In a speech to conservative evangelicals, who debated proposals for a new “church within a church”, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali said that there has been a lack of discipline.
Traditionalists have been upset that the Episcopal Church escaped punishment despite consecrating Gene Robinson as Anglicanism’s first openly gay bishop.
The Bishop of Rochester told clergy that the new movement was equivalent to the Reformation in the sixteenth century, which led to the establishment of the Church of England.
He said that the Church has become too “wishy-washy” and urged evangelicals to stand against the liberal agenda.
“No Church can be effective without discipline,” said Dr Nazir-Ali.
Damien Thomas of the Telegraph has this to say about +Nazer-Ali:
[url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2008/11/16/rochester_not_canterbury_is_the_voice_of_authority_in_the_anglican_communion ]Rochester, not Canterbury, is the voice of authority in the Anglican Communion[/url]
One wonders why in the world the Covenant Design Group’s SAD Covenant is trying to make the hapless Rowan Williams even more the center of all things Anglican. If Rowan Williams defines Anglicanism, the Communion is lost.
The GAFCon audio recordings at Rev Stephen Sizers place, [url=http://stephensizer.blogspot.com/2008/11/gafcon-audio-recordings.html ]here[/url]. In particular, the fourth lecture is by +Nazer-Ali, “The Nature and Future of the Anglican Communion.”
For a report of the Consultation by Wim Houtman, Religion Editor of Nederlands Dagblad, ‘NEAC 2008: an Evangelical Dutch Report’, co-published on Fulcrum, click [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=360]here[/url].
For my Church Times article, co-published on Fulcrum the day before the Consultation, ‘Nourishing Unity? NEAC 2008’, click [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=359]here[/url].
This has become a truism. ++Rowan’s leadership style is to not lead, but to deflect responsibility while arrogating to himself almost total power. As a result, there is complete vacuum at the enter of Anglicanism.
The [url=http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/11/understanding-rowan-williams-for-first.html]Anglican Curmudgeon has an interesting post[/url] about Rowan Williams’ philosophy of leadership, together with speculation with what it will mean for the proposal for an Anglican Covenant to be taken up at the ACC meeting in 2009. The words which conservatives use to describe the ABC (e.g., just in this thread, we have “wishy-washy”, “hapless,” and “not to lead, but to deflect responsibility”) may not be the whole picture.
[i] One wonders why in the world the Covenant Design Group’s SAD Covenant is trying to make the hapless Rowan Williams even more the center of all things Anglican. [/i]
Indeed, why would any orthodox Anglican would want to do that? Williams has shown himself weak and untrustworthy. He has had 5 years to exercise responsible leadership but has largely failed to do so. His betrayal of the orthodox (e.g., Panel of Deference, New Orleans HoB, Lambeth indaba-debacle) had become increasingly more open.
Canterbury-centric proposals are not just unwise. They encourage Williams to believe he can continue to engage [i] with impunity [/i] in ECUSA-friendly dithering and gamesmanship.
Graham,
Interesting article. While I understand that you see “Federal conservatives” as being potentially divisive with regard to the traditional expression of the Communion, many of us have seen the “open Evangelicals” as dividing not only Evangelicalism, but as broadening the gap between Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic.
Where do Anglo-Catholics fit into your vision of Anglicanism? Is W.O (which you indirectly affirm in your article) a matter which trumps unity between traditionalists (Evangelical and Catholic) and the rest of the Church?
By nature I would be a communion conservative. Like many, though, I don’t know how things can go on the way they have. I think most of us realize that there is no going back, now. The Communion has a deathly wound that can be healed only through radical surgery. The question is, who will do it? And on what basis can we (all– Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical) commit to one another during this time? It seems to me that Bishop Nazir Ali is one of the only ones whose vision is clear enough and wide enough to speak for all camps.
Chancellor [#5]: Fair enough, but . . .
— What is Christ-like about preferring tranquility to truth?
— If you hold authority, what is Christian about leaving unequal parties to “resolve” their differences in a way tainted by their unequal power?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I once saw a school bully take a weak, timid boy and hammer his head against a brick wall. The principal’s response: dialogue with the bully. Abp. Williams is a bit like that principal. His approach (albeit in a less momentous context) has some affinities with Neville Chamberlain at Munich. Chamberlain famously preferred tranquility to truth.
Thanks, Farstrider #7. A few comments:
1. Open Evangelicals often take the issues of ‘ordination’ very seriously and so, for example, the Diocese of Sydney’s recent decision has been criticised by both Open Evangelicals as well as Forward in Faith and Affirming Catholicism. So not much broadening of the gap there on our part – but there has been on the part of the Diocese of Sydney.
2. You ask how Anglo-Catholics fit into my vision of Anglicanism. I’ve attempted to set out part of an answer in my Fulcrum Newsletter for March 2007 [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/newsletter14.cfm?doc=199]’The Church of England: More than Evangelical But Not Less'[/url].
3. In the C of E, Anglo Catholics are in two main groups: Forward in Faith (conservative and against women’s ordination) Affirming Catholicism (liberal and for women’s ordination). On issues sexuality, it seems to me that the former’s position is not that distinct – some leaders are clearly conservative but not all members are, to say the least: the latter’s position is liberal.
4. I still think, as a [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=310#diagram]’Communion Conservative'[/url] that the way forward is better charted in North America by ‘Communion Partners’ (15 ‘conservative’ Dioceses who are remaining in TEC plus 40 Rectors etc) than by ‘Common Cause’ (setting up a New Province of 4 former TEC Dioceses plus CANA, AMiA etc). For the recent encouraging conference in Houston of ‘Communion Partners Rectors’ see Christopher Seitz’s report on Covenant [url=http://covenant-communion.com/?p=979]here[/url].
5. For Ephraim Radner’s perceptive article on Covenant arguing against having a New Province, ‘A New ‘Province’ in North America: Neither the Only nor the Right Answer for the Communion’, click [url=http://covenant-communion.com/?p=983]here[/url].
[i]Pace,[/i] Irenaeus (I guess that’s redundant)—I wasn’t trying to judge the man or his approach, but just to point out how the explanation for his conduct given by Giles Fraser helps us see more of what is really going on. Canterbury is a given for the next decade or so, at least. Since the concept of “discipline” or “ultimatum” is not in his lexicon, there is no point in comparing him to a ++Ramsey or a ++Carey. One just has to realize that because of his ability to live with opposites, one can never expect him to choose a side.
I do not support his “peace negotiator’s” strategy, but I do feel I have a better idea of what makes the man tick. To call him “wishy-washy” is to miss his own strong belief in what he is doing.
Chancellor [#10]: Better understanding Abp. Williams’ character and thought is certainly helpful.
Sounds like the orthodox should expect no help from him (despite many hints to the contrary during 2004-06) and may do well to regard him as a kindly, well-meaning adversary.
Guys and guyettes
You can nuance Dr Williams all you will, but to this retired soldier
he is to leadership what peanut butter is to caviar.
[i] Dr Williams . . . is to leadership what peanut butter is to caviar. [/i]
That good?
Well, Irenaeus,
I am after all, a man of much charity
Graham,
Thanks for your thoughtful response and for the linked article.
I appreciate your position in re: Sydney’s recent synod. We are agreed that this is deeply divisive. This doesn’t answer my question, however, with regard to the (typical) Open Evangelical stance with regard to W.O., which is perceived by many Anglo-Catholics (and conservative Evangelicals) as being equally divisive. I ask because this stance seems to undermine the greater commitment to unity that you uphold in other areas.
With regard to Anglo-Catholicism, I suppose I was rather unclear in my first post. Bluntly, I wouldn’t consider Affirming Catholicism to be Anglo-Catholic– to be Anglo-Catholic is to be submitted to the Great Tradition of the Church. Anglo-Catholicism as a whole is clearly opposed to W.O., which is why I raise the question of disunity being fostered by the Open Evangelical stance.
With regard to “Communion Partners,” I think the orthodox have been given little reason to believe that such structures will give succor to those who are being ground underfoot. My family and I moved from the Chichester Diocese (in England) to the New Westminster Diocese in Canada two years ago and have tasted and seen that hierarchical abandonment is not good. If a new Province is inevitable (and it seems to be), it is because promises made to the orthodox in North America have been broken consistently. The Communion Partners structure might provide support for those who are already in orthodox dioceses, but it does nothing for the orthodox multitudes whose bishops would seem to be wolves in sheep’s clothing. As Canterbury has been unwilling to exercise what discipline it may, there seems to be little future outside of a new Province.