Posted by: dacalu | 18 June 2010

Mr. Williams

Politics managed to truly infuriate me this morning. I have been following events in the Anglican Communion for the last decade and have, more than not, been impressed to see people of conscience trying to do what they thought best. Rowan Williams, in particular, has disappointed and annoyed me in recent months, but I have always given him the benefit of the doubt. He is a man of convictions with a tough job. So I presumed that he was acting thoughtfully in the best manner he knew how. I’m afraid I must revise that opinion.

It seems that Rowan Williams – better known as the Archbishop of Canterbury, primate of the Church of England, and first among equals among all Anglican bishops – has asked Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori – better known as the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, primate of the Anglican province in the USA – not to wear her hat. Simple you say, and not important. Yes and no. The hat in question is a mitre, the sign of a bishop’s authority. Rowan has asked that Katharine not wear her hat when preaching in Southwark Cathedral.

Episcopal News Service
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_122968_ENG_HTM.htm

Diana Butler Bass’ blog
http://blog.beliefnet.com/christianityfortherestofus/2010/06/mitregate-the-anglican-crisis-over-womens-hats.html

Whatever Rowan was thinking (and I’m having trouble imagining) the message he sent was twofold:

1) he doesn’t accept Katharine’s ordination, either because she’s a woman or because she’s (US) Episcopalian
and
2) he’s petty

It would be one thing to make an official statement on the matter. It’s another to take out one’s theological frustrations liturgically. That’s punishing the people of Southwark for his annoyance at The Episcopal Church. They won’t care whether she’s mitred or not, but it sure made for an international news story. It’s not official, but it’s a very public snub.

So let us get to the theological meat of the matter. An important point of doctrine is at stake – one that really should not be reduced to head gear. The question revolves around national autonomy for churches. It is neither simple nor unemotional. On the one hand, one can make a strong case that the church should be international. In this way, bishops (and priests and everyone else) are free from catering to national interests. They can speak out against bad state policies and bad civil culture no matter where they are. A man by the name of John Henry Newman argued this quite convincingly in the late 19th century. On the other hand, one can say that every national church should have autonomy. This prevents foreign politics from interfering in local affairs. Americans were terribly concerned that John F. Kennedy would be overly influenced by the Pope when he was elected president. It turns out he wasn’t, but there have been many cases of Papal interference historically, from Cardinals ruling countries to Papal support of revolutions. The church, it seems, risks being compromised either by national politics or by international.

For my own part, I have often wavered on this matter. I see benefits to both sides; it is, however, particularly tricky for Anglicans. You see, our church(es) were founded on the idea of national autonomy. Henry VIII was brilliant and devout, but hardly anyone thinks that his desire for an annulment/divorce was a good reason to break away from Rome. The Anglican tradition cannot rest on a claim to a greater understanding of scripture, a deeper theology, or even a unique revelation. The excuse was a matter of politics (not, incidentally lust – but that’s another blog). The justification was that international secular affairs should not be messing with local religious affairs. The Pope should not be refusing (or granting) dispensations because of international alliances or because he has an army at his doorstep. He should be above that. And, because no one in practice is, we limit the temptation by limiting the size of the church and the power held in the hands of any one person. Anglicanism is based on national autonomy.

And herein lies the rub for Rowan Williams. He can either choose for national autonomy or for an international church, and I would respect either choice. If he chooses national autonomy he has no right to tell the Episcopal Church (USA) or any other Anglican province how, who, or in what manner they can choose bishops. As a man appointed by Parliament, he looks mighty silly claiming authority over an elected American Primate. Archbishop Williams may or may not choose to allow Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori to preach in his jurisdiction, but he cannot stand in judgment of her consecration.

If, alternatively, he chooses an international church, he has no right to call himself an Archbishop. John Henry Newman became famous for leaving the Church of England for Rome. The belief in an international church leads one, in the end, to recognize the largest and oldest church (in the West) as the central authority. Rowan Williams only has authority as the Archbishop of Canterbury because he thinks the British Parliament gives him that right. Thus Mr. Williams is free to believe in the international church, but it makes of him a Roman Catholic layman, and not an Archbishop.

Mr. Williams seems to have forgotten that his power as head of the Anglican communion rests squarely on national autonomy. Apparently he has also forgotten that he has a freedom of conscience, for his decisions as head of the communion are utterly at odds with what he published as a theologian (when he was actively and famously pro-gay). I hope he comes to his senses soon. I hope he realizes what it means to be an Anglican. The alternative, for him and for many others, can only be a hierarchical international church that lacks the wealth, history, prestige, complexity, and numbers of the Roman Catholic Church. Our true heritage and our Divine gift has always been national autonomy, theological diversity, and the ability to disagree with one another. Otherwise, we’re just disobedient Romans.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. I respect what you have to say Chaplain Kinsely but I question your understanding of Communion. I am myself a bit of a refugee from The Roman Church and love the Sacramental life their but it is the understanding of Communion that is incorrect. As a western branch of Christendom it is understandable that we look at Rome for our understanding but if Rome’s ecclesiology is in err than ours would be too. Instead we need to look toward the East, to an ecclesiology that looks more like a family than like a monarchy. This structure is one that bears a strong resemblance to the Communion that exists in Anglicanism and one that is far more ancient than the top down Roman structure.

    What gets forgotten here is that The Archbishop does not have any real authority so he’s trying to protect this Communion with smoke and mirrors. A politically polarized church plus a contingent from the Southern Cone that has no civil rights history mixed with a meddling (if not opportunistic) Pope has created a perfect storm. Right now the United States has chosen to move forward with what we see is the will of God, he has to do something so he stripped us of committees. Katherine is also in England just after it was decided that female Bishops will be given what amounts to alternative oversight, Rowan needs to look strong so that some Anglicans will not bolt to Rome.

    The long and short of this is that the arguments between the two Bishops are political and not theological. Rowan is in a losing situation as is. He agrees with the theology of the American Church just not its execution and until things settle down expect this to continue. While this could lead to a breakup of the Anglican Communion it defiantly doesn’t necessarily mean so.

    • Dear Mr. Johnson,

      Thanks for commenting. First a correction: I’m Lucas Mix, chaplain at UA; Nicholas Knisely is the Dean of Trinity Cathedral, Phoenix, whose post on Episcopal Cafe led you here. I would not want you to mistake my opinions for his.

      I certainly agree with you that the East gives us a more useful picture of episcopal (of bishops) collegiality than the West. Nonetheless, the Archepiscopate of Canterbury was founded by Rome, and when it broke away, took it’s mandate from the British Monarch (on the grounds of national autonomy). Anglicans are not Eastern Orthodox; our sacraments and our orders are not recognized by them any more than by Rome.

      I have been sympathetic to Rowan Williams for the very reasons you mentioned. It is politics, but at this point, I think he’s surrendered theology to politics, sacrificing both his theological integrity and the foundations of his authority.

      Sadly, Lucas

  2. […] which reason some perspective (and some humour) from a distance is rather good to have. My friend Lucas Mix (who is a scientist and a priest) commented on Mitregate yesterday: “…An important point of doctrine is at stake – one that really should not […]

  3. It would be wonderful if you would respect “Mr. Williams” title, which is Archbishop of Canterbury.

  4. Awesome website, I hadn’t come across dacalu.wordpress.com previously during my searches!
    Carry on the superb work!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: