Stand Firm

Here is a man who can’t seem to understand the plain meaning of Scripture on the morals of homosexual behavior; who rubs elbows with terrorists; and then has the gall to say things like this:

When it comes to U.S. foreign and economic policy, Rowan Williams’ is simply not a voice that’s listened to. But, he has before him a prime opportunity to strike a blow against one kind of American “imperialism”: He can tell the Episcopal Church that his church’s integrity on the matter of gay blessings and gay ordinations can’t be bought with American money. He could put his money where his mouth is. He could lead by example.

But he won’t, because he is a spineless, hypocritical, amoral buffoon. The sooner this church is rid of his “leadership,” the better.

Good grief. What has this man said? . . . “worse than Britain during its imperial heyday”—WHAT?

I’m sure that Britain did some amazingly wonderful things for its colonized subject countries, but I believe that the money and the slaves—unlike the case of the US and Iraq—flowed from the colonized to the colonizer.

I would be more than happy to cut all of our foreign aid and start spending it on refurbishing our borders. But somehow I don’t think that that’s what the ABC has in mind.

What he’d like is that we 1) allow terrorists to have free reign in our country, killing thousands on domestic soul, 2) yammer with the UN, 3) give a lot of money away, and 4) form a Lambeth Committee, I suppose.

It’s always embarrassing when religious leaders comment on matters of which they are inexpert—China, healthcare, Adam Smith, military strategy.

NT Wright does it all the time, and I’m always embarrassed for such a brilliant man in his own area commenting on matters which he knows very little of.

It’s a little like my waxing eloquent on flexible sigmoidoscopies or the practice of weaving in 12th century France.

Ah well . . . though I don’t agree with Williams on so much within Anglicanism, I appreciate reading him when he’s talking about something that he knows about.

And thankfully, what he says about foreign policy is not, I think, very meaningful to those setting foreign policy in any nation at all.

In the meantime, let’s amuse ourselves trying to find some American equivalent to the Opium Wars. That was surely a high point in the moral exercise of British Imperial Power.

I don’t know if he’s amoral, but I agree with the rest of your statement. Further, I give a 50-50 chance your wish (and mine) that Rowan’s tenure end will be granted by the end of 2008. Remember that I said that.

He seems to get his role backwards just a bit. He seems to think bashing U.S. foreign policy to a Muslim group is what he should be about instead of putting the Episcopal Church in its place and protecting the orthodoxy of the Anglican Communion.

By “amoral,” I mean “Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.”

If it weren’t for America, then Britain, France, and for that matter most of Western Europe would be speaking German and/or Russian right now, and eating spaetzle and/or borscht. Surely that can be counted - even by Rowan Williams - as a Good Thing.

America gives more to charitable organizations than any other country in the world. It supports the budget of the UN out of all proportion to its representation there, and in the face of rampant contempt from most other member nations.

The inability of Rowan Williams to consider the tremendous and tangible good done by America, with the vague descriptions of the bad he’s said it’s done, I believe can be described - charitably, I might add - as “amoral.”

BB linked to this interview last night and have been thinking about it. We, Yanks, have been trying to use our superpower status for a long time and get little credit for it. I think of the liberation of Europe and the Marshall plan and the defeat of the Japanese who committed such terrible atrocities in China. Yes, we have had disasters like Vietnam or Central America but unlike other countries (excepting Britain and Australia which have also been stalwarts), we are not afraid to shed American blood for the freedom of others. I was listening to an NPR report this morning on the Bosnian Serb conflict and was thinking back on how we were criticized for our intervention for the cause of the muslims there. (Of course, the NPR report gave no credit to the Americans.) There is an exhibit at the Holocaust museum in St. Louis. St. Louis has about 50,000 Bosnian refugees.

History will judge the Iraq war. The liberal press so soon forgets the chemical weapons used by Hussein. From more recent, level headed reports, Al-Qaeda has taken a military and public opinion beating.

In light of the usefulness and intellectual coherence of your “imperialist” statements, you might want to think seriously about keeping your day job.

I saw this link about 3 a.m. your time and I’ve been steaming ever since. Like so many leftists, this guy is stuck in the 60s, with a hefty overlay of British superiority complex and a woefully lacking knowledge of history—his own country’s!

I wish, rather than making outrageous comments on matters in which he has no expertise, he would turn his attention to doing something in the sphere in which he does have responsibility, which is the Anglican Communion, now crumbling around his feet.

Should we expect some lame semi-correction to come out of Lambeth? I won’t hold my breath. But I would like to know why we should listen to him since he demonstrates such profound understanding of “leadership.”

Rowan Williams has already proven his inability to make statements about a subject he does know something about. Witness the clarifications that follow some of his statements. Why should the world give him any credibility pertaining to a subject about which he knows nothing? Every time he opens his mouth an AC that isn’t necessarily tied to Canterbury becomes more attractive. Who wants to be led by an academic pawn?

It would be hard to find a (sane) person who is more critical of American foreign policy than I am, but this statement is absurd. Britain was the ultimate example of imperialism at its zenith; an empire on which it was said that “the sun never sets and the blood never dries.” The United States is exceedingly bellicose and militaristic, but it’s imperial endeavors have been limited. These have mostly consisted of supporting puppet governments in small third-world countries and then stepping in militarily when those puppet governments could not stand by themselves.

Very well said, my friend; couldn’t have said it better. What a joke for a “leader”................just remember, it could get worse when/if Charlie-boy becomes king! His comments, and kow-towing to the Muslims are infuriating….......not to mention his comments about the “imperialist” US…........

Have you ever noticed how, often, the more you do to try and help, or help, someone, the more they resent you??

I hope that Dr. Williams is not trying to appease the Muslims in Britain by attacking America. It is a craven strategy, but it has been known to work.

Gee, maybe the solution to Iraq is to export their wealth, steal their jewels and other national treasures, stamp out inconvenient religious sects, present the country to the emperor George as his personal property, make them speak English, and drink more gin. The White Druid thinks that this would be the more Christian thing to do.

Rowan’s recent outburst against the US reminds me to ask a small but telling question that’s nagged me for a bit: Who <actually> signs his paycheck, the Crown (read the P.M. Mr. Brown) or the CofE/Anglican Communion Office? If it’s the former, why isn’t he running the Anglican Communion rather than trying to be in charge of the Foreign Office? If it’s the latter, why isn’t he doing his freaking job? I mean, parishioners are leaving individual Episcopal churches by the gross, parishes by the dozens at a time, four dioceses are poised to cut ties, bishops jumping ship to Rome or other more friendly environs, lawsuits and presentments flying like birds heading south for the winter, clergy and their families are left, or threatened to be, without healthcare and/or pensions (subjects ostensibly dear to leftists trying to get into office) turning their very lives upside down, but noooooo, Rowan dithers…oh, and sucks up to Muslims? How long, Lord, before you rid us of this trifling cleric?

I hate for my first ever comment to be so out of tune with the majority but I have to side with the Archbishop. I can’t see the Jesus of the Gospels being on board with Bush’s Pax Americana. And while the comparison to imperial Britain may not be all that helpful to his overall point, +RW (with the pope and others) is right to call the US out for its current foreign/foreigner policies. I fear too many Christians in the US mistakenly assume their American citizenship is compatible (nay, almost identical!) with their Heavenly citizenship when, in fact, there is a very real sense in which these are probably best seen as mutually exclusive. At any rate, kudos Dr. Williams.

Dear Chipmonks,
Having hopefully read what I just wrote, don’t assume that I agree with US foreign policy. Even though I consider myself a GOPer, if I told you what I think of GB I would in all likelihood be banned from posting. My point is that Rowan is sticking his beard where it doesn’t need to be. When one’s house is on fire I find it most inappropriate and lacking a certain nuanced set of priorities to be concerned with what the neighbors are decorating their lawn with.

The crocodile might just eat him last now. Has there ever been a man less fit for his job and time than ++Rowan?

The rest of my response is a two-word Anglo-Saxon expression that would surely be caught in SF’s filters.

I was merely making a general comment with regards to the above and not necessarily in relation to your specific post, bjoyfull, but I appreciate the clarification nonetheless. If I may (unfairly) play on your metaphor, however, insofar as Christ as head of the Church is the King of the Universe, should his body entertain notions of boundaries with regards to its/his house and the troubles therein? (Surely I misread you to have analogically equated a preemptive war with the neighbor’s lawn art in this scenario) Indeed, I think the same go-it-alone mentality that we see in both the Bush administration and the TEC higher-ups is reflective of the same fundamental (American) problem, one which is rightly called into question by the global Christian community. We can discuss whether or not RW is addressing the various manifestations of that fundamental (American) problem evenhandedly, but he’s certainly right on its being incarnated in current American foreign/foreigner policy.

The reason America “goes it alone” (with Great Britain, it should be noted) is that the rest of the West has so perfectly gelded itself that it is incapable of going at all. Perhaps ++Rowan and you would prefer China spreading its form of government? Or maybe Saudi?

I’d go with the Spanish-American war. It was undertaken a) to provide coaling stations in the Pacific to allow the US Navy to (partially) compete with the Royal Navy in that area, but primarily b) to further an “open door” policy in Asia, meaning “the US gets its cut of the Chinese market even though the European mercantilists were there first.” This is the war, you’ll recall, where McKinley pointed out that it was our duty to “bring Christianity to our little Filipino brothers”, when in fact the Philippines had been predominantly Catholic for two centuries.

Anyone who expects consistently moral and upstanding behavior from political institutions has bought into the cardboard-cutout version of history so popular on the Left (including, of course, +++Rowan). I note that the ABC doesn’t mention Belgium in the Congo, Japan in Manchuria, Spain in the New World, the Soviet Union in the Caucasus, the Boer War, Muslim conquests anywhere at all, etc. etc. etc.

It is not, I suppose, surprising, but still somewhat discouraging that the good Archbishop doesn’t seem to have a firm grasp on the historic implications of the doctrine of Original Sin.

Brother Chip,
I do indeed sympathize with your point of religious leaders not having boundaries when dealing with real or perceived injustices in the world but that is not my focus here. My aim is set squarely on a man that has the power to do something about his own realm of RESPONSIBILITY but doesn’t LIFT A FINGER, yet, tries to use the powers of his office, that he won’t even exercise within his own domain, and gather, at least, some respect for his opinions before he sets his sights higher.

The pusillanimous old fraud also forgets that the Balkans wasn’t stabilized until the US did the job the Eurotrash refused to do. His comments about the role of the Christian church in this country are more of the typical cartoons and bumper stickers N. T. Wright and secular liberals are so unfortunately fond of. The sooner Anglicans are rid of this embarrassing joke of an Archbishop, the better.

“All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?” - Monty Python’s Life of Brian

Warning, these thoughts deserve a good copy editing but I hope they have some logical cohesiveness.

There are a number of things to be seriously annoyed at (okay, in honor of Sir Winston “at which to be seriously annoyed). In addition to the interview itself, and certainly more inflammatory, was the Times article. From the headline to the selected quotes the writer, Abul Taher, sought the type of sensationalism I thought was reserved to the Sun. Shame on the Times.

Shame also on ++Rowan. Katherine’s comment (above) “Like so many leftists, this guy is stuck in the 60s, . . . .” is right on the money. Even though the entire interview is less in your face than the newspaper’s hack job, his anti-American bias comes shining through. It is one thing he has in common with the loony left in the US Congress and with TEC’s ruling clique: hatred of the US and appeasement of those who would destroy it. What concerns me the most is Dr. William’s complete lack of understanding of 9-11 and by extension, his lack of concern for Great Britain’s security. Were he an American, I would put him in the category of those giving aid and comfort to our enemy. He might also be taken by the new PM. Mr. Brown’s politics seem a better fit for him than Mr. Blair’s.

Almost immediately after the story broke in the wee hours this morning, I posted a comment on the HOB/D listserv suggesting that it might be time for Dr. Williams to step aside. Several people responded on the list and to my email. The general consensus was that if Williams resigned or retired, the next likely ABC would be +Michael Nazir-Ali and how this would be a disaster and the end of the Anglican Communion. I agree it would be a disaster—for the rulers of TEC and ACC.

The good news (although not so good for me since I turn 65 in a couple months) is the hippies and flower children of the 1960s are now passing from power. The next generation of leaders in our church come from a more moderate times.

Reaching a bit, let me put forth this analogy: The situation in Anwar Province has turned around so dramatically that even the Arab press acknowledges it. Reason: the people on the street and in the shops had enough. I sense the beginnings of discontent among the good Christians who half-fill our pews and are not otherwise involved. The blatant behavior of TEC’s PB and her sycophants and the transmogrification of the rites and rituals of our worship have many people asking questions and seeking information from sources other than their bishops.

If this trend continues and flourishes; indecisive, appeasing, US-bashing Rowan Williams unwittingly will be remembered as one of the catalysts of change.

When this man was criticizing America with his mouth, did he still have his hand out for American money?

I wonder which, though, is worse: an imperialist or a wet noodle. At least imperialists have initiative, drive, and fire in their tail.

I was REALLY asking the question of any of you readers that may be knowledgeable about this: Who signs Rowan’s paycheck…er..a…stipend? Who actually pays this freeloading fraud?

Boy Rowan is the one of the worst lackeys and appeasers of Islamist and Muslim evil and imperialistic designs upon England and the rest of the west.He is nothing more than a dhimmi. Whether it is his inaction over the state of the Anglican Communion or groveling to Muslims , he is certainly one unimpressive embarrassment. May he resign and promptly shut the hell up. What a fool he insults the Us , while ignoring the real danger posed by Islam. The US is by no means perfect or beyond criticism,but these comments are really a big old,offensive,insulting,dishonest pile of (insert word here).

Yup, and we did a dynamite job of it for the Germans. The only minor quibble, of course, is that we were on the <a >wrong</a> <a >side</a>...

Brother Geek,
Sure, he boldly had his hand out. The ones writing the checks are the audience he’s appealing to…Trinity Church Wall Street, et. al.

It also occurs to me that, because of American “imperialism”(or is it “defense”), +++RW here is not obligated to make his comments in German.

I guess he’d better be hoping that Al Qaeda’s next target is not Lloyd’s of London or equivalent…

I can’t help but notice you’d rather bash us eeeevil imperialistic Americans than fulfill the responsibilities of your office to defend the faith and the church from apostasies and heresies. Now, don’t deny it. The Bishop of New Hampshire might as well deny he’s gay. It’s kind of hard to miss—imperialistic Americans are bad; heretic Episcopalian Americans . . . get invited to tea at Lambeth. Yeah, it’s that obvious.

But hey, I don’t blame you. Bashing eeeevil imperialistic Americans is more fun than dealing with heresy and apostasy.

Why not leave the Archbishopric of Canterbury and join The Guardian as an op-ed writer? There, bashing eeeevil imperialistic Americans is part of the job description.

Despite all the sound and fury, I haven’t yet read a single post which seeks to defend current US foreign policy. Only name calling and belittling comments. The opening salvo of epithets from a blog host is most discouraging, as it sets the tone for the commenters. This joint really is becoming more and more like that unnamed blog which demonstrates few Christian virtues. Can’t we do better?

If only he had said this with regard his area of expertise and the tragedy unfolding within his own domain, the undermining of marriage and the Bible:

With all due respect Bro.CT, this doesn’t seem to me to be the place for that. If that’s the type of discussion you’re looking for, I suggest you look to a secular blog…like Fr. Jake’s… or some place like that. We’re looking for Rowan to do SOMETHING for the orthodox in distress. The Titanic is going down and he can’t even summon up the sheet music for the orchestra.

Point taken, bjoyfull (though I tend to take +RW’s perceived inactivity as being active in a different direction). My initial reaction to your post, however, is to want to draw a contrast between the gravity of tens of thousands being killed in/by an unjust war (“just” wars being the figments of imperial imaginations) with international ecclesiastical politicking, but I can see why that might be a wrongheaded characterization of the latter pole. (Surely the pursuit of orthodoxy is an enterprise entirely separate from the will to power, right +Akinola?) My second reaction is to want to question what power +RW really has given the way many Common Cause bishops speak of diocesan autonomy and independence with regard to larger (geographical) ecclesiastical structuring, but that too may be a misguided way to proceed. My third reaction is to keep my initial two impulses to myself

and largely concede your general point, private caveats aside.

Greg, I am sorry indeed that in your personal frustration with the Archbishop of Canterbury (which many of us share) you allowed yourself to descend to such epithets. To me it looks like a contravention of the advice given at the bottom of this page, reminding us of Matthew 5:43-45.

At the same time I am saddened with you that the archbishop should feel so free to criticize US foreign policy while maintaining a studied silence on issues that directly affects the church of which he is a shepherd.

<blockquote> Despite all the sound and fury, I haven’t yet read a single post which seeks to defend current US foreign policy. <blockquote>

But I think that’s the point. Nobody is saying “What do you mean, US foreign policy is and always has been on the side of the angels!” They’re mostly saying:

1) “Big powerful countries frequently act badly. In fact, it’s impossible to name a big powerful country that HASN’T acted badly (some EXCEEDINGLY badly) and it’s hard to name a whole pile of small ones either (except as a function of being close to powerless.) Since England has been, historically, one of the badest, if an English person must criticize another country, they would do well not to do it in the context of comparing it unfavorably with their own history.

2) This guy is currently faced with a crisis of leadership of historic proportions. His overall performance appears to be dismal. Perhaps he should concentrate on showing the world the way to successfully resolve conflict before he begins to pontificate on other subjects.

Brother Chip,
Although you seem to believe that something (positive?) is afoot in the background, Rowan’s deafening silence reminds me of the guy who’s caught by his boss sleeping while on watch and when awakened simply says “Amen”. I won’t get into a discussion of just and unjust wars here other than to say that their is a myriad of opinion about this war that weave into and out of agreement with your stated position without enabling Muslimo-Fascist elements of our society and that of the Euro-Vichy’s . I am not suggesting for a nano second that you that you subscribe to that. I have strong political views but I also need to stop and pay the mortgage. We’re still talking about priorities here.

As the archbishop of Canterbury, he does have authority to call the Primates Meeting and rescind invitations to Lambeth. He could lead by example to stop the undermining and begin the restoration and preservation of “the foundations on which that society is built,”—the Bible and Marriage.

At the risk of appearing obnoxious about it, I repeat my earlier question in case someone out there knows the answer…who pays Rowan?

He is paid by the Church of England as authorized by the Commissioners of the Church. Last year he got a 2.7% raise.

Much of the money for Lambeth and other events comes from TEC and others but the C of E itself is not in dire financial straits.

He is appointed by the Crown from two candidates recommended by the Prime Minister.

In the same spirit that we remind folks how we can love our gay-activist brothers and sisters, while at the same time criticizing them, I would remind folks that I can criticize Rowan Williams while remaining true to Matthew 5:43-45. He is spineless (can’t bring himself to make the tough decisions needed to defend his church). He is hypocritical (derides the Bush administration’s “imperialism” while kowtowing to 815’s imperialism). In his apparent inability to evaluate properly the faults of the American government vs. the faults of various Islamic countries, he is amoral. And all of it taken together gives the overwhelming impression of someone not to be taken seriously, which is what a buffoon is.

That said, I love him as a brother in Christ, and I do pray for him. But none of that keeps from hoping that his tenure as the Archbishop of Canterbury comes to an end very, very soon.

Some American foreign policy is stupid - solicitousness of the Saudis, deference to eliminationist anti-semites in the West Bank, abandonment of Taiwan - but I seriously doubt ++Rowan was criticizing those policies. Which policies, in particular, are you speaking of?

Greg, could not agree more. Does he know nothing of D-Day and so much more American sacrifice to keep Europe free? Does he not know what/who brought the Berlin wall down? The only land this nation claims outside our boundaries are the graves of our dead heroes.

I suppose the reason he’s kissing up to the Muslim crowd is that no one in Rome will talk with a church leader who won’t condemn the TEC heresies. He is a joke and an embarrassment to the Anglican Communion.

Thanks for that Bob. That’s been one of those burning questions that’s constantly been at the forefront of my musings as I watch the ice in my scotch melt. I am usually pretty proficient at googling information like that but that one has eluded me until now.
Peace.

I don’t care to get into a long discussion of US foreign policy, although I believe that we did the right - albeit painful - thing in Iraq, flawed as it was in execution here and there. Wars are messy things. The important question is why they are fought, and what their long-lasting effects are.

I know that there are political conservatives here who disagree with me, and I respect their opinions. I know there are political liberals here who also disagree with me, and I respect their opinions too. There are perfectly good arguments against the Iraq war in particular, and the thrust of the Bush administration’s foreign policy in general, and they are worth hearing. I personally don’t agree with every detail of either, but by and large I’m happy with what the administration is doing. I believe much of the world - Russia, China, and hardline Islamic countries, for example - doesn’t want the administration’s policies to succeed for the simple reason that they’re not in those countries’ best interests. I believe that of those countries for which the administration’s policies are in their best interests, many of them - particularly in Western Europe - are so overrun with Muslims and so averse to conflict as to be happier doing the simple thing (appeasing radical Islam and slamming America) than the hard thing (standing up for western democracy and cultural values). At times like this - when America’s role over the last 90 years in ensuring the survival of Europe is forgotten, and America as a whole is belittled - I’m tempted to say, The next time Europe is faced with an invasion by a force that threatens its very survival, America should do nothing, and let Europe sink; but as I watch Europe’s steady slide into dhimmi-tude, I don’t have to wish for it… they’re doing it themselves. The ironic thing about it all is, there will almost certainly be a point at which Europe realizes that without drastic, immediate and overwhelming action, it will cease to exist as the world has known it for centuries; but there won’t be any country against which to declare war… no army against which to march… just a slow, final death about which no one will be able to do a thing.

bjoyfull,
I do hope it’s only a small cube or two melting in your whisky.
Bob the uisge-beatha snob. ;>}

Personally, I do not have any substantial problems—either moral, ethical, or political—with the history of British Imperialism. On balance, I think that the Brits did rather a good job of keeping large areas of the globe relatively stable and of elevating the economic and intellectual well-being of many, if not most, of the people who lived within the British Empire. Yes—obviously—they did some stupid things and caused a fair measure of grief, at times, along with the good that they did. But, as scholars such as Nial Ferguson have rather decisively pointed out in numerous books, overall, the British colonial record (and the post-colonial history of the nations that comprised the British Empire) is pretty impressive. So, to say that America is somehow “worse” than the Brits is not such a bad thing, in and of itself, as far as I am concerned… Having now said this, I must also say that it is not at all clear what the ABC means when he employs a very loose and nebulous term like “imperialism.” This guy, when he was first given the job at Lambeth Palace, was sold to us as being some sort of “scholar.” It is increasingly clear to me that his academic credentials conceal some areas of very sloppy and decidedly uncritical thinking.

[url=“http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTliNzFlYzk0YWE2OTk5MjU1MWI0NWVhMjc5Nzk0NDI=”] has joined the fray.

This is further evidence that he is sees the world through the same lense as TEC’s leadership, who to a person would agree with the gist of his comments.

One can certainly make a reasonable argument that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, although the end of that story has yet to be written. But his article suggests something much deeper, a bitter resentment at conservatives in the US, and a “all paths lead to heaven” desire to blur the distinctions between Islam and Christianity.

Nevertheless, I am sure someone, somewhere, will post a story indicating that these comments are yet another part of Rowan’s super-secret plan to rescue the orthodox in the US.

bjoyfull, I’m not sure how productive this will be but, yes, I wonder about the unspoken and purposeful positives that are active in +RW’s inactivity. And in terms or “priorities” and the need to “pay the mortgage,” while I think priority language confuses the moral/ethical issues with regard to the act and the good, insofar as Christians have “priorities,” speaking out against injustice is near the top of the list. Most of the global Christian community seems (rightly) to be in agreement that American foreign/foreigner policies are unjust and have, like +RW, spoken to that effect. In terms of the alleged injustices within the current Anglican Communion (I’m not denying their existence with the term “alleged” as much as I’m indicating the multifarious locales of such as have been assigned), things seem less clear cut - at least to some of us. I realize that most folks on this site would claim greater clarity than I have at present but I think it might explain the perceived (non)enactment of +RW’s “priorities.” In short, American imperialism is obviously unjust and fairly easy to call into account; the current justice crises in the Anglican Communion seems less clear-cut (to me and I suspect +RW, as well) requiring different strategies and more delicate handling. I imagine it is on this point where I can expect to get punched in the electronic eye, but there you have it.
The other side to my thinking here is one that has a keen (to be punched) eye out for which parties/groups/individuals within the Anglican Communion seem driven by issues of (or, perhaps better, to operate by means of) power and those willing to be led to the proverbial cross. In other words, what does/should Christlike pacifism (the means to the kingdom!) look like amongst ordained Anglicans and who’s living it out in this situation? This will no doubt get me punched in my other electronic eye, but I wonder if +RW is doing the best job so far? That’s woefully too short, too ambiguous, and too provocative

a notion to flesh out at the moment but it might to some degree help clarify my approach to the above.

I always considered Dr Williams a coward and inept bureaucrat but now I can add blithering idiot and embarrassment. Tell me again how astute he is and how, in the end, he will come through for the traditional Church if we are just patient and I will tell you another fairytale with a bad ending. May the ending to this farce be soon.

Perhaps the US should remember that when the British are needing another dose of lend-lease in the next set-to or the next time Islamists try to bomb subways or planes there.

I think he’s a good and godly man. The headline to the article is rather unfortunate. His actual remarks were somewhat milder than the report would lead you to believe.

However, he may wish to restrict himself to ecclesiastical matters in the future. I think everyone who is familiar with current events would agree that he has more than enough to keep him busy within his own area of responsibility.

Victor Davis Hanson’s essay gets a link from the #1 conservative/libertarian blog, <a >Instapundit</a> who labels the ABC “risible.”

While by no means a thorough-going “defense of current US foreign policy” (with which I have plenty of disagreements), I invite you and other SF commenters to check out my response here.

I understand the real anger in response to the Times article, but think that an injustice has been done to the ABC - if you read that actual article of what he actually said it bears little or no relationship to what the Times wrote. The actual interview is here and can be read by increasing the size of the pane if it is too small:
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/arch2.pdf
alternatively Ruth Campbell has it quoted on her blog here:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/11/why-we-should-a.html
Read what he actually said rather than the comment - it is not what the Times has reported.

Baby Blue sees rightly that ++Rowan, somewhere in his response, is probably conflating the arrogant attitude of the American Episcopal Church with the American foreign policy of the last few years. She and we should recognize that there would be some justice in his conflation of them; there is a national “family likeness” in the unilateral and duplicitous way the administration leaders and the 815 leaders deal with the rest of the world. This parallel has been mentioned by others in the Communion, including the Global South. Even so, it is surprising if ++Williams does not recognize the evils of British imperialism (he has at times spoken of them to condemn them); it is surprising, too, that he does not mention any of the many things America has done during and after the two great wars to stabilize Europe. But notice that his whole interview is much more nuanced than the news article makes it sound.

Still, I can not help quoting Dr. Michael Poon, Convener of the Global South Education and Formation Track, in Singapore. The author of such excellent papers as “Heart of Darkness” (about the hollowness of the New Orleans statement) and “The Long Road to Full Inheritance,” he knows who the “imperialists” are and certainly doesn’t find either America or Britain prefereable: “. . . the Secretary General [of the AC] and some Anglican leaders both left and right wing should let go of their patronising attitude. . . . They should stop using Africa, Latin America and Asia as a battle field to further their own interests. . . . [T]hose who have money dictate the listening processes by organizing meetings and shaping opinions at their own whim. America and Britain are still acting like huge vacuum pumps that suck up the brains and treasures from the rest of the world, and impoverish it further by their financial machineries. . . . I think America and Britain need to be more critical of the empire building attitude that is endemic to the present structures [of the Church/Communion].”

I will also quote the late Fr. Adrian Hastings, RC theologian in England and Africa, about the American Church’s influence on global Christianity: “What none of us anticipated . . . was that the gravest nationalist threat to Christianity by the late twentieth century might come from the United States, essentially a rehash of the traditional Christian imperialism of western European countries. It is just the latest example of a self-appointed ‘chosen people’ carrying forth a gospel message reshaped by its own values and bonded to its own political expansion.”

Bro. Chip,
I appreaciate your dedication to pacifism (at one time I was a Seventh-day Adventist) and I clearly see the moral/ethical issues you bring up when Christians discuss war. But here’s what I mean by priorities: I had to take a little break from this thread to take care of some necessary chores requested of me by my dear, long suffering wife. How far do you think I would get by using the argument “Sorry my love, I am discussing the future of the Anglican Communion and the “just war” theory. Priorities, my man, priorities.

Ha, ha, bjoyfull. I know what you mean. This would get us waaay off topic but my challenge to “priorities” as a means of navigating moral action is only because I approach such questions from a far more Thomistic, virtue-based mentality. I’m not sure how much background to include here but I think a virtue ethic does a better job overcoming the difficulties inherent to the more linear, compartmentalized “priorities” approach to moral action. Again, that’s way too far afield of what we’re doing here but that’s basically what I’m after with my immediately previous post. I’m right there with you on the virtue of keeping one’s wife happy, though!!

I read both of your links, Pageantmaster, and I fail to see anything that would mitigate what has been posted, and pilloried, here and elsewhere. I’m of the same mind as David Fischler, above.

Where was ++Rowan’s commentary on Abu Ghraib when it was under Uday’s management?

From God’s ear at the MCJ to here:
I prefer to read this in the postmodern sense in which it is a critique of the actions of the imperialistic and power-mad ECUSA/TEC running roughshod over the Anglican Communion. The parallels are striking. Since the Derridan approach requires that the reader bring to the text life experience (as opposed to the old fashioned notion that one engages the author’s experiences in the story told) and since the Anglican Communion is reeling over the actions of ECUSA/TEC and its persistence in Politburo style administration and dealings with subjected peoples, this is not at all difficult or strenuous. Merely imagine that oil equals homosexuality, the wall in Bethlehem the non-gay agendites resistance, and the Islamic suicide bombers (wait, those got left out)... . You get the metaphors I’m sure, so I won’t belabor them. Of course, Britain here becomes the OT People who did not do as they were instructed with the consequences of this being borne by the abandoned colonies and Israel (of course a metaphor for the faithful Anglican remnant).... Ah yes, wonderful what can do with texts if one really, REALLY wrestles with them.

Greg, I’m not too far off from your most recent comment above. And I agree, this isn’t the best forum for a detailed analysis of foreign policy. I think we can generally support our nation’s goals and policies, and still admit to specific shortcomings that need to be addressed.

Touching on bjoyfull’s reponse to me, my issue here is not to disagree that there are grounds for disappointment with the ABC’s handling of the Communion crisis. It’s just that the article in question is about the ABC’s perception of USA foreign policy, and most of us are not debating that story; we’re simply using it as an excuse for rude behavior on an unrelated topic. Criticizing his unwise expression of a malformed opinion might make us feel better, but it’s less helpful than actually correcting or countering his misperception. JMHO.

Since my English teacher mother is glaring down at me from heaven, I need to point out that the Balkans weren ‘t stabilized.

Well, it only took about 30 minutes for someone to suggest this article is really a subliminal retort to TEC revisionist practices!

This criticism of American foreign policy, and understatement of the differences with Islam, are directed at American conservatives. It could have just as easily been written by Schori.

Bro. Chip,
My linear and compartmentalized reasoning for priorities has served me well over the years, being the simple country armchair theologian that I am. Rowan’s inaction affects me personally as I have had to leave a TEC parish where I love everyone dearly because of the spiritual harlots that are completely and irreversably in control the House of Bishops, General Convention and 815. To draw yet one more comparison: Let’s say there is a traffic accident and I am a doctor. Rather than treating the wounded I stop to talk to the gathering news media about the Right to Life. It seems to me that I am demeaning the very subject I want to bring attention to the world by ignoring those within my reach to help. That’s my take on “priorities” (being the simple country armchair theologian that I am).

I thought of the implied criticism of TEC’s imperialism last night but would ask: HOW ABOUT CRITICIZING THEM DIRECTLY AND NOT IN SUBTLE, NUANCED LANGUAGE, YOU DITHERING OLD TWIT! Sorry ‘bout the shouting, but had to get that off my chest.

Whether or not his words are meant to criticize the TEC, they are certainly meant to criticize American foreign policy. I don’t think anyone can beat David Fischler’s essay found here for its plain and stinging rebuke. A couple of excerpts:

Funny how the Archdruid can spout off like this about U.S. foreign policy (a field in which, as far as I can tell, he has no expertise) but getting him to make any kind of definite statement about the crisis in his own church is like pulling teeth.

Robroy,
Your assessment is so true. If Rowan is using subliminal criticism to slap TEC around, he’s a dithering idiot. If they can’t understand the plain language of the Global South Primates, what makes anyone think they will respond to Freudian Foggery? The suggestion that he’s “sending a message to TEC” is nonsense. Pure poppycock.

bjoyfull and other re: +++RW’s rant: Actually, he will endear himself to the ultra-libs in TEC and has already offended the orthodox. Is this mission accomplished?

But I do think that the headline and paraphrases of the article in the Times serve to set an overdramatic tone.

Also I’m all with Greg on the spineless and the buffoon part. But I think of “amoral” as somebody like Bill Clinton—who is not able to perceive the difference between right and wrong, hence his ability to lie with fresh-faced innocence.

But I do not think that Archbishop Williams is innately amoral. That is a dreadful characteristic for a human being, and I only think that there are a few people who are really amoral.

I know that I’m not really stirring in my defense. But in the interests of fairness, I present what I can.

Or . . . I would have been interested to hear, for instance, his thoughts on just war theory and the criteria for deciding that.

But I do not think him capable of really commenting with much sense on foreign policy or . . . apparently . . . British history. I just feel bad for him. He has truly made a buffoon of himself.

Yeah, but I’ll bet you didn’t do so while serving as titular head of one of the world’s largest Christian communions, Sarah.

or while ignoring evrything else swirling around you in your own “home”, Sarah.

I would have been interested to hear, for instance, his thoughts on just war theory and the criteria for deciding that.

Why does anyone rational want to be ‘in communion’ with Canterbury with folks like Rowan running the zoo? Anyone who calls him or herself a ‘conservative Anglican’ and wants to be ‘linked’ to this Canterbury cookoo needs to some new birdseed.

WarrenInSC… Being in communion with Canterbury used to mean something to me. How long ago that all seems to me now. But now I am in the AMiA and I am happily in communion with the Church in Rwanda… Quite apart from everything else, it appears fairly obvious to me that God is a LOT closer to the people of Africa than He is to some smug intellectual lightweights in the UK.

Not to sound flippant, but for me, it’s because Canterbury isn’t ++Rowan, and Anglicanism is more than what one aging Brit hippie thinks about US foreign policy.

I for one have to agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury 100 percent. The US has been an absolutely terrible imperialist. When push comes to shove we lose our nerve; classic imperial trademarks of draconian sentences, death camps, depopulation, indiscriminate use of force…the US just doesn’t have the stomach for it. I mean, oh sure, from time to time we get a let crazy but we usually end up full of self-loathing (Vietnam, anyone?)...but I mean for the real challenges, like the French in Algeria, the British in Malaya and South Africa, the Russian in Chechnya, the Belgians in Congo, the Dutch in the East Indieas or even the Sudanese in Darfur we’re just really not up to the challenge. I mean seriously, Saddam Hussein did a better job than we did.

(If you can’t take the joke, please just move on…otherwise, I hope this was a nice diversion.)

I agree with NWotN, and point also to 1 Tim 5:1. Greg, would talk to your father like that, even if you disagreed vehemently with him?

Slip of the keyboard…I meant to write, “would you talk to your father like that…”

bjoyfull,
I hope you didn’t take offense at my critique of the “priorities” approach to moral theology. Basically my only problem with priority ethics versus virtue ethics is that, in the midst of any given situation, the former asks, “What am I most obligated to do here?” whereas the latter asks, “What kind of person do I want to be in, through, and as a result of this?” I don’t think priorities are bad or ethically sterile - it’s just that, following St. Thomas, I think the virtue approach is both more productive and holistic. Whatever keeps your marriage running smoothly and keeps you helping those accident victims is fine by me, though.

I do wonder, however, if +RW is taking a similar (virtue) approach to the current Anglican crises and/or how things might look if all sides did (likewise/in the first place). It seems as if the terms of the debate are largely ones of law and obligation (to human dignity, to biblical imperatives, to historic orthodoxy, etc.) as opposed to communal spiritual formation and virtue.

I just want to know where is that cheap oil Bush and Chaney went to Iraq to get? rwkachur is right. We just don’t have the knack. As General Powell told the ABC about out “imperialism” the only land we got was what we buried our soldiers in. Probably paid someone for that, too.

Thank you Mick—I remember when that came out. Now see . . . even if I don’t agree with certain aspects of the theology of Rowan Williams, I do believe that he is competent to speak about theology and just war theory.

Bro. Chip,
Absolutely no offense taken. You’re just expressing where your heart is. That’s called intellectual honesty in my book. But my ethical priorities are arranged like Triage…“for God sakes Rowan, use the tourniquet before we lose the patient!!!!!”

I think the “best” imperialists were the Mongolians under Genghis Khan and Obedei Khan. They whooped on pretty much everybody and invented Mongolian Barbecue which is really delicious and better that McDonalds.

Greg, I hope that you have never resorted to the same kind of name-calling in your disagreements with our gay-activist brothers and sisters.

Mr Goodrich,
I half-expected someone to trot out the Contra canard, but never would I have dreamed someone would offer up the Spanish-American War. The Opium Wars were initiated by Britain to secure trade in opium over the wishes of the Chinese Government primarily because the British budget had become so dependent upon opium revenues. The British routinely fought ‘battles’ against a medieval opponent in which the British took no casualties. Whatever your opinion of the Spanish-American war, it does not begin to approach the level of opprobrium deserved by the Opium Wars. That you have to reach so far demonstrates the weakness of your case - and not coincidentally, Williams’ case as well.

I should add that if you follow the link to the Times above you will see that this story was the “most read” in the Times today.

More from His Grace of Twaddle. Will he be next to claim being both Christian and Moslem? We know what kind of Christian he is—is he a believer in Islam or does he just pander to it?

Thanks for the link—and congrats to Katherine for making the Guardian. And poor Bates. Even when he leaves the religion beat, he writes stories about Rowan Williams.

Also, an interesting defense (sic) by Lambeth Palace: this is not news; he’s said it many times before.

Interesting link, Pageantmaster! The Guardian actually quotes from a comment on TitusOneNine:

ABC speaks plainly only when answering questions on a topic he knows nothing about. Oh, but I shouldn’t assume he knows anything about the COE or AC which the liberal politicians appointed him to lead. There has been no evidence of that.

This isn’t the place for defending the policy of the United States in Iraq, but if it were, I would. There are so many positive things going on there because of the intervention of the United States, but one almost needs to have one’s own on-the spot-witnesses to pass along the good news, so biased is the media about reporting only the bad. Thankfully, I do have a few such witnesses.

Remember, except for defeating slavery, fascism, Nazism, and communism, nothing has ever been accomplished by war.

As noted previously, Rowan Williams is spouting his embarrassingly ignorant comments in English rather than German, thanks to what he so absurdly calls “American Imperialism.”

It’s not really fair to beat up the Europeans over World War II in all this. Not that they don’t deserve it. But “American Imperialism” is simply a liberal code word for American Unilateralism. Europeans are uncomfortable with American power when it is beyond their control. They want the Americans to maintain that power. They simply want to be able to tell us when and where and how to use it. Bosnia good. Iraq bad.

That is ultimately the basis for the European rejection of the war in Iraq. Being weak (and by any modern military measure, Europe is pathetically weak) Europe seeks to cast military action in terms of the enforcement of International Law, and not sovereign national interest. The former (hypothetically) would give the Europeans considerable influence they would otherwise not possess. Unfortunately, this also gives Europe an interest in seeing the American effort in Iraq fail.

++Rowan Williams has actually written quite a bit about the right of the Jewish to their homeland. Those who say otherwise are not fair to him, nor was the Times at all fair to him. (In the interview, he actually said fairly little about America and was not basically talking about imperialism, anyway.) Of course the militant, apocalyptic Zionist movement he references is not the same as the body of people who support Israel. Here are passages from just two of his sermons that refer to Israel as the promised land and to its people as chosen people, the “covenant people.”

“Israel’s hope was always and invariably a hope for return, return to the Land. When at various times in the twentieth century suggestions were made about the creation of a ‘Jewish Homeland,’ a good number of possibilities were considered in Africa, Asia, and America. But for the Jews there could be only one serious proposal. The Land given to them is the land they must return to. Anything else is a nonsense. Jews are not Jews without their history, and they have no history apart from the memory of the Land and the hope of Return. . . . Israel cannot deny her memory, her past, without denying her God, without suggesting that God is not faithful. Land and covenant, earth and history are the stuff of God’s speaking to his people. It is Zion that will be vindicated.”
(“Building Up Ruins,” in the collected sermons)

“In the old Jerusalem, the heart of the city was the Temple, and the heart of the temple was the throne, the *kapporeth,* or mercy-seat—the empty space above the Ark of the Covenant, between the golden cherubim. It was the most potent sign of Israel’s repudiation of idols, the great speaking absence between the images. In the middle of the life of the covenant people is the space where God is. To go and see God in Jerusalem is to look at the curtained holy place and know that behind it is the space from which mercy and promise come forth, the “help from the sanctuary” and the “answer from heaven” referred to in the psalms. . . . In the new Jerusalem, however, there is no temple because its temple is the Lord God and the Lamb. . . . Jesus is our holy place.”
(“Holy Space”)

These are not isolated quotations but standard language in the sermons. I posted them on another thread but see that they are most relevant here. Some nonsense and unfounded speculation has resulted from the Williams interview, and—EVEN as discouraged as I am with the Archbishop on other grounds—it is important to see his own thinking. Of course, he is right to defend the Christians in Palestine—and any innocent Palestinians—as strongly as he can; and that doesn’t negate his regard for Israel. Doesn’t anybody read his books? The passages quoted are in the book _A Ray of Darkness: Sermons and Reflections_ (Cowley Publications, 1995).

Woohoo! Thanks to those who pointed out my quotation in the Guardian. Is this my fifteen minutes of fame?

Dr. Williams suffers from a category confusion which afflicts many on both the right and the left. In American terms, the Church is not the State and vice versa.

The USA is a sovereign nation and is permitted to take actions which it deems to be in the interests of its own security. I was at home in the US during the run-up to the Iraq action. I watched all the speeches and read the news reports. Our government made extensive and prolonged efforts to persuade the UN to live up to its stated principles with respect to Iraq. We were prevented by nations (France, Germany, and Russia) which had strong financial interests in the Saddam regime and which were in some cases up to their eyeballs in the Oil for Food scam. We took action after it became clear that Old Europe is incapable of acting in its own best interests or in the interests of international security. Certainly responsible people can disagree with US policy, but we had the right to do what we did. What died was the twentieth-century faith in the League of Nations/United Nations ideal. It doesn’t work.

What TEC is doing is the exact opposite. TEC is, on paper, not a sovereign entity, but a constituent member of an international church. It does have a responsibility not to act without the agreement of the church universal. What we are seeing is that TEC considers itself a sovereign church which can do what it pleases without any authority from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church it claims to belong to.

In short, and the irony is rich, the leadership at 815 is behaving just like Bush, except he had the right to do what he did, and they don’t!
And while we may or may not regret the death of the UN ideal, according to our political leanings,as Christians we should all be devastated by TEC’s actions to undermine the concept of the church universal.

OK, with scewballs and nuts like ++Rowan and +KJS in charge can someone remind me why I want to be in communion with Canterbury?

It’s over. The pagans have control of the AC, its time to move on, let the apostate die and get on with the business of worshiping GOD.

News Flash: Rowan admits responses to interview questions are part of a strategy to gain large groups of converts from Hollywood, California.

John Chilton has a nice summary of reactions to Williams’ comments at Episcopal Cafe. My favorite is former UN Ambassador John Bolton: Williams should “concentrate on his day job.”

I wonder if +++Cantuar realizes that the only reason that he is not the head of the National Socialist Anglican Communion is that America stepped outside the comfort of its own borders and saved Britain from certain defeat at the hands of Germany.

And let’s not ever forget that our old friend Adolph Hitler did not invent the Concentration Camp. He “borrowed” that idea from the British in the Boer War.

It seems to me there is plenty of Imperialism to go around. But as far as I know, we are not actively incarcerating women and children, burning down fields supplying food, burning down houses of noncombatants, nor plundering anyone’s diamonds, gold, or oil, for that matter, at this point in time.

So, I would venture to advice our delightfully fence-sitting ABC to perhaps read a bit more history.

Yes he should, but if his time as ABC thus far is any indication of his future leadership skills and effectiveness, maybe he should concentrate on something else…...before the Anglican Communion self-destructs.

For those who might be interested in an imperial whimsy on how the British taught the Indians how to play cricket, I recommend the delightful film <a >Lagaan</a>.

What a pity that the Archbishop of Canterbury did not affirm his heritage and give the interview in Welsh.

In the interests of full disclosure and scrupulously punctilious honesty, you should have referred to the emphasized procedure as “allegedly-flexible sigmoidoscopies.”

MA—I believe that the word “flexible” is meant to describe what the patient is supposed to be like, not the actual sigmoidoscopy itself.

Can you please explain to me why you, as a self-professed “whisky snob,” would not consider the presence of ice in one’s Scotch whisky (as opposed to whiskey) to be heretical in the extreme, if not constituting provable apostasy? The accepted standard for tasting† within the Scotch whisky industry is 20 per cent abv, achieved by the addition of “still” (i.e., non-carbonated) water, always at room temperature. This is as true for the tasting malt whiskies as it is for blended malt or blended Scotch whiskies.

Blessings, regards and Sláinte mhath,
Martial Artist (SMWSA Member #6018), Friend of Laphroaig, Companion of Aberlour, Friend of the Classic Malts, but, sadly, not yet a Keeper of the Quaich.

—”The common belief that whisky improves with age is true. The older I get, the more I like it.”—[Ronnie Corbett]

————————
†—tasting: a term of art in the whisky blending profession that actually consists primarily of inhaling the aroma of the cratur via the nose, with the mouth opened slightly. The whisky to be tasted is usually held in a glass, typically a sherry copita having a narrow-mouthed tulip shape supported on a stem, which latter is the only part of the glass contacted by the hand of the “taster.” A small quantity of the whisky may also be taken into the cupped forward part of the tongue and held there for ten to fifteen seconds before flattening the tongue to allow the whisky to circulate more freely in the mouth. The degree of perceived “heat” on the tongue is a measure of the length of time the whisky has been aged. Upon completion of the assessment of aromas, seeking for associations to other aromatic substances, the whisky is usually expectorated into a provided bucket. Tasting is also sometimes more accurately referred to as nosing.

BTW, how many “unique” visitors has SFIF had? And what is the ASA (Average SITE Attendance) on a weekly basis. IOW, Sarah and gang just might qualify for their own diocese. Hmmmmm. Diocese of the Internet. Just a thought…....

And for Katherine - Congrats on your 15 minutes of fame. Somehow Sarah might retain the title as she was mentioned by THE William F. Buckley in the NEW YORK TIMES for crying outloud. So to be mentioned is great, to mentioned by WFB earns more points.

As far as the +ABC’s comments… Well, if he witnessed the love of Christ to the reporter he was doing his job. By the tone of the article, especially at the end, it was evident that he had earned at least some of the writer’s respect though it seemed the writer was expecting a caricature of Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert, Billy Graham and Bill Clinton rolled into one. Speaking about the US as he did, he came across to us as well beyond his competence. Do we blame him for taking a diversion??? Nope. It’s easier to give advice to others than dealing with your own issues. Just hoping the mess will go away while he’s not looking—you know, like Thanksgiving dishes.

As in the Anglican wars, the little guy (us wee citizens) will never hear about all the events and battles behind the scenes. And the news is censored. News about terrorism in Europe was censored over here in the States 20 years ago - do ya think it’s less now?

America has been attacked by terrorists - on more than one occasion. Europe has had the same displeasure although not in the same magnitude. The Kurds were gassed. Is that a weapon of mass destruction? If so, it existed. How did Chemical Ali get his name? Someone wanna help us out on that? Point being there were good reasons (some will read excuses - so be it) for the Iraq war. Some were bad. Whenever humans are involved, expect imperfect results…unless you’re a Democrat in power. (Then, apparently, you walk on water and not even perjury can touch you.)

BUT if you do go to war, go to WAR to WIN. Once the vote was passed to go to Iraq, every single politician should have been behind whatever it took to get the job done. Instead of making it another Vietnam, or another empty promise to people who put their trust in us and whom we then fail. If we as a country cannot or will not do this, we have no business trying to be the world’s policeman/principal. If we are unwilling to fight the battle with all of our might, we need to just stay home. There are many Iraqis thanking us for being there. How about a vote from the people. US stay or go? Leave it up to them? What do they need and what do they think will work? Novel concept.

Where do you want to fight the war on terrorism? Here in this country? Or where the terrorist came from? Are they from Georgia? NY? California? If they were/are - why don’t they just run for office and change years of tradition and law democratically(works for TEC, too!) You only need a bomb or an airplane if you want to breed fear. We’ve been very blessed as a country. It’s not a matter of “if”, but “when and how” another attack will happen (or already has but you haven’t been informed by CNN). Because some people think it’s perfectly fine to kill others. They don’t have the same values. Personally, we’d rather it be on their turf and not ours.

The mistake the US makes is assuming that everyone in the world believes or wants our values. They do not. They want the fruit of our labor, but not what it takes to provide it. (Sound familiar?) Fear is a powerful motivator. Terrorists would be nothing without it. The last “successful” war was WWII. Because we fought to win the war at all costs and were unrelenting. Wars are won when one force convinces the other side that fighting is not beneficial or productive. Had we gone into Iraq with the same all or nothing mentality that the terrorists are employing the war likely be over. We’d be afraid of sticking our necks out, too, with as limp as the support that’s coming out of the US as a whole - and quite a few commenters on this site included.

America is/was at her finest is when we put others ahead of ourselves. It’s a Christian philosophy. Along with “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This philosophy is no longer “politically correct” and it’s why America is in the state she is in now. America is spoiled. We have a short attention span and we whine because we don’t get immediate results. The next time you see a child badgering a parent for a toy or candy in a store and see the parent give in - now that represents America and how her politicians have fought wars since WWII.

We need to either fully commit to the Iraq war or get out and be fully prepared for the backlash that will come. And it will. From the Iraqis and around the world in the days, months, years and decades if not centuries to come. And then go stick your head in the sand, clay or beach for any problems worldwide in the future. Because by pulling out and abandoning the Iraqis, the US will have lost any right to have a say in anything in the world again. But some people would love that.

+Rowan as an “amoral buffoon”? The man ain’t perfect, but if he’s that, so are any number of Saints.

Please excuse me if I dart in to say this, but I cannot for the life of me understand how it is useful to so badger one of the great living theologians of the Church (and by God’s grace a holy bishop, whether at the right time or not). Call him wrong, but call him an “amoral buffoon” at your soul’s peril.

I’m not sure blaspheming the ABC will earn one a seat on the Beelzebub Express, but we weren’t pillorying his theology, but his clownish attempts at foreign policy criticism.

Sam Keyes (or perhaps Jeffersonian) or ANYONE…
Rowan has some “Bully Pulpit” and influence for great leadership and could make a difference for Christianity in the world.
CAN you LIST for me the world class achievements from his office? NOT obscure stuff known by a few intelectuals BUT things which change things… world things? (A LA Billy Graham, or others, such as starting Universities, etc…)

First time I’ve been able to load this long thread in 24 hours ..Lakeland Two, being mentioned by WFB definitely trumps being quoted in the Guardian, so Sarah wins, as usual.

Some of you may be interested that David Virtue has a very stimulating response today to the interview by ++Rowan Williams about America.

In an article called “Disconnectedness Marks World Anglican Leaders,” he says, “What is remarkable about Williams’ interview is not that he shouldn’t comment on the world scene. He has every right as the world leader of 56 million Anglicans to do that, or that we should all agree or disagree with his statements. The problem is that Archbishop Williams is pontificating on this subject when his own Anglican household is in such trouble.” Virtue does not reject all of the Archbishop’s points out of hand, either, but considers them one by one:

“Many Christians, not to mention American Episcopalians, might agree with Williams’ assessment of U.S. current foreign policy initiatives and failures. There has been a massive swing, in recent elections, away from America’s current policy on the occupation of Iraq, coupled with a genuine fear that Bush might go to war with Iran. . . .

“We are not fools. That’s why we have elections. Not all of us have a Dispensational, pre-millennial theology that demands the world get worse in order for Jesus to return. . . .

“Furthermore, many of us (Episcopalians) do not equate the Kingdom of God with America. We are a generous people given to helping people once a war is over. The US bailed out Europe with the Marshall Plan after WWII. We have, over the years, poured billions of dollars into Africa, most of which have been stolen by tin pot African dictators,while still millions pour in now to counter the AIDS pandemic. England has no equivalent of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.”

He adds, “Williams is right to say that Western modernity is “eating away” at our souls.”

+++ABC’s response @ Teddy Bear incident.. (Snarkster above)
Apparently his little ‘talk’ to the magazine was not condemning or apologetic enough.
By the way - is it two of three ‘plusses’ ++Rowan or +++Rowan etc. I’ve seen both on SFIF.

According to my rector, a priest of 35 years come this Sunday, liturgically orthodox (although socially liberal), the formally correct form is one (1) “+” in front for all Episcopal/Anglican Bishops, and one (1) “+” in back for all Episcopal/Anglican priests. By explicitly citing his name (or the name of his See), you are removing any ambiguity as to who is the referent (assuming that, if you have given the Bishop’s name, you did so in a manner sufficient to resolve any ambiguities with Bishop’s having identical surnames).

This also makes considerable sense if you will recall that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s position is primus inter pares (i.e., first among equals).

Thanks Martial Artist….in posts here I’ve seen a lot of variance about ‘plusses’ use. So henceforth ONE is the rule; behind for priests; in front for Bishops of any stripe.

Cute, Pageantmaster! Maybe Primates need some extra light. Maybe we should give the Arches and Presiding Bishops double plusses in front of their names—-and hope they don’t doublecross us!

I don’t know about awarding additional crosses. To me it smacks of multiple awards of military medals to an individual. Considering what we have going on here, with no effective magisterium, give them one cross in front of their name and some of them think they have become the discoverers and purveyors of holiness. I fear that the level of arrogance would end up tending to be proportional to the number of crosses associated with their position. Clearly this is not the case for all, but there has to be something specific within the general category of original sin that accounts for the arrogant imperiousness that we are seeing from so very many of the TEC Bishops. Please understand that my analogy overstates the case and is undoubtedly not entirely apt, and we aren’t dealing with the same sort of valor in the face of combat, but I don’t think it is completely inapt either.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist
———————-
—”If you can keep your head when all those around you are losing theirs, you obviously don’t understand the gravity of the situation.”—[author unknown]

My trivia contribution: I was told years ago that in Germany a cross by a name indicated a holder of the Iron Cross ; in England sometimes it indicates that someone is dead.

©2007 Stand Firm, LLC. All rights reserved. Permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email contact@standfirminfaith.com.