The Archbishop of Canterbury will fight threats of disintegration in the Church of England with what is expected to be a forceful intervention at the General Synod today.
Dr Rowan Williams is determined to challenge the increasingly bitter infighting sparked by disagreements over women bishops in England and gay ordinations in the US.
In one of the most important presidential addresses of his seven-year archiepiscopacy, described by one insider as a “brilliant piece of work”, the Archbishop is expected to salvage hope from the despair felt by many Anglicans over pressure brought by the liberal, evangelical and Catholic wings of the established Church.
I predict a strongly worded call for more time to form a commission to give a report in 2200 and the need to let conciliarism triumph over ideology because there is more than one value system by which things may be measured, or some such. “Forceful intervention” and “Archbishop Williams” are, by historical precedent, not logically related by a verb.
“a forceful intervention”
ROTFLMBO!
It’s Ruth Gledhill. She sees brilliance where others do not. However, to use her phrase differently, I regret to say that as Archbishop, Williams has been a piece of work, all right.
RE: “the Archbishop is expected to salvage hope from the despair felt by many Anglicans . . . ”
Yes indeed — look at what a raving success The Royal Nonesuch er . . . The Lambeth Meeting was? How unified we all have been ever since the Archbishop of Canterbury “salvaged hope from despair.”
“Forceful Intervention”? That would be… out of character.
Alas, from the beginning the Church of England has been an erastian sham, which is finally entering its final death throes. I say ‘alas’, because I love it still.
it is a joke. Having read it he speaks of his desire that FIF members would go to women priests for spiritual direction and that they would admire Res C parishes for their good social work….
….except that Res C parishes will no longer exist as we are being offered nothing!! So this is just words and fluff and does NOTHING to help those of us forced out. Still I no longer care….
This article by Gledhill is a cut and paste from a previous post with a few new bits added.
[blockquote]He is also expected to address a contentious debate tomorrow about a motion to recognise the new conservative evangelical Anglican Church in North America[/blockquote] I can safely predict that he will comment in such a way that both sides will be able to claim that he is advocating for them. Otherwise I would agree with #1. dwstroudmd. Am I the only one who struggles with praying for the ABC?
Dr Williams has done more to bring about the disintegration of both the C of E and the Anglican Communion than any other single person in this whole epic.
Dr Williams simply will not state his opinion openly and clearly, which would at least bring clarity and demonstrate honesty. Instead, since 2003 he has carefully crafted his statements to appear to say what the reader/hearer wants to hear. Many people, in their goodwill, are still fooled by the ABC. Behind the scenes, he has consistently and decisively used his power and influence to protect TEC, to thwart the clear majority of the Primates, and to prevent the Instruments from disciplining TEC.
Dr Williams’ dissembling has done at least as much to harm the C of E, and the Anglican Communion, as have the merits of his revisionist principles. He is reaching that point where no one believes anything he says. That is a lamentable position for any ABC to occupy. He ought to have paid more attention to Machiavelli’s career, which ended in failure when he finally reached the same point.
I think we miss the forest for the trees when we complain about the ABC. The AC as a whole needs to fix serious structural issues and we need to clarify how we discern the truth.
The completely nonsensical position of the CofE with respect to the rest of the AC must change but this is a minor issue compared to governance and mission. Unless we agree on what we stand for we stand for nothing. If we stand for something other than Jesus Christ it is worse than nothing. He must be the foundation on which our church is built and the organizational structures must reflect this. Right now we are playing games while Jesus weeps. (Actually, I think he is pretty good at multi-tasking and although he is not pleased with the current stupidity he has never stopped working and is busy in many other places while we dither.)
The more immediate issue is how we discern the truth and how we sort out our differences. My concern about the debate on the ordination of women is that we seem to be sidestepping the underlying issue about how we interpret and apply scripture. We do not need to define our methodology in exquisite legalistic detail but we need to agree on some common principals.
It is apparent that the CofE or any other group within the AC will have to compromise on the issue of the ordination of women or split. There are no other alternatives. It cannot work for the CofE as it stands but if we take a longer view it seems that we could take advantage of the suggestion in the Jerusalem Declaration that permits overlapping jurisdictions for cultural reasons (Article 6, par 3)
I have just read Williams’ presidential address and I think what he is saying is that reasserters must continue to engage(listen) with revisionists on the issue of the morality of same-sex acts if revisionists continue to exercise restraint. This answers Mouneer-Anis’ question about the listening process which he raised in his resignation letter. Mouneer-Anis indicated that the AC should teach that same-sex acts are immoral and what the AC should be listening to how best to offer pastoral counsel to those suffering from same-sex attraction. It seems clear to me that Williams is saying that the reasserters should, as a matter of good faith, keep an open mind about the morality of same-sex acts. Williams’ Anglicanism simply cannot speak the hard truth with love. It’s just like the Anglicans’ compromise on conception.
#11-oops- I meant contraception. sorry
#11. Phil Swain,
[blockquote]I have just read Williams’ presidential address and I think what he is saying…..[/blockquote] Anyone may feel free to finish this sentence any way you like. The speech is almost 4,000 words. The Gettysburg Address is 270 words. It grieves me deeply that the ABC strains so much attempting to communicate.
1. “In one of the most important presidential addresses of his seven-year archiepiscopacy, described by one insider as a “brilliant piece of workâ€, …”
And then we actually get the address, and reality sets in…
2. “Bishops have put up an alternative motion designed to wreck Ms Ashworth’s motion by stalling it for the foreseeable future.”
Can’t argue with the accuracy of that description!
3. “The historic decision, to be ratified by the synod in July, paves the way for women bishops to be consecrated as soon as 2012, once all parliamentary hurdles have been cleared.”
Earth calling Ruth – CofE doesn’t work that way. The “historic decision” to which you refer is merely that of a working group drafting proposed legislation. Synod won’t “ratify” this, it will vote on it. And unless 2/3 of the house of laity vote to accept it, the legislation will be dead. That is significant becaus the decision to call for the legislation in the first place didn’t get a 2/3 majority, so there is no guarantee that this will.
4. “It will bring England in line with Canada, New Zealand and the US. Even Scotland and Ireland …”
Well, that’s 5 other provinces, out of 37…