I had forwarded to me, by my friend Anthony, an article (commentary) by George Pitcher in the Telegraph (UK) concerning comments made by the good Canon I mentioned in a previous post. Pitcher was not pleased with the Canon’s estimation of the world and the Church.
Here are a couple examples from the article:

Meanwhile… Virtueonline… declares that it is “the height of western Anglican arrogance to perpetuate the myth that the West holds sway over the communion.
“That day is long gone along with the Elizabethan Settlement and the British Empire.
“A new global Anglican Communion day is dawning and its strength is coming from new global quarters.”
So this conference of Anglican dissenters is not about homosexuality at all… Nor is it really about Biblical authority…
It is simply about where the locus of Anglican authority should reside. And it is driven by a post-colonial political imperative; the West has used and abused the Global South and now it’s pay-back time.
In this worldview, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is a “relic” (Canon Samuel’s word) of old empire, who must be replaced, presumably by the likes of Archbishop Akinola…
This presumes that Dr Williams is a political leader to be overthrown by an official opposition. He is nothing of the sort… The Archbishop of Canterbury is primus inter pares in the worldwide Anglican Communion, holding together (or trying to) a loose federation of global churches, often at odds with one another but on a common journey.”

Well, yes. I left out some of the more “descriptive” impressions Pitcher detailed in describing Akinola and GAFCON participants because I think he goes too far. I will say again, a reason these kinds of groups use terminology like “post-colonial” or “relic” to describe the “old” Anglican Communion and Archbishop is because the “old” guard does not do what they want. They imagine that since they have more numbers at the moment that they should, can, and will dictate what everyone else must do and believe, and do because God told this group what we all should and should not do and believe. The sad thing for me is that I actually agree with some of the stuff they stress, but I will not simply believe anything because a group tells me to. Too many of the members of this kind of group or mindset do want to dictate rather than live in the messy world of process (and I’m NOT talking about Process Theology), wrestling with very difficult issues, and critically thinking which often lead to different opinions.
Difference in belief is not good, in this way of thinking. God has established one Truth that is discernible in all ways and for all times without question, and to question is to repudiate and doubt. Does history bare this out? Funny thing is, they want to hold onto the “old, tried, and true” systems of thinking, believing, and doing when it comes to issues of morality or theology or praxis, but want to jettison the “old, tried, and true” when it comes to issues of governance, authority, and relationships – even in the “old” idea that the validity of the Sacraments do not depend on the celebrant’s human condition. Is this another example of the shift in the way we deal with Truth seen between the Modernist and Post-Modernist systems?
If there is opposition to their dictates from the “West” (which includes provinces and bishops in Africa, Asia, South American, and other parts of the “Global South”) it is because of… what? heresy, apostasy, capitulation to the heathen, pagan culture, Satan’s deception, and on and on.
These are convenient charges that sound very politically correct. Isn’t that strange?
WELL, we go on fighting within the world’s third largest expression of the religion of Christianity. All the while, this comment posted to the article sums up what I imagine most people think (if they even know anything about what is going on):

Reading this reminded me of why I consider the CoE to be a complete irrelevance. I can just about “get” Roman Catholicism, although I am not a member of that Church…
At the moment, it happens to be divided by a bitter internal feud, and its members have fallen into the common error of thinking that if they feel strongly about their feud, it must represent important issues.
The fact is, however, that like a feuding family, it is only those inside the feud who think it important while the rest of us look on in bemusement, wondering what all the fuss is about.
What’s amazing to me is how many of your readers, on either side, seem to imagine that this feud has any significance at all in the wider world. The spats between my pet cats make more sense to me that this nonsense.
Posted by… on June 26, 2008 11:07 PM

I was reading in the Guardian UK about recent happenings at the “Global Anglican Futures Conference” (GAFCON) in Jerusalem. GAFCON is the “alternative” Lambeth that many of the anti-gay-inclusion Anglicans are having so that they don’t have to be around all the other Anglicans that don’t think like they do.
This particular article focuses on statements made by Canon Vinay Samuel, a member of the GAFCON leadership team, concerning the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and the Anglican Churches of the West. From the Guardian article, he is quoted as saying such things as:

– “‘We know a little more than he gives us a credit for… The church is such a mess and unable to understand the post-colonial reality,’ Samuel said.”
– “Rowan Williams did not adequately appreciate the intellectual subtlety and depth of the developing world.”
– “Race gets entrenched on religious institutions and it takes longer to get rid of. Williams has to really trust the leadership of non-western primates.”
– “Rowan Williams is too much of a relic of the old left ideology which is not pragmatic enough.”
– “‘I would dismantle Canterbury and Lambeth, they have little influence and do not reflect the reality of the world,’ Samuel said.”

The accusation that those of the West cannot escape a colonial mindset or are beset with racist tendencies seems to me to be more about the West’s refusal to agree with and acquiesce to the demands of the Southern archbishops/primates and their beliefs rather than about actual incidents involving racist or colonialist attitudes or actions. My perception is that they feel slighted, ignored, sidelined, maligned basically because Williams and others in the West simply do not do as they say. They take upon themselves the role of defenders of the true faith and if others disagree with them, well, those others must not really love Jesus but rather their heathen culture. To disagree with the “Third-World,” “Southern Hemisphere,” “African/Asian” “conservative-orthodox” interpretation of Scripture, their understanding of correct social mores, et.al., means that they are not respected and that those in the West who disagree with them are beset by attitudes of racism and colonialism. I really doubt that Williams does not understand them or the geo-political and cultural realities. He, and others, simply disagree. To allow for disagreement IS Anglican.
While reading the Guardian article, I came across an organization I have never heard of before, Anglican Spread, which seems to be an organization bent on the furtherance of a Reformed (Calvinist) form of Anglicanism. In an article on their website, they reference a speach giving by the Archbishop of Canterbury to seminary students in Toronto in 2007 concerning this miss understanding and use of Romes 1 by those determined to reject and condemn of forms of same-sex relationships.
For some reason I missed this! The news report of the speech from Reuters is entitled, “Anglican head Williams says anti-gays misread Bible.” The article states:

“The spiritual leader of the world’s 77 million Anglicans has said conservative Christians who cite the Bible to condemn homosexuality are misreading a key passage written by Saint Paul almost 2,000 years ago.
“Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams… said an oft-quoted passage in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans meant to warn Christians not to be self-righteous when they see others fall into sin.”
“Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage,” Williams said…
“Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding.”

Speaking of the portion of Scripture and its use, Williams is quoted as saying:

“It would not help pro-gay liberals, he said, because Paul and his readers clearly agreed that homosexuality was “as obviously immoral as idol worship or disobedience to parents.”
“This reading would also upset anti-gay conservatives, who have been ‘up to this point happily identifying with Paul’s castigation of someone else,’ and challenge them to ask whether they were right to judge others, he added.?
“‘This does nothing to settle the exegetical questions fiercely debated at the moment,’ Williams said.”

Recently, there has come to light a “gay wedding” at a Church of England parish in London. From what I read, it has caused quite a row. The policy of the Church of England as of now is that civil-union ceremonies or “marriages” are not allowed in CofE churches, although civil-unions are legal in England (and for priests).
In a recent Guardian Online (UK) story entitled, “Priest rebuked for ‘marrying’ gay vicars in church,” the Bishop of London, the Right Reverend Richard Chartres, is reported to have rebuked the priest, the Reverend Martin Dudley, of St. Bartholomew’s parish for conducting the “marriage” between two vicars.
The bishop’s rational for his rebuke is not what might first come to mind – anti-gay stuff. Here are a couple paragraphs from the article quoting the bishop’s letter to Fr. Dudley concerning his reasons for the rebuke:

In his letter to Dudley today, the bishop of London wrote: “I read in the press that you had been planning this event since November. I find it astonishing that you did not take the opportunity to consult your bishop. St Bartholomew’s is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence.”
The point at issue was not civil partnerships or the relation of biblical teaching to homosexual practice because there was a range of church opinion on these matters and homophobia was not tolerated in the Diocese of London, he added.
“The real issue is whether you wilfully defied the discipline of the church and broke your oath of canonical obedience to your bishop.” [Emphasis mine]

I think the issue of “personal fiefdoms” and willfully defying church order, Canons, et cetera, is primary concerning so many of the controversies going on within not only the CofE, but also the Episcopal Church USA and all of the Communion. I like the term “personal fiefdoms.” Too many priests feel as if their parish is their own to do with and to whatever they “feel” is right, and to hell with vows, Canons, ecclesiastical rules, et cetera.
There are times when civil or ecclesiastic disobedience is important and justified. There are times when situations in organizations become so onerous to abide by that priests and/or people leave – quietly and peaceably (or at least they should). Civil or ecclesiastic disobedience should not be the norm, however. It has become the norm in too many places and we are all suffering the consequences of fiefdoms and disobedience.
Hat-tip: Thinking Anglicans
UPDATE: Here are the pertinent paragraphs from the bishop’s letter itself:

“The point at issue is not Civil Partnerships themselves or the relation of biblical teaching to homosexual practice. There is of course a range of opinion on these matters in the Church and, as you know, homophobia is not tolerated in the Diocese of London. The real issue is whether you wilfully defied the discipline of the Church and broke your oath of canonical obedience to your Bishop.
“The Archbishops have already issued a statement in which they say that “those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”
“St Bartholomew’s is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence. I have already asked the Archdeacon of London to commence the investigation and I shall be referring the matter to the Chancellor of the Diocese. Before I do this, I am giving you an opportunity to make representations to me direct.”

An opinion piece on “Catholic Online” concerning Anglicanism’s conflicts and the loss of the Via Media. It is an interesting look at what is happening with Anglicanism and our conflicts and what the author thinks is necessary for our return to the Via Media.
A quote:

The Anglican Church has given much to the Christian world. Beautiful English liturgies, priceless hymns, and great thinkers such as C.S. Lewis, are only a few of the great gifts we have all received.
May they regain a sense of their place in the broader Christian community, rediscover their historical foundations in Christian orthodoxy and make a true contribution to the work of the Holy Spirit in the work of recovery,renewal and communion.

A good article in The Christian Century on “Anglican Angst” and the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA, connected with Rwanda’s Anglican Church) and their leaving the Episcopal Church. The result, at least around Chicago, has been split after split after split.
Read it here.
Here is the concluding paragraph:

Theologians from Augustine onward have insisted that the effort to leave one church to start a better one results not in a better church but a worse one—and it also fosters the bad habit of defection. The history of Western Christendom attests to the wisdom of this view. The question for the Anglican Mission in the Americas is whether antagonism toward the Episcopal Church is enough to shape a coherent Anglican identity in a complex global setting.

From The Catholic Herold (Britian)
Williams faces historic choice, says Vatican cardinal
By Anna Arco, 6 May 2008

A Vatican cardinal has said that the time has come for the Anglican Church to choose between Protestantism and the ancient churches of Rome and Orthodoxy.
Speaking on the day that the Archbishop of Canterbury met Benedict XVI in Rome, Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity, said it was time for Anglicanism to “clarify its identity”.
He told the Catholic Herald: “Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?
“Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox – or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions.”
He said he hoped that the Lambeth conference, an event which brings the worldwide Anglican Communion together every 10 years, would be the deciding moment for Anglicanism.

Read the entire article
I agree – it is time to decide, but the decision will be Anglican. Yes, I think we are and I want to be part of the ancient Church exemplified in Rome and Constantinople rather than Protestant, but that does not mean we have to become Roman or Orthodox. We are Anglican, part of the ancient Church but different in our expression of that Faith once delivered to the saints. Just ask Anglican-Evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics which side of the divide Anglicanism rests! You will get an earful!
Via: Titusonenine