The moral and spiritual authority of Rowan is obvious. When people criticise him for lack of leadership, they need to realise what he is doing here. In the light of the Scriptures and faithful to Christian history he seeks to enable Christians of diverse backgrounds and perspectives to recognise the call of Christ to a ministry of reconciliation for the sake of the world. He refuses to let us off the hook by allowing us to indulge in politics without being reminded of the challenging and costly vocation to carry a cross and lay down our life (and our rights). His call to different wings of the Church to offer a ‘generous love’ to those on other sides is not the appeal of a weak man. In true Christian – and cruciform – style, he stands between people and, arms outstretched – holds them together even though in doing so he is pulled apart. To call this ‘weak leadership’ is to call the Cross a pointless gesture.
Rowan did something risky but powerful. He tried to articulate – give voice to – the thinking and feelings of people on different sides of our current divides. I think he demonstrated his real ability to understand and express what different people are thinking and saying. He gave generous expression to their point of view and enabled us to see what it feels like to think the way ‘the other’ does. In so doing, he also exposed the dark sides of passionately felt theological and ecclesiological positions. This was a brutally honest expression.
The problem might be, however, that the only people to hear it might be those who are able to hear anyway. Those who are already entrenched in their prejudiced positions will probably prove unable to hear and respond to Rowan’s call for the generosity commanded by Jesus. In fact, he said: ‘We can only do this [sacrifice for the sake of others] if we are first captured by the true centre – the generosity of God [who laid down his life for us in the first place].’ His statement that ‘we seem to be threatening death to each other, not offering life’ is simply and unarguably true. ‘We need to speak life to each other’, he said – and the need is obvious.
The questions remain….
Read it all (the entry timestamp is Wednesday 30 July 2008 – 12:01am).
I agree with much that Bishop Nick writes here but there is something almost pietistic about Rowan’s desire to avoid the political. There is a deep sense in which the church is a polis – a society – and so politics (in the sense of a shared shape of life, a common traditioning) is the context in which christian virtue takes shape. The Archbishop seems to want to find a space that permits him to avoid taking a view on what the shape of the church (its traditioning) should be and the danger, of course, is that the only space to do so, is outside the polis looking in.
Entrenched is as entrenched does. ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC showed up with the talking points and the cell phones and the co-ordinated on-point presentations, with Integrity and VGR along for the fringes. Whose ‘entrenched”? Must be those mean old traditionalists, after all!!!!! And Rowan’s bending over to allow the “not-so-traditional” rule by pretencing they have a point. They do. His.
The question that has to be asked of this style of leadership is whether it is Biblical. When the result is confusion, I think the answer becomes obvious, as does the central problem.