Is this a spiritually healthy society?

There's a direct connection between the collapse of Christian culture in Britain and abortion (although I know you're being facetious). In the classical world, abortion and exposure were common. Jews and Christians did not practice it. When Christianity conquered the Roman Empire, the Judeo-Christian ethic took over and abortion was morally and legally out of bounds. Thus, it makes perfect sense that abortion, being a pagan practice, broadly speaking, is a mark of dechristianization.

This is yet another case of a misleading headline.
Posted by: Derek Copold | July 15, 2008 5:01 PM

Not just a misleading headline, but also a misleading lede - the lede written by Rod.

Sorry, John E. but I caught the Archbishop's apologetic tone straight off. No wonder the Anglican communion is flying apart, if this is the attitude of their Primate. I expect that Catholic and Orthodox parishes might see an influx of disgusted believers who might legitimately expect a bishop to defend the Faith rather than whimper the ecclesial equivalent of "Can't we all just get along?"

Rod,

With all due respect, you have been speaking in misleading terms about Anglicanism, the Anglican Communion, the Church of England, and the Archbishop of Canterbury quite a lot in past few days.

Rowan Williams is hardly an "apostate" as you implied in a post the other day and he has not apologized to Muslims for Christianity, but merely acknowledged what some of the differences are between the two faiths, in the hope of increasing understanding and peaceful coexistence between the two.

This could be a fool's errand, as could be the Archbishop's attempt to mediate the current disputes within the Anglican Communion. Personally -- as an Anglican Christian myself -- I don't think he's done the best job that could be done, especially on the second of those fronts.

But that hardly qualifies as "apostasy" or a lack of "spiritual health."

Personally, I would prefer N. T. "Tom" Wright -- the Bishop of Durham -- as the Archbishop of Canterbury, over Rowan Williams. But the fact that Bishop Wright -- as strong an advocate for Christian orthodoxy as there is today -- has supported Archbishop Williams in no uncertain terms should at least give you pause to reflect the next time you consider a post on a topic like this.

Again, I write this respectfully, having held my tongue on the "apostasy" post the other day.

Ah yes, the old "get some blog hits with a misleading lede" once again.

The Archbishop did not in any way apologize for his existance. He noted that he was aware that certain Christian doctrines offended Muslims. The opposite is equally true. He noted some bad eras and actions within the Church's history, and then noted their parallels in Muslim history. He then called upon both sides to overcome their differences and past behaviors to try to find common ground in creating a better future.

He is doing the work of Christ, the work of a peacemaker. And if you weren't blinded by your mortal terror of Muslims, and your endless loathing of those who deviate from you own favored religious dictates, you'd be able to see that.

Nor did that piece have anything at all to do with abortion in England. Abortion as contraception is wrong, in my opinion, and certainly England should work to reduce the incidence of that behavior. But this endless conflation of all the world's evils deriving from those who disagree with your social and religious convictions, added to what increasingly seems a nearly pathological fear and loathing of Muslims in general, and Muslims with political power in particular, just seems sad.

Both in this piece, and in the piece below concerning the San Francisco writer who spoke harshly about Christians in political power, you have blatantly twisted the words and intents to make points the author did not intend, and was not to be found in the original writings.

Worry less about apostasy and the end of the world, and more about ethical journalism.

Rod,

If the specifics of what Williams said don't bother you, then do you mean to imply that any conversation between the Church of England and Muslims would constitute "caving in" and failing to defend the faith?

If so, then *that* doesn't sit right with *me.*

Again, with all due respect.

Angela, the woman who's racked up seven! abortions, is not the model of stability who should be parenting 8 kids instead of her one.

Christian America has a low abortion rate, right?

Crunchy the Clown: Good points.

I'm a bit perplexed by this blog's obsession with Britain. Don't get me wrong - I have no wish to celebrate/defend British society, and I agree with the Daily Mail as often as not.

However, does Britain have worse social problems than the USA? Well, it might have, or it might not - it depends how you define and measure them. However, the USA is not so clearly and obviously morally superior for Britain to be usable as this sort of case study of what happens when, unlike in the USA, people stop believing in Christianity.

I feel the same when I hear people condemning the USA, except when they are talking about specific policies. Anti-Americans in Britain (and most of Europe) tend to be snobs posing as leftists.

I also don't really understand why you're even so interested in Britain. I mean - we're a fairly ordinary European country, about equal in importance to France and Italy, and considerably less than Germany. When was the last comment on Germany on the blog. Ah, that explains it - you can't read German!!

I also notice how you keep quoting UK newspapers. However, I think British newspapers have much stronger ideological lines than US newspapers, and I also think they're of somewhat lower quality - the NY Times is clearly superior to the Times, for example. This might be helpful:

Times and Independent: Reasonably rational and fair-minded
Guardian: Self-righteous, sneering, anti-American, self-congratulatory, media/arty
Telegraph: Forgets that the Empire doesn't exist anymore
Mail, Express: Nervous, lower-middle-class, anti-intellectual, anti-culture, obsessed with moral/cultural decline

Rod,

The problem is that little of your recent spate of coverage of things Anglican has had to do with either Lambeth or the GAFCON conference. Instead, most of it has been generalized end-of-Anglicanism boilerplate cribbed from a narrow range of sources with a vested interest in one among many different narratives of what's going on right now.

I can't recall if you linked to the GAFCON statement itself, but in any event, you have neglected to link to Rowan William's response to the statement, Katherine Jeffords Schori's response to the statement, or to responses to the statement by luminaries elsewhere in the Anglican Communion like Tom Wright -- any one of which responses would have been of more substantive interest to anyone who cares about the Anglican faith in its current crisis than your link to Williams's statement to Muslims, juxtaposed in an unfair way with figures on abortion rates.

As before, I write this with respect. You're being taken to the woodshed a bit on this thread, but Anglican matters are ones on which you ought to be schooled, or rather ones on which you ought to school yourself before you post.

"...lifelong battle with depression, how she once tried to take her own life and how she finds it a daily struggle to overcome a deep and abiding sense of shame."

Notice, Rod, that her battle with emotional problems has been "lifelong", meaning they began BEFORE the multiple abortions.

Those of us who have watched someone close to us battle mental illness - particularly mental illness mixed with pregnancy, childcare, and postpartum depression - will immediately recognize this downward spiral. The abortions are as much a syptom of her emotional problems as they are a cause; and if she had brought more of these pregnancies to term, her difficult life cirstances would also have resulted in shame, regret, and depression for her...and her children. Its a very sad situation that defies any simple explanation.

Grigory, what can I tell you. Enjoy your chosen view on Christ and religion. It's just too narrow for me, and for many, many other people. Maybe it worked during the Middle Ages, but having seen so many people, from so many nations, with so many religions, it's just too obvious to me that the righteous come in all colors, speak all languages, and call God by different names.

Clearly, you're standing with the Christ who viciously attacked his enemies, threatened them with hell, and who is promised to return in the end, slaughter all who think differently, and condemn them eternally.

I'll stand with the one who helped a Roman centurion, without asking him to renounce either Rome or his position as a soldier. The one who took mercy on a Samaritan woman, not telling her to become a Jew. The one who ate with Gentiles and tax collectors and whores and fishermen, and called them to act with compassion and love, without really seeming to dictate very much dogma.

I'll stand with Gandhi, who followed in those footsteps...who spoke truth, but worked very hard to not offend and anger those with whom he disagreed. He asked people to fight against their anger, not to provoke it. And although Hindu, he showed equal respect for all other faiths, including Christianity, and thought them the equal of his own.

I'll stand with the Archbishop, trying hard to find some way to maintain the unity of the faith in a world of religious plurality. Doubtless he falters and fails and struggles, and maybe he's not the best man for the job. But he's there, and I believe he's faithfully doing his best. I'm sure he prays for guidance and strength, and does what he can with what he receives.

If the liberal position of Gandhi, of Christ, and of the Archbishop is wrong...well, I'd rather be wrong with those guys than right with you. And, hard as it is for you to bear, more and more people are around the world, in all faiths, including your own, agree with me.

How predictable that the symbolic indicator of spiritual death is, for Rod and the writer of the article, a woman. Apparently she managed to get pregnant seven times all on her own, out of sheer willfulness. I guess it would be healthier for this depressed, abused, suicidal woman to be the single mother of seven children with an assortment of deadbeat fathers? Er, no, I guess she'd get slammed for that equally.

Strangely, we don't find out till 3/4 of the way down the article that her depression and shame started in childhood, when her stepfather sexually abused her for FOUR YEARS, and her mother would not believe her when she asked for help. Maybe Rod didn't read that far.

The men who impregnated her seven times are equally responsible. Any man who does not want to be a father can simply not have sex. Or he can make sure he understands his partner's feelings about the possibility of pregnancy before taking on such a big potential responsibility. Or he can use a latex condom, properly applied, every single time. But men who fail to do these things aren't pilloried by columnists as examples of disgraceful, selfish behavior, are they?

I don't feel too sorry for the father of her learning-disabled child, who is sulking because she aborted two other pregnancies for which he was responsible. Did he tell her he loved her and wanted to spend his life with her, helping to raise their children? Did he beg her to marry him? Did he start saving to buy a house and take care of his potential family? Apparently not. Apparently all he did was sulk because she'd failed to produce the fruit of his loins. And, of course, continue to use her for sex and let her suffer the consequences. When she finally had his child, and the boy turned out to have problems, did he assure her that he'd always be there for her and the baby? Naaah. That would be expecting too much. According to the writer of the article, it was not the man's responsibility to demonstrate commitment by proposing marriage and stepping up to give emotional and practical support. It was apparently HER responsibility to demonstrate commitment to a relationship by having the man's baby! That's certainly a novel twist.

So, what we have here is a woman tortured and degraded by one man in childhood, defended by no one, including her own mother, impregnated and then abandoned by five more men, and now left to raise a child with severe disabilities on her own. No, I don't think a society that would do this is very healthy. The Anglican church seems to have failed to get Englishmen to behave decently, even with the advantage of an all-male clergy . . . .

Not that you can base too much on a newspaper article with a fairly obvious slant (even if it lines up fairly well with mine) but the guy did stay with her for 4 years. I guess her killing 2 babies he wanted was a bit too much for him. There was no reason for him to stay in a relationship with her. He should have stayed involved with his son (which could have happen) but why would he stay with her?

For what it's worth, a quick Google search of "Rowan Williams" and "abortion" confirmed the impression I had had that while he has not called for the delegalization or criminalization of abortion in the UK, Williams has decried precisely the increase in abortion rates that Rod cites and has called for British Christians -- Anglican and otherwise -- to be more vocal than they have been in the ongoing public debate on abortion in general and the increase in abortion rates specifically.

On this issue as on others, Williams is as apt to be attacked from the left in the UK as a "theocrat" as he is apt to be attacked from the right in the US as an "apostate." Which probably means he's doing *something* right -- whatever else he has done wrong as Archbishop of Canterbury.

If the liberal position of Gandhi, of Christ, and of the Archbishop is wrong...well, I'd rather be wrong with those guys than right with you. And, hard as it is for you to bear, more and more people are around the world, in all faiths, including your own, agree with me.

Gandhi, Christ, Rowan Williams ... you forgot Bono, Al Gore and the Dalai Lama!

Anyway, you're wrong here too. As Philip Jenkins and countless others have reported, the growth of Christianity in this century is all going to be in the developing world, which is more pentecostal, more orthodox, more "fundamentalist," and, well, more everything the liberal relativisers within the Western churches are not, and typically despise.

The neo-orthodox might still be wrong -- I don't think they are, but in theory they could be. But they're present, and they're growing, while liberal Western Christianity is dying on the vine. The Times of London back in May reported that at current rates of decline, there will be only 87,500 churchgoing Anglicans in England by 2050, with similar catastrophic numbers for other mainline Protestant churches, and for Roman Catholics. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is.

Rod, Christianity of the sort your concur with is rapidly growing in the developing world precisely BECAUSE the vast bulk of people there ALREADY possess a highly tribalized, "our way is the right way", us vs. them mentality, technically termed a Rule-Role level of development.

Compared to the purely impulsive self development of tribal warlords, Rule-Role is a step up, towards maturity and stability...hence its growing acceptance.

Unfortunately for the Catholic Church, they are beginning a rapid loss of ground in Central and South America, to Pentecostal demonimations. Why? Because the "Prosperity Gospel", "God wants you to be rich", "Name it and Claim It" mentality endorsed by those churches caters to the next level of development, the Modernistic or Achiever Self. This level, common in the US, is devoted, in brief, to Affluence, Appearance, and Achievement, combined with values more influenced by the Enlightenment.

"Liberal" Christians "despise" the conservative mindset because, to them, it's backwards...it's behind their developmental curve. To someone who has moved on to Worldcentric, pluralistic thinking, the old ethnocentric stance of most conservative Christianity is emotionally painful and intellectually embarrassing. However, for Impulsive Self tribal levels of development, the move up to Rule-Role is an advancement, and one of which to be proud.

There will be a big boom in traditional Christianity in the global South, just as there once was in the global North. As their culture develops into Industrial and Information Age models, the exact same falling away will occur. It is simply inevitable.

But the story isn't over. Models of Christianity that are integral, pluralistic, and Worldcentric are already appearing and growing. Over time, more people will move into them.

And doesn't it make you feel any shame to make fun of the Dalai Lama, Al Gore, and Bono?

The Dalai Lama, even if you regard his religion as false, is certainly a deeply compassionate individual, who turns away Christian converts, telling them that they have everything they need in their own religion. He's a model of non-violence and tolerance.

You're constantly harping about the environment. Maybe you don't appreciate Al Gore's politics, but he's done a hell of a lot to bring the issue of global warming before the world stage. Doesn't he deserve some credit for that?

And Bono works tirelessly to find ways to reduce global debt and help those who are poor. As a wealthy Westerner, he may be in danger of some accusation of hypocrisy, but he certainly has done a great deal to raise money for those in need.

The very fact that you mock these people, who often uphold traditional Christian values, and even values you yourself espouse publicly, if not the Christian faith, demonstrates how fixated you are in the Rule-Role model. They aren't members of your religious team...hence, they're the enemy.

Although you won't, I'd recommend taking some time to read the developmentalists like Piaget, Graves, and Loevinger. You'd be more informed when you speak to these issues.

I read this very interesting article, and I didn't know where to post it...

The most important for me about it is that points out one of the most important spiritual trouble of our time:

Negation...

Here it is: (sorry for its length).

The Audacity of Imperial Airbrushing:

Barack Obama’s Whitewashed History of U.S. Foreign Policy

By Paul Street

09/08/07 "Znet." -- - The United States has a solution for avoiding discussion of the many crimes it has committed against weaker nations: denial. “It never happened,” say the Americans, when confronted with the facts. Barack Obama is as skilled in the denial arts as anyone, and so are his advisors. “In Obama's world view, as in that of his Harvard friend and former foreign policy adviser Samantha Power, American crimes generally don't exist. They didn't happen.” Denial is serious business. “Candidate Obama's foreign policy pronouncements have been loaded with promises of future criminality under an Obama administration.”

...

Entire article:

informationclearinghouse.info/article20257.htm

JPL: And doesn't it make you feel any shame to make fun of the Dalai Lama, Al Gore, and Bono?

Er, no, it wouldn't, even if I were making fun of them. But it's not them I'm making fun of.
--
Augustus, I really do appreciate what you're writing in defense of Rowan Williams, but I do hope you don't take my not being persuaded by it as personal disrespect. My sense of Williams is that he's probably a brilliant theologian and personally compassionate, but that he's not up to the challenges of his job at this time in history. I could be very wrong about that, of course, and anyway, I'm temperamentally disinclined to cut him any slack.

I haven't read any of Rowan Williams' writings, but he has a tremendous reputation as a theologian. As a politician, however, he leaves a lot to be desired.

My impression is that he thinks too highly of his own ability to mediate between different groups, whether Muslims, Christians and secularists, or liberal and conservative Anglicans. As someone who is moderate myself, however, I can identify with his desire to "chart a middle course" which is what he seems to be attempting. But it doesn't seem to be working for him, does it?

Oh, and since you note that you wouldn't feel ashamed of yourself even if you WERE making fun of them, again, I'm curious, why not?

You've made numerous posts about the evils of people mocking Christianity, it's sacred images and figures. The Dalai Lama is in many ways an identical figure to the Pope for Tibetan Buddhists. He's considered the living incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, the Buddha of Compassion. Why wouldn't you feel shame to mock him? When someone degrades and publicly mocks the Host, you oppose it? Why wouldn't you offer the same regard to a religious icon of another faith?

Good post, Thomas R. I attend a very liberal church, and about the only groups some (or most) of my fellow parishioners have difficulty "tolerating" and "being open to" are conservative Christians and Republicans. I should point out that tolerance is one of my congregation's sacred words. But tolerance only extends to those it is in fashion to tolerate.