Christian relationships must not be further reduced to “vicious polemic and stony-faced litigation”, the Archbishop of Canterbury urged in a powerful presidential address in which he took both sides of the Communion debate to task. “Trust one another for your own good.”
Ways had to be found to decide contested issues which did not “simply write off the others in the debate as negligible, spiritually unÂseriÂous or without moral claims”. Questions about the balance of liberÂties in society were “not best adÂdressed in the megaphone tones we are all too used to hearing”.
Dr Williams drew parallels with national and international deÂbates on the Equality Bill and the quesÂtion of assisted dying. The basic conÂflict in the former was “not beÂtween a systematic assault on ChrisÂtian values by a godless government on the one side and a demand for licensed bigotry on the other”.
Holding the AC together through endless process without decision will not work in the long run. It didn’t work in 1939 and it won’t work now. And it does not work in favor of the biblicaly orthodox, either evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics.
And in the US, there are certain insiders in 815 who believe that Williams privately gave the green light to Schori some time back for TEC to litigate as it wishes. That he indicated he might have to decry it every now and then just for the sake of appearance, but he wasn’t going to do anything to interfere with them.
So every time I hear him say something about how awful the litigation is at the same time he is doing things to help TEC continue on its present path, I must say I don’t believe it.
Is the immorality of homosexual acts a “contested issue” in the Anglican communion? By “contested” is it an issue that is open for discussion by the AC? Is there any doctrine(faith and morals) in the AC which is off-limits as a potential “contested issue”? If there are no doctrines which are closed how does an Anglican make an act of faith that has some cognitive content?
3, we can’t. The AC has become a shallow imitation of a Church.
Sorry Rowan but one cannot twiddle thumbs as the church goes to hell in a handcart and then show dismay when others speak out. Your utter failure to discipline or show strong leadership has resulted in chaos, disunity and anger on a scale seldom witnessed. And how do you attempt to sort it? By telling us off in a head masterly manner on a charge of remembering manners. Sorry it is pathetic. Why should we Catholics drop the megaphone when you stand idly by as your revision committee withraws the act if synod and leaves us out in the cold? Or is the idea that we die quietly without claiming compensation or exposing the scandal to the world?
[Slightly edited by Elf]
Generally, people will put down their megaphones after a person with authority has spoken clearly.
Well, I think that Cantaur is, as usual, partly right. Using megaphones in a highly volatile conflict generally doesn’t lead to one’s message being heard any better. So much for the vaunted “Listening Process.”
But I agree with the commenters above. On the point that really matters, ++RW is sadly and terribly wrong. He is implicitly treating the homosexuality issue, and the whole mindset of theological relativism that underlies it, as a Romans 14 type issue, where toleration is appropriate, because non-essentials are involved. Alas, the reality is that we are indeed facing a Galatians 1 type of issue, where a false gospel is being passed off as if it were an acceptable variant of the true and biblical one.
After all, Paul did use the equivalent of a megaphone in Galatians, especially in Gal. 1:6-9 and 5:12. And rightly so.
It’s perhaps natural and predictable that the biased [b]Church Times[/b] would regard ++RW’s presidential address to General Synod as “powerful.” I totally disagree. It was vapid, insipid pap.
Another squandered opportunity on the part of the ABoC. Another futile effort to keep a house divided against itself from collapsing. For a smart guy, he sure doesn’t learn much from his mistakes. Or more likely, he just doesn’t see any other option as a viable one. He has painted himself into a corner from which there is no escape. Except by repentance, which is always a possibility as long as there is life.
David Handy+
Besides the batteries aren’t really good enough yet to be loud enough to keep folks awake for a 4000+ word speech that could be reduced to “go along and you will get along; play nice.”
#7 I think what he’s saying is that, in fact, this is a disputed issue. Even if one might wish it were not so – isn’t that obviously true – the Anglican family bitterly disagrees about this and the rubble of such disagreement is all around us.
What you and he disagree about is how to move forward in the face of such disagreement. He seems to think that the church needs to rebuild loving relationships before it can even get to, say, an Acts 15 moment.
9, how does one do that when one faction is determined to have it’s own way? It’s sort of like the dialogue one has in a dark ally with a mugger. Peace is preserved by doing what the mugger wants. TEC and, in the CoE, those in favor of women bishops are determined to have their own way. What then? It’s simple, those in opposition can give way and then they can all get back to being friends again and rebuild those loving relationships.
driver8 (#9),
Thanks for a typically thoughtful, irenic, and stimulating comment. I’d have to agree with you that a charitable and reasonable interpretation of Cantaur’s speech, and his consistent actions (or inactions) since he took office, would [b]include[/b] the assumption that stronger, healthier relationships must be rebuilt among provincial leaders if there is to be any hope of truly resolving this vexed crisis. That’s eminently plausible, and many honorable Anglican leaders (all along the theological spectrum) would doubtless agree with such an assessment.
However, I must disagree with you that my fundamental disagreement with ++RW can be reduced to such a minimal basis. My sharp, glaring, and profound differences with the ABoC aren’t merely strategic or tactical, but genuinely theological.
For example, a non-exhuastive list of such additional factors that are contributing to this protracted, almost insoluble dispute would include the following:
1. In the end, will doctrine trump polity, or vice versa? That is, is the essential glue that holds Anglicans together fundamentally a matter of shared doctrine, or common liturgy, or joint polity? (or even something as vague of the English cultural heritage and a certain English sensibility)? And although many would say, “all of the above,” my point is that they can’t all be of equal weight and one must in practice take priority.
As you know, driver8, my own answer would be that it’s long past time to put the classic Doctrine and Discipline back in the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the AC, and that in the end, Doctrine trumps Polity, and not vice versa. I’m pretty sure that ++RW would vigorously disagree (and so would many other fine Anglican leaders of all stripes).
2. Discipline is something that must be IMPOSED, when you’re dealing with obstinate, unrepentant behavior and outright, indubitable heresy. You can’t realistically hope to resolve a major crisis like this through persuasion and consensus. You might as well try to get a rebellious teenager to agree to voluntary discipline for breaking the household rules. It’s like trying to get a husband who is in the throes of an addiction to alcohol, or gambling, or pornography, to voluntarily submit to breaking off their addiction. The ABoC is being FAR, far too NICE and naive. Only drastic, painful consequences, imposed on that wayward teen or addicted husband, are likely to suffice to bring about the necessary change.
3. Last, but not least, when you dig down to the roots that underlie this bitter conflict, what we’re faced with is a terrible dilemma that few Anglican leaders have so far been willing to face squarely. We are dealing with a historic, momentous transition here, as Anglicanism, with its Constantinian, state church heritage, is being FORCED, willy-nilly, whether we like it or not (and of course we don’t) to face up to the fact that the whole relationship between church and state, or more precisely between Christianity in general and elite western culture in general, has broken down. The old Christendom marriage between the two has gone beyond mere separation and has finally ended in [i]de facto[/i] divorce. We are now compelled, I firmly believe, to adopt an -in-your-face, confrontational, Christ-against-culture stance (ala the pre-Constantinian Church of Irenaeus, Cyprian and Tertullian) since we now live in a clearly post-Christendom social world (even in England, where the CoE remains established [i]de jure[/i], but most definitely not [i]de facto[/i] anymore).
In the end, I suspect this is where the ABoC and I would actually disagree the most. Not just on whether homosexual behavior is a Gal. 1 issue rather than a Rom. 14 issue, but on whether it’s time for Anglicanism to bite the bullet and adopt a radically counter-cultural stance. My guess is that he assumes that it’s inevitable that the Church will have to follow the cultural mainstream in accepting the normality of homosexual behavior or suffer the fate of becoming a despised little sect. Well, I vehemently disagree.
I say, Let’s face the unpleasant fact that we’re already doomed to being “a despised little sect” in the eyes of the powers that be, and not let that harsh reality intimidate us. It didn’t stop the early Christians of the first few centuries, and it shouldn’t dismay us.
But it does mean counting the cost of remaining biblical and faithful to Christ in our time. And the costs will indeed be heavy. Much will be lost in the process, much that was noble and honorable in the venerable millenium and a half that Christianity dominated the western world. But those days are over now. We can kiss them goodbye.
In the end, I think that’s the core difference between ++RW and me. He seems to disagree with my diagnosis of what’s wrong with Anglicanism, and so naturally he disagrees with my prescription or treatment plan for dealing with it.
You may well disagree with my diagnosis, yourself. And if so, you’d be in good company. Most orthodox Anglican leaders still find my assessment unthinkable. Well, I think it’s high time to start thinking the unthinkable. The New Reformation is here, like it or not, and it tarries for no one.
David Handy+