If you balance your episcopal throne on the fence, you will look rather silly when the fence is knocked down. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams looks silly all right as he contemplates the collapse of the boundaries that structured the Anglican communion, the group of notionally 80 million (actually, perhaps 50 million) Christians that he notionally leads and actually just exhorts, like a rugby referee without a whistle whom the scrum ignores. But looking silly is not his most serious problem.
Two statements by conservative primates in Africa and South America have made it clear that they mean to continue with the policy of planting and extending their churches in the US. The Americans, meanwhile, though they are for the moment prepared not to elect any more open, practising gays as bishops, certainly don’t think they were wrong to do so before and reserve the right to do so in the future.
I will consider posting comments on this article submitted by email only to Kendall’s E-mail: KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com.
The ABC’s time is running out for sure!
the British press really seems to be creaming +++Rowan these days, huh? It’s in marked contrast to the more fawning coverage ++Katharine gets from the US media.
I’m wondering how much unrest there is in the C of E over this – is there a similar Network type organization in the UK?
[blockquote] The flames of theological hatred outside have run all round the world as if the Internet were made with gunpowder fuses instead of cables. [/blockquote]
As the Anglican Communion dissolves around him, I must unfortunately conclude that Rowan Williams has only one tenable choice remaining, out of at least three:
1. He can side with the churches of Canada, USA, Wales, Scotland and Australia, along with South Africa and the USA’s client churches. This is untenable, because if he does this, he will watch the majority of the Anglican Communion, in terms of communicants, disappear from his purview and form their own communion. The Queen will not be pleased.
2. He can side with Drexel Gomez, Greg Venables, Henry Orombi, and Peter Akinola, along with the rest of the Global South churches. This is untenable, because as he begins the excommunication of reappraising dioceses and provinces, he will watch the most “English” and/or British provinces (not to mention the wealthiest) slip from his purview and form their own communion. The Queen will not be pleased.
3. He can do nothing. If he does this, he will watch the Anglican Communion fall into schism, dividing into two groups, with perhaps a hazy middle group still trying to remain in communion with both sides. This is tenable, because after the chips have fallen, there will be two or more groups vying to be “in” the Anglican Communion, looking to the Archbishop of Canterbury for a decision. By doing this, he remains the central focus in a position of relative power, or at least influence. Perhaps the Queen will be pleased.
I wish that I was wrong about this. I invite other opinions.
I forgot to mention: You may reply “He may side with [i]our[/i] side, which has the theologically correct position.”
This is untenable, because he has demonstrated his disinterest in a theological position. His interest is solely in a communion position; he will go along with whatever theology the Anglican Communion is able to adopt as a whole.
His motto: Communion [i]uber[/i] Theology.