TEC Bishop savages Rowan Williams

Paul Marshall, the Bishop of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, has written this extraordinary attack on Rowan Williams, as we report in Times Online. This was published on an internal list for TEC's House of Bishops in advance of their meeting in March and sent to me by a contact. As you will see if you read it, this guy has missed his vocation. He should be out here in the blogosphere, with all of us. Others blogging on this already include Jim Naughton, from the Washington diocese, who says Marshall articulates what many have been feeling for some time, and Thinking Anglicans. (MadPriest had it first but I couldn't find it when first writing this post. Commentators on his blog are almost as cross with me as Bp Marshall is with RW and are suggesting someone send a bunch of eunuchs around to ... to do whatever it is that eunuchs do to naughty religion correspondents.) Marshall has previously been attacked for his revisionist views, including on StandFirm. This site has some good strong comments on this story now. I think Marshall is being just a bit too hard on the Archbishop. Dr Williams has written about why he decided to invite the new TEC Presiding Bishop Dr  Katharine Jefferts Schori to the Primates' meeting in Tanzania, and has also had meetings with US liberals that a fringe Bishop such as Marshall could not possibly know about. The orthodox are worried. Poor Dr Williams is being attacked from all sides. In the letter below, Bishop Marshall writes of the pending crucifixion and resurrection of The Episcopal Church as it is presumably 'forced' to split. But if you ask me, it is the Archbishop who's being crucified here, not TEC or anyone else.

Bishop Marshall writes: 'If the Pope can go to Turkey, Can the ABC go to Texas? A motion from the rustbelt as our meeting approaches. Being sure the obvious is said.

'I have always been captivated by the realism about human interaction found in the seven undoubtedly Pauline Epistles, our earliest testimony to Christianity: for Paul, the living out of the gospel is always a matter of  imperfect personalities and events, redeemed and being redeemed, giving and embracing comment and correction on the way. Spirits are to be tested, and behavior in the Body addressed. Compare Paul’s own report of his conflict with Peter over the latter's suspension of eating with Gentiles, and his report of what went on at the Jerusalem summit with Luke’s much smoother and curial account of relations at a “council”, and we begin to see more clearly the apostle’s consistency behavior and his point of view about leadership. For good or ill, most people acknowledge that Paul led the formation of the Christianity we know. It is wise to consider on the meta level his operational principles of directness in truth-telling. Let us also consider his directness in truth-acting: circumcision decisions on Timothy and Titus are radically different because how those decisions related to Gospel truth at certain places in certain times.

'With St. Paul, we must dare to look at and respond to the vessels and the circumstances, all of  which struggle to bear the Gospel. Being more modestly gifted than my apostolic namesake, I will limit my theological observations while trying not to avoid naming the issue and person that concerns me in the Church as much as President George Bush does in the orbis terrarum, and I assure you that do I write to him often.

'The most un-biblical part of traditional Anglicanism is its politeness, its charm, its unwillingness to confront and hold accountable those who have sought and accepted positions of supreme leadership. We in the Episcopal Church often brag about our Church's failure to address slavery as though that were a virtue and not a disgrace. The Church held together while humans died in chains and even bishops (both north and south in the beginning) traded in human flesh. We now have put the british emancipator William Wilberforce in our calendar but do not make his commemoration one of fasting and lament for our heritage of cowardice in the name of togetherness. The words and deeds of Paul and even more certainly of our utterly tactless Lord Jesus suggest that charm is less important than candor or provocative questioning, that real love in times of disagreement is often something quite uncomfortable. It seems no accident that historically we are enthralled by  John, whom we cannot understand, rather than Paul, whom we can but would prefer not to.

'That said, my subject, with both regret and trembling, is the Arcbishop of Canterbury, but only in the very limited sense of his functioning toward our house and to some extent our Church.  That is a tiny and limited subject and I do not intend it for a discussion of the content of the myriad ministries in which he is engaged. As one too old to have anything to gain or lose, I will try to say what may be obvious to others but risky for them to voice. I hasten to add that this is not a matter of condemnation:  he needs no witness from me to his reputation as a  pious and good man, great in so many ways, and someone whom I overall admire as writer, teacher, and moral voice in the UK. I believe with all my heart that his intentions are at least a good as any of ours. I write of a perceived chain mistakes in policy and deed, mistakes, not evil. I have made perhaps more than my share of system mistakes, so I know one when I see one.

'It will, however, not do to say, as one persistent soul on HOBD frequently does, that because Rowan is so smart and knows things we do not, he must be right in his approach to us. I stopped believing that about leaders during Vietnam, which this is not, of course.

'A Gestalt bouquet: I am sadly impressed that my friend and neighbor Bob Duncan, peace be to him, and a few of his supporters, have had more time with Rowan Williams than has our entire House, or even our Church gathered in Convention. The long-distance intervention in our process during the last moments of the Columbus convention has made us a laughing-stock. (Katharine wonderfully rolled with that without losing her integrity, a marvelous first inning.) The public words of welcome he gave to our new primate would have made a Laodicean proud for their restrained enthusiasm. The widely-publicized Lambeth Palace photograph of Rowan, Frank, and Katharine all standing as far away from each other as the camera lens would allow has not been without its effect on many among us.  A dismal icon of formal communion without a hint of affection or connection has been sent to the entire inhabited world.

'The perceived distancing did not begin with Gene Robinson. My neuralgia on the question of the ABC's witness and function has been growing since his disastrously insensitive comments on 9/11 --made in New York!-- which were alone nearly communion-breaking for lay people in grief, and which have never been effectually mended. People in my own diocese who lost loved ones in that attack have never recovered from the insensitive academic speculation of their galactic leader asking those covered in blood, ashes, and strewn body parts to reflect on the bombers and “why they hate” the US. It is an important question, but one painfully misplaced in time and space. It would have been pastorally wise, if the relationship in Christ were really valued, for Lambeth to work endlessly to overcome that perfectly valid but tragically inept obiter dictum, but no. Curates know that moments of grief are to be ministered to for what they are and save the dazzle for much later in the process.

'This situation of alienation was regrettably worsened by his remarkable distancing of himself from a church that has followed his own carefully thought-through teachings on sexuality, teaching that  he only last year suddenly dismissed as a sin of his academic youth.  The appointment to the Windsor drafters of North American representatives wonderfully devout but historically disinclined to advocate vigorously for the position of their church was not his sole responsibility, but the buck sure stops there. Like many of you, I have submitted all, not some, of the demands of the Windsor report as a reluctant gesture of good will to the Communion and sacrifice of principle for the sake of those who may be weaker brethren. Cannot that be reciprocated? And so on and so on. By Rowan's subsequent actions and inactions the situation has for me now reached a proportion manageable only by the combination of prayer and surrender to the belief that God will work this out through the usual means--crucifixion and resurrection. But before we get ready for life alone, we deserve to hear from him, in the room with us, an explanation of his distance and intentions. We are all busy, and we show up where we believe it is important to go. Let's hope we become important.

'[An oddly parallel situation on the other side: just recently the Bishop of Durham has roundly attacked evangelical bishops in the UK for acting on doctrinal points of view he has abundantly fueled for years. If we dare to teach, we must accept the possibility that we will be heard and believed by those for whom the life of the church is more concrete and less speculative than academics ever imagine.]

'The situation of the shunning of North American bishops would be painful under any circumstances. The pain is more intense here because it comes from the withdrawal of a human who was friend, teacher, and colleague to many in this church—with no notice that either his opinions or commitments were in flux. The archbishop has appeared to my knowledge only once in the US since 2003, and that was the briefest of visits to raise money for a function of the  Communion. He cancelled a date for a joint meeting with Canadian and US bishops with no real excuse, and has made no effort to reschedule what could have been a fellowship-redeeming encounter.

'Our relationship to the one who is expected to be first in a world-wide college of bishops is distant, confused, and multiply-triangulated. We are ceaselessly told by those who would destroy our church that the ABC endorses this or that crudely divisive action or position. Questions to Lambeth on these occasions are sometimes met with silence and sometimes with stunning equivocation. This distance, confusion, and triangulation ought not to be. One of the basics of episcopal—or parish--pastoral care is that one gets with and stays as close as possible to those who may be seen to be problematic. The Pope went to Turkey. Can the Archbishop of Canterbury not come to meet us just once at a regular or special meeting in any city he would care to name?

'A very highly-placed COE figure told me personally last September that he thinks Rowan has been "badly advised" in what this person admitted was callous treatment of the US and Canadian churches. I rejoice in the hint that Rowan may wish have an authentic connection with us, but I cannot accept that report of bad advice as sufficient mitigation: as a bishop I alone am responsible for my actions. I connect with my churches not with my words as much as by being among them. Leaders are leaders because they show up when it is not pleasant to do so.

'All of this said, it seems necessary to report my perception that the nadir in Rowan's overall relationship to the US, Canada and perhaps South Africa has been the appointment of a virtual lynch mob to draft the Covenant that will by all reports attempt turn a fellowship into a curial bureaucracy in which the worst elements of the great and oppressive Colonizer and of the Resentful Colonized will as meet as a scissors to the denigration of significant number of God's people who were almost equal in Christ for one brief shining moment. Are North America, South Africa and many other parts of the Communion (not to mention "much cattle") of such little value in the grand scheme? Does anyone think that the COE itself will not split if a continent and a half are among those permitted to be set adrift?

'So we must always talk about him, not to or with him. Like so many of you, I have been disheartened by the succession of "second gentlemen" from the COE who have addressed our House in Rowan's stead while over-insisting that that they were not at all doing so. No bishop of the left, right, or center, was taken in, and our colleague from Missouri pointed this out on one occasion with deft words that the Sage of Hannibal, MO, himself would envy. Even our steadfastly bucolic local papers here in rustic Pennsylvania would not be deceived by such over-wrought protestations of mere coincidence or fortuitous invitation. By these speakers, one of whom just happened to have a specific list of a dozen or so things we had to do, all but the most anxious of us have been inevitably alienated.  How can it help bonds of affection for Communion leadership to so overtly and maladroitly play us for chumps? There is a kind of contempt for our intellect there whose sting almost matches the pain of the overall strategy of isolation.

'Having now had  three successive messages delivered to us by what some UK friends describe as "fully accredited members of the British Olympic Patronizing Team," I take  this (perhaps not entirely welcome to her) opportunity to thank Katharine for her outstanding integrity and clarity of focus since her election, and accordingly to urge her that no foreign bishop whatsoever be given the privilege of addressing the House of Bishops of this Church until the ABC can personally enter this country and speak to the House himself and deign to entertain the level of frank questioning that his counterpart the Prime Minister might have to endure among those he leads and serves. We all do get cable news and know what the wonderful British tradition of questioning in the house can helpfully add to common life.

'As I began, I end. My text is Paul's reminder to Peter that he USED to eat with Gentiles until he found it unhelpful to his plan for the church. After decades of close fellowship, Rowan has steadfastly chosen the comfortable path of being Peter when we need Paul, and unless he can make an overwhelming Gospel case for it,  I cannot help but anticipate that he will be remembered as having chosen a path that was not courageous or well-defined and actually fostered schism. I cannot now imagine what it will take for him in the long run to re-create good relations with the US and Canadian houses, but hope that the effort will be made should we somehow be allowed to remain in communion.

'For now, I call on our own amazingly composed and delightful Leader to require heightened integrity on ABC's part and to remind him that without ‘pares’ there is no ‘primus inter’  which he may by  any significant sense claim to preside.

'I do not, cannot,  ask the ABC to agree with us: we are a body of bishops who hold many views and we could be wrong about any number of our positions and actions. I do not ask that he endorse the actions of this Church, even if they can claim that they were to some extent  his idea. He doesn’t have to receive communion. He doesn't have to eat or hang out with us. He certainly ought to meet us face to face and accept accountability for his breath-taking words and actions us-wards. He needs above all to square what he has said and done in terms of congruence with what we can know of the ministry of the fleshly Messiah.

'No more messengers; no more cellphone calls to defeat the integrity of this Church's polity. If Rowan really believes what the Lambeth press office says he believes about us, it is past time for him to say it to our faces, and have the goodness to listen to the response of those who have to live with the results of his choices. This would be, I believe, fair play and look very more like the New Testament.

Reluctantly yours,

Paul Marshall

This Mark Harris video is another example of The Episcopal Church fightback in the media war over gays. Mark has blogged on why it is time for TEC to move on, and leave the Anglican Communion behind. Others are voicing similar concerns. The arguments have been countered by writers on VirtueOnline among others. Lambeth Palace thinks Rowan Williams was not actually invited to the Texas meeting. A spokesman told me: "The Arcbishop of Canterbury has already said there is no aspect of this debate which is pain free. Just because the liberal voice is not all that often heard in complaint, does not mean to say that they do not feel this pain just as acutely."

A well-placed source also said that in fact, most TEC bishops do not want to leave the Communion. But this is not the first time I've heard this being talked about. The Anglican Church has always been good at containing division within its diffuse ranks. But without examining the academic arguments on both sides, it is starting to look at though this might be one division that will not be contained.

Comments

[Kate]

Mike: "Has anyone thought to ask, "Who benefits by the division of the Anglican Communion?"

One might suggest that, in the now well-established tradition of all other African 'dictators', the only beneficiary will be Akinola.

"Peter Akinola - the Nigerian "big man" riding around in his chauffeur-driven, bullet-proof Mercedes, "rubbing shoulders with the rich and the powerful" as an AP story put it last November. We shouldn't be fooled by their "anti-imperialist" posture -- "standing up to Western moral decadence" and all that. It is their actual alliances and allegiances that need to be looked at, not their rhetoric.

The church is taking its cue from the unlikeliest champion of family values, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who in 1993 flamboyantly but infamously branded gay people as "worse than dogs and pigs".
http://www.anglocatholicsocialism.org/akinola.html

Are Anglicans aware of the human rights records of Akinola's political friends - Presidents Obasanjo and Mugabe.

[Mike]

Has anyone thought to ask, "Who benefits by the division of the Anglican Communion?" Certainly not the Episcopal Church and not the Church of England. The issues in the current situation have very little if anything to do with sexual orientation or interpretation of scripture. Those are the "wedge issues" being used to accomplish the split, but power, property, and control are almost always the real motives. Archbishop Akinola wants his own communion with himself as its head. It is abundantly clear that he does not care who or what he destroys to accomplish that end and he will not be stopped by reason, reconciliation, or even the repentance he so uncompromisingly demands. Many good and faithful people are being manipulated to help him achieve his deplorable goal. It is more than a shame. Lord have mercy.

[Katie]

Thank God for the (Roman) Catholic Church! And thank God for a clear minded Pope. And thank God for all the non-English speaking saints and saintesses who have been faithful to Christ and kept the said Church going lo these many years.

[Frank Schnittger]

"I don't fault William's leadership as poor. Hindsight is 20/20. The American leadership model would have been to throw one side or the other out first, and then tell them the door is open to come back in if they mend their ways. Perhaps that would have worked best, but then, it may depend upon who you think should have been thrown out. " - pendennis88

Leadership is, first and foremost, the development and maintenance of good relationships based on mutual respect and trust. It has nothing to do with throwing anybody out - that is a sign that leadership has failed.

Where there are good relationships of mutual respect and trust people can co-exist even where there are deep and lasting disagreements on matters of doctrine.

Both sides need to become less self-absorbed and reach out to those that disagree with them. The ABC needs to spend a lot of time in both the US and places like Nigeria where those relationships are currently broken. We also need to learn and respect the different governance processes which limit the scope of what anybody can do.

In a rapidly changing world, it should surprise nobody that radically different approaches will emerge to the circumstances of particular Churches. That is simply a reflection of the radically different realities these Churches are facing.

Canterbury may wish for a rapprochement with Rome. TEC may feel called to provide an alternative witness to the rampant fundamentalism and homophobia of fundamentalist Protestantism in the US … circumstances which do not apply in Europe. Nigeria ministers in a totally different political, economic, and cultural environment.

Those who break the communion break the inter-connectedness of all these different life experiences on Earth. They cut themselves off from a much larger and more diverse world. Any fool can break things. Who can put things together again?

[pendennis88]

It was said:

"The Windsor Report ... attempted to set out what each side needed to do; but only one side is held to account. Even when the drafters of the document acknowledge that the EC more than adequately responded to the Report, no attempt is made to move the conversation forward, but encouragement is given to those who demand what the WR did not require as proof of compliance."

As has been said many times, the WR (and Dromantine) linked the prohibition on border crossing to the protection of the orthodox. Without one there will not be the other. And the orthodox have not been extended that protection in ECUSA.

"The clear message is that either the ABC truly sides with those who would rend, if not actually destroy, the Episcopal Church; or that he is so powerless in the face of bullying and strident people that he would rather beat up on his friends."

With friends like these, the ABC hardly needs enemies. The ABC has tried to find a compromise which would allow ECUSA to have some status in the communion, while protecting the orthodox in ECUSA sufficiently that the global south primates might be encouraged by the orthodox in the US to accept the compromise as well. At every turn, ECUSA has refused to do a single thing to facilitate that, and everything to sabotage his efforts.

"There may be a cultural difference between English and American style leadership, but (as we are learning daily to our everlasting shame with our own President) that does not excuse poor leadership."

I don't fault William's leadership as poor. Hindsight is 20/20. The American leadership model would have been to throw one side or the other out first, and then tell them the door is open to come back in if they mend their ways. Perhaps that would have worked best, but then, it may depend upon who you think should have been thrown out.

[Andrew Brooks]

Ruth (may I call you Ruth?) -

I think Fr. Povey is a little on the mark with his comment. I think you would benefit greatly from a site visit to TEC - I know General Convention is some time away (pity you missed the last one), but perhaps the HoB meeting in Texas?

As a Religion Correspondant can't you sell that to your editor/accounting department? Since TEC seems to be the "black sheep child" (as Kipling might say) it only makes sense.

Better yet, how about you become an "embedded journalist" with some of TEC?

You might also take a quick look at Norman Doe's book on the Canon Law of the Anglican Communion, which discusses the different polities (and tries to identify the commonalities) of the various members of the AC.

[David]

Wow. Thanks for all the wonderful commentary. I feel better about the Catholic Church now.

[Shaun]

"The problem with your ABCDEFG is that either 1) he has no clue as to what he believes or 2) he is squarely in the revisionist camp but has no guts to say so in fear of breaking apart the "communion." "

Actually I think it's fairer to say he is 3 - squarely revisionist, but believes keeping the communion together is even more important. As an academic theologian or even as a Bishop in the Church in Wales he could do 2 without threatening 3, as ABC he can't. He can be wrong without being a hypocrite!

Some of Bishop Marshall's words almost exactly match my own thoughts on leadership from the opposite side of the argument, but although I fundamentally disagree with Williams, Jefferts Schori etc I don't assume they're insincere, weak, careerists etc, and I don't think it helps the situation if people from any perspective are making that kind of assumption.

However, I do think it's right to say he has chosen heresy and will get schism (or is it technically a split - I remember hearig someone drawing a distincion between the two long ago). If we think it's sinful to stay in communion with you and you think the same about us, at least one of us is wrong, but there certainly isn't logic, or even love, in thinking there can remain one communion.

[Stephen Marsden]

"Rowan may simply be doing things in an English way that we Americans do not understand."

More likely a Welsh way, surely?

[Malcolm Bowden]

I suspect Archbishop Rowan may be a lapsed revisionist

[Brian]

Ruth,

When your Druid in Chief, "Archbishop" Williams, came over to New York he asked a very insensitive and stupid question..."why do they hate you (i.e. the US)?"

Now, the chickens have come home to roost. We can now ask Williams "why do they hate you?"

Fair question. The problem with your ABCDEFG is that either 1) he has no clue as to what he believes or 2) he is squarely in the revisionist camp but has no guts to say so in fear of breaking apart the "communion."

The "communion," sad to say, has gone the way of the dodo bird and the British Empire. It no longer exists. Its best to recognize the fact and move on with life.

Williams dithers and dathers, not knowing what to do. Perhaps taking a stand on something might be a novel idea.

BTW, it was George Bernard Shaw who said that the Americans and British are two people separated by a common language, not Winston Churchill.

However, we should give our due to good ol' Winnie. To paraphrase him, the Archbishop had a choice between schism and heresy. He chose heresy and he will have schism.

Cheerio!

[Frank Schnittger]

If leadership is the issue, let Schori come to Europe. She would get a great welcome in Ireland.

[Andrew Gerns]

William R. Coats writes: "I doubt he sees his job as upholding "justice", but keeping the Communion together. This immediately grates aginst us Yanks," and "The English way of doing things clashes with the "up front who is one whose side" style we all in the US were raised on. But biding one's time, stringing matters our, seeming to talk with certain people may in the short run be offensive, but in the long run helpful."

I heard (and believed) these observations at the last General Convention in June, and they may be true. Rowan may simply be doing things in an English way that we Americans do not understand. I have decided that this excuse only goes so far. It is not really the problem, anyway.

The problem is that Rowan's style generates more anxiety that it does clarity, and this produces more and more conflict. If being vague and biding time is a strategy, then it is not working. The less clarity given and the more time given, the more things spin out of control.

Clarity of leadership does not have to come from an "in your face" approach, which many--including Yanks--confuse for actual leadership in the US. Clarity can come from being clear about what are the boundaries of the conversation. The Windsor Report attempted to do this, by saying to one side "by ordaining a gay bishop or blessing gay relationships" you breached the bounds of affection; and to the other, stop crossing borders and interfering in another's polity. It attempted to set out what each side needed to do; but only one side is held to account. Even when the drafters of the document acknowledge that the EC more than adequately responded to the Report, no attempt is made to move the conversation forward, but encouragement is given to those who demand what the WR did not require as proof of compliance.

Consistently and repeatedly only side of that equation is enforced and talked about. Groups hold up Lambeth 1.10 as if it were Holy Writ, and yet ignore, first, the requirement to listen and now the requirement to denounce persecution.

(Maybe 1.10 and WR are Holy Writ given how it is parsed and proof-texted beyond recognition!)

The clear message is that either the ABC truly sides with those who would rend, if not actually destroy, the Episcopal Church; or that he is so powerless in the face of bullying and strident people that he would rather beat up on his friends.

There may be a cultural difference between English and American style leadership, but (as we are learning daily to our everlasting shame with our own President) that does not excuse poor leadership.

[William R. Coats]

I fully appreciate Bp Marshall's comments and feel let down by the archbishop's seeming hostility to TEC.
Perhaps, however, we should all calm down. We American's are justice oriented and want justice to triumph, and accordingly measure actions and speech against our high view of justice. At this point Williams comes up woefully short.
On the other hand I doubt he sees his job as upholding "justice", but keeping the Communion together. This immediately grates aginst us Yanks, but in reality the task of keeping the Communion together is precisly what Dr. Williams is called to do. I doubt you can do that by stating at some time the "truth" of the matter. Instead you attend to political processes and you watch and wait.
The English way of doing things clashes with the "up front who is one whose side" style we all in the US were raised on. But biding one's time, stringing matters our, seeming to talk with certain people may in the short run be offensive, but in the long run helpful. I for one am not sure Akinola (who will retire before the Anglican Covenant is finished) and his minions can keep up the level of hostility and vitriol. I suspect the Archbishop is hoping for that as well. So what if in the short term he takes a few potshots at TEC ("Sticks and stones...."
I think this is a long process and there may be more to Williams than we can see or give him credit for.

[Julie]

WTF?

[J. Michael Povey]

Dear Ruth

You truly need to visit these United States and meet with some of the wonderfully "faithful to the Gospel of Jesus" liberal Priest, Deacons, Bishops and Lay Leaders.

You, I regret to say, (and I am an English born Priest who trained at St. John's College, Nottingham, and was ordained in the Diocese of Bristol) suffer from English Myopia.

Shalom

jmp

[Simon Sarmiento]

Bishop Marshall was born in 1947, so he is of a similar age to Richard Chartres or Stephen Platten. Put another way he is younger than about 2/3 of the English House of Bishops.

Even among the American diocesan bishops, he is a few years younger than e.g. the bishops of New York, Massachusetts, Dallas, Washington...

[Charlotte]

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, the see of "fringe bishop" Paul Marshall, is in what Americans call the Rust Belt, as +Marshall says.

I don't doubt that Washington lobbyists and the celebrity journalists who follow them in packs despise it as mere "fly-over territory." It was always working class, even in its boom days. Now it's poor and rather desolate; the mines closed and the factories packed up and left in search of cheaper labor a generation or so ago.

Ruth Gledhill might wish to know that the closest British equivalent to the Rust Belt would be the post-industrial North, which attracts a similarly patronizing response from wealthy and educated Southerners. I'm thinking of places like Lancashire, Yorkshire, even Durham.

(Durham? Isn't that where that fringe Evo bishop -- what's his name again? Wright? -- has his see?)

(rg writes: this wasn't a comment on his geographical location, and I am truly sorry for the offence I seem to have caused by this. He was pretty unknown outside the US before this, as I expect many of our suffragan bishops are unknown in the US. And a Google search elicited v little on him, and even his own diocesan website biography was tiny, so that's why I called him 'fringe'. Anyway, he's not 'fringe' now is he, I think we can all agree on that.)

[Shaun]

The recent posters touch on a point which I think hasn't been recognised in all these debates as widely as it needs to be. Many of us have - quite rightly - commented that before and beyond this being a disagreement about sexual ethics it's essentially about attitude to scripture. But in an important secondary way it's also a fundamental disagreement about the nature of episcopacy. I honestly can't recognise TEC polity as being episcopal at all.

It's too late at night for me to launch into long comment on the varying takes on the theory and practice of church government on all sides of the argument - I know it's not a simple split - but it deserves more discussion.

Meanwhile, on the convoy metaphor - the big ships aren't in the west at all, and most of the comments from them show they aren't worried about their fate. For the convoy to be safe it needs to be heading in the right direction, not following TEC etc on to the rocks.

[Ann Fontaine]

In your article in the Times you refer to Bp Marshall as elderly - his birthday is in 1947 - I guess that is elderly to you. Thanks for spreading his wise letter all over the world.
(rg writes: I only did that because he referred to himself as old in his letter! Actually I couldn't find an age for him anywhere on the internet, so thank you for that information. But tell me, in the US, does the age of 60 still count as 'middle age' then? And if so, when does 'old age' begin in your country? I'll be able to get an old person's bus pass and other benefits for the elderly when I'm 60 in Britain.)

[Joan R. Gundersen]

Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori uses both her birth surname and her husband's surname as her last name (without a hyphen). See the official biography at
http://www.dfms.org/78694_ENG_HTM.htm

[Margaret G]

Can I please provide extra support for the comment by Episcopal priest "As acts of foreign aid charity to your daughter church, please send a writing tutor for +Bethlehem and a theology tutor for our PB."

I think the writing tutor should be made more widely available than just to +Bethlehem. A significant number of the TEC Bishops seem to think that being turgid is a virtue.

[Bill Channon]

Williams has brought this on himself. I believe him to be a coward, spineless and vascillating, who cannot even stand up for his friends. A good academic he may have been, but his obsession with organisational unity above all else has been an unmitigated disaster.

We need a split, and soon. I agree wholly with Paul Marshall. I would like to have a church that I could belong to, and TEC would fit the bill.

Mike,
Have you given any thought to the possibility that you have always misread +++Williams. One's position somewhat alters and defines one's perspective. What a vicar can do and say may be vastly different from the perspective of a 'higher' position.
What do you mean when you say 'friends'. Sounds as though you considered him the homosexual's dream of an archbishop. Sounds as though that was all you wanted out of him.
By the way, I expect you'll get your split although it may not be quite what you expect.

[Lawrence L. Graham]

Winston Churchill was right when he said Great Britain and the United States were two nations divided by a common language. And, I might add, that the Episcopal Church in the United States and the rest of the Anglican Communion are divided by an uncommon polity.

Unlike most of the rest of the Communion, no canon law can be made without the consent of the laity, voting by orders, in General Convention assembled. No Primatial Bishop can be elected, either. You see, we elect our bishops over here on this side of the Pond. A single diocese elects its own (with the consents of a majority of the rest). General Convention, our legislative body, elects the Primatial Bishop.

So, when Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected, and when she was installed, she became the Primatial Bishop of our branch of the Anglican Communion -- by the overwhelming consent of all of the people of the Episcopal Church.

So, we have a woman Primate. She's smart, she's good, she's caring and she's ours'.

Get used to it.

[Bill Channon]

Well gledhil, not all of us are given to make the kind of derogatory mistakes you seem to make. By the way is rut your middle name or is it rut-gledhil?

As one who admires human error,

Everlastingly Yours,
Bill

[pendennis88]

I agree with those commenters who describe Marshall as an important bishop in ECUSA. And his views are fairly representative of "moderate" ECUSA bishops, moderate being a relative term in this instance.

And what are those views? That the America church can do whatever it wants. That includes removing every orthodox cleric and bishop in the US at its discretion. No alternative oversight here. That includes disregarding anything the ABC or the primates suggest to it. The Anglican communion must allow ECUSA to dictate to it (because its canons allow it to), but it cannot even suggest that counciliar polity might require anything for ECUSA to remain a member. Why are the American revisionists so intransigent when small movement to allow the orthodox some decent level of protection could have defused the situation years ago? I do not know. I am not a psychologist. But ECUSA was and remains intransigent, uncaring of the larger communion, except desiring of putting its sticker on the back of its Volvo wagon.

Many of us would do things differently than Archbishop Williams, but he has made an effort to hold the Anglican Communion together by asking ECUSA to amicably separate internally between revisionist and orthodox (yes, charged terms, but none of the other terms are satisfactory and at least they have the benefit of "you know what I mean"). The spokesperson for the Diocese of Washington is correct - Marshall's words express exactly what most in ECUSA leadership think. And that is that the answer to Williams is that they will never, ever stop doing what they want to do, and they will never, ever stop trying to get rid of the orthodox in the clergy and laity.

Others have commented on Marshall's emphasis of Paul. It is beyond ironic, when revisionists usually spend so much time writing Paul out of the Bible.

As to a couple of other points, ECUSA may have a democratic design, in terms of house of bishops and house of deputies and all, but don't let that be confused with whether the decisions of those bodies reflect the views of those in the pews. The structure lends itself towards manipulation by the clergy as to selecting lay delegates, who in turn tend to follow their bishops, and they all tend towards revisionism. And the clergy representation is further weighted against larger parishes, which tend to be evangelical. This causes the leadership of ECUSA to be generals without armies, albeit with lots of cash.

[Episcopal priest in LA]

As acts of foreign aid charity to your daughter church, please send a writing tutor for +Bethlehem and a theology tutor for our PB.

[Susan J Boulden]

As a former C of E Brit who has now been a Episcopal Yank for 30 years, it's clear to me that there is a terrible misunderstanding in Britain (not to mention the rest of the Anglican Communion, perhaps excepting Canada) about the polity of TEC. The ABC, Bp. Wright and others just don't understand how important the laity is in TEC. Bp. Wright onced posed the question, "Just who is in charge of the Episcopal Church?" I wrote and told him about our constitution, General Convention, etc. I also told him he couldn't understand it unless he had lived it and I think that is part of the dismal failing of the ABC in his dealings with TEC and our new PB. Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is our PRIMATE - and WE ALL elected her! She has every right to be at all Primates Meetings - if the ABC is doing the invitations, he should not be singling her out for a separate invitation from him. If other Primates don't want to talk with her, he should tell them that's their loss! Talk about patronizing! The same applies with the way you dismiss Bishop Marshall as a "fringe" Bishop. If you don't know what you are talking about, you should not say it. Bishop Marshall is a very highly respected Bishop of The Episcopal Church.

[Frank Schnittger]

Whatever about the doctrinal differences that are behind the trend towards schism, it seems that political incompetence also has a large role to play. Lecturing one another from 3000 miles is never going to solve anything. The breakdown in relationships is more likely to create a schism than any doctrinal difference.

I think Schori (as a mere blogger I am allowed to use shorthand) would find a lot of support for her position in Europe. Perhaps Canterbury's time has come and gone. If some want to follow Akinola’s lead, then let them go.

It is time Anglicanism outgrew its origins in the loins of Henry VIII and the spread of the British Empire and became a truly contemporary Church living in the modern world.

Anglicanism is more vibrant in the U.S. so that is where, logically, the primacy should now reside. Canterbury cannot hold the old empire together any longer, and the commonweal requires a more democratic ethos.

The Roman and British Empires have passed into history. We now live in an era of American Supremacy in matters temporal. The spiritual world has always tended to follow.

[Stuart]

It seems to me that the missing quality in the Church of England is a sense of duty ; this is much in keeping with the prevalent secular attitude of untroubled individualism. Indeed, it is indicative of the secularisation of Anglicanism. To would-be Christians like me, looking in from the outside, the C of E is just a mess of opinionated self-seekers who are much too preoccupied with pursuing their careers ; and, to facilitate their aims, they wish to convert Christianity to a form that they feel personally comfortable with.

But, actually, Christianity involves adopting a hard discipline which has the aim of crushing all conventional intellectual comforts and which is distinctly inimical to personal ambitions. It positively rejects secular values ; it
has no interest in being thought 'popular' ; it does not promote minorities merely because they happen to be minorities ; nor does it seek to promote majorities merely because they happen to be majorities. Christianity seeks only to enlighten people in the way that Christ was enlightened. And light, seen as light, is a simple thing.

Today's Anglicans want to be seen as modern in imitation of the secular world it finds itself in. But the modern secular world complicates all matters it becomes involved in ; it is analytical. Where it sees simplicity, it takes it apart, and in doing so, renders it complex. And in making it complex, it makes it harder to understand as a whole. For analysis is a much easier thing to do than synthesis. Any fool having basic tools can dismantle a Rolex, but putting it back together is much harder. Anyone can disassemble a Church by picking away at its doctrines - and this is what so many Anglican bishops and theologians have done. But putting the bits back in working order is a much more skilled task ; and it is the duty of Anglicanism to do exactly that ; and that is why Rowan Williams is in such a difficult position. He is in charge of a collection of analytical enthusiasts who have little by way of synthetic skills ; they are very accomplished in creating division and debate, but who seem to have no interest in unifying the Church of England unless they can have it as a talking shop.

Why does the C of E need to put itself back together again? Well, obviously, the current divisions are a scandal. But if that is not reason enough, consider the Church as a world-wide institution ; and consider it also as a time-wide institution. The Church exists in both space and time ; and its doctrines and procedures must therefore be coherent in both space and time. The communion embraces all Christians everywhere and all Christians, both alive and dead, and also those yet to be born. Thus unity must embrace not only those clever, articulate individuals with brilliant innovations - who happen to be walking the earth in Western society at the present moment - but all believers everywhere and everywhen. Does this mean that the Church must never change and adapt? No, certainly not. But it must change with due caution and after due deliberation.

There was once a time when the Church might have been compared to a single, very large, ship which conveyed its cargo of people through the sometimes stormy waters towards its destiny. It was a comparatively simple thing to manage. But now it resembles a convoy of many ships, both great and small, steaming its way through waters that are not only stormy but positively hostile. It seems to me, as a would-be Christian looking on at things, that the many 'minor', non-Western, branches of Anglicanism are horrified at the prospect of the 'big ships' steaming out of sight (and in the wrong direction to boot) and leaving them to their fate. And yet, if the convoy is to be safe, it must stick together ; and, as any sailor will tell you, this task requires both courage and forbearance. The captains of the big ships must be brave enough to stay with their lesser brethren and resist the temptation to cut and run In other words, they must recover their sense of duty.

[Kurt Hill]

In my small Brooklyn parish, most people that I have talked to think that Rowan Williams is a gutless coward. If the Anglican Communion continues to head in a fundagelical direction, most Episcopalians I know would be happy to be rid of it.

[jim beyer]

I think from 911 to today the clear reality is Dr. Williams' anti-American problem. It is not gay Americans, nor female Americans with whom he has an issue, it is Americans period. One sees something of the same problem with the bishop of Durham, and as that worthy penned most of the Windsor sillyness, that matters.

In addition to their joint anti-Americanism, they really do not "get it." Bp. Wright actually asked Frank Griswald why he had not vetoed the election of Gene Robinson and expressed shock when told the presiding bishop does not have veto authority. (Bp. Griswald related that in an open meeting I am not telling tales out of school.)

I have for a while thought that if the price of Canterbury is New Hampshire, it is too high. The bullies of Nigeria and Uganda threaten to cast us out, and they forget that we may be quite happy to go. The growing feeling here is that it is time for us to go. One wonders how the community will do without us and the other provinces that are likely to leave with us? The World Wide Anglican Communion is looking a bit narrow of late.

Oh, another instance of a British person not getting it about American polity. Dr. Marshal is in no way a "fringe" bishop. He is in fact rather a power in the HoB.

FWIW
jimB
diocese of Chicago.

[David Keen]

I'm stunned to hear this kind of public criticism of the ABC from a bishop. He accuses him of lacking integrity, being patronising and inconsistent, and a host of other things. Bishop Marshall should be glad that the ABC hasn't got real executive power or he'd be sacked on the spot.

Rowan Williams is trying his hardest to keep everyone in the same room long enough for us to have a proper conversation about what kind of church we are. Meanwhile there are plenty of more important issues (poverty, global warming, mission) that +++Rowan tries to talk about but all people are interested in is the next meeting about sex.

[Stephen Marsden]

The PB's husband, according to the Episcopal News Service, is Richard Schori. Therefore, her surname is really Schori. I'm guessing that Jefferts may be her maiden name and that she's elected to combine the two into what some call an affectation (though not me, I hasten to add, Ms Gledhill Franks!)
(rgf writes: point taken again! From now on I will call her Presiding Bishop Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori at first mention and Dr Jefferts Schori thereafter.)

[Malcolm Bowden]

I too was surprised, at first, that Bishop Paul should pray the Apostle Paul in aid, given the latter's views on homosexuality and the place of women etc. However, on reflection (and I suspect it's always wise to reflect before blogging) I think I see the point. Although it is clear that the Apostle was a troubled soul, uptight and unable to come to terms easily with the world, he gave us one gift which transcends all of that - he took the infant Church from the arms of its mother Judaism and into the larger wilder world of the gentiles. He realised that the Gospel is for everyone - hence his inclusive language as quoted by Bishop Paul.

If we are to continue to spread the Gospel (and Heaven knows it needs spreading) it has to be in the world as we find it in the 21st century. We have to meet people where they are. Jesus did; Paul did. Perhaps they were revisionists too. If so, I'm proud to wear that label as I suspect Bishop Paul is.

Perhaps Rowan might consider whether he might not disentangle himself from the in-world of Church politics and address the real world in words it can understand and, dare I say, may be waiting to hear?

[bananabrain]

"africa's cannibalism"?

what on earth does this refer to? has it anything to do with the subject under discussion? or is it simply a useful trope for you to project your evidently stereotypical view of the world, mr appel?

what next? are you to express your surprise that the primate of nigeria doesn't have a bone in his nose?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[David]

You know the best approach to religion is to keep it simple. Shame for the past 2000 years the most difficult thing for our religious leaders is their ability to comprehend this truth. Why? Because it’s too uncomplicated, that’s why.

[John Richardson]

A serious topic, I know, but how sad is Mark Harris' video? To (mis)quote another source, "It's the bells, you know. They made me laugh."

[Joan R. Gundersen]

Bishop Marshall may be blunt, but Gledhill is simly rude and petty in this article. She refers to "Dr. Williams" at several points. "Bishop Marshall" at least gets that title (although he also has an earned doctorate in theology and was teaching at Yale Divinty School when elected bishop in 1996), but the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is referred to simply as "Schori" - no title and a truncated last name. The Presiding Bishop's last name is Jefferts Schori, and she, too, has an earned Ph.D. Frankly one expects reputable reporters to not taint their articles with game-playing about titles and names.
(thanks others have picked me up on this - and I will try not to do it again and am v sorry for that. However, is Jefferts her last or her middle name? I would appreciate clarification on that. rg)

[Julia Langdon]

Wait even one New York minute. Isn't this the same crowd that repeatedly crowed, "AC and +++Rowan Williams, you have no power over us!" at its last two conventions? This faction has publicly stated its independence and its "Holy Spirit" moments that supersede what anyone else in the Communion thinks or believes. Why are they now whining, in the face of probable discipline and distancing, that the ABC hasn't sufficiently conversed with them?

The rest of the Communion and the "minority" in the TEC has had to move on with the business of dealing with the fallout of TEC's decisions. Pleas for TEC to stop, think, and talk with those who were concerned by its actions fell on deaf ears. No, "God is doing a new thing," "we're right and everyone who disagrees is homophobic," and "it will be painful at first, but people will accept the 'new thing'" were the responses.

It hasn't worked out the way they envisioned and now they are blaming +++Archbishop Williams. This is "spoiled child syndrome" and what happens when activists are allowed control of a church.

I do hope that +++Archbishop Williams gets a chuckle from the irony of this bishop quoting the Apostle Paul, though; the same St. Paul who is the frequent victim of TEC wrath and scorn. This lot is shameless.

Prayers and blessings, as always, to +++Rowan Cantuar! GRATEFULLY yours, Julia

[Bishop James Adams]

The remarks of Bishop Marshall are referring to before the House of Bishops Meeting in March, not the meeting in Texas.

[Fr David Wood]

Congratulations, Ruth; you must now be a fully accredited member of the British Olympic Patronizing Team!

Regardless of the matters at hand, is it ever excusable to dismiss someone out of hand as a 'revisionist' or a 'fringe' bishop?

The only extraordinary aspect of Bishop Paul's letter is that it has taken so long for someone to express so plainly - albeit regretfully, and reluctantly - what so many of us are feeling.

(rg responds: Only a member? Not a medal winner? I must confess I am disappointed. Also, I don't fully understand what the BOPT is intended to denote or imply. I called Bp Marshall a fringe bishop because a Google search on him elicited v little, because his biog on his own website is so tiny, and because he himself says he is writing as someone who is too old for any fallout to matter. I called Bp Schori revisionist because of the well-documented comments she has made on a number of issues. I am baffled that this worries you. Isn't it the intention to 'revise' orthodox doctrine? If not, what on earth is all the fuss about?)

[Mike Homfray]

Williams has brought this on himself. I believe him to be a coward, spineless and vascillating, who cannot even stand up for his friends. A good academic he may have been, but his obsession with organisational unity above all else has been an unmitigated disaster.

We need a split, and soon. I agree wholly with Paul Marshall. I would like to have a church that I could belong to, and TEC would fit the bill.

[Tom Peters]

Ruth, I'm a newcomer to your blog, and I haven't had much of a chance to get used to your writing style, but I've got big problems with your word selection. Marshall has "revisionist" views, but but Stand Firm in Faith is "orthodox?" Just like that? No possiblity that Marshall is orthodox, or that Stand Firm does a little revising of its own?

Here's how you do it: "Marshall has been criticised by theological conservatives as revisionist." "Stand Firm in Faith is worried." See how it works? You can get the substance of what each side says without presupposing the truth of either side.

[Bill Channon]

The anguish, disappointment, contempt, anger and frustration expressed by Bishop Marshall in this post, seems to me to parallel the same sentiments that must have been felt by King Henry II after his old drinking buddy Thomas a Becket actually took the job seriously when he became the Archbishop of Canterbury. While I don't hear the U.S. House of Bishops exclaiming, "Will no one rid us of this troublesome priest?", there is a certain irony (delicious? ... no, because there is considerable pain involved here) when one compares the two situations.
The post changes the man, and while ++Rowan, Archbishop of Wales may have felt perfectly free to cross the pond and share his views and extend his sympathies, the Archbishop of Canterbury is in a different position and plays a vastly more complex role.... as it would seem that Thomas a Becket found.
There is no parallel between +Marshall's expectation of a visit (likely a confrontative visit) to the US and Pope Benedict's visit to the Christian Church in Turkey.
+++Rowan's decision to have the AB of York chair next month's meeting of the Primates in Tanzania is consistent with the care he has taken not to become personally embroiled in the affairs of ECUSA.

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear All,

Why is homosexuality such an important issue in the organization?

I can understand you wanting men of first class character in leading positions. However, high church office in the past meant being pliable to Power. What do the current Anglican churchmen do but comment on political affairs? They might as well be journalists or pundits except for the superior job guarantee.

Re homosexuality - most men, most societies frown on the practice for a variety of reasons. However, it seems odd that one bishop would threaten a split because of another's sexual tendencies. New Hampshire might frown at Africa's cannibalism but it'd be foolish to leave the association because of it.

[Neil]

Yes Paul Marshall is so right. TEC is being persecuted. It is all Rowan's doing and entirely his fault. It has nothing whatsoever to do with their stubborn refusal to heed the voices of reason. It has nothing to do with the fact that they have repeatedly and unrepentantly told the ABC and the rest of the Communion where to sling their hooks. It has nothing to do with the fact that TEC has resolutely refused to pull back from schism at numerous points in the last few years. They know what they want and, though they pretend, they are in the end not prepared to accept anyone-else's right to disagree.
"In those days TEC had no King; everyone did as he saw as he saw fit."
And then they decided it was ultimately all the ABC's fault when the Titanic finally headed to the bottom of the ocean.

[Shaun]

It seems the biggest difference between a US President and an ABC is that the former could please some of the people some of the time...

[Daniel Weir]

I find it interesting that Ruth Gledhill, while referring to the Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England as "Dr. Williams", refers to the Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church as "Schori." Perhaps one senses a certain partisanship here. Certainly one might accuse Ms Gledhill of rudeness.

[Mark Harris]

thanks for posting the article, thanks for noting my video and articles. One possible correction: the meeting that Bishop Marshall is referring to is the House of Bishops Meeting in March, which will be held in Texas, rather than a meeting held already.

TA quotes you as saying the Archbishop "has also had meetings with US liberals that a fringe Bishop such as Marshall could not possibly know about." Bishop Marshall is not a fringe bishop. He is widely respected as a solid theologian and a good pastor. As to the matter of meetings with US liberals...who would those be?

Again, thanks for posting the letter and in general for your blog. I consult it pretty much every day.

Mark

(thanks for correction re date of texas meeting, i'll amend post, rg)