical appraisal of the theology of John Zizioulas. Leading Anglican, Reformed, Catholic and Orthodox international scholars, including Colin Gunton, Nicholas Loudovikos, Paul McPartlan, Wolfhart Pannenberg and Philip Rosato present essays which analyse Zizioulas’ trinitarian doctrine of God, and his theological account of the Church as the place in which freedom and communion are actualised. Many include discussions of Zizioulas’ Being as Communion as well as other lesser known works, now available in Communion and Otherness. Together they represent an unrivalled introduction to the work of this great theologian.

Robert Turner Eschatology and Truth

Alan Brown On the Criticism of ‘Being as Communion’ in Anglophone Orthodox theology

Wolfhart Pannenberg Divine Economy and Eternal Trinity

Markus Mühling The Work of the Holy Spirit

Colin Gunton Persons and Particularity

Douglas Farrow Person and Nature

Nicholas Loudovikos Christian Life and Institutional Church

Demetrios Bathrellos Church, Eucharist, Bishop

Paul Collins Authority and Ecumenism

Philip Rosato SJ The Ordination of the Baptized

Paul McPartlan The Local and Universal Church

Douglas Knight The Spirit and Persons in the Liturgy

The first chapter by Robert Turner sets out the issues very lucidly and accessibly. In my case, words of one syllable are all I can manage these days, so the Introduction is an easy read for any undergraduate. Then comes a simply awesome chapter by Alan Brown which shows just how exciting this subject can get.

I am very grateful to all the book’s contributors of course, but most particularly to Demetrios Bathrellos, for whom this business has been going on for eight years, and to Mihail Neamtu, Alan Brown and Liviu Barbu, and to Pam Bertram and her colleagues at Ashgate. As for Zizioulas, I am still finding that there is much more to learn from this extraordinary theologian. As Liviu pointed out, he is a church father himself, and an apostle for the contemporary church.

Europe's apostasy from itself

From all this it clearly emerges that an authentic European “common home” cannot be built without considering the identity of the people of this Continent of ours. It is a question of a historical, cultural, and moral identity before being a geographic, economic, or political one; an identity comprised of a set of universal values that Christianity helped forge, thus giving Christianity not only a historical but a foundational role vis-à-vis Europe. These values, which make up the soul of the Continent, must remain in the Europe of the third millennium as a “ferment” of civilization. If these values were to disappear, how could the “old” Continent continue to function as a “leaven” for the entire world? If, for the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the Governments of the Union wish to “get nearer” to their citizens, how can they exclude an element essential to European identity such as Christianity, with which a vast majority of citizens continue to identify? Is it not surprising that today’s Europe, while aspiring to be regarded as a community of values, seems ever more often to deny the very existence of universal and absolute values? Does not this unique form of “apostasy” from itself, even more than its apostasy from God, lead Europe to doubt its own identity? And so the opinion prevails that an “evaluation of the benefits” is the only way to moral discernment and that the common good is synonymous with compromise. In reality, if compromise can constitute a legitimate balance between different particular interests, it becomes a common evil whenever it involves agreements that dishonour human nature.

A community built without respect for the true dignity of the human being, disregarding the fact that every person is created in the image of God ends up doing no good to anyone. For this reason it seems ever more important that Europe be on guard against the pragmatic attitude, widespread today, which systematically justifies compromise on essential human values, as if it were the inevitable acceptance of a lesser evil. This kind of pragmatism, even when presented as balanced and realistic, is in reality neither, since it denies the dimension of values and ideals inherent in human nature. When non-religious and relativistic tendencies are woven into this pragmatism, Christians as such are eventually denied the very right to enter into the public discussion, or their contribution is discredited as an attempt to preserve unjustified privileges. In this historical hour and faced with the many challenges that confront it, the European Union, in order to be a valid guarantor of the rule of law and an efficient promoter of universal values, cannot but recognize clearly the certain existence of a stable and permanent human nature, source of common rights for all individuals, including those who deny them. In this context, the right to conscientious objection should be protected, every time fundamental human rights are violated.

Dear friends, I know how difficult it is for Christians to defend this truth of the human person. Nevertheless do not give in to fatigue or discouragement! You know that it is your duty, with God’s help, to contribute to the consolidation of a new Europe which will be realistic but not cynical, rich in ideals and free from naïve illusions, inspired by the perennial and life-giving truth of the Gospel.

Pope Benedict to the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE)

Anglican Communion Institute

It is becoming obvious that the leadership of TEC means to move resolutely ahead with its mission of civil rights and inclusion, insisting that these are imperatives of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a kind of brand name for American Episcopalianism. (We leave to the side whether inclusion or civil rights are being honored or thwarted by this idea.)

In the light of the failure to respond positively to the communiqué of the Primates Meeting, the course being charted is becoming increasingly clear. Apparently the Archbishop of Canterbury is prepared to hear out the leadership of TEC on an alternative plan that will deal with the problems it has created for life in Communion. But the disconnect that will result could be palpable, not least because TEC leadership does not acknowledge that it has created a problem that requires any remedy of the kind an Instrument of Unity has recently urged, with urgency. It views the problem as ‘conservatives’ out of step with the enlightened views it holds. The recent reports of Presiding Bishop Schori’s comments make this very clear indeed. She is to be commended for her candor.

The Archbishop of Canterbury will not be accused of failing to go the extra mile in this terrible mess. It might be suspected that his chief intention is to be sure he has a grasp of the facts at close hand. Proximity will in this case surely be a bracing thing.

It is becoming clear as well that a gift is only of any value if it is given and received both. Archbishop Rowan would be forgiven for being puzzled at the failure of conservative Bishops in TEC both to applaud and embrace the communiqué of Dar es Salaam and receive warmly what has been given. Not to gaze on it from afar or speak of its virtues only, but to unwrap and open and take good care of what has been given.

Efforts to delay or to seek another form of ‘peace’ can only be seen as yet another example of American unilateralism. There is nothing wrong, uncanonical, imperial, or otherwise with the communique’s requests. The requests address with clarity and charity a problem that unilateralists in the Communion have created. There is no evidence that the Primates are seeking fresh alternatives to the communiqué they crafted, and Archbishop Rowan is going the extra mile to take the pulse up close. Sadly, the patient is not only quite ill, but in denial as well.

The Anglican Communion Institute A Visit from the Archbishop

The ACI is alive and well but note the new website URL is

Christian dogmatics in London

Neil MacDonald is good at titles. What do you think of his latest?

Metaphysics and the God of Israel: Systematic Theology of the Old and New Testaments

or of his earlier

Karl Barth and the Strange New World within the Bible: Barth, Wittgenstein, and the Metadilemmas of the Enlightenment

So what are the reviews like?

â??Neil MacDonaldâ??s reflection moves back, forth and sideways between critical biblical study, high-modern philosophy in the analytical tradition, and classical Christian doctrine. Most who have attempted such explorations have reported mostly blockades and traps. MacDonald discovers instead sudden opportunities of faithful insight and of â?? very often unexpected â?? theological construction. A remarkable and, I think, important book, to be read with attention.â??
Robert W. Jenson, Formerly Senior Scholar for Research at the Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton, Professor Emeritus of Religion, St. Olaf College, Minnesota

â??MacDonaldâ??s is a voice crying in the wilderness. This is a brilliant effort to combine the very best in historical-critical and theological exegesis with dogmatic and philosophical reflection of a very high level. The writing style is lucid and at times almost poetic,which a theme as exalted as Godâ??s work in time requires. Sophisticated and full of
insight. May his tribe increase.â??
Christopher R. Seitz, Professor of Old Testament and Theological Studies, University of St Andrews

â??Neil MacDonaldâ??s latest book is the first major effort in many decades to attempt to reintegrate systematic theology with biblical studies. The authorâ??s grasp of the whole
spectrum of modern biblical scholarship, both in Old and New Testaments, is highly impressive. Because of his unique mastery of philosophical theory as well, he is superbly equipped for this exciting task. His book will certainly serve to open up a fresh dialogue, which is long overdue.â??
Brevard S. Childs, Emeritus Professor of Old Testament, Yale Divinity School

Hmm. Always interesting to see who a man’s friends are.

But there is another remarkable fact about this Neil MacDonald. He teaches Christian dogmatics in London.

Christians and universities


A conference sponsored by the Aquinas Institute, Athletes in Action, the Baptist Student Fellowship, Christian Leadership Ministries, Manna Christian Fellowship, Princeton Evangelical Fellowship, Princeton Faith and Action, and the Witherspoon Institute.
Princeton, New Jersey November 9-11, 2007

Contrary to the perception of certain intellectual circles, no oil-and-water dynamic need exist between academic excellence and Christian faith. History instructs us in this, as so much of the Western intellectual inheritance rests on the work of great Christian figures like Augustine, John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, Erasmus, John Calvin, and Jonathan Witherspoon. And yet, Christian students today are told via explicit arguments and subtle denigration that their positions on many issues lack rational foundations. Not only are Christian beliefs and practices under attack, but moral norms of sexual ethics and human dignity are increasingly challenged or even dismissed. The Christian Worldview conference will bring together thinkers from both inside and outside the academy to address several issues:

1. The nature of Christian truth and how we can know it.
1. Secularism and the Challenges of Faith
2. The Authenticity and Historicity of Scripture

2. The relationship between, and compatibility of, Christianity and science.
1. The rejection of scientific materialism as a philosophy
2. The nature of the universe as a designed system

3. The Christian and the Polis: where and how Christian and natural law principles influence public policy, with subsections on:
1. Bioethics
2. Sex and Marriage

The proposed topics of the Christian Worldview conference reflect the worries that students regularly confide to their priests and pastors, as these clergy have related to the Witherspoon Institute. Far from being a pep talk, however, the conference aims instead to explore how orthodox Christianity shapes one’s approach to scholarship and to engagement with the secular and academic worlds.

Amongst the stars are Robert P. George and Fr. Richard John Neuhaus.

I know what the Witherspoon Institute is, and am impressed. I have even discovered The Institute on Religion and Democracy. Am I becoming a theocon? Stop me someone.

The human person is by its very nature other-centred

According to the Pope’s ‘nuptial anthropology’, marriage partners are not merely turned towards one another in a dualistic relationship: they are also open towards a third, towards the child which expresses the unity of both in one flesh. Angelo Scola describes the structure of this relationship as one of ‘asymmetrical reciprocity’. It is precisely in this respect that marriage mirrors the relations of the Holy Trinity. The mystery of the Mass has the same root as Christian marriage. The union between Christ the Bridegroom and his Bride the Church is a covenant in the Holy Spirit. The liturgy enacts the marriage of the Lamb, combining the wedding banquet of the Last Supper with the redemptive act of the Passion. Furthermore the trinitarian character of the Mass makes it ‘asymmetrical’ in the same way that marriage is asymmetrical (cf. Ephesians 5:31-2).

The ‘watermark’ of the Trinity is found throughout all of creation at every level, wherever the distinct identities of two things are preserved (and deepened) by uniting them in a third. Human and divine natures are united in the Person of the Son (Chalcedon). God and humanity are united in the sacrament of the Church (Vatican II). Man and woman are united in the ‘one flesh’ of marriage. Reason and feeling are united in the intelligence of the heart.

The ‘watermark’ of the Trinity is found throughout all of creation at every level, wherever the distinct identities of two things are preserved (and deepened) by uniting them in a third. Human and divine natures are united in the Person of the Son (Chalcedon). God and humanity are united in the sacrament of the Church (Vatican II). Man and woman are united in the ‘one flesh’ of marriage. Reason and feeling are united in the intelligence of the heart.

One surprising conclusion from this might be that many seemingly unrelated problems in the Church have a common cause. The crisis over sexuality, brought into the open by the reaction to Humanae Vitae in 1968, stems from the mentality that fails to understand the true nature of the ‘asymmetric’ relationship between man and woman. This is the same mentality that fails to understand the relationship between priest and people in the liturgy. This failure may express itself either in a clerical domination of the laity, or in a reversal of that relationship that eliminates all sense of the transcendent. On the one side, we find a poisonous cocktail of clericalism, aestheticism and misogyny. On the other, we observe politically correct liturgies devoted to the themes of justice and peace: everyone sitting in a circle, passing the consecrated chalice from hand to hand, with the priest improvising parts of the eucharistic prayer in order to make it more relevant and friendly. The icy ‘coldness’ of clericalism is answered by the melting ‘warmth’ of the community-oriented Mass, and the sentimental empowerment of the laity. It is hard to say which is worse.

The post-conciliar period emphasized the horizontal dimension of the liturgy (social concern) over the vertical (the act of worship). Whole religious orders went into decline as the communitarian aspect of their mission took precedence over the liturgical, the love of neighbour over the love of God. But according to trinitarian anthropology, the human person is by its very nature other-centred. We love God, and this opens us to the life of the other; we love our neighbour, and this opens us to the love of God. The love of God sends us out to do good, because it reveals who we are, self and neighbour both. We are then not (only) imitating the love of God that we see demonstrated in the liturgy, but living the liturgy out in the world. The liturgy is not (merely) separate in a horizontal sense from what goes on outside, but separate in the sense of being ‘interior’, of revealing the inner meaning and purpose of what lies outside. Sacred space, sacred time and sacred art are distinctive, not (just) as belonging to a parallel world, but as defining the centre of this world: the world in which we live and work.

Stratford Caldecott Liturgy and Trinity: Towards an Anthropology of the LiturgySecond Spring (see Mystagogy)

Penal substitution

In a Lent talk for Radio 4 Canon Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, poured scorn on the penal substitution account of the atonement. Jeffrey John, a wonderful communicator, communicated that the Christian Church has been teaching a vicious God. Canon John identifies the appalling doctrine the whole Church has been mistakenly though uniformly teaching from the beginning until now (‘Canon’ means the standard approved by and for the teaching of the Church).

Tom Wright now replies on Fulcrum. He does a very interesting thing. For what seems to me to be the first time Bishop Tom argues from a document of the Church (He does of course argue from documents in the Windsor process, but that is about church order, whilst this is about doctrine). It is a not very impressive but nonetheless very useful little report of the Doctrine Commission entitled The Mystery of Salvation. There is nothing like arguing from documents which have some measure of formal assent from the Church, the doctrine of which you took vows at your ordination to uphold. Failure to uphold that doctrine is to contradict yourself, which no one hurries to do.

The Mystery of Salvation notes that substitutionary atonement is taught in the Thirty-Nine Articles, and that this enshrines ‘a vital truth’, which can best be got at through the language of ‘vicarious’ suffering (p. 212). And, while perfectly properly emphasizing that the ultimate subject of the action in the death of Jesus is God himself (presumably God the Father), the Report notes (p. 213), immediately after the passage quoted from the 1938 Report to which Dr John refers (‘the notion of propotiation as the placating by man of an angry God is definitely unChristian’), that ‘it is nevertheless true that in Paul’s thought the effect of expiation is the same as that of propitiation – to neutralise the sin that is the cause of God’s displeasure and so to avert God’s wrath (however that should be understood).’ While noting the obvious problems with a crude doctrine of propitiation (a loving Jesus placating a malevolent God), the Report goes on to point out (p. 214) that both Athanasius and Augustine, as well as Calvin, spoke in terms of God himself providing the propitiation for his own wrath. The problem of the crude formulation was, in other words, already well known in the Greek and Latin Fathers, and this did not prevent them from continuing to see Jesus’ death in terms of propitiation even while insisting that the work from start to finish was the result of God’s love. Granted, the 1995 Report does scant justice to the history of the idea of substitution, both penal and otherwise, giving the bizarre impression that the idea was merely invented by Anselm and developed by Calvin, as though it were not also to be found in several of the Fathers, a good many of the mediaeval writers, and more or less all the Reformers, not least Martin Luther. But that is only to say that the Report, like all such productions, should not be taken as a definitive account either of what Anglicans are supposed to believe or of what they believe in fact.

We might also note that the 1995 Report had also spoken, earlier, of Jesus as having ‘died our death, sharing our failure, condemnation, despair and godforsakenness’ (p. 103, italics added). Earlier again, and more fully (and answering in a measure to Jenson’s request for the story of the cross to be more biblically rooted), the Report stated:

In going to the cross, Jesus acted out his own version of the total story, according to which Israel, represented by himself, must be the people in and through whom the creator God would deal with the evil of the world and of humankind. The cross, as the execution of Israel’s Messiah outside Jerusalem at the hands of the pagans, was thus the great summation of Israel’s exile, which was itself the fulfilment and completion of the ambbiguous and tragic story of Israel as a whole. At the same time, the cross was the supreme achievement of Israel’s God, returning to Zion as he had promised, to deal with his people’s sins and their consequences.

Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham The Cross and the Caricatures – a response to Robert Jenson, Jeffrey John, and a new volume entitled Pierced for Our Transgressions

It is great to see that this very great (Anglican) biblical scholar, Tom Wright, has caught on to that very great (Lutheran) systematic theologian, Robert Jenson, even so demonstrating how wide the gulf between biblical and dogmatic theologians is.

There is one Anglican systematic theologian who examines the theology of Jenson and Wright in a long conversation about the relationship of biblical studies and doctrine and its implications for the atonement, including even penal substitution. His book is entitled The Eschatological Economy, and you can read the relevant sections on atonement, substitution, sacrifice, representation (‘for us’, ‘in our place’) in its chapters 3 and 4 here at Google Book. I’ll put a copy in the post to Bishop Tom.

Have the threads holding together pluralist democracy begun to unravel?

How strange that our Catholic adoption agencies, which seek homes for some of the most vulnerable and difficult-to-place in our society, should be seen as discriminatory, when in accordance with religious belief and practice they ask only for the freedom for themselves to choose for those children an environment which in their professional wisdom is the one most likely to promote their happiness and well-being.

I begin to wonder whether Britain will continue to be a place which protects and welcomes the works of people shaped and inspired by the Church. My fear is that, under the guise of legislating for what is said to be tolerance, we are legislating for intolerance. Once this begins, it is hard to see where it ends. While decrying religion as dogmatic, is dogma to prevail in the public square, forcing to the margins the legitimate expression and practice of genuine religious conviction? My fear is that in an attempt to clear the public square of what are regarded as unacceptable intrusions, we weaken the pillars on which that public square is erected – and we will discover that the pillars of pluralism may not survive.

The question is whether the threads holding together pluralist democracy have begun to unravel. That is why I have sounded this note of alarm. It is as a British Catholic citizen, pleading for the continuation of our proud democratic tradition of respect for the exercise of religious belief, that I have spoken before you tonight. I am conscious that when an essential core of our democratic freedom risks being undermined, subsequent generations will hold to account those who were able to raise their voices yet stayed silent.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor RELIGION AND THE PUBLIC FORUM – the Corbishley Lecture, 28 March 2007, Westminster Cathedral Hall. the full lecture is a Word document at the bottom of the page

Well roared, Cormac. I think that in tone at least this is a first in the UK. Now what coverage has this speech received?