Earlier today the Archbishop of Canterbury posted an essay detailing his thoughts on the actions the most recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church has taken. Reactions to his reaction are starting to be posted. Not surprisingly the reactions fall along a rather broad spectrum. And people tend to see what they expected to see.
The major news outlets in England:
Riazat Butt in the Guardian:
The archbishop of Canterbury today reiterated his opposition to ordaining gay clergy and authorising same-sex blessings, warning liberal churches that such practices would lead to isolation and relegation in the Anglican communion.
Rowan Williams was responding in a statement today to developments in the US Episcopal church which earlier this month voted to open the ordination process to gay people and to consider developing blessings for same-sex couples.
In typically lengthy and nuanced prose, the archbishop said that the church’s stance on these matters was unlikely to “repair the broken bridges in the life of the other Anglican provinces” and that “very serious anxieties had already been expressed” in the communion.
(NB: the opposition to gay clergy in the Archbishop’s essay is a bit more nuanced than Riazat writes, but there’s a definite unwillingness to accept partnered clergy in any order of ministry in the Archbishop’s essay.)
Ruth Gledhill in the Times writes:
Dr Rowan Williams called for a “two-track” communion where the church is divided on the issue of homosexuality.
He asked the arrangement be seen not in “apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication” but rather as “two styles of being Anglican”. Faith bloggers have labelled the opposing factions the “Anglicans” and “Anglican’ts”
Gledhill also has a blog post.
The AP echos Gledhill’s take.
Matthew Moore, writing in the Telegraph, picking up on the two-tier model sees this letter as an admission of defeat:
Dr Williams appeared to accept that his efforts to preserve the unity of the communion had failed as he sketched a new Anglican structure that would allow local churches to loosen their ties with the main church body.
(NB: Of course, if this is true, then the terms and conditions of the Covenant appear to have changed since they were first suggested as a possible solution to the Communion’s strains. There’s also apparently a question about what exactly either constitutes a province, or which particular entity can sign on to the Covenant.)
USA Today picks up the two-track communion meme, too. As does RNS.
Bloggers have weighed in as well:
Susan Russell writing:
My one big disappointment — and a point I think we need to keep arguing — is +Rowan’s categorizing TEC’s commitment to full inclusion of the LGBT baptized as a “rights” issue rather than a “theological” issue. I’m frankly tired of being told we “haven’t done the theology” when the truth is those telling us that don’t agree with the theology we’ve “done.”
But we can keep doing that. We can keep reaching out. We can keep working together with our communion partners on mission and ministry all over this Worldwide Anglican Family of ours with those who will work with us.
And we can stay in conversation with those who won’t.
And meanwhile, we can live into the liberated-for-mission message our General Convention sent home from Anaheim and bless those who come to us asking for the church’s blessing on their already-blessed-by-God relationships and raising up into ALL orders of ministry those who God calls into vocations of deacon, priest and bishop.
Jarod Cramer concludes:
I believe the fundamental problem with ++Rowan’s perspective is the idea that “the present structures” have “safeguarded our unity.” Rowan’s faith is in structures to safeguard the church. We should give greater muscles to the Instruments of Unity, or we should sign on to an agreed upon statement and Covenant. If we work hard enough on these structures, they will keep us in community with one another.
The problem is that community is not the sort of thing that will be enforced by structures. Rather, our unity as Christians is safeguarded by a set of Christ-like practices, by an attitude of meekness and humility. To wit, we are safeguarded by being more Christ like. If all within the church began to truly discern the body, to see the grave harm that comes whenever one part says to another, “I have no need of you,” then our unity would be strengthened. If all within the church saw the need for respecting the conscience and study of their brothers and sisters, trusting the Spirit to guide us into all truth, then our unity would be strengthened.
Ren Aquila writes:
My only critique of his letter, however, is that he may have offered fuel for the fire of those who are crying for the heads of the other. Even if his words were somewhat reassuring in the end, the “less than ideal” possibility he posited in some detail will be seized upon, rightly or otherwise, by all the factions in the current conflict, to justify whatever moves they may make. On the other hand, I understand that he is expressing a reality on the ground, that no matter how small one or the other faction is, the divisions over women and ministry, sexuality, and the Church’s relationship to secular society are too wide for any attempt at keeping together.
Anglican Curmudgeon sees that this essay from the Archbishop is best read in light of the hope of a possible growing relationship between Rome and Canterbury.
This seems to me to be the chief point of the Archbishop’s message: ECUSA can abandon any hope of ecumenical relations if that is its choice, but we in the Anglican Communion will do everything in our power to keep that door open, and stay in dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. And to facilitate the Communion’s process in that regard, Dr. Williams has his hopes pinned on an Anglican Covenant.