Not Quite Distractionfest Again, Yet: A Few More Bits and Bobs on the Archbishop

A few worthwhile links, for those with the interest and stamina not merely to read the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks - you have read them, right? Today's address in Synod, too? - but who would like some more perspective and information.

First, if you've read the archbishop's speech and would like some further clarification, Mike Higton is up to the job. An acquaintance who teaches at the University of Exeter, Mike is author of 'Difficult Gospel', an introduction to the thought of Rowan Williams, and edited Williams' most recent collection of essays. If one wants to understand the archbishop better, and the man himself is otherwise occupied, Mike is probably the person to whom you should turn. Mike has provided, via his blog, a multi-layered summary and interpretation of just what the archbishop said. It should not take the place of reading the thing itself, naturally, but may prove quite helpful in clarifying bits of what you have read.

He has also written an interesting reflection on how the very upheaval associated with Williams' remarks may actually serve the very ends he was recommending. That is, it may have actually spurred, alongside the thoughtless bashing and ludicrous accusations, some genuine thought on the matter; not all agreeing with what Williams proposes, of course, but he would never imagine that that would (or should) be the case. Harder to assess, Higton recognises, is the extent to which the misunderstandings associated with it may have also contributed to further islamophobia. Read it all here. Also worth noting, at the very end, are his tongue-in-cheek suggestions of 'easy narratives' for reporters, all of which I have (depressingly) heard or read in one guise or another over the last few days.

To return to one of yesterday's questions: how much time should the media be expected to spend on this stuff? Perhaps enough to grasp and report fairly the facts of the matter. I take it, after all, that that is the standard - at least of the quality press and the BBC - upheld in other complex and potentially obscure matters such as Middle Eastern politics and the ongoing crisis in the banking industry owing to subprime lending. I trust you to get it right in those cases. Why stop there?

And, lest I be seen as simply and only acting as an apologist for what the archbishop said, have a look at a critic who has actually read the speech, Simon Barrow at ekklesia.co.uk. I'm not sure that Barrow entirely grasps the way that Williams is trying to complicate the - allegedly - unitary sphere of secular power, and the inadequate ways it deals with people's membership in various groups; or, perhaps just as likely, I haven't appreciated the gist of his criticism and should have another look. But this sort of contribution seems likely to help advance the argument at any rate, and is worth a look.