I’ve refrained from commenting much on the Lambeth Conference as there has not been anything official to react to and media reports do not give a good flavour of what is essentially a closed event.
However, now we have a published address from Rowan Williams.
At first sight, it seems reasonable enough. Indeed, he is making an honest attempt to hear and articulate the feelings and emotions of two hypothetical voices on either “side” of the debate.
The fact is, it is the conception of the Communion as having these two sides that is the real problem.
I don’t actually think that the attempt to sum up the “liberal” side comes anywhere near to my position at all.
The things is, its all about human rights, Rowan. This is not just about the rights of gay and lesbian people in the US, it is about all of us. It is about the rights of people in all parts of the world to self expression, to practise their religion, to live freely with dignity before God. It is about the whole people of God, (you know, the laos, you must have heard of it, you’ve read a bit of theology) being able to speak in decision making in the church. It is about women and men being treated as equal human beings. It is about the western church standing up for persecuted brothers and sisters wherever they are. It is about having the confidence that Muslim and Anglican can live together in the same street and not attack one another.
Sometimes, that means standing up to bishops, such as condemning the inflamatory remarks made by Akinola connected with inter-religious rioting in Nigeria. We’ve not yet heard any condemation from the Lambeth Conference of the circumstances which caused the UK Government to offer policial assylum to a gay Anglican this week because of the violence and persecution he could expect from his home church. That shames the whole church.
It is only when a human rights agenda gets woven into all of this that there will be dignity for all those affected.
We need human rights missionaries. We need to interfere in other jurisdictions until all God’s people are free and safe in their societies and in their churches. We need to set those high, inclusive moral standards amongst all Anglican peoples. That Covenant you are suggesting is not a patch on that vision. It is a step in another direction altogether.
Any covenant which allows anything less than treating all the baptised as equally enriched and empowered by the potential of God’s grace will result in non-juring Episcopalians again in Scotland. That would be communion breaking, not communion making. You might have some problems with it even closer to home than Scotland too.
What is proposed is not a solution. What is proposed is the problem.
“because we believe there is an Anglican identity”
Well of course he does – I have a copy of Anglican Identities by one Rowan Williams on my shelf – and what little I understood was a turgid read, too 😉
“it seems obvious that a body which commands real confidence and whose authority is recognised could help us greatly”
Yep, that’s where he loses the plot, though. It is non-uniformity and distributed diversity that distinctly define the Anglican Communion. Now, he does expand on that saying “a covenant is an expression of mutual generosity” etc, but I think that reads more like him living in a dream-world than the proposed covenant with its part-disciplinary aim.
As for human rights… personally I find it increasingly scary that justice needs explaining to people. Do humans no longer understand the Golden Rule?
We need to interfere in other jurisdictions
Now this I’m not sure about. I hope & expect you’re not condoning cross-Province activity in some mirror-of-CANA kind of way; that deserves outright condemnation IMO. Of course if you mean rather larger scale – looking and breaking out of Anglicanism and using our clout to be a global voice for good then of course I’m right with you.
Well said, Kelvin. Well said.
Have read both Kelvin’s reponse and the Archbishop’s statement and agree wholeheartedly with Kelvin.It is all about human rights treating everyone with respect dignity and as equals.I feel the Archbishop has missed an opportunity to speak up.By trying for a compromise he is lending each side of the argument a sort of legitamacy.He could have spoken about the things that Kelvin has because I am sure he believes in these too.
I recently met in the street a good man,a man of God who spoke to me a woman and a sinner .He was kind and polite.Later it really struck me probably for the first time how powerful, challenging and shocking Jesus’ behaviour was.Here he was a man,teacher-rabbi talking not only to women but women sinners,outcasts,the sick and male sinners.Not only did he speak to them,he spent time with them and treated them with compassion ,tolerance and respect.Many of these people were denied entrance to the Temple to worship(sound familiar?).Jesus did not seek power or status-no wonder he frightened and worried the Pharisees.No wonder one of the reasons Judas had to come and identify Jesus in the garden-He did not wear any ornate clothing,lived simply and looked just like the rest of his disciples
The Archbishop could have talked about as Kelvin said on Sunday about our “best bits” and concentrate on the true message of Christianity.He has a difficult job I know and we should all be praying for him I don’t want to denigrate him in any way
I hope the argument does not continue down the legalistic route.It seems to me there are still the worst type of Pharisees about.There are many good leaders in the Church but perhaps some should ask why they seek holy office is it for His Glory or their own
++Rowan would do well to ponder Rabbi Sachs’ address, which, among other things, makes it clear that the concept of covenant in the Hebrew Bible is predominantly that of a relationship of grace, rather than a restrictive legalistic instrument.
You know, you might be playing into the hands of those who say it’s all an American Imperialist Plot.
See how well the classic American words work here:
‘We the people, in order to from a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of libetrty to ourselves and our posterity.’
Now, I know that is too isolationsist and inward looking, but most American’s know that last last thought as it is expressed in the Pledge of Allegiance:
‘with liberty and justice for all’, which is closer to what you’re saying
Do you still have that flag I gave you one Independence Day? You may need it.
I don’t see the need for all +Rowan’s verbiage. To me, it couldn’t be more straightforward. It’s a simple justice issue. There’s a right side and a wrong side. End of.
And as for those who seem to believe that gay relationships are uniquely wicked and a communion-breaking issue whereas pretty well anything else that human beings can do to one another is acceptable, Matthew 23.24 suggests itself.
Hmm. Either I just imagined that I posted a comment, or it got eaten by cyberspace, or it was not deemed appropriate in terms of commenting guidelines. Anyway, I shall be fearless and bold and ask my question again. Please, can someone, anyone, tell me what a non-juring Episcopalian is? I ask in a spirit of humble inquiry!
Tim – simple question – are Anglican borders more important to you than the human rights of those within them?
As it happens, I am not advocating the consecration of rogue wandering bishops. However, I do also think that the internet and the Flying Bishop system of the C of E have put an end to any serious expectation of geographical terratorial integrity.
Kimberly – I stand not as one who is against America. Indeed, the whole idea facscinates me. As you know.
Elizabeth – a non-juror is someone who refuses to swear an oath. The last time this was important to Scottish Episcopalians was over the question of whether clergy were prepared to swear an oath of allegiance to William and Mary. A great many Episcopalians were not and suffered rather for it.
There is a snippet in the history on the website.
I am not quite sure where all this is heading.
The Early Church, according to Elaine Pagels, in “Adam and Eve and the Serpent”, substantially believed that the Sin of Adam and Eve consisted of sexual intercourse and that if this act hadn’t been perpetrated by our father and mother there would have been an alternative means of procreation: hence I suppose the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth.
As a so far, self contained, perhaps Christian, I think we need to examine both the need for sex and the origin of guilt.
Muslims also believe in the Virgin Birth, but otherwise seem to be unconcerned with the possible guilty consequences of so-called legitimate sexual acts.
Jews do not believe in the Virgin Birth but do not believe that all have fallen in Adam and Eve, but that there is innocence at birth at least.
Can we not explore consequences of acts in history and in the present in the light of the Doctrine of the Virgin as we worship?! in the congregation of St Mary the Virgin?
Can we not also plan for the future as enfranchised members of the Human Race and in the light of the fact that in my Crudens concordance, there is no reference given for the word future in the whole of the Bible.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Philip Ensor BSc(Hons).,MRPharmS