Lambeth Diary: Rowan begs, 'Choose Life'

Incredibly powerful address from Rowan Williams to bishops at Lambeth tonight. 'At the moment, we seem often to be threatening death to each other, not offering life,' he says.'What some see as confused or reckless innovation in some provinces is felt as a body-blow to the integrity of mission and a matter of literal physical risk to Christians.  The reaction to this is in turn felt as an annihilating judgement on a whole local church, undermining its legitimacy and pouring scorn on its witness.  We need to speak life to each other; and that means change.  I’ve made no secret of what I think that change should be — a Covenant that recognizes the need to grow towards each other (and also recognizes that not all may choose that way).  I find it hard at present to see another way forward that would avoid further disintegration.  But whatever your views on this, at least ask the question :  ‘Having heard the other person, the other group, as fully and fairly as I can, what generous initiative can I take to break through into a new and transformed relation of communion in Christ?’ Read it all below. Our brief report on it is here. Picture Scott Gunn.

The Archbishop of Canterbury

Second Presidential Address to the Lambeth Conference 2008

29 July 2008

‘What is Lambeth ’08 going to say?’ is the question looming larger all the time as this final week unfolds.  But before trying out any thoughts on that, I want to touch on the prior question, a question that could be expressed as ‘Where is Lambeth ’08 going to speak from?’.  I believe if we can answer that adequately, we shall have laid some firm foundations for whatever content there will be.

And the answer, I hope, is that we speak from the centre.  I don’t mean speaking from the middle point between two extremes — that just creates another sort of political alignment.  I mean that we should try to speak from the heart of our identity as Anglicans; and ultimately from that deepest centre which is our awareness of living in and as the Body of Christ.

We are here at all, surely, because we believe there is an Anglican identity and that it’s worth investing our time and energy in it.  I hope that some of the experience of this Conference will have reinforced that sense.  And I hope too that we all acknowledge that the only responsible and Christian way of going on engaging with those who aren’t here is by speaking from that centre in Jesus Christ where we all see our lives held and focused.

And, as I suggested in my opening address, speaking from the centre requires habits and practices and disciplines that make some demands upon everyone — not because something alien is being imposed, but because we know we shall only keep ourselves focused on the centre by attention and respect for each other — checking the natural instinct on all sides to cling to one dimension of the truth revealed.  I spoke about council and covenant as the shape of the way forward as I see it.  And by this I meant, first, that we needed a bit more of a structure in our international affairs to be able to give clear guidance on what would and would not be a grave and lasting divisive course of action by a local church.  While at the moment the focus of this sort of question is sexual ethics, it could just as well be pressure for a new baptismal formula or the abandonment of formal reference to the Nicene Creed in a local church’s formulations; it could be a degree of variance in sacramental practice — about the elements of the Eucharist or lay presidency; it could be the regular incorporation into liturgy of non-Scriptural or even non-Christian material.

Some of these questions have a pretty clear answer, but others are open for a little more discussion; and it seems obvious that a body which commands real confidence and whose authority is recognised could help us greatly.  But the key points are confidence and authority.  If we do develop such a capacity in our structures, we need as a Communion to agree what sort of weight its decisions will have; hence, again, the desirability of a covenantal agreement.

Some have expressed unhappiness about the ‘legalism’ implied in a covenant.  But we should be clear that good law is about guaranteeing consistence and fairness in a community; and also that in a community like the Anglican family, it can only work when there is free acceptance.  Properly understood, a covenant is an expression of mutual generosity — indeed, ‘generous love’, to borrow the title of the excellent document on Inter-Faith issues which was discussed yesterday.  And we might recall that powerful formulation from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks — ‘Covenant is the redemption of solitude’.

Mutual generosity :  part of what this means is finding out what the other person or group really means and really needs.  The process of this last ten days has been designed to help us to find out something of this — so that when we do address divisive issues, we have created enough of a community for an intelligent generosity to be born.  It is by no means a full agreement, but it will, I hope, have strengthened the sense that we have at least a common language, born out of the conviction that Jesus Christ remains the one unique centre.

And within that conviction, what has been heard?  I want now to engage in what might be a rather presumptuous exercise — and certainly feels like a risky one.  I want to imagine what people on different sides of our most painful current debate hope others have heard or are beginning to hear in our time together.  I want to imagine what the main messages would be, within an atmosphere of patience and charity, from those in our Communion who hold to a clear and traditional doctrinal and moral conviction, and also from those who, starting from the same centre, find fewer problems or none with some recent innovations.  Although these voices are inevitably rooted in the experience of the developing world and of North America, the division runs through many other provinces internally as well.

So first :  what might the traditional believer hope others have heard?  ‘What we seek to do in our context is faithfully to pass on what you passed on to us — Holy Scripture, apostolic ministry, sacramental discipline.  But what are we to think when all these things seem to be questioned and even overturned?  We want to be pastorally caring to all, to be “inclusive” as you like to say.  We want to welcome everyone.  Yet the gospel and the faith you passed on to us tell us that some kinds of behaviour and relationship are not blessed by GOD.  Our love and our welcome are unreal if we don’t truthfully let others know what has shaped and directed our lives — so along with welcome, we must still challenge people to change their ways.  We don’t see why welcoming the gay or lesbian person with love must mean blessing what they do in the Church’s name or accepting them for ordination whatever their lifestyle.  We seek to love them — and, all right, we don’t always make a good job of it :  but we can’t just say that there is nothing to challenge.  Isn’t it like the dilemma of the early Church — welcoming soldiers, yet seeking to get them to lay down their arms?

‘But please remember also that — while you may say that what you do needn’t affect us — your decisions make a vast difference to us.  In this world of instant communication, our neighbours know what you do, and they see us as sharing the responsibility.  Imagine what that means where those neighbours are passionately traditional Christians — and what it means for our own members, who will be drawn to leave us for a “safer”, more orthodox church.  Imagine what it means when those neighbours are non-Christians, delighted to find a stick to beat us with.  Imagine what it is to be known as the ‘gay church’ in a context where that spells real contempt and danger.

‘Don’t misunderstand us.  We’re not looking for safety and comfort.  Some of us know quite a lot about carrying the cross.  But when that cross is laid on us by fellow-Christians, it’s quite a lot harder to bear.  Don’t be too surprised if some of us want to be at a distance from you — or if we want to support minorities in your midst who seem to us to be suffering.

‘But we are here.  We’ve taken a risk in coming, because many who think like us feel we’ve betrayed them just by meeting you.  But we value our Communion, we want to understand you and we want you to understand us.  Can you find some way of being generous that helps us believe you care about us and about the common language and belief of the Church?  Can you — in plain words — step back and let us think and pray about these things without giving us the impression that the debate is over and we’ve lost and that doesn’t matter to you?’

And then :  what might the not so traditional believer hope has been heard?

‘What we seek to do in our context is to bring Jesus alive in the minds and hearts of the people of our culture.  Trying to speak the language of the culture and relate honestly to where people really are doesn’t have to be a betrayal of Scripture and tradition.  We know we’re pushing the boundaries — but don’t some Christians always have to do that?  Doesn’t the Bible itself suggest that?

‘We are often hurt, angry and bewildered at the way many others in the Communion see us and treat us these days — as if we were spiritual lepers or traitors to every aspect of Christian belief.  We know that no-one is the best judge in their own case, but we see in our church life at least some marks of the Spirit’s gifts.  And part of that is acknowledging the gifts we’ve seen in gay and lesbian believers.  They will certainly be likely to feel that the restraint you ask for is a betrayal.  Please try to see why this is such a dilemma for many of us.  You may not see it, but they’re still at risk in our society, still vulnerable to murderous violence.  And we have to say to some of you that we long for you to speak up for your gay and lesbian neighbours in situations where they are subject to appalling discrimination.  There have been Lambeth Resolutions about that too, remember.

‘A lot of the time, we feel we’re being made scapegoats.  Other provinces have acute moral and disciplinary problems, or else they more or less successfully refuse to admit the realities in their midst.  But those of us who have faced the complex issues around gay relationships in what we feel to be an open and prayerful way are stigmatised and demonised.

‘Not all of us, of course, supported or took part in the actions that have caused so much trouble.  Some of us remain strongly opposed, many of us want to find ways of strengthening our bonds with you.  But even those who don’t stand with the majority on innovations will often feel that the life of a whole church, a life that is varied and complex but often deeply and creatively faithful to Christ and the Scriptures, is being wrongly and unjustly seen by you and some of your friends.

‘We want to be generous, and we are hurt that some throw back in our faces both the experience and the resources we long to share.  Can you try and see us as fellow-believers struggling to proclaim the same Christ, and to be patient with us?’

Two sets of feelings and perceptions, two appeals for generosity.  For the first speaker, the cost of generosity may be accusation of compromise :  you’ve been bought, you’ve been deceived by airy talk into tolerating unscriptural and unfaithful policies.  For the second speaker, the cost of generosity may be accusations of sacrificing the needs of an oppressed group for the sake of a false or delusional unity, giving up a precious Anglican principle for the sake of a dangerous centralisation.  But there is the challenge.  If both were able to hear and to respond generously, perhaps we could have something more like a conversation of equals — even something more like a Church.

At Dar-es-Salaam, the primates tried to find a way of inviting different groups to take a step forward simultaneously towards each other.  It didn’t happen, and each group was content to blame the other.  But the last 18 months don’t suggest that this was a good outcome.  Can this Conference now put the same kind of challenge?  To the innovator, can we say, ‘Don’t isolate yourself; don’t create facts on the ground that make the invitation to debate ring a bit hollow’?  Can we say to the traditionalist, ‘Don’t invest everything in a church of pure and likeminded souls; try to understand the pastoral and human and theological issues that are urgent for those you are opposing, even if you think them deeply wrong’?

I think we perhaps can, if and only if we are captured by the vision of the true Centre, the heart of GOD out of which flows the impulse of an eternal generosity which creates and heals and promises.  It is this generosity which sustains our mission and service in Our Lord’s name.  And it is this we are called to show to each other.

At the moment, we seem often to be threatening death to each other, not offering life.  What some see as confused or reckless innovation in some provinces is felt as a body-blow to the integrity of mission and a matter of literal physical risk to Christians.  The reaction to this is in turn felt as an annihilating judgement on a whole local church, undermining its legitimacy and pouring scorn on its witness.  We need to speak life to each other; and that means change.  I’ve made no secret of what I think that change should be — a Covenant that recognizes the need to grow towards each other (and also recognizes that not all may choose that way).  I find it hard at present to see another way forward that would avoid further disintegration.  But whatever your views on this, at least ask the question :  ‘Having heard the other person, the other group, as fully and fairly as I can, what generous initiative can I take to break through into a new and transformed relation of communion in Christ?’

Comments

[Theo Dexter]

Thank-you George - appreciated.

[George Parr]

Apologies Theo Dexter, misread the middle part of your post.

[Theo Dexter]

GP

Stated what?

You presume incorrectly.

No need to start, I have been on that journey for some time.

Mote & Beam.

[George Parr]

Mr Dexter, Re Bush, where have I EVER stated anything of the sort. All my posts without exception challenge and attack warmongers, militarism and the unscrupulous sale of arms. So where did you get that from? Bush's 'Christian' regime has filled me with horror along with our Catholic convert, the bellicose Blair.

What Raymond Chandler asserts rhetorically is presumably your view of psychiatry in general? Oh good.

If you want to start fighting prejudice you could begin by supporting those who analyse critically the stinking hypocrisy practised by some members of faith groups. For example, should you wish to consider the efforts of those bravely challenging the discrimination and prejudice within fundamental Islam visit:

www.ex-muslim.org.uk/indexLinks.html

or
www.iransecularsociety.com

or
www.humanism.org.co.uk for an overview of the rational value in living without fear of judgement and death; finding enough purpose and meaning through life, love and leaving a good legacy.

[Theo Dexter]

“I regard psychiatry as fifty percent bunk, thirty percent fraud, ten percent parrot talk, and the remaining ten percent just a fancy lingo for the common sense we have had for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years, if we ever had the guts to read it. “ Raymond Chandler

Use another source George. How can you suggest that in the world of George W anyone would feel safe!

Let us fight discrimination and prejudice wherever it is found - including western liberal elites.

[George Parr]

Theo, according to psychiatrist Irving Yalom, there are possibly four main human fears; mortality, being alone, taking choices and that life is meaningless. If treating abstract notions of good and evil as principles, through assembling an unlikely ideology makes you feel safe that's ok with me.

In the doing of it, it is well to remember that social discrimination on grounds of race, gender, sexuality, age, etc. remains deeply distasteful, which is why democratic civilised societies have legislated over it.

[Theo Dexter]

George Parr

I am sorry that you have not seen one of God’s “Get out of Jail” cards. They have a cross on one side and an empty tomb on the other.

And they are free to anyone who believes in His son – Jesus.

[Kate]

More distortion of fact from Jenny the 'ex-liberal'.

By some mysterious moral process, akin to mathematics of the double-negative, incontinent sexuality and violence against women, inherent in African male culture, is annulled by white 'racism', in the interests of Anglican 'conservative' pc. They respond by wheeling out the scapegoats.

Ergo Jenny's assertion: "there are more than twice as many incidents of domestic violence between homosexual partners, than there is with heterosexual couples." The logic, or absence therein, is risible.

She quotes (out of context) Warren Farrell, whose thesis was primarily to prove that violence is "not an outgrowth of male biology"; and one of the examples he uses - lesbian domestic violence.

What does this prove in a debate on male African sexuality? It is correct that, recent research has shown many heterosexual women in the west are as aggressive as their male partners. Presumably lesbians (as women) confirm that finding.

At the same time, domestic violence occurs across Europe and America at all social levels. The majority of the abused are women and children. Gay and lesbian couples constitute a negligible number in the overall picture and in this specific context, are irrelevant.

The most glaring hole in conservative righteousness is the anti-intellectual disdain for decades of medical, scientific, and psychological research on the human condition.

The American ultra-right religious consensus is both reductive and simplistic. The vast majority in Europe - the home of Enlightenment thinking - regard American ultra-conservatives as on a par with Islamists.

If the Akinola worshippers 'bothered their ass' to be informed of the reality of life in other cultures they would find that documented statistics on domestic violence (in Nigeria alone) show 80+%.

Domestic Violence Is Widespread in Sub-Saharan Africa - [which includes Sudan]. (www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/
factsheet/fssxabus.htm)

The GVRC, in East Africa, treats up to 15 survivors of rape and domestic violence every day. (www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=56856)

Uganda: The commonest form of domestic violence reported was physical abuse and child abuse, including beating, torture, biting and stabbing ...
(http://allafrica.com/stories/200807150696.html)

Women have contracted HIV and suffered physical harm because African governments persistently ignore appeals to criminalize domestic violence.
(http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_
research_citation/0/3/4/7/8/p34785_index.html)

Fitnat N-A Adjetey, exposes a pattern of violence in Ghana, including female genital mutilation, rape, child marriage, widowhood rites, widow inheritance, and female religious bondage.

That wife battering is regarded as normal within traditional African culture is supported by reports of interviews at the Social Welfare Office, Nigeria.

A culture of violence is particularly obvious in South Africa, where there has been a dramatic post-Apartheid increase in violence specifically directed at women, including both rape and domestic violence.

While the sanctimonious labour to prevent discussion and denigrate all who insist on informed discussion about Africa, women and children continue to die from chronic abuse.

[George Parr]

Is there something intrinsically wrong with eating, drinking and being merry then David Cohen? What an unwitting testimony to a separatist, miserablist agenda that reeks of control.

The implication is of course that deeply unattractive concepts such as judging others morally, institutional severity and innate seriousness are somehow integral to having faith - a failed stragtegy evinced by Christian membership falling away in droves and the Anglican Church imploding.

It may be that this is exactly what right wing 'traditionalist' Christians are unknowingly working towards; a situation where they alone represent the extremities of piety and, in doing so, elevate their own magnificent status. A dystopian non-idyll might then be created in which they alone hold the keys to divinity through the draconian application of sin and repentance, and where membership is strictly defined through selection and rejection. Prospective candidates for this new/old world order must possess bogus notions of bioscience and psychology and be practised in wholescale intolerance towards other Christians, and demonstrate a proven track record of gender and sexual discrimination.

Since no 'get out of jail free' cards have yet been awarded by God, this must either stop short of committing an offence, or it must be generally accepted that an advanced state of holiness is a built-in defence. Those pinning their hopes on this should exercise caution.

[Malcolm+]

Yet another thread where the "conservative" position is argued with a complete absence of facts - merely the vain repetition of fabrication after falsehood.

[Jenny]

Ruth, I'd hoped you'd post a blog for today, dealing with Bishop Roskam's attempt to blame the victim.

Given the megaphone you've been giving to the TEC extremists, and not expecting them to back up their slander, I feel the need to challenge you to uphold journalistic standards, and will continue to ask this of you every day until you do so.

You dropped the ball, when Bishop Chane uttered a hateful, and racist attack against Anglican African bishops, smearing them as being "demonic", when Gene Robinson slandered them as "idolators", the list could go on and on, and you could have challenged any one or all of them. I'd like to ask that you challenge Bishop Roskam's attempt to exploit the issue of domestic violence, to use it to attempt to apply a negative stereotype against the male, heterosexual, traditional Episcopalian bishops attending Lambeth. Below is one of the statements she made, and underneath that is a reputable article from a medical professional that discusses the fact that there are more than twice as many incidents of domestic violence between homosexual partners, than there is with heterosexual couples. You can see for yourself that Roskam sought to level a charge as an unjust, unsubstantiate bit of inuendo, to marginalize, most especially the African Anglican bishops. She did so to detract from their legitimate concerns about the very real, serious threats that their people face on a daily basis, threats to their very life. If you are not some disconnected elite, I demand that you attempt to get Roskam to answer to her exploitation of a serious issue, her colonialistic, racist attacks against those bishops, and her own hypocrisies.

Bishop Roskam made this statement, "The Anglican Communion is abusive in focusing on homosexuality instead of the ubiquitous problem of heterosexual men behaving badly."

When in reality, there is a higher rate of domestic violence among homosexual couples, here is a quote from the article “Spouse Abuse a Two-Way Street,” by Warren Farrell, Ph.D. USA Today, June 29, 1994

"However, when 54% of women in lesbian relationships acknowledge violence in their current relationship, vs. only 11% of heterosexual couples reporting violence, I realized that domestic violence is not an outgrowth of male biology."

[KM]

Oh, it's so good, this blog. It makes me feel I am at Lambeth. Well, standing outside the high fence looking in.

And there are even a bunch of scruffy loudmouthed protesters there with me, shouting angrily at every post that appears....

Just like the real thing.

(rg writes: please stay with us, I so love having you here.)

[David Cohen]

Little wonder things are in such a mess when someone who is apparently a clergyman thinks he can "help [people] find the way to heaven - WITHOUT repentance".

It sums up the TEC and its clones quite neatly. Why even bother about religious advice if you are convinced that we are all saved anyway? Eat, drink and be merry, and think earnestly about the Millennium Development Goals.

[badmash]

The Anglican Church has an opportunity to show other religious communities that there is a way to press forward in love even in the face of deep disagreement. I pray that the Church stays unified by "choosing life" as Williams has said so aptly. I pray that the stalwarts on both sides of the issues can see beyond their tunnel vision to the greater vision of the Kingdom of God.

[David Crawford]

Ruth, check out David Virtue's article on the sexual predator Davis Mac. It was written by his episcopal host. Listen to the conclusions and see if we are not hearing another gospel proclaimed where sin is not sin. Mac Davis surfed the web for sex, had sex with at least two seminary students, ect. It must have been a deeply shared love. Enough is enough !!!!

[Rev. Art G.]

Can we expect to see the remaining Bible studies from Joanna Clegg? Thanks for the superb reporting.

[Fr. Van Windsor]

During all the dust up of Gafcon, Ruth, you gave some wonderful insights into the media, what was taking place, etc. Certainly with your "iron curtain" story--- the fence at the beginning of Lambeth---you did the same. Would you consider more?

[Simon Wilde]

Well Rev John it's goodnight TEC and good luck on your own. The AC is so feed up with you all no one will lament your going. That is sad for two reasons. The strength of the AC and how dull life post the AC will be for you. You so need to look in the TEC mirror to see what real oppression and double standards are and that's why we are all so fed up with you. Schori had the chance and a real chance to be a loving peacemaker but she choose the cult of me and now.
I for one will neither miss TEC or Schori. Both will not last long without the oxygen of the AC. Prepare to be a small fish in a big bowl - with many predators lurking.

[George Parr]

All this says is that it is impossible for things to remain idealistic or the same forever, and this is due to the intrinsic nature of religion which, far from being ethereal, is actually a human construct. Asserting that a human system should never change is to deny human nature, interpretation and enlightenment.

Some members of sundry religious groups appear quite able to fool themselves into thinking that they have refined the essence of being, denied to non-believers. Some claiming piety have identified a false relevance for themselves, which involves judging the views and behaviour of 'profane' human beings and establishing a need to publicise or modify them.

Rowan Williams's words are falling on little or no common ground. The sides are drawn and there is no question of any form of cosy consensus.

The reality is that this can only be seen as a beginning for Anglicans. A liberal church will be welcomed by its open-minded Christians and also wider society, since it represents their views. The 'traditionalists', who by definition, put themselves before tolerance and caring are free to begin their own bastardised version of reality, always bearing in mind that their public utterances may well be scrutinised to ensure that they do not discriminate in a way that contravenes human rights legislation, or promote unfairness in the society they claim to minister to.

[Theo Dexter]

Rowan

“We need to speak life to each other; and that means change. I’ve made no secret of what I think that change should be — a Covenant that recognizes the need to grow towards each other (and also recognizes that not all may choose that way). I find it hard at present to see another way forward that would avoid further disintegration. But whatever your views on this, at least ask the question : ‘Having heard the other person, the other group, as fully and fairly as I can, what generous initiative can I take to break through into a new and transformed relation of communion in Christ?’

Gene

“The only thing with which I disagree with the Archbishop over, is his conclusion: that all this points to the need for a Covenant and a means whereby some more centralized authority could and would pass judgment on developments within the communion, seeking to settle these differences once and for all, rather than let them be.”

That’s it then.

[robroy]

The liberals can squeeze out the Anglo-catholics by forcing women bishop oversight which they are doing in America and now the CoE. And they know precisely how to force out the evangelicals. With each new outrageous action, the Evangelicals place becomes more untenable - Gene Robinson mugging for yet another interview, gay marriage with full orchestra at St Bart's, London. They have to be somewhat creative on how to top the previous affront, but they have shown themselves to be quite resourceful in this regard.

Simply put, their is no via media between liberalism and Evangelicalism. The Global South understands in a very literal way that liberalism is death to Evangelicalism. The Integrity crowd understand this and are using it to the hilt. It is sad that Rowan Williams can't see this.

[Fr. Ed Tomlinson]

John M

You state a desire for us to stop marginalising GBLT. Please tell me how a bisexual is to be encouraged in both their sexual freedom and within the clear teaching of the church? Sory but bisexual activity by definition is not Christian. This is the very point and the reason why compromise will prove impossible. Either we defend the faith in obedience to Christ or else we 'improve' it to appease society. these are mutually exclusive positions and mediation will not be possible.

[Father Ron Smith]

Ate the heart of all this controversy - as will be recognised by all the participants - is the contemporary interpretation of the Bible, which demands a new look at 'What the Spirit is saying to the Church'. When this post-script to the reading of Scripture on a daily basis is taken seriously, one cannot but question some of the old ideas about how the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was meant to 'be a light to enlighten the Gentiles'.

I'm sure that if we were meant to remain in the Old Testament understanding of God's relationship to his human children, the Christ - in Jesus, may never have been born. But, He became the Word-made-flesh.

So why do we continue to monitor our response to God's call on our life and ministry by the tenets of the O.T., when Jesus himself had to wrestle with the Scribes and the Pharisees on this very subject?

Surely Christ's sacrifice was made for all people - not just those who account themselves as righteous? Otherwise, none of us has a chance to get to heaven.

As a priest, my task has always been, not to condemn people to hell but to help them find the way to heaven - through Christ, Redeemer of ALL. - Not by might, not by power, but through the Spirit of God.

[Beth]

"We need to speak life to each other; and that means change"

It is ironic the Archbishop of Canterbury should ask that we "speak life", he seems to be completely unaware of the many things that are driving Christians away from the Episcopal Church USA.
The Episcopal Church has made it clear to any who ask and particularly to Bishop Duncan Gray that they do not intend to choose life or even "speak" about it.
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/3678

There might be hope that TEC would “speak life” if NOEL (a right to life organization) was still part of TEC-USA but their life in TEC was short lived.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Choose life....for one moment I thought the speech must be about the rights of the unborn child or a condemnation of the contraception culture, approved by the Lambeth Conference in 1930.

No, the Anglican Communion is falling apart!The unborn child , the experimented embryo don't come into it.

The assembled Bishops would do well to rember the words of Scripture.

Unless the Lord builds the house, those that labour do so in vain.

[Christopher Johnson]

Leaving aside Dr. Williams' moral obscenity of equating hurt Western feelings with Third World lives lost because of the Episcopal Organization's callous indifference, this is not a speech animated by Christian principles. This is the speech of a coward.

[Rev. John M.]

Conservatives and traditionalists are so angry because they thought they had won the argument at the last Lambeth conference, and there was no "generosity" on their part when they were winning. TEC has in fact reached out with generosity over they years, and has always been slapped away with increasing force to the point where we are now. TEC and the progressives are quite tired of being called on to be the "generous" ones, and have said "Enough!"
I for one, stand with them and hope they continue on their path. Unity that allows the marginalization of God's LGBT children is not unity but oppression. I feel for ++Rowan, and pray for him and the Anglican Communion, but not for some "unity" that requires throwing this population under a bus.

[David Crawford]

Bishop Chane of TEC is a perfect example of the problem. He traveled to Iran to meet with officials and never took them to task on the homosexual problem. Shori has never come out and spoken against the treatment of gays by the Muslim world. They criticize the Anglicans in the countries where it really can mean death. They don't speak up for one reason.They are scared someone will come get them. It is much safer to place your anger on those who are trying to spread the word of Christ in difficult situations. They are cowards and are being exposed in the light of day. Americans think they rule all and until you get on their program , they will say and do anything.Away with them, I never knew them !!!!!

[Malcolm+]

I was once had a part to play in a legal dispute. The legal agreements and orders in place provided that if the parties were unable to agree, they were to seek mediation. Eventually, party one sent party two a letter saying that, if mediation was to work, the party one had to agree to certain things. Of course, had party one agreed to all those things in advance of mediation, there would have been nothing left to mediate.

It is always amusing to read the rants of "the usual suspects." Rowan writes a piece about how all parties are obliged to listen, and the pretendy "conservatives" believe that they are under no such obligation.

[Anglican Guy]

The problem with ++Williams' speech, eloquent as it is, is that it doesn't address the central truth of the current crisis -- that there _is_ no "deeper centre" or "shared heart" from which these sorts of discussions (or any of the "consent" which all his schemes require) can emerge.

It's not that the two "sides" share fundamentals and need to work from them to address differences over secondary matters -- rather, the two sides differ over the fundamentals themselves.

This is why the "dialog" he imagines is a misleading representation (for he, necessarily, misrepresents one of the sides in painting a picture of shared fundamentals) and this is why his whole proposed system and process will never get off the ground... because the "starting points" upon which it is predicated simply are not there.

More HERE:
http://anglicanguy.blogspot.com/2008/07
/archbishops-new-address.html

[saint]

Choose life? Then why would you chose the dying TEC, chief proponent of moralistic theraepeutic deism, gnosticism - the great American heresy?

Joseph Bottum summarised Schori's theology this way:

To be saved, we need only to realize that God already loves us, just the way we are, Schori wrote in her 2006 book, A Wing and a Prayer. She’s not exactly wrong about God’s love, but, in Schori’s happy soteriology, such love demands from us no personal ­reformation, no individual guilt, no particular penance, and no precise dogma. All we have to do, to prove the redemption we already have, is support the political causes she approves. The mission of the church is to show forth God’s love by demanding inclusion and social justice. She often points to the United Nations as an example of God’s work in the world, and when she talks about the mission of the Episcopal Church, she typically identifies it with the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals ... Her Yahweh, in other words, is a blend of Norman Vincent Peale and Dag Hammarskjöld.

To which Douthat comments:

The Norman Vincent Peale bit, I think, is particularly telling... Peale's heirs occupy the pulpits of what remains of the Protestant mainline, but they preach from the dais at numerous evangelical megachurches as well. The people who read Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer and The Prayer of Jabez may be more politically conservative then the people who read A Wing and a Prayer, and read certain passages of Genesis and Leviticus more literally, but the theology they're imbibing is roughly the same sort of therapeutic mush. Indeed, the big difference between the prosperity gospel that Osteen and his ilk are peddling and Schori's liberal Episcopalianism has less to do with any theological principle and more to do with what aspect of American life they want God to validate. And this difference, I suspect, has a great deal to do with social class. Osteen and Co.'s God wants us to pursue financial fulfillment because they're largely preaching to entrepreneurial, upwardly-mobile members of the middle class, whereas Schori's God wants us to pursue a more personal fulfillment - sexually, emotionally, philanthropically - because she's preaching to a demographic that, financially speaking, has already got it made. (Which, in turn, is why it isn't a surprise that as American evangelicals grow more prosperous, they're starting to discover their God's Dag Hammarskjöld side as well.)

In fact one is better off chosing American shysters like Benny Hinn. At least they know they are frauds.

[William Sulik]

This is a good address. It will be interesting to see what the next steps are.

Who will be the first to respond? And what will the response be?

Imagine if the Bishops of the Sudan come forward and say yes, we do have homosexuals in our midst and we will provide them sanctuary. They can still maintain this activity is sin, but can minister to the sinner anyway.

Imagine if the USA PB, Katharine Jefferts Schori, were to stop all litigation and let the local churches find shelter under brother bishops. If, in Canada and elsewhere, they were to do the same?

Imagine a commitment to respect one another and lay aside the theology of the Integrity Movement for the consensus of the Anglican Communion?

Imagine if Gene Robinson said tomorrow that he was resigning his post and would live as simple lay evangelist - not for the cause of gay rights, but for Christ crucified and risen.

I have seen such positive movement in the past, with respect to WO, which I believe in - with those firmly opposed willing to allow it if they are given separate oversight. This is not a small thing. I have also seen women priests who are willing to go along with this - this is no small thing either.

But in making these accommodations, someone needs to take a step.

Will it happen here?

[David Palmer]

Speaking for orthodox believers, I would say this part of the ABC’s speech is reasonable – “We want to be pastorally caring to all, to be “inclusive” as you like to say. We want to welcome everyone. Yet the gospel and the faith you passed on to us tell us that some kinds of behaviour and relationship are not blessed by GOD. Our love and our welcome are unreal if we don’t truthfully let others know what has shaped and directed our lives — so along with welcome, we must still challenge people to change their ways.”

The problem (as I see it) is that the ABC does not call something for what it is – sin. Of course there are other things that are sin but we still call these other things sin (pride, anger, stealing, adultery, etc), but apparently not homosexual practice. This will remain the sticking point.

Putting words in the mouth of the liberals, the ABC says, “What we seek to do in our context is to bring Jesus alive in the minds and hearts of the people of our culture. Trying to speak the language of the culture and relate honestly to where people really are doesn’t have to be a betrayal of Scripture and tradition.”

I would say he misses the point, big time. The (orthodox) Sydney Anglicans that I observe are doing just that – doing all in their “context to bring Jesus alive in the minds and hearts of the people of our culture”, and they are doing it without compromising the Bible’s (and therefore God’s) testimony concerning homosexual lifestyle.

I find this attempt to “speak from the centre” a hollow and artificial thing. And again I can but marvel how homosexuality (practiced by 2-3 per cent of the general population) can steer so resolutely and powerfully the good ship Anglican Communion to the rocks of despair and breakup. This will be a source of wonderment, sadness and shaking of heads to future generations of Christians.

When all the talking is done, will the presenting issue: the blessing of same sex relationships and the ordination/consecration of practicing homosexuals be resiled from by the North Americans and others?

In my opinion, without that, the orthodox will not back off.

I grew up Anglican, am no longer but have such intense feelings of sadness to witness such turmoil and over such an issue. May God have mercy!

[Reason and Revelation]

ABp Williams's reference to "literal physical risk" is often repeated as a justification for revisionist innovation, but it is a total non sequitur. Virtually every orthodox Anglican is wholeheartedly against any form of violence against those who engage in sexual activity with others of the same sex. To imply that the liberals are the ones sticking up for "literal physical safety" as opposed to the orthodox is almost entirely incorrect.

As Pope Benedict often reminds, that is a signal feature of Catholic Christianity, which is also resolute in adhering to the Biblical approach to sexuality.

At any rate, he is talking to the moderates on either side, hoping to peel a few off to keep some semblance of a Communion. These efforts have long since abandoned bedrock principle and now are a "peace and harmony by any means necessary" approach. Anything that keeps anyone together is what he will pursue.

We have a Bible story on this topic--Solomon's proposal to split the baby. We will see which side is content to go with splitting the baby (doctrine and discipline in the Anglican Communion) and which side cannot go along with it. My guess is that the orthodox will have no part of splitting the baby.

[Fr. Van Windsor]

I am proud for the Communion that our Archbishop of Canterbury is leading the way back into the light. Great speech. But not to worry, Anglicans have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot, but our sense of self-preservation is astounding...

[JNWAll]

The ABC's goals are admirable, that we all get along. Yet his description of liberals as folks to whom "Holy Scripture, apostolic ministry, sacramental discipline" don't matter is deeply offensive.

It is precisely because we read a Bible in which God repeatedly and consistently calls for us to work for justice, to have regard for the widow and orphan and the poor and the stranger, that I, at least, am deeply committed to inclusion of gay folk in the full life of the Church.

It is precisely because we participate in a sacramental life that makes us "very members incorporate" in the Risen Christ that we are able to set aside fear and suspicion and welcome the least of these to whom Christ commends our attention.

Rather than seeking to "question" or "overturn . . . these things," a concern for human rights is precisely at the heart of these things. The idea that there is a version of the Christian faith in which justice is secondary to some other agenda, in which God is not calling us to participate in God's reconciling work, that following Jesus is not about working for the inclusion of all God's people in the Church is deeply disturbing.

[An Anxious Anglican]

Thank you, Ruth, for this post, and thanks be to God for Rowan Williams!

[Father Ed Tomlinson]

A great speech- but hard to put much faith or hope in. Forward in Faith did everything Rowan asks by suggesting dual dioceses- a move which would allow two integrities equal space to flourish. Ultimately though the 'inclusive' birgade said No - they hate us too much and we must play by their rules or leave. Incusive church is not inclusive to any who disagree with them. Sound wholly negative? Well yes - only two weeks ago Synod voted to do away with me

So if he cannot influence his own synod to be gracious and fair- how will he get the whole communion to do it?

[Merseymike]

It is a good speech. But, the reality is that the two sides are simply too far apart to be brought together. An honest way forward is a split and some sort of loose federation. Disintegration is a negative way of looking at what could be a valuable new start for both sides of the debate. But, together - there is nothing but a continuation of what happens now.

[Rev. John M.]

Perhaps for the first time, I can perceive an actual vision of this "centre" and some of what is driving ++Rowan beyond all the dithering and handwringing.

Thank you for posting it.

[Tom Jackson]

“Thanks Ruth for posting such a brilliant speech”.

Of course, if you really want to witness ‘brilliance’ which doesn’t have the appearance of a collection of jumbled, vague and disconnected meanderings but which has real substance and a perspective which brings experience and an awareness of where our society needs to take account, check out the comments of the former Archbishop, Lord Carey, on the recent judgment related to Max Mosely’s behavior.

[Ramon Rodriguez]

It is not going to happen. Tec is demading full inclusion of all parties into the pulpit not just the pew. Most Catholics will accept full inclusion into the pew but not the pulpit. Both sides are too heavily invested to turn back. There are, at least, two churches in the Anglican communion. It might be time to admit that and move on. Nevertheless, this conference has been, and I am not one of his admirers, a valiant effot by the Archbishop.

[David Crawford]

A good speech but as they say " the proof is in the actions ". Now is the time to say to TEC, either walk with us or away. Without the gay issue what will TEC have to offer the world ? It is the time for truth and not careful pre written spins.Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Have some honesty and integrity for once and do not say only what you think will get you a pass. Speak the truth in love !!!! But above all be honest.

[robroy]

Sarah Hey has written a good essay at Stand Firm. She uses an analogy of a boulder. If people are pushing it uphill, it is relatively easy to tell them to stop pushing. When the boulder is rolling down hill, gathering steam, time becomes critical and solutions must be more forceful. The WCG proposal is pretty much the failed Panel of Reference, warmed over. Pretty pathetic. Rowan is now offering "Why can't we all get along?"

The DeS effort failed because its legs were cut out by Rowan's early invitation, thereby removing all impetus for the TEC to act in a conciliar fashion. Rowan squandered his main power, the power to invite to Lambeth.

[Branford]

But doesn't the Archbishop know - The Episcopal Church has already chosen death - specifically its official membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights - a pro-abortion group that supports partial birth abortion and that regards the fetus as the enemy. If they have chosen death there, it is no surprise that they will chose death in the Communion. The "agenda" trumps all.

[Fr David Heron]

Thanks Ruth for posting such a brilliant speech