Posted on 07/07/2006 5:01:57 PM PDT by sionnsar
Rowan Williams addresses the Church of England's General Synod:
You will be aware of a number of developments in the public arena in the last couple of weeks, notably the request from several US dioceses for some sort of direct primatial oversight from outside the US, preferably from Canterbury. This raises very large questions indeed; various consultations are going forward to clarify what is being asked and to reflect on possible implications. There has also been an announcement from Nigeria of the election by the Nigerian House of Bishops of an American cleric as a bishop to serve the Convocation of Nigerian Anglican congregations in the US. I have publicly stated my concern about this and some other cross-provincial activities.
So I don’t think we can be complacent about what the complete breakup of the Communion might mean - not the blooming of a thousand flowers, but a situation in which vulnerable churches suffer further. And vulnerable churches are not restricted to Africa... But if this prospect is not one we want to choose, what then? Historic links to Canterbury have no canonical force, and we do not have (and I hope we don’t develop) an international executive. We depend upon consent. My argument was and is that such consent may now need a more tangible form than it has hitherto had; hence the Covenant idea in Windsor.
But if there is such a structure, and if we do depend on consent, the logical implication is that particular churches are free to say yes or no; and a no has consequences, not as ‘punishment’ but simply as a statement of what can and cannot be taken for granted in a relationship between two particular churches. When I spoke as I did of ’churches in association’, I was trying to envisage what such a relation might be if it was less than full eucharistic communion and more than mutual repudiation. It was not an attempt to muddy the waters but to offer a vocabulary for thinking about how levels of seriously impaired or interrupted communion could be understood.
In other words, I can envisage – though I don’t in the least want to see – a situation in which there may be more divisions than at present within the churches that claim an Anglican heritage. But I want there to be some rationale for this other than pure localism or arbitrary and ad hoc definitions of who and what is acceptable. The real agenda – and it bears on other matters we have to discuss at this Synod – is what our doctrine of the Church really is in relation to the whole deposit of our faith. Christian history gives us examples of theologies of the Church based upon local congregational integrity, with little or no superstructure – Baptist and Congregationalist theologies; and of theologies of the national Church, working in symbiosis with culture and government – as in some Lutheran settings. We have often come near the second in theory and the first in practice. But that is not where we have seen our true centre and character. We have claimed to be Catholic, to have a ministry that is capable of being universally recognised (even where in practice it does not have that recognition) because of its theological and institutional continuity; to hold a faith that is not locally determined but shared through time and space with the fellowship of the baptised; to celebrate sacraments that express the reality of a community which is more than the people present at any one moment with any one set of concerns. So at the very least we must recognise that Anglicanism as we have experienced it has never been just a loose grouping of people who care to describe themselves as Anglicans but enjoy unconfined local liberties. Argue for this if you will, but recognise that it represents something other than the tradition we have received and been nourished by in God’s providence. And only if we can articulate some coherent core for this tradition in present practice can we continue to engage plausibly in any kind of ecumenical endeavour, local or international.
Keeping in mind the Episcopal Church's uncanny ability to see whatever it wants to see regardless of what's actually there(see Frank Griswold's and Neil Alexander's hallucinatory responses to Dr Williams' recent reflections), TEC cannot be very happy about this. Alternate primatial oversight has not been dismissed out of hand; a split is on the table("I was trying to envisage what such a relation might be if it was less than full eucharistic communion and more than mutual repudiation.").
And Anglicans, observes Dr. Williams, believe things that are "not locally determined but shared through time and space with the fellowship of the baptised." So it would appear that TEC's relentless invocation of its "autonomy" will carry no weight in upcoming Anglican deliberations. By the looks of this speech, the Episcopal Church will soon be asked a very basic question. Do you accept the faith that Anglicans have always believed or are you going to continue to make it up as you go along?
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. The guy is a screaming loon.
Thank God for Archbishop Gregory!
I wonder if Abp.williams realizes he just repudiated women in the priesthood by the following statement?
"We have claimed to be Catholic, to have a ministry that is capable of being universally recognised (even where in practice it does not have that recognition) because of its theological and institutional continuity; to hold a faith that is not locally determined but shared through time and space with the fellowship of the baptised; to celebrate sacraments that express the reality of a community which is more than the people present at any one moment with any one set of concerns. So at the very least we must recognise that Anglicanism as we have experienced it has never been just a loose grouping of people who care to describe themselves as Anglicans but enjoy unconfined local liberties. Argue for this if you will, but recognise that it represents something other than the tradition we have received and been nourished by in God’s providence. And only if we can articulate some coherent core for this tradition in present practice can we continue to engage plausibly in any kind of ecumenical endeavour, local or international."
From my reading of this it doesn't seem he realizes much of anything he writes before he writes the contrary.
He sounds like the Archbishop of the Church of On-The-Other-Hand.
So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.
This is why this thread's founder, Arlin Adams, referred to him as Rowan The Fuzzy, Arch-Druid of Canterbury.
He didn't say that -- not in the least.
Instead, he expresses the very reason why I'm drawn to Anglicanism -- I love praying on the kneelers in my church, knowing that thousands of people have done the same, saying the same prayers, over the many decades that came before; and they will continue to do so for many decades to come; and all in the service of God. There's incredible spiritual power in that -- it takes us outside our own concerns, and more fully into the Body of Christ.
Compared to that, agitation over a truly piddling issue such as "women in the priesthood" is not really all that interesting.
In fact, however, Rowan++ is moving very quickly, and with a very definite direction in mind. This makes twice now, where he's been uncommonly clear in naming the issues, and the difficulties that will have to be addressed in solving them.
I would be very surprised if a detailed "Covenant" structure wasn't available within a few months (which isn't at all long), and that Lambeth '08 will mark the official beginning of it, rather than the predicted gabfest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.