Split Not Inevitable
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, in an interview to be published on Friday, in Time says he is not optimistic about the future of the Anglican Church but adds that a schism over gay issues is not inevitable, reports Michael Conlon, Religion Writer for Reuters.
The state of the 77-million-member global church "feels very vulnerable. I can't, of course, deny that. It feels very vulnerable and very fragile, perhaps more so than it's been for a very long time," Williams told Time Magazine.
"I don't think schism is inevitable. The task I've got is to try and maintain as long as possible the space in which people can have constructive disagreements, learn from each other, and try and hold that within an agreed framework of discipline and practice." Asked if was optimistic, Williams said "I'm hopeful. Not optimistic," agreeing that "hopeful" was a "safer" word.
Later in the interview Archbishop Williams explains his thinking on which bishops to invite to the Lambeth Conference and why he left Bishop Robinson and Bishop Minns off the list,
"In the Time interview Williams said he did that to avoid the two bishops becoming the focus of the 2008 meeting. "The mode of their appointment in the face of substantial protest simply means their bishoping is going to be under question in large parts of the Anglican world," he said "Regarding Robinson, one thing I've tried to make clear is that my worry about his election was that the Episcopal Church hadn't made a general principled decision about the blessing of same-sex unions or the ordination of people in public same-sex partnerships," he said. "I would think it better had the church actually taken a view on that before moving to the individual case. As it is, someone living in a relationship not theologically officially approved by the church is elected to a bishop. I find that bizarre and puzzling," Williams said.
Read it all HERE
UPDATE: Time podcast of interview HERE
Time article HERE
Interview printed HERE
Regarding ++Rowan and us being bizarre: our canons state specifically that sexual orientation can not be a barrier to seeking ordination and that no one is guaranteed ordination. I do not have the canons here in front of me and so can not quote chapter and verse. For me a barrier to ordination is not just about a Candidate for Holy Orders being ordained to the Diaconate (transitional or vocational) but any ordination, including to the Episcopate. +Gene received consents by both houses, and by orders, for his consecration. We abided by our canons.
It seems to me, we were following out canons. What we did not do is follow a more "logical" (and tell me when the Holy Spirit is "logical?") in going first to authorizing blessing of unions, etc. For that matter, how would the current ABC view the selection of Ambrose as bishop while he was still a layperson. Now that is BIZARRE. Yet we celebrate him on the calendar of the church and look to him as an important person in our tradition.
I sincerely hope/pray/yearn/desire that when ++Rowan meets with our House of Bishops, that there will be an opportunity for him to meet with glbt representatives from the Episcopal Church to give him a face to put on what he calls "bizarre." I think a meeting with Susan, Louie and you name the others, to have a time with him in addition to +Gene and +Otis, so that he can see and hear and feel the movement of the Holy Spirit moving in our midst. We are real people of faith and witness and call to ministry.
There is nothing like that first person witness of a real person and a real face and a real voice. Not to equate any of these wonderful people with Jesus (as much as I like them), but I John notes: "...which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands concerning the word of life..." (I John 1:1). And finally verse 4: "And we are writing this that our joy may be complete." May it be so; our joy complete.
That type of personal, upfront, real experience of another person known previously only as a label, or a reputation, or God forbid "a problem," can make such a difference.
At the last House of Bishops meeting they wisely and graciously invited the bishops of Mexico to be with them. I would hope for this meeting with the ABC, that wisdom and graciousness would include an invitation to the glbt community within the church to make their faces and voices and stories known to the man who finds us "bizarre."
Just a thought on a very busy afternoon.
Lee Shaw
Utah
Posted by Lee Shaw![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 7, 2007 4:49 PM
I can fully grok ++RW's "worry" about TEC having progressed without fully thinking things out, since I too have a "worry" -- my concern that ++RW *&* others seem to have done the same without fully thinking out our polity. Simply because everyone else in the AC appoints their bishops, does not mean that we do. In fact (Forgive me for possibly being a little too elitist here; I truly do feel humble, not superior, about it!) to me it seems that we actually *think* more than do other provinces when it comes to bishops, since a bishop essentially has to make *two* elections of his/her peers, not one (& one of a small constituency at that).
We may not fit their versions of theology, but they in turn do not fit our version of governance, either. If we are expected to listen with open ear to their concerns, it seems only right (as in, just, righteous, honorable, equitable) that they do the same.
After all, if their "gold rusts, what will [our] poor iron do?" :)
Posted by bill nichols![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 7, 2007 11:53 PM