Not surprisingly, the prime minister fought back, saying that the archbishop of Canterbury "should be entirely free to express political views", but that he profoundly disagrees with many of the views he's expressed, particularly on issues like debt, welfare and education.

The irony should not be missed. The Archbishop of Canterbury believes that pansexual behavior is acceptable to the Anglican Communion "for which no one voted" and, in so doing, has completely alienated the Global South. In fact, at Lambeth 1998, the vast majority of bishops of the Anglican Communion voted "no" to homosexuality and said that sex is only valid between a man and a woman in marriage. In his book, "The Body's Grace", Williams makes the case that homosexual behavior in a committed relationship might be acceptable to the Almighty, although in 2,000 years no such "radical long-term policy" has ever been endorsed by the Lord God Almighty or His only begotten Son.

As the Rev. Charles Raven, a Williams critic, observes, "So we are left with an odd inversion of what would be expected. On political matters, which are not his primary competence or responsibility, the Archbishop can himself be clear and 'sharp edged', but on spiritual matters he is typically nuanced and on the most neuralgic issue of homosexual practice he is even willing to split himself in two - to have an official voice (against) and a personal voice (for)."

This bipolarity of mind and theology has haunted the Archbishop from the beginning of his incumbency. He was early on labeled a "hairy lefty". He is clearly living up to his reputation by whacking the conservative party.

The BBC's religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said that the archbishop has made harsher criticisms in the past. "As the head of the country's principal state church, he sees himself as the nation's conscience, set apart from party politics," he said. "But critics have already questioned whether he can be so outspoken, so wide-ranging and so political in tone, and maintain that position above the fray of party politics."

The archbishop's bias raises the deeper issue of what sort of role the church plays in relationship to the state. That the state has a responsibility to "the least of these" is unquestioned, but the question at this point in our political history is not if but how. Tim Montgomerie, writing in the Telegraph had this to say of Williams's attack on the Government, "what we are seeing emerge in British politics is the beginnings of a massive debate about how best to fight poverty. Labour places a heavy emphasis on state welfare and higher taxation of business. In contrast, Conservatives believe government has an important role in providing a safety net for everyone - but that strong families, a good education and work are the best routes out of poverty. Sadly, the Archbishop of Canterbury's New Statesman article leaned on the language of the Left, a language of spending and regulation. He was also silent on the biggest issue facing Britain - the national debt.

In the U.S., publicly endorsing one political party or another has burned Christians over the years. Liberal Protestants, Jews and a good proportion of Catholics have generally voted Democrat. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals in general have voted Republican. Most presidential wannabes have claimed God for themselves as they seek the highest office. Jesus is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, wrote Tony Campolo, a leftist Evangelical.

Christians, however, are not called to take sides, but to speak truth to power, anything else is to descend into party politics.

Of course, understanding the convoluted logic of Dr. Williams is an ontological effort in itself. Witness the following sentence, "True, religious perspectives on these issues have often got bogged down in varieties of paternalism. But there is another theological strand to be retrieved that is not about "the poor" as objects of kindness but about the nature of sustainable community, seeing it as one in which what circulates - like the flow of blood - is the mutual creation of capacity, building the ability of the other person or group to become, in turn, a giver of life and responsibility. Perhaps surprisingly, this is what is at the heart of St Paul's ideas about community at its fullest; community, in his terms, as God wants to see it." Right.

His criticisms overlook the fact that Britain has been a nanny state for decades and there are no more 12-year olds working in the mines. Arguing that the modern state reflects the mind of the Apostle Paul gets dangerously close to seeing Jesus as a political Messiah. The late Dean Hewlett Johnson, the Red Dean of Canterbury, gave his unyielding support for the Soviet Union and its allies believing that the Soviet Union was the embodiment of the kingdom of heaven on earth.

The truth is the principal weapon of our warfare against the powers and principalities of this world is not counter principles or propositions or political platforms or "Christian" legislation or electing the "right" political officials. It is Truth...and we seem more concerned about implementing the social implications of the gospel than the gospel itself, the fruit of which is to create a kingdom community that will demonstrate God's rule on earth.

As authors Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola write in their book The Jesus Manifesto, Christians have a lover's quarrel with the world. Too many Christians want to change the world, not because they love the world, but because they hate the world. The test of love's radiance: does it both transcend and embrace the world? We do not suggest as some do that the church's "justice mantras" are little more than socialist nuggets honeyed with Christian sweetness. But we do suggest that the widespread hunger for perfect justice is a reflection of the longing for lost meaning that can only be found in the One who "fills all in all." Our "hunger for justice" is best turned into a hunger for the Just One, and going deeper in Him and in relationship with others."

Now that is a message Dr. Williams should be proclaiming.

END