The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, this afternoon apologised to the Church of England for any unclarity or “misleading choice of words” when he delivered his controversial speech on Islam and the law.
Resisting the temptation to blame anyone but himself for provoking a debate that surprised him by its ferocity, the Archbishop said he took responsibility for anything he had said that had caused “distress or misunderstanding among the public at large, and especially among my fellow Christians.”
But in his speech to the Church of England General Synod today Dr Williams remained unrepentant for putting the subject on the agenda
Oh, hey, I just figured it out. Has anyone noticed you never see Rowan Williams and John Cleese in the same picture? Huh? Right.
If he were really taking responsibility he would resign.
What if, consistent with what we read in this unusually factual and detailed account from The Times, the Prime Minister Gordon Brown refused to accept his resignation? Do you not see how strange this appears, to make a comment like this? He receives standing applause from the General Synod, and the Prime Minister himself indicates his unwavering support for the ABC. And yet he is suppose to resign? How out of touch with the situation within the C of E can one be? I sometimes wonder if people are reading the same actual words in print.
#2: That is a ridiculous proposition. In no way is resignation taking “responsibility” for the situation. (A situation that is due more to a sensationalizing English press and poorly written news stories than anything else.) The Archbishop did exactly what he should have: promptly clarified his remarks, apologized for not being more explicit from the onset, reiterated his position, addressed the Synod regarding the matter. Many thoughtful respondents in recent days, including those of the conservative stripe, have seconded the Archbishop’s decision to tackle this matter.
The only misstep on the Archbishop’s part was not recognizing how the remarks could have been taken by some, including the press’ headline writers. If that is cause for resignation, the turnover rates of our bishops would be many times what they are now!
In past situations, not related to the current issue, people have ‘taken responsibility’, turned in their resignation, as a matter of form, knowing that the Powers that Be would refuse to accept it. Face saved, continue with business as usual.
He’s not going to resign, so that discussion is moot.
However, I disagree that the problem is headline writers — except for the “treason” one, which was excessive. Many people have read the transcript of the radio interview and the text of the lecture and still think the Archbishop is wrong on this issue. Voluntary arbitration of disputes within a group by mutual consent is already legal. For situations which necessitate the involvement of civil or criminal law, allowing alternate legal systems for various sub-groups will be devastating to social cohesion, rather than enhancing it, and that’s even without considering that the law in question is the medieval Islamic law.
Hopelessly compromised. Witness for Christ? Not to the guy in the street. More empty pews for the CoE.
Nice of him to apologize.
I think it’s been [accidentally] a good wake-up call to the British people that, essentially, the man who is supposed to be speaking for Anglican Christianity fancies himself a person who is supposed to speak for “all faith communities.” People understood his interview quite well, in the end — and, like the leaders of TEC always claim, it wasn’t that they weren’t “listening” enough or “reading” enough — it was simply that they did not agree with his proposition.
They heartily disagreed with the notion of “”finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of sharia law” and I believe that that disagreement has been pretty well communicated.
It’s pretty clear, now, that the British people in mass don’t wish to find “a constructive accommodation with some aspects of sharia law”. To save face, Rowan Williams and various Anglican supporters of his will speak grandly about “starting the conversation” as if somehow he is courageous for postulating something that should not happen at all and that received an extraordinary and very loud “NO”.
But back to my original thought — it was nice for him to apologize. I certainly don’t wish him to resign — not because he is an actual leader or anything, but simply because the government would appoint someone much worse.
Katherine — I agree.
The continuing suggestions from Lambeth Palace and others in the commentariat class that people didn’t read the Archbishop’s address or the radio interview are wearing thin. Was there an outbreak of mass hallucination over what people heard on BBC with their own ears and read in their morning news with their own eyes over the weekend?
Maybe some didn’t read it and shot their mouths off. But most appear to have read it, thoughtfully even, and still have found it lacking. It could be that the message was loud and clear in its initial presentation which is now being rearranged to reduce the collective heartburn it created. It could also very well be that some were unclear on what ++Williams was trying to communicate, but that could just as well be ++Williams being a quite unclear communicator. An uncertain trumpet in times of crisis tends to bring confusion not clear direction.
Also I’ve noticed over the years of observing politicians in various countries that when the leader stands up to say words to the effect that someone is a “person of integrity and has my full support in the pickle they they have found themselves in;” that person doesn’t stick around very long in their position. When a political leader has to expend political capital to extract an appointee or other government official out of a jam, that appointee/official needs to “consider his position” and move on at an appropriate point in time that is not usually on the far horizon.
Thus, we shouldn’t be so confident that ++Williams’ resignation would not be met with relief at #10 Downing St. or Buckingham Palace.
I wonder what would happen if a Muslim leader in say, Saudi Arabia or Iran, advocated for a choice under what legal system a person could choose marriage or divorce. Better yet, if a thief is caught can they then choose sharia or the western style of law for the punishment? Something tells me a Muslim nation would not allow a Judeo-Christian set of laws, no matter how small, to operate with in it’s borders.
It is not any misunderstanding of the ABC’s words that have caused the hubbub.
Also, I should note that the Archbishop apologized for causing distress to his fellow Christians and the country with his comments. He did not apologize for his comments. He is standing by them and believes that the Balkanization of Great Britain should continue with each enclave having its own foundation in law.
To state that this “universal man” is no longer applicable as the Enlightenment has crashed into post-modernism is to forget that the foundation of English law is laid down prior to the Enlightenment, and thus any (Kantian?) concept of “universal man,” in the Charter of Liberties and the Magna Charta that all English people are subject to the same law. That the Church historically sought to use and enforce her own laws concerning clergy, property or toehr issues only highlights the abuse and inequality of separate systems of law applying to separate groups of people.
The Archbishop is suggesting that almost 1000 years of English principles of lawmaking have been mistaken and now we know better. And this may be the most telling of all the issues concerning this situation because it is also reflected in the crisis facing the Anglican Communion.
It seems to me that he could have used his address in a much better way to deliver a defense of the rule of law and the protection of religious liberties such a rule brings rather than suggesting an amalgamation or patch work of different legal codes for different communities. I believe Francis Schaeffer was well known for making such a defense and demonstrating the value of such a foundational world view, even within a modern, democratic society, to all parts of society.
So, how many of you who are calling for the ABC’s head are calling for President Bush to resign? After all, he as head of state, allows Native Americans to run tribal courts, using a special set of ethnically-derived laws.
Every President since the 19th century has allowed this scandal to continue and it is destroying our true American way of life!
#11, this sort of multi-tiered and ethnically accommodating legal system has direct precedent within the muslim Ottoman Empire, within which the Eastern Christian community was given a degree of legal autonomy under the Ecumenical Patriarch, who was declared Ethnarch of the Greek people.
The problem that I have about this whole pseudo-controversy isn’t so much about [i] what [/i] the Archbishop said, being as it was an academic opinion given by an academic on an academic subject in an academic forum. Instead it is more a question of [i] why [/i] he can’t see that this sort of theoretical and academic discourse is outside of his role as the Archbishop of Canterbury.
For me, there was nothing in what he said that was “unclear”.
bl
#13, good call. After all, within Britain there exists Scotland, which operates a completely different legal system to England. This whole thing is such a trumped up non-story, a cheap way for people to make profound but vague statements about how great we are and what we have done for the world. A whole lot of backslapping, as far as I can see, especially given that in the commons they’re debating the Treaty of Lisbon, which promises to hand over a huge chunk or our sovereignty to Brussels anyway.
His response is like trying to take one’s words back after they’ve been uttered. Once said, they can’t be un-said! He never should have said them in the first place. Doesn’t he realize that?
#14,
I am not familiar with the Ottoman Empire in this way. But can a Muslim choose to be judged by the Greek patriarch? This is sharia law here. The Muslim world was founded by the sword and it declares peace only after it rules the world. It says peace is only possible under it’s rule. There is no co-existence with Islam if Islam rules. Am I wrong? Christian countries, by contrast, are quite able to allow other faiths, even to the point of attempting to remove Christianity from their midst.
As to the US and Indians (I don’t see any Indian tribes codifying abuse of women or advocating death if a member leaves the tribal religion); England and Scotland…We’re not talking about another bowling league being allowed to wear a different colored shirt. This is the bowling league giving up and playing cards.
In science, philosophy, and theology, we boldly conjecture (make theories) and then await attempted refutation. We adjust our theory taking into account those criticisms. Then we pose an auxiliary (revised) theory. And the process starts over again.
Unfortunately, in the world we have political rhetoric, usually emotional and not well thought out. Criticism of Dr. Williams is fine (it is totally called for), but calls for his resignation are pure politics. Also, the defences that originate from Lambeth are political responses, not proposed auxiliary theory.
#13 Dan Ennis
Precisely the point. The American Indian Tribes are considered separate nations. Separate nations can make their own laws. Is Rowan Williams suggesting that the Muslims of Great Britain no longer be considered British and are actually a separate nation living within the confines of Great Britain? Are they to lose their British identity?
Would this, then, not contribute to the continued break-up of British society into separate and almost exclusive enclaves? Would this not make Michael Nazir-Ali’s statement about there being no-go zones in parts of Britain come true? Even after Rowan Williams said he didn’t think it was the case that there were no-go zones?
I don’t think this is trumped up any more than the stories out of some parts of the U.S. seeking to create their own standard of laws (think abortion, marriage, divorce, death penalty, nuclear-free zones, or sex-offender registration laws as a few examples), tend to create a lot of interest and heat within the U.S. People see a common nation and want a common set of laws to apply equally.
Dan Ennis, I suppose Leonard Peltier is a supporter of the ABC’s parallel jurisdiction theory. Thankfully, Pres. Bush does not suscribe.
#18, I don’t think there’s any real evidence to support the idea that Christianity naturally makes countries more liberal and accepting of varying beliefs, and I think that it’s very fair to say that medieval Christendom’s track record in being tolerant of divergent views is worse than medieval Islamic nations. Modern states aren’t tolerant because they’re Christian, they’re tolerant because they aren’t Christian. As for Islam’s claim to be the only true religion, Christianity claims the same thing.
If some of you think the Ottoman Turks were so great and beneficent ask some Armenian and Greek Christians what they think – you’ll get a whole different story.
As for the Native Americans, the U.S. government signed treaties (which it shamelessly disregarded when convenient) with them as sovereign nations, which is why they are allowed to have tribal courts, their own law enforcement agencies, and casinos.
I think it would be a great idea if Rowan went to the next meeting of the Arab League and gave a talk on how states like Iran and Saudi Arabia really should have a multi-ethnic, multi-tiered legal system guaranteeing rights to Christians. See how far that gets.
[i] This comment is off topic. Please make your comments about the post Kendall has made. [/i]
It has already been established that in Britain Jews and, yes, even Christians can have the same sort of acts deal with in religious courts.
#3 – Actually, I am inclined to believe that the Archbishop will not resign, for the very reason that there is no one to make him resign. Not even Brown (though I would note that I agree with the person above who observed that Brown’s statement of support was just the sort of thing one hears before someone submits their resignation). But that does not answer the question, for it does nothing to address the damage that has been done to the church and to his office.
#13 – Interesting thought, but the whole idea of tribes as sovereign nations has something of a sketchy history. While tribal courts generally behave rationally (and I’d certainly prefer to be before one than before a sharia court), you will still find that justice for nonmembers of the tribe in those courts can be hard to come by, as those doing business with tribes find from time to time. So perhaps not the best example.
I really must wonder at why Williams ought to resign. We can put aside the “same laws as everyone else” since it has been pointed out over and over that it is already the case that this isn’t so, and that Islam is essentially being discriminated against in this respect.
But more to the point, all he did was give advice, which the state is not obligated to take, and which they have announced they will not take. I simply do not accept that he has said something so astonishing– when it is actually heard for itself– as to call into question his representation or adminstration of the church. The claim that all he can say about Islam is that it is false religion is just not supportable, and the contention that he is legitimizing Islam as a religion is just not supportable.
#22,
Christianity does not claim that it is the only true religion. We do claim that only our religion is true. Big difference there. And yes…these liberal countries are only liberal because their modern legal systems have all been derived from Judeo-Christian values.
I will be bold enough to say that I heard the statements and am bright enough to understand the language used even by His Grace. And they and he offend me as an Anglican. If he and his supporters insist that they be given a pass because they make academic statements as academics–they may go directly to an academic institution and take employment there. I find those excuses offensive also. I am a member of the academic world, and would some of you be surprised to learn that many of us speak in clear, well thought out language almost every day, even to one another?
#25 — fear not, that never came to my mind. I was just puzzled by the previous comment to my own. It is as though people are in parallel universes. Having lived in the UK for a decade and familiar with the General Synod, I wondered why anyone would read this piece and think on the basis of it the Archbishop would resign. Sounds like the General Synod understands the situation in which Britons now find themselves — unsurprisingly.
C. Wingate (#24) I strongly recommend to you the two columns by Melanie Phillips of the Telegraph, which are linked at Stand Firm.
What Ms. Phillip’s articles make clear is that 1) there are already hundreds of local sharia courts in Britain (50 in Bradford alone) which deal with the same kinds of issues that the Beth Din does, and that the ABC is asking that Sharia be given a more privileged position than Beth Din.
Jewish law is very different from Sharia, because it understands that it is for a minority who must live in concert with majority law, while Sharia insists that it must rule everything. Jewish law does not call for amputations or executions, and while its divorce law can be unkind to women, it does not condone the kind of abuse that many sharia courts believe is a husband’s right. While Sharia varies from mosque to mosque, dependent on each court’s interpretation of the Koran, Jewish law has tried over the centuries to reach a consensus, and has produced 138 volumes of legal commentary (the Talmud) to aid Jewish courts.
Considering the enormous tension between the Jewish and Muslim communities, the ABC should have been especially sensitive–and sure of his facts– when commenting on their respective positions.
I shudder to think of the harm he may have done in this regard.
Comment 23 may be off-topic w/r/t the post but it helpfully addressed the mis-conceptions embedded in comments 13 and 14.
Ruth Gledhill, the second author of the post, reported on her blog by way of background:
“…..the lecture would be “a response to rising concerns about the extent to which Sharia is compatible with English civil law, especially in the extensive Muslim neighbourhoods where informal Sharia councils are widely in operation. In areas such as marriage and divorce, there is evidence that there is no proper connection with the civil courts and that women in particular are suffering.””
Somewhat ironic, that a lecture expressly motivated in part by awareness that even in Britain women are suffering under sharia law has ended up sounding supportive of said law and widely perceived by the public as ignorant of such women’s situation. How else to account for the impassioned responses from Ruth herself, Melanie Phillips, ‘Dr. Mabuse’, Minetter Martin, Libby Purves, Dr. Irene Lancaster (in a blog comment to Melanie Phillips’ Spectator article), by Sarah Hey, commenter Katherine on this blog…..all these individuals have something in common. They are women! Aha! Women instinctively recognized that where the Christian leader of a denomination should be exposing the injustice inherent in subjecting any woman resident in Britain to the oppressive sharia, he instead appeared, at least, to be advocating for its accommodation. If he was not advocating for it he needs to clarify, and fast.
To their great credit some men also recognized this and articulated it, better than I’ve been able to: commenter Alcuin on the Spectator article wrote, e.g.: “The issue is whether a Muslim’s participation in a Sharia court is truly voluntary and informed. The evidence is unfortunately of serious intimidation of women to conform to Muslim social norms. Such norms need dismantling, not reinforcing – officially or unofficially.” Exactly – those norms need [i]dismantling[/i].
#s 13 and 16:
What you seem to forget is that Islam is not like our Cherokee neighbor. Our first peoples do not have a design to conquer by force and to convert by coercion. Too many Muslims deny that this is the case, and yet look around the world and see where their fanatical and tyranning influence has laid waste to everything that you wouldn’t wish to give up.
#14, Thank you for this comment.
[blockquote] Instead it is more a question of why he can’t see that this sort of theoretical and academic discourse is outside of his role as the Archbishop of Canterbury. [/blockquote]
That is precisely my opinion as well. If Rowan Williams was just an academic, there may not be as much outcry, although there would still be some, and I personally don’t agree with his position. The fact that he IS the leader of the Anglican Communion, a WORLD WIDE church, where whatever he does and says is going to reflect on the WHOLE church is the problem. He doesn’t seem to understand that as the leader of the church EVERYTHING he does is under scrutiny of the members of the WHOLE church world wide, and will ultimately impact the WHOLE church world wide. It’s not his place to get actively involved in deciding politics for his nation when his main purpose as Archbishop of Canterbury, the leader of the church is to defend the Gospel and promote the Gospel.
We all have hobbies we are passionate about. However, this is much bigger than a hobby one is passionate about. It’s a very sensitive issue in the world at large. I truly am coming to believe that Rowan Williams is passionate about academia. I don’t begrudge him that. However, as Archbishop of the Anglican Communion it is not appropriate to take such a stand and to make such a public declaration regarding a political issue, no matter what he may say the context is. I truly believe at this point that he really needs to ask himself whether his main focus in life is academia, or Christianity. It seems to me that his main focus is academia. If that is indeed the case, he does need to step down from the position of Archbishop of the Anglican Communion and allow someone whose main focus IS Christianity to lead the church.
I implore you, Rowan Williams, to honestly ask yourself that question for the sake of ALL members of the Anglican Communion world wide.
Mugsie
#18, I tend to agree with you about native Indians in North America. I’m from northern Canada. I’ve worked and lived among the natives in northern Canada, to which he refers in his lecture. The issues are not the same at all. The problem there is that the natives were the original people on the land. The white folk from Britain, Europe, etc. came over and forced them out of their land, onto reservations, and to live in a state of sub-human standards. All their rights as human beings were taken away from them. What the Canadian government has been doing in the last years has been to make efforts to restore the rights to the natives and to give them back their dignity and the right to live on the land without being oppressed by the white people from Britain, Europe, etc. who forced them out. And, by the way, most of those natives in Canada are Christian. So he comparing apples to oranges in his original lecture. That has no place being exampled as a comparison in a lecture to discuss Sharia law or any Islam religious beliefs. It’s totally inappropriate.
This whole thing has just opened up a huge can or worms and has insulted more people than he can imagine across many cultures, world wide. We, the people, are not stupid. We can read, we are quite literate, and he’s not fooling anyone. I still beg of him to ask himself where his passion lies. I truly don’t believe it’s with leading the church at this point. I truly believe his heart is in academia, and he needs to recognize that and put himself back into the appropriate occupational arena for his interests.
Mugsie
Actually, Mugsie, it [b]is[/b] his place to get actively involved in deciding politics for his nation. The Archbishop of Canterbury and 25 other bishops serve as members of the House of Lords, where they have exactly the same responsibilities as any other member of the Upper House of Parliament. That isn’t exactly a hobby. Because the Lords Spiritual are the only religious leaders in Parliament, they have traditionally had a role in representing the entire religious community, not just Anglicans. They are typically heard and sometimes heeded on moral issues and particularly on Church-State issues; for example, how the State should accommodate the religious scruples of its citizens when religious beliefs come into conflict with the secular majority views embodied in law. That was precisely the subject of his lecture. While you might disagree with the views he expressed, expressing them really is a part of his job.
#30, your mention of Bradford makes me wish I had included it as well, as it was at the forefront of my thoughts – its eastern outskirts are a series of ghettos the like of which I had no idea existed in the UK, until I drove through them.
An additional example to that of Alcuin which I gave in #31 is from here:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02112008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/british_bishops_islamic_idiocy_847964.htm?page=2
2nd page, 3rd paragraph. (sorry elves, don’t know what to do about long URL)
Oops, I should have said ‘western’ outskirts!
#35, Dale Rye, that may be the case for England, but NOT for the rest of the world. As Archbishop of Canterbury, his main focus needs to be on the CHURCH. He is leading the CHURCH! His main subject of teaching needs to be in defense of the GOSPEL!!! If this interferes with the way the government of England is operated, then maybe it’s time to change that. I can see, perhaps, a lower level Christian representative being involved in the political arena to help sort out the problems that arise in secular courts which will affect Christians. BUT, it should NOT be the individual who represents the church WORLD WIDE, and is heavily scrutinized by the church world wide. I don’t believe the Archbishop of Canterbury should be head of a province in the church either. I believe his main focus should be on the WHOLE church at large.
So, like I said above, maybe it’s time some things got changed in England. I DON’T think the government in itself is the problem. I do believe that the laws of a land need to apply to everyone who is a resident and citizen of the land. But church must be separated from state. The Scriptures tell us we are “set apart” from the world. Rowan Williams’ job as leader of the church world wide is to make that very clear and to defend that, and ONLY that.
Back on topic, I really have a problem with the reporting that the Synod was accepting of what he said today. I don’t believe so many people are so stupid that they can’t read and view the initial lecture and interview and be that far off the mark. We all know how politicians twist words and phrases to attempt to confuse people about what they “actually” said, when they are challenged. My honest opinion of what happened today in Synod that it was mixing of words to try to placate a very unhappy audience. Nothing else. It’s like trying to scrape the burnt crumbs off the toast thinking the person getting the toast won’t know it was burnt. Most people aren’t that stupid.
Mugsie
#38 – Mugsie, you are very passionate about the issue and entitled to your opinion. But the idea of an Anglian being set apart from the world confuses me. Isn’t that what Baptists preach?
Saint dumb ox, you are making a hypothetical argument – Rowan Williams would, of course, desire rights for Christians in Arab countries. He had defended the Trinity in Cairo. He did not give up the fight for Christianity.
#12 – Where did Rowan Williams say 1000 years of law were wrong? He might say that rules change – but that is the nature of common law to begin with.
#9 quotes “many people” assuming they have much that is credible to say, as if they themselves aren’t caught up in the mob. But it looks like the mob to me. And to the mob, what they say seems quite rational.
To add further to my analogy above: the bad taste of the burnt crumbs tends to spread through the rest of the slice of toast. The bad taste of what Rowan Williams said last week has spread around the world. I believe he’s now trying to cover that up. I doubt very much if honest Christians around the world who really studied his lecture and interview will be deceived by his efforts to cover up the damage he’s done. Only time will tell just how bad the damage is. My only saving grace is knowing that God is in charge. For His own reasons, he’s allowed this to happen. Perhaps to test the faith of Christians around the world, and to determine the TRUE Christians from the counterfeit ones.
Mugsie
Mugsie, the Archbishop of Canterbury is first and foremost the leader of the Established Church and as such speaks not only for Anglicans but for all Christians in Great Britain -for the Established Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) has no representation as such in the Lords.
It seems that his Grave received a standing ovation before he began his address. That may say something about how most regard the media and the pundits as much as any approval of the substance of Dr. William’s speech.
I remember well when Archbishop Fisher invited the Greek Cypriot Archbishop of Cyprus to Lambeth after the Orthodox leader had been associated with the terrorist group seeking union with Greece. There were howls of rage and calls for resignation, which Dr. Fisher, with headmasterly aplomb ignored and before long, even then, the matter was forgotten. I expect the same to be true of the present nonsense.
[blockquote] I should note that the Archbishop apologized for causing distress to his fellow Christians and the country with his comments [/blockquote]
Hmmm. Where have I heard that phrase before?
#39, John Wilkins, I have to ask you a question. Are you a Christian? Do you believe in the Bible as TRUTH? I fail to see what this has to do with Baptists. They are also Christians, as are Anglicans (for the most part). They believe in the Bible as TRUTH! They defend the Gospel! That’s what counts.
See Ps 4:3 – But know that the LORD has set apart the godly man for Himself; The LORD hears when I call to Him.
Ac 20:32 – “And now I entrust you to God and the word of his grace – his message that is able to build you up and give you an inheritance with all those he has set apart for himself.
Ac 26:18 – to open their eyes so they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God. Then they will receive forgiveness for their sins and be given a place among God’s people, who are set apart by faith in me.’
1Co 6:11 – There was a time when some of you were just like that, but now your sins have been washed away, and you have been set apart for God. You have been made right with God because of what the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God have done for you.
All the above references from Scripture explain how God has “set apart” His people from those who are not His. We are, indeed, set apart from the World, which is the kingdom of satan. In your comments you referenced “Anglicans” being set apart from the world. I’m not referring to just Anglicans, but ALL Christians in the world. Denomination is irrelevant in this. That’s why I asked you if you are Christian and if you believe in the Bible as truth. Do you study the Bible to learn more truth? We are commanded by God to study his Word so we may know Him.
I stand by my comments above. Church must be “set apart” from state and the leader of the church is appointed by God to lead the CHURCH, not the state. And yes, I’m passionate about it. Jesus is my savior, and only through Him will I have salvation and be allowed to enter the Kingdom of God. Can you say the same thing and truly be honest with yourself?
Rowan Williams, as leader of a CHRISTIAN church needs to protect his flock in the church and lead them from the evils of the world. I’m questioning his ability to do that at this present time. I’m also questioning the acceptance of Synod by his statements today.
Mugsie
I believe, dear mugsie that there were those around who believed that Jesus was setting a dreadful example when he dined with publicans and sinners.
#41, read my next comment and you will see that I’m in agreement with your statement that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not only a leader for Anglicans. Yes, his position is with the Anglican church, due to the fact that the Church of England is where he was established as Archbishop. However, as a leader of ANY Christian church, he represents Christians across all denominations, and all churches which are truly Christian. Every Christian leader around the world is given authority by God to lead God’s people. Anything done by a Christian leader which threatens or leads astray any Christian is going against what God ordained the leader to do. That is the point I was making. Rowan Williams is a key figure in the Christian church around the world. Anything he does is subject to heavy scrutiny by Christians around the world. All Christians are offended by actions or words of a Christian leader which go against what Scripture teaches us. That is what the issue is here. It is heavily believed around the world that Rowan Williams (in his lecture and interview last week) supported something that is contrary to Scripture and puts many Christians around the world at great risk.
Mugsie
#44, and your point is…….
#42, I had the same thought on reading it, if you mean that it is what the TEC PB and Executive Council typically reply to those objecting to their revisionism. I’d be willing to accept that ++Williams meant it more sincerely, though, based on his past performance.
#41 – “his Grave??” Is that the ecclesiastic equivalent of a Freudian slip?
Nevertheless – IF his Grace & co. plow on ahead to help provide opportunity for Muslim men in Britain to abuse and oppress their wife/wives (no more than four, of course) according to Koranic dicta – which is opposite to the original stated purpose of ++Williams’ lecture, see #31 above – how could we avoid concluding that about 50%, the female half, of the population have, according to church hierarchy, less value in the eyes of God than the other half? Or that ‘some women are more equal than others’? The inclusive list of women post-ers, bloggers and commenters (and I neglected to include BabyBlue the first time around) who responded online to this controversial speech seems evidence of a serious dissonance.
#47, YES, “evidence of a serious dissonance” which all my comments above imply. I don’t believe this “serious dissonance” is just with women, per se, but with Christians at large around the world.
Mugsie
The clergy may be circling around the ABC today. The seed of dissension is firmly planted in the CoE. Prominent bishops have criticised the ABC publically. This internal disarray won’t stay covered.
The people of Britain have reminders of 7/7 all around them. I trust that other incidents will occur that continue the friction, nay hostility, between muslims and Christian British. Reading the public comments, they have placed Rowan Williams squarely with the Islamists. The respect for the see of Canterbury has been severely tarnished. This disaster won’t “just go away.”
But the institutionalists have chosen their bed partner, the furry Welshman.
This whole thing will blow over in no time.
RE: “But the institutionalists have chosen their bed partner, the furry Welshman.”
Actually, standing o’s are given all the time at Diocesan Conventions, even when folks pretty much disagree with every word of the bishop’s address. So I wouldn’t think much either way of the applause.
A standing o means precisely nothing, from the perspective of support for a person’s words, or even, shockingly of the person himself.
I expect that the standing o was a nicely choreagraphed event, and could mean any number of things. I’ll be more interested in watching all the fallout over the coming half year to a year.
And just to repeat, I don’t think that — however ridiculous his clearly expressed idea was — that he should resign.
Nor will he.
Nor would it offer conservative Anglicans a bit of help if he did.
#49. Nonsense. If you think that Senior Bishops in the CofE believe +RDW has committed some major faut pax, you do not know what a faux pas leading to ‘resignation’ is in the UK, but more importantly you misjudge the support that Canterbury has–for all sorts of reasons unrelated to the recent speech–from +Durham, +York, +London, +Winchester, et al. This may well be a UK situation in respect of Islam that people in the US cannot understand. +RDW may have his second-guessers, and rightly so. But the Bishops of the CofE, and the Prime Minister for that matter, do not react as do bloggers, especially US bloggers. +RDW got a standing ovation. The General Synod is not the General Convention. The CofE occupies a place in British life that has no remote analogy of the weird TEC in the US. +Rowan’s views belong inside a sustained, conflicted, and publicly mainstream dialogue. People can vilify him in the US, but his views belong within a long-standing spectrum on a very difficult challenge well-known in the UK (and the former empire). That is why the idea that he is in a precarious position in the CofE or even the general UK is, with all charity, nonsense.
Seitz, I was not one saying that he would be forced out. I did say that he is hopelessly compromised as leader of the CoE (and thus should resign). Lord Carey continues his condemnation of the ABC today. ++Nazir-Ali and +Tom Butler statements have not been retracted. Other statements from synod members have not been retracted either and are part of the permanant public record:
[blockquote]Alison Ruoff, a Synod member from London, said: “Many people, huge numbers of people, would be greatly relieved [if he resigned] because he sits on the fence over all sorts of things and we need strong, Christian, biblical leadership right now, as opposed to somebody who huffs and puffs around and vacillates from one thing to another. “He’s a very able, a brilliant scholar as a man but in terms of being a leader of the Christian community I think he’s actually at the moment a disaster.”[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Col Armitstead, a Synod member from the diocese of Bath and Wells, said Dr Williams should move to work in a university setting instead of leading the Anglican Church. “One wants to be charitable, but I sense that he would be far happier in a university where he can kick around these sorts of ideas.”[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Brig William Dobbie, a former Synod member, described the archbishop as “a disaster, a tragic mistake”.[/blockquote]
I believe St. Paul got it most accurately when he said, “Professing to be wise, they became fools.” Romans 1:22
#53.
+Carey is not taken seriously by Senior CofE bishops aforementioned, in terms of hard decisions they must make now as incumbents. I doubt your other quotes weigh much in the big scheme of things, that is, beyond the next 3-5 days in God’s future.
But leaving that aside, you can count on the fact that when the General Synod closes its work, +RDW will be secure in his post, and perhaps even chastened in ways God seeks to chasten and correct all those servants that do his bidding (as Lent reminds us).
That said, your reiterated insistence that +RDW is ‘hopelessly compromised’ is nonsense in the CofE context.
Maybe the question worth facing is not so much, how does constant vilifying and condemning of +Rowan confirm certain deep convictions and opinions I hold as facts; and rather, how can the reality of Anglican Communion forebearance and catholic-evangelical commitment be the way I understand my Christian life and mission to unfold in the next years?
I often think there is a confusion as to first-order matters. It is always easier to attack a proximate target (even a big bogeyman like the ‘Archbishop of Canterbury’) than to come to terms with deeper spiritual realities. Anglican Christianity is trying to come of age as a huge missionary success. Many pressures contend against and support this both. The ABC is neither the place holder of all things (as theoretically in Roman Catholicism, emphasis on theoretically), nor is he the solver of all local problems (the ‘Methodist Bishop’). Maybe this polity will not succeed.
But at present the Archbishop must go through every single paddle line, as a mature anglicanism finds it footing –if God so wills –in respect of the anglican missionary success reality, globally. Can we major in identifying the challenge of a global missionary movement, work as hard as we can there, and not succumb to attacking an Archbishop for not being a Pope and not being a Methodist Bishop, but for trying to listen as far and as wide as he can to what this Communion might be, as God wants it to be — neither RC, nor confessionalistic, nor national/autonomous?
I do not believe this task is either easy or pre-scripted, as the Communion gets to know itself and finds a way to celebrate both that and the Lord himself bringing us to this place as Anglicans.
(I apologize if I wm repeating what someone has already said.) Have you noticed that his approach – I am sorry if my remarks caused misunderstanding, but I am standing by my position – is exactly wht we have heard a number of times from TEC. It is almost a literal repetition. “I apologize, only I don’t really.” This ought to be rather obvious. LM
Incidentally in #34, Muggsie wrote of the the native people were the original people of the land. This is precisely what you do not know. From the Inuit to the Inca, the genetic lines are very different – at least, so I have read. Who were the “original” people on the land. You don’t know and neighter does anyone else. The notion that the present Amerinds who are in a particular place have been in the place from the year one is unlikely, for the Amerinds were hunter-gathers and moved widely. The ones now in place – I live in Maine were there are a good many Amerind – Maliceets, Penobscots et al, are merely the most recent, and are no more native than you and I are. Or to put it more fairly, since I was born here, I am as native as they are and have as much right to the land as they do – if “nativeness” is the issue, as it should not be.
LM
#4 Apparently I touched a nerve.
I wish he would resign and if “the turnover rates of our bishops would be many times what they are now!” that would be a dramatic improvement! In fact, we should all lobby hard for passing an Anglican covenant that includes mandatory term limits for all bishops.
#52, you seem stuck in a clergy-centric point of view whilst I am coming from the lay perspective, ultimately much more important. A leader of the Church of England is more than a leader of clergy. The Church of England is in crisis. Attendance at Anglican services had declined by 20% between 2000 and 2006. I have read hundreds of the comments from the people in the major newspapers. Thus, Rowan Williams’ position with the clergy may be secure (though I imagine many tire of the stream of controversy he generates) but he is, indeed, hopelessly compromised as a leader of the CoE for the average laymen.
I certainly reject the charge of vilifying. Rather, I do not participate but rather oppose the whitewash of the man who, almost assuredly, history will say that he oversaw and, in fact, accelerated the dissolution of the Anglican Communion with his finely practiced Windsor processing (endless talk while the AC degenerates).
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2008/02/shariah-why-williams-was-wrong.html
Perhaps this will be airy enough for consideration up in the heights of the elite.
I can write 153 word sentences that would do both the ABC and St Paul the patron of the run-on sentence quite PROUD. Unfortunately, this is frowned upon at the Episcopal School for Ministry in the Diocese of Missouri as being non-communicative. Could we bring this to the notice of the ABC, perhaps? And my professors have a text in front of them. One might think even the rarified academics and legalists would have a bit of problem in the hearing. Rather like the translators from Romans in koine to current English versions.
But, I may underestimate the average attender at “Islam and British Law: A Lecture by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, given in the Royal Courts of Justice on 7 February 2008 as the Foundation Lecture in the series “Islam in English Lawâ€, part of the Temple Festival 2008.”
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/ 9 February to date is well assessed.
I suppose that the ability to think and speak clearly is not in the job description of the ABC.
Dr Seitz (#55) Please consider the fact that merely because “senior CofE bishops” think something does not prove that they are right, even if the incumbent leaders are backed by a unanimous vote of the General Synod. The British political elite and a large majority of the House of Commons backed Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement right through 1939; the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church backed the status quo until the Reformation was too far along to be “recalled” by reforming the Church from within. Those leadership failures apply to our Communion now. Given the manifold failures of the leadership of TEC and of parts of the Anglican Communion in recent years, we can have no confidence that our senior incumbent leadership exercises good judgment.
There is confusion concerning “first order matters”. Unfortunately, it is the ABC and his entourage who seem to demonstrate considerable confusion about who Jesus is, about the authority of the Bible, about whether Christianity or Islam is God’s final revelation to humanity, and about whether the purported new revelations about homosexual conduct overrule God’s revelation to date. The ABC’s latest statements about Sharia, which he reaffirmed in his speech to the General Synod, are only the latest in a series of statements and actions by him that have significantly damaged the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury as a focus of unity for the Communion.
Rowan Williams’ damage to his office is the principal long term effect of his conduct during the past few years. This is a “first order reality”, and one that cannot be fixed by the support of the incumbent CofE establishment for Williams in the debate about Sharia. The damage is already done and is considerable. This is a reality that the Communion is struggling to absorb as part of the realignment: can the Communion survive without the ABC as a focus of unity? That question is very much in doubt.
Moreover, Williams’ actions as ABC creates a second issue here that might help define the difference between “Comcons” and “Fedcons”. I fear that Fedcons have reluctantly concluded that the survival and reformation of the Anglican Communion will happen, if at all, in spite of the ABC, and over his resistance. Given that perspective, the ABC cannot be a unifying figure. For Comcons, the ABC can not only be a focus of unity, but can also be trusted to lead the reformation of the Communion. Can that difference in perspective be bridged?
Dr. Seitz may very well be correct in his assessment of Dr. Willliams’ continued good standing in the CofE. English church politics are a bit opaque to Americans.
I think the interview and lecture have been properly understood and have done enormous damage world-wide among Anglicans.
TACit’s observation that women and those who are concerned about women’s rights are especially distressed by this subject is on-target. In the Middle East and south Asia, the fervor with which the family follows Islam can be seen visibly among its women. The strictly observant glide through the streets in the full heat of summer dressed from head to foot in black, with only a slit for the eyes, and sometimes those are veiled by black netting. Not a single inch of skin sees the light of day, ever. The Muslim wife must please her husband on pain of being divorced without cause and given three months’ alimony to make the transition. It was women in Canada who most vociferously opposed a recent proposal for sharia courts in Ottawa.
Those who hope for the emergence of a “moderate Islam” should strongly oppose the imposition of medieval Islam in Western countries.
[url=http://themcj.com/3642#Comments]Christopher Johnson[/url] has a good post here citing two recent commentaries in the (UK) Independent which describe how the “voluntary” sharia courts in the UK operate today. The second of his citations, an article by [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-what-he-wishes-on-us-is-an-abomination-780186.html]Yasmin Alibhai-Brown,[/url] is especially good.
“Multiculturalism” is a concept which fails to make moral distinctions between competing systems. In this case, it’s a really bad concept, especially for women.
On the other hand, I’ve never before walked through my (suburban British) parish and been approached by Moslems who don’t know me. Yesterday I was approached by a Moslem thanking me for the way the Archbishop was willing to say unpopular things because he loves Moslems. It gave me the opportunity to say that the Church of England would always be for him, even if British society wasn’t.
And for the record: I’m a reasserter who believes that evangelism is crucial; but the evangelism of British Moslems will be impossible unless Moslems see that the church loves them more than Britain does.
Re #65
Andy, I strongly agree with you that we must love all people including Muslims and we share many values. But what Rowan said was pointless. To the extend that elements of Sharia law are compatible with English or other western laws they should be welcome to practice those elements. If there are Muslim judges who uphold the western legal system in which they practice, they should be welcome and if they want to prominently display verses of the Quran that are in agreement with the laws which they administer; great! If certain neighborhoods or regions are predominantly Muslim, laws could be modified to accommodate some sort of federalist system but, under no conditions, should it be a separate legal system.
If this is all that Rowan intended; so what? If on the other hand he is asserting that a minority should be allowed to create a subsystem that contradicts the law of the land or he is proposing a separate theocratic system … bin there, done that (historically speaking).
What really gets my goat about the whole affair is that the only “engagement” with what the archbishop said is accomplished in hyperbolic shouting. I’m willing to accept that his proposal shouldn’t be adopted, or should be heavily revised. In the discussions here I’m not getting a lot of reasoning for this, with some exceptions here and there (e.g. Katherine’s response shortly above this one). A lot of the “barbarism!” ranting, I’m afraid, is only enabling Moslem evangelism, since they can rant back “the crusades!” It’s not going to go well for us if they can keeping pointing that once upon a time they could live with us, but we can’t live with them, even if that is a considerable oversimplification.
As far as how this affects the communion as a whole: I didn’t check today’s paper, but so far the Wash. Post hasn’t reported on the matter at all. The Wash. Times did, of course, because neo-con agitation is part of their business model. Nut I’ll bet if you asked every Episcopalian on Sunday morning what they thought about it, the overwhelming majority wouldn’t have had a clue that anything was going on. The blogosphere is hopping because hopping is what it does; and in England the press is agitating because that’s what they do.
I notice that Durham has spoken up to essentially echo Cantuar’s comments. That fact should give pause. Most everyone here agrees that ECUSA is moving away from an Anglican expression of Christianity, but given how much of the English hierarchy is siding with Williams on this, it’s time that the conservatives who are so loud here should contemplate the possibility that they also are abandoning the Anglican tradition. We’re not supposed to be applying these litmus tests, on matters that are manifestly far from the center of The Faith. This is exactly the sort of issue that Anglicans should be able to discuss rationally and allow differences of opinion about.
The danger you spot, Wingate, is real. It is hard for me to tell if it is just a form of americanism, or if a genuinely anti-anglican view of episcopalianism is emerging on both left (this is crystal clear to me at least, and there are historical polity reasons for that, as well as theological reasons) but also on the right. I read a fascinating essay in the Ecclesiastical Law Journal the other day, comparing the ‘polity’ of TEC with the ‘ecclesiology’ of the CofE. There is a kind of individualistic and democratic episcopalism (congregationalism with Bishops) that permeates the ‘anglicanism’ of 100 CEO bishops and their individual districts in the US. The idea of a Synod of Bishops seems implausible on this model. No, each Bishop has a unique bull’s eye on his head.
#67 – The Washington Post has weighed in with an opinion piece by Anne Applebaum. It is not favorably disposed towards the Archbishop.
At least as to first-order matters, I am glad that Anglican Christianity is trying to come of age as a huge missionary success through events such as GAFCON, where the ABC will be neither the place holder of all things, nor the solver of all local problems, because, not only does not believe that he should do those things, but as implied in his synod address, he does not believe that the purpose of Lambeth is to come to grips with the issues of Anglicanism’s global missionary success.
Indeed, as a mature Anglicanism finds it footing –if God so wills –in respect of the Anglican missionary success reality, I pray that the bishops attending GAFCON can aid in identifying the challenge of a global missionary movement and work as hard as they can there.
At the present, that seems much more likely to be favorably looked upon there than at Lambeth.
So the new anglican communion will be Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria and the Sydney region of Australia (this assuming that all the Bishops in Uganda and Nigeria opt for this), and those who think this new arrangement is the way forward?
# 71: Well, Chris – that is where the vast majority of Anglicans actually live (add Kenya and Tanzania). North Atlantic Anglicanism has the money and the bishops (spades of them) but not too many worshipers. For his own reasons, RW has failed to keep them on board as George Carey probably would’ve. Instead, he subverted DeS alienated so many from Lambeth.
#62 — I did not follow your options well.
You write, “can the Communion survive without the ABC as a focus of unity? That question is very much in doubt.” Do you mean, “the answer to that question is No, or doubtful”? If so, I agree.
Then, “I fear that Fedcons have reluctantly concluded that the survival and reformation of the Anglican Communion will happen, if at all, in spite of the ABC, and over his resistance.” I doubt the ABC will resist anything, or is in a position to resist a move in this direction, for reasons related to the limits of his office, and because he indicates that if there are those who do not wish to be a part of Instruments then that is the decision they have made. Those are his own words in this address.
Then, “For Comcons, the ABC can not only be a focus of unity, but can also be trusted to lead the reformation of the Communion.” For people like Peter Toon (and myself on this score) we are not talking so much about “can” the ABC be this or that, but given that he is, how can one best preserve the anglican communion on the terms of its own history and self-definition.
Then, “Can that difference in perspective be bridged?” Do you mean, can fedcoms who want a new kind of anglicanism without Cantebury join this perspective to an anglicanism that has Canterbury and Instruments in central place? It sounds like no, and that this is something fedcoms have accepted and are so moving in a new direction.
Do I think Kenya and Tanzania will join this? No. I am also unsure whether the Archbishops of Uganda and Nigeria will be able to keep their entire regions in a federation such as is being proposed. These are simply realities any new project like this will have to face. I am unsure whether just saying a lot of people in 4 or so areas makes a new communion for anglicanism. I think it would be just that: a new kind of ‘anglican’ christianity made up of those who elect and sign on: a voluntaristic anglicanism, perhaps with a confessional centre. How many would sign on would then be the project’s particular concern, presumably.
#70. No, because I don’t think they are planning on leaving, though it is possible that someone is planning on kicking them out. Of course, having read the CoE group’s comments to the draft covenant, I am aware there are those who would like to do just that. I think, rather, that those in the global south who wish to do so will just proceed to do what they think they need to do to protect their own missions and the orthdox parishes and diocese in the US and Canada, inasmuch as the Archbishop has decided not to effectively implement the panel of reference, not to implement paragraph 134 of the Windsor Report, not to implement the DES communique, and so on. Indeed, certain primates are largely implementing the DES communique on their own, because no one else is.
#74 Kicking them out? How would that happen?
I must have misunderstood you. I thought the idea was that they did not find the Canterbury-based anglican communion palatable or proper, and so would rather have a different kind of anglicanism, a GAFCON anglicanism. And that you agreed. And that what one would need to see is how this new kind of anglicanism might happen, who it would finally involve, and so forth; whether these would be whole provinces, or as in the US zone, portions–even sizeable ones–of said provinces. I was unaware that plans were afoot to kick people out of the communion — indeed, usually that idea forms around the need to remove liberal TEC and so on.
You must have misunderstood. I don’t think any of the primates has said they would resign from the Anglican Communion. I think some said they would not attend Lambeth if certain events occurred that would make it not worthwhile in their summation, including whether the VGR consecrators were invited. If not attending Lambeth (though, in the case of those primates, invited) means they are creating a different type of Anglicanism, well, I think you are reading too much into that. I don’t think they have said that. I do think that they will simply proceed to set up a separate province or whatever they believe they need to do. They may, and in fact I suspect will, still say they are part of the Anglican communion. Others, or even you, may not. Or you may call it a different kind of Anglicanism. Since at the present point, and for the foreseeable future, each province can do what it wants without repercussion, and the communion can take no action as a whole, the global south primates who wish to take action will presumably do so. And I don’t see how anyone can have any basis for saying they are not part of the Anglican communion if they do not say they are not. Unless they are kicked out. Again, my opinion only, I have no inside information, but I don’t think it is that hard to figure out, either.
And as to those who do want to kick out the global south, apparently you did not see that the Church of England Response to the Draft Anglican Covenant proposed that border crossing be per se illegal (unless “properly authorized”, which would, I think it is fair to say, not happen), so that the global south bishops overseeing CCP congregations or the DSJ would be immediately in volation of the covenant and subject to discipline if they did not stop. I thought its intent was fairly clear. So, indeed, the shoe could be moved to the other foot. You should read up on it here (comment (34) in particular): [url=http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/papers/angcommresp.rtf]Church of England Response to the Draft Anglican Covenant[/url]
Dr Seitz (#72)
Thank you for answering my post. I will answer your questions and genuinely hope to have your response.
Can the Communion survive without the ABC as a focus of unity? I meant to say that the answer to that question is doubtful. I think that we agree on that.
My next comments in #62 tried to say that the Fedcons believe that the ABC is impeding the Communion’s attempt to discipline TEC. The Fedcons base this belief on many actions of the ABC, such as his endorsement of the Subgroup report at Dar, the Lambeth invitations, the use of the JSC to evaluate TEC’s compliance at the New Orleans HoB meeting, the refusal to convene the Primates to evaluate TEC’s compliance with Dar before Lambeth meets, etc. Now I do not ask you to agree that my interpretation of the ABC’s actions is correct; I ask you only to acknowledge, arguendo, that some people, in good faith, interpret the ABC’s conduct this way.
You then say “I doubt that the ABC will resist anything, or resist a move in this direction…because he indicates that if there are those who do not wish to be a part of Instruments then that is a decision they have made….”. Your answer seems to say that what the ABC won’t resist is the decision by the Fedcons to leave the Communion for something much different, like a federation based on a confession of faith. Logically, your formulation is that “because the Fedcons have decided to leave the Communion, the ABC cannot be a focus of unity”. That formulation actually reverses the Fedcons’ complaint. Rather, the Fedcons complain that the ABC is preventing the Communion, as currently structured, from disciplining TEC. The Fedcons conclude that the Communion needs restructuring, and the ABC cannot continue as a focus of unity, [i] because the ABC has sided with TEC and is preventing the Communion, as structured now, from disciplining TEC.[/i] To repeat, I do not ask you to accept the truth of the Fedcons’ conclusion, only to acknowledge that they see the ABC’s actions in this light. What is your answer to the Fedcons’ concern?
My next point was that the Comcons view the ABC as the leader of the solution, not part of the problem. I do not understand your answer. You seem to say that you do not see the issue as what the ABC can or can’t do, but “…given that [the ABC] is, how can one best preserve the anglican communion on the terms of its own history and self definition”. Are you saying that the Anglican Communion must be led by the ABC? If you are saying “My ABC right or wrong” then I don’t think that I agree with you. Please explain.
Finally, my post in #62 was trying to say that there is a dramatic divergence in views of the ABC now: the Fedcons view the ABC as part of the problem in today’s Communion, while the Comcons see the ABC as part of, in fact essential to, the solution. That is the difference is perspective I question whether it is possible to bridge. I do not speak of people who long ago decided to form a new federation of Anglicanism based on a confession of faith, regardless of what the ABC did or does. I would love to see the ABC as part of the solution. But I fear that, under this ABC, no solution to TEC’s apostacy is possible using the Communion’s existing structures. What is your answer to that concern?
I appreciate your courtesy in responding. I truly hope that there is some way to unify this split among people who agree on the main underlying issues concerning TEC’s revisionism.
#77 I am en route to the UK and apologise if I am missing things in your response. Let me try to indicate answers to your queries.
1. yes, some people ‘in good faith’ believe this or that about Dar and other matters concerning motivations from the ABC; do I believe that their ‘in good faith’ is sufficiently proximate to events, or accurate, No I do not. I think they are judgments, beliefs, and I disagree with many of them, even as I believe they might well be ‘good faith’ assessments — wrong, but sincerely held.
2. I do not believe, without further ado, that the ABC is ‘siding with TEC.’ I believe he sees all the problems with 815, TEC, and various other issues. That is different to saying, he can do something about these as ABC. He does not want to extrude himself into provinces not his own and so takes a stance that is far too conservative, for those wishing him to be pro-active in ways they, but not he, judges appropriate. Saying that, I believe developments are afoot (like the announcement of the Windsor Continuation Group) that signal he remains on a steep learning curve (not everyone outside the US understands the US, esp its curious ‘non-anglican’ episcopalianism) and is doing what he can, within limits he judges appropriate to his non-curial office, to address a TEC situation increasingly parlous and messy.
Fedcoms may need to have their complaints reversed (as you put it), I might add. Because their choices at this point are to work to bring an ABC properly invested in his position into better alignment vis-a-vis the Instruments and other desiderata, or to leave and invent a new form of anglican christianity in pockets and with subscribers they are able to enlist.
3. Your definition makes your point. ACI does not see the ABC as ‘part’ of anything–a solution we trust in, or a hindrance we don’t. Rather, as with Toon, the See of Canterbury is a providential given, and must be pressed and prayed for. Should the Communion collapse, for any number of reasons, then that will be a verdict of God. It is not, therefore, an office that we believe in because we think it likely to do X or Y rightly, but because we believe historical and providential commitments require some humility before a Christian witness prior to, and received by, Christians in this Anglican Way.
The very fact that others view Canterbury as a likely or unlikely palliative, or engine for X or Y outcome, and this essentially, differentiates a functional and an ontological account of anglicanism as a catholic movement in the providence of God. If this fails, then God will have rendered a judgment in time.
4. As for functional unity. My sense is that two understandings of the character of anglican catholic-evangelical mission in Christ are being revealed. My hunch is that this may expose a fault line, and if so, God will be speaking. Some will want to join the broader commitments of protestant and confessional/voluntaristic Christianity, and others will be praying for reformed catholic Anglicanism to survive and thrive. The fate of these hopes is in God’s hands, as we all seek to hear his voice and obey.
I am sorry if this does not address everything, but I am under pressure of various kinds as I travel. God bless, and a Holy Lent for you and yours.
Per #75 and 76, I see that the statement of the five primates not attending Lambeth provides clearly that “We emphasise that this action is not intended to signal that we are walking out of the Communion.” So, indeed, not attending does not mean that one is resigning from the communion. The communion will do what it will, and certain global south primates will do what they will. Any thinking about the future of the communion needs to be wrapped around that. It does no good to ask people who are not intending to create any formal new communion how they plan to create a formal new communion. We have a divided communion, that’s all. Time would be best spend recognizing that and working on bringing the orthodox back in. Which will take some consequences for TEC and some protection for the orthodox. A long-term project at this point, it would appear.