Lambeth Palace has announced this evening that the Archbishop of Canterbury is to visit the US Episcopal Church in the autumn. The full text of the press release follows.
Archbishop to visit US Church
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has announced that he intends to visit the United States this autumn in response to the invitation from the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church.
Speaking in a press conference in Toronto, Dr Williams said he would undertake the visit together with members of the Standing Committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council:
“I look forward to some sharing of our experiences as pastors as well as discussion of the business of the Communion. These are complicated days for our church internationally and its all the more important to keep up personal relationships and conversations. ….my aim is to try and keep people around the table for as long as possible on this, to understand one another, and to encourage local churches”.
Very Good news !
Also the Archbishop’s words sound calm and inviting to me. I t obviously takes time to plan something like this and build into an already busy schedule.
I like what he says about the people of the church needing to find a common mind on lgbt people — and not relying on authoritative pronouncements.
Good. It would appear that liberal pressure on the man works too. Now if our American bishops retain their spines, maybe something more can be done.
So he has some manners after all.
Well this means nothing too drastic regarding his three months out and afterwards. Plus he has this aim of keeping people around the table. That means the deadline of 30 September is not so much of a deadline as a marker. He does know what the House of Bishops there has decided, and that there is little prospect of any other decision, so this must be the context of keeping everyone at the table. It further suggests not cancelling Lambeth 2008. Encouraging local churches also hints at a (potential, necessary indeed) shift of emphasis. It seems to me that this… Read more »
Lovely that he’s coming. Interesting he’s waiting so long. Could he possibly have said less?
Anglican Journal is reporting that the ABC et al. are coming for the HoB’s meeting in September in New Orleans. One can only wonder whether we’ll get another chance to see David Virtue in hotel pool.
Hallelujah. Something is better than nothing.
I guess it’s my bit of Scots blood, but I’m underwhelmed by his obviously reluctant decision on a very late — too late? — meeting. I hope, with Kurt, that our bishops don’t mislay their newly-found spines.
Bob
Glad he decided on an eleventh hour visit. Alleluya to that.
ABC criticises “treating Scripture as either simply an inspired supernatural guide for individual conduct or a piece of detached historical record – the typical exaggerations of Biblicist and liberal approaches respectively,”
Then what? What’s his more sophisticated third way? What use is fence-sitting in this context?
The ABC has separated his personal inclinations from his official role which is to perpetuate the institution. It’s so very English to execute the role impeccably no matter how things are disintegrating around you. Is the dog throwing up on the carpet while its master is entertaining friends at tea? One doesn’t notice that, of course. Bad form. This behavior was wonderfully satirized by Monty Python over and over again. The charismatic became institutional many long centuries ago, and came to have values of its own distinct from faith and spirit. That is the mentality that will fly to New… Read more »
I am glad that he will meet with HoB.
Right now, though, this is so very remote. I teach in a university about 3 hours away from Virginia Tech, with many of my students here who have friends and kin there, asking all of you for your prayers for those killed today, for their families, for their friends, for the whole Va Tech community and its extended family.
The “sophisticated third way” is to interpret the Scripture in light of the signs of the times, guided by the Spirit that leads the Church into all truth. Scripture is not a dead letter but a text that is constantly interpreting and correcting itself as it is heard ever anew in the community of faith. Is this TOO sophisticated? But St Paul is at least this sophisticated.
In answer to Hugh of Lincoln, here is the summary of Rowan Williams’ lecture: So in sum: what I believe we need for a renewed theological grasp of Scripture is (i) the recognition that Scripture is something heard in the event where the community affirms its identity and seeks its renewal; (ii) the development of the skills needed to explore the analogy and continuity between the world ‘in front of’ the text and the current context, so as at least to avoid the misuse of texts by abstracting them from the questions they actually put ;(iii) thus also, the discernment… Read more »
Hugh, I don’t know what Rowan’s sophisticated third way would be, but my own bog standard middle way means taking Scripture as divinely inspired, but knowing that it inspired bronze age people in their particular culture and time. The challenge is to discover what it means for people in my time and my country, and for my own life in particular. This is dangerous and sometimes scary, and it’s easy (for me) to stray too far to the “it’s only a historical document” side of the path. But with reverence, prayer and an open ear to the Holy Spirit it’s… Read more »
TEC – get ready to have your arms twisted: just as the Primates’ deadline is closing in, the ABC will be flying in and you will be under huge pressure from him to compromise and stay in the AC on the Primates’ terms…… I bet your bishops capitulate.
I’m somewhat surprised by the tone of some of the comments. They don’t smack of the love and tolerance that so many on this board advocate. Or is tolerance only one way?
Actually, I’m not even sure whether the name of the site – “Thinking Anglicans” – a slightly pretentious term in any case – is appropriate.
Hey Andrew, if you find the tone objectionable here you should have a look at what goes on at other religious websites. This is the only religious website I know where one can speak freely without being showered with nasty adhominems or instant excommunications. As to “thinking” Anglicans, I find the level here to be quite high, and the title of the blog challenges us to keep up that level.
I think, NP, you should look at the words of Rowan WIlliams regarding his visit to TEC House of Bishops. They have explained their qualified episcopacy, and he has spoken of keeping people around the table for as long as possible, sharing understanding, and encouraging local churches. Just as he cannot dictate to primates, nor can they dictate to Churches.
My comment on the lecture is in the section above referring to the lecture.
NP – This will not be Tanzania Redux. Akinola will not be present. Neither will Minns, or Rev. Radner for that matter. Hopefully, the Bishop of Wales will. The HoBs will be given amble opportunity to make its case. If it fails, then God has another plan for the AC, and we can all go forward in that knowledge.
“if you find the tone objectionable here you should have a look at what goes on at other religious websites. “
Father, I’d suggest many Evangelicals who come here would be only to glad to get your point, but then they’d miss a chance to be victimized. Besides, what happens here is snotty intellectuals being superior. On those other sites, evil Hellbound liberals are being rebuked in the sincere hope they will repent and be saved. It’s really quite different. One is smugness, the other is Evangelism and speaking God’s truth. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Fr. O’Leary is dead right, Andrew. If you want flat-out, mealy-mouthed, mean-spiritedness, check out some of the hardline “re-affirmer” sites on the Colorado Springs/Armstrong business. “Four legs good, two legs bad”, harpies-on-speed time! The unthinking, party-line-towing tone is disturbing and deeply depressing. Cromwell’s “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken” leaps to mind, but where’s the use? None so blind …. Encouragingly, for the last day or so, the tone on T19 – which does not fall within the terms of any description suggested in the previous paragraph – has been far… Read more »
I think, Pluralist, you should look the actions of the ABC from blocking JJ to to the Tanzania Communique…..
“if you find the tone objectionable here you should have a look at what goes on at other religious websites” and “If you want flat-out, mealy-mouthed, mean-spiritedness, check out some of the hardline “re-affirmer” sites…” Ah. So that makes it all right then… I haven’t visited other sites yet. But to justify something on the grounds that others are worse doesn’t seem to tie in with my impression of the Christian life. And nor does the title of the site. Having looked at some of the archives, I can’t help but form the impression that a thinking anglican is someone… Read more »
Andrew. If you “haven’t visited other sites yet”. then for G-d’s sake visit a few, get a general idea of the variety of approaches and opinion on offer, and THEN make your point. A fair enough thing to ask? If you see the need for a Rowan Williams support site – Lord knows, the poor guy’s getting it from all sides nowadays – and see nothing to your liking, set your own up. You can establish its parameters, monitor it, exclude whoever you want to exclude. Polemics – sometimes violent polemics – have a long tradition in church history –… Read more »
Andrew wrote: “Anyway, I’ll leave you good people to hammer away at the ABC to your hearts’ content!” I am so gratified by Andrew’s gracious permission to make comments about the ABC. Perhaps he will next be good enough to give me permission to interpret scripture differently than he does. I wouldn’t take a step without his authoritative guidance. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing more from parishioners and clergy in England, not to mention Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, who have grown increasingly concerned with an ABC who seems unable to assert independence from the fundamentalists allied with… Read more »
I did not notice that the ABC is a punching-bag here; usually Thinking Anglicans is friendly to him, as it should be since he is certainly a Thinking Anglican.
“TEC – get ready to have your arms twisted: just as the Primates’ deadline is closing in, the ABC will be flying in and you will be under huge pressure from him to compromise and stay in the AC on the Primates’ terms…… I bet your bishops capitulate.” Please, keep it up NP (I’m serious). It was, in part, the *way* that ++KJS was treated in Tanzania, that sparked the HofB to be so, um, “forthright” in its rejection of the Primatial Vicar ultimatum. Your tone, repeated by the ABC&Co, I believe would make it *more* likely that the HofB… Read more »
Wow! How Christians love each other! Lapinbizarre, following my first posting, someone suggested that I ought to visit other sites, evidently suggesting that their vitriol justified the tone here. I have absolutely no wish to form a Rowan Williams support site, and actually have no axe to grind. Putting words into someone’s mouth and then arguing from there is dishonest argument, I suggest. As to Jerry Hannon’s comment, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and is hardly edifying. What non-Christians would make of it all defies thought. I stumbled in this site out of genuine interest, partly because I… Read more »
Best let it go, Andrew. You won’t get anywhere!
Andrew, if you’re still around – I agree that the tone on this blog is sometimes too sarcastic. Having said that, what you’ve done is walk into a debating chamber in the middle of a heated conversation where people sometimes don’t just respond to what is being said, but in the context of the complete conversation that has gone on for many many months. You cannot expect people to remain completely dispassionate and polite all the time, when some of the issues under discussion go to the core of our being and our faith. Rowan, I believe, gets a fairly… Read more »
Erika, thanks for your gracious reply. Still around, if a little shaken by Jerry Hannon’s rather supercilious comments. You’re right – I’ve evidently stumbled in on something somewhat heated. Actually, I heard Rowan last year at a convention, and was ever so impressed by his scholarship, his thoughtful analysis and comments, and his gracious nature. I simply cannot think of him seeking to reject anybody. He may well reject an argument, of course, but never reject a person. Scripture, Tradition and Reason, I thought, were the three bases on which one builds up one’s stance on church matters. Having read… Read more »
JCF – we agree 100%! Fudge would be the worst result for ALL and would have zero integrity.
” “Thinking Anglicans” – a slightly pretentious term in any case”
“Rather supercilious”?
And your point, Lapinbizarre, is…?
Lapinbizarre, if I were to describe myself as a Christian, that says one thing. If I were to describe myself as a “thinking” Christian, I’d be inferring a superiority that is slightly distasteful. Same with the term “thinking” Anglican. Not a fair point? I’m still wondering whether there are any “thinking” Christians who are not liberal! Again, is it not a fair question? All I was trying to say was that some of the comments about ABC were hardly in keeping with the exhortation that we should love one another. The rejoiner that other forums are worse is poor argument.… Read more »
Andrew follows up with: “As to Jerry Hannon’s comment, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and is hardly edifying. What non-Christians would make of it all defies thought. I stumbled in this site out of genuine interest, partly because I was intrigued by the term “Thinking Anglicans.” It was not long before I ascertained that only those with a liberal persuasion were presumed to be “thinking Anglicans” – a term that I still find pretentious.” Well, Andrew, I’m afraid that my reaction to your condescending attitude was to — ever so gently, and far more gently than some of… Read more »
Andrew, the problem is that there are some topics in every age that slowly become more and more polarised and eventually require a firm solution. Slavery was once such an issue, then women’s rights. In our contemporary society I believe the environment and animal rights will be the next polarising topics. In the Anglican church it currently happens to be homosexuality. With all those topics it was initially possible to navigate a middle ground. Now, I happen to live with a female partner and am therefore very much on the side of the liberals (although I am by nature a… Read more »
Andrew, I too have heard many Rowan lectures and have been deeply impressed by him. I too believe he would say he is only accepting or rejecting arguments and never people. But, please, imagine yourself in my position. I am a real person with a real life. I cannot see myself as a theoretical issue on which it is possible to have lofty debates. If you reject my right to love, it very much feels like a personal rejection, because it affects my life in a very real way. Since we have decided we cannot pretend that the most fulfilling,… Read more »
Simon. Do you remember when correspondence page of “The Times” would print the sentence “this correspondence is closed”?
Lapinbizarre,
which part of this correspondence would you like to be closed?
I’m finding Andrew’s question about a possible middle ground quite interesting.
Just to clarify, and I’ll not bother you again: Erika, I don’t reject your right to love. I haven’t mentioned homosexuality at all and (evidently mistakenly) thought that this was a side issue. The issue, I thought, was the authority of the holy scriptures. Jerry, you say “If what you want to engage in is a dialogue with people who think as you do…” You are making totally hasty and incorrect assumptions; you simply do NOT know what I think! I was simply doing two things: First I was commenting on the tone of some postings. Secondly, I was commenting,… Read more »
Thanks for your reply, Andrew. Just in case you’re still checking…. Sadly, homosexuality is THE issue in the church at the moment and it dominates all news. For that reason, it also dominates the conversation on TA. Re Thinking Anglicans – I think I understand what you mean. Maybe others know where the name originated. To me, it simply signified a blog on which people had intelligent conversations about faith specific topics. As opposed to “Chatting Anglicans” or “Praying Anglicans”, which might have completely different purposes. Sorry to see you go – although I would suggest that you can’t complain… Read more »
In my experience USA-based blogspots are far more aggressive than, say, this UK-based one. This ties up with a comment I found on the Guardian site: “There are a number of reasons why these crimes happen in America and yes, easy access to weapons is one reason. The others include, a culture which is by its nature aggressive; a school culture which is unkind at best and cruel at worst to far greater degrees than other developed nations; a society which has high levels of racism, elitism and plain old-fashioned bullying which goes on in the society in general and… Read more »
Erika – I think you can see in Andrew how the “middle ground” in the AC may be feeling as a result of the relentless agenda of some in TEC leadership and elsewhere in the AC (Andrew is right, the issue is the authority of scripture and even the ABC seems to get that now eg the Communique)
The issue is whether the AC can contain views which say “ignore this bronze age writing” on certain issues and others which say “this is the word of God, we cannot contradict its meaning” – both cannot be right
“The issue is whether the AC can contain views which say “ignore this bronze age writing” on certain issues and others which say “this is the word of God, we cannot contradict its meaning” – both cannot be right”. First, the Bible at no point addresses the concerns of people born gay and who seek to live out their affective potential in a mature and loving way. This is just not a biblical question. So there is not a black and white opposition between Scripture and the modern conscience on this issue. Second, on other issues there is a black… Read more »
But you do, NP!
Shellfish…
Fr O’Leary, “I think it should be interpreted to mean that the Bible used responsibly by Spirit-filled Christian communities will not lead into error, and that the Bible contains all the truths necessary for salvation despite the incidental dross of culture-bound conceptions.” I would want to extend this and include that our preception of truth rightfully changes over time. The truth about faithful gay relationships was not available to early Christians and their views were therefore right for their time, although they are no longer right today. Or would you say that there is an eternal truth about all things… Read more »
NP
“I think you can see in Andrew how the “middle ground” in the AC may be feeling as a result of the relentless agenda of some in TEC leadership”
TEC? TEC alone? Well, TEC can certainly be at one end of it, but unless there is another intolerant group at the other end, where’s your middle?
Tell me who is to the right of you and your views?
“we cannot accept the genocidal texts of Num 31, 1 Sam 15 and countless others “
Well actually, Father, Evangelicals have argued to me that we CAN accept these passages. Such things are cited as justification for war. So, it would be a mistake to assume that all consevos would agree with you that “the Israelites were mistaken”. One statement went something like (I’m paraphrasing):
Read the OT, I think you’ll find God isn’t exactly a pacifist.
Erika, lots of people in the CofE are to the right of me, I can assure you
Yes, TEC – because the current war in the AC was started with a unilateral act by TEC in 2003, despite the begging of the Primates and the ABC. TEC started all this, let’s be honest.
Maybe some think the money TEC has inherited will buy it power to do its own thing and stay in the AC on its own terms but the poorest churches are showing they are not so easily bought when biblical principles are at stake.