Comments: opinion

There seems to have been very little comment about the recent report on the Church in Wales. It has very radical recommendations and yet nobody seems interested. Is this because everybody has written off the Church in Wales?

ED Thanks, I just published an article on this to correct the problem.

Posted by Paul Waddington at Saturday, 21 July 2012 at 4:23pm BST

Tempting though it is to get into the complete ignorance of so many CofE clergy regarding the manner of selecting bishops in just about every other Province of the Communion (ie, they aren't "appointed," doufus), instead I'll just point out that the reports of "schism" in North America fall somewhere between delusional fantasy and baldfaced lie.

A small number of American Episcopalian and Canadian Anglicans have chosen to decamp for newly created "Anglican Churches. The total number of decampers is something in the order of 4-5% of church membership in the two provinces (including a disproportional number of clergy who in turn create an even more disproportional number of bishops). This is only "schism" if the miniscule trickle of conversions to the Ordinariate are likewise a "schism."

Posted by Malcolm French+ at Saturday, 21 July 2012 at 10:52pm BST

re Mark Chapman's article on'Rowan in Retrospect'

What a brilliant summation of ++Rowan's time as the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hobbled by the legacy of Lambeth 10 - the fruit of collaboration with the anti-Gay Primates by his predecessor - Archbishop Rowan has had a tug of two loyalties.

First, and perhaps most important for him as Primus-inter-pares, was the need to listen to all sides, to keep everyone together - even when some of the arguments went directly against his own conscience (as per 'The Body's Grace')

The second loyalty, which ++Rowan obviously was not prepared to place first, was that to his own feeling that the Church needs to be opened up to a new understanding of gender and sexuality.

No wonder ++Rowan wants to return to academe! He can then be free to be himself - without the burden of having to seem to be 'All things to All Wo/Men'. God bless him as he works out his notice

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 22 July 2012 at 12:53am BST

It is refreshing, even heart-warming, to read Mark Chapman's balanced encomium on Archbishop Willams. It is in marked contrast to the disloyal, bitter and intemperate comments concerning him that regularly appear on this website. Given the blatantly secularist composition of contemporary British Society, Archbishop Williams stands as a model of integrity. I have long thought that he is too good for the job, given the present hopelessly divided character of the Church of England. I suspect that through his writing he will continue to occupy a significant place in public debate without adopting a path of interference followed by his lamentable predecessor.

Posted by John Bowles at Sunday, 22 July 2012 at 11:07am BST

If Archbishop Williams "stands as model of integrity" we must be missing some important historical facts about his actions and his words which however unintentional have caused great pain for women in the Church and the glbt community. I have never thought and man "too good for the job" and although I'm sure Archbishop Williams has many fine qualities, he was a weak and ineffective leader. He didn't lead. He followed and placated the right wing elements within the Anglican Communion. I do not consider his tenure as ABC to be one that unified the many factions. Perhaps no one could achieve such a task given this particular time in Church history, but he seemed to bend over backwards to "accommodate" the factions against full inclusion of the lgbt communities and women in the episcopate.

Posted by Chris Smith at Sunday, 22 July 2012 at 3:41pm BST

Re: Rowan Williams - where's the integrity in throwing Jeffrey John under the bus? Twice!

Posted by Dave Paisley at Monday, 23 July 2012 at 7:49pm BST

Giles Fraser, once again, poses a false dichotomy. The individual is, indeed, helpless outside the community, but the community is absolutely nothing without the individual. It is a constant sharing back and forth, wave and particle, at the same time.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Tuesday, 24 July 2012 at 6:03am BST

Giles Fraser writes of conservatives and liberals, but the labels don't seem to describe positions I associate with either group. The radically autonomous position he says is liberal would, I think, be considered libertarian here in the States.

I wonder if those labels are really very useful any more, anyway, or if they've been emptied of any usable meaning. The whole binary mentality associated with them seems a little poor.

Posted by Bill Dilworth at Tuesday, 24 July 2012 at 7:53pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

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.