His advocacy of the rights of gay Christians during the 1990s was misleading: it made him seem the liberal he never really was. He was always an Anglo-Catholic above all. He sought to develop and update the open, liberal side of this tradition, but not in a way that might jeopardise its integrity.
Above all, he refused to combine Anglo-Catholicism with a general liberal agenda. Indeed he revived the Anglo-Catholic suspicion of secular liberalism that dates back to Newman. The liberal state, in this view, offers itself as an alternative community of salvation; it tempts us into supposing that we can dispense with the Church, or at least water it down, and develop a more progressive form of Christianity. This leads to weak forms of Christianity that are unable to resist dangerous ideologies: most obviously, the liberal Protestants of Germany embraced Nazism. It is Williams’ anti-liberal ecclesiology that is the root cause of the present controversy. In a sense it’s not really about sharia law, or Islam: it’s about the relationship between a Catholic conception of the Church and liberalism.
For Williams, authentic Christianity occurs within a clearly defined social body, an “ethical community” as he has sometimes put it. Without this, Christian culture will be dispersed by the cold winds of secularism. There is a need for strong resistance to the various negative spirits of the age: consumerism, celebrity, hedonism and so on, and this resistance can only occur within an alternative social world, walled off from mainstream culture.
Only from within a religious subculture can secular modernity be seen for what it is: dehumanising. He has referred to secularism’s “unspoken violence”, and to modernity as “an atmosphere in which people become increasingly formless, cut off from what could give their lives … some kind of lasting intelligibility”. He sees secular liberalism as a quietly nihilistic force that robs human life of full significance, as a demonically subtle tyranny that looks and feels like freedom.
Theo Hobson’s collection of writings may be found [url=http://www.theohobson.co.uk/ ]here[/url]. Very interesting to say the least.
Two important quotes from the present essay:
[blockquote]His job, as he understands it, is also to interpret the tradition that he represents, and to sharpen its capacity for truthfulness. In this view, the religious leader has more in common with the court jester than the king. His role is not to project an image of strength that will unite the faithful, and please the nation at large, but to challenge all tendencies to ideological surety, in both Church and nation.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]His advocacy of the rights of gay Christians during the 1990s was misleading: it made him seem the liberal he never really was. He was always an Anglo-Catholic above all. He sought to develop and update the open, liberal side of this tradition, [i]but not in a way that might jeopardise its integrity.[/i][/blockquote]
Mr. Hobson thus argues that Rowan Williams sees himself as a stirrer up of hornets nests. Thus, when RW tried to force (or foist) Jeffrey John on the English church, he was simply trying to “live the tension”, to use the KJS/Griswoldian vernacular. Of course, I would disagree with Mr. Hobson that this ill-thought out affair did not jeopardize its integrity.
Also, it is Mr. Hobson’s contention that Rowan Williams, deep-down really isn’t a liberal but that he was only taking the liberal side to increase this tension. There is an important [url=http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/communion/division/iss_communion_division_SPREADsummary.asp ]letter from the Church Society of England[/url] today that draws attention to the SPREAD document (see link in letter), the latter is a 148 document prepared by the current interim head of Trinity school for ministry and others that documents the many, many details that argue the case for Rowan Williams extreme liberal leanings, not simply one playing the devil’s advocate and taking on a position to increase intellectual diversity and discussion as Mr. Hobson contends.
In practice, Rowan Williams has advocated only two positions, the liberal one or that of delay and procrastination. Both of which favor the liberals hand. A read of the SPREAD document certainly lays to rest that the ABC will every come to the aid of the orthodox, something that he has never done and will never do.
The Anglican Communion, at this terrible and critical time, does not need a court jester for its leader, to use Mr. Hobson’s words. We do not need a leader that increases dissension for dissension’s sake. Quite frankly, it is time for Rowan Williams to acknowledge he is not the man for the job and to step down.
This does lead one to question whether the ABC is attempting the court jester role which is that of the fool. But whether a fool for Christ or the liberal agenda is the question. Given the ABC’s documented leanings, it is a bit hard to enter a state of suspension of disbelief top allow the premise of this article’s argument. Given the ABC’s primary mode of (in)action, it is simply NOT possible to give the suspension of disbelief. Surely the insight of secular psychiatry that the best predictor of future (in)action is past (in)action is applicable here.
However, if one allows the temporary delusional state required for this necessary suspension of disbelief and assesses the text in that context, what one sees is the disestablishment not merely of the CoE, but of the entire Anglican Communion. And that seems to be coming along quite fairly, if more rapidly than in the CoE. Perhaps the best argument for disestablishment in the UK of the CoE is the failure of the Anglican Communion along the lines of the best argument for a commonwealth of nations is the failure of the Empire?
I don’t think RW is attempting any court jester mode. I think the fundamental thing that is perplexing about the man is that he acts on the principle that he is custodian not of his position, but of the church. (It does seem to me that he is not entirely a man of correctly liberal views, but that’s a detail and not a determining factor.) Conversely, the American church acts at present on the principle that it is custodian and agent of the views of the winners. RW’s position is Anglican to the core; the other is its antithesis.
An interesting exercise in re-packaging Archbishop Rowan that I doubt anybody is buying other than those whose support he already has.
If one reads the essay (you have to register which is painless), then you find that the court jester is not meant as a pejorative but rather that Mr. Hobson is saying that RW sees his role as a stirrer of the pot, a challenger of suppositional ideas. To be sure, this is an important part to play in any organization. I am reminded of the character in CS Lewis’ space trilogy, MacPhee, the dour Scot who questioned everything. Interestingly, we have this about MacPhee from Wikipedia (invocatum wikipedia):
[blockquote][b]Mr. MacPhee[/b] — A scientist, skeptic, and rationalist, and close friend of Dr. Ransom. Wants to fight the N.I.C.E. with human powers. An argumentative character [i]who claims to have no opinions, merely stating facts and illustrating implications. The awoken Merlin believes MacPhee to be Ransom’s “fool” (i.e. jester), because MacPhee is “obstructive and rather rude…yet never gets sat on”.[/i] (The character may have been based on William T. Kirkpatrick, former headmaster of Lurgan College and an admired tutor of the young Lewis.)[/blockquote]
But it is not the appropriate role of the organization’s leader especially in such a critical time.
Hobson’s description of Williams does not ring true to me. Williams is what he is, and his actions (and inactions) tell who he is.
Ok. I have a tendency to be dense. Please be kind, nevertheless.
Hobsen seems to be arguing that ++Williams says that Christians (and other people of faith) need a “space” outside the reaches of secular liberalism in which they can understand existential issues regarding humanity, God, and the soul.
In the United States, I have made this space myself. Some of my fellow Christians, in fact, have made this space all-too-well. They are accused of being “ghetto Christians” and having too little interaction with the messiness of unrepetant human beings.
So, are things different with an established church? Does ++Williams feel like he needs to “make this space” for English citizens all by himself? Is that what this ruckus is all about?
FWIW, I’ve aways thought that when my faith stands in conflict with my society, then I follow my faith and take the consequences. If my employer, for example, asked that I work on Sundays, I would say, “No. Please reconsider.” And if my employer fired me, I would seek another who was more accomodating. I would not say to my employer, “I will not work on Sunday and you can’t either.”
The strength, perhaps, of secular liberalism is that it treats everyone equal. Perhaps that is the weakness, as well. Human being are not cookie-cutter creations, but gloriously individual. We cannot ask our society to accomodate all of our individualities, however. It is up to us as individuals to decide how to nourish ourselves spiritually.
Groping over. Responses welcome. Kindness appreciated.
I too find Theo Hobson’s interpretation of ++Rowan Williams quite unconvincing. It also represents a fundamental misrereading of some former archbishops of Canterbury, especially William Temple, who is certainly not fairly described as “Anglo-Catholic.”
But part of his analysis rings true. I wouldn’t describe ++Williams as a court jester type at all, but he does all too often act in the mold of a Socratic philosopher, asking far more questions than he answers. And that simply ISN’T the role of an archbishop. He is indeed simply unsuited for the job. I agree wholeheartedly with robroy (as usual): the man should resign.
But aside from Hobson’s take on ++Williams, there is the deeper question of his take on the relation of the C of E to the wider society. And this is where he and I are totally at odds, and our views could hardly be more starkly opposed. Theo Hobson endorses the idea of a Protestant Liberalism that is willing to cooperate with and go along with the prevailing culture as the APPROPRIATE stance for the C of E. He chastises ++Williams supposed refusal to do so. I couldn’t disagree more. In the increasingly secularized, and de-Christianized social context of England, what is needed is the kind of firm, dogmatic affirmation of classical Christian faith and practice that the Pope models so effectively.
In contrast to Hobson, I argue that it’s high time for the Church of England to repent of its Erastianism and adopt an openly confrontational approach to the secular, relativist, liberal mindset of the majority. We live in a post-Constantinian age, in a post-Christendom western world, so let’s start acting like it. Kiss the old Christendom model of church life goodbye. Blow taps and bury it. It had a great run, for about 1500 years. But it’s time is up. It’s time to become genuinely counter-cultural. It’s time to relearn how to be “in the world, but not of the world.” It’s time to relearn how to evangelize pagans and turn them into radical disciples of Jesus Christ.
David Handy+
Passionate Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
Firm Advocate of Re-inventing Anglicanism so as to be truly Great Commandment, Great Commission driven
Robroy, I think you probably misunderstand liberalism. I imagine that Trinity probably listed a variety of political things that don’t mesh with American political conservatism (say, tax-cuts). But a Catholic and support things that liberals do, even if it is for different reasons.
But liberalism lacks any metaphysics. And it is the handmaiden of capitalism, which says that value is only determined by usefulness and money. There are good reasons to critique the liberal tradition because they sunder our relationships. They change churches from families into shops.
It is one of my perpetual frustrations with reasserters here is an unwillingness to discuss issues of economics. I’m, personally, sympathetic to sorts of free markets and admire capitalism. I don’t think, however, it is possible for a good Catholic to do so (even Pope Bendict struggles with this question). Classical liberalism is the foundation of capitalism: so we critique it carefully.
Robroy, the documents you mention, of course, are worth arguing about, but just because snglicanspread says something, doesn’t mean its true. It did not really examine +williams teachings (he included arguments, for example.) Lots of people can assert things from the basis of scripture. As the Catholic church noted in 2003, reading our own issues into the past is a risky enterprise.
Alas, Robroy, your argument seems to hinge on guilt by association.
It could be that catholicism is, in itself, dangerous territory for reasserters. Many reasserters seem ton conflate the Republican party with what Christianity is.
Rowan Williams ability to embody:
“Perhaps it’s time to consider whether the old religious set-up is still what most of us really want.”
is a gift to all with Anglican sensibilities.