As [Rowan] Williams began his tenure as archbishop in 2003, though, the ordination of Robinson sent the issue of gay bishops to the head of the agenda. By last summer, with the Lambeth Conference approaching, schism seemed inevitable. Some bishops opposed to homosexual clergy held a rival conference in Jerusalem, denouncing Williams as a liberal pawn. Traditionalists announced plans to “go over” to the Roman Catholic Church or form their own church unless Williams got rid of Robinson. Gay activists circulated an old essay by Williams in which he had eloquently celebrated gay and lesbian relationships; the commentariat mocked him as a holy fool for some approving remarks he had made about Islamic law. Friends of Williams said he might resign. “God has given you all the gifts,” one friend told him, “and as your punishment, he has made you archbishop of Canterbury.”
The schism hasn’t come””not yet. The Anglican Communion, the world’s third-largest group of Christians after the Catholics and the Orthodox, is still standing””a “hugely untidy but very lovable” body, in the words of its most famous member, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the South African Nobel laureate. But its unity has been compromised. In December, a half-dozen bishops broke with the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and announced their plans to found a rival Anglican Community for North America.
It is now, with his office under pressure from both left and right, that Rowan Williams’s real work is beginning. Now he must persuade the aggrieved, quarrelsome people he leads to bear with one another once and for all.
The journalist from the ATLANTIC writes:
Has my memory utterly failed me? Or was it not the case that traditionalists united in 2004 in the moderate but nonnegotiable position that the then ECUSA simply not elevate any MORE noncelibate gays people to the episcopate? It is simply a lie that the traditionalist response was “unless you GET RID OF Robinson we are leaving.”
I also found this passage illuminating:
Here we see the final step in the rhetoric about “conversation”: the unconscious admission by a prominent journalist that the word means nothing more nor less than the promotion of the gay agenda. It’s clear that in the final hour that’s what the word actually denotatively means. Someone should alert Webster.
Jon
exactly. dialogue means do what we (Liberal/Revisionists) say.
It seems fairly apparent that Rowan Williams has no leadership skills to speak of. Theologically he agrees with the reappraisers, but cannot bring himself to openly and forthrightly say so. He is left espousing Miller Lite proposals (tastes great, less filling) that satisfy no one and serve merely to prolong the agony of a house divided. Come to think of it I like “Tastes great, less filling” as a slogan for the “new thing” Gospel our friends in TEC are so determined to have the rest of the world bless as good.
As an alternative, maybe this is a desert wandering experience and after 40 years everyone who went a little crazy with their theology will die off and we can return to a normal state.
[blockquote] But its unity has been compromised. In December, a half-dozen bishops broke with the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and announced their plans to found a rival Anglican Community for North America.[/blockquote]
Once again, this was not the breach – the breach was when the Episcopal Church USA gave the rest of the Church the finger and ignored the instruments of unity.
The Atlantic used to be a fairly reasonable and interesting magazine. I used to subscribe and when I got their 2 years for $20 offer recently I was tempted to resubscribe. But the article is so full of errors that I decided no.
[i] Rowan Williams has no leadership skills to speak of [/i]
Indeed, he is a skilled misleader: pursuing the wrong goals by the wrong means.
A very interesting article – comprehensive. Williams is a man for our times, a clear understanding of his role.
He would never satisfy his enemies: they expect him to think like they do, but they don’t have is breadth of reading and historical knowledge.
The comments clearly express the general frustration that traditionalists have with Williams. But fortunately, they’ve gone and done their own thing, and will continue to leave. Nobody is forcing them to.
From Journalism 101: the lead is buried in the third paragraph: “But the long-term goal seems clear: to enable the church [Rowan Williams] leads to become fully open to gays and lesbians without breaking apart.â€
“No, nobody is forcing anyone to leave” eh? I suppose we would have to go back to the beginning of this discussion, repeat all the points and still have the same positions. What a waste of time. And why?
I’m not giving anyone unsolicited advice, even in my own tradition, but if it turns out that all your leader is doing is the gay plan, keep everone talkiing long enough and you win, then that certainly does give one something to think about.
An interesting and worthwhile article that reveals Williams as a fundamentally dishonest man. While fully on board with the Episcopal Organization agenda, he realizes that without Third World provinces, he heads nothing more than a left-wing pseudo-spiritual debating society with a relentlessy declining membership and without any influence on anyone. So of course he has to keep “talking” and “discerning.” Anything to ward off irrelevance.
Yes, we ARE the Anglican Church in North America, and we are bi-national.
No. 5: Yes, I read it last night and am glad I’ve let my subscription lapse; I have not renewed. I thought it was a strange article. The author seemed rather smitten with Rowan Williams, to the point of treating him as a celebrity. That point of view led to a deep flaw: viewing this history individualistically, in contemporary terms, instead of taking the archbishop seriously as a Catholic: that is, as someone who might actually be concerned with a process of discernment rather than with subtly and disingenuously fostering his own personal agenda. The author did not seem capable of even entertaining the possibility that a Catholic churchman might believe that God’s truth and God’s will might best be gotten at thru a process of discernment. Everything is read thru a prism of contemporary individualism and politics. I just thought the piece was sadly off-base and misleading to thousands of readers who otherwise knew nothing of this story and the true facts.
Well, the Williams does actually state his own view on running things in the course of this article: “The responsibility is not to argue a case from the top or cast the chairman’s vote. It’s to hold the reins for a sensible debate—and that’s a lot harder than I thought it would be.” It’s obvious that both factions want the chairman’s vote on their side, by contrast.
I notice that the author of this piece has mostly talked to liberal prelates (and the usual slew of unnamed confidants). I gather he doesn’t really understand the opposition.
I think the article is excellent. Beats some of the other long articles I’ve seen.
I’m fascinated by the comments on his leadership. It seems that he’s got a pretty good, intuitive sense about his role. He’s become more conservative, in some fashion, but held people together – at least those who care for one another.
He’s not been yelling. He’s been gathering. And that is his role as an ANGLICAN archbishop, rather than as a Roman. He’s not a pope, and Lambeth 1.10 isn’t a creed. It infuriates lots of primates. But that is because they should be worrying about their own provinces first.
RE: “He’s been gathering.”
And not very well, when one looks at 1/3 of the bishops of the Anglican Communion not showing up for the once in a decade Anglican Communion meeting.