Archbishops Zimbabwe Appeal

Passed over in favour of spicier fare on women bishops and the BNP, this is from Rowan Williams presidential address at the start of general synod this week:

"You'll remember that this time last year we had the privilege of welcoming with a standing ovation Bishop Sebastian Bakare of Harare; last week at the Primates' Meeting, we were able to hear still more about the heroism of Sebastian and his colleagues in Zimbabwe, still faced with constant brutal harassment and threats of death, and also to hear something of the vital importance to them of knowing that there are advocates and friends and partners in prayer elsewhere in the world.

Sebastian is one bishop among five in Zimbabwe and one many among hundreds of thousands of Anglicans there trying to live out the Christian witness by feeding, clothing, healing and all too often mourning and burying people in their communities.

You will have seen last week's statement from the Primates' Meeting about this, unanimously committing the whole Communion to continue and extend its practical support for the Church in Zimbabwe.

In the light of this, the Archbishop of York and myself will be launching on Ash Wednesday an Archbishops' Appeal for Zimbabwe, in the context of a Day of Prayer for Zimbabwe. We hope that this will be part of a communion-wide project for Lent, and that every diocese represented here will play its part, responding to the urgent calls for help with medical supplies, food and clean water which come daily from Zimbabwe.

Please publicise this Appeal in your dioceses and continue your prayers."

New Fresh Expressions Journal

'Mixed Economy', a 31 page Fresh Expressions journal, has just been published, and you can download it (free) or order it (£2) here.

Contents include stuff on Messy Church, Sunderland Minster, evangelism, spirituality, and authors include Steve Croft, Rowan Williams, Brother Damian and Mike Moynagh. Ht Dave Walker .

It's the Economy, Stupid, not Rowan Williams

At least one blogger has laid into Rowan Williams for being a 'Marxist', in the light of his critique of the crisis in the banking sector. Williams, and John Sentamu, are both singing from the same hymn sheet in condemning some City practices and calling for better scrutiny of the financial markets.

It turns out that Rowan Williams cites Karl Marx only once, and this is what he says:
"Marx long ago observed the way in which unbridled capitalism became a kind of mythology, ascribing reality, power and agency to things that had no life in themselves; he was right about that, if about little else." (emphasis mine)
(Ht Ruth Gledhill, Times main story here, and more quotes on her blog here)

So Williams says that Marx got just 1 thing right, and now he's a Marxist? That must make me a member of Al Qaeda, since I agree with Osama bin Laden on the existence of God. I must admit that Times headline really doesn't help "Archbishop of Canterbury speaks in support of Karl Marx" - that's not quite what Williams is getting at! But hey, now an army of the usual suspects will pile in, misquote Rowan without reading what he's actually saying, and the focus will switch.

So lets stick with the real story here. The Archbishop of York said to a group of bankers (you've got to love his guts - talk about Daniel in the lions den):

"To a bystander like me, those who made £190million deliberately underselling the shares of HBOS, in spite of its very strong capital base, and drove it into the bosom of Lloyds TSB Bank, are clearly bank robbers and asset strippers.

"We find ourselves in a market system which seems to have taken its rules of trade from Alice in Wonderland, where the share value of a bank is no longer dependent on the strength of its performance but rather on the willingness of the Government to bail it out, or rather on whether the Government has announced its intentions so to do."

and the real bomb:
"the President of the United States recently announced a $700 billion bailout plans for banks and financial institutions. One of the ironies about this financial crisis is that it makes action on poverty look utterly achievable. It would cost $5 billion to save six million children's lives. World leaders could find 140 times that amount for the banking system in a week. How can they now tell us that action for the poorest on the planet is too expensive?"

If you were planning to get enraged about Rowan Williams, don't. If you were planning to get enraged about media reporting, don't. If you were planning to get enraged about bloggers not getting their facts right don't. Get enraged about this. Bush can find hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the banking sector, but not even 1% of this to stop people dying of starvation or for lack of clean water. If this doesn't show that capitalism is sick to the heart, then I'm Karl Marx.

Update: Thinking Anglicans has a good round up of links for this one.

Sorry, more women bishops stuff.

My latest post at the Wardman Wire yesterday ('More Women, Vicar?')was an attempt - probably vain - to explain in laymans terms what the CofE is up to over women bishops, and to reflect on whether taking time over big decisions is an expression of Christian love, or just faffing about to delay the inevitable.

Thunderdragon has picked up on the post, and compares Rowan Williams to Gordon Brown, in a not very flattering way. I don't think Williams is a ditherer of Brown proportions, I think he's trying his best to keep everyone together (which is what Jesus prayed for), and to slow down people who are in a mad rush to purge the church of everyone who disagrees with them.

Ditched the normal sermon last night to talk with the evening congregation about the Synod vote and the events surrounding it. Some of the folk there were strong supporters of women bishops, some adamantly opposed, but we have the choice of whether to be the kind of church which can discuss these things, or whether we sweep them under the carpet.

The most common observation was that we seemed to be wasting time talking when we should be sharing the gospel. The problem is that the media don't report the gospel work, they only report stuff which relates to disputes or decline in the church. That's the danger of taking the secular press as your guide to what the Church of England is doing. By the time we'd set the record straight, everyone seemed a lot happier, and less unsettled.

Rowan Williams Gets it Right. Again.

The full text of Rowan Williams response to the Gafcon declaration has been published on his website, at Thinking Anglicans, and elsewhere. It's a good and balanced response to what's happened, and concludes thus:

I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’. I would say the same to those in whose name this statement has been issued. An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.

What has constantly struck me is a lack of patience on all sides, people who would rather rush to get on with things, rather than wait, listen, and take some time. The media exerts a certain amount of pressure in this regard, and blogland is worst of all.

Ruth Gledhill also quotes Tom Wrights response, which is worth a look, though I think her headline is a bit strong. Rowan Williams doesn't 'slam' anyone - he just raises his eyebrows slightly higher and asks thoughtful questions. I guess that doesn't really fit across a newspaper column though.

The London Service

In case anyone's visiting here without catching up on the 'gay wedding' story via Dave Walker or Thinking Anglicans, the Archbishops have issued this statement:

Joint statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York regarding St Bartholomew-the-Great

“We have heard the reports of the recent service in St Bartholomew the Great with very great concern. We cannot comment on the specific circumstances because they are the subject of an investigation launched by the Bishop of London.

On the general issue, however, the various reference points for the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality (1987 Synod motion, 1991 Bishops’ Statement- Issues in Human Sexuality- , Lambeth motion 1:10, House of Bishops’ 2005 statement on civil partnerships) are well known and remain current.

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.”

Judging by the liturgy, it was clearly a wedding in all but name. However, the person who conducted it has the freehold of St. Bartholemews, and so can't be sacked or suspended for flouting church rules (not that the church has 'rules' on this - as the statement above shows, there are 'reference points'.) Within the CofE structure, it's a matter for the Bishop of London, the Archbishops can't wade in and take over, but the statement is pretty clear on what they think about it.

Contrary to reports in the press, the Church of England is not in meltdown, but there are a lot of very confused people. Those who look to the church to uphold traditional morality and the teaching of the Bible are asking why the priest in question hasn't been sacked (answer: he can't be), and the church is trying to deal with it properly rather than follow the knee-jerking legions of commenters. Amidst all the cries to 'do something', there will be a measured investigation, which will base its conclusions on facts rather than feelings. The church is counter-cultural in how it deals with these things, and rightly so. If you're not sure what happens when the crowd dictates penal policy, read the passion narratives or watch last Saturdays Doctor Who.

The CofE is facing the impossible task of holding together a liberal and conservative wing who are both pulling hard in opposite directions, and demanding a clear choice of roads, rather than finding a way of remaining one church in unity.

All clergy swear to use only the forms of service recognised by church law. The Rector of St. Bartholemews has broken this vow, but so have I, and many of my colleagues (not, I hasten to add, in blessing civil partnerships, but I doubt the communion service at our parish weekend this Sunday will tick every canonical box). However in the current context, he's done much more than that. Bishop Alan comments:

I suspect this particular service, will generate far more heat than light. The theological confusion inherent in taking off a 1662 Prayer Book wedding, lock stock and two smoking barrels, may actually make it harder to define the significance of covenanted friendships before and within the whole Christian community.

Post-Freudian anthropology, whilst most triumphant in the West, is incomprehensible to the vast majority of people in this world. Many post-Colonials note that it flowers in the least relational, most depressed, screwed up and confused societies. They just don’t buy it. More work needs to be done about this aspect of the concept before it can go global.

I don't really want to add to the bubbling pot on this issue, but I'm with the Archbishops both theologically and practically. Provocative actions - including the planned gathering in Jerusalem, which I'm glad to see is focusing on poverty, AIDS and mission as well as Anglican politics - don't help us to love one another, and in the end the reason the church exists is the mission of God, and we are in serious danger of taking our eye off the ball.

Update: The Bishop of London has made public a letter to all his clergy about the case. He's clearly not impressed by Martin Dudley's actions. Meanwhile Dave Walker is looking for evidence of meltdown in the Church of England

What does New Labour think of Sharia Law?

Cranmer thinks he knows.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/02/sharia-law-and-hypocrisy-of-new-labour.html

Points 8 and 9 show that the government has already been looking for ways to accomodate sharia law on finance and marriage. That they let Rowan Williams get roasted alive without a murmer, but do all this on the quiet, is hypocrisy of a staggering order.

Lay off my Archbishop

Pray for Rowan Williams. Whether you like him or not, agree with him or not, nobody deserves the public flogging he's getting from the media for suggesting we might discuss a limited and specific idea on how Muslims might be better integrated into British society. Unfortunately he has become the story, and in an attempt to spin it out there is now the follow up wave of 'should he resign' stories.

No he shouldn't resign. That's a job for whoever was responsible for the Two Minutes Hate that was yesterdays Sun.

If this is what happens whenever someone tries to start a debate on a serious subject, it's no wonder we get politicians who are more concerned with lining their pockets than thinking through the issues our society faces. After this, who will dare to open up a debate on the place of Islam in modern Britain? Knowing how contentious the subject is, RW should, in hindsight, have run his ideas past a few people first. But hey, that's what mistakes are for - learning from. We also have a culture which doesn't allow people to make mistakes in public. It's the culture of the gladiator - as soon as you put yourself on the floor of the arena, its you vs the wild animals, and the population bays for blood from the stands. When Tony Blair described the media as a 'pack of feral beasts', he wasn't far off the mark. Unfortunately, it's not far off the mark for the rest of us either.

Cyberspace is bursting with stuff on this story, only one link here, to someone who is prepared to be sensible about it: Obsolete . It's a long piece, but here's my rule of thumb for anyone debating Rowan Williams - unless you're prepared to read at length, think at length, and work out what you'd be prepared to say to his face, then just don't even bother, what you have to say isn't worth hearing.

Here's the official CofE media page on the ABC's lecture and interview, with links to full transcripts.

Update: new statement from the ABC on his website, reported here.

Rowan Williams on Sharia Law

I'm getting a bit tired of reading through the latest words of Rowan Williams, trying to explain that the newspaper headlines about what he's said aren't actually true. The latest one, if you've heard today's news, is that he thinks accepting some aspects of sharia law into the UK legal system might be 'inevitable', and might be a good thing.

BBC report here
Matt Wardman has the full transcript of the interview and a plea for reasoned debate
Ruth Gledhill is scandalised, as are most of her commenters.

What frustrates me more than anything else is that, time after time, ++Rowan has the chance to articulate a Christian view of law, state, society etc., but just ends up talking about Muslims and non-Christian stuff. This is not a distinctively Christian voice, and it's a bit disappointing. I don't agree with what he's said (which is unusual) and I've commented over on the Warman Wire about this. Don't know if I'll blog more in a day or two. We'll see where this story goes....

Rowan Williams on Blasphemy

The AB of C did a lecture on Tuesday about the blasphemy law, and Dave Walker has a piece on some of the reactions to it. Matt Wardman encouraged me to blog on this, so here goes.

As someone with a full-time job, I don't have the 3 days necessary to grapple with every sentence in the lecture. It is what it is: a lecture, not an article in the Sun. It's all the more disappointing that some of the reports and reactions haven't taken this into account. The Times report gives just as much airtime to Terry Sanderson, the president of the rent-a-quote National Secular Society (membership 7,000), who called the lecture a 'blatant pitch for new legislation to replace the blasphemy laws'. Sorry Mr. S, but the one thing you can't accuse Rowan Williams of being is blatant. Nuanced, dense, impenetrable even (I don't know if this got a laugh at the lecture - he at one stage restates one of his phrases 'in plainer English'), but not blatant.

There seem to me to be two reasons to have a blasphemy law:

a) A society based on a religious worldview, which sees blasphemy as an offence to God, and therefore enshrines it in their law code. In this view, God's existence is taken for granted, and he is seen as a party in moral questions. The UK blasphemy law is premised on Christendom, i.e. that the UK is a Christian society with established church, Christian monarch, and a Christian moral code underpinning it's laws, freedoms and understandings of the person and society. Blasphemy is not offence against religion, but against God himself, and is seen as an evil thing in a 'godly' society

b) A society based on a pluralist worldview, which takes a pragmatic approach, seeing a blasphemy law as a way of protecting religious people from insult and abuse. In this case it is not God who is being 'protected', but the person of faith.

My understanding of the UK is that we originally had a blasphemy law because of a, but in a post-Christian, multi-faith society the ground and justification of the blasphemy law has shifted to b. A law based on 'a' would be a clear statement of the Christian values at the root of our society and constitution, but the abc seems to be arguing on the basis of b, i.e. he has given up on a 'Christendom' justification and is relying on a pragmatic one.

At one level this is fair enough. Rowan Williams recognises that we are in a liberal, not a Christian society now,

I have attempted to go a little below the surface in the discussion about what protection religious believers should enjoy from the law of the land, in order to pinpoint some of the related issues around what is actually desirable and morally defensible in a society that is 'procedurally secular' but genuinely open to the audibility of religious voices in public debate. It is clear that the old blasphemy law is unworkable and that its assumptions are not those of contemporary lawmakers and citizens overall (emphasis mine)

Williams is therefore trying to argue for some kind of defense against the sensibilities of Christians, Muslims etc. on the basis of a liberal worldview, rather than a Christian one. You will read the article in vain for an explicitly Chrisitan theology of law and public morality - at one level I'm disappointed by this, but it's not what Williams is trying to do. He is starting from the assumptions of society at large, and arguing from there. That way, he has to be engaged with, rather than ignored and put into a religious pigeon hole.

This is a tricky issue: we are a post-Christian society, so to hang on to laws and values which date from the time when we were a Christian society can be archaic. However, many of those laws are good, and we have suffered as a society from liberalising them. We are in a transition between two worldviews, and Christians are both fighting to preserve what was good in the old order, whilst trying to engage with the new: abortion, attitudes to family, blasphemy, embryology, euthanasia - it's the issues where liberal secular and Christian values diverge that the plates rub against each other. On other issues: care for the poor, tolerance, environmentalism, justice, there is less friction, because there is more agreement between Christians and secularists.

I'm sure God is big enough not to need our protection, but those of us who believe God is real, and has will purpose and goodness, find it hard to accept a society which throws out blasphemy altogether. We love God, and to hear and see him insulted is as deep an offense to us as racist language is to people who suffer racist abuse. The statement we make by abolishing the blasphemy law is effectively saying to God 'you're on your own mate, we're not rooting for you any more.' As a Christian I think it's sad that we've got to that point, but if we have got to that point then that's the reality, and we have to deal with it. In his own way, that is what Rowan Williams is trying to do.

Rowan Williams debating with Ricky Gervais

Thanks to Ruth
Gledhill for this link. I thought this was great, Gervais has clearly
thought about the subject, and Williams comes across as a great listener, and
through listening gains the right to put his point and get heard.

Ruth also links to this story from the Times, on new research on why people leave church by Richter and Francis. Their book 'Gone but Not Forgotten' is in my increasing pile of books I need to read, and 'Gone for Good?' is the follow up.

Here's a brief excerpt from the Times report:'Dr Francis said: “We discovered a variety of factors at work
in people's decisions to stop coming to church. Our hope is to offer a vision of
the church that will encourage people to come back and enjoy being together
again with other Christians.”
He said the churches should make sure they offer every Sunday the kind of warm welcome given to churchgoers at Christmas.
While this would not mean putting on a sparkling Christmas tree, crib and
mince pies each week, it would mean good cheer and lots of singable hymns. '

One a micro level, this seems to confirm the decision at our church not to have sung liturgy at the Christmas night service - if you don't know the tune, it's not 'singable' - and on a wider level the Richter and Francis research is in tune with the work of Mission Shaped Church and the ABofC's promotion of a 'mixed economy' church, where the church offers a variety of styles of worship and entry points to faith. 'Gone for Good' talks about a 'multiplex' model, which is a decent illustration, but I'd want to make sure that we don't reduce people to mere consumers of worship, there's a lot more to following Jesus than that.