Addressing the theme of primacy within the church, Dr. Williams offered his views on the “many-layered issue” of the relationship between the local and denominational church and the charism of the episcopacy. While not directly addressing the divisions within the Anglican Communion, his remarks illustrate the reasons for his actions in relation to the Bishop of New Hampshire and the American bishops under African jurisdiction.
In its essence, “the life of the local congregation is founded on something received, not discovered or invented” he said, for local churches come into being as “part of a continuous stream of life being shared” in Christ.
The local church can therefore not lay claim of being “complete and self-sufficient,” in itself, but must be in relation with a wider body. “A local church is indeed at one level a community to which is given all the gifts necessary for being Christ’s Body in this particular place; but among those gifts is the gift of having received the Gospel from others and being still called to receive it,” he said.
Following upon Tertullian’s dictum that ”˜one Christian is no Christian,’ Dr. Williams argued that we should say that “one bishop is no bishop” and “one local church alone is no church.”
Not only incoherent, but in the case of the US HOB, the ACC, and the Lambeth Planning Council, essentially dishonest and mendacious.
Seriously I have to ask, is the archbishop deranged? Not because of what he writes in this statement (I was at the conference, and was impressed by both its clarity and its “catholicity”), but because of the juxtaposition of this statement with Andrew Carey’s report clarifying that no resolutions will be allowed a the Lambeth Conference. Holding such a meaningless and expensive boondoggle clearly contradicts the ecclesiological implications of the archbishop’s statement, as related to the ongoing crisis in the Anglican Communion.
“Deranged” may seem uncharitable, but what other explanation can there be? In the aftermath of Vatican II some radical “Catholic trasditionalists” (“radtrads” as the current term is) who rejected post-conciliar “liturgical reforms” were wont to circulate two contrasting photographs of Pope Paul VI and to conclude (because the pope’s ears in one of the photographs did seem distinctly larger than those in the other) that the pope had been kidnapped (or else seized and locked up in “the Vatican basement”) and an imposter substituted for him, one who would “rubber stamp” all the “liberal abominations” that were being promulgated in the pope’s name.
Applying this to Canterbury, perhaps +Rowan has been drugged or locked up, and allowed to while away the time by writing pieces such as this one, while “the impostor” works with the “Lambeth Design Group” after having impersonated the AbC at last September’s HOB meeting. Strange? Impossible? One might have thought so, but apart from either schizophrenic derangement or “the imposter scenario,” how else can one comprehend such a bizarre disconnect?
By acknowledging the validity of Dan Crawford’s comment #1 when applied to one particular “Anglican Structure” — this Archbishop of Canterbury is essentially dishonest and mendacious.
Yes,
Hasn’t Rowan Williams brought utter clarity to it all?
Dr. Tighe,
The one other possibility that occurs to me is that the current ABoC is one of those very poor managers who puts people into a position of influence and then just leaves them to their own devices. He does provide some direction, with, for example, the recent address, or the Advent letter to the primates. However, when the subordinates ignore him and go off on their own path, he does nothing to rein them in. Very few of us have much quarrel over what he has said or written since becoming ABoC (and generally before that, with the exception of a couple notorious articles he authored), it is his action and inaction that has brought out the majority of the criticism. From both sides in the current Anglican unpleasantness, I might add.
As I commented at the original blog, if Williams exhibited the ability to BE a bishop, I might pay some attention to what he has written.
[blockquote]Hasn’t Rowan Williams brought utter clarity to it all? [/blockquote]
Given the ink spilled and electrons grounded from his 20,000-word missives, you’d think some clarity would have been attained, yet the opposite is the case. At times, ++Rowan talks a good game (when decipherable), but his actions do not match his words. We’re reading your lips, Cantaur, but we’re watching your feet, too.
“Rowan Williams says Anglican Structures are Incoherent”
There is much passion in the above posts. How does one explain Rowan Williams’ actions and words? What IS his position?
I think that the only rational idea that I can produce is that Williams is using secular (temporal) means to attack a spiritual problem. As intelligent as he is he must fail miserably.
To attack the spiritual problem that we are immersed in we need spiritual weapons such as are present at GAFCON.
Don
What IS his position?
Incoherent, at least to me.
[blockquote]perhaps +Rowan has been drugged or locked up[/blockquote]
I’ll be in London in a couple of weeks. I’ll stop by the Tower of London and see if they’ve got him locked up there.
Not the Tower of London…look at the Nag’s Head during Happy Hour.
This is a sad string of comments for this blog.
The Archbishop acknowledged that Anglicanism has a “not very coherent or effective international [i]structure[/i]” that has produced excessive pluralism within its bounds. One would think that would bring tingles of joy to the readers of this blog. Instead, we launch on yet another ad hominem about the Archbishop’s perceived lack of leadership. I think it is particularly ironic that we have the spectacle of Catholics criticizing the Archbishop of Canterbury for not being catholic enough. He is neither Catholic, nor an evangelical Protestant: he is an Anglican. If you don’t like that, it is your problem, not his.
Dr. Tighe,
“Deranged” works for me. Your post was both pointed and amusing. It saved me some typing and as usual you said it better than I would have.
ICXC
John
12. An Anxious Anglican:
Please, I did not miss the quote that you included.
I stand my ground. A spiritual spine would go a long way toward making a “not very coherent or effective international structure†work. What does he think we need, a pope? We need SPINE!
We don’t need excuses – we need leadership.
Don
Hey! That’s [i]my[/i] quote! 🙂 Well, he’s close anyway. I have been on record for a while with the observation that Anglicanism (TEC version in particular) is structurally [i]chaotic[/i], theologically[/i] incoherent and morally compromised.
Has Rowen EVER been coherent himself???
No. 12 – Not sure that any of the critics on this thread are catholic (Anglican, that is). One of the reasons that he is disliked?distrusted by so many of the reasserters is that is eccclesiology is very Catholic. I wouldn’t be shocked that, when his retirement comes, he leads groups of Catholic Anglicans into some kind of reconciliation with Rome.
By the way, I agree with RW’s catholic ecclesiology.
17- if you are right then why did he create Affriming Catholocism – a group that seeks to endorse anything BUT Catholic practices? I think Rowan is a decent man and a man of prayer- but scratch the surface and I fear he is a true foggy liberal- which is why none of the orthodox cheered at his appointment.
12. Dear Anxious,
You are absolutely correct. It is the problem of all Anglicans that the ABC’s leadership is totally incoherent, that his writing is oblique to the point of incoherence. I am not attacking the man. All I ask is that he say clearly what he means. To me his writing is incoherent. If you take that to be a statement about the man, so be it.
If you defend his incoherence as being required as part and parcel of the ‘Anglican Way’, then Anglicanism is lost from Christianity. Christianity is nothing but coherence in its accord among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The orthodox Archbishops understand that coherence and do not deviate from it. Their writing is lucid for it.