The Queen intervenes in Sharia row
The Queen is said to be distressed by the row over Islamic law which she fears threatens to undermine the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and damage the Church of England, reports the Daily Telegraph.
As Supreme Governor of the Church of England she “has been dismayed by the controversy that the remarks have generated at such a difficult period in the history of the Established Church, which faces possible schism over the issue of homosexual clergy”. But she has not expressed any personal view on whether Dr Rowan Williams was right to say it was “unavoidable” that aspects of Sharia law could be incorporated into English codes of justice.
Her personal views can well be imagined, however, as can the Duke of Edinburgh’s.
The backlash to the Archbishop’s statement has been fierce and prolonged, with the vast majority opposing his views, including many moderate Muslims.
The Queen, who approved the appointment of Dr Williams on the recommendation of Prime Minister Tony Blair, takes her role as Supreme Governor very seriously.
A Royal source is reported as saying, “I have no idea what her view is on what the Archbishop said about Sharia law. But the Queen is worried, coming at such a difficult time in the Church’s history, that the fallout may sap the authority of the Church.”
Another Royal courtier said, “The whole thing has not been skilfully handled. It can only have undermined the authority of the Church.”
The Preb David Houlding, a Synod member and honorary canon of St Paul’s Cathedral, said: “We are very fortunate in having a Monarch who strongly supports the mission of the Church of England and I am sure she would want her Archbishop of Canterbury to be held in the highest regard by everybody.”
A Buckingham Palace spokesman declined to comment.
I think he should resign immediately!!!!! He is head of the church and if he wants to support sharia law then he can move to the middle east and live by their justice.
By Trudie on February 13th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I also believe Rowan Williams should resign immediately, or, if he refuses, the Queen should remove him from office. I really wonder why Williams was chosen to be Archbishop of Canterbury, as he seems far too controversial for the good of the church. Further, if he cannot be prudent and balanced in his public statements, and it appears that he cannot, he may continue to do great damage to the credibility of the Church of England. If the Queen is worried, and has seen fit to let it be known that she is worried, that speaks volumes. Clearly, this is a very serious situation that can only be rectified by Williams stepping down from the high office for which he is clearly unworthy.
By Gigi on February 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I too think he’s doomed, Trudie and Gigi. The Queen’s admitted “distress” at the reaction to his crass intervention surely means only one thing : “Orf with his head”.
By John on February 13th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
The sooner the Better.
By Trudie on February 13th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
What would be the process of appointing a new archbishop? Does the prime minister recommend a replacement? Do I remember hearing that Gordon Brown is Presbyterian? Does that matter? Would the candidates for archbishop be the British bishops? Should I be asking so many questions???
By Evelyn on February 13th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
John, I just hope Rowan Williams leaves his high office with more grace and finesse than he has shown heretofore. I also feel that a very swift departure is what is wanted now. The damage control will be difficult enough as it is. His oafish behavior reminds me of a few lines of verse from “The Fool’s Prayer” by Edward Rowland Sill which reads “…These clumsy feet, still in the mire,
Go crushing blossoms without end …” Indeed!
By Gigi on February 13th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Evelyn, Gordon Brown wants to give up having to recommend two candidates for Archbishop to the Queen, passing it to Parliament. I think it should be done by the Queen alone. She is far more in tune with what’s needed than the politicians.
As for who may come next, you’re going to be surprised! I, and many others, believe the next Archbishop of Canterbury should be the Pakistani-born Bishop of Rochester, Nazir Ali.
Why? He understands the threat fron Sharia and has always spoken out intelligently for British values and the rule of law in a way that English clergymen have not. Like many overseas-derived members of the Anglican Communion, he knows how precious our values and history are, unlike the wet liberals who support Rowan Williams and the “New” Labour government.
Archbishop Ali? Bring it on!!!!
By John on February 13th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Thanks for the info, John. Very different from the process in my denomination.
By Evelyn on February 13th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Which is Lutheran, I believe, Evelyn? How do you do it?
By John on February 13th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Correct, John– Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. We elect lay people and clergy to a national assembly that meets for a week every two years, which is our primary legislative body. That assembly elects a new presiding bishop every six years. I believe the presiding bishop can serve 2 terms. Or at least we haven’t had one yet (20+ years) who has wanted to serve more than 2 terms.
By Evelyn on February 13th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Is that affiliated with the Anglican Communion, Evelyn?
By John on February 13th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Yes, we have an agreement, “Called to Common Mission,” which allows for sharing Communion, clergy, etc. Some still mistakenly think that we’re planning to “merge” with the Episcopal Church USA, but that was never the idea.
By Evelyn on February 13th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
The Episcopalian Church USA seems to be at odds with the Anglican anyway, so maybe that’s not a bad idea.
By John on February 13th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I believe Dr. Rowan Williams’ recent pronouncement, that one need not accept the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ to become a Christian, does more to undermine his authority as the Archbishop of Canterbury than any statement about Sharia law!
By Arthur on February 13th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I realize that the U.S. Separation of Church and State puts us in a very different situation than Britain, but I really don’t think it would be a good idea for your Parliament to elect the leader of the Anglican Church. With more non-Anglicans and non-Christians elected as M.P.s, it could lead to more trouble than you have now.
I agree with you, John, that the Queen (or King) would be in a better position to choose the Primate. Or turn to the Roman Catholic model, and have the bishops select the Primate. Either way, it’s a matter better left to prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit than to politicians.
By Evelyn on February 14th, 2008 at 4:14 am
I agree completely with you, Evelyn. In this case, Queen Elizabeth II is deeply religious, extremely conscientious in her role as Sovereign and Defender of the Faith, and she would be the best person to choose the Archbishop, perhaps with a recommendation from the Bishops. I do not understand the rationale attendant to having the Prime Minister recommend the candidate for Archbishop of Canterbury. It seems inappropriate and surely, in this instance, Tony Blair’s recommendation has gone amiss.
By Gigi on February 14th, 2008 at 4:38 am
My only concern with having the monarch selecting the Primate is that we cannot foresee whether future monarchs will be as faithful to Christ and the Church as the current monarch has been. I can see situations where the monarch might choose a person who would lead the Church in a direction that would be to the sovereign’s benefit (remember Henry VIII).
By Evelyn on February 14th, 2008 at 4:56 am
You’re right, Evelyn. Politicians tend to follow the party line. Margaret Thatcher picked the Evangelical George Carey, who was at least a firm influence. Tony Blair selected the super-wet Rowan Williams, a man who writes a thesis to say Good Morning.
The Bishops — or Synod — could send a list to the Queen, who would make the final choice.
By John on February 14th, 2008 at 8:51 am
I can see situations where the monarch might choose a person who would lead the Church in a direction that would be to the sovereign’s benefit (remember Henry VIII).
Or un-benefit. Remember Thomas a Beckett?
By John on February 14th, 2008 at 8:53 am
yeah, and what happened him!
I think the reason parliment are involved is that historically it was a political position as much as a religious one in that people petitioned him in legal and civil matters giving him political power, in fact thats how the court system evolved - from church courts.
But now that it is purely a religious matter it should be taken out of the political arena completely. I think it makes sense that the bishops be involved surely they would know him (or her) better than anyone.
By Eliza on February 14th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Well said, Eliza. Further, it is surely to be hoped that the Bishops would have the welfare and strength of the Church uppermost in their agenda when choosing an Archbishop. I do not want to get too sectarian here, but I do not think it wise, nor do I think it appropriate, that a person who is not a member of the Church of England be the primary influence in selecting the Archbishop of Canterbury. At the time Tony Blair made the recommendation of Rowan Williams to the Queen, he was clearly preparing to become a Roman Catholic. I am Roman Catholic and I would not approve of someone who is not Catholic having a major influence in the choice of a prelate in the Catholic Church. It is true that politics probably enters in to the process and was a traditional procedure shrouded in the mists of the past, but I think the current behavior of Rowan Williams demonstrates that there needs to be a change in both the procedure and the person who is Archbishop of Canterbury!
By Gigi on February 14th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
John, I like your idea. Perhaps even, when the Queen narrowed the choice down to a few, she could even meet with them privately to get a sense of where they would lead the Church. I’m sure that would be a stressful “interview” for the candidates!
By Evelyn on February 14th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
And, of course, we don’t know how Charles would do it. I’ve heard rumours (big pinch of salt!) that Buckingham Palace is already drawing up plans for a multi-faith Coronation.
Such a ceremony would be something and nothing. It would please no-one and bring this ancient rite into disrepute. I do hope these rumours are baseless. Many would not regard Charles as even being crowned if the service didn’t follow hallowed tradition.
Maybe the furore over the Archbishop’s remarks will wake people up and make them consider the consequences of changing a time-honoured occasion.
By John on February 14th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
And maybe people will realize that having an Archbishop who will hold to tradition is important. Given the discussion over Sharia law, I’m guessing Rowan Williams might well be willing to preside at a multi-faith coronation.
By Evelyn on February 14th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
This is a slippery slope that will lead to a real crisis in Britain, I believe. I hope Charles is not so foolish as to weaken the ancient traditions that have bolstered Britain for centuries. It may not signify to Charles, but a weakening of one institution can lead to a weakening of all institutions. Napoleon Bonaparte, in a fit of egomania (he had many of them) took the crown of France from the hands of the aghast Pope at the Coronation and crowned himself, and then crowned Josephine! Before you knew it, Napoleon was imprisoned on an island and not long after that France no longer had a monarchy, which it does not, to this day. The lasting power of Britain’s monarchy is their conscientious attention to the Faith, their dedication to the welfare of the country and their support of Britain’s traditions, which they honor. Tradition is part of what makes Britain so resiliant, so able to withstand tough times and survive. I cannot remember who said this, but it is true nonetheless, that a man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.
By Gigi on February 14th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
In my Church there are more ex-pats and believe me I am going to church sunday to get the buzz. Williams has opened the door giving the extremists alQuieda and Taliban hope that if Sharia law is allowed they can take over and impose their will on anyone as Lenin did with Russia.
By Trudie on February 14th, 2008 at 7:52 pm