Archbishop of Canterbury challenged to speak out more
-16/02/05
A leading British newspaper, once known for its scepticism towards religion, has challenged the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, to address the nation more boldly on issues of significance to church and society.
The Guardian, both feted and scorned as the house journal of the left-leaning liberal intelligentsia, said in an editorial yesterday that Dr Williams should ìspeak upî. It added that and if he did so, ìsome of the attractiveness of his personality, so much described before he took office and so little displayed since then, will shine through all the television lights.î
Channel 4 newscaster Jon Snow, who supports Christian Aid and is himself the son of a bishop, has recently accused the Archbishop of ìrunning scaredî after Dr Williams declined to take part in a high profile TV programme.
The Guardian held back from echoing that opinion, but said Dr Williams was in danger of looking cowardly, and that he had to accept the possibility of being misunderstood and misrepresented if he was to communicate effectively in the media age.
The Channel 4 programme, The New Ten Commandments, is due to air at the end of February. It features representatives of major faith groups debating the place of the commandments in modern life and discussing whether a new set of rues is needed.
Dr Williams, a noted scholar, is thought to fear that the format of the programme will trivialise serious issues and fail to tackle what some Christian ethicists call ìthe narrative structure of moral discourseî ñ the idea that religious injunctions make sense within particular communities shaped by a specific understanding of their origin, character and destiny.
In a separate feature, ëGodís constructive dismissalí, Guardian columnist Zoe Williams (no relation) offers the Archbishop some comfort, however. After reviewing the issues to be examined on The New Ten Commandments, she says that ì[t]he mystery is not why Rowan Williams wouldnít want to collude in a process like this, but rather why any of the others would.î
Her good humoured piece describes the Channel 4 TV programme as ìa kind of Question of Sport with extra Godî and says that the Archbishop might prefer ìto address the nationî in a more dignified manner of his choosing.
However the tenor of the Guardian editorial suggests that the head of Englandís established Church can no longer count on the privileges being seen as “the nation’s spiritual head” (Ms Williams) has previously afforded, and says, in effect, that he should hold his breath and ‘muck in’.
The paper acknowledges that it is a thankless task for Dr Williams to speak out meaningfully on public issues (as many say he is very capable of doing) because of the likely controversy that any non-bland comment might create.
The Guardian leader comments pointedly: ìIt is hard to imagine him giving an honest or satisfying answer if he is asked why blessing the love of two adulterers in Windsor strengthens the Church of England and lets one of them become the churchís supreme governor, while blessing the love of two gay vicars in Southwark would threaten global schism.î
The Christian think tank Ekklesia this week called for a debate about the disestablishment of the Church of England, suggesting that the capacity of Christian leaders like Dr Williams to speak out was seriously hampered by the constraints of its ties to state and crown.
Archbishop of Canterbury challenged to speak out more
-16/02/05
A leading British newspaper, once known for its scepticism towards religion, has challenged the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, to address the nation more boldly on issues of significance to church and society.
The Guardian, both feted and scorned as the house journal of the left-leaning liberal intelligentsia, said in an editorial yesterday that Dr Williams should ìspeak upî. It added that and if he did so, ìsome of the attractiveness of his personality, so much described before he took office and so little displayed since then, will shine through all the television lights.î
Channel 4 newscaster Jon Snow, who supports Christian Aid and is himself the son of a bishop, has recently accused the Archbishop of ìrunning scaredî after Dr Williams declined to take part in a high profile TV programme.
The Guardian held back from echoing that opinion, but said Dr Williams was in danger of looking cowardly, and that he had to accept the possibility of being misunderstood and misrepresented if he was to communicate effectively in the media age.
The Channel 4 programme, The New Ten Commandments, is due to air at the end of February. It features representatives of major faith groups debating the place of the commandments in modern life and discussing whether a new set of rues is needed.
Dr Williams, a noted scholar, is thought to fear that the format of the programme will trivialise serious issues and fail to tackle what some Christian ethicists call ìthe narrative structure of moral discourseî ñ the idea that religious injunctions make sense within particular communities shaped by a specific understanding of their origin, character and destiny.
In a separate feature, ëGodís constructive dismissalí, Guardian columnist Zoe Williams (no relation) offers the Archbishop some comfort, however. After reviewing the issues to be examined on The New Ten Commandments, she says that ì[t]he mystery is not why Rowan Williams wouldnít want to collude in a process like this, but rather why any of the others would.î
Her good humoured piece describes the Channel 4 TV programme as ìa kind of Question of Sport with extra Godî and says that the Archbishop might prefer ìto address the nationî in a more dignified manner of his choosing.
However the tenor of the Guardian editorial suggests that the head of Englandís established Church can no longer count on the privileges being seen as “the nation’s spiritual head” (Ms Williams) has previously afforded, and says, in effect, that he should hold his breath and ‘muck in’.
The paper acknowledges that it is a thankless task for Dr Williams to speak out meaningfully on public issues (as many say he is very capable of doing) because of the likely controversy that any non-bland comment might create.
The Guardian leader comments pointedly: ìIt is hard to imagine him giving an honest or satisfying answer if he is asked why blessing the love of two adulterers in Windsor strengthens the Church of England and lets one of them become the churchís supreme governor, while blessing the love of two gay vicars in Southwark would threaten global schism.î
The Christian think tank Ekklesia this week called for a debate about the disestablishment of the Church of England, suggesting that the capacity of Christian leaders like Dr Williams to speak out was seriously hampered by the constraints of its ties to state and crown.