Alas, poor Rowan, we knew him well

Aaron:

David Hume (as quoted by Adam Smith in *The Wealth of Nations*) made the classic secularist case for an Established Church. The point is not that it is "steadfast" but precisely that it is *not* (and is instead tolerant, thanks to be being bribed):

"It may naturally be thought, at first sight, that the ecclesiastics belong to the first class, and that their encouragement, as well as that of lawyers and physicians, may safely be entrusted to the liberality of individuals, who are attached to their doctrines, and who find benefit or consolation from their spiritual ministry and assistance. Their industry and vigilance will, no doubt, be whetted by such an additional motive; and their skill in the profession, as well as their address in governing the minds of the people, must receive daily increase from their increasing practice, study, and attention.

"But if we consider the matter more closely, we shall find that this
interested diligence of the clergy is what every wise legislator will study to prevent; because in every religion except the true it is highly pernicious, and it has even a natural tendency to pervert the true, by infusing into it a strong mixture of superstition, folly, and delusion. Each ghostly practitioner, in order to render himself more precious and sacred in the eyes of his retainers, will inspire them with the most violent abhorrence of all other sects, and continually endeavour, by some novelty, to excite the languid devotion of his audience. No regard will be paid to truth, morals, or decency in the doctrines inculcated. Every tenet will be adopted that best suits the disorderly affections of the human frame. Customers will be drawn
to each conventicle by new industry and address in practising on the passions and credulity of the populace. And in the end, the civil magistrate will find that he has dearly paid for his pretended frugality, in saving a fixed establishment for the priests; and that in reality the most decent and advantageous composition which he can make with the spiritual guides, is to bribe their indolence by assigning stated salaries to their profession, and rendering it superfluous for them to be farther active than merely to prevent
their flock from straying in quest of new pastures. And in this manner
ecclesiastical establishments, though commonly they arose at first from religious views, prove in the end advantageous to the political interests of society."

"It also animates an astonishing number of people writing in or to the media who would describe themselves as Christians."

Actually, the issue is more important precisely for those who are not Christian. The status of dhimmitude varied from time to time in Islam, and there were eras when Christians were only mildly oppressed. Secularists, pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., on the other hand, must be exterminated by Muslims. The current fellow-Abrahamist love-in between Muslims and Christians makes my skin creep.

A completely different issue is whether an established church minimises religious fervour. I think it's difficult to give a clear answer to that, as almost all traditionally Protestant countries in Europe have histories of established churches. The fact that the USA has an unusually high level of Protestant religious activity suggests that the absence of an established church does contribute to that, but it could equally well be a case of US exceptionalism. Discuss!

Two points: first, the Archbishop is a theologian of genius caliber. The man will continue to exert theological influence even among non-Anglicans.

Second, from a post-Constantinian point of view, I'm not sure it would be bad for Christians if the Church were disestablished. It would bother all the secularists who just want it in place to keep Muslims disenfranchised from British society, but then the secularists have to see the limitations of liberalism's tolerance of all things. What will democratic liberalism do then?

Along with the disestablishment of Mrs. Windsor's church, a dissolution of her genetic monopoly in the matter of engendering the English head of state would be a welcome affirmation of the Saxons' having successfully entered the millenium. Well, that and the adoption of the euro, of course.

As to the Anglican Church's plitting into sects -- that has happened and continues to happen. Whole parishes in the US have bolted and joined the Roman Catholic Church (as a result of the ordination of priestesses) or placed themselves under the authority of African Anglican bishops (as a result of the installation of the hubristic and still-living-in-sin Gene Robinson as Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire). La commedia continua

And it was very impartial of the theologian-of-genius Rowan to include a nod to Jewish law to bolster his argument. After all, the number of honor killings, stonings, amputations, beheadings, suicide bombings and murder for apostasy in the Jewish communities of Britain causes similar activities of the Peaceful Religionists to pale by comparison.

A furore theologorum (et ingeniosorum) libera nos, Domine.

Two points: first, the Archbishop is a theologian of genius caliber.

Well, if you can be a theological genius and an imbecile, it doesn't speak well for theology.

I find it ironic, to hear from religious Americans who say that only Christianity can save secular Europe from being absorbed by Islam, that the most strident alarms against encroaching sharia are being sounded by atheists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christopher Hitchens and the late Oriana Fallaci, while European Christians like Williams and bishop Tiny Muskens of the Netherlands are laying down the red carpet for Europe's new Muslim overlords.

I want to add my two pennies to the Archbisop suggestion on introducing Sharia in England. Muslims who live non-Islamic world are torned between their religious values and western society. The want to benefit from both. Even the conservatives in Muslim world who denounce the western societ send their children to the western world for education and travel themselves to Europe or U.S for medical treatment. Why? Becuase they see the benefits of the western society but still cling to their Islamic belief. The Archbishop is ignorant of Europen history. When the Moors conquered Spain and Portugal they required all Jews to wear certain emblem to disguish them from Muslims. Also, they charged Jeziya from Jews to protect them. But at the same time they benefiteed from Jews scholarship. Moors did not offer the Jewish laws to their Jewish population.

In the end, William's main flaw is that he's a man of God, not a CEO. He believes that goodness and faith can win out, thus compromise and accommodation is possible. Just look at his role in the current Anglican crisis. He's tried to accommodate liberal U.S. and Canadian Episcopalians who believe in the goodness of gays and even gay bishops, as well as African Anglicans who believe gays are sick and who support laws for imprisoning them. He does this because he believes in ultimate goodness, that liberal Episcopalians and ultra-conservative Africans be together in the same church.

So accommodating minority faiths--including Muslims--in a pluralistic country like the UK is just a common sense act of faith by someone with William's grace.

In the end, William's main flaw is that he's a man of God, not a CEO. He believes that goodness and faith can win out, thus compromise and accommodation is possible.

This doesn't speak well for the value of being a man of God. But I thought Christians were well versed in the fallenness of Man. Since when is "goodness winning out" part of the Christian view of humanity?

And I also thought that being a man of God meant holding fast to immutable truths. When did compromise and accomodation become part of the Christian program? Williams' problem is that he seems willing to compromise and accomodate on core moral principles.

Because, Rod, suggesting that Muslims should be accommodated like other people of faith--for instance, Orthodox Jews--in the UK is equivilent to protecting child molesters. What an embarrassing comparison you just made.

lost, unsurprisingly, on you

Our Rod, always classy.

"This particular Archbishop seems to think it beneath his dignity to say anything plain and short and he cannot tell the difference between a sentence that is deathless and one that was stillborn."

That quote says it all, as far as I'm concerned.