Bishop Marshall on Archbishop Williams

[angli_fan]

[from Daily Episcopalian]

(Bishop Paul Marshall of the Diocese of Bethlehem [Pennsylvania, USA]has written a letter that I did not think was in the public domain, but as I have now seen it on the House of Bishop and Deputies List and had a call about it from Ruth Gledhill, the religion reporter for The Times of London, I am gong to pass it along....I offer no preview except to say that the bishop articulates what many of us have been feeling about the Archbishop of Canterbury and his behavior toward our Church for some time.)


The most un-biblical part of traditional Anglicanism is its politeness, its charm, its unwillingness to confront and hold accountable those who have sought and accepted positions of supreme leadership. We in the Episcopal Church often brag about our Church's failure to address slavery as though that were a virtue and not a disgrace. The Church held together while humans died in chains and even bishops (both north and south in the beginning) traded in human flesh. We now have put the british emancipator William Wilberforce in our calendar but do not make his commemoration one of fasting and lament for our heritage of cowardice in the name of togetherness. The words and deeds of Paul and even more certainly of our utterly tactless Lord Jesus suggest that charm is less important than candor or provocative questioning, that real love in times of disagreement is often something quite uncomfortable. It seems no accident that historically we are enthralled by John, whom we cannot understand, rather than Paul, whom we can but would prefer not to.

That said, my subject, with both regret and trembling, is the Arcbishop of Canterbury, but only in the very limited sense of his functioning toward our house and to some extent our Church. That is a tiny and limited subject and I do not intend it for a discussion of the content of the myriad ministries in which he is engaged. As one too old to have anything to gain or lose, I will try to say what may be obvious to others but risky for them to voice. I hasten to add that this is not a matter of condemnation: he needs no witness from me to his reputation as a pious and good man, great in so many ways, and someone whom I overall admire as writer, teacher, and moral voice in the UK. I believe with all my heart that his intentions are at least a good as any of ours. I write of a perceived chain [of] mistakes in policy and deed, mistakes, not evil. I have made perhaps more than my share of system mistakes, so I know one when I see one.

blog.edow.org/weblog/2007/01/bishop_marshall_on_archbishop.html#more

[Canadian Phil]

This is an interesting article, mostly because it sheds more light on the view of the writer (and, by extension, many in TEC) than about Archbishop William's actual character. I knew when Archbishop Williams was appointed that there was a widespread assumption among liberals that, finally, after the Carey years, this was their chance to move forward on the homosexual ordination question. I remember clealry my wife commenting that no one would have dared to try the Robinson ordination under Lord Carey and she was right. Yet, Archbishop Williams was (and for some good reason as the writer points out) perceived as more favourable. Yet, we both thought that liberals had also badly misunderstood Rowan's actual stance because it was clear to us that he was not interested in presiding over schism: his sense of ecclesiology is simply too robust. I understand why Episcopalians feel like they've expereinced a bait and switch, but I tend to view the ABC's policy as more integrated than that . Let's consider:

1. The ABC's initial policy was restraint, not open or even concealed support for the Robinson ordination. This caused him to take several years worth of flak from impatient conservatives (wrongly aimed, I think), but I think was sound because Rowan's ecclesiology would look to heal the divisions caused by this rift and he would tend to want to calm the situation in the hopes of working out a peaceable solution.

2. He worked to contain the dammage with the Windsor Report which, I remind people, was a rebuke, if rather mild of the policy of TEC and AC of Canada. It also held within it the hint that, if TEC didn't come around of its own accord, there would be consequences. I remember fully liberals on this board being quite upset about the discipline issues, but that has always been hinted at in the Windsor Report. If you doubt me, go back to its conclusions.

3. The ABC's actions since the Windsor Report have reflected this pattern. He has been restrained until GC 2006, despite the fact that the Primates and the ACC both had made it clear that TEC was not abiding by the Windsor Report. They imposed sanctions ,but the ABC did not until GC 2006. In this, he was heavily criticized by conservatives, and, as I recall, the liberals held firmly that communion with the ABC is all that counted. This, as I suggested at the time, seemed to mean that that they still expected the ABC to come down on their side .After GC 2006, in the ABC stated opinion, did not really address the Windsor Report, this is the point that the ABC started to talk tougher. This is consistent with the trajectory suggested in the Windsor Report so should not have come as any surprise.

What I'm saying here is that I recognize that liberals feel blindsided, but, really, they should have seen this one coming. They were warned in the Windsor Report and all the ABC has done is to act on those warnings. This should not be surprising.

Lastly ,on the criticism of the ABC post 9/11, I really don't share that feeling that is was a bad pastoral moment nor do I agree that liberal constituents were the ones offended (conservatives almost blew a gasket). What the ABC said was pastorally bold, but also wise, given the fact that it was clear that 9/11 would cause a war. Rowan was simply trying to short circuit that by asking us to think about our own responsiblity. That is the mark of a good pastor, to challenge us to a Christian response, even in the moment of emotional upset (possibly especially). It was brave, even if futile.

Peace,
Phil

[Sojourner]

I'm just a bit embarassed by Bishop Marshall's tone. Angst, chagrin and "woundedness" seem a bit over the top for my taste. I am at peace with the decisions TEC has made in the past 30 years, and sleep well in the knowledge that, for us, we are being true to the gospel as the Holy Spirit guides us. Given that, I hold no particular animosity to those who are confident that I, and my Church, are evil and hell bound. I just don't agree.

Perhaps it is time for the ABC to get the guts declare that he is no longer in communion with TEC. That would pretty much take care of the situation as it definitively destroys one of the four principles upon which our membership in the Anglican Communion is based. But, that's his decision.

[NELib]

I think Canadian Phil's historical summary is accurate, and it is good to remember what lead us here. It seems to me that the ABC's actions and words have been consistently to try to prod ECUSA into compromising with the orthodox and evangelicals within its midst in hopes that, once satisfied by truly adequate alternative oversight, the steam in the movement to kick ECUSA out of the communion would abate and the orthodox, including the global south primates, would settle for second class status for ECUSA and something that worked like a separate province for the orthodox. And the communion would be preserved. The ABC's "Reflections" right after GC 06 seemed to me to be one big plea for ECUSA to work with him on it. Up to that point, I think it might have been achievable.

And then ECUSA decided it would not compromise. Under Schori, the decision was apparently made to suppress the orthodox, with depositions and lawsuits everywhere. One would have thought that with one month until the next primates meeting, ECUSA would at least try to be perceived as being reasonable. But, instead, they boldly announced a scorched earth strategy. This is particularly notable in Virginia, where Falls Church and Truro are particularly well known for their close relations to both the global south primates and the evangelicals in the CoE. I still don't know what will happen at Tanzania, but ECUSA seems to be doing everything it can to ask for discipline.