Williams Responding to the Catholic Move

Conclusion: We’ll see what’ll happen, but for now, it is business as usual.

This isn’t exactly out of the norm for Catholics. There is precedent for allowing Anglican clergy to convert and stay married. But it seems, by virtue of this new quantitative move — taking this from case by case basis to allowing an Anglican rite (seemingly similar to the Eastern rite) — there may inadvertently be a qualitative move — what will this mean for a whole slew of things: current Catholic priests, eccumenical dialogue, etc.

Still, I’m somewhat suspicious, if the news is true that the Vatican is doing this through the CDF and not the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity.

H/T: Ben

Oh, Crap.

From the BBC:

North American Anglicans to split

Traditionalist Anglicans are to formally announce that they are setting up a new church in the US and Canada.

The move will make the long-discussed split in the Anglican Church in North America a reality.

It means in each country there will be two competing churches, both claiming allegiance to the Anglican Communion.

The American Church’s liberal stance on homosexuality has led some traditionalists, including some whole dioceses, to leave the Church.

They have instead formed a range of new alliances, often with Churches in Africa.

On Wednesday those disparate groups are uniting to form a new North American Church.

During a celebration service in Illinois, its leaders will unveil a draft constitution for the new Church.

‘Clear procedures’
But doubts remain as to whether or how it will be recognised by the wider Anglican Communion.

The Communion’s Secretary General, Canon Kenneth Kearon, has told the BBC that it is entering what he called uncharted waters, and he is calling on the leaders of the new Church to act in accordance with the Communion’s existing regulations. “The issue as I see it is whether in fact this body, or province as they’re calling it, wishes to be recognised as a province of the Anglican Communion,” he said.

“And I think if they do, there are clear procedures by which that might be explored. And I do urge those involved to address the structures of the Communion.”

But those supporting the new North American Church believe that Anglicanism’s structures have been unable to safeguard the Church’s unity, and they now look to leadership from a group of largely African leaders.

Neither the liberalising American Churches nor this much smaller new Church want to leave the Anglican Communion.

But how they can exist together in the same global communion is looking increasingly problematic.

An Opinion on Why the Anglican Communion is Rending Itself Apart

I’ve found an interesting take on the Anglican Communion as it exists today, pre-split, titled “Anglicans in the Postcolony: On Sex and the Limits of Communion” by Mary-Jane Rubenstein. It can be found at Telos 143 (Summer 2008): 133–60. Importantly, for those not in the know, or at least in America and can’t seem to find a copy of “The Battle of the Bishops” because the BBC won’t let those in the USA watch it, Rubenstein also does a decent job of locating the major players and some decisions that led to the tension today.

Below is her thesis:

I would like to suggest, however, that a more useful picture—both analytically and ecclesiastically—emerges when one considers the full range of commitment and opinion within the Communion. In conversation with the work of French philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy, I will propose that the Anglican Communion’s crucial distinction falls, not between proponents of ecclesiastical relation and proponents of ecclesiastical autonomy, but rather between proponents of two different kinds of relation: one that aims to bring all difference into identity, and another that seeks its identity in and through difference. Both of these models can arguably find scriptural and traditional justification, and yet they are proving to be fundamentally incompatible as they vie for the souls—and the soul—of the Anglican Communion.

Lambeth 2008

For any of you keeping an eye or two on the Anglicans, which I am pretty sure we all should right now, the Lambeth Conference starts in a few days. The website has a few interesting things to note, and most importantly is the schedule for anyone curious.

I wonder if they will be able to keep to the stated schedule and come up with some key solutions, or if politics like GAFCON will muck it all up.

Are you serious? You’re going to do this now?

From the BBC:

Anglican conservatives form group

Conservatives are challenging the Archbishop of Canterbury’s leadership
Conservative Anglicans meeting in Jerusalem will create a global network to combat modern trends in the Church like the ordination of gay clergy.

The group has also decided to break its relationship with the liberal wings of the US and Canadian Churches.

It will operate independently of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but will stay inside the Anglican Communion. The traditionalists say they are fighting a “false Gospel” and the rift in the Church cannot be patched up. After five years of trying unsuccessfully to get the American church expelled for its ordination of an openly gay bishop and blessing of same-sex relationships in church, the traditionalists say the international alliance will emphasise a more orthodox reading of the Bible.

Are you kidding me? Right before Lambeth?

The move underlines the alliance’s independence from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and makes clear that it will no longer recognise Dr Williams’ traditional role as the leader of the world’s Anglicans.

Great, they’re going after Williams — the one who is trying to maintain a middle ground. Withdrawing from Williams’ authority doesn’t solve the problem. These specific conservatives are still in eucharistic communion with the dreaded “liberals,” even if it says its breaking its relationship with ‘em: “The group said it would stay inside the Anglican Communion, but with its own statement of theology and council of archbishops.”

This split doesn’t seem to address anything, but rather puts more pressure on Williams for Lambeth. This seems like a political move to me and not so ecclesial or theological. That is unless this is the dreaded split right here (as it seems historically mandated, the conservatives just up and left again) and they really aren’t staying in the Anglican Communion. Theres a difference between ambiguity, being unclear, or trying to have it both ways. This seems like the latter two. It sure doesn’t seem like a sophisticated response with well placed ambiguity/flexibility, thats for sure.

Oh Crap.

And now everything has gotten more complicated:

What began as a tussle over the Episcopal Church’s liberal stance on homosexuality has become a contentious legal fight over church property. The Protestants’ amicus brief says the law draws “civil courts into a theological thicket” and favors congregational-based denominations over hierarchical churches.

The Episcopal Church, the UMC, the PCUSA and other denominations argue that local congregations hold property—from the stained glass to bank accounts —in trust for the denomination. Their hierarchical structures, they say in the amicus brief, are religiously based, and civil courts have no business resolving “fundamentally religious questions.”

Rifts are bad. So is using civil law as ecclesial law. I think Paul was right and this just keeps getting worse.

More on Williams, the Row and the real discussion – communal identities

I love the concept of a blog for the flexibility it allows – discussion, editing, revision, more discussion and, best of all, creative citation. The following is, well, an orderly montage of sorts that addresses far more than the mere row over sharia law, it also engages the deeper under currents that were trying to be addressed, like multiple community identities concerning state and faith citizenship, before the media sidetracked the discussion.

First, an audio interview of Rowan Williams on youtube done in very simple language that should dispel some of the common misconceptions surrounding the recent row:

Second, part of Williams’ address at the recent general synod:

Third, N.T. Wright in his usual fantastic form on the row and the deeper issues at hand (and how it applies to those of us who are Americans):

And last, a link to The Wardman Wire that does more than catalog the sensationalism by the media, it shows that part of the sensationalism functioned as a preemptive PR campaign against Williams.

Go Williams

I fully support Rowan Williams in this row. I know I’m an American and not an Anglican/Episcopalian, but nevertheless, I support Williams and what he said (which by the way, can only be enacted when both parties want to use Sharia law). A leader should bring up this sort of idea and so to dismiss what he said by relegating it to an academic exercise is a way of dismissing Williams and what he said, rather than actually having the backbone to engage it. Its time to face reality, those immigrants actually live in the UK now and call it home. Don’t start sounding like the Minute Men.

As for what Williams said, it is actually not such a radical idea and is already in use in some places in UK law apparently. If there would be a discussion of the content of what the Archbishop said – rather than discussing the validity of him speaking, which by the way is perfectly fine for him to do, especially on something so important for the country he lives in – the Brits might have to face their own form of xenophobia (one that I am sure America has helped create by explicitly associating terrorism with Islam).

Lastly, this is academics hitting the ground. This is the “ivory tower” being practical and accessible. After all sorts of moaning and crying about academics and theologians sitting in their ivory tower and talking about things that don’t ever touch the ground, this actually touches the ground and people have the gall to tell him to go away? If his content is wrong, maybe he should back down (though I doubt it), or maybe he should be commended for raising an issue that ought to be raised, despite the xenophobia.

Keep it up Kim.

Meet an Important Voice

I am curious as to where the Anglican communion is going with the homosexuality debate. If someone can finally help figure this out, without a schism, it would be of great benefit to all of Christianity, and so I watch.

With this in mind, I would like you to meet the presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. In terms of important people and voices, she is one of the key people to watch. I found a Bill Moyers interview and would like you to meet this woman, if you have not already. No matter which side of the issue one might fall, she is someone to pay attention to.

Moyers does a good job in this interview mixing up the subject matter (in a cyclical fashion) and talking about a range of issues, so if you find yourself annoyed one minute and want to shut it off, please give it a bit more time to move on. This interview also does a good job of introducing, not only a simple understanding of the issues – like ecology, science, feminism, queer theology (yes that is the term) – but also their complexity. For instance, Schori makes an important distinction necessary for anyone to understand the argument around homosexuality: in terms of liberation, homosexuality has the same logic as that of feminism.

While Schori is a supporter of homosexuality, it was she who called a hault to practicing homosexual ordination. She is not unapproachable, in fact she is looking to make space to talk this through. She is the one with whom “conservatives” must dialogue with – she is a leader and she creates the space for the dialogue – and it is with her that “liberals” can find a leader for engagement with those who do not flee from the communion. So give her a listen, she deserves that much.

Here are a couple quotes from the transcript:

BILL MOYERS: So is this issue going to tear your church apart?

BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: I don’t believe so. I think people are going to be uncomfortable for a while, but– perhaps that’s the kind of stress that leads to growth eventually. I believe that– perhaps a few more people may decide they have to go somewhere else. That they can’t live with this– innovation, in their eyes. But I don’t believe it’s going to tear our church apart….

BILL MOYERS: As I’ve watched the struggle grow within your community, with an American Episcopalian community growing more and more liberal. And the Nigerians and Rwandans and the others growing more and more conservative on this issue. Is it possible that a divorce is the right choice down the road?

BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: It’s– it’s remotely possible. But if we give up and say that’s the only solution, I think we would lose something very precious. The Anglican Communion is one of the only worldwide faith communities that is willing to live with significant diversity of opinion. I think we have something to offer the larger society in teaching people how to live with folks who don’t agree with you. It’s not always easy, but it is of the Gospel, in my understanding.

One last word that has virtually nothing to do with Schori, but since she brought it up, it is an open door to say something on it. She attributes Galileo’s troubles to his scientific, cosmological discoveries – a heliocentric model of the solar system. Technically this is untrue and a common historical simplification. Galileo did two things the church wasn’t so okay with for which he got in trouble over. The first was saying that the sun did not stand still on that one day when the Bible says that God made the sun stand still. The Bible was wrong and maybe even a lie – at the very least it was untrue. The second was Galileo doing a bit of a PR campaign; a campaign to get his discoveries out as quick as possible, rather than letting the church ease the discoveries into society at a slower pace – a slower pace in terms of a couple generations, not 10 years. Things did move rather slowly back then. The church was mad over how Galileo used the information, after all he did virtually attack the church. I’m not trying to absolve the church, but Galileo wasn’t exactly a saint or undeservedly persecuted for his beliefs. People are messy, history is messy and nothing, or at least rarely ever, is so cut and dried.

Oh come on. Now I understand what they mean by Sectarian.

I just saw this on the BBC:

A Californian diocese has voted to become the first to break away from the US Episcopal Church in protest at its support for gays in the Church.

Now I’m not an Anglican, but there are quite a few Anglicans that I do talk to – not to mention that this schism problem is a problem everyone is dealing with, its just that the Anglicans are being open about it.

The “liberal” side of the Anglican communion made concessions earlier this year if I remember right (this is a bad phrase, “liberal,” particularly for this subject, but I’ll just run with it for this post). But, apparently the way it is right now is still not okay. This is to say, for me, very disappointing and frustrating. If the Anglican communion can’t hold together, lets just face it, we’re all screwed. They’ve got the most flexible set up; for crying out loud, their understandings of themselves, ever since Elizabeth I actually, is encapsulated in their phrase “via media” (the middle way).

Sexual theology aside, this is troubling on another fundamental level – the “conservatives” are giving up the denominations now. This is exactly how “liberals” got the seminaries and divinity schools less than two centuries ago. Read Dorrien’s trilogy for more details (vol 1, vol 2, vol 3 – especially vol 1 for this subject), but I’ll give a very brief overview: Conservatives got frustrated that liberals and unitarians made their way into Yale, Andover-Newton and Harvard (particularly in faculty positions and as visiting lecturers), so they either left or got nudged out and started up their own schools like Princeton Seminary (and then Princeton went too “liberal” for some). The liberalizing of Union was related, but also included entirely different issues as well, like historical criticism. Over all, some conservatives were clearly nudged out, but quite a few were very dogmatic on a plethora of issues and could not stand to stay. As time went on, the conservatives generally kept moving more and more to the margins.

Now it is no surprise to me that since conservatives gave up the schools, they’re now having problems staying in their denominations. However, to make that connection is the subject of a very large book and I am not prepared to write that now. I am also not advocating for “conservatives” to stay in and wrestle control from the “liberals,” rather that they should stay put. Do. Not. Leave.

When I hear the charge of sectarianism against people like my conservative undergrad or Hauerwas or some other theological position, I am very suspicious of that. Sectarians are isolationists, which my undergrad or Hauerwas is not – they’re just highly critical, nevertheless, they are still engaging. However, to leave the communion like this is to cease engagement with our community. That strikes me as sectarian. This sort of thing will continue the polarization of American Christianity and that is bad enough already. I do not think I can say this any stronger: Do not leave.

This idea of getting up and leaving is not Christian; this idea of movement despite breaking relationships is fairly American in actuality. To assume we can just simply get up and leave without maintaining ties is capitalism telling us that our job is more important than the community you’re already in. “You have to go where the company sends you or you don’t have a job” is something I’ve heard before. I didn’t like it then and I like it even less now. We have to follow jobs because we don’t have a sense of responsibility to our community and because we don’t have a community to begin with; we’re alone and subject to company power because our anthropology given by the state and the market privatizes and commodifies us. I’m becoming more and more convinced that this American incarnation of sectarianism as such is not Christian, instead it is the forces of the state and the market subverting our community. If our community of the church meant more to us than always being right, but to instead to live together, I think that this rash of schisms would not be quite as bad as it currently is.

This isn’t divorce court. Stay together.