|
Anglican |
 'The
prevailing attitude...was one of heavy disagreement with a number of
things which the [speaker] had not said'. Ronald Knox's description of
discussion at a student society in the nineteen thirties has a certain
familiarity after the last few days; but given that public comment and
criticism has been cast in such highly-coloured terms, I've thought it
right to say a few words to Synod this afternoon about what was and wasn't
said last week and what the questions were which I had hoped might benefit
from some airing.
Some of what has been heard is a very long way indeed from what was
actually said in the Royal Courts of Justice last Thursday. 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. It's Lent, and one of the great
penitential phrases of the Psalms will be in all our minds - 'Who can tell
how oft he offendeth? Cleanse thou me from my secret faults'. I'm deeply
grateful to many of you for the support as well as the challenges I've
received this weekend, and for your willingness to treat all this as a
serious issue that deserves attention. But I believe quite strongly that
it is not inappropriate for a pastor of the Church of England to address
issues around the perceived concerns of other religious communities and to
try and bring them into better public focus.
I hope anyway that you'll bear with me now if I pick up a couple of points
which I think have been distorted in the discussion.
The lecture was written as an opening contribution to a series on Islam
and English Law mounted by the Temple Church and London University. As
such, it posed the question to the legal establishment of whether attempts
to accommodate aspects of Islamic law would create an area where the law
of the land doesn't run. This, I said, would certainly be the case if any
practice under Islamic law had the effect of removing from any individual
the rights they were entitled to enjoy as a citizen of the UK; and I
concluded that nothing should be recognised which had that effect. We are
not talking about parallel jurisdictions; and I tried to make clear that
there could be no 'blank cheques' in this regard, in particular as regards
some of the sensitive questions about the status and liberties of women.
The law of the land still guarantees for all the basic components of human
dignity. So the question remains of whether certain additional choices
could and should be made available under the law of the United Kingdom for
resolving disputes and regulating transactions. It would be analogous to
what is already possible in terms of the legal recognition of certain
kinds of financial transactions under Islamic regulation (including
special provision around mortgage arrangements). And it would create a
helpful interaction between the courts and the practice of Muslim legal
scholars in this country.
If - and please note that word - this were thought to be a useful
direction in which to move, there would be plenty of work still to be
done, with the greatest care, on what would and would not be possible and
appropriate areas for such co-operation. I noted, for example, that
traditional Muslim attitudes to 'apostasy' posed a very serious question
(recognised by many Muslim scholars today), and that honest discussion of
this was imperative. I have had a fair amount of recent first-hand
contact with Christian minorities in Muslim majority countries which has
left me with no illusions about the sufferings they can and do face, even
when there is a national legal framework that fully recognises their
liberties. But I noted that many Muslim majority countries do distinguish
clearly between the rights of citizens overall and the duties accepted by
some citizens of obedience to Islamic law. It is this that encourages me
to think that there may be ways of engaging with the world of Islamic law
on something other than an all-or-nothing basis. I hoped also, though, to
raise a wider question about the relation between faith and law. We have
taken it for granted that the law protects the consciences of religious
believers, and all that I said last week needs to be read in that context
(I mentioned the conscience clauses about abortion in the medical
professions). So, while there is no dispute about our common allegiance to
the law of the land, that law still recognises that religious communities
form the consciences of believers and has not pressed for universal
compliance with aspects of civil law where conscientious matters are in
question. However, there are signs that this cannot necessarily be taken
quite so easily for granted as the assumptions of our society become more
secular. I think we ought to keep an eye on this trend; and if we do, we
shall have to do more thinking about the models of society and law we work
with. It's an area where Christians and people of other faiths ought to be
doing some reflecting together.
Well, much more could be said, but I wanted simply to offer a bit more of
a framework for thinking about this controversy. As I implied earlier,
part of both the burden and the privilege of being the Church we are in
the nation we're in is that we are often looked to for some coherent voice
on behalf of all the faith communities living here. And that is a
considerable privilege, and I hope we can use it well - however clumsily
it may have been deployed in this instance. If we can attempt to speak for
the liberties and consciences of others in this country as well as our
own, we shall I believe be doing something we as a Church are called to do
in Christ's name, witnessing to his Lordship and not compromising
it.
Perhaps you'll allow me now to pass on to what I originally intended to
say this afternoon. It was always inevitable that 2008 should be in many
ways dominated by the Lambeth Conference; and while it should not push
away all the matters that are locally urgent for us here in England, it
doesn't hurt for us to reflect briefly on what the significance of the
Conference is for us - and what we might both contribute and learn.
But to start with, I want to say just a few words about the kind of
conference that is envisaged, in part repeating some of the things I said
last month at the public launch of the programme. The challenge has been
to devise a structure for our time together that manages both to address
the major issues and to refresh and inspire those who will attend. The
twofold focus is equipping bishops for leadership and strengthening the
identity and confidence of the communion. That's why there is less
emphasis on subject-oriented large groups: the primary need will be to get
to know each other sufficiently well to confront the divisive matters that
are around, and so there will be a larger number of slightly smaller
groups. Taking a leaf from the South African book, we're calling these
extended indaba groups - the word used for community consultation and
decision-making. And there will also be, as always, the Bible study
groups, which have been in many previous conferences the most important
element of all; their focus will be the Gospel of John - assisted by the
commentary of one of the members of this Synod, Dr Richard Burridge, which
has been printed in a special edition for the use of the conference. The
hope is that many others in the Communion will share in meditation on this
text in the months leading up to Lambeth. There will of course be extended
discussion of the proposals around the Covenant which we shall be
discussing in this Synod also. We shall have the opportunity of several
plenary sessions but we are planning fewer resolutions; and we have
invited a number of high-profile speakers from public life as well as from
other Christian communions to address us. The Conference begins with a
couple of days' retreat. Some critics have complained that Lambeth is too
focused on prayer and reflection and not enough on decision-making; but I
am bound to say that I regard this as an extraordinary thing to say about
any Christian gathering - as if we could make any decision worthy of the
gospel without the utmost attention to listening together to God. I partly
understand that some feel there may be an attempt to appeal to the need
for prayer and reflection as an alibi for not grasping the nettles; but I
would gently but firmly say that it is also possible to use a rhetoric
about needing decisive action as an alibi for waiting on God. I simply
pray that we'll get the balance as right as we can.
I respect the consciences of those who have said they do not feel able to
attend because there will be those present who have in their view acted
against the disciplinary and doctrinal consensus of the communion.
Needless to say, I regret such a decision, since I believe we should be
seeking God's mind for the Communion in prayer and study together; but it
simply reminds us that even the most 'successful' Lambeth Conference
leaves us with work still to be done in rebuilding relationships. The
decision of some to be absent not only shows the deep differences over
theology and ethics that have so strained our connections; it also
reflects, uncomfortably for us, some of the legacy of hurt that is felt by
some of our provinces at what is experienced as patronising or
manipulative or insensitive actions and attitudes on the part of many of
the churches of the 'West' or 'North' - not only the Episcopal Church in
the USA, but us as well. That's hard to hear, but we have to hear it and
to offer apologies and seek for better understanding. Lambeth can't be the
end of the story; and if at Lambeth we try to do proper justice to the
idea of a Covenant, it must be in the light of that need for a more
serious and profound mutuality between us all.
I've said in other contexts something about why all this matters; let me
illustrate it by looking briefly at one particular situation. What I've
just said about the legacy of bruised feelings and half-buried resentments
is, of course, one of the things that so complicates our political, never
mind our ecclesiastical, relationships with the post-colonial world. And
nowhere is this more apparent than in Zimbabwe at the moment. A history
scarred by exploitation and deep racial injustice can all too easily be
used, as it has been there, to turn aside every criticism and even to
refuse any proper help when a local regime has fallen victim to its own
incompetence, corruption and self-delusion. It has been that much harder
for many in this country to know how to respond to the needs of Zimbabwe
for fear of simply reinforcing stereotypes of colonial patronage or
misunderstanding. We have tried to take our cues from those on the ground
locally who are seeking justice and change.
In many circumstances, the local Church would be the first group we'd turn
to in this attempt to listen and understand. But as we're well aware, this
has not been straightforward in Zimbabwe: we have had some in leadership
positions who have been uncritically supportive of a violent and lawless
administration. But one of the most welcome developments of recent months
has been that the Anglican Church has rallied very remarkably to repudiate
the excesses of the former Bishop of Harare, and has installed a deeply
respected and courageous elder statesman of the Zimbabwean Church, Bishop
Sebastian Bakare, as chief pastor in Harare. The Province's efforts to
cleanse and renew the situation have been met by the expected levels of
intimidatory behaviour on the part of some of Bishop Kunonga's supporters,
but the process of reconstruction has gone forward, with, happily, some
support from the courts.
Bishop Sebastian is with us today, and it is a privilege to greet him on
behalf of this Synod and the Church of England. Sebastian, we want to
assure you of our profound support for you and our gratitude for your
courage and integrity; please let all our brothers and sisters in Zimbabwe
know how much they are in our prayers and thoughts here. And I am
conscious too that there are many Zimbabweans who have fled to the UK, who
sometimes feel almost as vulnerable in the land where they have taken
refuge as they did back home; I want to assure them also of our welcome
and sympathy as a Church.
The records of Bishop Kunonga's administration in Harare make unhappy
reading - a story of conflicts and threats and the refusal of both outside
challenge and outside help. Last year, he announced his decision to
separate from the Province of Central Africa, citing in support the
'liberalism' of that Province on issues of sexual morality. This at least
simplified some issues; I had already indicated that I should not be happy
to invite him to Lambeth while serious charges in the ecclesiastical
courts were still unanswered, but his decision has left him isolated from
the life of the Communion, and his episcopal acts cannot now be recognised
as part of that life. But his preposterous charge against his province
illustrates exactly something I noted last year in this Synod - the
possibility of using conflicts in the Communion as an excuse to pursue
self-seeking agendas in various contexts, and the great danger this poses
in divided or fragile local churches. We saw it in Sudan, and now here it
is in Central Africa; it underlines the need to find ways of resolving or
containing disputes in the communion that do not leave quite so much room
for opportunistic posturing of this kind.
In recovering the moral initiative so decisively in Zimbabwe, the Central
African Province has drawn deeply on its own resources, but it has also
benefited from the solidarity and practical support given from elsewhere
in the Communion - notably from the diocese of Southwark in our own
Church, and, of course, from the unforgettably dramatic and effective
public support of Archbishop Sentamu. The possibility of appealing in
times of crisis and inner struggle to sister churches is a crucial element
in the life of any church that calls itself catholic; and I have to repeat
that when I underline the importance of recovering a proper sense of what
it is for the Communion to be a catholic body, this is near the heart of
what I have in mind. The Archbishop of York's decision last week to
respond to an urgent call from Kenya to go and assist there with mediation
and peacemaking is simply another instance of what this means. And, if I
may mention it only briefly, the work that has grown up around Lambeth
Palace in the last three years to service the development needs of several
African Provinces by helping to broker aid from various sources is
grounded in the same vision of active catholicity as a form of mutual
service; it gives me a chance to pay public tribute to the dedication and
imagination of the international development team at Lambeth and those who
have worked with them, often at some risk and hardship.
My point is that our mutuality in the Communion - and in communion itself
- is not a matter of ecclesiastical housekeeping: it's also about helping
one another to be the Church in any given place; that is, to be a
community whose loyalties are to the Kingdom, not to any kind of cultural
or political partisanship. It means hearing critical questions from
elsewhere and not dismissing them as ignorant or irrelevant; it means
challenging one another to act with integrity; but it also means a degree
of care and hesitation about assuming at one that you know how things work
in another context. Now our current style of electronic global
communication is manifestly not designed to nurture these virtues, and it
can have a toxic effect on all sorts of other areas of communicating with
each other; and we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with
talking about, rather than with, one another at the best of times. My
deepest hope and prayer for Lambeth is that it will be a decisively
counter-cultural event. Whether or not we arrive at some unimaginable
solution to both our theological and our structural challenges, I hope we
shall at least have shown that it is possible to think and speak with one
another in the presence of God. Now I think about it, that is of course
what Synod itself seeks to do. So please continue to pray for the Lambeth
Conference - pray that it may find new ways forward that will restore and
deepen confidence in our Communion and trust between us, and that it may
help to open up reconciliation for those who have felt injured or
marginalised in any setting; but pray even more that it will be a context
where, by thinking and speaking together in the presence of God, all of us
may be set free to be more fully the Church God calls us to be wherever we
may find ourselves - which is also of course the real issue in what I
spoke about in the earlier part of this address. So may God in this Lenten
season help us move more deeply into the mystery of our baptism into the
fellowship of the Crucified and Risen Christ.
© Rowan Williams 2008
|
