Sir, As bishops in the Church of England, we wish to protest in the strongest possible terms at what we regard as a gross misrepresentation of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
First, your front-page story (August 7) and the further material inside were presented as though he had just made a fresh statement, whereas the letters now leaked were written, in a private and personal context, between seven and eight years ago (this only became apparent six paragraphs into the report). One can only wonder at the motives behind releasing, and highlighting, these letters at this precise moment ”“ and at the way in which some churchmen are seeking to make capital of them as though they were ”˜news’.
Second, Dr Williams did not say ”˜gay sex is good as marriage’ (your front-page headline) or ”˜equivalent to marriage’ (your inside headline). In his first letter, he concluded that a same-sex relationship ”˜might . . . reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage’. This proposal (whether or not one agrees with it, as many of us do not) is far more cautious in content, and tentative in tone, than is implied by both the articles and the headlines. In the second letter, Dr Williams stresses that same-sex relationships are not the same as marriage, ”˜because marriage has other dimensions to do with children and society’.
Third, the Archbishop has said repeatedly, as he did in one of the letters, that there is a difference between ”˜thinking aloud’ as a theologian and the task of a bishop (let alone an Archbishop) to uphold the church’s teaching. He has regularly insisted, as he did in his closing address at Lambeth, that the church is right to have a basic ”˜unwillingness to change what has been received in faith from scripture and tradition.’ He has spoken out frequently against the ”˜foot-in-the-door’ tactic of divisive innovation such as the consecration of the present Bishop of New Hampshire. As he said in that same closing address, ”˜the practice and public language of the Church act always as a reminder that the onus of proof is on those who seek a new understanding’. Nor, despite regular accusations, is this prioritising of the bishop’s task mere pragmatism or the pursuit of a ”˜quixotic goal’ of Anglican unity. It expresses what Jesus himself taught: the fundamental and deeply biblical teaching on the vital importance of church unity and of working for that unity by humility and mutual submission.
I “[i]read it carefully and read it all.[/i]” and counted 19 bishops. 🙂
And most of them are not ‘liberals’.
Duh–I counted wrong at the end of the week-my bad. It has been fixed now thanks for the correction–ed.
He can’t write his own letter of defense?
“Mary Ann Sieghart’s extraordinary suggestion that the church ‘must eventually reflect the society within which it works’ is a recipe for a blatant Erastianism, against which the Archbishop has resolutely set his face. It is ironic to hear those who would hate to see the church being the Tory party at prayer insisting that it must now be New Labour at prayer.”
But that’s exactly what it is. I understand half or more of these guys are Tony Blair’s appointments. & how can they justify being in the House of Lords as lawmakers unless they reflect (increasingly post-Christian) English society?
Re # 2
Azusa
You wrote…
[blockquote] & how can they justify being in the House of Lords as lawmakers unless they reflect (increasingly post-Christian) English society?[/blockquote]
The House of Lords today has less governing relevance the H.M. the Queen. When it was “reformed” by Labor so that it is now packed with Tony’s cronies it also lost what little real power it had left along with its reputation for being the tempering influence on legislation. I was once asked by a British friend who heard my admittedly scathing opinion of the gutting of the Lords if I really believed Britain even needed two houses of parliament?
My answer remains the same. It does not need two houses. But I still have not been able to come up with a way to get rid of the commons.
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
“But I still have not been able to come up with a way to get rid of the commons. ”
Hasn’t the European Union done that already?
I smell fear in this letter, as if these right reverend gentlemen realize that ++Rowan doesn’t command too much regard any longer in the Anglican Communion.
that there is a difference between ‘thinking aloud’ as a theologian and the task of a bishop (let alone an Archbishop) to uphold the church’s teaching.
If he is a bishop, isn’t his “thinking aloud” rather an important matter as regards his upholding the church’s teaching?
Who remains who is satisfied with AB Williams’ performance as ABC?
The Modern Liberals have no respect for him, neither does the orthodox/conservative types. The Anglo-catholics are at their end. Are ther any moderates remaining?
Don
I suggest the difference is:
Tom Wright et al are concentrating on what the ABC has [b] said.[/b]
The critics are concentrating on what the ABC has [b] done.[/b]
[blockquote]First, your front-page story (August 7) and the further material inside were presented as though he had just made a fresh statement, whereas the letters now leaked were written, in a private and personal context, between seven and eight years ago (this only became apparent six paragraphs into the report). One can only wonder at the motives behind releasing, and highlighting, these letters at this precise moment – and at the way in which some churchmen are seeking to make capital of them as though they were ‘news’. [/blockquote]
In fairness, it strikes me as somewhat inappropriate that this private correspondence is being released at this time. Yet the Archbishop himself has, on occasion, publicly confirmed his “personal†preferences in this matter. Last year’s New York Times interview reveals essentially the same perspectives he privately expressed in these letters. So why bother broaching this here?
[blockquote]Second, Dr Williams did not say ‘gay sex is good as marriage’ (your front-page headline) or ‘equivalent to marriage’ (your inside headline). In his first letter, he concluded that a same-sex relationship ‘might . . . reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage’. This proposal (whether or not one agrees with it, as many of us do not) is far more cautious in content, and tentative in tone, than is implied by both the articles and the headlines. In the second letter, Dr Williams stresses that same-sex relationships are not the same as marriage, ‘because marriage has other dimensions to do with children and society’. [/blockquote]
Okay. But you may recall that Benjamin D’Israeli’s father, Isaac, enjoyed making a mockery of scholastic philosophers who spent an incredible amount of ink debating extremely fine points. This view gains no more support from scripture than the one posted by the London Times. D’Israeli would have a field day with this.
[blockquote]Third, the Archbishop has said repeatedly, as he did in one of the letters, that there is a difference between ‘thinking aloud’ as a theologian and the task of a bishop (let alone an Archbishop) to uphold the church’s teaching. He has regularly insisted, as he did in his closing address at Lambeth, that the church is right to have a basic ‘unwillingness to change what has been received in faith from scripture and tradition.’ [/blockquote]
Now I think we are at last getting into something worth discussing. Most of us understand where he is coming from in this regard. But few, if any, want to grapple with whether or not this approach to leadership is prudent or even possible. It seems to me that most respondents either gush over +Williams’ charming personality and acumen, or they loathe him as if everything is somehow his fault. Others of us just want to debate what we feel are the salient points.
From my perspective, this private vs. public philosophy of his strongly hints that ++Williams will likely choose certain battles. Those revisionists he privately concurs with will perhaps receive more latitude (delays in response, etc.) than will those with whom he differs. We ask if the US Church would receive the same treatment were it backing bishops with multiple partners–or worse?
It also seems to many of us that he responds more frequently and more pastorally to those who are persecuted for their revisionist views than he does for those who are punished for maintaining the catholic faith. I have not quantified this, but I suspect I have that about right. Perhaps the majority of us agree that he should respond to those revisionists who are in any way harmed for their stand. But we would like to see more support for folks like Bishop Bill and Betty Cox.
Fourth…. This is all good. His opposition to Erastianism is admirable.
[blockquote]Fifth, the Archbishop pointed out, in an interview with a Dutch newspaper two years ago, that ‘inclusion’ – that regular mantra of gay lobbyists – is not ‘a value in itself’. We do not, he said, simply welcome people into the church without asking questions. ‘Conversion’, he said, ‘means conversion of habits, behaviours, ideas, emotions.’ [/blockquote]
Many of us viewed this as the high point in his career. But when his comments are examined vis a vis the NYT interview, one cannot help but think him dreadfully conflicted.
We continue to pray for him and wish him every blessing. But we continue questioning whether any bishop can be so publicly outspoke regarding his unscriptural and counter-traditional views while insisting that he will sincerely uphold scripture and tradition.
I run the risk of Donatism if I say this is impossible. But I will say that it is, and will remain, extremely provocative and, as such, most unwise.
If I am not mistaken with the exception of Rowell and maybe one other all 19 voted against traditionalists at Synod- making them pretty illiberal liberals in my book
So we learn again that t he abc has two faces. He has his personal face, liberal as can be, and his institutional face, still more or less looking toward past practice. Why would we want an abc whose deeply held personal views are at war with the institutional one? This simply means that he says one thing out loud at Lambeth and quietly sides and supports TEC in private. Loverly. LM
If the ABC is misunderstood it is often his own fault. He can’t just say something with clarity and mean it – he has to dress it in many layers of plausible deniability. It’s called “BS” on the street.