But he hasn’t waded in very far.
From here:
He said the resignation, which followed that of Rev Dr Giles Fraser, the Canon Chancellor, was “very sad news” and that the events of the past fortnight had shown “how decisions made in good faith by good people under unusual pressure can have utterly unforeseen and unwelcome consequences”.
Speaking publicly about the crisis for the first time, Dr Williams added: “The urgent larger issues raised by the protesters at St Paul’s remain very much on the table and we need – as a Church and as society as a whole – to work to make sure that they are properly addressed.”
As usual Rowan Williams can’t make up his mind what to do or whose side to be on. If he sides with the Dean Knowles, throw the protesters out faction, it makes his prior anti-banker statement look even more ridiculous; if he sides with the Giles Fraser, we stand with the protesters (even though they have less of an idea of what they are doing than Rowan Williams) faction, the church may look good for a while but will lose hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The internal division in the church on what to do about the protesters parallels the division between church conservatives and liberals. The difference is, in the case of the latter, almost no-one cares, or even notices; the former is very public and the world is watching to see what the church will do.
Will Rowan mingle among the tent dwellers and organise impromptu Indaba groups? Will he advocate a Listening Process between clergy, police and protesters? Will he employ Hegelian dialectic to arrive at a middle ground that everyone will be unhappy with?
The Bishop of London, Richard Chartre, has plumped for the last option: he wants the protest to be scaled down but not be forcibly removed.
What should the church do? It seems to me to be a perfect opportunity to preach the gospel of Christ – the real one, not social justice claptrap – to the lost. Tent city on the steps of St. Paul’s would be a good setting for an Alpha course.
Interesting analysis. I think you are about 80 percent correct. There is a liberal/conservative tension-conflict going on, beneath the surface of English-London church life.
I just read an article in the current edition of Harper’s magazine, titled “Broken Britain”. It mentioned the race riots which occurred a few months ago. It mentioned Thatcher and Blair, and argued that Blair had continued nationalizing state institutions, I think it was the railroads. The article claimed England’s railroads are more costly, and less efficient, than state run European ones. So, this article argued, Britain is a declining society. It was a generally gloomy analysis. So, Archbishop Rowan may be onto something, in trying to preach to and analyze social issues. But, it is his weakness, being able to make such public statements, yet, as a former academic, he isn’t a good Bishop at supporting clergy going through difficult times, being a pastor to other Bishops.
Concerning St. Paul’s Cathedral. I visited England in 2009. I went to St. Paul’s on a weekday, and found out I had to pay about 15 pounds, if I wanted to visit as a tourist. If I came on Sunday, as a worshipper, I could enter for free. So, it is an odd organization. There is a real congregation there, real Christian Anglicans. But, it is also a tourist/museum place, a business organization.
When clergy resign, they do so for different reasons. Sometimes, it is in anger, as a way to make a statement. But sometimes, and I suspect with the Dean, it is a sign of frustration and incompetence. He doesn’t know how to handle these Protests. And, obviously, the clergy team at the Cathedral, isn’t functioning very well. No one was backing up, or supporting the Dean. So, I see this whole matter as sad, odd, and tragic. But I agree with you, Anglicanism is a sick religion, theologically sick. So, being a Bishop/leader is a very tricky/high risk career.
It seems the Andrew Carey agrees with my solution: