[Archbishop Rowan] Williams is a fifty-nine-year-old Welshman with a beautiful voice, a full white beard, and fearsome, flyaway black eyebrows that in pictures, or when he is thinking hard, can make him look like a monk out of Dostoyevsky””a resemblance that is said to please him. He wrote a book about Dostoyevsky in 2008. His manner is friendly, more professorial than priestly. He taught theology for most of the nineteen-eighties, at Cambridge and then at Oxford, where, at thirty-six, he became the youngest person ever to hold the university’s oldest academic chair. His students””some of them now the priests berating him most strongly for his reluctance to put himself, and his office, on the line for a cause he is known to support””call him the most engrossing teacher they ever had. After a few minutes, I believed it. Williams has a disarming mind, a modesty, and an appetite for conversation, a way of thinking out loud, that belies the austerity of his title. At one point, he stopped himself, saying, “Sorry, this is turning into a sermon.”
“How do you eat an elephant?” he said, with something between a chuckle and a sigh, when I asked how he hoped to hold his church together, given that the demands of Anglican women were so completely at odds with the demands of Anglican men whose own inclusion specifically involved excluding those women from episcopal service. “I suppose it’s by using as best I can the existing consultative mechanisms to create a climate””and I think that’s often the best, to create a climate,” he told me. “There’s a phrase which has struck me very much: that you can actually ruin a good cause by pushing it at the wrong moment and not allowing the process of discernment and consent to go on, and that’s part of my view.” He thought that with time, patience, and enough discussion within the Church you could temper the opposition to female bishops””despite the fact that three synods since 1994 have tried to address the issue, and the opposition remains intractable. His friends call this “Rowan’s Obama syndrome”: the persistence of a commendable but not very realistic belief in the power of reason to turn your enemies into allies.
The text of my letter to the editor of the New Yorker follows.
In her article, “A Canterbury Tale,” Jane Kramer states, “Nigeria and Uganda, which together account for twenty-five million of Africa’s Anglicans, have been hostage to two radically patriarchal archbishops and have been openly schismatic since the ordination of women began.” This statement was incredible to me, having personally met women priests in Uganda (among them, an assistant to the archbishop). So I did a brief Google search.
The Church of Uganda’s “Position Paper on Scripture, Authority, and Human Sexuality” (available on line at http://churchofuganda.org/articles/position-paper-on-scripture-authority-and-human-sexuality) states:
“When the East African Revival swept through our communities, it called for the equality of women and men, and began the process of restoring women to traditional roles as spiritual leaders in their communities. The Revival movement was a strong contextualising force. In the 1950’s and 1960’s when African Christians took over leadership, we find a number of women seeking theological training and even aspiring for ordination. And, all of this was happening before women’s ordination was approved in the West.
“Women’s ordination in Uganda was a movement of the Holy Spirit independent of the West’s promotion of women into ordained ministry. Therefore, to say that homosexual unions and ordination is an extension of a so-called biblical principle of liberation is insulting to us. It belittles women and their ministry, and equates a perversion with God’s movement toward women’s ordination in Uganda.”
As for the consecration of women as bishops, the Church of Uganda’s “FAQ about Church of Uganda, GAFCON, and the Anglican Communion” (available online at http://churchofuganda.org/faq/faq-about-church-of-uganda-gafcon-and-the-anglican-communion) addresses it directly and unequivocally: “The canons of the Church of Uganda indicate that anyone who is ordained is eligible to be elected as a Bishop.”
My Google search was not as successful in locating the translation of the New Testament in which “Christ called men and women ‘equal in my hands.'”
As an evangelical Anglican who supports the ordination and consecration of women, these basic errors give me little confidence that Ms. Kramer’s account can be trusted in other respects.
Sincerely yours,
Andy Crouch
How is it that those who try to prevent innovation are branded schismatics?
I meant to say “divisive innovation” above.
[b]”…he told me. “There’s a phrase which has struck me very much: that you can actually ruin a good cause by pushing it at the wrong moment and not allowing the process of discernment and consent to go on, and that’s part of my view.†[/b]
Philosophically, I don’t think that he is wrong about this basic principle in the least. However, as a political strategy — if that is what it is in the difficulties now before the Communion — it becomes unethical and corrupted beyond defense.
The author is blissfully ignorant of arguments against WO, and thus attributes resistance to patriarchy.
I did note this quote:
[blockquote]”“I’m eager to see women ordained,†he said, “and at the same time very reluctant to see a decision made that will cost us some very, very valuable people. . . . There is something in that Catholic tradition, which is where I come from, which would be much poorer if we lost.â€[/blockquote]
If that quote is accurate, it is a chilling revelation from one who is supposed to be a caring shepherd. The traditional, faithful sheep are expendable in the face of an elective innovation. I suppose the next CoE innovation is to force Christians to eat meat sacrificed to idols.
🙄
This article is so skewed as to stink of propaganda. All women priests are cast as angelic and all opponents as nasty bad guys and the ABC could go either way- salvation possible if he leans on the side of progress. As to the foul manner in which Geoffrey Kirk is dealt with – it is just off. This was his quote on Ruthie Gledhill’s site:
Dear Ruth,
Jane Kramer seemed such an intelligent person and a careful listener! How wrong I was! The point I was making, of course (which she so shamefully misunderstood) was the distinction between the moral and the ontological. Her assumption seemed to be that there must be something wrong or morally reprehensible about women as a class which makes them incapable of becoming priests. I simply pointed out that this was not the case, and that the traditional teaching of the Church is that neither Mother Theresa nor the Mother of God herself could be a priest. It seems paradoxical, I grant,that a male sinner should be preferred as a bishop to a saintly woman (or indeed the sinless Mother of the Saviour), but that is how things are. It only becomes a scandal on the indefensible assumption that it is better to be a bishop than a saint
Andy Crouch’s comment reminds us all that to ignore the historical legacy of the East African revival is to ignore the heart and mind of Anglicanism through much of African today. It was–and IS–an astounding work of the Holy Spirit and now has spilled over into the rest of the Anglican Communion with a vibrant gospel witness. Thanks be to God.
Andy Crouch, thank you for going to the trouble to write that letter.
What a horribly ill-researched and deeply flawed statement: “Nigeria and Uganda, which together account for twenty-five million of Africa’s Anglicans, have been hostage to two radically patriarchal archbishops and have been openly schismatic since the ordination of women began.”
I think we can all see that the woman who wrote the article has deeper issues with the Anglican provinces of Uganda and Nigeria than her faulty conclusion that both “have been hostage to two radically patriacharl archbishops” — I expect that’s just her explanation of the two provinces’ stances on *other* issues that the author supports.
By the way, if anyone knows where Jane Kramer might have gotten the idea that “Christ called men and women ‘equal in my hands'” I’d be very interested to know. Obviously it is not in the NT, and I doubt it’s in the (generally misogynist) gnostic pseudo-gospels, but surely she didn’t entirely make it up? What did she hear and misunderstand?
“Christ called men and women ‘equal in my hands’â€
I’ve never heard of such a quote in Scripture or anywhere else, for that matter.
There is plenty of evidence that God does see everyone as equals in some ways – and NOT equal in other ways.
I seem to remember reading…”… for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against Egalitarianism…”
..can’t remember exactly where that is found, either…
Don
Maybe she’s thinking of St Paul to the Galatians- “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female…” and, that “in my hands” is some pious confabulation. But the bit from Galatians has nothing to say about women’s ordination. It’s about salvation.
What a hack job!!
“…the schismatic Nigerian archbishop, Peter Akinola…”
“…deeply involved in a group of radically conservative Anglo-Catholics known, somewhat perversely, as Forward in Faith,..”
Fair & balanced reporting here, folks.
Stinks of propaganda indeed.
More mainstream-media rhapsodising about a church they don’t go to (seriously, how many of [i]The New Yorker[/i]’s staff and readers go to church?) and in another country at that… pushing it in order to spite the church they’re mad at. You know, the one with a Pope and unchangeable doctrine. They don’t have to have had bad experiences with it. It exists and that sets them off.
I’ll add my thinks to Andy (#1) for taking the time and trouble to write the editor of [b]The New Yorker.[/b] Many of us will have had the same violent reaction to the egregious factual errors and obvious prejudice in this blatantly biased article, but not many of us will probably bother to write a complaint to the editor. I probably won’t. Well done, Andy.
Bottom line: Journalists are entitled to their opinions, but not to their own facts.
No, the “mytically placid” CoE surely isn’t so placid anymore. And it’s most certainly not merely “the Tory Party at prayer” either. But this kind of superficial, stereotypical writing doesn’t help. It only throws gasoline on the raging fires of controversy within Anglican circles and confirms public misperceptions. Jane Kramer seems to reflect a purely secular, politically driven agenda that blithely dismisses any other viewpoint than her own as patriarchal and oppressive. That is no surprise with the New Yorker. But that the editor allows her to mount her soapbox without even making a sincere effort at doing her homework is more surprising and worrisome. But sadly, not that uncommon.
David Handy+
Setting aside for the moment the appalling journalism here, this does at least note the existence of the elephant in the living room. It is one reason why the ACNA is going to eventually fragment just like all the other so called continuing denominations. W/O opened the door to every form of theological innovation. Once you declare that one universally held article of faith was either wrong or subject to reinterpretation you don’t get to pick and choose which other ones cannot be similarly subject to review and revision.
The ACNA and GAFCON etc… are just an attempt to hit the reset button and recreate the Episcopal Church of the early 1980’s. What on earth makes anyone think the ending will be any different this time around? The problem that no one wants to address is authority. The Anglican Communion really has none to speak of and consequently has a permanently embedded self destruct code in its DNA.
I have known Geoffrey Kirk+ for years, stayed in the vicarage, preached at St. Stephen’s. Now Geoffrey+ has a rapier wit, is a kind and generous person, a very dedicated and good parish priest, is comfortable with all sorts of people, men and women and is not a mysoganist! Knowing him, he probably had some fun with the author of this article. After all, he is a Yorkshireman.
Now I don’t agree with his Romeward journey. I fear that many Anglo Catholics who convert will discover swiftly that they miss the freedom and liberality – not the same as liberal – of the Anglican tradition. The tragedy of English Anglo Catholicism is that it lost its nerve and wandered into an internal ghetto and thus became powerless. It ceased to drink from its own tradition and fell in love with a very selective and romantic vision of modern Roman Catholicism.
The article is obviously biased. Those representing WO are described in uncritical terms. Those opposed are labeled with emotive critical adjectives.
Nice piece of anti-Catholic leftist propaganda.
The prediction by Ad Orientem at #15 is almost certainly wrong. There is no sign that ACNA will fragment because of Women’s ordination to the priesthood. Just as the Jerusalem conference (GAFCON) in 2009 did not fragment because of it.
If you want an example of extreme “fragmentation”, it is worth looking at the Anglican Continuum, the churches that split off from the Anglican Communion in 1977 over the issue of WO. They continued to split at a truly amazing rate. The number of separate groups now would be difficult to count, often consisting of only a few, or even one, congregation. Many have now died out, whilst others have ASA in the single digits.
In contrast, many other orthodox Anglicans in 1977 chose not to separate from the Communion. Instead they attended Lambeth 78 and registered their public process over the resolution to permit the ordination of women in the priesthood. They continued their fight to reform the Anglican Communion *from within*. That fight is on-going, but we the orthodox are slowly winning it.
The majority of orthodox Anglicans don’t believe in ordination of women to the priesthood. Even in places like Uganda, many are against it. It is only “accepted” in the sense that we are not prepared to excommunicate other believers over the issue, even though we beleive it is incompatible with scripture. We are confident we will win them over. That is the way set out in scripture, and followed by the church fathers.
Thank you MichaelA for accurately answering Ad Orientem’s charges. I hope thatAnglicanism continues to thrive, and I wish that the Orthodox and Roman Churches would wish that too.
To 18 & 19,
Ecclesiological pre-suppositions Orthodox ought, in order to be faithful, hope for Anglicanism to become Orthodox. Roman Catholics ought, in order to be faithful, hope for Anglicanism to become Roman Catholic. Anglicanism often, in a mode which can be seen as faithful, hopes for the three to draw closer. (I say a “mode which can be seen as faithful” because other Anglican approaches can be seen as faithful to parts of the Anglican tradition, much lower church modes either hoping that these churches will undergo a Reformational movement like the English reformation or consigning these churches to the status of idolaters beyond reform). If one hopes for orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism to thrive, one ipso facto hopes that they will be faithful.
There is nothing Ad Orientem said that hasn’t already been said by certain Anglicans. (for instance the Poon article on ecclesial deficit)
I as an Orthodox have great sympathy for ACNA, the Global South etc. for their attempt at fidelity with in the Anglican Communion. However, ACNA does attempt to preserve mutually exclusive positions on Women’s ordination, not to mention its almost non-territorial epsicopate. These things do not bode well, whether one wants ACNA to thrive or not.
Fr. Yousuf Rassam
RE: “Once you declare that one universally held article of faith was either wrong or subject to reinterpretation you don’t get to pick and choose which other ones cannot be similarly subject to review and revision.”
Sure you do — if the universally held article of faith is contrary to Scripture.
RE: “The prediction by Ad Orientem at #15 is almost certainly wrong.”
And I think it less of a “prediction” and more “hoping and wishing and dreaming” . . . ; > )
I also agree with MichaelA. I have plenty of issues with ACNA but I don’t think it will divide over WO. I think it might divide over other more fundamental issues — but I hope it does not.
Joseph Ratzinger a less distinguished theologian than Rowan Williams!!!! Methinks that little gem pretty much sums up the worth of this article – [garbage].
[Slightly edited by Elf]