I watched the film 'The Queen' last week. I really enjoyed it. It was about the events following Diana's death on 31st August 1997 and how the newly elected Tony Blair was trying to rescue the Royals from themselves. In particular, trying to get them to agree to a public ceremonial funeral for Diana, to return to London from Balmoral, to put the flag at Buckingham Palace at half mast and to get the Queen to address the people.
The Queen seems quite bamboozled by the reaction of the people, expecting them to get over it and to act with the stiff upper lip and dignity that she expects. But the flowers keep piling up and the papers keep demanding that the Queen dances to a different tune. The pivotal moment for me in the film is when the Queen is talking to her mother:
"Something's happened. There's been a change, some shift in values. When you no longer understand your people, mummy, maybe it is time to hand it over to the next generation."
Of course it is a work of fiction. Who knows how much of it is actually true. But the Queen did break protocols and bow to the public pressure. The Royal Family returned to London, the Union flag was flown at half mast on the day of Diana's funeral, Diana did have a ceremonial funeral and the Queen did a live broadcast speaking of the grief that we all shared.
I believe there has indeed been a massive shift in values, a new worldview. There is another person who I think seems bamboozled in the light of the shift in values, and that is Rowan Williams. I must admit that these days, when Rowan interacts with the Press I feel like hiding under my bed or locking myself in the bathroom with my hands over my ears singing 'rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb' in a loud voice. The last occasion resulted in this headline in the Telegraph:
"Archbishop says the Church will resist Government moves on gay marriage..and the rest of us went 'huh, since when was that decided?' The last time we heard Rowan Williams talk about the issue of homosexuality was at the General Synod Presidential Address where he offered the Synod the opportunity to discuss the subject over the next five years, albeit grudgingly:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has vowed to defend the Church’s traditional stance on marriage against Government moves to introduce homosexual weddings in churches."
"I'm told fairly often that the lack of advance in nurturing this debate [on homosexuality] properly is a serious failure in the leadership of the Church and the Communion. I am bound to accept my share of reproach; but I would want to invite you all to help me do better by working with me to create the ambience where better understanding may happen."
Clayboy reported on the subject at the time and concluded that:
"It seems we can be reasonably certain of several things. First, Archbishop Williams said the Church was not going to allow same-sex blessings to be conducted in Church, even if the law is changed to permit religious ceremonies to be used in civil partnerships. Then he said that the Church would continue to hold and teach that marriage was between a man and a woman."
Like in the film 'The Queen', I think Rowan has misjudged this, for the following reasons:
1. We are synodically governed. Have the Archbishops of Canterbury always acted in such a papal style? Maybe so, but it can't be like that any more. The truth is there are synods that debate these things and make the laws, and that is a good thing. People do not like the idea of top down autocratic institutions. His answer can only be that it is for the synods to debate and decide on.
2. Lambeth Palace need to relate to the Press better. It isn't rocket science that the Press would want to speak to the Archbishop of Canterbury about the issue of gay weddings being held in church buildings given that it was a proposal to go through parliament. A statement should have gone out properly to the Press, not a half-botched something or other in a 'private' Question and Answer sesssion. (Facepalm appropriate at this point)
3. Openness and accountability are required. Everyone knows that Rowan William's theology gave hope to gay and lesbian people. He now looks like he is being disingenuous, which is the greatest sin in the postmodern world, which values authenticity above all else. We need him to say something like, 'Theologically I see no reason why gay marriages can go ahead, but it is not up to me to decide and many in the church remain very unconvinced'. Bishop Alan Wilson said that:
"The Social Media revolution means that we are expected to be more open and accountable, and the Gospel thrives in that environment"Rowan, something's happened. There's been a change, some shift in values. You need to change with it. If the Queen can manage, so can you.
15 comments:
I suppose part of the problem is that the ABC is an academic, who likes to weigh and measure everything he is going to say, write or put out. That takes time, and in these days on 24/7 news, unless you respond virtually immediately, you are left behind with the rush to lots of others to the microphone. In fact, AB John gave the first comment from the CofE - he responded with a holding answer.
I think that the Church Media people are badly out of touch with the world - in particular on timing. I don't know who is responsible, but perhaps a few days working on the Sun or Telegraph newsroom, might remind them of the immediacy of news.
I am concerned that we're all projecting our disappointment with the state of the church onto Rowan.
Yes, he could be more open. But then what? I well remember Jeffrey John who was under considerable evangelical pressure not because of his lifestyle (he was celibate) but because of his teaching that homosexuality is acceptable. There were many who insisted that he would only become acceptable once he repented of his false teaching.
I can well imagine Rowan believing that the only chance he had of holding the Communion together was by being as neutral as he possibly can be - bit like the Queen, really.
Every time people mention our wonderful Bishop Alan on blogs they also say that he’s so good, he’ll never make Archbishop. And it is more than likely very true.
I believe that the true calamity lies in the power grabbing and positioning of factions within the church who will use money, influence, lies, character assassination, emotional blackmail – anything to get their way.
They have successfully exploited the weaknesses Rowan exhibited. But they would have just as successfully exploited any other weaknesses he could have exhibited.
His immediate predecessor started the wrecking process by being precisely as outspoken as we wanted Rowan to be and he proved to be the most divisive figure for the church. I am not surprised that Rowan wanted to avoid the same fate at all cost. Maybe was even chosen precisely because he is not a divisive figure.
But it seems we won’t let him avoid it. Those who are determined to change the Communion from what it was to what they want it to be have succeeded beautifully. And we all look at Rowan and blame him for not doing better.
I think we need to grow up and stop expecting super Daddies who can rescue us all.
Having said that - yes, the church media are appallingy out of touch!
As a total outsider I find the points raised re communication agreeable, but as a denomination you have intentionally gone to bed with the State and therefore have to cow tow to it's shifting demands.
You have discussed these issues for years and seem paralysed to make any decisions (but the machine continues to be maintained), you have your own legislation (State privileges) and yet nobody sees any difference. Integrity has gone, and yet you all persist in playing the game if isnstitution. Big machines are capable of decision making.... why isn't the Church of England?
I know what.... have another synod and timetable it in for a few years time!
I think the main point is I just want the communication with the Press to be better. I understand this may not be Rowan's forte (and I love his theological writings which I think are his strength) but perhaps someone in his team could be really helpful in this respect.
I don't think Rowan could do anything about the schism. These were forces way beyond anyone's control.
Avey, my feeling is we should have discussed homosexuality in our synods 20 years ago when the rest of society were discussing it and coming to terms with it. Now we seem a long way behind because society look at us floundering at a time when it is largely resolved for them. If we had been floundering at the same time as society were wrestling with it then it would have been look upon more sympathetically.
Hi Lesley,
I think the problem goes a little deeper than this one issue.
Some traditional and out of date human values are being rejected by Humanists, Christians and the wider public; the protest about privilege and power is loud; and religions no longer have the monopoly on vociferous preaching. Consequently this leaves a feeling of victimization within some elements of the church, and this is driving resistance to change on all fronts.
Despite intellectual differences about how the world is philosophically (and I'm always willing to engage) there's no reason why people of all faiths and none can't get along. Our basic differences are about things none of us have certain knowledge of. So the ABC's resistance to quite straight forward human rights issues seems very misguided - he's mistakenly shoring up the old order.
It seems to me that if the church could get past it's homophobia and sex discrimination, stop playing the victim, stop clinging on to power and privilege, then it would pretty much be left to its own devices. There's a common view expressed by atheists that without the power and privilege the church would become irrelevant. I'm not of that opinion, because it seems plain to see that despite being outdated in some respects the history and tradition of the church brings with it an organisation with humanist principles that do a lot of good. Personally I don't necessarily want to see the end of religion, other than intellectually I think its philosophical views are mistaken - but that debate can go on regardless, just as theological debate goes on within the church.
Perhaps the ABC fears the irrelevance himself. I've followed various Christian blogs for a while (not so much Islamic ones), and I think power and control is at the heart of Roman Catholicism, but not so the CofE. The machinations of the CofE organisation still baffles me, but it seems the grass roots relevance of vicars such as yourself and others that contribute on here, and the diversity of views that you have, pretty much ensure that you remain relevant in your own communities - because it's not all about the details of philosophical and theological belief at that level, but these seem more important, and important enough to protected at all odds at the top.
To what extent do you think this is solely down to the resistance of an old order? Are the fears of marginalisation and irrelevance concentrated at the top of the hierarchy? If the hierarchy wasn't there for conservative views to coerce, to what extent would conservatives have the power to get their way?
I'm curious about another point that I haven't noticed being discussed - maybe I've missed it. If the government does force the issue, where does that leave the Roman Catholic church, or Islam, in the UK on issues of homophobia and sex discrimination? I bet they're rubbing their hands when the ABC offers the CofE up as a buffer. When the CofE finally conforms to the new norms of equality, will the government have the balls, or the legal right, to start pressuring these other groups?
I agree better Press handling would be better. But you also need to bear in mind that the press reporting on this and many other issues includes a huge amount of journalistic spin. A better press release system might help, but I think the ABC can't win whatever he says.
Hi Maggi,
I am sure you are right about journalistic spin, but I think we are required as the church to try to do the very best we can to work better with the Press. We have a gospel that we wish to communicate, and the people we wish to speak to read the Press.. it seems to me that the relationship with the Press should therefore take a high priority...
I wonder what would have happened if we had discussed homosexuality 20 years ago. I have this deep suspicion that the church is a magnet for socially conservative people and in particular for people with massive sexual hangups, and I'm not at all confident that we'd have fared any better 20 years ago.
True! Sigh... I don't see Jesus as conservative.. why is the church?
Erika, I think your point about us all projecting our disappointments onto Rowan Williams is bang on.
As to discussing homosexuality 20 years ago, we were all asked to do so by the Lambeth Conference 33 years ago. And the resolution notes that the conversation was already happening in some churches in the Communion.
Was this simply meant to be an academic exercise? Or did Lambeth not imagine that some churches would in fact honour the request, do the study and come to conclusions that they felt they should act on?
I think one of the problems about "discussing issues" is that we do so at the theoretical level. It is an academic exercise, to a large extent. Very few parishes in the U.S. set out to discuss the "issue" of homosexuality twenty years ago when we were supposed to. My own parish, however, which had a significant gay population, was impacted by the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. People in the pews were dying. So the parish had to come to grips with real people and real stories and not theoretical "how do we feel about gay people" discussions. That's how our hearts are turned, by being in relationship with people and knowing their stories.
But you are of that culture and giving him this deference. We have ministers and respect their achievements but they are part of the movement, its people, and not above it, and don't want to be. You have a hierarchy and a caste. Hierarchies are conservative.
Rowan Williams is someone who buries himself among the purple, who forever does foreign policy. If a meme catches hold and dioceses keep saying 'this Covenant was nothing to do with us' it will be because hierarchy is remote.
Perhaps then he will go. My money remains on James Jones, the only dissident on the Covenant and a clever mover, if a little too obvious in ambition. But he would be a Kinnock, who's come from the evangelical end and has dropped a few clothes out of his wardrobe and able to take on where Rowan Williams has left off. No one would take Sentamu seriously. Alan Wilson has been to some extent damned by faint praise (from the wrong people), has association with the wrong people in the wrong place and a has faintly adventurous blog (which is a no no). I'll open a book and take bets.
It may be that some in dioceses might use the Covenant to topple Rowan Williams, given that he has managed to be remote and lose sympathy from just about every faction and every quarter.
Adrian
is part of the problem that Rowan is head of the CoE and of the Anglican Communion and that there is a huge tension between the two roles?
Yes that is one problem, but he seems not to see the join.
Hi Ron,
Sorry for the delay but your comment required some brainpower which I am lacking:
To what extent do you think this is solely down to the resistance of an old order? Are the fears of marginalisation and irrelevance concentrated at the top of the hierarchy? If the hierarchy wasn't there for conservative views to coerce, to what extent would conservatives have the power to get their way?
See - I think Rowan is worried about splits in the church... and Anglo-Catholics in the CofE align with Rome and the Orthodox churches wanting to see them all come back together and resisting any policy changes that make this more difficult.
Likewise the evangelicals look to the Bible which is supposedly an unchanging thing..
I don't really know about the impact of the hierarchy.. there is a sense that as Christians we want to be unified. The evangelicals do seem to have large congregations.
Personally I don't fear irrelevance or marginalisation and I'm not sure the hierarchy does either - if that was driving them why not accept women and gays?
I'm curious about another point that I haven't noticed being discussed - maybe I've missed it. If the government does force the issue, where does that leave the Roman Catholic church, or Islam, in the UK on issues of homophobia and sex discrimination? I bet they're rubbing their hands when the ABC offers the CofE up as a buffer. When the CofE finally conforms to the new norms of equality, will the government have the balls, or the legal right, to start pressuring these other groups?
Gosh - I don't know... It is only that the buildings are to be allowed to be used foe civil partnerships, whereas before they weren't.. my understanding is that groups like the Quakers wanted permission to do civil partnerships in their meeting places. If the law is passed they will do that, along with unitarians etc. In addition people in the CofE will bring motions to our synods to ask whether the CofE will do it too... I guess in the Catholic Churches they are more hierarchical so the matter won't be discussed because the bishops disapprove.. no idea how Islamic institutions are governed.
Post a Comment