I think this final presidential address is pretty appalling.

It is the same centralising project as if the Lambeth Conference had not happened.

I want to know why his move towards an international Church is not to be paused against and restricted on the same lines as his desire to restrict Anglican Churches that believe that certain inclusive practices are consistent with Christ?

His idea that the Anglican Communion is one is surprisingly based (here) on the Zimbabwean woman beaten by police, the scavenger in India denied lawful rights, the orphan in Burma, the abducted having to fight in Uganda, those in Darfur and Southern Sudan, the family in a squatters' settlement in Lima or Buenos Aires... He says: "This is the Catholic faith: that what is owed to them is no different from, no less than what is owed to any of the rest of us." No mention there, then, of the gay person beaten up in Nigeria, rejected by his Church - this is "the Catholic faith" there. Horrid.

He is a centraliser and Catholic fantasist, and seeks to impose this bureaucracy based on exclusion on everyone, and it is up to Western Anglicans to say no to his project. There is no Covenant of Faith - maybe of Fate, but that unwritten one Jonathan Sacks mentioned is sufficient.

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/08/centraliser.html

Pluralist this talk has been very well recieved by Integrity in the states. Which is interesting in itself. I have not yet studied it, myself.

btw I always look forward to your take on things ...

Not one word about the on-going attemtps to alienate TEC property in Virginia, Pittsburgh, etc. NOT ONE BLOODY WORD. Border crossings get a tut tut. And 4 of the 5 major culprits were not even at Lambeth, and the one who was has announced he will continue his border raids when he feels it is necessary.

Do you know what roars of disapproval would ensue if our PB said, oh, yes, moritoria, but we'll do what we want about blessings and elections anyhow? [Which I wish she would.]

It's difficult, and perhaps at this point unnecessary, to avoid sarcasm at the spectacle of an Archbishop of Canterbury who has less allegiance to (if I were being sarcastic, I would say less knowledge of) Anglicanism than the students in my confirmation classes. We say, over and over, on our circle of blogs: "Lay supremacy: national churches"; "Anglicanism is not a church"; even "this would have been treason in the 16th century." Where is the person, where are the people, who can rise up out of the blogosphere to insist in the real world of synods and meetings that if +Rowan is correct now, _ecclesia Anglicana_ was wrong in the 16th century, and he is, as a result, precisely the schismatic layman in clerical clothing that Rome considers him to be--and which it will _still_ consider him to be even if he manages to sell our Anglican heritage for the pottage of an illusory international Anglican Church? Prof. Norman Doe has somehow gained nearly scriptural status for his perverse (and pernicious) definition of autonomy; how do we give equal circulation in the circles of power to the historically authentic Anglican ecclesiology?

As Churchill said, this may not be the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning. For all that, for days, Episcopal bishops have been encouraged, feeling heard, there is no evidence here that what was heard was granted any credence. Williams keeps emphasizing that "no one *wants* for the Communion to divide." That doesn't really mean that no one will accept division if he or she feels unity doesn't serve mission in his or her context. Is it really true that so many were heard, and the Archbishop, of all people, led those who said, "So, what?"

OF course, it remains to be seen what will come out of the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council. If the result is oriented toward new structures and loss of provinces to respond as needed for their own individual contexts, all the respect of these relationships, all the efforts to keep this relational rather than legislative, will come to naught. The Communion will continue to fracture; and like Humpty Dumpty, all the Archbishop's forces won't be able to put it together again.

Pluralist,

re: "I want to know why his move towards an international Church is not to be paused against and restricted on the same lines as his desire to restrict Anglican Churches that believe that certain inclusive practices are consistent with Christ?"

It isn't a move toward an international Church, as I read it, so much as it is a way of developing structures for the autonomous churches of the Anglican Communion to remain in relationship with each other and adhere to a basic catholic faith and order in an age of increasing globalization. As schism, division, and lawsuits continue to present themselves as the most popular alternatives to this development, I'll gladly accept an Anglican Covenant.

You ask why this development should not be halted on the sames lines as the moratorium on development of certain inclusive practices by certain Anglican churches, but these developments are really not ON the same lines. The development of covenanted relationships between the churches involves the parties coming together and willingly consenting to explore ways of articulating and living the Gospel across (and perhaps in spite of) their different cultural and social contexts. This is different in essence than when some churches introduce sacramental innovations which may be consistent with their own understanding of the faith in their own context but which other churches in other contexts cannot support. To quote +Rowan:

"The Church in its wider life can’t be committed definitively by the judgment of some; but when a new thing is enshrined, in whatever way, in public order and ministry, it will look like a definitive commitment. The theological ground for a plea for moratoria is the need to avoid this confusion so that discernment continues together. The Resolution of Lambeth ’98 was an attempt to say both ‘We need understanding and shared discernment on a hugely complex topic,’ and ‘We as the bishops in council together are not persuaded that the new thoughts offered to us can be reconciled with our shared loyalty to Scripture.’ "

Interesting to note that +Rowan also urges a moratorium on ecclesiastical border-crossings not only because of the long Tradition of the Church but also because they represent unilateral action on the part of certain churches rather than a conciliar approach which brings all parties to the table.

It seems to me that +Rowan is being fair and even-handed, which of course means that both innovators and border-crossers will blast him for appeasing the other side. I suspect that the only people who will be pleased by this address are those of us who are tired of the Anglican Wars and just want the church to get back to the business of being the church, for God's sake.

"[T]he onus of proof" required to show the theological validity of gay partnerships will be a formidable challenge, in convincing fellow Anglicans, our ecumenical partners and, crucially, the leaders of other faiths.

A "vision of an ecclesiastical world empire" is a sort of blueprint for global theocracy by consent, rather than by imposition. It rides roughshod over provincial autonomy which has hitherto been compatible with Enlightenment principles. The ordinary laity and clergy are simply not to be trusted with issues of global significance. Assuming gay-friendly provinces reject this, will the Church of England, in the inner conservative tier, bear this divergence from UK law, customs and accepted principles of human rights?

This global Anglican Church is becoming defined by the tripartite Windsor regime of Covenant, Council and Canon Law derived from the ban on gay bishops and blessings. This is a far more significant innovation than the acceptance of gay partnerships, and must be resisted.

No Go Rowan...No News IS "Good News" and don't try to force your Continuation Inquistion down our throats either...sneaky and despotic manuverings and notions of "what's right" are amazingly damaging to everyones health...and dimly conceived too.

Poor Archbishop! It seems that, whatever he says, he is going to be criticised by someone. Perhaps, in his Presidential Address, the ABC has had to try to accommodate all aspects of left and right (or north and south) of the argument - in order to mainatain the Unity of the Church, which Jesus prayed for in his High-Priestly Prayer.

Perhaps the reason he has to do this is because of the perceived intransigence of more than just the two extremes. He has, for instance, to deal with the intransigence of some of the Bishops within the Church of England - as well as those from her scattered Outposts. The activities of the Bishops of Winchester, Rochester and Exeter, for instance, may be just as worrying as those of either New Hampshire, Sydney, Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya - not to mention the others; allied to the inappropriately named 'Global South' Contingent.

The basic fact here, is that the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot be seen to be party to any one particular movement within the Church that does not seek to: "Keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" - (The New Zealand Prayer Book).

The real problem, which the ABC, out of charity, was not able to express (and maybe address here)
is that the FOCA and the GAFCON constituency of the Church, which has already made up its mind to stay away from the gathering at Lambeth - thereby expresses its unwillignness to remain part of the ongoing fellowship of the Anglican Communion, as it is presently constituted.

Perhaps 'Pluralist needs to note just how long it took the Church to be reconciled to the fact that the coloured community were not excluded from the fellowship of the Church. This was another case of the misuse of the Bible - based on a long-held misunderstanding of a reference to the 'Children of Ham' in the Old Testament.

This does not mean that statements in the Bible which are currently held by some people to be 'de rigeur' in the Churches' treatment of women and gays, may not be overcome - in time.

The question is: "How long, oh Lord, how long".

"And this is emphatically not about forcing others to conform . . .'

If only I believed you, Rowan.

If only I could trust you, Rowan.

But a committee's report has miraculously become and edict and another committee's preliminary observations have now been carved in stone.

I do not believe you, Rowan.

And I am not convinced you can be trusted.

Those who have been following RW's thinking about the nature of the Church, and what constitutes the Church, and there are many who write here regularly, will not be surprised by RW's final address at Lambeth. He continues to believe that the Anglican Communion needs to become more like a world wide church, with an international code of canon law, and several bodies that have the function of exerting pressure to bring innovating regional churches into line with the common denominator of the majority, or face some form of marginalization in the Communion. He seems undeterred by the fact that the majority of TEC, admittedly the prime innovator in question, will have little or none of this. Is the surprise and indignation that I am hearing a result of misleading reporting from Lambeth, perhaps caused by the restrictions on the media? We will need the reporters, and Simon in particular, to assess for us whether the reporting that we have been reading about the bishops gaining a deeper understanding of each other's circumstances and theological positions was just a small part of the picture, and the majority strongly support RW's position on moratoria, or whether his position just codifies the Windsor Continuation Group's report, without regard for the views of the assembled bishops.It would be most helpful to get the views of the best informed journalists at Lambeth on these questions. In any event, we must assume that his address accurately states RW's own views. And, apart from what I would consider its moral blindness, there is nothing suprising there.

Fr Ron Smith does for Rowan what Rowan himself asks us not to do.

In Rowan’s scheme of things he is not standing in the middle appealing to two extremes as he explains in an earlier Presidential address. To do this he says would be just creating the “middle” as yet another political standpoint.

I think Rowan poses he is standing where things were before Gene was ordained, Sydney cleared away the legal obstacles to Lay Presidency and interventions became the name of the power game – he thinks the majority of Anglicans stand there with him unable to consent to anything that has happened since, it is not a middle ground, it is the starting place all need to return so that the journey can continue (more or less!) together.

He sees himself the loving farther waiting for the prodigals to come home so full family life can resume where it left off.

No matter how badly his hands are clawed – Rowan Williams is determined to stuff that cat back in the bag. This is not because he thinks unity conquers truth but because he believes the Church, to avoid being abusive, it is compelled to work (in some areas) at the pace of its slowest member.

But the problem with this process – the Windsor Process – is that:

1. Honest Gay people (and their friends) perceive that for the foreseeable future they have no honoured place in the councils of the Church even if they “obey the rules” and avoid sex.
2. As the process unfolded Rowan was unable to defend the Dromantine Anathema in Nigeria and Singapore and remained silent in the face of increasing persecution in both countries. Neither was he able to defend the anathema at home where the Bishop of Winchester infamously “diminished” us thrice in his speech to the House of Lords.
3. The point we were all asked to return to was not where we left – the process of working out the common life of the Communion had been moved to a new place with “dispersed” authority becoming more focused. The Primates had made a bid to fill the power vacuum but failed by pressing too hard too fast and in the wrong direction. We now are confronted by a Covenant and we are asked to move in or stay behind.
4. Finally we (and I’am not sure who that WE includes!) remain convinced that “the bullies” as Gene calls them are only ever going to be happy with total crushing victory ……….. and those to be crushed are not too happy about this – even if we do understand “the long game”.

> Our global, Catholic faith affirms that the image of God is the same everywhere - in the Zimbabwean woman beaten by police in her own church, in the manual scavenger in India denied the rights guaranteed by law; in the orphan of natural disaster in Burma, in the abducted child forced into soldiering in Northern Uganda, in the hundreds of thousands daily at risk in Darfur and Southern Sudan, in the woman raising a family in a squatters’ settlement in Lima or Buenos Aires.

But not, apparently, in this poor man:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7539526.stm

Thanks, Rowan.

“He is a centraliser and Catholic fantasist, and seeks to impose this bureaucracy based on exclusion on everyone, and it is up to Western Anglicans to say no to his project. There is no Covenant of Faith - maybe of Fate, but that unwritten one Jonathan Sacks mentioned is sufficient.”-- Pluralist

Not to worry; the “Covenant” idea is DOA here in America. Rowan can simply forget it.

For a Cathloic its really fascinating watching Anglicans try to invent the wheel, when the Divine pattern for authority in the church is in the New Testament under their very eyes.

An authority which both liberals and evangelical conservaytives would find unpalatable

Ah, now, Robert Williams. You've actually climbed out of the closet on this site - now we know whom we are addressing and reading from.

Having yourselve once been an Anglican theolog - from the N.Z. Diocese of Nelson, I can understand what made you jump into the arms of 'Mummy'. I might have done so myself in that situation.

However, Robert, your comfy feeling that you are now in the right place, might suddenly become a little uncomfortable, once you realise that one of your stated aims on this site, that 'The Church' will not resile from it's course in promoting women for the episcopate. Is that possible, for a practising Roman Catholic?

"For a Cathloic its really fascinating watching Anglicans try to invent the wheel, when the Divine pattern for authority in the church is in the New Testament under their very eyes."

I've been reading quite a few books by Roman Catholics banned from their church because their theology doesn't conform to official edict.

Despite all the muddle, I much prefer the Anglican way of talking about differences rather than suppressing them.

And don't get me started on Roman Catholic leaders protesting birth control, where nuclear families of eight live in shanty towns in urban zones.

Papal supremacy does not derive from the New Testament, but rather from the early Middle Ages. You've read Unam Sanctam, haven't you?