Anglican Communion News Service - Digest News

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rowan Williams, sat down with Pat Ashworth of the Church Times and George Conger reporting for The Living Church and The Church of England Newspaper from Anglican Consultative Council-13 in Nottingham, England on June 28, during a break on the ACC's debate on Zimbabwe to answer a few questions.

Below is transcript of the conversation. Some of the questions to Archbishop Williams have been edited for clarification and to avoid repetition. Archbishop Williams' answers have not been edited.

PA: Do you think the meeting has bought time?

RW: I think what's happened is that the primates' recommendation to [the Episcopal Church] and Canada has been partially met. There has been some willingness to meet that willingness halfway. So there has been an underlining of the primates' recommendations, I think. What the primates did in Dromantine was reinforced.

GC: On the floor of Friday's debate on the Israel-Palestine question, you said this was not a call for disinvestment. Would you speak to that issue and will you be taking this issue to General Synod next week?

RW: The agenda for General Synod is fixed already. It is a much longer-term thing. It would need I think to go to the ethical investment group of the Church of England first.

I said it wasn't a call for disinvestment because the motion is quite carefully phrased. The motion asks for 'appropriate action.' When we have considered ethical investment issues there's a range of options from constructive engagement, raising particular questions at AGM's [annual general meetings], quite a lot short of disinvestments. So I think it puts it within that framework.

GC: There is a great deal of fear though, within the Jewish Community that has been expressed. What would you like to say to them to alleviate those fears?

RW: Two things, I think. One, this is not about boycotting Jewish businesses. Anybody in Europe ought to have their blood run cold when they hear terms like that.

Second thing is the concern about the way in which the building of the security fence has gone. In terms about the continuing crises and stresses of checkpoints, are just the things that people see when they go to Israel. The government of Israel still has a lot of work to do to persuade people that this is a necessary consequence of their security stance.

PA: Do you feel much of what went into that resolution was the passion of Bishop Riah Abu el-Assal of Jerusalem speaking? Giving it to them straight?

RW: Clearly Bishop Riah has had a major influence in shaping people's policies. He is the one nearest to the issues. But I don't think it is by any means he alone in that network [Anglican Justice and Peace Network] who shares those feelings.

PA: How much bridge building must you do now with the Jewish community?

RW: I don't see this at all as an issue between the Church and the Jewish community. There are many members of the Jewish community who understand these issues really profoundly. There are people in the Israeli government who understand these issues. I would be very sad if I thought this shut off the dialogue.

GC: I would like to turn to Zimbabwe. We have had a very strong debate. You mentioned you spoke to the press three times on this, so let's make this four. What do you hope to see happen and how can the Church locally, globally respond to this issue.

RW: The two main things the Church of England can do on this are to keep up pressure on the question of returning refugees to Zimbabwe and pressure on the government to use whatever leverage it has with the African Union, because I think effective intervention is bound to come in African terms rather than in any super-colonial framework. There has been a great weakness in some ways of criticism from outside that can be so easily interpreted as colonialist. So, I think the present government should use its leverage in that direction.

PA: I want to assess how much movement has taken place, particularly with the lay people being present. I want to know if the mind of the Church, the real Church is emerging here?

RW: Certainly listening to a lot of the lay people from the developing world, there is a sense that they don't want their agenda wholly set by the primates, and that is not at all because they are soft on the issue of the day or that they are all closet liberals.

But it is the case that many of them want to get their energy focused on other things. That has come through a bit. The curious fact is that the life of the networks in the Anglican Communion seems to carry on quite vigorously even while the tensions at a hierarchical level are so deep. It's not that this is the solution to the problem, that there are these two dimensions if you like.

PA: Do you expect that will be carried on when they return home...that lay people will have a proper voice and respect?

RW: I couldn't say, but there are some very formidable lay people here.

GC: Your hopes for the meeting, have they been met?

RW: Of all my hopes, I think have been met for this meeting. I feel that we have held the line on what the primates recommended. My only regret I think is that we haven't yet focused on the question of the covenant of the Churches of the Communion. That is something we have got to get our heads around and find a constructive solution.

GC: Do I understand you to mean by that the legal advisor's network?

RW: No, I mean the specific recommendations of the Windsor Report; some kind of covenant between the Churches of the Communion. The legal advisors network is another matter.

GC: Will you ever want to do it for 10 days again?

RW: (Laughter) Pass. Not in this temperature.

PA: Can I ask if you were surprised by anything?

RW: No new arguments, new situations, new people. Actually 10 days... I have been enormously grateful to be part of this for the whole time. And felt deeply enriched by all the contacts.