Did the Archbishop of Canterbury really say that?

The Archbishop of Canterbury has given an interview to the British magazine "Emel" which casts itself as "the muslim lifestyle magazine".

I guess he gave them what their readership wants - anti-Americanism. In particular this section is troubling⁽¹⁾.

I ask him if America has lost the moral high ground since September 11th, and his answer is simple: “Yes.” There is no mitigation. He has obviously thought through what he feels the US should do now to recover, “A generous and intelligent programme of aid directed to the societies that have been ravaged; a check on the economic exploitation of defeated territories; a demilitarisation of their presence. All these things would help.”

He describes violence as “a quick discharge of frustration. It serves you. It does not serve the situation. Whenever people turn to violence what they do is temporarily release themselves from some sort of problem but they help no one else.” A long term critic of the war on Iraq, he feels that this perspective on violence also applies to Britain’s presence there. “A lot of the pressure around the invasion of Iraq was ‘We’ve got to do something! Then we’ll feel better.’ That’s very dangerous

Well which societies "that have been ravaged" is the Archbishop referring to exactly?  And if he means Afghanistan and Iraq, just who was it that ravaged them?  Neither of those places have been  oases of tranquility, peace, harmony or justice at any time during my lifetime nor at any time in long before that.

The interview moves onto Israel and Palestine but rapidly returns to the United States

Christian Zionists support the return of Jews to Israel because they believe the second coming of Jesus will not occur until all Jews are in Israel. The Archbishop is scathing, accusing them of being connected to “the chosen nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God’s purpose for humanity.” 

  In today’s world it is easy to see why people would believe such an idea; America seems so intrinsically involved in everything. The Archbishop recognises that: “We have only one global hegemonic power at the moment.” But, he propounds, “It is not accumulating territory; it is trying to accumulate influence and control. That’s not working.” Far from seeing this positively, he describes it as “the worst of all worlds,” saying, “it is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly that’s what the British Empire did – in India for example. It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put things back together –Iraq for example.”

just what does the Good Archbishop think that America is doing in Iraq if not  pouring energy and resources into "normalising it" as the British  "rightly or wrongly" did in India?

   What the United States is doing is bending over backwards to get the Iraqi people to take charge of their own country  and run it in a civilized fashion - you know  no longer feeding people   feet first into  huge chippers  or raping infants in front of their parents - that sort of thing.   

   In reality the United States is by far the most generous nation on the planet.  What percentage of the budget of the World Health Organization, for example, comes from the United States. Perhaps some reader will care to look it up and post it as a comment but I am willing to bet it is a large percentage of the total budget and the same would go for each and any of the UN alphabet organizations.   

   Wherever and whenever there is a natural disaster who is there with money, resources and people to alleviate the suffering of those suffering the consequences. When Bam in Iran was flattened by an earthquake did the United States turn a blind eye - it did not. Putting people on the ground was an impossibility of course (and that would be more to do with Iranian sensibilities rather than American intransigence) immediately the United States responded with aid, money and relief supplies. The evil Bushitler was quoted at the time as saying  "Human suffering knows no political boundaries"    

   Just think back to the Boxing day tsunami and  Banda Aceh, a hard core Islamic region of Indonesia.  Within hours who was there - the Saudis? Of course not. The US military, working hand in hand with the Australian military to bring relief and assistance  to the people of that region.   

   And what happens - as life returns to normal   the people there far from showing  gratitude go back to chanting "death to America" even as the aid money and relief continues to flow in.   

   If the United States is the  major "imperialist power"  of the 21^st century I say thank God for that because the United States, imperfect as it is both domestically and abroad is at heart a humane society where individual freedoms and rights are respected.   

   If there is any American imperialism that is real and damaging it is the imperialism of Hollywood which exports amongst other things the anti-Americanism the Archbishop is feeding off to pander to a predominantly Muslim audience in this interview. 

____________________________

(1) As far as I know this article is not available on line. I have a scanned copy (sent to be by an English associate of mine)  from which I have taken the quotes. The quotes from it  have therefore been manually entered and may contain typos. They are as written as far as I can tell.

Comments

[PhilBest]

What we're up against here is not the evil hegemon USA versus the rest of the world, its the freedom-defending USA versus the leftwing propaganda that's taking over the Western world.

[usabikes]

Another golden opportunity squandered - in a Muslim magazine yet! - to stand up for the persecuted Christians and other minorities in Muslim majority lands.

The man obviously prefers his own counsel in matters pertaining to Islam. He can consult Bishop Nazir-Ali and Canon Patrick Sookhdeo - both are brilliant Islamic scholars - yet he doesn't just ignore them, he contradicts them. Unbelievable...

I couldn't find the article but I did find some comments on it:

Victor Davis Hanson:
" if he is worried about the soul of civilization in general, and the U.S. in particular, he might equally ask his Muslim interviewers about the status of women in the Muslim world, polygamy, female circumcision, the existence of slavery in the Sudan, the status of free expression and dissent, and religious tolerance (i.e., he should try to visit Mecca on his next goodwill, interfaith tour)."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTliNzFlYzk0YWE2OTk5MjU1MWI0NWVhMjc5Nzk0NDI=
+++++++++++++++++
Another article commenting on the ABC's nonsense:

"What this interview also displays, however, is a much more worrying confusion about the nature of radical Islam.

Christians in Indonesia, Africa and the Middle East are being beaten, imprisoned, tortured and killed in the name of Allah. Moderate Muslims in Britain desperately need to be made aware of this situation.

And what has the Archbishop of Canterbury given them? Yet another sermon on the evils of Yankee imperialism."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/26/nbishop126.xml
+++++++++
Even now, as the US sends aid to Bangladesh, Muslims are complaining:~

"Islamists protest US naval presence for cyclone relief"

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/147173.html
+++++++++++

They say the west has a death-wish? The Archbishop is a perfect example. Willful ignorance and the abandonment of his own Church members who are being persecuted to death - particularly in Iraq where there are quite large numbers of Anglicans.

I am deeply ashamed.

[peter]

SO ... Andrei and all

Is this distinguished leader of the world's 2nd largest denomination a Christian?

If he is saying things that you other Christians disagree with, could it be that he is praying to a different God? Or is he a con-man?

[belt]

The USA has lost the moral high ground since 9/11. Not IMMEDIATELY after, mind you, but steadily and surely, as they made mistake after mistake built on a foundation of lies upon lies. I understand it was (probably) mostly done from a position of righteousness, but righteousness is not the same as being right. Any president occupying the moral high ground would surely enjoy a better approval rating than the 'worst approval rating sicne Nixon'.

[Rick]

He's an Anglican.

Their religious suicide via leftism is amusing to watch. There, here, everywhere, anglicans are wilfully destroying themselves and their congregations in direct contradiction of their religious tenents.

Picking on them is like shooting fish in a barrel. LOL

[John Boy]

While I think the US is increasingly a house built on sand a speech like this is unbalanced and does not give credit where that's due. Ignoring the generosity of the US is pig ignorant.

Coming from a religious leader whose own flock is in disarray maybe the speech is just a sign of the times - the end times.

"... is he a con-man?" Yes Peter, he's a politician. They're the same thing.

[usabikes]

Heres the interview:~

http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/arch2.pdf

[peter]

Rick

So Anglicans are no longer real Christians, is that right? Christians are supposed to be right wing, I suppose I knew that already! The greedy me generation, nothing to do with real community.

Is the Pope a Catholic?

And other questions regarding the meaning of life.

[usabikes]

OK, I've finally had the stomach to read the interview.

Basically it boils down to what Habib Malik calls "Political Dialogue". The kind of dialogue heavily criticised by Patrick Sookhdeo as being primarily concerned with good community relations in one's own wee neighbourhood, and nothing more.

He's bending over backwards to build bridges - congratulating them on what a great idea praying 5 times a day is; mentioning the possible errors of art (Muslims will like that); extremely gentle criticism of Islam; he very quickly moves on from mentioning the recent persecution of Christians in Bethlehem to attacking Zionism (always a favourite with Muslims); of course the Great Satan of America, who supports the Little Satan of Israel is given a good serve for somehow doing hit-and-runs on the rest of the world in order to get its own way - unfortunately this plays right into the paranoia of Islamic conspiracy theories and will only mean more trouble in the long run.

Anyone therefore who aligns themselves with the US - which the ABC has clearly pointed out to be a selfish and imperialist force - is now an enemy of the Muslim people. Thanks Rowan.

He over-simplifies Christian Zionism and makes all those who hold such a position appear quite unintelligent. The "chosen nation of America?" - I thought Israel was the chosen nation?

Sadly he seems not to have considered the option of America doing what I have often thought would be in their own best interests for a change - pull all their money out of the UN and all their military out of NATO etc.; stop donating millions to build Universities in China and running to the rescue after every natural disaster anywhere in the world and so on. Let North Korea incinerate South Korea, China incinerate Taiwan, Pakistan incinerate India and Iran/Syria and whoever else incinerate Israel. All America has ever sought in the way of land is enough to bury its dead, but even this is not good enough.

For a country who is the only remaining Super-power they have remarkably little inclination to expand. What if the USSR had won the cold war? But I digress...

Time maybe they looked after themselves and let the rest of the world find out what its like to take care of themselves. I think though, that their sense of responsibility to help those less fortunate will prevent this. As another commentor said, he had a chance to speak up for persecuted minorities throughout the Muslim world and instead he attacks one of the greatest forces for good (no, not perfect) in the world - America.

He chooses to attack modernity rather than directly question the Islamic conception of God. Similar ground to the Pope's Regensburg address but avoiding pointing out some unpleasant home-truths to the Muslims. So he stays popular.

Interestingly he defines the soul as being what Christian theology sees the spirit as being - alive (or dead) to God - the soul is really just another word for one's life.

Good on him for pointing out the revolutionary nature of Christ and that no amount of extra religious laws (eg. Sharia) will get anywhere near the revolution of living for and with Jesus. That's quite a bold thing for him to say given his inability to tackle any real issues within Islam. I bet he's quite pleased with himself for saying that.

He is simply advocating multi-culturalism and pandering to Muslim biases to try to get a hearing. Unfortunately for him and us, by the time he & his successors (if any) feel able to tackle the real issues within Islam so many years will have passed that Christian Britons will be in the position of asking permission of their Muslim lords to paint their own churches (i.e. they will be Dhimmi). Like Theo van Goghs last words as his jihadi killer stabbed him: "Can't we talk about this?" It'll be too late then.

This is very disappointing appeasement and a betrayal of Christian and other minorities in the Islamic world. Perhaps worst of all - it appals me but it doesn't surprise me.

[Rick]

No Peter, I don't see how popular politics can have a place in christianity - two entirely different goals.

In short, no, Anglicans aren't particularly christian. Every year they drift further away from christian religion and further into political ideals.

Your comment that christians must be right or left wing is a bit odd. Clearly you also can't have your religion without politics. Are you Anglican? LOL

Perhaps the Anglicans are fishing for god's grace - by straying as far and as fast as they can ...surely he will dish out some divine grace soon? LOL I think god once made the comment: "Do not test me..."

Hope this is clear enough for you.

[peter]

Rick

You illustrate the problem perfectly. There is little consensus among Christians about Christianity. And any give denomination such as Anglican, Catholic, Exclusive Brethren, Fundamentalist Mormon can head off on a given track with their own assumptions.

Personally I think the Anglican church these days is far more relevant than the majority of others.

[John Boy]

"Personally I think the Anglican church these days is far more relevant than the majority of others."

And that, Peter, is why its falling apart. The bit that survives and grows won't be your "relevent" part as those liberal Anglicans will have moved onto the next new age fad.

[peter]

The Anglican Church will be losing members for the same reason as Presbyterians and Methodists. It is quite a short step, from belonging to one of these organisations, to feeling comfortable with agnosticism. I thought Richard Randerson made that point very well.

The Roman Catholic Church is an interesting case. The exodus is not so pronounced these days. There used to be a lot of coercion to keep members in and to discourage marriage outside the denomination, but that is not quite as strong these days. I think their integrated schools have helped, as families wanting their education have rediscovered their Roman Catholic "genes". Some have converted to achieve this to.

However I have a lot of friends that have turned their backs on the Roman Catholic heritage - mostly educated people, who can't be bothered with all the ritual and time-spending.

I'd be interested to hear opinion on where people think Roman Catholic Church is going - they have shown an ability to evolve into something quite distinct from the Biblical base, so they are not strictly fundamentalists as such. On the other hand, they have evolved far too slowly to look as secular as the 3 protestant mainline denominations mentioned earlier.

[PhilBest]

If some liberal atheist goes to the right theological college and qualifies as a minister, so as to spout some message other than the gospel from the pulpit, is that person a Christian?

Sucks to the churches that have left themselves open to this kind of Trojan Horse activity.

[John Boy]

"..to look as secular as the protestant mainline denominations... "

Isn't that ridiculous? A secular Christian church? When the level of confusion about who you are and what you stand for gets to that level its not a church at all - its become a club. A bit like parliament I guess. That fits Peter's triangle with "me" at the top of it.

[peter]

Churches do vary on how secular they are.

I'd say Methodists are the most secular.

Great social meeting places these mainline churches. Tea or Coffee?

[Karl]

I wish people paid more respect to what CS Lewis called 'mere Christianity'. Froam what I know of Rowan Williams, and after reading the article I am convinced that he is fully aligned on the core tenets of the faith.

I am always a bit worried when it seems to matter more that he is not only a Christian, but a Christian with the 'correct' political views, etc.

[usabikes]

I see the ABC has issued an opinion on the Teddy Bear fiasco:~

Rowan Williams launched a stinging attack on the decision, branding it "self-destructive absurdity". He said: "I can't see any justification for this at all. I think this is an absurdly disproportionate response to what is at worst a cultural faux pas.

"I think that it has done the Sudanese government no credit whatever to allow this prosecution to proceed. What I see in this situation is a sort of primitivist and crude application of the law in a spirit of real insensitivity and self-destructive absurdity."

Notice this is still based upon his own local interest in this latest piece of Islamic barbarity. If the woman wasn't English he would probably have kept quite. After all, worse things than this are inflicted every day on many Anglicans throughout the world - but they're not English. His interest is still for relations "at home", he is still abdicating his responsibility to advocate for his own persecuted Anglicans.

It also reveals his assumptions - based on rationality and reason and some sort of common "fairness and moderation". Like Neville Chamberlain, he likes to see those who seek the destruction of Liberty as men as reasonable as he is. Let's pray for him shall we?

[KevOB]

The local Union Church is dead, the minister, like Randerson, has no belief in the fundamentals of the Gospel message.

On the contrary the local Anglican Church is a vibrant community of faith, and the Catholic Church too has many full-on charismatic Christians, although the priest is not one. A catholic is the leader of the local Full Gospel Businessmen´s Fellowship. Another local Presbyterian Church allows its new members to affirm their membership only to their congregation and not the national Church, which is much more liberal.

Each community of faith is different and it is no surprise that those churches which recognise the divinity of the triune Godhead are growing much faster than population growth. If the primate of the Church looses his way Christ´s Church will still prevail. These are times of apostasy; stand by for the coming persecution.