Does anyone else think this statement rather misses the point? It seems to highlight the differences between the worldviews of David Edwards and those of the Global South. It is a characteristically progressive Anglican piece of reasoning, focusing largely on moral activity as an indicator of spirituality rather than the specifics of professed faith.

I largely agree with that, although I think he is far too lenient on Rowan Williams, who seems unable to lead, only follow.

The point is that conservative theology tends to be a better fit with pre-modern cultures - I think the death of traditional/conservative Christianity in Europe is something to celebrate, as that must effectively die before something else can emerge to replace it.

There is plenty of interest in spirituality in Europe, and some people manage to find a Christian outlet for that.

In this age of blood and piety as my country makes a transition from being the world's first constitutional democracy to being the world's last (God willing) imperial oligarchy, I can only read this letter with melancholy.

I appreciate the Very Rev.'s letter and sentiment. I hope the Spirit continues to work for good in the Communion and to temper inflamed passions.

I wonder though at the description of Europe as a "laboratory."
:0

Nitpicky, but hey, what else do I have to do? :)

Right on, David Edwards!

Thank you for printing David Edwards article. It is really beautiful and strong.

Quote: -
"The big difference is not that Europeans have ceased to have consciences or souls. It is that they have a more sophisticated awareness of their bodies, with their instincts to explore and compete (look at any sport), and also to express love and to build co-operation in some way that involves sexuality. So Europe is embarked on the discovery of a new morality, as well as a new unity. For example, in Europe, marriage has become a union of equals, attracted and held together by love."

Sounds hyper condescending to me. Spong made remarks at Lambeth 98 with similar sentiment. When will we learn the humility to listen to our Global South sisters and brothers? I have found that they have mush that needs to be said to us while we wallow in our own false superiority.

I don't think some who call themselves "South" can offer a compelling claim to being listened to if they call the "North" (the West, really) decadent, a desert, even evil! What is there to talk about after that? The degree of wickedness? How long we have been wicked? Yikes. That isn't an offer to converse, that's a rant. It is sometimes explained away as a "necessary" way of talking and as something worth listening quietly to. WHY?

For what do they propose to replace our wickedness with? What institutions, theology, history, polity, laws, traditions, etc?

Our histories are wrapped up in each other's, in good ways and sometimes in bad ways, but I again return to ++Sentamu's celebration of Anglican culture and gifts, and its ability to include other cultures and ideas, as a way forward.

Ah, "harmonious dissimilitude"! An old idea that still works.

I think that much of Europe resembles what +Spong calls the "Church Alumni Association."

I believe that IF the Church can throw a *festive enough* graduate reunion, many of the alums may well decide to give the Old School another go! :-)

. . . to do that, it goes without saying, the Church needs to teach (as well as preach) *genuinely* GOOD NEWS (the days of "Believe/profess this, heart&soul, or Go To Hell" are LONG GONE in Europe, and are *never* coming back---Praise Christ!)

Such Good News *is* Anglicanism's charism . . . if the so-called majority haven't forgotten it. ;-/

I kind of like the picture of the delegates myself. Let's see...Global South...those must be the ones from Australia, right...?

It's an interesting article. I don't think anyone will be swayed to change an opinion, either pro or con.

It does, however, highlight two corollary issues that don't seem to get much attention. The first is the difference between "spirituality" and "religion." It's a distinction we focus on and cherish in the industrialized world (I'm tired of West vs. South, since some North and East folks have to be in there somewhere)and especially the parts with roots in English Common Law, and may not be a common discussion in other parts of the world. By the same token, we cherish it because we cherish individual liberty in the face of community structures. As a result, we understand "freedom of belief" to include respect for anyone who has beliefs. We don't necessarily believe that all beliefs are equal, but we do believe anyone who's not destructive can be respected and left alone to work out and work within his or her own beliefs. In societies with a different balance of community rights and individual rights (I'm mindful of the Japanese proverb, "The nail that stands out gets hammered down.") that respect won't have the same effect. By the same token, moral explorations that reflect these different "spiritual" perspectives get respect, even though they don't reflect traditional "religious" perspectives.

The second issue is how we understand the value of "new knowledge." I write this from America, where I recently heard on TV Jerry Falwell, a famous Baptist (evangelical) preacher, speak of the difficulty of finding science faculty for a university he's associated with, because all faculty must believe in 6-day special creation (Genesis 1-2). The Anglican perspective as it was taught to me is that all knowledge is rooted in the knowledge of God. We are then called to incorporate new information and evaluate whether it is useful. I work in health care, and would suggest that the knowledge of physicians, resulting in healing and saving lives, has its roots in God. So, we view much of scripture in that light: it's God's word as it points to God's Word, Jesus Christ; but it isn't a sound resource for all of our knowledge - including any new knowledge about human sexuality.

Dancingphil is right. This is just more of the same ol' same ol'--and not particularly creative at that.

Europe is being criticized for a lack of real spirituality, i.e., Christian spirituality. The fact that other "spiritualities" abound in Europe (as they did prior to the Christian era) is no indication of a garden any more than a profusion of weeds is an indication of a garden. At present Europe is partly barren ground (atheism, secularism), partly weeds (false spiritualities), and partly flowers and tended ground.

The latter are the remnant of its once great Christian religious institutions, devotion and faith. They cling to life in the midst of the dead and weedy earth, and are not to be ignored. To this extent, the Archbishop is wrong--Europe is not a complete desert. However, sans change, a great revival of the Christian faith, it is only a matter of time. Pray for the grace of God and revival.

Steven

David Edwards' article is a elequent rendition of some of the liberal arguements extended by some TA contributors.. and fails at the usual hurdles.

For instance he writes: "You say that such partnerships illustrate "the severing of the grace of Christ from his moral commandments", but you cannot quote a single reference to this issue in the Gospels." As if the rest of the New Testament is irrelevant to Christian morality.

He parallels human rights (of women etc) with his perceived rights for people to have same-sex sex. He rejects morality based on God's perceptions of right and wrong, and redefines it in terms of the confusing quagmire of personal perceptions and desires which people are encouraged to "explore" and "discover" by modern western society. Not surprisingly people have indulged themselves and lost their sense of direction.

I've lived in Europe all my life, the last ten in different mainland countries. Most have walked away from Christian beliefs and values over the last 50 years. People are wandering around trying all sorts of religious stuff - and seeking to choose their own spirituality, rather than truth. Many people's relationships are under stress; crime is rising everywhere (booming in the UK); depression and emotional problems are widespread (especially in France); social tensions are rising; sex crimes, abortions, teenage pregnancies, std diseases (and associated deaths) are also at record highs - despite so much sex education and freely available sexual technology !

In short, western Europe has rejected Christ, has sought other gods, and has embarked on the discovery of a "new morality" -- which has turned out to be no morality except "I do what I want".
The place is becoming messier all the time and still folk like David Edwards 'celebrate' their brave new world - as much a monstrosity as 1960s architecture - hoping beyond hope that it is just in transition into something better, rather than the something worse we are surrounded by. Repent!

the example of insensitivity or ignorance that I find most offensive is your description of Europe as a “spiritual desert"

Today we clutch at straws and wrap up superstition as some virtuous expression of spirituality - yet the sort of stuff at the end of Isaiah 8 leads to the diagnosis that the people are walking in darkness in 9:2.

I wonder if Israel thought that was offensive?

Hey, I *like* 60s architecture.

I don't blame Edwards for some word choices that may not be as effective as they could be, but I do commend him for showing a sensitivity to his neighbors and their situations, for trying to conceptualize the challenges his church faces in proclaiming the Good News.

We must do a better job of proclaiming the Good News and helping others come to the transformative grace and love of the Lord, no question. This is a challenge that is renewed and engaged by every generation.

Will "Repent you fools!" do the job? Will the hearer discern the Lord through this? Probably not, if they are leery of this type of approach.

Consider everything the Lord himself had to do to make believers among the "stiff-necked." Consider the various methods he used. Even those who worked at his side and broke bread with him, doubted and feared.

I always think of him before the weary disciples in the upper room for the second time, with Thomas. Does the Lord say to Thomas, upon seeing him, "Fool! Repent of disbelief!" No.

He says, "Peace be with you."

In this time of Advent as we celebrate the coming of the Lord and wonder and debate amongst ourselves how best to discern him and his purposes, which is what we all aim to do I think, we should keep him in our sights and our hearts as the true Word that holds our Communion together.

Peace be with you!

I agree with JC Fisher above.
God does not run a protection racket. "Believe this, this, and that, and THIS won't happen to you," is a sales pitch for the Gambino family "business", not a proclamation of the Good News of the Cross.
After more than 2 centuries of ferocious religious warfare, nationalist, ideological, and tribal movements that shed rivers of blood, and attempting suicide twice in 2 world wars, is it any wonder that Europe today would give both dogmatic religion and ideological politics the heave ho out the door?

We must live in a different world, Dave. I would rather live today that at any other time in the past. I think your idea of 'something better' would be very different to mine.

"He parallels human rights (of women etc) with his perceived rights..."

Dave, *every* consensus "human right" was once poo-poo'd as merely a "perceived right" (at first perceived only by the class being denied the rights).

However, as humanity (led by God's grace) has come to more expansive definitions of "human rights", the poo-poo got flushed. May it ever be----and "Repent!" back atcha ;-p

JCF wote; "*every* consensus "human right" was once poo-poo'd as merely a "perceived right" (at first perceived only by the class being denied the rights).

Dear JCF, I disagree with your thinking... "human rights" are meant to be universal - not class specific ! I think you have the US's womens's lib and racial equality struggles in mind. But in the list of human rights from the United Nations General Assembly's Universal Declaration of Human Rights we are all included in the term "Everyone" - the US just took a while to play catch-up !

1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration. 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. 5. No one shall be subjected to torture etc. 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. 7. All are equal before the law etc. 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals etc. 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal etc. 11. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty etc 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. 13. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement etc, 14. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. 15. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 16. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. 17. Everyone has the right to own property. 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. 20. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 21. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country. 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security etc. 23. Everyone has the right to work etc. 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, etc 25. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being etc 26. Everyone has the right to education. 27. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community. 28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. 29. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

Some developments are very positive, but I don't agree that *western* humanities "broad way" in sexual morality is God's will. Morality is defined by God's perceptions of right and wrong. Western liberal humanism has tried to based a new morality on the confusing quagmire of personal perceptions and desires which people are encouraged to "explore" and "discover". Shifting sands, my friend!

Dave wrote: "human rights" are meant to be universal - not class specific !

My experience, though, and observation of history is that bias and discrimination are class specific: indeed, it is those who choose to discriminate who establish the class by choosing those characteristics against which they discriminate. So, the argument for civil rights for people of color and for the rights of women were never about special rights. They were about allowing those classes to participate in rights that were supposed to be universal.

Society often fails to respect human rights, and usually because the person disciminated against is a member of the identified class. Sometimes the church has been ahead of society - notably on slavery, and, ulitimiately, on civil rights regardless of race (late to the table, but still largely ahead of society, at least in the US). The church is behind society on the rights of women, and certainly on the rights of LGBT persons.

We in the US are criticized for recognizing that rights are universal, and then trying to surpass the justice of the society around us. Comments from Nigeria regarding the recent meeting of Changing Attitudes Nigeria seem harsh, but in fact they are not that different from many still expressed in the United States. There is a certain "minstrel show" acceptance of the existence of LGBT persons in the US - a sort of "some of my best friends are (name that class), but I wouldn't want my child to go out with one" attitude. Surely if we are all God's children the Church needs to try to exceed the justice of the culture. Have we gone too far, too fast? I'm conscious some think so. I can relate to those who think so. However, I'm sad at those who don't want to associate with us - with me - because they don't want us even to pursue the project.

Yes, Dave: let's see these rights as universal, and start recognizing and respecting the rights of those currently left out.

No, Dave, morality has precisely nothing to do with what you or anyone else claims God to have supposedly said.

Morality should not be confused with religious dogma, and as Richard Holloway realised, should indeed be godless in terms of the law.

Hi Merseymike
What is it that makes you think that premodern is intrinsically worse than modern? (Something called chronological snobbery by CS Lewis.) This is something that should (don't you think?) be decided on a case-by-case basis. Unless you think that we are evolving towards utopia?
Something fully confirmed by the direction/trajectory of the crime, divorce, abortion etc figures in the past 40 years. Utopia: here we come.

Ah well, CS Lewis was wrong on that, as on just about everything else.

Yes, I do believe that humanity is evolving and that modernity is equivalent to progress.

Of course, you could instead opt for a society with few choices or possibilities, hence less risks and no development. It is that sort of society in which your sort of Christianity can advance most readily ; those who have advanced further regard it as irrelevant at best, simply wrong more frequently.

Well, Merseymike, we can only hope (from both sides) that us "less advanced" thinkers will soon be free to be ourselves, leaving you "more advanced" thinkers free to be yourselves. That is something that I would count as REAL progress in the current situation. As for the ultimate questions, I trust in God's judgment when it comes to determining who is actually "advanced" and who is not. And, I must assume that you will do the same.

Merseymike-
'CS Lewis was wrong on that,as on just about everything else':

Granted that you are in a position to stand above him and judge him, how do your credentials compare with his?

Christopher:

Good point.

Merseymike:

"Ah well, CS Lewis was wrong on that, as on just about everything else."

C'mon--you've got nothing to gain and everything to lose with both liberals and conservatives by taking on one of the icons of Anglicanism across the board. You should've restricted your criticism to particular points of disagreement--you'd be on safer grounds with your own allies (and traditionalists wouldn't expect anything else from you anyhow). But--"wrong on just about everything"?--sheeesh! Bad move.

Steven

That comment was meant to be slightly tongue-in-cheek (its called irony).

Must say, can't bear Lewis' writing, though.

Steven ; I think I'd rather use my brain - this passive view of let big-daddy-God decide is so very medieval!

Merseymike:

Re: "Passive View"--hmm. As far as I'm concerned, I was merely stating a fact. We do our thing down here, but God is the ultimate arbiter and judge of whether we did the right thing. There is nothing Medieval about that. Seems like Christianity 101 to me.

Steven