not too much

The leader writer of The Guardian (15 Feb 05) criticises the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Williams, for apparent reluctance to say anything "about about the things that interest the public or divide his church", and speculates that this is because he is likely to be misunderstood no matter what he says.

In his defence it can be argued that there is nothing that he can say about interesting subjects that won't make things worse for his church. Whatever the Church of England says about the royal marriage will sound sycophantic or pharisaiacal, as those clergymen who have already expressed their views make clear. Whatever he says about gay Christians will make the schism worse.

It 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 church's supreme governor, while blessing the love of two gay vicars in Southwark would threaten global schism.

Quite.

In The Times Theo Hobson, author of Against Establishment: an Anglican Polemic, is yet more critical. He argues that the Church of England, always anxious to please, too easily falls into line with the wants of royalty, who no longer must "make sure that their private life was seen to conform to the austere teachings of the Church." Rather, he syas, "the love life of royalty has the power to influence Church teaching." This, "does not look good. It would actually do it a lot of good to split over Charles's remarriage. It would mean that at last the awkward subject of establishment would be properly aired."

The Church of England] desperately needs to interest people in its version of Christianity; but establishment is a major turn-off. Before 2002, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, would have agreed with this analysis. Being Welsh, he had never had to pledge allegiance to the Queen, and he looked upon the establishment of the Church of England with scepticism. In 2000 he said: "I think that the notion of the monarch as supreme governor has outlived its usefulness. I believe increasingly that the Church has to earn the right to be heard by the social world. Establishment is just one of those things that make it slightly harder."

[...] Upon his appointment to Canterbury, he shoved his disestablishing sympathies into the closet. Surely he should reach out to those with similar feelings -- young, confused Anglicans especially -- and tell them it's OK. [...] Instead, he seems to have taken fright at the weakness of the Church. Maybe one cannot afford to be too honest, when Christian values are so precarious in this culture. Maybe an honest discussion of establishment would make the institution look muddled, weak and inward-looking. [...] And there is another reason to keep deferring the disestablishment debate. The argument about homosexual ordination has shown the Church to be a very shaky marriage between the poles of liberal Catholics and conservative Evangelicals. This frail coalition might collapse without establishment. So it is a genuinely dangerous topic in the present climate.

In its piece, The Guardian urges Dr Williams to "Speak up!" I agree. Dr Williams is a brilliant and compassionate person. If he is brave enough, he can do much good.