Of course this Canon (correct me if I am incorrect) says the truth in his proper words: There are more things that unite Christians than what divide them.
But unfortunately people have Ideas and live in different ways... Different dreams... And for some different approaches to power... So, unfortunately to get the arrangements to get the division should be a less bad to all of them.
Alternatively we can have a new Archbishop ++Desmond Tutu to moderate things... Is there anyone younger like him on the Communion nowadays?
Have a good evening!...
"At best, we are no more than unworthy, signpost to the kingdom of God and we look forward to the day when labels and denominations will fall away in one chorus of praise to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ'
- Revd Dr. Tudor Griffiths, St.Asaph's -
'Here is a true Welshman without any guile'.
The final paragraph of Simon's summary of this sermon shows that the retiring Chancellor of the Welsh Diocese of Saint Asaph - now near to retirement - speaks very wisely. Dr. Griffiths' estimate of the difficulty of his fellow Welshman, Dr. Rowan Williams' role as the Primus inter pares of the Anglican Communion could not be stated more clearly. And the good Chancellor's understanding of the future of the Communion, and whether that really is of world-shattering importance to us as part of the Body of Christ, brings us to a new reality that we all need to ponder and consider.
Whether or not the next Primates' Council in Dublin (with the very real prospect of dissenting invitees), or the provision of a Covenant for all assenting Provinces, will actually help to restore the once-close relationship of provinces within the Communion; we will be left with the more important question: "How does all of this relate to the apostolic task of showing Christ to the World?"
Will an Anglican Communion pared down to the lowest common denominator of seemingly 'Sola Scriptura' - together with a modicum of 'Anglican Tradition'- be enough to encourage young people to take up the modern challenge of discipleship of Christ in a rapidly evolving situation of social & envronmental factors, which have been influenced by scientific discovery - not least about the complexities of gender and sexual differences?
Justice and Truth are surely at the basis of what our commonly held faith principles are all about. No longer can we hide beneath the many-coloured cloak of 'respectablity' that has long concealed a more sinister, because - hypocritical, reality in our attitudes towards gender and sexuality.
Simon, thanks for the info about ACNA. I wondered about the canon chancellor's statement that the group's numbers were "increasing rapidly", but I didn't take the time to verify.
I also wonder when the canon chancellor uses the term "Anglican Church" if he means the Church of England or something else.
It is probably reasonable to say that this gentleman is not unbiased. The sky may not be falling as quickly as he suggests and in fact, rumours of its fall seem to appeal to those who seem to want to hasten it.
I'm sorry, there are just too many errors of history and geography here to take this presentation even half-way seriously. The Church in Wales has many people who know much better. Try Torchwood for a better source of information.
On the question of history, for example, the first meeting of the Lambeth Conference was 1867, not 1878.
On the question of geography, Canon Dr Griffiths seems unaware of the existence of Canada in North America. It's the rough equivalent of untutored North Americans being unaware of the distinction between England and Wales.
I won't bother pointing out the other errors. I would run out of space. I just hope his conclusion is correct.
"what is really important and that is not the growth or even survival of the Anglican Church"
To what "Anglican Church" is he referring? The one in Wales? Or the fondest dream ["All Problems w/ The Anglican Communion Will Be (Forcibly) Fixed in The Anglican Church!"] of Rowan Williams?
It seems to me that Simon is correct about an error of fact in this sermon -- otherwise, it seems fair enough -- as the point of view of one person.
Of course it omits to mention the fact that the justification of Anglicanism is provincial autonomy -- which would really seem to knock the Covenant into a cocked hat.
There is of course the "Anglican Church" remark -- becoming increasingly common in certain circles, as if saying it would make it so -- perhaps it will (but I share Dr. Griffiths's suspicion that the Covenant will be a failure -- it is just that we differ on whether that would be a good thing).
Tudor is a lovely man and sometimes mischievously described as Wales' only evangelical, in part because he does often figure as a member of various committees as the token Evo.
He has sat on the response groups to such as The Windsor Report and the various Covenant drafts.
I think what is interesting about this sermon is that it appears on the Church in Wales website and that it does represent the view of the Welsh bench on the Covenant. More perhaps for the Prior's reasons than Tudors but I speculate ......
Perhaps most interestingly, the man who was the Covenant's draftsman and strongest defender also seems to share Tudor's view.
The way the Welsh Church's website appears to be set up. each of the diocesan websites is a site within the larger national site. This sermon appears in the St. Asaph's diocesan section.
I hope, therefore, that Martin is not correct in surmising that this reflects the views of the Welsh bishops collectively, but rather that it reflects the views of the Covenant's principal drafter. If so, we should be grateful that Dr. Griffiths avoids the rhetorical excesses of his diocesan.
Malcolm is certainly right that the CiW website is set up that way.
As to the rest, I was claiming that the Welsh bishops thought the Covenant was a dead duck as the divisions it was intended to stop had arrived. I suppose the question remains as to fitting the bolt to the door anyway, I think there are different views on that here as elsewhere.
I appear to have misinterpreted you, Martin. Apologies.
I've heard runours that there are Welsh bishops who think the Covenant is a very bad idea but are concerned about appearing to undermine their former Primate.
I have also heard those rumours Malcolm and believe they are more than credible.
The question is, how does one kick the Covenant into the long grass without making Rowan's life more difficult?
Martin, I'm not sure it's possible to defeat the Covenant without undermining +RDW. The problem is that he and the antiphonal echochamber around him have decided that emotional blackmail is the key to accomplishing what they want.
Instead of permitting and encouraging a grown-up discussion about the Covenant, its few remaining advocates (at least those at the official level), fearful that they are losing control, have abandoned any pretence of reasoned discussion.
Instead, quibblers, questioners and skeptics are to be derided as fascists. At the same time, the undecided will be manipulated with a false plea to decide their vote based on their affection for the hairy lefty.
But the cracks are starting to emerge in various places. As people begin to pay attention, they will notice that there are few sane arguments being offered up in favour. If people realize they are being manipulated, the self-affirming yes-men around Rowan will be ruined - and their own incompetence will drag him down with them.
Martin and Malcolm -- I fear that the time has come when loyalty to Rowan Williams needs to take second place to the truth, or else the clear moral unfittedness of the bishops in question will become an open scandal, and will in the long run be seen to have damaged the church of God in their care.
Archbishops of Canterbury have been wrong in the past. They have misjudged and made mistakes, sometimes grievous mistakes. Since becoming leaders (whatever that means) of a group of international churches, they have -- and Williams in particular has -- frequently misjudged, misunderstood and acted badly towards one or more of the other churches in question.
Loyalty to the Archbishop of the day is a supremely inappropriate reason to support or not to support any of his opinions or initiatives. If Lambeth is using this as an argument, even if only implicitly, it is scandalous and shameful.
If bishops place loyalty above truth and the demands of the gospel, they are acting not as bishops and Fathers in God, but dishonestly and in contempt of their role.
My impression is, John, that few (if any) here think the policy developed by Rowan has had any success and some think it may now deepen the divisions.
There are different types of loyalties and Rowan has dragged his successor along with him - though he protested loudly and widely about "rule by Primates - and the friendships are deep and sincere. For some, deep friendships were squandered by Rowan when he decided gay families were worth sacrificing to what he saw as the overal well-being of Christ's Church. Others whose families have not been threatened and undermind by his betrayal still feel Rowan deserves their loving support because he is such a good man.
But I have been genuinely shocked by the English debate and the "loyalty card" trumping all.
On the editorial page of the Globe and Mail - Canada's major newspaper of record - there is a quotation attributed to Junius: "The truly loyal subject of the magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures."
At the end of the day, it appears that the only people truly being loyal to Rowan are those of us who are prepared to defy him.
'Dear Lord and father of mankind
forgive our foolish ways
Reclothe us in our rightful minds'
Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.
Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to
the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill
the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select
'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No
third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical,
advertising, or other purposes.