On January 30 of this year the Archbishop of Canterbury (henceforth AbC) delivered the annual Fr. Alexander Schmemann Memorial Lecture at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, itself widely regarded as the "flagship seminary" of American Orthodoxy, and was awarded an honorary doctorate by that same institution. That signal honor has occasioned a good deal of contentious reaction, not least in the Orthodox blogsphere — see these, for instance:
- http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2010/01/abc-at-svs.html
- http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2010/01/likely-to-hurt-his-toe.html
- http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2010/02/oca-south-with-anglican-theme-and.html
This curious episode strongly parallels the conferral of similar honors on President Obamagabalus by Notre Dame University. Mutatis mutandis, of course — but I will not be surprised if the events of January 30 inflict a mortal blow upon any "Anglican Project" that the OCA may have with regard to either ACNA (a forlorn hope, given the theological "latitude" of that coalition) or FtW/Quincy. This is the man who, in *The Body's Grace,* clearly stated his support for SS (let the reader understand), and who had never recanted it — but who has only chosen to defer to the "current consensus" in the Anglican Communion as a whole against such an abomination, and not, be it noted, to that "Catholic consensus" which, in respect to SS (and WO) is as clear as any skeptic or "objective historian" could desire; and who has (as must be evident by now) exerted himself to the uttermost to prevent any meaningful "discipline" or "sanctions" to be imposed upon the Episcopal Church by the Anglican Communion at large as the former morphs before our eyes from a high-church "decorated Protestant" body into a Gnostic Revival sect. One can imagine the puzzlement of dispossed Orthodoxophile Anglican "seekers" on learning of such an event, a sentiment recalled to mind lately by Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, who some 22 years ago found himself in just that situation.
Then, too there is the AbC's constant ("firm" and "unyielding" would be oxymoronic terms if applied to the AbC) support for WO and "women bishops" — or "flaminicae," to use my favorite term. He, like the Archbishop of York, has supported making "adequate provision" for opponents of "flaminicae" in the Church of England — provision which the Revision Committee of that church's General Synod (the body assigned the task of framing the specific legislative proposals) has now declined to endorse and of which the General Synod itself will most likely confirm the rejection at its July 2010 session. Does anyone doubt that the AbC will support the legislation regardless of its totalitarian overtones and its effect of terminating the 1993 "Act of Synod" which provided a minimally adequate provision (in the view of those who embraced it) for opponents of the ordination of women to "the priesthood" in the Church of England at that time? True, in an address which he gave earlier today to that General Synod he seemed to deplore the niggardly provision that it appears set to accord these opponents, but it is a rash man who would conclude from these "measured" words that he would actually vote to see the legislation for women bishops go down to defeat because of these deficiencies..
The AbC does have, as his writings attest, an interest, both personal and scholarly, in Orthodoxy. To recognize this by the conferral upon him of an honorary degree by an institution charged with promoting Orthodox Christian orthodoxy does seem, to this outsider at least, a bit much. At any event, it would have seemed more fitting for such an accolade to have been conferred upon Dr. Williams by a theological institution of the Finnish Orthodox church rather than one operating under the aegis of the Orthodox Church of America, given the strange "openness" that some Finnish Orthodox clergy and theologians have expressed of late towards accepting "faithful and monogamous" homosexual unions, as has been reported of late here and elsewhere:
http://www.kosmas.fi/PDF-files-veljeston%20paasivu/Finn_Ort_Probl_2009_Autumn.pdf
I think we go a bit overboard in comparing Rowan's speech and honorary doctorate at St Vladimir's and the Obamamessiah's speech and honorary doctorate at Notre Dame.
Rowan may abstruse in his speech but he thinks well and in the Anglican culture wars has never wavered from what he thinks is right, drawing flak from Left, Center and Right! If there is anything allegorically right about Rowan of Canterbury is that he has been crucified, a nail on the Left, a nail on Right and a nail on the Center (his foot!) Anglicans and us Catholics wish that he be raised from this deathly situation soon. (Probably by joining the Ordinariate once he retires? Well he's really Catholic especially noted at Lourdes and we pray that the Lord gets the "affirming" off his eyes and just focus on the Catholicism )
The Obammy may be easy to understand in his speeches but I do have doubts that he does think well and he really is a veritable flip flop. A single shot of criticism is enough to flop the flip! Now for Obammy's religion, we may just have to let our Protestant brethren comment on that!
I am afraid that I can make little sense of your comment, and, in addition, am in profound and total disagreement with what I do understand of it. It may be, as you write that "in the Anglican culture wars has never wavered from what he thinks is right," but "what he thinks is right" include the blessing of sodomitical "partnerships" and the "ordination" of women, which are neither "Catholic" nor "right," and to apply the phrase "never wavered" to him is as amazing an oxymoron as any I have ever seen.
By the same principles as you have enunciated about the AbC one might express admiration for Marcion and Arius, as well as Rowan.
And anyone who knows anything at all about the AbC's theological history and ecclesiological thinking could hardly write that he might probably join the Ordinariat when he retires — far more likely that if he left the Anglican communion he would become Orthodox. But I suspect his Missus would not be well-disposed to either "option."
I think it is necessary to understand that first and foremost St. Vlad's is an academic institution, and unlike Roman Catholic "seminaries" has a certain independence from episcopal control. I doubt very much that the same thing would have happened in St. Tikhon's, which is a seminary in the more Roman sense of the word. As an academic institution it may, and does, give awards based upon academic achievement, not upon a narrow ecclesiastical focus. So I do not share Dr. Tighe's horror at this development.
As to the "offer" to Anglicans to come aboard the ship of the OCA (I have seen no real development in this direction other than what may only be considered as a personal reflection of the ruling hierarch), I doubt very much that it will have any direct affect whatsoever.
One may also posit that since Williams does have serious problems with the American version of his corner of the ecclesiastical world, the Orthodox are in some measure simply given behind the scenes support since they have broken off all contact with Ms Schori et al.
The trumped up "controversy" died immediately after +Rowan's lecture ended. The handful of us who understood it found the lecture interesting, and the rest . . . liked some of his stories and examples. Naturally, he said nothing controversial.
I think the ex-Anglican Orthodox who objected to honoring of +Rowan either 1) got their info about him from their Evangelical Anglican friends who hate him or 2) are themselves half-converted Protestants. I find it interesting that your criticism of +Rowan (like that of his Evangelical detractors) has as much to do with his political tactics as with his teaching.
You note +Rowan's "constant" support for the ordination of women, but you conveniently ignore his equally constant opposition to abortion. More important, every other time he opens his mouth in public he criticizes one aspect or another of the Enlightenment. He is nothing like the liberal leadership of TEC. Ben is absolutely correct to note that +Rowan is attacked from the Left as often as from the Right.