The Archbishop of Canterbury is a good man

31 Responses to “The Archbishop of Canterbury is a good man”

1. MetaCatholic » +Rowan’s support group says:
   

   [...] After months and months of my resisting every temptation to join Facebook, I have succumbed in a good cause. Thanks to Dave Walker for pointing me to this group: the Archbishop of Canterbury is a good man. As it says: Joining the group affirms that you believe:1) The media has misinterpreted the spirit of what Dr Williams was talking about in his lecture2) As an intellectual, and a spiritual leader, Dr Williams should feel free to express a carefully considered opinion.3) That Dr Williams is one of the most gifted minds in Britain, and his views should be given careful consideration. [...]

   February 10th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
2. Cranmer says:
   

   Nastiness?

   There is nothing nasty about His Grace’s musings at all. In fact, if you bothered to read them properly, you would find them reasoned and measured, and you might also be able to work out that His Grace has enormous sympathy for the situation in which Dr Williams finds himself.

   So before you launch your righteous invective against those who have misrepresented the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, please at least bother to be sure that you are not misrepresenting Cranmer.

   February 10th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
3. Dave says:
   

   Cranmer,

   Apologies – my post was written in haste and worded very poorly. I meant that you had linked to examples of nastiness. I agree with the sentiments expressed in your post entirely.

   I have amended the post accordingly.

   February 10th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
4. Cranmer says:
   

   Bless you.

   February 10th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
5. Peter Kirk says:
   

   Can I join the group? I can affirm all of your three points. But I still believe that he should resign, because to lead an international church you need to be more than a good man or woman with “one of the most gifted minds in Britain”.

   February 10th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
6. Spike says:
   

   The problem, as I see it, is that a great man has made some well thought out and intelligent remarks to a group of academics, forgetting that there are an awful lot of very stupid people out there who will take his words totally out of context and twist them around to suit the mentality of Daily Mail readers.

   What is it with the British public? On the news last night, I saw a report where Rowan had attended a memorial service for one of his former tutors. Apparently, members of the public were out in force jeering and calling for him to resign. Whatever you may think of anyones views, what sort of sick individual heckles to make a political point at a memorial service?

   I’ve just been singing at St Edmunsdbury Cathedral this weekend with my choir. This morning’s sermon was preached by the Cathedral’s Canonm Theologian who spoke out in support of Abp Rowan. That cheered me up no end, but what cheered me even more was a cry of “hear hear” from a member of the congregation.

   My prayers are with Archbishop Rowan. I invite anyone reading this to join me.

   February 10th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
7. Peter Kirk says:
   

   I note that this group has already attracted at least one bishop, Pete Broadbent of Willesden. See my post about Broadbent and my comment linking to this post.

   February 10th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
8. John Davies says:
   

   I agree with all three points there but rather than faffing around to join the Facebook fad I’ve written to Rowan himself to tell him, seemed a nice thing to do. Oh, and today reworked a Lent 1 sermon from three years ago about the so-called ‘pestilent priest’ Bishop George Bell (who was cast to the wilderness for daring to publicly oppose the blanket bombing of Dresden in WW2) to connect with the same sort of casting-out today of Rowan Williams for his daring to publicly propose ideas of accommodation and hospitality in a multicultural society.

   February 10th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
9. MadPriest says:
   

   Of course, the Grand Tufti has as much right as anybody else to have an opinion on any matter. However, there is a substantive difference between the opinion of nobodies like us and the opinion of somebody with power and influence. Therefore, it is fair for people to ask how his attitude towards his own church is demonstrated in his comments about Sharia law. When you add them to his recent comments about the blasphemy laws and his desire to vest ecclesiastical power in the hands of as few people as possible you end up with a frightening scenario. I think ridicule is a reasonable way to counteract such pomposity.

   February 11th, 2008 at 8:02 am
10. Phil Groom says:
    

    Helpful article on the whole fiasco from Peter Riddell, former Director of the Centre for Islamic Studies at London School of Theology:

    The Archbishop and Sharia: a Pas de Deux?

    February 11th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
11. Tony Luckcuck says:
    

    “How blest you are when men revile you…. ” I hope the Church of England will not desert Rowan. The silly members of General Synod who want him to ‘apologise’ should remember that he has not ‘let the church down’. The Church wanted a leader, and it got one. Not merely a man of huge intellect, but one of considerable courage. He is supposed to speak his mind, and no one should be surprised – nor should we desert him – when he does!

    February 11th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
12. John Davies says:
    

    Ridicule is indeed a reasonable way to counteract pomposity – as Rowan himself celebrated (I’m sure with self-awareness) in a magnificent speech in Liverpool two weeks ago:

    A … city of European culture – should rightly be thought of as a place where a great deal of deflation goes on, a great deal of sceptical and unillusioned thinking that can penetrate the pretensions of all claims to final versions of the human comedy or tragedy; but a city [does] this best when it recognizes … that the roots which nourish all this are Christian…

    I like this because it affirms that nobody is a ‘nobody’ actually, and we all have a part to play in tempering the ardour of our leaders. I think deflation, ridicule, etc are valid Christian responses in context… however spite, manipulations of truth and opportunistic cries of banishment and punishment… they seem to stem from a whole set of other values altogether.

    February 11th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
13. joe says:
    

    I still can’t see how his comments are so radical.

    February 11th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
14. Spike says:
    

    Joe – you’ve hit the nail on the head. His comments aren’t particularly radical, it’s just the tabloid press that have whipped it all into a frenzy.

    February 11th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
15. Steve Hearn says:
    

    He still needs to trim his eyebrows…

    February 11th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
16. Dave K says:
    

    “…to lead an international church you need to be more than a good man or woman with “one of the most gifted minds in Britain”.”

    So I presume you were calling for the resignation of George Carey wheile he was ABofC.

    Indeed the ABofC should be more than simply a great mind, and he is, which is why he should never be asked to resign by much lesser mortals like you or I.

    Now, if he ever were forced to resign by “us” then don’t ever complain when the next ABofC is a snivelling, fear-filled conformist with no ability to imagine, lead or propose anything other than the status quo.

    Ta ra.

    February 11th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
17. John O says:
    

    Joe – you’ve hit the nail on the head. His comments aren’t particularly radical, it’s just the tabloid press that have whipped it all into a frenzy.

    No, the ABofC’s ideas are not radical, they are deeply reactionary. The oppostion he sets up between secularity and religious conscience, and his case against the monopoly of secular law should be disturbing to any Christian who holds the principles of a secular democracy in high regard. Moreover, he has done damage to progressive Muslim groups who have no wish for Islamic family law to regulate their community. If Rowan presumes to speak on the perceived needs of all faith groups, he ought to have made sure that his perceptions were accurate and all-embracing. Peter Riddell’s criticisms in the link above were perceptive; as are those of political philosopher Martin O’Neill from the University of Manchester

    I, too, think that the ABofC is a good and often thoughtful man, but that does not mean that all the criticism he has been receiving this week has been undeserved. As Simon Barrow pointed out in an insightful article this weekend, his current agenda seems both misguided and troubling. Rowan’s speech at Synod affirming the content of his argument has done little to assauge such concerns.

    February 12th, 2008 at 4:10 am
18. joe says:
    

    This isn’t really the place for an in depth discussion, but briefly:

    1. We do not live in a country with a “monopoly of secular law”. In the UK Anglican Canon Law = State Law.

    2. There are a multitude of Muslim views. This is not relevant. Anyone can pick and chose people from an amorphous group who hold more ‘favourable’ views.

    3. The AB of C was not seeking to speak out on behalf of other religious groups. He was attempting to start a discussion about how we move forward in a society where different religious groups already arrange themselves differently.

    4. The only uncomfortable aspect of the affair is the prevalence of knee-jerk reactions and xenophobia it has thrown up, particularly in the Anglican church.

    February 12th, 2008 at 9:45 am
19. John Richardson says:
    

    This is quite possibly the silliest idea I’ve seen in a long while. ‘The Archbishop of Canterbury is a good man’. Er, yes … and he came up with a bad idea, obscurely worded.

    Look at what is being proposed, not at the man proposing it. If in doubt, read Martin O’Neill in the New Statesman.

    February 12th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
20. joe says:
    

    I’m still not clear what you think is being proposed.

    Sharia is being used informally outside of the legal system to resolve issues, just as Beth Din and Somali courts are.

    Big deal. Move on.

    February 12th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
21. Dave K says:
    

    “…and he came up with a bad idea, obscurely worded.”

    Not an obscure idea at all, much discussed in university departments of theology and religion, not just the “liberal” ones either. Obscurely worded? Only by the careless listener/reader.

    “Look at what is being proposed, not at the man proposing it.” I would hope that actually they were one and the same.

    “If in doubt, read Martin O’Neill in the New Statesman.” Hahahahahahaha, you so funny!

    February 12th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
22. John Richardson says:
    

    Dave K,

    You’re not exactly increasing my estimate of the level of debate.

    You wrote, “Not an obscure idea at all, much discussed in university departments of theology and religion, not just the “liberal” ones either. Obscurely worded? Only by the careless listener/reader.”

    Actually I wrote, bad idea. Obscurely worded? Rowan Williams commented: “But I must of course take responsibility for any unclarity in either that text or in the radio interview, and for any misleading choice of words that has helped to cause distress or misunderstanding among the public at large and especially among my fellow Christians.”

    You also wrote, ““Look at what is being proposed, not at the man proposing it.” I would hope that actually they were one and the same.”

    Not sure I get you.

    You also wrote, ““If in doubt, read Martin O’Neill in the New Statesman.” Hahahahahahaha, you so funny!”

    Am I? And have you read O’Neill?

    If this is Christian debate it doesn’t say much for Christianity!

    February 12th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
23. joe says:
    

    If this is Christian debate it doesn’t say much for Christianity!

    I agree.

    February 12th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
24. Philip of Samaria says:
    

    joe – I agree and with your earlier comment – I agree

    christianity would be a really bad idea without the founder

    February 12th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
25. Dave K says:
    

    “Actually I wrote, bad idea.” Apologies, my mistake. We’ll agree to disagree, but I haven’t read any *reasons* for your disagreeing with what the ABofC *actually* wrote yet.

    “Obscurely worded? Rowan Williams commented: “But I must of course take responsibility for any unclarity in either that text or in the radio interview, and for any misleading choice of words that has helped to cause distress or misunderstanding among the public at large and especially among my fellow Christians.”” Which, to me, clearly shows how gracious the ABofC is being with the likes of you and me.

    “You also wrote, ““Look at what is being proposed, not at the man proposing it.” I would hope that actually they were one and the same.” Not sure I get you.” Simply that a person is the sum of their thoughts, actions and speech, integrity being measured in the level of unity between thought, action and speech.

    “You also wrote, ““If in doubt, read Martin O’Neill in the New Statesman.” Hahahahahahaha, you so funny!” I have read O’Neill, it was difficult, not to understand, but to stomach so much irrationalilty. Don’t put yourself down! You are so much funnier than you realise!

    “If this is Christian debate it doesn’t say much for Christianity!” It doesn’t, it’s in a mess, not because of robust debate but because such issues have been swept under a carpet for far too long where they are hidden from the light of reason and imagination. Anyway, if a bit of argy-bargy debate is something to be feared then you’ll want to keep your distance from that Jesus bloke, what with all that table-turning, talk of white-washed graves and of bringing a sword rather than peace…I guess we’d better skip over those bits though…such a bad witness…

    Adieu.

    February 13th, 2008 at 11:03 am
26. John Richardson says:
    

    Dave K, thanks for the compliment(s). On my disagreements with Rowan’s proposals see the following:

    Rowan and Islam for dummies and, for a longer version, Shari’ah: Why Williams was wrong.

    None of this would prevent me joining in with a rousing chorus of “For he’s a jolly good fellow”. It just means I think he got it wrong (and I also think “the media” mostly understood him).

    I’d be interested to hear from anyone who supports his proposals just what they think this should mean in practice (beyond, of course, what is happening already – he would hardly have given this speech just to endorse that.)

    February 13th, 2008 at 11:21 am
27. John Richardson says:
    

    PS, what I really don’t understand is why we, as followers of Jesus, would seek to reinforce any system that makes people more subject to religious law. Jesus was a Shari’ah-breaker. That’s partly why they killed him. I thank God, literally, I am not under the ‘Shari’ah of Moses’, the man of God. Why would I want to promote the ‘Shari’ah of Mohammed’, the Arabian prophet?

    February 13th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
28. Dave K says:
    

    John, I’ve read “Shari’ah: Why Williams was wrong” and I can’t find any *reasoned* debate with what the ABofC *actually* said/wrote. The “Rowan and Islam for dummies” link isn’t working. Work on communication maybe?

    “I’d be interested to hear from anyone who supports his proposals just what they think this should mean in practice…” Simply that any imagiative Christian response to multiculturalism must engage in a mutually critical partnership with those it finds itself alongside, to challenge ignorance wherever it may be found and impatience with our own lack of understanding at every turn. Certainly not to see(k) Christian conversion as a result of vanquishing an imagined enemy, whether (ir)religious, cultural or Uttlesford. That would be some sort of start towards fulfilling Christ’s nature as “Son of Man”, not just “Son of God”.

    February 13th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
29. John Richardson says:
    

    Dave K, so what is Rowan saying, is he right, what does it mean in terms of change in our society regarding our engagement with Shari’ah? If you think I’ve missed it entirely, I’d like to know what I missed. The ‘missing link’ to Rowan and is this.

    Also have a look at this, taken from Jens Christensen’s “A Practical Approach to Muslims”.

    To describe Christian conversion in terms of “vanquishing an … enemy” indicates a lack of understanding of the gospel, unless you mean our enmity with God. If you’re not sure on that, I’m confident you will know where you might do some reading or listening.

    February 13th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
30. Ad Hominem Attack and Ad Hominem Defence: Archbishop Rowan | The Wardman Wire says:
    

    [...] John Richardson makes a point very well, with respect to the “Archbishop of Canterbury is a good man ” Facebook Group: [...]

    February 14th, 2008 at 11:52 am
31. Dave K says:
    

    Hey John (Richardson),
    I think we may finally be on the verge of a conversation!

    “so what is Rowan saying,” Simply in order to reduce the possibilities of confusion I can only refer you to what the ABofC actually said.

    http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575
    http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573

    “is he right,” I can only speak from my own encounters with Muslims and the theology of the ABofC: having read the ABofC’s speech I find myself trying to find the weak spots and flaws, but the limits and confines to any accomodation of Sharia which he clearly states in his speech have convinced me that he has done much to take public debate forward. “Is he right?” you ask. Well, I think we’d have to judge that on the basis of the continuing quality of dialogue between Islam, Christianity and British Law and would depend on the efficacy (legal, social and personal) of how certain limited aspects of Sharia are implemented.

    “what does it mean in terms of change in our society regarding our engagement with Shari’ah?” Hopefully, and I think what has started to happen in certain places, it will mean that we become far more aware of when we are allowing crude images of the extremities and unjust expressions of Sharia to dictate our whole vision of what Sharia can be. As the ABofC was at pains to make clear:

    “if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law, we need a fair amount of ‘deconstruction’ of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment”

    “If you think I’ve missed it entirely, I’d like to know what I missed.” I don’t think you missed it entirely, but I think there is a general human tendency which we are all vulnerable to, and that is the tendency to jump to conclusions in an effort to sate our appetite for understanding and our desire for certainty, or to use the ABofC’s terminology, an “Impatience with ambiguity”. Taking the time to be patient with ambiguity will mean that the debate generates more light than heat and a higher quality of dialogue can be had.

    Thanks for re-posting that missing link, appreciated, I hadn’t seen that clip before (I don’t watch much TV).

    You wrote: “To describe Christian conversion in terms of “vanquishing an … enemy” indicates a lack of understanding of the gospel” Precisely my point, this was absolutely not something I was advocating! I’m quite sure about that!

    And finally, you asked: “what I really don’t understand is why we, as followers of Jesus, would seek to reinforce any system that makes people more subject to religious law.” I really don’t see any reason to assume that certain limited aspects of Sharia in appropriate circumstances would “make people more subject to religious law.” That really isn’t how I’d imagine it at all. Do you mind if I quote a bit from the Radio 4 interview with Christopher Landau:

    CL So for example one of the examples you give where Sharia might be applied is in relation to marriage; what would that look like; what would that mean for example a British Muslim woman suddenly given the choice to settle a dispute via a Sharia route as opposed to the existing British legal system?

    ABC It’s very important hat you mention there the word ‘choice’; I think it would be quite wrong to say that we could ever licence so to speak a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general, so that a woman in such circumstances would have to know that she was not signing away for good and all; now this is a matter of detail that I don’t know enough about the detail of the law in the Islamic law in this context; I’m simply saying that there are ways of looking at marital dispute for example within discussions that go on among some contemporary scholars which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them. In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate.

    It seems to me that if provision can be made for certain aspects of Sharia to be made active depending on how appropriate they are to circumstance and need in a particular area, then it could possibly be quite unjust to deny such provision. I think this comes back to the “‘deconstruction’ of crude oppositions”, dialogical engagement and being open to mutually critical yet appreciative partnership with those of other religious identity.

    February 15th, 2008 at 1:05 pm