Okay, I’m doing it again. This time not on Titusonenie and debating the “conservatives,” but I’m debating the “liberals” at Frather Jake Stops the World. The conversation deals with Fr. Jake’s recent post: The Train Won’t Stop Going. The discussion comes from the seven Episcopal bishops visiting Canterbury, presumably about remain in communion with the Sea of Canterbury if the Episcopal Church rejects the Communions method of communion.
Here is the first post I made. It is too lengthy, I know, but my “processing out loud” just never ends.
————
Sorry for the length… this is a bit of a soapbox.
One point of being “Catholic,” Anglo or otherwise, is to have a very deep-seated understanding that those “scoundrels” are just as much a part of the Body of Christ and just a vital to the Body of Christ as am I or are you. If any of us want to be a Christian, with integrity to the call of Jesus Christ, we cannot say “good riddance,” or that you or I or any of us can get along just fine without the other. It is a fallacy believed by both the “conservatives” with regard to the TEC and the “liberals” with regard to the Communion.
You speak of Postmodern sensibilities, but for this postmodern I see very little difference in the way the “conservatives” (really anti-liberals) are acting and the way the “liberals” (really anti-conservatives) are acting. Duncan and Bruno, for example, are acting the same way. Both are acting wrongly.
The only difference is that the conservatives are saying, “To hell with the Episcopal Church,” while the liberals are saying, “To hell with the Communion.” The end result of the actions is the same – hubris and the division in the Body of Christ. It is just that one group is acing more “locally” while the other group is more “globally.”
This is what frustrates me about the generation in leadership of this Church and the breakaway groups. In many ways they are both fundamentalistic in their actions. This is a particular scandal to those who claim to be “liberal” (which is why I say anti-conservative rather than truly liberal), because as things work out on the ground they are not really interested in having an open table where everyone can have a place. They are interested in only those who will at least not challenge their forgone conclusions of what is right and proper, if not already agreeing with them. At least the conservatives make no pretense about being “open” to virtually anything.
A young, black, gay seminarian friend of mine kept saying, “I can’t wait until this generation of leadership is gone. Then we can get back to being the Church.” Does anyone see the irony in that statement?
“Anglicans” in the U.S. cannot get along just fine without the TEC. TEC cannot get along just fine without the Communion. To go down this road is to stop being what we have always been and become something that is just like everyone else – just little sects or denominations glowing about ourselves. James Smith in his book, “Whose Afraid of Postmodernism?,” stresses the Modernist fallacy that claims that “particularities” are a source of violence and evil. This notion has lead to a lowest common denominator kind of ecumenicism that has resulted in many churches a depleting membership and a growing irrelevancy of influence for the good within our society. He claims in a Postmodern world, the Church needs to reclaim our particularities, our distinctive, else we will continue to descend into irrelevance within the greater culture. Anglicans are Anglicans because we are in communion with the Sea of Canterbury, part of something far larger than ourselves and of many cultural perspectives, take upon ourselves the Western Tradition through the experience of the English Church (locally employed), and live with the incredible tension of being with people we don’t like or agree with as we all come to the altar of God – regardless of whether the other people hate us or love us.
As a gay priest, a Christian, I can do nothing but always regard those who disagree with me regarding same-sex relationships with respect and be with them, even if they hate me, spit upon me, and try to exclude me from God. That doesn’t mean I agree with them or don’t advocate for different positions. I have no choice but to do such things if I want to follow the commands of Jesus rather than the edicts of an ideology, liberal or conservative.
Bob | Homepage | 09.04.09 – 9:19 am | #
Category Archives: anglican
Haller’s essay on ++Rowan Williams
Fr. Tobias Haller BSG on his blog “In a Godward Direction” has written an except description of Archbishop Rowan Williams and how he is dealing with the Anglican troubles.
A quote:
Still, this Paschal attitude gives Rowan the capacity to endure a great deal of difficulty, ambiguity, tension, and imperfection — things which progressives tend to find annoying and reactionaries unacceptable — and which his office as Archbishop of Canterbury in this particular age provides him an ample supply.
This is one reason why I’ve said that because Rowan is vilified by both left and right, he is probably handling this in the right way – or as best as humanly possible at this time.
Link to the entire post.
Rights, ++Rowan, and the state of the Church
My additional comments around ++Rowan Williams’ statement to the Anglican Communion after the Episcopal Church’s General Convention, with regard to much of what I am reading on Facebook and the blogs from Church folk.
I don’t think that many of us are approaching the whole problem (by “problem” I mean that our pressing issues over which we are fighting are only external manifestations of a deeper, underlying problem of how we regard and deal with one another). We are not dealing with one another from a particularly Faith-centered, Life in Christ kind of way. The Christian vision of loving God and neighbor before and beyond ourselves or our little groups or our particularly theories or ideologies has collapsed, I think. If we want a picture of how to love neighbor, then review the whole incident in Pennsylvania where a gunman shot down a bunch of Amish kids in their school. The parents of the slain where compelled by the Gospel to go to the killer’s family to offer forgiveness, support, and comfort. Well, we see ourselves casting each other into utter darkness because of differences of interpretation of Scripture or “feeling†that after 20+ years we are not moving fast enough in our overturning of thousands of years of human tradition (even though like so many other historical examples within the Church, I agree that we’ve gotten it wrong all this time).
Here is the thing: Christianity is not a right! It is a privilege. God’s acceptance of us in whatever form we may be at the moment is not a right, it is a vouchsafed privilege. Communion is not a right, it is a privilege. Holy Orders are not a right, they are a privilege. Attending Mass is not a right, it is a sacred privilege. When I turn to begin my journey down the road that leads to God, to a Life in Christ, and as God takes up my life and begins to transform me – I give up my life so that I might have life. I give up all my rights – I am a person with no appeal for the right to anything – so that I might be free. We have lost the vision of “Freedom” and “Life” as defined within the arch of Holy Scripture. When we cast the Gospel in the language of politics, we have already failed.
Much of what seems to be driving the chaos within Anglicanism are socio-political agendas of either the left or the right. The IRD pushed the conservative side for political gain in the U.S. (as they said they would, read more here, here, and here), and now too many conservatives say they can do without TEC (they have cut off their leg). The left has been co-opted by identity-politics and political-correctness, and too many liberals say that we can do without the Communion (they cut off their arm). Both means are wrong, from a Christ-centered perspective. The strengths of “conservatism†and the strengths of “liberalism†should be complementary and only strengthen the overall mission of the Church, but when understood in socio-political terms and when advocated for by secular means, they become enemies.
I’m convinced that’s why both sides of the divide are so critical of Rowan. He won’t give into the politicized agendas of either side. As I’ve said in other places, I used to think that Rowan and Anglicanism would have been better served if he had stayed in academia, but not now. The fact that criticism comes from all sides suggests to me that he is going in the right direction. He seems to be one of the few Anglican leaders that are actually acting like an Anglican – willingness to keep all sides at the table talking. Whether he succeeds or not, whether he is doing it the right way or not, I think Rowan is a least trying to confront all this stuff from out of the faith-Tradition as Anglicans have understood it.
When the mainline churches were overwhelmed by liberal politics in the 60’s and 70’s, people left because they didn’t want politics, but life-giving faith. They tended to move into more Evangelical denominations or at least those churches that eschewed a socio-political emphasis. American Evangelicalism has been overwhelmed by conservative politics since the late 80’s, and we are witnessing the beginnings of the collapse of the politicized Religious Right. People of younger generations are moving out of Evangelicalism. Some are moving into other faith communities (Emergent), but the primary difference these days is that the younger folks for the most part are leaving the church for no other faith community. This is the state of the American Church and what it is exporting overseas.
I think there are so many people who are seeking faith communities that actually focus on the Faith, centered on growing closer to God and one another, rather than on socio-political agendas of either the left or the right. This is the opportunity for evangelism, for the fields are ripe for harvest. Anglicanism is primed in its ethos and aestheticism for the younger generations at least in North America, but the Enemies-of-our-Faith are succeeding in destroying our ability to be a witness of God’s grace and restoration to these generations. We need to rediscover and reappropriate the best of the Tradition and focus on the Church’s ancient Disciples for one goal – that all may now the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ by the enabling of the Holy Spirit (otherwise know as the Cure of Souls). The result of this focus, of course, is that people’s hearts will be changed so that we cannot help but engage issues of justice, fairness, and the regarding of all people as God’s creation. I give up all my rights to help achieve this goal, as best I can and with God’s help.
Statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury
The Archbishop of Canterbury has issued a statement after the 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church. In my humble opinion, it is well written and clear – even within the reality that so many things are still in flux with regard to the Communion and its integrity.
Here is a link to the Archbishop’s statement.
Here are a couple interesting paragraphs that deal with the idea of a two-tiered or “two-track” structure that may end up developing. The specific sentence I think couches the concerns of the Archbishop deals with “who speaks for whom.” Within the Communion and with regard to our ecumenical relationships, it must be established that in negotiations and communications that is a voice of the Anglican Communion. Here are the paragraphs:
22 It is possible that some will not choose this way of intensifying relationships [signing on to the final Covenant], though I pray that it will be persuasive. It would be a mistake to act or speak now as if those decisions had already been made – and of course approval of the final Covenant text is still awaited. For those whose vision is not shaped by the desire to intensify relationships in this particular way, or whose vision of the Communion is different, there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness – existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily. But it means that there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance: that is, a ‘covenanted’ Anglican global body, fully sharing certain aspects of a vision of how the Church should be and behave, able to take part as a body in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; and, related to this body, but in less formal ways with fewer formal expectations, there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with ‘covenanted’ provinces.
23. This has been called a ‘two-tier’ model, or, more disparagingly, a first- and second-class structure. But perhaps we are faced with the possibility rather of a ‘two-track’ model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value and so had in good faith declined a covenantal structure. If those who elect this model do not take official roles in the ecumenical interchanges and processes in which the ‘covenanted’ body participates, this is simply because within these processes there has to be clarity about who has the authority to speak for whom. [emphasis mine]
24. It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are – two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion. It should not need to be said that a competitive hostility between the two would be one of the worst possible outcomes, and needs to be clearly repudiated. The ideal is that both ‘tracks’ should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency. It is right to hope for and work for the best kinds of shared networks and institutions of common interest that could be maintained as between different visions of the Anglican heritage. And if the prospect of greater structural distance is unwelcome, we must look seriously at what might yet make it less likely.
In earlier paragraphs, he dealt with the issues of same-sex relationships and the ability to be in ecclesial leadership (clergy, particularly bishops). As he said, historically and within the tradition the same rule should apply for heterosexuals and homosexuals – at this point within the universal Church sexual relationships outside the bonds of Holy Matrimony (a “lifestyle”) does not allow for ecclesial leadership. Holy Matrimony being between a man and a woman, as the Church Catholic currently and historically understands such things.
The Church Catholic has not changed its mind on this, even though several local Churches are in the process of changing. They are vanguards, and perhaps in the forefront of the coming universal change of understanding. The interesting thing is that within England, the Archbishop’s current understanding may place him in opposition with a good part of his own Church. Is he intending on enforcing such a policy for the sake of integrity, and if he is what happens if under Establishment the Parliament or the Queen dictate otherwise? Will Rowan, I wonder, go the route of Newman? I don’t know… I don’t think his personal theological opinion has changed with regard to the possibility of same-sex relationships, but in his position he has to deal with far more and has to plow a middle way that in the end satisfies no one.
So much of all this mess deals with the means by which we pursue what we want – the end goal. I am so disappointed in the attitudes of many people and the means by which my Church is pursuing what I think in the end is correct and right. The end goal is not so much the important thing, but we will be judged according to the way we acted during the process – the means. Coming from this former American-Evangelical, I can say that my primary thought is the grounding of a Catholic understanding of things, even if in the shorter term (or even the mid-term), I don’t get what I want. But, how long to continue to wait is an important and palpable question.
If marriage has friends like these . .
Interesting piece by Canon Giles Fraser (Team Rector of Putney, in south London) in the Church of England Church Times (Issue 7634 – 10 July, 2009): ‘If marriage has friends like these . . .‘
The concluding paragraph, quote:
Speaking of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans position and statement on marriage
So they will suck Christian marÂriage into a narrow religious ghetto, associating it with suburban 1950s curtain-twitching, thus making it even less popular than it is now. The FCA is a danger to marriage. So, for the sake of marriage itself, will it please pipe down and go home.
Aftermath
People can say whatever they want, and they do, but my opinion of Archbishop Rowan Williams has changed over the years – for the better. I used to think he was a week leader who should have stayed in academia, but now I see him as a prime example of Anglicanism at its best. He is one of the few international Anglican leaders that continue to act in an Anglican way – calling all to continue together in discussion and fellowship and refusing to castoff anyone into utter darkness. He refused to act unilaterally! It seems to me that those who demand that Rowan take up their narrow positions (liberal or conservative) and a hammer against their opponents are the ones that continually call him a failed leader. Too bad.
I read a response to a Facebook post after the General Convention passed DO25 reporting that Davis Mac-Iyalla, Director of Changing Attitude Nigeria, said that GLBT Christians in Africa would be greatly harmed if the Communion disintegrates. I’m trying to find the reference. I’m also trying to find a reason to believe that our actions this past week of General Convention will do anything to help the Communion to not disintegrate even more. As one gay priest, and with many I know, we are not feeling all that good about what we have done. That will be quite perplexing to some straight activist types, but give ear to our voice anyway.
Do we only care about Ubuntu among our own or honestly among all? It means that I do not always get my way. In not seriously considering the well being of “the least of these,” our GLBT sisters and brothers on the ground in places where they face real violence and imprisonment every day of their existence, we do them a great disservice.
The Society of Catholic Priests
An acquaintance of mine, priest-to-be Robert Hendrickson (a very good friend of our former seminarian The Rev’d. John Dryman) is involved in the development of an American branch of the UK’s Society of Catholic Priests.
I think this sounds quite good – I’m interested. Below is a general letter that is being distributed to interested people, so I present it for any who might be interested.
THE SOCIETY OF CATHOLIC PRIESTS
In the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada
Over several years, the Society of Catholic Priests has come up in conversations and those conversations usually worked their way to “someone should…”. In the last few months, someone has begun conversations with the Society in the UK and plans are underway to establish a group here in the Episcopal Church. At this point, I and Robert Hendrickson, a recent graduate from GTS who is serving as an intern here at Christ Church are beginning the process to convene a branch of the Society.
The last few decades have seen several attempts at similar groups- some with more effect and with a more sustained presence than others. This one seems to me to offer to advantages- first, it is aimed at priests and at supporting the spiritual life and the theological reflection that undergirds our work as priests. Focus and singular mission can be energizing for a group like this. Second, it begins at time when there is a range of communication media and when no one expects an group like this to gather and spend great amounts of money. Journals, impressive conferences, and the like aren’t likely and may not be essential at any rate.
If it is successful, the Society will allow catholic minded priests (and seminarians and deacons) to deepen their spiritual life, reflect more deeply on the faith and on our work, and will create bonds of affection, accountability and respect among us. In September, we hope to offer a regional gathering in New York. In November, we expect to welcome the Rev’d Canon Andrew Nunn, rector general of the SCP in the UK, as we inaugurate the Society in North America at our first annual provincial (national) meeting in New Haven, Connecticut.
If you are interested in being part of this, we want to hear from you- and even better, we would be grateful if you would consider inviting others or serving as a convener for your region or diocese. At this point, and based on the UK model, the Society would aim at quarterly gatherings- with perhaps a paper on some topic of interest or a quiet day reflection- worship and a meal together. A web-based aspect of the Society is being developed to allow for a different sort of conversation and to share resources. The Society’s center will have to be in local groups- and so the beginning and the continuance of this depends on wider interest and shared commitment to this work.
God’s blessings on your ministry and on whatever quiet and rest the summer offers you- and many thanks for considering and responding to this invitation.
(The Revd) David Cobb, rector
Christ Church, New Haven
For more information, these are the Society of Catholic Priests links to the UK and American (still in development) websites:
United Kingdom
North American
Contact Robert Hendrickson at rhendrickson@thescp.org for more information.
Easier to be negatively against than to articulate a positive end
A good article in the TimesOnline.com (UK) from Allister McGrath.
Credo: A system of belief should not involve point scoring:
The loss of an external threat often gives rise to an internal crisis, and the need for a new sense of identity
Speaking of the ANC, McGrath notes that the aftermath of this recent election in South Africa saw the ANC majority shrink. One reason, he speculates, is because it was much easier for the ANC to be against something, and negatively against something like Apartheid, but now they have to articulate what they are for.
McGrath writes:
That challenge seems to be proving more difficult as apartheid recedes in the popular memory. The ANC needs to create a new, positive identity for itself rather than relying on past enemies and battles.
It’s a familiar point. Purely oppositional movements tend to find themselves in difficulties once their point of reference is removed. The loss of an external threat often gives rise to an internal crisis, and the need for a new sense of identity. This often means that groups justify themselves by condemning others.
This is very true. Here in the U.S. we see this happening all over the place. President Obama presented a positive message of hope (as overworked as that word may have been) and many people voted for him even as they described themselves as “conservatives,” “Evangelicals,” “independents,” and “moderates.” We see now the primary movers and shakers of the Republican Party yelling and screaming about this and that, but all that is being presented loudly and forcefully is negative and for what they are against. Many of the leadership of the Republican Party will jump on just about anything the Obama administration does for no other reason that to try to cut his credibility, popularity, and effectiveness so that come the next election they might regain power and control.
Being the party in power is the goal of any political party, but the methods they are using at this point will only work against them, IMHO. This group of Republicans (Neo-Cons, really) do not understand what happened this past election. They still think shrill, arrogant attack is what is needed to get back into power. I think it is a profound misread of the current situation, and well demonstrates what McGrath is writing about. What is their positive message? Is fear mongering and character assassination all they have? What are their solutions and ideas that are not simply a repackaging of the Bush administrations failed policies? It is, truly, much harder to be a visionary and present a well reasoned and thought out positive message. (In some ways, the Newht Gringwich era “Contract with the American People” did that, but he is not acting in the same manner, now!)
Likewise, we see the political and sectarian goals of the Religious Right as demonstrating McGrath’s point. They talk a lot about protecting the American Family, but it is always in the context of what they are against – particularly their perceptions of the evils of homosexuality. What we see and hear in the media (even more particularly in the religious media) is all negative and victimhood. They fight against everything and everyone that does not line up with their viewpoints and goals. They may try to present in a positive way the fight to save the American Family, but to a growing number of people what they really see is nothing much more than anti-gay everything. Why, if they are so pro-family, do they not focus on the real culprits of the decline of the American family – all heterosexual, like divorce? I think because it is far easier to find a scapegoat rather than deal with the failings of one’s group, and it is easier to be negative. That is why in the longer run, I don’t think they are going to succeed in many of their efforts. Trends don’t look good. They need to re-tool and try to present to the public what they are for without the ranker and negativity and with positive, forward looking ideas.
Finally, we see this, too, in the groups breaking away from the Episcopal Church (TEC). Whether low-church Evangelicals or high-church Anglo-Catholics, their bond rests on their common opposition to the more progressive elements of the Anglican Communion, and particularly TEC. They articulate well what their common hatred is and to whom or what it is focused. They are articulating what they are for, but again in the context of what they are opposed to. It seems to be that for right now, the AMiA is the only group that has come out from under this illness. I just don’t see how Charismatic-Evangelicals claiming Anglicanism and favoring women priests are going to stay with Anglo-Catholics claiming Anglicanism who won’t have women priests. And, it isn’t just about women, but about the theologies they adhere to and the inevitable conflict that those different theologies will cause. Anglicanism has held it all in tension for a long time, but these groups are born out of schism and accusation and negative development (whether they are right or wrong).
Do they really represent anything different than the phenomena McGrath writes of?
This is partly why I am coming closer to simply declaring that I will side-step out of this eddie and quagmire that is now the TEC and Anglicanism, and devote myself to the Christian Disciplines continuing down through time and place and draw closer to God and those who are simply tired of all this negativism and accusation. In no way does that mean I am abandoning TEC or Anglicanism, surely not, but I will remove myself as much as I can from the deleterious effects of our current cultural deterioration (as evidenced in politics and the Church). Who knows…
Another Third Way
I need to be able to explain this without offending a bunch of folks, which is just impossible I know, but I need to try anyway. I just don’t know how to lay out my thoughts in a way that is precise in order to convey what I am really thinking, because right now my thoughts are a jumble in my mind. It would be too easy to land too far on one side of the argument or the other and not meaning to. Perhaps, just a series of statements and for now and leave it at that. In addition, it will be way, way too easy for me to sound like a reactionary, and I don’t mean to sound like a reactionary of any side. We’ve had way too much of that these past 6 years, already.
I keep thinking of the statement by the Mennonite pastor of Washington Christian Fellowship in D.C. that I heard one Sunday many years ago. In the context of his whole sermon, he said, “Jesus’ way is always a third way.” Ever since then, for really most of my adult life, I have always tried to look at issues and controversies, arguments and fights, accusations and declarations within the Church by asking, “What might be the completely different way that could be the third way of Jesus?” I believe that the attitudes and actions of most all things that separate us are a two-way-street. There is fault and blame on both sides, within both perspectives, attitudes, theories, theologies, visions, etc. We are human – we never get it “right” because of our limitations. So, looking for a third way to help solve the conflict or dispute or schism is where my mind goes almost automatically, now. Even though any thought of mine will really be only just another way.
After working with data over the past couple of years, there can be little debate that The Episcopal Church has suffered a tremendous decline in numbers and influence within our culture and our national life.
We have been on a 30-40 year experiment to remake this Church, and for many adherents of the experiment Christianity itself – just to very pertinent examples: retired Bishop Shelby Spong of Newark, the recently deposed priest trying to merge Christianity and Islam and seeing no conflict, the recently elected bishop of a small diocese that believes in the conflation of Christianity and Buddhism and proceeded to write his own liturgies and creedal statements.
There are plenty of other examples of leadership (clergy and lay) that are now in leadership that in years past would have been called skeptics of the faith, traditionally rendered. The skeptics may have been respected and honorably engaged to hear the why of the skepticism, but they would not been made leader of a Christian Church. It wouldn’t have made sense. Now, it is almost a virtue for a leader in this Church to be a skeptic of the foundational and traditional beliefs/principles of the Church catholic.
It’s like putting a person in charge of an airline company who doesn’t believe that aeoplanes can really go wondering through the air. The new leader believes he is on a mission to save people from the dreadful notion that we can safely go from one place to another by hurtling through high altitudes in a metal tube. What would be the result of hiring such a leader, regardless of how sincere he may be? If this happened, people would lose confidence in the airline (they have a crack-pot for a CEO), the airline would lose its place within the industry, ridership would probably tumble down drastically, and the airline would be destroyed. Of course, the solution to such a situation would be to find another CEO that actually believed that aeroplane flight is possible and safe. But, the conditions of the corporate culture at the time would not allow for the CEO’s removal.
The 30-40 year experiment continuing on in the leaders of this Church (and as a priest I have to include myself in this group) believing that the 2,000 tradition of the Church Catholic and Apostolic is obviously wrong in this modern age, that people are damaged by believing such superstitions, and that a new belief must be forged in order to save the organization and the religion (I don’t go there, however). We can look at denominations that have already gone down this path to see what the result will be. The Unitarian Universalists and the United Church of Christ can be examples for what will result if we continue with this experiment we are engaged in.
This path is also out of touch with the wantings and leanings of younger generations, so the hope that our path will divinely meet up with the rest of the people is false. The demographic data reveal this. We are beginning to see the results of the experiment and the results don’t look too good.
I’ll stop for now. I don’t know how well this has “come out.” I don’t know if this is how I really want to describe all this. But, I can say that the way the conservatives and the liberals within this Church have conducted themselves over the past 30-40 years has not worked and has resulted in schism, division, tremendous decline, and loss of good influence. A third way needs to be found.
We must do this differently!
Over at The Country Parson, I was reading through the posts and found one about the Atlantic magazine article on Rowan Williams entitled The Velvet Revolution. It reminded me of comments from many people dissatisfied with Rowan’s conduct as the Archbishop of Canterbury surrounding our troubles over the past 6 or so years. I wrote a response, and here it is:
…Anyway, because Williams is pilloried by both sides, me thinks he is doing what needs to be done. He acts and reacts in “different” ways that satisfied no one in these strange days. We, who sit as armchair Archbishops of Canterbury, often sit with rules dictated by the “Systems-of-this-World” rather than by the principles laid down by the Gospel.
He is acting like an Anglican! We want him to act like a Fundamentalist for the victory of our own “absolutely correct” side of the argument – decisive, cast the stone, make the declaration that “they” are the ignorant bigots or the godless heretics. Thank God we are not like “them!” Thank God Rowan does not act out the worst of our natures.
Within our current American (or perhaps Anglo, Anglo-American, Anglo-Nigerian, etc.) cultural proclivities, we demand action NOW. It doesn’t work that way – not in the Kingdom of God. God will not bend to our will, but will slowly, slowly, every so slowly transform us out of our hubris and sickness-of-soul into our better natures that reflect His will. He lovingly does this for Peter Akinola as much as for Gene Robinson – as much for that bigoted, racist, homophobe sitting in that pew over there as for the gray-matter-spilling-out open-minded henotheist in that pew. Be an Anglican for our cause, not a Fundamentalist for our cause.
If God is this patient with us (with me), if God casts out no one who imperfectly seeks after Him, then how can Rowan do so? How can we do so, unless our goal is nothing more than the imposition of our position and not the hope of seeing the fulfillment of God’s will within even our most hated enemy? Take up the cross…
We have to approach all of this in a different way, because the way we are doing it right now is not working!