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.
are Anglican borders more important to you than the human rights of those within them?
Good question, to which I don’t have an easy answer (I almost feel like +RW must do, treading some middle-or-centrist ground over it). Perhaps they should be orthogonal and some other means of discussion and awareness between provinces set up? I’m tempted to suggest phpBB-for-primates – after all it would leave everyone sitting where they are but with appropriate walls of territorialism broken down for the sake of communication. Is there no such thing already?
Tim – it sounds to me that the middle ground that you describe is a place where it is just too painful to make your mind up.
I find myself wondering whether that is the place that Bishop David is describing here. And, moreover, whether the religion of that middle ground is Satre’s mauvaise foi.
You might not like to be forced to choose, but could you ever put Anglican borders before the human rights of those within them. Once the question is posed….
Yes, I saw +David’s article on the matter.
On a spectrum from “human rights” to “anglican infrastructure” I have a position and direction all my own, involving variously:
a) is this a mu question?
b) human rights for all sans frontiers is a leading goal transcending anglicanism
c) I do actually understand “respect for tradition” and “preserving identity” in this context (not in the “insist on our old interpretation of Scripture” way though)
d) look outside the spectrum: is fragmentary communication part of the problem?
e) supersize the idea: there’s less wrong with a Communion in which *all* provinces roam wild & free than one in which only *some* do given that the rule is *none* should at present.
f) can we keep the carbon footprint down in the process?
Hence: how do bishops actually communicate except at 10-year intervals down the road?
Satre looks complicated.
Nice idea Tim, but I’m not quite convinced this is a mu question.
I agree that there’s less wrong with a Communion in which *all* provinces roam wild & free than one in which only *some* do given that the rule is *none* should at present.
It is worth noting that a sense of parochial territorial identity is something which the Scottish Episcopal Church has largely left behind and which others would regard as the bedrock of Anglicanism.
> It is worth noting that a sense of parochial territorial identity is something which the Scottish Episcopal Church has largely left behind <
Well, we did have nearly three centuries of parallel jurisdictions here – from the Qualified Chapels right up to St Silas, Glasgow, in our own time. It probably saved a lot of hassle within the church and may well have been the lesser of two evils. Rather than wasting time and energy in doctrinal and ritual in-fighting, we were able to get on, in our parallel ways, with praying, worshipping and spreading the Gospel.
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.
Kelvin, I suppose “reasonable” is in the eye of the beholder. I thought the address was dreadful from the beginning. My thought that won’t go away is, “Why didn’t the archbishop have Bishop Robinson in to play himself in the play-acting bit?” That would have been a good deal more authentic, don’t you think?
I keep trying to cut the ABC slack, but he makes it difficult. He truly seems not to get the human rights part. On the other hand, I like your bishop’s words quite a lot.
This might seem like pointless nit-picking in the context of this discussion, but just wanted to mention to Robin that the issue of parallel jurisdictions and the Qualified Chapels isn’t as straightforward as it might seem. Worth consulting Ted Luscombe’s “Steps to Freedom” on this. The Qualified Chapels “qualified” to meet and worship freely by agreeing to pray for the Hanoverians, to use the English BCP and to have clergy of English or Irish ordination (because all the Scots bishops were non-jurors, all those ordained by them were taken to be non-jurors too, and therefore politically suspect). However, they had no formal episcopal oversight from Scotland, England or Ireland. In fact, they’ve been described as”liturgical congregtionalists.”
Also, there’s a bit of an easy conflation of the Qualified chapels with the later “English Episcopal” chapels, which arose in the 19th century in connection with a dispute over non-liturgical worship. This is where St Silas comes in, I think!
Gavin White’s take on all this is very interesting:
http://www.episcopalhistory.org.uk/10englishepiscopal.html
Hmm, I wish St.Silas had made its rogue status more clear to schmucks like me *before* we chose to be regulars there! The sign just said “Anglican” so one could hardly be expected to know it had “special” status. Although st.silas *does* have a “purple and shiny” prayer request box, which is perhaps progress of sorts ;-).
It is also about the role of reason in the church, isn’t it? Or rather about the role of empirical investigation. It is clear to most people that homosexual relationships enhance and liberate the lives of those called to them. (This is not true of all sexual desires, and as kelvin pointed out earlier is what makes the difference between sexual infidelities and homosexuality.) We therefore believe that they fall within the desire of God that his children should have life in all its fullness. They provide the quality of life growing experience, not of necessity easy experience, but challenging and and developing, that we expect Christian marriage to provide.
Many of those who oppose homosexual unions do so on the grounds that ‘it is forbidden’ and are opposed to letting the light of experience into Scripture.
To me this is a huge huge rift, and I would in no way be comfortable with a situation which turned Scripture into this kind of magic entity.
I’m perfectly happy with the transforming super evidential magic of the Eucharist, but a reductive counter evidential magic, no.
I agree entirely with you post: the problem is the problem, not a solution.
Much too boud up in authoritarian ideas. The 1950ies died many years ago.
Maybe Dr Rowan’s proposed solution could have worked thosedays, but nobody proposed it!