Category Archives: Anglican Bishops

Broadbent quiet on Lambeth and GAFCON

Posted on by
Reply

I just got back from a talk by Bishop Pete Broadbent of Willesden, as advertised here. This was an interesting talk on the subject “United We Stand”, a very positive one in fact but I wonder how realistic this positive attitude is.

In a previous post I pointed out that Broadbent was not among the 21 evangelical bishops in the Church of England who wrote to the Church of England Newspaper urging their fellow Anglican bishops around the world to attend the Lambeth Conference.

At this morning’s talk Broadbent declined to answer a question about whether he would attend the Lambeth conference, the Global Anglican Future conference (GAFCON), or both. He did mention that there were 35 evangelical bishops in the Church of England. Of these, 21 signed the letter to the Church of England Newspaper, and two, Nazir-Ali and Benn, are known to have rejected Lambeth in favour of GAFCON. This leaves 12, including Broadbent, who as far as I know have not made their position public. They are probably wise to do so. Nevertheless, given his general attitude I would be surprised if Broadbent stays away from Lambeth, although he might also attend GAFCON.

Rowan Williams and Sharia law: the debate continues

Posted on by
Reply

Astonishingly, Archbishop Rowan Williams’ comments on Sharia law are still the top story on the BBC news website after more than 24 hours. It is very rare that any story, let alone a religious one, keeps that top spot for so long. In the latest article there, the Archbishop

is said to be overwhelmed by the “hostility of the response” after his call for parts of Sharia law to be recognised in the UK.

Yesterday I repeated, but did not answer, Ruth Gledhill’s question: has the Archbishop gone bonkers? John Richardson in one place gives a short but straight answer:

No, but I’m not sure about his advisors.

On his own blog, Richardson writes at much more length an explanation of his position, which is well summarised in his post title: Dr Williams and Sharia: wrong suggestion, right concern. Continue reading →

Has Archbishop Rowan Williams gone bonkers?

Posted on by
10

For once this is nothing to do with the Lambeth Conference or the fragmentation of the Anglican Communion. And it is not me asking this question, but Ruth Gledhill of The Times. The occasion for asking is Williams’ astonishing call, reported by the BBC, for “certain aspects” of Islamic Sharia law to be introduced in the UK. To their credit, politicians of all main parties have rejected this call. But it is extremely worrying that a man who heads the established church in this country could even consider making this appeal.

Ruth Gledhill’s commenter Tom Jackson writes the following:

To say I was dumbstruck this afternoon when I read the Archbishop’s comments would be an admission that somehow, I expected better of him.

But these latest observations by Rowan Williams just serve to demonstrate once again just how unfit to lead the Anglican Communion this man is. …

The Archbishop should resign, should go and make way for someone more suited to such high office to take his place.

I agree. And if he did, that might help to sort out the Lambeth mess as well, although it is getting a bit late for that.

Where will the evangelical bishops' long route via Lambeth lead to?

Posted on by
Reply

21 evangelical bishops in the Church of England have written an open letter to the Church of England Newspaper urging their fellow Anglican bishops around the world to attend the Lambeth Conference. The signatories include NT Wright, Bishop of Durham, but not bishops Nazir-Ali of Rochester or Benn of Lewes – nor for that matter Broadbent of Willesden, as far as I know the only bishop so far to comment on this blog (but I have no idea of Broadbent’s position on this issue).

I have not actually seen the open letter, which is not in the CEN’s free online daily edition. But I have read the CEN report as republished by Anglican Mainstream and others, with extracts from the letter. In one of these the bishops write:

We urge you therefore to take the long route, waiting for God to work through the processes that are already in train and praying for him to work his purposes in us and through us together.

That is, they are asking their fellow conservatives in the worldwide Anglican communion to abandon their boycott, which they at least implicitly consider a short cut, and take a long route via the Lambeth Conference.

But the problem with taking long routes is that they don’t always lead to the intended destination. This one is at least starting off in what a direction which seems completely opposite to the one which the evangelical bishops want to go to. Continue reading →

Bishop NT Wright's "spirit of cultural superiority"

Posted on by
Reply

I greatly respect the theology of NT Wright, Bishop of Durham, although I don’t claim to understand all of it. I have referred to it several times, mostly positively, on this blog.

However, a letter from Dr Vinay Samuel reported by Anglican Mainstream alleges a different side to Wright’s character. Samuel, a well respected Indian theologian and evangelical Anglican, is a director of the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life. In his letter Samuel was responding to a commentary by Wright in the Church Times, which can be read here. In this article Wright attacks the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), concerning which he refers to

the small group represented by Chris Sugden, Martyn Minns, and Peter Jensen. It is clear that they are the prime movers and drafters, making a mockery of Canon Sugden’s claim … that GAFCON is about rescuing the Churches from Western culture.

Samuel responds firmly to this. He writes that Wright

has suggested in particular that that this whole movement is now following the lead and the agenda of three white men, Bishop Martyn Minns, Archbishop Peter Jensen and Canon Chris Sugden.

I am part of the leadership team of this movement. I have known and worked with Archbishops Akinola, Kolini, Mtetemela, Nzimbi and Orombi and Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali for many years. I have to say that if the scenario were as BishopWright imagines it to be, neither I nor any leader of Christians in the non-western world who have stood for years for the identity, selfrespect and dignity of Christians from the “global south” and their right to self-theologise and organise their own networks independent of influence from the former metropolitan centres of power, would have anything to do with it.

Continue reading →

NT Wright on the authority of Scripture and the Christian hope

Posted on by
Reply

 

The phrase “authority of scripture” can make Christian sense only if it is shorthand for “the authority of the triune God, exercised somehow through scripture.” When we examine what the authority of scripture means we’re talking about God’s authority which is invested in Jesus himself, who says “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:18, NRSV)

Too much debate about scriptural authority has had the form of people hitting one another with locked suitcases. It is time to unpack our shorthand doctrines, to lay them out and inspect them. Long years in a suitcase may have made some of the contents go moldy. They will benefit from fresh air, and perhaps a hot iron.

The point of following Jesus isn’t simply so that we can be sure of going to a better place than this after we die. Our future beyond death is enormously important, but the nature of the Christian hope is such that it plays back into the present life. We’re called, here and now, to be instruments of God’s new creation, the world-put-to-rights, which has already been launched in Jesus and of which Jesus’ followers are supposed to be not simply beneficiaries but also agents.

Bishop NT Wright, in this interview. Hat tip to Eddie Arthur.

The man who selected Rowan now abandons him

Posted on by
Reply

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has left the Anglican Church to become a Roman Catholic.

This is how the BBC starts its report of this long expected news – long expected at least by Ruth Gledhill, and indeed I was among those predicting it (and more) on the day when he left office.

I thank Tim from Oxford, the first commenter on the BBC report, for reminding me that it was this same Tony Blair who selected Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury. This is how the BBC reported this in 2002:

Prime Minister Tony Blair chose Dr Williams from a shortlist of two names, put forward by the Church after months of debate.

Now I am sure that Blair’s reasons for leaving the Church of England have little to do with Rowan Williams. But Tim suggests that it is not right that he has chosen to abandon the leader he chose. Well, I guess Tony Blair the private citizen has the right to choose his own religion, but his abandonment of Rowan and his church is certainly symbolically interesting.

Three Cheers for Rowan Williams!

Posted on by
Reply

Yes, the Archbishop of Canterbury has got things right for once, and it is the British press which has messed it all up. My title echoes the similar cheers in John Richardson’s post at Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream, which clarifies what Rowan actually said, as does Dave Walker’s post.

Despite the press reports, the Archbishop did not say that the nativity is a legend. The only thing he said was a legend was, it seems,

‘the three kings with the one from Africa’.

This part of the traditional story is not in the Bible, which mentions only an unspecified number of magi or wise men from “the east”, which would probably exclude Africa. So it is entirely uncontroversial to call this part of the story a legend.

Indeed I find all of what Rowan said in his interview (according to this transcript) to be very sensible. I would be interested in finding out more about what he thinks about the virgin birth. Warning, you might be offended by his use of “damn”.

So why did the British press, even the usually reliable Ruth Gledhill in The Times, write that

Dr Rowan Williams, dismissed the Christmas story of the Three Wise Men yesterday as nothing but “legend”

?

Justification: metaphor or the real thing?

Posted on by
Reply

Henry Neufeld, at his Participatory Bible Study Blog, has entered the fray about John Piper’s criticism of N.T. Wright’s approach to justification. I cannot claim to understand the whole post because I have not read the chapter by Piper which it refers to (although I have read the Wright article in question). But Henry makes this interesting point in the first part of his post:

There is a fundamental assumption that Piper makes, that there is one, and only one way to understand justification. For him, justification is a fact, not a metaphor. It is the core reality. Metaphors can be used to describe it, but it is the real thing. I emphasize this repeatedly, because it underlies many of the arguments that Piper makes. For him, it would be quite inadequate to suggest that a different metaphor was in play in a different verse, and thus perhaps it might be understood differently.

This is a significant point because it brings out what I see as one of the major weaknesses in Reformed theology, alongside the reliance on tradition which I have also criticised recently.

Continue reading →

More on Rowan's Advent Letter

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday I wrote my own response to Archbishop Rowan Williams’ Advent Letter to the Primates of the Anglican Communion and Moderators of the United Churches. Today I note several other perspectives on this letter, including this from Bishop David Anderson of the American Anglican Council, and this from Jonathan Petre of the Daily Telegraph.

Also Rev John Richardson, the “Ugley Vicar” and Chelmsford diocesan representative of Anglican Mainstream, and occasional commenter here, has written a long and technical but interesting response. Early in his essay he writes about Rowan’s letter:

Compared with some of his earlier pronouncements, this is different. It indicates a certain clear resolve, and an expectation that others should both accept his authority and, to a certain extent, conform to his vision. All may not like it. There are things about it I do not like. But to be a leader is to lead, and it is surely better for an organization to be lead imperfectly than not to be lead at all.

Moreover, it is easier to get to grips with that with which one disagrees than with ‘marshmallow’ pronouncements that mean nothing.

Indeed.

Towards the end John writes:

Despite this, however, there is some reason to be positive. Dr Williams has acknowledged that the Anglican Communion must have boundaries. Moreover, in identifying these he has rightly put Scripture first, and has insisted that a novel reading of Scripture cannot simply be imposed by one group in the Church as acceptable over against the wider reading and the longer tradition.

Most importantly, he affirms that the reading of Scripture currently adopted by TEC and others (if it is a ‘reading’ at all), renders its recognition as Anglican (and therefore traditionally Christian) problematic, to say the least.

…

Yet for all this, Dr Williams must be commended for giving a lead — for stepping up to the plate when it was needed. We may (indeed, I do) disagree with some of what he has said. But we need not (and I do not) disagree with it all, even though considerable anxieties may remain.

I would go further. If Dr Williams is prepared to continue in the same vein, it may, after all, be appropriate for everyone who has been invited to Lambeth to attend. If he seriously regards this as a gathering of the orthodox and the unorthodox, at which it may, finally, be admitted that some sections of the Anglican Communion are no longer recognisably following the same faith and the same Lord, and at which some clearer definition may be given to what that means, then this may be a table at which it is important to sit down.

… If Dr Williams’ statements are given credence and if his leadership is allowed to prevail at this point, it may just be possible for the Lambeth Conference of 2008 to rescue the Anglican Communion intact, not in membership but in the faith.

This is interesting largely because it suggests a possible change in policy by the conservatives. Of course this is only one man’s opinion. But it does open up the possibility that the conservative bishops will turn up en masse and use their majority to push through their view of the Communion. Rowan’s words suggest that he would not be unhappy with this. A consequence might be that those with other views would be marginalised to the extent that they choose to leave. This must be what John means by “rescue the Anglican Communion intact, not in membership but in the faith”. I guess Rowan would not be so happy with that, but he might realise it is the best outcome he can hope for.

Well, it will be interesting to see what happens.