The Blindspots in Archbishop Rowan’s Perspective
Published on 27 Jul 2009 at 8:57 am.
13 Comments.
Filed under Anglican Thoughts.
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has written a letter to the “Bishops, Clergy, and Faithful of the Anglican Communion” about his perception of where the Communion stands following General Convention 2009. That letter can be read in full here (hat tip: Thinking Anglicans).
Much of the letter is ++Rowan’s typical careful theological reasoning. However, also typical of ++Rowan over the past several years, there are some glaring blindspots in his perspective.
Same-Sex Relationships are Analogous to CWOB or Lay Presidency
Careful attention should be paid to ++Rowan’s suggestion that the place of GLBT Christians as analogous to developments in some areas that affirm Communion Without Baptism (CWOB) or Lay Presidency in Eucharist (both developments that I strongly oppose). However, this connection is deeply flawed.
Those who argue for CWOB (or lay presidency) have completely re-visioned the baptismal and Eucharistic practice of the Church. In CWOB, baptism is no longer the way in which we join a larger body that is fed by a common meal. People partake in a family meal without knowing what they are doing or why, without “discerning the body, without having first become a part of that family. In lay presidency, the very shape of what it means to be a priest (and a lay person) is obliterated. There are no longer orders within the church, they are obliterated in a false sort of equality.
Both of these questions would result in a profound change in what we believe about Baptism and Eucharist, the two dominical sacraments of the church always held in high esteem throughout Anglican history. The blessing of same-sex unions, however, is a revisioning of how we perceive the sacrament of marriage, a sacrament that has never been seen as equal in theological importance to Baptism and Eucharist. Furthermore, this is a sacrament that has seen some profound changes in how it is understood over the past two-thousand years.
The consecration of persons living in a same-sex relationship results in even less a change as it does not involve a sacramental question (our theology of orders is not changed). Rather, it results in a change in our ethical understanding of same-sex relationships (to wit, same-sex relationships are not intrinsically wrong) and a change in our understanding of anthropology (gender complementarity is out, sexual orientation is a part of who we are as humans).
The shifts in theology that are a part of TEC’s beliefs when it comes to our GLBT members are important shifts touching important theological questions. However, when once considers what has traditionally been seen as central to the Christian faith, both CWOB and Lay Presidency involve much more profound re-visioning of the catholic faith than the affirming of our GLBT brothers and sisters.
“The question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity. It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences.”
I don’t know if this was a mistake, but I find it surprising that ++Rowan would use these words to characterize the situation. It now appears that ++Rowan believes that homosexuality is “a certain choice of lifestyle.” I suppose this is helpful, because it reveals the fundamental problem in ++Rowan’s perspective. The reason he doesn’t believe this is a human rights/human dignity question is because he sees homosexuality as a “choice of lifestyle.” If he followed what science has made increasingly clear, that sexual orientation is not a choice, but is the result of several complex factors, then he could perhaps begin to see why many in TEC sees it in the realm of human rights/human dignity.
This is not a question of choice, but is a question of how the church responds to some of its members that are, through no choice of their own, different from other members. TEC has said that, due to our baptismal covenant, we must not treat those members differently. That seems to me to be fundamental to human rights and human dignity.
Consensus is Required for Coherent Community
There is a troubling assertion that, in ++Rowan’s eyes, a lack of global consensus would result in “a theologically coherent ‘community of Christian communities.’” He believes living without global consensus would turn us basically into a loose federation of national churches, acknowledging that there are some in the Communion who would see that as a positive development.
Once again, I believe ++Rowan needs greater nuance. Of course there must be some level of consensus on matters of key doctrine and practice. The Anglican Communion has clarified what those are in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Sexuality is not on that list of four things required for unity.
Though the lack of consensus on sexuality is troubling, though it does mean that we should be careful, to do good theology and remain in conversation with one another, consensus on this question is not required for us to be a theologically coherent community. A lack of consensus on questions of marriage and sex has been allowed several times in the past, while still living in profound community with each other. Unity in Christ never means uniformity in all our beliefs in practices.
The Ignored Third Moratorium: Cross-Border Interventions
Only in passing does he mention the moratorium against cross-border interventions. This moratorium has, of course, been completely ignored by those in the Global South but without any significant statement or action from any of the “Instruments of Communion.” They will grimace and say that it is rather unhelpful, but there is still a glaring lack of true engagement with those ignoring the moratorium. TEC is the whipping boy for the Communion, and ++Rowan and others prefer to blame the current failure of communion on us rather than upon those who have truly ignored the Windsor Report and moratorium as it applied to them from the very beginning.
++Rowan’s Perspective on the Communion’s Salvation: The Anglican Covenant
Once again, ++Rowan asserts his belief that the result of the Covenant may very well be a “twofold ecclesial reality” of “covenanted churches” and those who choose not to be a part of that covenant. However, he clarifies that this should not be seen as a “two-tier” model of first and second class Anglicans. Rather, it should be seen as two possible tracks, to ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage. Whether or not this new perspective on the implications of the Covenant could indeed be possible remains to be seen. I for one am rather doubtful that those who do not sign on to the Covenant will be able to avoid being seen as second-class Anglicans. Indeed, I don’t believe some people in our Communion (both on the right and the left) will be happy unless those who don’t sign on are seen that way.
++Rowan sees the question of just who may sign on to the Covenant as still being open. His language, however, needs to be carefully examined. The question he sees is open is whether “any elements within it will be free” to adopt the Covenant. Here I believe he is referring to the question of whether or not dioceses will be able to sign on to the Covenant if their national church does not. It should be stressed that in no way does he allow for the possibility (or even acknowledge the question) of allowing other denominational bodies not already a part of the Anglican Communion (e.g., the “Anglican Church of North America”) to adopt the Covenant formally.
Conclusion: The Fundamental Flaw
I believe the fundamental problem with ++Rowan’s perspective is the idea that “the present structures” have “safeguarded our unity.” Rowan’s faith is in structures to safeguard the church. We should give greater muscles to the Instruments of Unity, or we should sign on to an agreed upon statement and Covenant. If we work hard enough on these structures, they will keep us in community with one another.
The problem is that community is not the sort of thing that will be enforced by structures. Rather, our unity as Christians is safeguarded by a set of Christ-like practices, by an attitude of meekness and humility. To wit, we are safeguarded by being more Christ like. If all within the church began to truly discern the body, to see the grave harm that comes whenever one part says to another, “I have no need of you,” then our unity would be strengthened. If all within the church saw the need for respecting the conscience and study of their brothers and sisters, trusting the Spirit to guide us into all truth, then our unity would be strengthened.
This is what has safeguarded the church, this is what will continue to safeguard the church: grounding our lives in the self-giving glory of God in Christ, shaping our lives after the Gospel, looking to recognize the gifts of those pushed to the edges and finding our own lives transformed by their witness. Structures will come in go, a lifestyle and attitude shaped by Christ will safeguard the church until God draws all things to Godself. I fear sometimes that ++Rowan and the broader church have forgotten that. I pray that we will all remember.
Gracious Father, we pray for your holy Catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ your Son our Savior. Amen.
Christopher on 27 Jul 2009 at 3:00 pm: 1
TEC has said that, due to our baptismal covenant, we must not treat those members differently. That seems to me to be fundamental to human rights and human dignity. Not only that, it touches on catholicity itself. There seems to be a flaw in thinking catholicity is something we grasp at rather than live into–as you note, it’s about how we treat one another that properly roots catholicity as found in the New Humanity, Jesus Christ.
Fr Mark on 27 Jul 2009 at 3:56 pm: 2
I think the worst thing about the document is Rowan’s complete denial of the lived reality of the thousands of partnered gay people who are faithful members of the Church of England.
Leonel on 27 Jul 2009 at 7:06 pm: 3
I am sorry but I think it is pretty clear that, with ‘lifestyle’, Rowan is referring to a homosexual person ‘choosing’ to either participate from a same sex sexual relationship or/and formalizing said union through some ritual in the church, rather than to a sexual orientation as such.
Christopher on 28 Jul 2009 at 10:23 am: 4
Jared,
See my latest post. Underlying Williams’ approach is a “pipeline” theory to which both Maurice and Ramsey were opposed.
drdanfee on 28 Jul 2009 at 1:50 pm: 5
Thanks lots for your careful, detailed analysis, J. It helps to have these kinds of RW statements carefully considered.
My own reading focuses more on the broad sweep, wherein I continue to find contradictions in RW’s grasp of our local and global hot button dilemmas.
RW fails to get the functionality of Anglican bonds of affection and processes of listening (across our differences, especially). RW seems to uphold affection and listening, but in the end trivializes them - too informal? Too weak? Not top down enough? What is the problem, RW? I would suggest that these are the somewhat formal-informal institutions or dynamic structures of real communion engagement which arise out of the personal-interpersonal Christlike discipleship you describe as our better way forward. Surely we would be a whole lot better off, if RW were using his bully pulpit to call for Christlike behaviors from those Primates who refuse to talk and do eucharist with others? Surely giving a complex, accurate picture of how these serve us as Anglicans would at least preach that conversation and common ground is globally possible, even though we shall continue to have differences to some extent?
RW doesn’t get that historical leeway & Settlement open for us a typically messy but valuable Anglican way of ‘holding two or three or four elements in tension, intellectually, and even to surprising extent, administratively’. Once you boil out that leeway, structurally by confining it to the much vaunted Instruments of Communion, why should the very little believer folks on the ground bother at all to study, think, talk, or learn from diversity. Isn’t that reserved for the really big, bad boys at the top?
It’s especially odd to hear RW arguing this, since RW so loves to look at things from different angles - provided he is the one doing the looking, and not some irrelevant little person sitting somewhere in a local pew?
RW always reserves that typical complexity for his own statements; but for example, his new two tier manners would definitively deny such complexity to all other Anglicans newly drawn out of formal participations in the high and mighty Instruments. Just as well,m I guess. Who knows what those people might dare to say? Recursively, eventually, even that leeway is distilled away for RW, himself. He’d better cherish reading science, for the new covenant clock is ticking away. He’d better speak in complicated narratives while he can as an Anglican Official, for the day soon arrives when his speech will be condemned for not being strict enough and simple enough to meet the status quo standards he himself is saying trump all proper Anglican speaking. Let academia and society natter on, then, because we believers already know the earth is flat, thanks to our scriptures.
Gee, RW: We’ve been down this alleged road to believer unity and witness and strength before; it has truly never been pretty. People fought and died over the differences between consubstantiation and transubstantiation. Now there’s official polity and preaching for us. It was not helpful in the long run. To believers or to society.
Say again, oh please, RW: How will all that old weaponized stuff save us, now?
How can RW keep presuming a simple, folklore view of the distinctions between sexual orientation and sex behaviors? This shorthand may serve us all well in ad hoc daily life matters, up to a point.
Yet. Anybody who has (1) deeply and carefully reflected upon their own inner personality and dynamics and behavior, plus (2) read the relevant human sciences literatures - will immediately recognize that parsing, investigating, and weighing sexual orientation requires more than a knee jerk folklore habit of mind and indeed of heart.
Is that consideration the real world rub for RW? Queer folks do in fact exist, love, witness, serve others, and quite often in the process of living out each and all those things – thrive. No matter what awful stuff RW believes about them; or says that believers proper must believe about them?
I am left guessing that maybe RW suffers from remnants of the worst sort of uppity scorn for real world queer folks, who are basically nothing but low life. Isn’t that the global Anglican witness, according to RW? Won’t that be the single global Anglican witness until very single Anglican suddenly agrees otherwise, per RW?
His whole pastoral solution for queer folks (plus family, plus friends) boils down to two recommendations. Two ways to live as a modern queer person or somebody related to such a queer person in daily life, two ways plain and strict and simple. (There is that simple, again.)
Either queer folks (1) stay properly in the old closets where prejudice and mistreatment consign them for life; or queer folks may openly, honestly communicate, love, work according to their merits and training, and thrive - provided they do so (2) outside church life, period. Outside Anglican church life globally, in particular.
Any of the contradictions might encourage us to slow down in rushing to do, say, new covenant with RW as our designated only prime speaker. How can he anguish over parsing who speaks for queer folks, when he simply presumes that no queer folks may be permitted in faith communities to speak for themselves? If VGR does not speak partly for us as queer person discerned and called clergy, bishop - who in the world can be heard, speaking up for us truthfully in any assembly?
Obviously not RW. He only talks ‘about’ queer folks; not ‘with’ them. (Except out of earshot behind closed doors.)
The question of who speaks cannot be finally disconnected from the dynamics and structures that might revolve around asking, What is the hot button topic of our moment? Right now, thanks not least to strict conservative upset and legacy negative beliefs (many of which are flat earth-isms in a folkloristic sort of way), the people who say they are speaking ‘for’ queer folks are patently not of one ethical or theological mind. Shutting the doors and windows to local people silly enough to keep speaking up may calm things down in RW’s mind; but surely outside his sealed off buble world, queer folks will continue to live and speak for themselves. And almost certainly, that message will include queer folks’ witness as followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Even RW cannot in truth deny that witness to them; however much he prefers to white wash it as being definitively Not Anglican.
Oddly, indeed, RW leaves open doors for some future outside, separate queer folks in other churches/faith groups to establish interfaith or ecumenical conversations and relationships with the newly covenanted Anglicans; while he slams those same doors shut inside the newly covenanted communion structures.
Gee this RW guy is all mixed up. Sadly, he just doesn’t get it.
Sadly. RW cannot really imagine himself at all much, in the real life shoes of a person who is humanly related to both the queer communities and church at the same time. Whether as queer person, family member, friend, or even coworker. He purifies and maintains the global by stuffing old socks in the witnessing local mouths, calling this high-handed approach, quintessentially Anglican?
What could have so skewed and tormented him? Did Orombi or somebody threaten to beat him up, proper, just like one of those queer people in Uganda or Jamaica or Sidney or USA or Canada?
Alas. Lord have mercy.
Pat Fox on 28 Jul 2009 at 3:53 pm: 6
“If he followed what science has made increasingly clear, that sexual orientation is not a choice, but is the result of several complex factors”
Jared with all due respect there is no scientific proof that clearly points to homosexuality is something ones born with, if anything, the weight of evidence points to learned behavior.
I know that you don’t believe it which is fine, but out of the sake of looking at both sides of the issue you’re not being fair with the science. There is no overwhelming evidence in which science has come to your conclusion.
Btw, I’m not here to debate you, I just like to read your blog and sermons once in a while, I miss your preaching when you were at Community of Faith.
Btw, I’m proud you’ve excelled so well in your faith and your work. Chappy and I always new you would go on to bigger and better things, we were right!
God Bless
Pat
Josh Indiana on 29 Jul 2009 at 2:55 am: 7
I am appalled by the retrograde behavior of the English Church in recent years, and I increasingly wonder why anyone thinks this archbishop’s pronouncements are worth attending to.
I really think the Communion is already lost, just like the Empire was.
The message I got from General Convention was, “This is where we are, we love you all, and now we’re moving on.” We have regrets and heartaches, which always accompany schism, but I see a confident Episcopal Church. Even “consigned to outer darkness,” the mission will go on.
seamus on 29 Jul 2009 at 3:19 am: 8
To await a global consensus is
to await Godot. I dare say the Church of England could not sign onto the presently envisioned covenant as well as great many provinces. And if His Grace wants to unleash the heterotic ACNA upon the Episcopal Church then he should be well prepared to see dueling dual dioceses in Merry Olde England.
But it may ironically turn out that the second tier uncovenanted churches may ironically find themselves in the global south.
Jared Cramer on 29 Jul 2009 at 8:02 am: 9
Pat,
What a treat to “hear” your voice once again. You, Chap, and all the folks I knew while I was at Community of Faith are often on my mind.
I know you’re not here to debate me, but I would like to clarify my comments on this question. The overwhelming evidence, as I understand it, is that sexual orientation is not “chosen” (as ++Rowan and others indicate). Rather, it is likely the result of several complex factors including genetics, prenatal development, etc. All professional organizations (with the exclusion of NARTH) recognize it as a fixed state and oppose attempts at “conversion” or “reparative therapy.
Science is indeed divided and still unsure as to why some people are gay and others are not, but there a very very few mainstream scientists who would say someone chooses to be gay. That was the point I was trying to make.
Pat Fox on 29 Jul 2009 at 9:44 am: 10
As you know me, I have a lot to say about this but will refrain because I believe subjects like this can lose the love it takes when expressing ourselves merely with the written word. It would be much better over a dinner and a beer or two! :)…and probably multiple sessions! lol…It’s on me!
I do agree with you about the complexities about our sexuality but would say the word “chooses” is not the right word from my perspective, I’ll leave it at that!
Anyway, I think you would be very surprised (but pleased) as to what’s been happening in the CoC’s. Rochester is a wonderful place and is very much into challenging the congregation. We have a new crop of Elders (some of your professors at RC) that are moving the Church out of the pews and into the community, we’re affecting people’s lives.
Sorry to disrupt your blog with a blast from the past. Just know Jared that you’re missed and loved from your “other” brothers in the CoC.
Carry on.
Always in Christ love!
Pat
Jared Cramer on 29 Jul 2009 at 9:58 am: 11
Thanks Pat. Next time I’m in the Detroit area we will indeed have to have dinner and a beer or two. You do need to meet my wife, after all! She’s heard so much about you, and the hospitality you showed me when I lived in Northern Detroit. I remain deeply grateful for it.
Mark Lackowski on 29 Jul 2009 at 11:25 am: 12
Jared,
I greatly appreciate your contribution to this important discussion and look forward to your future thoughts to help further the dialogue. N.T. Wright recently wrote a piece in response to the Anglican/Episcopal conflict and Ben Witherington wrote his own response to that very article. I was wondering if you had read, or cared to read, either piece? If so, I’d like to hear your response to them because I think they provide some context into ++Rowan’s position of “lifestyle choice” versus an issue of “human rights”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6710640.ece
http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/2009/07/the-wright-stuff-hits-the-fan.html
Grace & Peace,
Mark
Jared Cramer on 29 Jul 2009 at 1:35 pm: 13
Mark,
Good to hear from you. I had read the piece that +Wright wrote. I have to say, I think he’s an excellent scholar, but I have very few kind words to say about him as a bishop. His essay is full of misrepresentation and inappropriate sectarian “politicking.” The best response I’ve read to +Wright’s most recent article was from Jim Naughton here. The tenor of his response is a little tougher than I prefer, but his overall points remain solid.
I had not read Ben Witherington’s essay that you linked to, but I also have to say that I find it terrifically unhelpful, particularly from the perspective of New Testament scholarship. I won’t repeat my arguments against what Witherington says, (they’re laid out here) but I will say that both of their unwillingness to accept a diversity of opinion on this subject, or to acknowledge that there is solid scholarship on both sides, is terribly problematic for me.
Always good to hear from you.