Eloquent.

I disagree with the author in one way only, his use of the present tense. Rowan Williams sold his soul to Richard Mellon Scaife a long time ago, in the name of "Anglican unity." Scaife considered it a bargain, the price cheap.

Williams is just plain bizarre. It is strange to see a man refute and refuse all his own beliefs in the name of a cause which, his old lectures and writings say, is not only compatible with those beliefs, but in fact demands them!

His position seems to have become, if one person anywhere disagrees with me, I must be wrong, and my ideas are meaningless. Now there is true discipleship for you.

In his capacity as the head of the CoE I have no problem with him because he is Their Problem.™ Anything outside that strictly limited sphere...no.

Given his deep inconsistencies it's almost a joke when he speaks or writes now. Pity.

On the other hand, I think we see very clearly in the decisions and moves by him and his fellow Englishmen, the very reason it is essential for the unity of a church that it not be subject to governance, control or direction from beyond its national borders. No matter what situation may obtain at a particular time--because times change.

Williams' entire term reaffirms the wisdom of the Quadrilateral when it says that the Church is best organized when " locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the
varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church."

For that, I praise him.

Rowan had the credibility to "speak on the most urgent issues of our day"?

That's news to me.

No, he hasn't had any credibility to lose.

Not since the previous time he stuck the shiv into Jeffrey John.

Not since he closed the door at Lambeth to one of our duly elected bishops because he was "controversial" but continued to invite a bishop connected to bloody mass murders in African countries (q.v., Akinola, riots in Onitsha, 'monopoly of violence' letter) and refer to him as his "brother."

Not since he lectured our bishops, treated our Presiding Bishop so contemptuously at Dar es Salaam, and played the grand lord of the manor to General Convention.

Rowan has not had an ounce of credibility in a while.

Not in a long, long time.

Dennis Roberts

In the end the people of the Synod will either allow the Archbishops' manipulations and machinations or stand against them. If their message, that of the Synod, is one of appeasement towards the would be Anglican Tyrants, then s be it.

It becomes time then to cut our funding ties to the WWAC in all areas and send missionaries to England to minister to those of good conscience who cannot abide the leadership of the ++ABC and York any longer. For all those who wish to live in a Church where women, gays and lesbians (an everyone really)are measured by the content of their faith, the quality of their relationships and their gifts for ministry let us simply say, "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You."

r.e. Michael Russell's comment above, also read his post here,

http://eudaimonia.blogs.com/anglican_minimalist/2010/07/will-the-synod-surrender.html

I must agree with Dennis. When Rowan first asked his good friend Jeffrey John to stand down from Reading, he made his first misstep, and he has gone downhill from there. The naive amongst us thought he would recover his footing, but he never did.

June Butler

The whole thing is really very sad. +Rowan seems to think that as ABC it is no longer important what he personally thinks, he has to speak for the whole CofE, or even (he fancies) for the whole AC. +Rowan, my brother, the Church knew what your personal thoughts were. That's why you were raised to Canterbury, and with the expectation that you would speak TO the CofE, and even to the whole AC. (Somebody had to clean up after +George!) Pity....

As long as Nigeria has roughly 25 million out of roughly 70 million Anglicans, the ABC has no real choice. He CAN'T ignore the beliefs of that large a chunk of the Communion.

Frankly, if it wasn't for the fact that they have a lot of money, the Episcopal Church USA would be internationally irrelevant.

Does an organization with lots of cash and empty pews meet the definition of a "church" at all?

This time the blind/bigoted buzzards are circling their own fallen and wounded...insatiable/appetites for stinking thinking/beliving will be satisfied at The Anglican Communion...desperation and spiritual instability is a very ugly thing to behold.

“Does an organization with lots of cash and empty pews meet the definition of a "church" at all?” --James Gormley

I don’t know what denomination you are a member of, James, but even my little Episcopal parish in Greenpoint, Brooklyn is growing modestly.

I take it that you are a “numbers man”? Many of that philosophy believe that the number of bums on the benches, rather than concrete acts of Christian charity, is what’s important. Never mind that many people may do very little to spread the Kingdom, while a few may do much. A million people could give less to Christ’s work than 1,000. Tell me, James, how much help have the con-evos of Nigeria given to the Haiti victims? Or, to those of the Sudan? Or to the hungry in their own country? My guess would be far, far less than the aid provided by the Episcopal Church.

Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY