Christians in the West have just finished celebrating Pentecost, the feast which marks the day the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles and rendered them able to speak om foreign languages
But in the schism-torn Anglican Communion there has been a little less hand-waving than usual. Instead there has been the descent of the Archbishop of Canterbury in admonition of his church, in a letter where he gives tongue to uncharacteristic displeasure.
After years of suffering the spectacle of the conservative and liberal members of his Communion fight a towering Babel-like war of words over sexuality, in which neither side has ever seemed truly to understand the others, Dr Rowan Williams has finally been moved by the spirit of the times to act….
Well, at least this brief piece by Ruth Gledhill is called a commentary.
[blockquote]Dr Rowan Williams has finally been moved by the spirit of the times[/blockquote] Is this supposed to say that Rowans efforts were not led by the Holy Spirit?
The juicy bit is buried at the bottom:
[blockquote] But the gay issue is merely the “presenting†issue of a debate that actually has its roots in the 19th century advances in Biblical criticism. At its root is the authority of the Bible in an increasingly secular, sceptical 21st century world.
[/blockquote]
What is it we don’t understand? We understand only too well, hence the warfare. Larry
“But the gay issue is merely the ‘presenting’ issue of a debate that actually has its roots in the 19th century advances in Biblical criticism. At its root is the authority of the Bible in an increasingly secular, sceptical 21st century world.”
I find the second sentence to be a non sequitur and the first sentence to be wrong. The second posits a conflict between “authority of Bible” and secularism, whereas the first posits a conflict between those who do and those who do not accept biblical criticism. Regarding that second sentence, I know of no Anglican that does not accept, in some fashion, the authority of the Bible; none sees herself as a flat-out secularist. As to the first, similarly, no Anglican or Anglican seminary refuses to accept, in some measure, biblical criticism; none wishes to go back to 1700 or so.
But the larger point is that Ruth Gledhill is wrong about the terms of the debate. The terms are not how she presents them. Tom Wright, for example, accepts the authority of the Bible but is also a leading biblical critic. The debate concerns the authority of the Bible PLUS the authority of reason and tradition; it concerns one Christian communion’s relations with other communions; and it concerns how a catholic church makes key decisions–individualistically, within each province, or interdependently, within the Communion as a whole.
Ruthie finally admitting that there is schism? Well, rubber baby buggy bumpers and binkies!
I thought it was a very good article. I don’t know whether Ruth intended all her nuances or not, but just about every paragraph seems right on the money.
Interesting also that Ruth seems to realise how little +++Williams has actually done, more of a symbolic action by excluding a few people from fuill membership in the committee-nobody-has-ever-heard-of.