Amidst all the ho-ha about what consenting adults do with various small parts of their bodies in private (arguably following their god-given desires) and about whether the said adults can be part of a Christian leadership or whether they should be sacrificed for the sake of superficial unity, the Most Rev Henry Orombi, Archbishop of Uganda, has made a very interesting point. In an article in today’s Times he has accused Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, of betrayal and, more interestingly, describes his office as a “remnant of imperial colonialism”.
Archbishop Orombi, a leader of the conservative Global South bishops and one of 230 to boycott the conference, rehearses the familiar line on the biblical texts taken by the conservatives, and argues that the stand taken by Rowan Williams in inviting colleagues who consecrated the openly gay Bishop of New Hampshire to the Lambeth Conference is a betrayal of the historic Christian faith. To many, that is a bit like arguing that using modern understanding of physics and chemistry to develop the combustion engine is a betrayal of Medieval alchemy. However, what seemed new in Orombi’s piece was the argument that he used to establish grounds for future unity in the Anglican church.
Orombi argued that the way to ensure long-term unity is for the church to have leaders who are more representative of the wider communion.
He writes: “Even the Pope is elected by his peers. But what Anglicans have is a man appointed by a secular government. Over the past five years, we have come to see this as a remnant of British colonialism, and it is not serving us well.
“The spiritual leadership of a global communion of independent and autonomous provinces should not be reduced to one man appointed by a secular government.”
Three things about this strike me as interesting. Orombi is acknowledging that the present Anglican structure is both pragmatically flawed and ideologically repugnant on two grounds. The almost inevitable relative isolation of the leader under the present system means that he (or god-forbid, she) is likely to be unrepresentative of the increasingly diverse communion and therefore unlikely to command the respect necessary to preserve unity. But regardless of any practical difficulties, the church should not allow the present structure to continue for two strong philosophical reasons: first, the head of the church is appointed by a secular government; secondly, the former means that the head is always likely to British.
In theory, the church professes to believe the bible and to accept god as its ultimate authority. It gets itself into occasional difficulty when parts of it accuse other parts of it of not accepting biblical teaching (hence the present excitement). However, one of the two elephants in the room that many (apart from Orombi) seem to be ignoring is that for very bizarre and dishonourable reasons (involving a lecherous monarch, divorce, and various executions) the Church of England has its leaders appointed by a secular government. And of course, a body which professes to respect the dignity and equality of all human beings, is institutionally unable to have a leader from the former colonies (and some would argue is therefore racist). The presence of these two elephants have to be compelling arguments from within the church for separation of church and state.
At one time it could be argued that Great Britain owned the English language. Now, such an argument would seem foolish. There are many Englishes around the world and more people speaking English in China than in the UK. Britain can no longer claim to have any ‘authority’ with regards to the language. If it has any, it has to be limited to the language as it is used at home, not in America, or India, or Japan, for example. Similary, the Church of England is now part of a much larger church communion. To continue to have a leader of that world-wide church appointed by a British government must inevitably be weakening that office.
While I personally don’t have a problem with that weakening, I would hope that a few Anglicans apart from Archbishop Orombi might.
_____________
Update 27/10/08 Join my Facebook Group for Separation of Church and State.
_____________
I think I get your drift here.
As I see it the Church of England is, in its origins however dubious they are, was a English institution. Ok, the church of England is now world wide because it represents the protestant faith. However, you could have several leaders representing each country, or one in England, as an overall head of the Church of England which currently exist.
The disunity say over the gay issue, which has threatened the whole church with a schism is because, for example, the Archbishop of Uganda, does not want to promote an alternative living, within the context of relationships, in their own nation, which is against that nations culture, especially with the pandemic of Aids in some African states. Hence, the clash and threat of boycott.
Whether, the head should be choosen by the government is debatable. perhaps the Church should choose. And as now the Cof E is world wide, perhaps it leaders should be appointed similar to the UN. An office of say 5 years and then each country could present one candidate. I see not a problem with that in respect of its modernisation.