Having heard the same thing (from probably the same sources) my next wondering is which booth will be serving the Purple Koolaid and which booth will be serving the antidote.

Susan Russell

Coming to lead us in a few rounds of the Lambeth Kum bah ya -- in case the bishops forgot the words.

My question is whether the Archbishop will worship at an Episcopal Church while he's here. I have heard that he has never participated in a Eucharist at an Episcopal Church since becoming the ABC...

...Has he ever worshipped in YOUR church?

(He has worshipped at a convent outside of Baltimore, and at the Georgetown Episcopal Center...)

(And, Ann, perhaps he we lead the delegates in a friendly game of soccer, or cricket!)

It should be interesting!

Peter+
http://santospopsicles.blogspot.com

Let's try not to have it both ways. He's been criticized for being distant. If this proves to be true, he'd come by here at our invitation rather than speaking at a distance or only to our bishops. And notice that Jim wrote that a "number of other Primates are invited as well." Presumably those invited represent a mix of views.

Besides "participat[ing] in some sort of forum about the world economic situation [and] offer[ing] a meditation at the daily Eucharist" will he also address the presenting issues of division, and use the opportunity to ask for restraint? Probably -- and it will be for individuals to decide how to respond. If there is koolaid on offer, they don't have to drink it. If I were a deputy I'd surely like the opportunity to hear what he has to say.

While I too have misgivings, I am pleased he would consider an invitation.

My concern, JohnB, is that he's here ONLY TO TALK, and not to listen. [IIRC, isn't that what ++Sentamu did 3 years ago, when he showed up?]

Whatever he does say, however, I hope he'll say IN PUBLIC, to GC---or at least the HofD!---as a whole (in which case he may have to hear a response, whether he wants to or not. ;-/)

JC Fisher

Peter Carey has a fun post about the ABC's possible visit here,

http://santospopsicles.blogspot.com/2009/02/california-dreamin-rowan-williams-rumor.html

I agree with you, JC Fisher: I hope all will be listening, and that all in HoD will have a part in the exchange, not just some.

If this is true, I pray that the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't come to try to exercise influence at GC. If he comes to listen, and learn, and observe how the General Convention of the Episcopal Church works, that could be all right.

- June Butler

I am posting this for Doug LeBlanc:

Archbishop Williams gave his blessing at All Souls Episcopal Church, a mission in the Lower Ninth Ward, when he was in New Orleans to meet with the House of Bishops. Video coverage of that visit is available on this page. (I apologize that I cannot find a more specific URL for the video.)

Has anyone suggested that the archbishop absented himself when the House of Bishops celebrated daily Eucharists during its meeting in New Orleans? He certainly has partaken at Eucharists with Presiding Bishops Griswold and Jefferts Schori, and expressed his sadness when other primates abstained from partaking.

With this in mind, I'm not sure I understand the great relevance of whether Archbishop Williams has partaken of the Eucharist in an Episcopal congregation when his feet are on U.S. soil.

Doug

I think he will express hope about such things as Covenant Draft and "the highest level of Communion possible." It will be helpful to hear him, even if only in the sense that we'll have a better picture of the lay of the land after he speaks.

Well, after he speaks, and the translators put out their varying interpretations....

Marshall Scott

In the post above by me as GrandmèreMimi, I forgot to sign my name.

June Butler

Doug,

Thanks for that information. I had heard that Rowan Williams, in his role as the Archbishop of Canterbury had not participated or presided at an Episcopal Church in the United States. I actually could not quite believe it (I don't believe he's preached or celebrated at cathedrals like the Washington (National) Cathedral, nor at St. John the Divine), but folks who follow him closely had not remembered ever seeing pictures of him, or descriptions of him attending an Episcopal Church.

I see your opinion that it might not have great relevance that he might not have attended church in the U.S. On the other hand, perhaps it is relevant. If we take the sacrament of the Eucharist seriously, showing up to participate is indeed relevant...and if we don't show up, it may also be relevant, don't you think?

Peter+

Proposed New Business for GC: telling the ABC directly, what they think of his disinvite/arrest-on-sight of the Bishop of New Hampshire. >:-(

JC Fisher

I thank Jim Naughton for posting my comment last night. I ran into repeated trouble on TypePad, and I've registered anew.

To follow up with Peter Carey, I have found an article from the Times that mentions Rowan Williams not only participating in a Holy Eucharist here but serving as its celebrant.

The story, by Rupert Shortt, describes the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001:

The following day he managed to reach St John the Divine Cathedral, where he was due to give a lecture, with time to spare. He was immediately asked to celebrate an unscheduled Eucharist at the high altar and agreed to do so. [The Rev. Frederic] Burnham [then the director of the Trinity Institute] was inspired.

"When [Rowan] got to the rubric for the homily he was totally surprised; he hadn't expected to preach, so he preached off the cuff. He went back to an encounter that he had with an airline pilot on the streets at 7am that morning. The pilot said to him, "Where the hell was God?" Rowan's answer was that God is useless at times like this. Now that's pretty shocking, but actually what he then went on to unpack is that God didn't cause this and God [was not] going to stop it, because God has granted us free will, and therefore God has to suffer the consequences of this like we do. So in a sense he exonerated God..."

The archbishop will return to Trinity Wall Street in January for another theological conference, "Building an Ethical Economy: Theology and the Marketplace."

The question of the Archbishop of Canterbury has participated in a Eucharist in the United States is jurisdictional. When a diocesan Bishop is present in a parish in his or her diocese, they are expected to celebrate the Eucharist and preach. When the Presiding Bishop comes to a diocese it becomes a question whether the diocesan is celebrant or the PB is. (Normally the diocesan will celebrate because the US favors local authority.) As the Archbishop of Canterbury, there are questions as to what exactly his role is if he is in an Episcopal Church. Should he be the celebrant or preacher? The same type of question arises about his "moral leadership" if he addresses General Convention. What authority gives him the right to speak? What moral weight should be given to his words by the HoB and HoD? Since we know he is not like the pope and can't simply tell TEC what to do, what exactly is his role?
Because this jurisdictional confusion exists, it is not surprising in the current climate that Rowan Williams isn't jetting over to the US to come to communion in the TEC churches regularly. It could look like he was interfering with our polity. The question is, if he comes to GC and tells TEC what he thinks we should do, is he overreaching his role?

- Mike Angell

While I don't want to make too much of this point, the fact is that Rowan Williams has kept his liturgical distance from the Episcopal Church since the consecration of Gene Robinson. He has never worshipped at a church in the Diocese of Washington, despite frequent weeklong visits to Georgetown University (where he sometimes invites guests to a Eucharist in a private chapel followed by breakfast.) He lived a stone's throw from three of our church a couple of summers ago while he was on Sabbatical, yet never visited one of them. He turned down an invitation to participate in the yearlong 100th anniversary celebration of the National Cathedral. It doesn't seem to me too much of a leap to conclude that for one reason or another he'd prefer not to be seen associating too closely with Episcopalians in any sort of voluntary, un-official, what-choice-did-I-have kind of way. No doubt he has his reasons, but the fact remains that he has been willing to forego a relationship with the Anglican Christians in this country in the service of some other goal.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I saw on another blog someone suggest invite him to come to present something at some of the "fringe activities" around GC, maybe give him a stall somewhere, while forbidding him to act in any episcopal/sacerdotal role without permission or to vest as a bishop, and finally circulate his photo to all security monitors to screen all entrances to make sure +Cantaur is not sneaking into official meetings, but to instead arrest him on sight.

Interesting discussion...

Douglas, you do amazing work to research these things. I read the article you mentioned (I had read it earlier). The article mentions that the Archbishop did celebrate at the Eucharist in New York City just after September 11th, however, the year was 2001 (I did not see another reference), and he was not yet Archbishop of Canterbury, and Gene Robinson was Canon to the Ordinary in New Hampshire. So, my own wonderings bring me somewhere between what Jim Naughton has postulated, and what Mike Angell offers as an explanation.

Thank you for the correction, Peter. I had truly failed to remember that Rowan Williams was not yet Archbishop of Canterbury in 2001.

As this thread has engaged, to some extent, in critiquing the archbishop's theology of the Eucharist, I hope his critics will consider obtaining a copy of The Poems of Rowan Williams (2004) and reading a poem he dedicates to Frank Griswold. It celebrates the mystical union with God and with each other that occurs during the Eucharist.

As long as we've veered off into his theology of the Eucharist see this from today's Times,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5775574.ece

The Radcliffe style is so admired that it prompted an invitation to write the Archbishop of Canterbury’s 2009 Lent book [Why Go to Church? The Drama of the Eucharist by Timothy Radcliffe, with a foreword by Rowan Williams ]. ... In his foreword to the book, Rowan Williams encapsulates the point of Christianity as follows: “The drama at the core of our humanity is about our reluctance to be human; and the gift that the Church offers is the resource and courage to step into Jesus’s world and begin the business of being human afresh — again and again, because our reluctance keeps coming back.”

It appears that both "sides" of the debate regarding Bishop Robinson and sexuality are taking great pains to determine whether or not +++Rowan has participated in a TEC Eucharist on American soil. Seems more than a wee bit political to me. I show up for church and/or celebrate the Eucharist because I and others need to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, not because I do or don't agree with TEC positions or policies. It is this sort of politicizing the Eucharist that has gotten conservatives in trouble and threatens to get liberals into the same trouble. Leave the poor man alone. He's got enough to juggle.

I'm also more than a little amused at the approach/avoidance thing going on here. On the one hand, folks are berating him for not fully participating in the life of TEC. On the other hand, when he is invited to GC and agrees to come, we want to change the locks!

How about inviting him to be as much a part of General Convention as is ecclesiastically possible, hearing him out, and then following what we believe to be God's will for TEC based upon ALL the voices who have spoken, even those with whom we might disagree? Or we could just make GC like a political convention. Can you say "Bless, baby, bless!"?

With my apologies for posting comments three times in one day, I need to correct myself. The archbishop's poem appears in I Have Called You Friends: Reflections on Reconciliation in Honor of Frank T Griswold.

People with Amazon accounts may find a preview by looking up the book and navigating to page 19.

Tom, I don't really understand the point you are making. The archbishop is not a "poor man," he's a political actor who seeks and acts on political advice. It can't come as a surprise to you that political behavior begets political analysis.

Jim:

It isn't a surprise to me, and I do get the difference between me as a parish priest and the Archbishop of Canterbury. My point is that his participation or lack thereof in a particular rite of the church (i.e., the Eucharist) shouldn't be the subject of political commentary any more than my parishioners should read any political statement into my celebration of the Eucharist on Sunday morning. Neither SHOULD be a political act. I'm not saying it isn't, just that it shouldn't be. I feel the same way about Roman Catholic politicians being denied communion.

At the same time, I think it is a little disingenuous of us to complain about the Archbishop of Canterbury's absence from TEC activities and then advocate imposing preconditions on his (rumored) participation in General Convention. No, he has no legal authority in TEC, but our Presiding Bishop has precious little direct legal authority in my diocese and we don't attempt to dictate her actions when she comes--we just welcome her as the spiritual leader that she is. (It doesn't hurt that she is from this diocese--Oregon--but the point remains.)

I'm just wondering when General Convention stops being a Gathering of the Faithful for discernment of God's will through prayer and study and starts becoming a political convention with a religious patina.

As an Episcopal priest, I frankly couldn't name five GC resolutions that were passed in 2006. I seriously doubt that anyone in the world cares about more than a handful of them, yet we keep making pronouncements via resolution that the world mostly ignores. Seems like a lot of money spent just to make a political point. I don't think we'll be able to afford to do so much longer.

Tom, fair enough. I am not complaining about the fact the the ABC has been distant. I am just pointing it out.

Jim: Thanks. I'm not berating you so much as I'm complaining about the response of others to the ABC's distance and now possible participation. It just seems like we want his participation, but only on our terms. Some of the responses I've seen are essentially this: If he's going to come to try to convince us of anything, we don't really want to hear it and he should stay home.

It just seems like we want his participation, but only on our terms.

And that wouldn't be anything like the way he's treated TEC (and all the GLBTs in the Anglican Communion) in the last six years, would it?

I would happily kneel at the altar next to him for Communion--but I'm with JC Fisher. If he isn't coming to listen (especially to the laity, for whom he seems to have a deep disdain), but to try and persuade us to keep B033, he should stay home and keep his carbon footprint smaller. At least in that, he would be doing God's work in the world.

Paige Baker