10 Minutes With … Archbishop George Carey

c. 2006 Religion News Service (UNDATED) He may have retired as Archbishop of Canterbury four years ago, but Lord George L. Carey has hardly stepped off the global stage. During a recent visit to the United States, Carey sat down to discuss the state of the Anglican Communion and his take on Pope Benedict XVI’s […]

c. 2006 Religion News Service

(UNDATED) He may have retired as Archbishop of Canterbury four years ago, but Lord George L. Carey has hardly stepped off the global stage.

During a recent visit to the United States, Carey sat down to discuss the state of the Anglican Communion and his take on Pope Benedict XVI’s recent tangle with Islam. In a speech, the pope had cited a 14th-century Byzantine emperor who described the Prophet Muhammad’s teachings as “evil and inhuman.”


Here are excerpts from that conversation, edited for space and clarity.

Q: I can’t help but ask your thoughts about Pope Benedict and his comments last fall about Islam. What do you make of all that?

A: It didn’t seem to relate to the message at all until one starts to look at the theme and what he was talking about. The secular mind can understand a God that’s loving but cannot understand a God that’s brutal and murders. So I think that in the pope’s mind there was a link there: What kind of God do we believe in?

Now, I said that if people had looked at it carefully _ it’s a brilliant, brilliant essay on faith and secularism today _ and the kind of thing he was saying indirectly about Islam, the Muslims need to face up to. The key question is why is Islam associated with terrorism? And it’s no good saying that the terrorists are extremists.

There’s something about the Islamic scriptures (that gives) justification for violence. There can be no denial about that actually. So there needs to be a really frank discussion.

Q: A lot of people who would call themselves Christians have committed acts of violence and used Scripture to justify (them). Do you see a difference?

A: I see a profound difference really. Because Islam _ Muhammad _ conquered by the sword. He died a political leader and Jesus died on a cross. So there are two different concepts.

But you’re absolutely right. There’s been a lot of terrorism and violence done in the name of Christianity, which goes against the faith itself. I don’t want to argue that Christians take the high moral ground on this. We can’t.


But what we have to say is we mustn’t allow the terrorists to take Scripture over and bend it. … If Islam is a peaceful religion, then the moderates must deny the martyrs in terrorism and say that no terrorist actually is a martyr.

Q: There are divisions in the Anglican Communion over issues of sexuality and the ordination of gays and lesbians. How would you describe the state of the Anglican Communion these days?

A: I now think that the global south and a lot of conservative churches in this country and in other parts of the world are going to pull away. …

If there are now two warring parties, say, the conservatives and the liberals, will they all be able to look to the Archbishop (of Canterbury) to validate their position? That’s the trick.

It would be very odd if they speak to him but not to one another. If both of them have contact with him and validate their ministries in relation to the Archbishop of Canterbury, it’s like two separate churches having one archbishop. So they’re talking to him, but not to one another. It’d seem to be crazy ecclesiastical geometry.

Q: What do you think it would take for the two sides to talk to one another?


A: There’s a lot of sensible people on both sides who are talking and trying to resolve the situation. I do think, though, that by and large the American church has been irresponsible with regard to this because the appointment of (openly gay New Hampshire Bishop) Gene Robinson has created … division. It wrecked mission in the church. It’s decimated congregations. …

There’s no doubt about it, we must care for homosexuals in the life of the church. But there is an issue here of discipline, of obedience to Scripture and all that.

Q: How would you handle the current situation if you were still the archbishop?

A: No, I’m not going to answer that one. … My prayers and thoughts are with (current Archbishop) Rowan Williams.

Q: What would you say to the dioceses in the United States that have rejected the authority of the presiding bishop here?

A: My heart goes out to the conservatives. … I mean, it’s a very difficult situation for the Episcopal Church in this country. No one wins in a situation like this. No winners. All are losers.

My support is for the conservatives, without actually losing friends with the liberals I know in the church. We disagree on this matter, but it’s possible to agree on so many other things.


Q: I imagine when you come here that conservatives or others may ask you, “What should we do?”

A: Constantly. And I would always say, look, it’s not my job on the line. I’m retired now, and all I can do is to urge you to stay in the church as long as you possibly can. Don’t leave. Wait ’til you’re thrown out. Because it’s your church. You haven’t changed the doctrine at all. It’s other people who are doing that. So stay there.

Get on with the job and remember there are many more important things than homosexuality. The mission of the church. Poverty in the world. … Only leave when the circumstances are such that you are forced to do so, and in the meantime, get on with the job with courage and hope.

Q: So much attention, both by the media as well as at church meetings and those sorts of things, has been paid to these fissures. … Is it warranted?

A: There’s something about the Episcopal tradition where we sometimes wash our dirty linen in public. You know, we get involved in life’s problems, and I’m very proud of it from that point of view.

I think it comes back to the issue that some people in the American church felt that the time had come. They saw it as a prophetic act that they are anticipating the future, and that one day all the churches will have to go down this way.


Now, they could be right. They might be wrong. And so, who knows? All I say is that it’s irresponsible to do as quickly as this.

Q: What would the church look like if it did focus on those issues that you mentioned earlier?

A: The very heart of my ministry over the years has been mission. … I don’t mean just evangelism. I mean that Jesus came and showed amazing compassion for the poor, the underclasses and so on. The church at its best is always focusing on being an outward-looking church, serving the community, putting down roots among the poor and being at the cutting edge of where the issues are.

Q: So many mainline Protestant congregations are facing declining numbers. How would that change in focus affect that decline?

A: I don’t think we ought to worry about numbers, actually. … There are a lot of people who don’t want the church because it speaks very uncomfortable things about holiness, about goodness, about a simpler lifestyle. And a lot of people in your country and my country don’t want news like that. That gets in the way of what they want to do.

We mustn’t be too worried, actually, about declining numbers because the focus we ought to be putting is actually on doing the job well. Having said that, I do believe if you do the job well, then you’re going to attract people.


(Kristen Campbell writes for The Press-Register in Mobile, Ala.)

KRE/LF END CAMPBELLEditors: To obtain file photos of Carey, go to the RNS Web site at https://religionnews.com. On the lower right, click on “photos,” then search by subject or slug.

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!