The Daily Telegraph reports here that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is to retire ten years early. It's easy to knock the poor fellow, but being Archbishop of Canterbury is a pretty much impossible job. See, the problem is, you're supposed to stand up and offer leadership, but you're in charge of a church that is latitudinarian in principle. For those of you who need a vocab brush up, go here for the definition of latitudinarianism.
Bl. John Henry Newman summed up Protestantism when he said that they must fall either into the latitudinarian error or the sectarian error. The latitudinarian sacrifices unity of doctrine for unity of form, whereas the sectarian sacrifices unity of form for unity of doctrine. As usual the brilliant Bl. JHN (may be soon be canonized) pegged it. Anglicans (and other mainstream Protestants) consider the most grievous mortal sin to jump ship, to split off, to leave the mainstream. You may believe whatever you want to believe, and pretty much do whatever you want to do, as long as you stay on board. The ship may be sinking, but we will dash about bailing out the bilge water, manning the pumps, caulking the leaks and re-arranging the deck chairs, but we will not abandon ship. So they retain unity of form, but they sacrifice unity of belief.
The sectarians, on the other hand, have discipline of sorts when it comes to doctrine and morals, but they can only achieve this unity of belief by sacrificing unity of form. In other words, the Foursquare Independent Gospel of the Fifth Revision (Covenant 357) Friendship Church has kept the pure faith by accepting the New International Version of the Bible (sixth edition) and had to break fellowship with the Foursquare Independent Gospel of the Fifth Revision (Covenant 357) Friendship Church of God because they have refused to adopt the new version of the New International Version.
The ever growing problem with the Anglican Church is that increasing numbers are not really happy with their latitudinarian heritage. See, latitudinarianism is such an 'English gentleman' sort of thing. "You know old boy, it's just not cricket to make a fuss about something--unless of course it is for one's own advancement..." The English have always been very good about this latitudinarian thing. They've turned it into an art form. Always ones for compromise and double talk--geniuses at saying one thing and meaning another, the English formed Anglicanism (and the Christian faith) in their own image.
Problem for any nice, dithering self respecting, theologian type Anglican bishop who aspires to the throne of Canterbury is that the majority of Anglicans nowadays aren't English at all. They're African. Not only are they African, but they're fire breathing, Bible thumping, Oxford educated Africans who think homosexuals should be put in jail, women should not be ordained priest (much less bishop) and who believe in the supernatural, the miracles of the Bible, exorcisms and all that other awfully un-English sort of stuff.
So the Archbishop of Canterbury has to turn up at international bishops' conferences hoping for a quiet cup of tea and a cucumber sandwich with the Mother's Union and perhaps a theological reflection on the 'dazzling darkness of God' with a gentlemanly debate about vicar's funeral fees to liven up the afternoon, and instead he is faced with rabid fundamentalist feminists from New York City, the homosexualist campaigners with Mary Flashpool and Jean Robinson at the head of the pride parade, and on the other side the wide eyed Evangelicals from Africa who consider such people to be an abomination--balanced by the fervent Anglo Catholics who still think the Anglican Church will one day "embrace her Catholic patrimony" and be re-united with Rome.
No wonder he wants to retire to a nice cosy chair of philosophy in Cambridge. "Gosh, is that the time? And is there honey still for tea and shall we tootle off to Kings' for Evensong? Shall we?" There the poor man can forget all the troubles of the Anglican communion and conduct tutorials in theology and ponder the imponderables and perhaps preach from time to time at Little Saint Mary's where they have incense and very nice vestments and a select few retire to the Vicar's for Sunday lunch.
"More sprouts archbishop?"
Father, you have a true gift for enlightening us Yanks about CofE matters. Much like European Socialism, it's something worth noting over here.
ReplyDeleteAnd where oh where is Marcus? More war, more abortion, more SCUSA justices likely to vote for abortion. Remind us why you voted for Obama? And will you vote for him again?
I think the problem is perhaps even starker than you propose, Fr. Dwight. The Archbishop's problem is that, if his job made sense, he'd be heading up a magisterium, either in the Eastern sense of primus inter pares or in the Western sense of being Pope. But the bishops of the Church of England (or the Anglican Communion as a whole) have never been able to function as a magisterium. Since 1535, the magisterial function of setting the parameters of conversation has rested, not with the English bishops, but with the English State. In the early years, the State was basically uninterested in any theological discussion that did not directly challenge the State's power over church affairs; thus, Anglicans from the sixteenth century forward have been able to believe almost anything about key theological questions like the Eucharist, but have had to be very careful in the far smaller matter of the role of the Crown in church government.
ReplyDeleteIn more recent years, as Anglicanism has become less important politically, the British Government has grown increasingly uninterested in church affairs, making a situation that was latitudinarian to begin with far more so. And, of course, the advent of Anglicans not under British political rule has muddied the lines of authority still further.
All that is truly new here is that the internal fissures within Anglicanism, latent since the 16th century but long covered over by the power of the British State, are becoming manifest as the power of the State recedes. And Rowan Williams is left with the responsibility to serve as a focus of unity, and no authority to do it with. No wonder the poor man wants to retire!
Peace,
--Peter
or Father- maybe he is retiring early so he can join the Ordinate!
ReplyDelete???
NO? Okay. call me overly optimistic (or delusional)
;)
Known to many as "the hairy leftie," Rowan Williams has been a total disappointment to tradionalists in the Anglican Communion.
ReplyDeleteHis Liberal politics have trumped theoligical and biblical mores. He has come down consistenly and wrongly on issues ranging from his support of Sharia law to the castigation, pre-maturely, of Orthodox African Bishops who were being charged by the liberal media as being anti-homosexual to the point of wanting the incarceration of such individuals for just claiming to be gay. Once proved WRONG, no apologies from the Archbishop for his rash judgements and his jumping of the gun. I say good riddance.
Say what you like, Williams says he believes in the physical Resurrection. I'm guessing not many CoE bishops in the UK would admit that to a secular journalist as he did (obviously she didn't believe him - this was a British journalist). The liberals despise him for not copying and supporting the Episcopalian view of marriage and homosexuality. I think that he is doing the honest thing and will be followed by a liberal who will be 'nuanced' in his expressions of faith to the point that he will never actually say anything but will do so frequently.
ReplyDeletePoor Rowan Wormtongue, he has made his own bed and now wants to jump out of it!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Elgar: "His Liberal politics have trumped theological and biblical mores." This has pretty much destroyed the Anglican Communion.
It is sad because I truly believe he strives to be a good man and a loving Shepherd but seems more enamored with being a progressive leader.
What is also sad is that his replacement will probably be even worse. Conservatives evangelical or catholic haven't got a chance. Might even be a woman! that's coming down the road either way.
And the Queen sits in her tower uttering not a word yay or nay. I know she has no real power but silence is agreement in my book. So may be she is a 'recusant' Orthodox or Catholic and wants the C of E to disappear. Strange thought that but hey in this day and age anything is posible.
I am waiting for Thames Television to illuminate the workings of the Church of England in YES, BISHOP.
ReplyDeleteUnkind, inaccurate, unfair - shall I continue? Sometimes, father, you remind me of a husband who has jumped out of one bed and into another's, believing that this new relationship is the real thing but still putting far too much energy into being derogatory about the first. Do you really love the Church of England that much?
ReplyDeleteI would love to read an essay contrasting the theologies of Ratzinger and WIlliams. They seem very close on many counts.
ReplyDelete