As for why I decided to offer his letters to the public arena, I have written to Dr [Tom] Wright at length, but suffice it to say that as events moved from GAFCon to Lambeth I became almost sure for various reasons that the liberals knew far more about Dr Williams’s personal views than the traditionalists did and, if so, the balance should be redressed.
Oh the horror! that one’s views should be made public after one has acquired an office and undermined a Communion! That he held these views was patently deducible from his inactions and statements regarding the events in ECUSA GC 2003. When these views could have made a difference was prior to his selection as ABC. They might have squashed the appeal Williams had with the Global South bishops who supported him for the office. Now they know, too late, by experience what he made evident by inaction.
What I wonder is whether we’ll hear apologies from those on other blogs who have been very insistent that this was a ‘plot.’ Even going so far as to mention exactly who was behind the so called ‘plot.’
If another woman comes forward and states that Bill Clinton groped her seven years ago, would that be newsworthy? Yes, most people are well aware that Bill Clinton was a womanizer. But he is a public figure that still garners hundreds of thousands of dollars for speaking.
Yes, the 19 bishops who protested much all know that Rowan’s personal views are far to the left, views that he has never personally disavowed and thus one can assume he still holds. But as Ms Pitt points out, there are millions of Anglicans do not know how liberal Rowan is. The bishops state that Rowan is acting with equanimity. How very naive. He has perfecting dithering and dithering benefits those that are establishing facts on the ground. It is interesting that Rowan has recently spoke against establishing facts on the ground because he, more than anyone, have allowed the liberals to do so.
We now know Dr Pitt’s thought processes but we still do not know why these were leaked to coincide with the start of Lambeth [if Ruth Gledhill is correct in what she wrote]. It would still be interesting to know whether any other party was involved in the decision to publish the letters.
Bishop Tom’s involvement corresponding with Dr Pitt – He has been busy along with organising a letter of support from a few other bishops for our great leader. I wonder if Dr Pitt is going to publish that correspondence.
At the end of the day, it is helpful to know clearly where Dr Williams is coming from. Although I have my problems with both the SPREAD documents and some parts of the way this correspondence was published we are at least clearer on some things than we ever would have been by trying to understand Dr Williams opaque pronouncements or the institutional defensiveness of his supporters.
“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Sherlock Holmes
dwstroudmd and robroy (Liam Niessan is a genius isn’t he?),
As has been pointed out by many who frequent this site the ‘revelations’ of these letters are surprisingly old news. Very old in fact, as his first attempt to establish a theology for this matter was nearly 20 years ago in an essay entitled “The Body’s Grace.” Besides that in collections of some of his sermons and also other collections of theological essays he has openly discussed this topic. So this is not something that has come out of the blue and would have been great to know ‘before he became the ABC’.
If you will recall ++Williams pleaded not to be asked to become the Archbishop and so for some to continually class him with TEC leaders attempting to push an agenda is simply inaccurate. As regards a classical Christian orthodoxy Rowan is rock solid; believing in the divinity of Jesus, in the bodily resurrection, etc…
I agree with Pageantmaster, the timing for the release of these letters is about as innocent as the timing for +Robinson’s wedding. And where are the extensive letters to and from +Wright?
Sigh .. don’t make ANOTHER conspiracy theory where there is none!
adhunt writes,
[blockquote]As regards a classical Christian orthodoxy Rowan is rock solid; believing in the divinity of Jesus, in the bodily resurrection, etc…[/blockquote]
Believing in the resurrection but also the equivalency of heterosexual and homosexual “marriage” makes Rowan solidly orthodox like [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/15074 ]Tom Shaw is conservative[/url].
I used to believe the line put forth by ACI and the 19 bishops – orthodox who defend Rowan – that Rowan hasn’t acted against the TEO because he feels that he doesn’t have the ecclesiastical authority to do so. The letters make it again clear that he agrees with all the innovations of the TEO and New Westminster. He simply would like them to happen more slowly. He decries the TEO establishing “facts on the ground”, but he doesn’t really oppose this, but rather he merely wants it to be more subtle – ordain more and more homosexual clergy and have them preach “inclusivity” every Sunday till consecrating another openly homosexual bishop won’t raise a bushy eyebrow. His agenda and desired outcome for the church is pretty much the same as Gene Robinson’s. They only disagree on timing.
I liked this from Kendall+’s colleague James Gibson+:
[blockquote]It ought to go without saying that the idea of a church imposing a “temporary ban” on sin and apostasy is utterly absurd. The most unequivocal voices of orthodoxy within the Communion have been calling not for a “moratorium” on the consecration of homosexual bishops and same sex blessings but for repentance on the part of the (North American) provinces which have engaged in such activities. What is necessary for the preservation of unity is not a “temporary ban” but an outright repudiation not only of these abominable practices but also of the aberrant views of Scriptural authority which birthed and nurtured them.[/blockquote]
See [url=http://www.sanctusbenedictus.com/2008/08/is-rowan-himself-grave-peril-to.html ]Is ++Rowan Himself a “Grave Peril” to the Communion?[/url] Again, I would add, as above, the correct call is for a ban on openly homosexual clergy not just bishops. But otherwise James Gibson+ is absolutely correct. The orthodox have been manipulated, yet again, into allowing the debate to be on the terms of the liberals. Let us have no more talk of moratoria (not that anyone was going to abide by them).
What about the Protestant heterodoxies in the Anglican communion?
My point had nothing to do with all that, it was merely to point out that ++Williams position is not something that just came out because of these letters.
so basically you betrayed trust becuase it suited your agenda and cause..nice.
adhunt, you might have missed my avowal that Rowan made this obvious SINCE his becoming the ABC in his INACTIONS. The point was that the letter release was YEARS too late to be of any value to those whose input into his selection could have been influenced by the action. No doubt everyone else in the world has time to read through his turgid masterpieces with an eye for the revelations of the letters whilst filling in anotherwise iddle day upon the cricket fields of life! But the clarity of expression and relative brevity might have been useful BACK THEN when it mattered. Now, the great inactivator has done his duty to his private feelings and lip-synched the Anglican Communion Lambeth I.10 line all the while.
The outcome is clear.
I guess it’s an “affirming catholic” sort of thing and as inclusive as the General Synod and in the same way in the end.
My point is that it was obvious long long before….Unless my elementary arithmetic is failing me between 1989 when ‘The Body’s Grace’ was presented and 2002 when he became ABC is 13 years. That is 13 years BEFORE his ‘inactions’. So I again say that the release of the letters is redundant, if some were not able to look up Rowans bio on Wikipedia and discover his ‘views’ on homosexuality then I suppose they were a rather lazy bunch of selection folk.
You presuppose a great deal, adhunt. But, given the track record of the internet in Africa and Asia and South America, the reliability of electricity and communications in general in the third world, I certainly think that labelling all those who voted for Williams and come to regret it as “a rather lazy bunch of selection folk” is most apropos. I know that when the personal courier of the then-ABC Carey (was it) delivered my copy of THE BODY’S GRACE to my domicile in 1989, I left it lie about on the divan for a over a decade before I opened it to peruse in an attempt to get over insomnia in 2000 or so. How did you handle your personal copy?
Let me guess, you are a Global North, Western, postEnlightenment, technologically savvy, elite member of the human race and the Anglican Communion, aren’t you? No overwhelming problems with malaria or HIV/AIDS to deal with pastorally amongst millions of faithful in your 3rd world or 2nd world country? Plenty of time to read the latest tomes and scholarly “theology” publications between confirmations and staff meetings?
The most interesting issue to me about all of this latest brouhaha is that certain organizations continue to wink and nod and state that they think the ABC has changed or modified his positions towards a conservative viewpoint.
I see no evidence of that whatsoever, and why that continues to be the stance of some conservatives I have no clue. I would love to see something in writing from the ABC that indicates that.
But at any rate, we at least have the latest letter from the ABC as YET AGAIN confirmation that yes, the ABC’s views on same-sex sexual relations are wrong and heretical.
Unless I am missing a written document, from 2003 to 2007 we had basic silence on the ABC’s personal views. Then in 2007 we have the Time interview, and now in 2008 we have his latest memo.
Because of the 4 to 5-year gap in his written/stated personal opinions [again, unless I am missing an interview/document that addressed it], it’s good to have had the letters published, in order that the ABC responded with his latest written document.
Hopefully we can have quiet about the whole “oh, we think he’s modified/nuanced his views” — but somehow I doubt it.
Still, I am very pleased to have the ABC’s latest written verification of his views. Hopefully, despite what others say about nuancing, people can always be continually pointed back to his 2008 response now, so that we have as little confusion as possible.
Wow,
At no point have I attacked you, supposed to know anything about you, nor resorted to petty insult. I have merely from the beginning attempted to point out that it was an error to suppose that these ‘letters’ are ‘late’ because ++Williams position has been clear for over a decade. If you had read me correctly I said “IF”, (did I mention IF) the Crown Appointments Commission did not have the time to look into his readily available positions on homosexuality then I believe that they were not doing their job. But in fact they DID know as is obvious by the fact that many Evangelical Anglicans protested his appointment. For God’s sake I was not insulting or demeaning 2nd and 3rd world Christians.
Here’s a brief guide to how the Archbishop is chosen:
* The retiring Archbishop of Canterbury tells the Queen they want to retire.
* The Queen accepts the resignation.
* The Crown Appointments Commission begins to oversee the selection of a new Archbishop of Canterbury.
* The Commission chooses two names and sends them to the Prime Minister for approval.
* If the Prime Minister likes the choices, one name is sent to the Queen.
* The Queen has the final say.
I do not know how AIDS and the internet come into this process but I am not aware of its involvement.
If you must know I am the son of an Assemblies of God minister. I am an undergrad studying Greek and Latin. I have only recently been attending a reasonably charismatic and evangelical middle-church Episcopalian body. I am married with a child and am barely able to pay the mortgage. I hope to be involved in the Ecumenical Movement and to write about Ecclesiology. And, it seems, I have more self restraint than an angry elder who decides to, without provocation, demean his young fellow (orthodox!, even if I wasn’t so what?) believer.
#15 Adhunt
I am sure no one means that and you raise some important issues. The trouble is that written internet communication lacks the gestures, facial expression, tone of voice and other interaction that makes personal communication so worthwhile.
Thank you for your faithfulness and the blessing you will be to our church and prayers for you and your family to be looked after at this time.
God bless
PM
Oh me – English – 40’s – lawyer – evangelical, sort of with other bits thrown in – trying to follow the Lord of the Dance – and do as he is told, for a change.