Rowan Williams was always an enemy of the liberal state

[cbayer]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jun/27/rowan-williams-enemy-liberal-state

The archbishop of Canterbury's tenure has been marred by his ideological view of liberalism

Theo Hobson
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 June 2012 03.59 EDT




Despite his theological brilliance, Rowan Williams' approach to the place of religion in society has been deeply flawed. In my opinion, it is this that has marred his leadership of the Church of England. I am reluctant to say this, for I greatly admire his thought, particularly his insight into the sacramental essence of Christianity. I paid close attention to his utterances as archbishop. I wrote quite a few articles on him, and even a short book about his ecclesiology. I do not expect to pay his successor such attention. I feel I ought to express gratitude that such a serious thinker has led the church this past decade. But it needs to be said: I do not think that he has been good for the Church of England. I consider him a brilliant, but flawed, theologian. And I think that the past decade has brought out his flawed side, given it great exposure, influence. I am talking about his deeply ideological view of liberalism.

To put it bluntly, he has a very low opinion of the liberal state. This is influenced by various things: the Marxist critique of liberalism as a veneer for capitalism, the communitarian idea (associated with Alasdair MacIntyre and others) that liberal values are weak, thin, illusory, and most obviously his deep preference for Catholicism and Orthodoxy over Protestantism. These factors led him to see liberalism as an essentially secular ideology that wants to "privatise" religion, push it from "the public square". (It was ironic that the press dubbed him a liberal on account of his relative sympathy with gay rights and his leftwing politics, because he represented a militantly "post-liberal" form of theology.)

Williams's anti-liberal tendency was exacerbated by 9/11, and the sudden arrival of a religious-based culture war in Britain. Instead of reassuring Britons that religion and liberalism were compatible, he did the opposite: painted liberalism as the enemy of "faith communities", and dismissed liberal fears that an expanding faith school sector might damage social cohesion. The real danger, he said, was not religion seeking a larger role in society (including the partial introduction of sharia law) but the secular liberal "agenda", driven by soulless capitalism, and arrogant atheism. He presented the role of the established church as to defend all forms of religion from the threat of bullying secularism.

I suggest that this approach is highly one-sided, and that it crudely ignores the complexities of our national history. Far from helping us to understand our theopolitical predicament, it muddies the waters.

more at link

[LeftishBrit]

1. Theo Hobson is a most frustrating writer

He claims to be a 'liberal Christian' yet never seems really to define it. And some of what he writes seems to be quite anti-liberal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/16/gay-rights-christianity-lobby

Perhaps the preoccupation of liberal Christians with gays is due to the religious right (of several religions) having an obsession with gay, leading in some places to the DEATH PENALTY? In any case, this writer seems to be generally objecting to 'flabby liberalism', including feminism, without saying what he wants instead.

He has written a very negative and patronizing account of atheism, which he probably deliberately confuses with anti-theist journalism:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jun/06/atheismispretentiousandcow


Yet, at times, he does seem to be advocating for an economically left-wing society - but not (at least as far as I can see) in any detail. One good article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/29/liberal-guilt-good-for-you?INTCMP=SRCH

And another of interest:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/06/tories-new-mini-restoration?INTCMP=SRCH

He is pro-disestablishment, and against the organized institutional side of the Church of England. Good. So am I - though it's less of an issue for me than a few years ago; the worst current problems that I can see re organized religion in this country come from the GAFCON influence on the one hand, and the intrusion of American Christian Right elements on the other, more than from its institutional structure.

Ultimately, I think he is a journalistic type, with some good points, but not as different from the style of Boris Johnson, etc. as he would like to think.

As regards Rowan Williams: I think, even as an ardent secularist, that on balance his influence (though not very strong either way) has been good. He has spoken out against the government and its vile cuts when many others have remained silent.