From time to time I have pondered on the Archbishop’s viewpoints as revealed to me and whether they should be more widely known. But I had no desire to embarrass Dr. Williams: I didn’t want people mocking him or saying ”˜If he is averagely muddled what does that say about the rest of them!’ I have respect for his authority and I appreciated his responding graciously and candidly to my enquiries. As a physician I have a high regard for the principle of confidentiality. Besides I hoped that in time it would become apparent that he had changed to more orthodox views. I also wanted to be clear before God as to my own motives, for I had at times over the years found myself quite cross with him! In fact other than sharing the correspondence with my vicar at the time I had shown the letters only to a few people and made very little reference over the years. In a way it was all rather embarrassing and awkward and I had to just not fret about it, but hope and pray for the best. Besides, these are my Christian brothers and sisters in turmoil. How can I not be concerned?
The trigger to deciding to send the letters to the Press was this . In the Sunday Telegraph of 13th July I read an article about an interview with the Archbishop of Wales. He stated that he would be happy to ordain a homosexual bishop. It occurred to me that he would not have been so brazen if he had not known that Dr. Williams had significant liberal views on the matter. I had also sensed that the liberal wing of the church knew far more than the GAFCon group about those views. I decided that the balance should be redressed, and that the best place for Dr. Williams’ views to be aired was at Lambeth. The best way to do that was to give any journalist who thought the matter relevant enough the opportunity to challenge Dr. Williams or discuss with other bishops or whatever journalists usually do.
The copies of Dr. Williams’ letters along with a covering letter were mailed on 15th July. However, Ms Gledhill, who was the first to express interest in doing an article, did not get them before she left for Lambeth. This explains the delay in publication.
I enclose a copy of the covering letter. It will help explain my thinking..
It does seem that my hunch was right; from what I have gathered the GAFCon members were startled to learn Dr. Williams’ views and the Liberals knew them anyway.
Dr. Pitt’s letters and the responses they’ve generated reveal two very depressing realities:
1. In spite of the barrage of verbiage flowing from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s pen and the spin coming from the ACC, Dr. Williams’ behavior and that of the ACC have consistently shown that they have no intention of holding the American and Canadian “church” organizations accountable for anything. Dr. Williams subversion of the declarations of the Primates’ meetings, his pronouncement of a blessing on the 2007 HOB meeting, and the ACC’s whitewash of GenCon 06 have made their intentions and goals clear. It is surprising that there are some people who believe Dr. Williams spoke forcefully in his last Lambeth sermon. Actions speak much more forcefully and eloquently than words. In Williams’ case, the absence of actions makes his words worthless.
2. The second reality is the on-going naivete of Bishop Wright and the organizations like the Anglican Communion Institute. Given the history of this struggle in the Communion, their views and arguments border on the senseless. They have developed the unique capacity of blinding themselves to every evidence that their perspective has already been rejected out-of-hand not only by the American and Canadian ecclesiastical organizations, to say nothing of the Archbishop and the “Secretary-General” of the ACC. And they are shocked (really?) that anyone would dare suggest that the actions of the Archbishop and the ACC have been deliberately obstructionist and consistently devious. And they are “distressed” that the GAFCON Primates, bishops, clergy and laity, have so focused on the dysfunction of the “Communion” that they aren’t willing to cooperate in keeping the status quo.
And they yearn for the glory days of the Elizabethan Settlement which, if the truth were admitted, were no more faithful to the Gospel than the present ecclesiastical machinations of the See of Canterbury and the Anglican Consultative Council.
I think that DP makes several errors.
First, she says this about the Archbishop of Wales: “It occurred to me that he would not have been so brazen if he had not known that Dr. Williams had significant liberal views on the matter.”
She must not have been in touch lately. Bishops and Primates all over the Anglican Communion behave “brazenly” with nary a thought or care what the theology or “views” of the ABC are, largely because they’ve realized that their actions won’t have any consequences at all in the Communion from an official standpoint. Recall the ugly behavior of the Synod refusing to give Anglo-Catholics any protection at all, despite the ABC asking them to do so. [i]They simply didn’t care what his opinion was.[/i]
RE: “I had also sensed that the liberal wing of the church knew far more than the GAFCon group about those views.”
If the GAFCon group was really ignorant of RW’s views, then shame on them for not reading his stuff.
But I think it is far more likely that the GAFCon group — despite vague and unproven assertions by the ACI and others that RW has moderated his views to a more conservative line — well knew RW’s views . . . and that their response to Deborah Pitt’s letters was more . . . shall we say . . . the “shock and horror” and tsk tsking of the politically motivated. ; > )
I agree with you Dan and in part with Sarah. I do believe the Gafconers are aware of the ABC’s personal theological position. However, these released letters puts it back in the general public/church eyes, which Rowan wishes to avoid. Yes, this is political…but politics is just a normal part of the life of church and both sides in this fight use politics!
Like Dan I see Bishop Wright, the ACI and others as adding to the confusion today of what the AC is facing rather than addressing the problems.
But Dan you are right on…about the ABC the ACC undermining the Primates the only instrument of unity that sought to lead and address the real problems.
With all of the back and forth about the timing of these letters, the novelty of the revelations, and the impact they have on the AC, it would be good to focus on the core issue: why is it that commitment makes a relationship right?
Or, as [url=http://www.vulcanhammer.org/?p=955#comment-19434]one commenter on my blog put it[/url]:
[blockquote]So exactly how has commitment got the allure that it has ended up with? an allure that has even sucked in a theologian of the stature of the Archbishop of Canterbury.[/blockquote]
Simply because it has been repeated so often. It very much like the big lie technique. A commitment to a sinful relationship does nothing to make the relationship correct. David was very committed to Bathsheba. So committed in fact (along with fear of discovery) that he had her husband killed.
Presumably people get into commited relationships through being in uncommited ones. I wonder at what point in the New Thing these become worthy of blessing and by inference God’s approval as a holy thing?
Sigh… Certainly she has gotten her 15 minutes of fame by now….
Bishop NT Wright will be in Toronto for a major conference in November, along with other key speakers (+Josiah Idowe-Fearon of Nigeria). The brochure is on the Wycliffe College website and the general announcement is at the ACI web site. See
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/