Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Archbishop of Canterbury's address to the General Synod

In his first Presidential Address to the new General Synod, the Archbishop of Canterbury urges members to recognise the value of the Covenant for the life of the Anglican Communion:

"The Covenant text itself represents work done by theologians of similarly diverse views, including several from North America. It does not invent a new orthodoxy or a new system of doctrinal policing or a centralised authority, quite explicitly declaring that it does not seek to override any province's canonical autonomy. After such a number of discussions and revisions, it is dispiriting to see the Covenant still being represented as a tool of exclusion and tyranny."
He also warned of the consequences of the Church of England not engaging in the inevitable changes that will occur within the Communion, including the affect on Communion relations - which could in turn affect vulnerable churches:

"It is an illusion to think that without some changes the Communion will carry on as usual, and a greater illusion to think that the Church of England can somehow derail the entire process. The unpalatable fact is that certain decisions in any province affect all. We may think they shouldn't, but they simply do. If we ignore this, we ignore what is already a real danger, the piece-by-piece dissolution of the Communion and the emergence of new structures in which relation to the Church of England and the See of Canterbury are likely not to figure significantly. All very well, you may say; but among the potential casualties are all those areas of interaction and exchange that are part of the lifeblood of our church and of many often quite vulnerable churches elsewhere. These relations are remarkably robust, given the institutional tensions at the moment, and, as I've often said, many will survive further disruption. But they will be complicated and weakened by major fracture and realignment."
Dr Williams describes the Covenant as a tool with which disagreement within the Communion could be managed, even if such disagreement could not be resolved:

"The Covenant offers the possibility of a voluntary promise to consult. And it also recognises that even after consultation there may still be disagreement, that such disagreement may result in rupture of some aspects of communion, and that this needs to be managed in a careful and orderly way. Now the risk and reality of such rupture is already there, make no mistake. The question is whether we are able to make an intelligent decision about how we deal with it. To say yes to the Covenant is not to tie our hands. But it is to recognise that we have the option of tying our hands if we judge, after consultation, that the divisive effects of some step are too costly."
The Archbishop also turns his thoughts to the idea of the 'Big Society', and the debate taking place in Synod later today:

"at the moment, our society is calling out to the real Church with a new urgency. We are going to be discussing the language of the Big Society in this group of sessions. And if such language means anything – as I believe it does – it looks to an ideal that (John) Wesley would have recognised easily: men and women determined to enhance each others' lives by building up their freedom to shape their future and their communal life with fairness and generosity; people for whom responsibility is not a grim and repressive word but a joyful acknowledgement of what we owe to each other."
Dr Williams goes on to discuss the need for greater theological debate on both sides of the discussion around same-sex unions:

"The other issue, still bitterly divisive in the Communion, is that of our approach to same-sex unions. It is inevitable that, whether in open debate or in general discussion, this will be around during the lifetime of this Synod. I shall make only a brief comment here, having said a fair amount on the subject this time last year and in other settings. And it is that this has become a cardinal example of how we avoid theological debate. The need for some thoughtful engagement that will help us understand how people who read the same Bible and share the same baptism can come to strongly diverse conclusions is getting more urgent, because I sense that in the last few years the debate on sexuality has not really moved much. It is unthinkingly treated by some as almost the sole test of biblical fidelity or doctrinal orthodoxy; it is unthinkingly regarded by others as one of those matters on which the Church must be brought inexorably into line with what our culture can make sense of. Neither side always has the opportunity of clarifying how they see the focal theological issues – how one or the other position relates to our belief in a divine Saviour. And if we are not to be purely tribal about this, we need the chance for some sort of discussion that is not dominated by the need to make an instant decision or to react to developments and pressures elsewhere."


Anonymous Tarka the rotter said...

"Hello trees, hello flowers, hello bishops...let me welcome you to synod on this Feast Day of the Holy Fatwah of Beltane and the Circumcision of St. Divali..."

23 November 2010 at 16:12  
Anonymous Oswin said...

I don't want to be ''purely tribal'' either, but it will take more than four pen'orth of oblique woffle to sort out this particular bag of rats!

23 November 2010 at 19:39  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Saw the bearded one and couldn't be bothered reading any more. My betting is he didn't mention Jesus at all. Or remind the assembled of the great commission. Or anything else that sounded like leading lost souls to salvation. Bet he waffled on about politics and church traditions and/or church government in incomprehensible language.

23 November 2010 at 19:43  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Rebel Saint ...cor, you've the gift of second whatsit! :)

23 November 2010 at 20:23  
Anonymous Petronius said...

Actually, the Archbishop does mention the Saviour in his speech.

What I also find interesting is that, in his final quoted paragraph, particularly where he welcomes "The need for some thoughtful engagement that will help us understand how people who read the same Bible and share the same baptism can come to strongly diverse conclusions", he seems to be admitting that the Bible does, after all, require continual and thoughtful interpretation. And where he says that "It is inevitable that [...] this [debate] will be around during the lifetime of this Synod", he seems to be admitting that there is not necessarily a single interpretation which everyone will eventually agree on, and that that is OK within a catholic (small 'c') Reformed Church.

But I thought the Reformation was founded (amongst other reasons) because the reformers fiercely disagreed with the RC's on just such issues? +Dr Williams seems to be re-aligning himself with the Catholic POV here (to my mind). (ie, he's saying that debate and Biblical interpretation is needed by the Church in the light of the times we are living in, and that a diversity of opinion need not split the universality of the church). At this rate, I wonder if +Dr W will be next to 'cross the Tiber'?

23 November 2010 at 21:37  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

We keep hearing from the Archbishop of Canterbury about these bitterly divisive issues. We, the orthodox, are in the majority; all he has to do is begin the process of kicking out the Left-liberals. Will he? No.

Very well then I shall continue sitting at the back of the church each Sunday and observe and note its deconstruction brick by brick.

The orthodox are not going to continue to sit there for much longer for our ears are becoming dulled by the emptiness of liberalism.

24 November 2010 at 08:10  
Anonymous Chris Jarvis said...

I found this blog post today that should have been brought up at the General Synod.


They might have learned something.

24 November 2010 at 10:21  
Anonymous RJ said...

I must admit that he comes out much better from the sections quoted by Cranmer than I would have expected.

24 November 2010 at 11:59  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older