Some Reactions to Rowan Williams’ Statement this Morning

Ruth Gledhill has a weblog entry on it there.

Matt Kennedy offers his early response here.

Worldwide Anglican church facing split over gay bishop
titusonenine: June 27th, 2006 posted by kendall at 1:30 pm

The US branch of Anglicanism faces losing its status of full membership of the Anglican Church in the wake of its consecration of the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, an act which has propelled the worldwide church to the brink of schism.

The final straw came when The Episcopal Church failed to “repent” of its action at its General Convention in Columbus, Ohio earlier this month, and failed to vote through a moratorium on any more gay consecrations.

Dr Williams is proposing a two-track Anglican Communion, with orthodox churches being accorded full, “constituent” membership and the rebel, pro-gay liberals being consigned to “associate” membership.

All provinces will be offered the chance to sign up to a “covenant” which will set out the traditional, biblical standards on which all full members of the Anglican church can agree.

But it is highly unlikely that churches such as The Episcopal Church in the US, the Anglican churches in Canada and New Zealand and even the Scottish Episcopal Church would be able to commit themselves fully to such a document.

Read it all and there is more there.

Cantuar Dicit
Captain Yips Secret Journal, 6/27/2006

This is a welcome, profoundly Anglican, document.

In Rowanese, it's pretty tough on the left side of The Empty Church. Rightly, he doesn't impose a solution, but frames the scope of the discussion to come. My favorite bit:

We do have a distinctive historic tradition – a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly.

Williams seems to be offering a challenge to what I'll call for the moment "Windsor Anglicans" in North America to form, or revive, such a historic Anglican Church, and to non-Windsor Anglicans to decide what they want in terms of Communion with the WWAC. If the Anglican Covenant goes forward (and does not make the mistake of being too narrow), the "Windsor" and "Non-Windsor" sides would have to decide what side they want to take, and whether they can abide by the limits set there.

Williams seems also to stick to a policy of making the Americans define themselves. It's as if his word to TEC is, "alright, you've decided you do not want full status. Do you want an associate status?" I think this is exactly the right note to sound.

Reactions will be fascinating to observe.

Dr Williams is proposing a two-track Anglican Communion, with orthodox churches being accorded full, “constituent” membership and the rebel, pro-gay liberals being consigned to “associate” membership.

Paul might be asking Dr. Williams, "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?"

I may be imposing here, due to my religious agnosticism, but let me give an objective point of view. If it walks like duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it's a duck. Mr. Harris' feathers are looking very secular and in no way, IMO, presents a "Christian" point of view. It is also in no way parallel to those ideals set forth in either the old or new testaments. When an individual steps forward as a representative of a church of Christianity and presents an obvious secular position they are undermining the very foundation upon which that church is set. It is demoralizing and IMO embarrassing to said church, and a firm rebuttal is needed by those who might agree with me.

GC ’06 Fallout: The Archbishop of Canterbury Reflects
Wannabe/Newbie Anglican

Well, just about everything causes the Archbishop to reflect, but, anyway, he issued an important, perhaps historic statement today.

There’s quite a bit to digest and, frankly, my brain is not functioning at its best as revealed by some really bad chess last night, so my initial observations are partial at best.

I think Matt+ Kennedy’s initial analysis is on target. I’m particularly encouraged that the Archbishop has finally acknowledged that it might be necessary for the North American provinces (TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada) to split. I think this is the first time he has publicly said such.

My first response is that ++Rowan’s proposal of an opt-in Anglican covenant is a good proposal for the long term. I am concerned that he says very little about the near term. And something must be done very near term. The orthodox should not be asked to endure apostate leadership for years and years while a covenant is being formed.

But I suspect ++Rowan is deferring near term responses to the Primates. And he may be saying as much in an accompanying statement to the Primates.

++Rowan does, with Anglican understatement of course, concede that the Episcopal Church has fallen short of Windsor, and that is an important development.

Now, there is a problem with an assumption ++Rowan makes: “. . . to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the church’s life . . . .” Many orthodox Anglicans do not accept that religious liberalism has a place in the church’s life. And I’m one of them.

Perhaps I’ll say more on that in due time. But overall I’m encouraged by the Archbishop’s statement.

MORE: I also find the Empty Church’s take on ++Rowan’s statement very interesting. It concludes:

Practically, this is completely uncharted territory; theologically, the orthodox have definitely won.

Dr Williams says that "it isn’t a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences – and that actions believed in good faith to be ‘prophetic’ in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences." ECUSA has finally gone too far.

Mr. Harris' feathers are looking very secular

You are quite correct. It's a duck.

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
More Anglican articles here.

Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

The largest Episcopal church in Dallas has announced that it is splitting from the American Anglican Church. The interesting thing is the Dallas Diocese is supporting the split and is considering splitting off the entire Diocese.

Christ Church has also been a big news item this week. Had heard of diocesan support, but not that the diocese is itself considering departure (though it doesn't come as a surprise, given the support).

Isn't one of the dioceses in Texas a bit liberal? I vaguely recall that, but not which (if any).

Paul might be asking Dr. Williams, "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?"

I disagree. Williams is saying that not everything is "leaven" in this regard -- which is self evidently true; else every disagreement would be "leaven" of one sort or another, and there'd be as many churches as there are Christians.

However, he explicitly says that there are some things that "just do" qualify as "leaven" in the sense you've used the term, and he's pointed directly at ECUSA in that regard.

What he's really offering here is an invitation for ECUSA to formalize what it's been doing for years: leave. He won't say ECUSA is "wrong" (indeed, Williams actually agrees with ECUSA in many respects), but he recognizes that the ECUSA, as represented by its governing bodies, can no longer legitimately be regarded as part of the Anglican Communion.

The letter reminds me more of the scene in Acts 5:38-39, where Gamaliel warns the Pharisees, So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" So they took his advice....

He's saying that the "non-Covenanters" are free to be in ecumenical relationship with the Anglican Communion, and that's really all it means. If they're "of God," they'll thrive. But if not, they'll wither away.

A long and drawn out read from a scholarly type. Still, it is reasoned and well laid out- unlike the mindless dribbles from Griswald.

++Rowan appears to be suggesting forming a covenant and then inviting the independant provinces and such to "opt-in". Those who do not opt-in may be in the building, but will haver to stay in the narthex.

He does well to remind the readers that he is not a pope, and that his job is to facilitate solutions, not impose them. To the liberals in TEC, his reflections should indicate that he is coming to terms with the reality that it is they, not African conservatives, who are out of line.

I disagree. Williams is saying that not everything is "leaven" in this regard -- which is self evidently true; else every disagreement would be "leaven" of one sort or another, and there'd be as many churches as there are Christians.

True. And that's what the Bible's there for, to sort out the disagreements, especially the critical ones vs. the adiaphora. When some mainline denominations or sects within those denominations are asserting that Jesus isn't divine, that He wasn't born of a virgin, that He didn't rise bodily from the dead, all of that is leaven that warrants booting these apostates out of the church. And they should be forced to form their own, quasi-Christian, churches.

When Paul spoke of leaven in 1 Corinthians, he was telling the congregation to expel the man who was living with his stepmother and repent of condoning his sin. I think the Episcopalians' in-your-face immorality equals the Corinthian situation both in severity and impenitence of the transgressor.

I think the Episcopalians' in-your-face immorality equals the Corinthian situation both in severity and impenitence of the transgressor.

I certainly agree with you there, especially when it comes to the governing body of the church -- though it must be said that there are many faithful Christians to be found in the Episcopal Church as well. I'm strongly reminded of Revelations, especially the Letter to the Church in Thyatira:

"'I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants[c] to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve. But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. Only hold fast what you have until I come. The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father. And I will give him the morning star. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.' (Rev. 2:19-29)

The similarities are eerie, no?

I certainly agree with you there, especially when it comes to the governing body of the church -- though it must be said that there are many faithful Christians to be found in the Episcopal Church as well.

And I guess the question is, can they still call the Episcopal Church home?

9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

They can't purge the church, so they may have to remove themselves from it:

Well, yes ... and this gets to the heart of what Dr. Williams talks about with respect to divisions within a province, and not just between provinces.

The question then is, how will the bishops respond to a parish that wants to act differently from the diocese as a whole -- either to follow the ECUSA, or to follow the Communion?

In strictly practical terms, for example, will the bishop allow the property to remain in the hands of "the parish?" (The fact is, of course, that when parishes leave without the property, the bishops typically cannot afford the upkeep of it -- which is especially true for old buildings such as my parish has....)

In many cases -- again, taking my own parish as an example, there is little doubt about what "the parish" wants to do as a whole, though there'd be some dissent to staying with The Communion even so. Then again, there are several failing Episcopal parishes hereabouts, so those folks could still have a building, courtesy of our bishop.

The question is whether the bishops are willing to accept this "opt-in" policy for their individual parishes. They should do so, in most cases, but I suspect most of them won't.

++Rowan is trying to take a "big picture" approach to the situation by calling for Anglicans to re-think the entire structure of the post-British Empire Communion.

That's no duck; it's a parrot. And I'll give you a little hint: 'e ainna pinin' for the fjords!

Isn't one of the dioceses in Texas a bit liberal? I vaguely recall that, but not which (if any).

LOL, I am chuckling to myself thinking "whichever one Austin is in..." Seriously, I am not sure which one.

Isn't one of the dioceses in Texas a bit liberal? I vaguely recall that, but not which (if any).

If I recall, Texas is liberal as is Northwest Texas. Fort Worth is conservative, Dallas is Moderate. I think West Texas is moderate.

Of course, I'm not Episcopal in my polity, so I could be wrong.