[CofE] ABC Presidential Address to General Synod

Well put David…your commentary helped clarify for me what was earlier the unintelligible.
Intercessor

+++Williams does seem concerned that the institution of female bishops in CofE may be under threat, which is interesting.

David,

if only to remind ourselves that Williams will simply not provide the clear leadership required to solve these crises.

This is the money quote for me. His address is nearly 4,000 words of meandering musing. There are a few bright spots but this could have been given in another venue with similar relevance. It is almost as if he is addressing a world audience and not the CoE.

I am NOT impressed with Rowan Williams…either his ‘spirituality’ or his scholarship.  He has spent a lot of time and energy to come to an unbiblical conclusion.  That is poor theology.  Being a proponent of sexual disorientation and immorality (according to Romans 1:32) makes him disqualified to sit in the chair to which he was appointed.

Even after taking a Tylenol, I couldn’t finish the speech.

If this was the best address of his Suishiness’ tenure and it was supposed to give hope and chastise the Liberal, Traditional and AngloCatholic parties, well, I for one fail to see either hope or chastisement.

What I do see is a more obvious display of his ABC-ness for the EcUSA/TEc position and actions.  Of which he says, “Drink up!  There’s Koo-Aid enough for all!” 

Why be related to Canterbury at all? is now more than ever a valid question.  If there was the merest improbability of doubt heretofore, this rhetorical flourishment should resolve it.  It ignores Scripture to appeal to some imagined Jesus according with currently popular sentiment.  Another missed opportunity for his “gracious sakes, I musn’t be clearly seen to stand anywhere”-NESS.

He apparently gives better advice to Wall Street.

It’s lost on the man what he’s actually supposed to “reveal” as the leader. 

“...many sacrificial and exemplary priests who share this orientation”.

Herein also lies some of the “rub” on this particular issue—whether or not active homosexuals should have been ordained to the priesthood in the first place. 

And isn’t it true that the AB of C has ordained his share?

#6. dwstroudmd,

Why be related to Canterbury at all? is now more than ever a valid question.

You do have a valid question. Some, perhaps me included wonder what the WWAC would be like if Rowan stepped down and was replaced by a primate from say, the Global South. What would you say then?

Interesting excerpts David chose, basically all the bits that said nice things about the liberal side.

But the most striking excerpt—the central thesis, so to speak, was not excerpted above:

“But the difficult issue that we cannot simply ignore is this. Certain decisions made by some provinces impact so heavily on the conscience and mission of others that fellowship is strained or shattered and trust destroyed. The present effect of this is chaos – local schisms, outside interventions, all the unedifying stuff you will be hearing about (from both sides) in the debate on Lorna Ashworth’s motion. So what are the vehicles for sharing perspectives, communicating protest, yes, even, negotiating distance or separation, that might spare us a worsening of the situation and the further reduction of Christian relationship to vicious polemic and stony-faced litigation? As I have said before, it may be that the Covenant creates a situation in which there are different levels of relationship between those claiming the name of Anglican. I don’t at all want or relish this, but suspect that, without a major change of heart all round, it may be an unavoidable aspect of limiting the damage we are already doing to ourselves. I make no apology, though, for pleading that we try, through the Covenant, to discover an ecclesial fellowship in which we trust each other to act for our good – an essential feature of anything that might be called a theology of the Body of Christ.”

No, this is merely another speech that says “on the one hand, this, and on the other hand, that” and there’s no need to only quote the liberal bits in order to make it truly awful.  The thing that makes any speech of the ABC’s awful is not the “on the one hands” etc, but the fact that it simply does not matter what he says or does not say.

Just as a reminder, I’ll quote from my Lambeth Meeting predictions article:

First, we must recognize that the efforts to restrain the runaway stagecoach in which we reside—our province called TEC—on an international or national level have failed thus far, and look likely to fail further.

That does not leave out the possibility of help from elsewhere, but such help is quite unpredictable and essentially un-plannable.

That also does not mean that all people should ignore all international and national structures—but certainly our focus should not be there.

Second, what that means is that the more the Anglican Communion fractures and divides—the more the distances increase amongst the various warring factions holding different gospels—the more emphasis and focus will rightly accrue to the local, the congregational, and the regional.

It means that parishes and dioceses—or groups of laypeople and regional gatherings—become the area of focus and work.

A part of this natural focus is because we can simply effect change and renewal and reform in those places. Our efforts can yield results in many dioceses and parishes, either for strengthening the communication of the gospel in traditional places, reforming the communication of the gospel in weak places, or heightening the contrast of the two gospels—what Kendall Harmon calls differentiation—in corrupt, heretical places.

But no matter the context—strong, weak, or corrupt parishes or dioceses—the local, congregational focus and emphasis perforce is heightened greatly in the chaos and division that is to come.

Think of it a little like the ebb and flow of the small kingdoms in mediaeval Europe. As kingdoms fell or divided or shattered or formed new alliances, the focus on one’s own castle and town—the strengthening of the walls, the widening of the moat, the setting up of emergency signalling mechanisms, the oiling of the portcullises, the building of one’s army, the laying in of supplies—grows.

Think of your parish, or your diocese, or your networking group as a small castle in a world of chaos. And do what you can to build it and strengthen it, or to differentiate it from the worthy opponents surrounding you.

It is from that base of strength that new initiatives may spring. As a friend of mine shared with me, we must do the small things well while we wait for the larger events and the turns of tide and wind.

The third principle that I am working with is that there will be little further change on the international front and little prospect for pulling back together the various shards of the Communion while Rowan Williams still occupies the see of Canterbury. Please note carefully that I’m not blaming him for this conference or for other failures of the Communion as a whole—I don’t really believe that the blame lies on merely one person.

Nor do I necessarily know that a new occupant of the see of Canterbury would be able to pull the shards back together again.

Nor do I believe that the see of Canterbury is “irrelevant” or “unimportant.”

I merely say, as a statement of belief, that while Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Communion will essentially be in a “holding pattern” of increasing fragmentation and distancing among various groups. The trust that has been lost and continues to be lost prevents renewed closeness and connection as a whole within the Anglican Communion. It is sad, and I don’t like it. But it is what it is, and we need to understand and accept that as reality and work within that reality, or move on and join another denomination. That applies, actually, to those Primates and bishops of the Anglican Communion as well who are associated with GAFCON.

The fact is that no action has occurred that will cause the Anglican Communion to step back from the brink of fragmentation. There have been words—but no action as of yet—and I see nothing that causes me to believe that this time Rowan Williams will do the hard things necessary to call the Anglican Communion back.

The thing to do is to make the best of how things are now and work within how things are now, doing the small things well within our parishes and dioceses, while waiting for a turn of the tide and winds on the international front, if that turn is to come. If that turn never comes, then the Anglican Communion will continue to whirl apart—the center not only did not hold but it will continue not to hold. And thus, the Anglican Communion will continue to further fragment until all but the bare bones of the structure remain.

Of course, if that is to happen, we certainly will not have been hindered or damaged by doing the small things with great love and attentiveness. It will simply be done while in the midst of living out the consequences of the lack of discipline within the Anglican Communion.

Personally, I think Archbishop Moses Tay is the man for the job and the hour at Canterbury.  He is scripturally founded, loves Jesus, and palpably is indwelt by the Holy Spirit.  You’d have leadership then, not a reed blown about in the wind.

The Anglo-Catholics have been extended the middle finger of fellowship, and all but shoved out the door.  The Evangelicals have warned that the forthcoming approval of Female bishops will force them to set up alternative Anglican church structures, and reduce support.  The liberals are poised to charge forward with cries of “Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!”  And this is the best RW has to offer?  This is what Ruth Gledhill thinks to call a ‘powerful speech?’  RW has done little besides stand in the middle of enveloping chaos and bleat “Can’t we all just get along?”  You wish someone would grab him by the shoulders and say “No, we can’t!  The issues involved are essential.  They are worth dividing over.  The institution is less important than defending the Truth.  Choose a side!” 

carl

btw, if I were a church directly threatened by imposition of female bishops, I would respond to this speech by immediately halting all financial support up the chain of the CoE.  I would seek to create the most severe financial crisis I could possibly create.  Let RW and his bureaucratic minions see a very one-dimensional consequence to the upcoming actions of the Synod.  If they choose to show the traditionalists the door, then they can learn to live without traditionalist money - immediately.  Perhaps that consequence will cause them to re-think what they are doing.  If not, then there is nothing left to do.  Once this chain of events gets started, it will be impossible to stop.

carl

Sorry for the cross-post (from MCJ), but I wrote there that:

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Atkinson (oops, that’s Williams) has revealed himself to actually be Deputy Director John Wither of the N.I.C.E.

(I haven’t decided if KJS is actually Frost or Straik.)

Opinions? Is Canturbury going to suffer the same fate as Belbury?

Doug

I support the idea of withholding funds, however that leads to the closing down of local churches. Once the church is empty it is put on the real estate market and the proceeds go to herself.  I suspect that in these times, the proceeds from the sale of real estate is greater than donations, etc.  It is a win/win for TEC—they win and they win!

Every time I read a speech from this guy I smile secretly inside and nod my head. There is only one really appropriate, and very British, expression that I would like to reply with, it is three words in length and the middle word does NOT begin with F! But, I have heard my British friends use it many times and it seems to ring in my ears when I am reading the dribble of this ABC.

Wouldn’t three dimensional vision require one to have three eyes?

My companion attacks his friends; he violates his covenant. His speech is smooth as butter,yet war is in his heart; his words are more soothing than oil, yet they are drawn swords. - Psalm 55

Unless he repents, Williams will be named among the evil kings of Israel who led the people astray into worship of Baal and Molech.

Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little
Cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more…

Good night ladies…good night ladies…

Dear PageantMaster, When does RW’s tenure as ABC end?

When the fat lady sings, O Beat.

Perhaps one needs one of those sets of glasses with one red lens and one green for a three dimensional view?

Nice to hear from you, The Beat, we do not hear enough from you these days.

19.  Not soon enough!

lost, can you share that British expression in off-line email?  Or maybe Pageantmaster knows it…I’m not sure which expression you’re getting at. 

“I make no apology, though, for pleading that we try, through the Covenant, to discover an ecclesial fellowship in which we trust each other to act for our good”...

Oh, yeah, being in Communion with people like Kearon really makes for warm-fuzzies. 

carl, one can try the money(or lack of) solution in the C of E, but I don’t think the ACO cares…they’d probably just ask TEC to bail them out.  And TEC would do it, if the ACO does what IT wants.

I have no idea.

Lord hear my prayer…....

The debate over the status and vocational possibilities of LGBT people in the Church is not helped by ignoring the existing facts, which include many regular worshippers of gay or lesbian orientation and many sacrificial and exemplary priests who share this orientation.

Williams is prancing right on the edge of a cliff here, smugly confident that he is smarter than his listeners.  He says LGBT at the beginning of the sentence, then “gay or lesbian” in the middle, so when he talks about “many sacrificial and exemplary priests” does he mean LGBT or “gay and lesbian”? And when he says one can be “exemplary” and at the same time “share this orientation” he leaves himself room to claim that the “exemplary” ones are non-practising LGBT, but implies the opposite.

In my opinion, the church must discourage this sort of manipulative and slippery speech by focusing on what he is implying . If he thinks he has been misunderstood, he can issue a more clear statement - thus clarity will be served.

He is implying that one can be a practising bisexual priest and still be an “exemplary” priest. That is, you can have multiple sexual partners of both sexes, and still be an exemplary priest.  He is thus in one swell foop dumping the traditional Judeo-Cristian understandings of sexuality, marriage, fidelity, and monogamy. 

If I have misunderstood you, Archbishop, please clarify with a clear unambiguous statement that bisexual behaviour is sinful and thus not exemplary.

Wouldn’t three dimensional vision require one to have three eyes?

Perhaps one needs one of those sets of glasses with one red lens and one green for a three dimensional view?

Three dimensional vision is regular binocular vision, requiring only two eyes to see length, height and depth.  What you are describing is the tricks used to make a 2D image on a flat movie screen appear 3D.

#29 Hello Andrew A
vision from two points on a map allows one to judge distance in two planes, so with the eyes. You have the ability to judge in relation to an object, height, breadth and do some extent depth, but not width which would require yet a third point of sight in a triangle, and if these eyes were in the right position, you would see fully in three dimensions.  Consider the hologram.  Although it rotates, and thus one sees all of it eventually, at any one point one only has a representation of a flat surface from two viewpoints.  Three eyes give one the ability to see round the corners of the plane the other two do not in binocular vision.

I’ve been very busy doing 3rd world ministry, pageantmaster. Thanks for you reply. RW has sunk the office of the ABC.