PREEMPTIVE SURRENDER
To Andrew Gerns, the great tragedy of Rowan Williams is that he didn’t immediately give into the liberals in 2003:
The problem with Rowan is not that Africa is an “anchor” and that the Church of England and the Episcopal Church is somehow at once pro-Muslim and pro-gay, and that the African church will march away in its theological purity. The problem is that Rowan did not use his innate voice.
After all, the Anglican Communion is a diverse place, tolerating and accepting all sorts of theological opinions and viewpoints.
Africa itself shows off the tensions and possibility within Anglicanism. The Continent that contains both Tutu and Orombi is also the Church that shares both approaches to Christianity. The Anglican Communion contains both Katharine Jefferts Schori and NT Wright. The Episcopal Church itself contains both Gene Robinson and Mark Lawrence.
So the best thing Dr. Williams could have done for the Communion was to be himself.
The tragedy–and disappointment–that is Rowan Williams is that he chose not use his best possible tool in leading this impossibly diverse Anglican Communion. He chose not to use his own voice.
A voice that was and still is hard left.
We all know that Williams wrote eloquently as both a priest and theologian, and even as Archbishop of Wales, for the full inclusion of gays into the life of the church including their ability to marry–or at least have some kind of civil and ecclessiastical analog to marriage–and that not only did he put these opinions aside, he has worked very hard to be certain that these views will never come to pass.
Why not? Because everybody knows that Those People are never satisfied.
But giving up his voice to hold the church together only on what the most conservative voices in the room will agree to, his unwillingness to defend and include those who differ from others in faith–whether it was keeping Bishop Robinson out of Lambeth or telling our Presiding Bishop not to wear her hat whilst in England–showed that his fear of outright conflict only deepened the fissures he most dreaded. Especially after it became apparent that each concession, from Jeffery-John to the Windsor Report through successive Primates meetings and finally the Anglican Covenant, only emboldened those prone to bullying and alienated those who wanted to work with him the most.
That’s one way of looking at it. Here’s the correct way.
It’s quite true that “the Episcopal Church itself contains both Gene Robinson and Mark Lawrence.” But which of the two has actual power? It’s also true that the Episcopalians are quite happy to cash conservative pledge checks. But does Gerns seriously suggest that the presence of a few Anglican conservatives here and there in the western Church means that to all viewpoints are considered equally valid?
To put it another way, does Gerns seriously mean to assert that anybody who believes that homosexual sex is a sin can possibly get through a modern Episcopal seminary, never mind getting ordained or receiving a call to a parish? If he does, he hasn’t been paying attention to a library full of General Convention resolutions, all of which declare that what the Episcopal Church officially believes makes it as hostile to conservative opinion as it is possible to be.
The idea that all Rowan Williams had to do was be himself and preach what he had always preached and the Africans would have obediently fallen into line like good little colonials is naive and more than a little insulting.
And the suggestion that Dr. Williams changed his views merely to keep the institution together completely misunderstands both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Communion he leads.
Western Anglican liberals have money but rapidly declining numbers. Global South conservatives have no money but their numbers are going through the roof. Rowan Williams, then, is a liberal in charge of a mostly-conservative Christian tradition.
If Williams takes Gerns’ suggestion and attends Gene Robinson’s immaculation, he would today be the titular head of a small, left-wing debating society with really large, old churches that no one attends. If he throws in with the conservatives, he still has international influence but is read out of polite society.
What to do? Easy. Stall. Spend a couple of years “studying” the question and then come up with a “reception process” for the various reports and communiqués which will flood the Anglican landscape. Schedule meeting after meeting after meeting. Game the Anglican world’s most prestigious event so that it won’t deal with the question that’s ripping the Anglican world apart.
That was really His Grace’s only play. And I think that one of the reasons he did what he did was because Rowan Williams is not like Anglican liberals like Andrew Gerns. To Gerns, The Issue has only one right answer and his side has it. Therefore, the Communion needs to stay together long enough for traditionalists to realize how wrong they are.
Good liberal though he is, I think Rowan Williams understands something that men like Andrew Gerns refuse to accept. Anglican conservatives have a serious, intellectual case that must be seriously engaged and cannot be dismissed by casually tossing slurs like “bigotry” around or accusing opponents of “bullying.”
To Andrew Gerns, the “tragedy” of Rowan Williams is that he didn’t lay down the law to conservatives at the start. But the real tragedy of Rowan Williams might be that while my gracious lord of Canterbury took his best shot at saving it, he knows, deep down, that the competing theologies in the Anglican Communion can never be reconciled and that Anglicanism, as we have known it, is doomed.
The problem with Rowan is not that Africa is an “anchor” and that the Church of England and the Episcopal Church is somehow at once pro-Muslim and pro-gay, and that the African church will march away in its theological purity. The problem is that Rowan did not use his innate voice.
After all, the Anglican Communion is a diverse place, tolerating and accepting all sorts of theological opinions and viewpoints.
Africa itself shows off the tensions and possibility within Anglicanism. The Continent that contains both Tutu and Orombi is also the Church that shares both approaches to Christianity. The Anglican Communion contains both Katharine Jefferts Schori and NT Wright. The Episcopal Church itself contains both Gene Robinson and Mark Lawrence.
So the best thing Dr. Williams could have done for the Communion was to be himself.
The tragedy–and disappointment–that is Rowan Williams is that he chose not use his best possible tool in leading this impossibly diverse Anglican Communion. He chose not to use his own voice.
A voice that was and still is hard left.
We all know that Williams wrote eloquently as both a priest and theologian, and even as Archbishop of Wales, for the full inclusion of gays into the life of the church including their ability to marry–or at least have some kind of civil and ecclessiastical analog to marriage–and that not only did he put these opinions aside, he has worked very hard to be certain that these views will never come to pass.
Why not? Because everybody knows that Those People are never satisfied.
But giving up his voice to hold the church together only on what the most conservative voices in the room will agree to, his unwillingness to defend and include those who differ from others in faith–whether it was keeping Bishop Robinson out of Lambeth or telling our Presiding Bishop not to wear her hat whilst in England–showed that his fear of outright conflict only deepened the fissures he most dreaded. Especially after it became apparent that each concession, from Jeffery-John to the Windsor Report through successive Primates meetings and finally the Anglican Covenant, only emboldened those prone to bullying and alienated those who wanted to work with him the most.
That’s one way of looking at it. Here’s the correct way.
It’s quite true that “the Episcopal Church itself contains both Gene Robinson and Mark Lawrence.” But which of the two has actual power? It’s also true that the Episcopalians are quite happy to cash conservative pledge checks. But does Gerns seriously suggest that the presence of a few Anglican conservatives here and there in the western Church means that to all viewpoints are considered equally valid?
To put it another way, does Gerns seriously mean to assert that anybody who believes that homosexual sex is a sin can possibly get through a modern Episcopal seminary, never mind getting ordained or receiving a call to a parish? If he does, he hasn’t been paying attention to a library full of General Convention resolutions, all of which declare that what the Episcopal Church officially believes makes it as hostile to conservative opinion as it is possible to be.
The idea that all Rowan Williams had to do was be himself and preach what he had always preached and the Africans would have obediently fallen into line like good little colonials is naive and more than a little insulting.
And the suggestion that Dr. Williams changed his views merely to keep the institution together completely misunderstands both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Communion he leads.
Western Anglican liberals have money but rapidly declining numbers. Global South conservatives have no money but their numbers are going through the roof. Rowan Williams, then, is a liberal in charge of a mostly-conservative Christian tradition.
If Williams takes Gerns’ suggestion and attends Gene Robinson’s immaculation, he would today be the titular head of a small, left-wing debating society with really large, old churches that no one attends. If he throws in with the conservatives, he still has international influence but is read out of polite society.
What to do? Easy. Stall. Spend a couple of years “studying” the question and then come up with a “reception process” for the various reports and communiqués which will flood the Anglican landscape. Schedule meeting after meeting after meeting. Game the Anglican world’s most prestigious event so that it won’t deal with the question that’s ripping the Anglican world apart.
That was really His Grace’s only play. And I think that one of the reasons he did what he did was because Rowan Williams is not like Anglican liberals like Andrew Gerns. To Gerns, The Issue has only one right answer and his side has it. Therefore, the Communion needs to stay together long enough for traditionalists to realize how wrong they are.
Good liberal though he is, I think Rowan Williams understands something that men like Andrew Gerns refuse to accept. Anglican conservatives have a serious, intellectual case that must be seriously engaged and cannot be dismissed by casually tossing slurs like “bigotry” around or accusing opponents of “bullying.”
To Andrew Gerns, the “tragedy” of Rowan Williams is that he didn’t lay down the law to conservatives at the start. But the real tragedy of Rowan Williams might be that while my gracious lord of Canterbury took his best shot at saving it, he knows, deep down, that the competing theologies in the Anglican Communion can never be reconciled and that Anglicanism, as we have known it, is doomed.
No comments:
Post a Comment