Archbishop Rowan Williams’s most recent remarks about homosexuality have been widely interpreted as “gays must change”. Speaking in the Sunday Telegraph last month, ++Rowan said:
“I don’t believe inclusion is a value in itself. Welcome is. We don’t say ‘Come in and we ask no questions’. I do believe conversion means conversion of habits, behaviours, ideas, emotions,” he told a Dutch journalist.
“Ethics is not a matter of a set of abstract rules, it is a matter of living the mind of Christ. That applies to sexual ethics.”
To me this sounds like more of the fudging for which the Archbishop has gained a reputation. He also discussed an essay he wrote when he was an academic, in which he voiced his support for gay relationships:
It did not generate much support and a lot of criticism – quite fairly on a number of points.
Again, he doesn’t say he was plain wrong – but he does seem to be fudging the issue whether his views have changed substantially. In any case, the media in general has taken his remarks as a signal that he has come round to the conservative view that all homosexual activity is wrong. Alan Chambers of Exodus leaps on the news enthusiastically, which surely says something:
“We applaud the archbishop’s courageous stand for the truth,” said Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International. “The lack of biblical clarity on the issue of homosexuality is rampant in far too many congregations. Ours is a passionate call to the global church to extend the love and kindness of Jesus Christ, the hope of freedom for those who seek it and the steadfast truth of the Scriptures.”
If the Archbishop did not mean he had not changed his views wholesale, he has certainly done nothing to stem the tide of commentators saying he has done exactly that.
This is deeply disappointing for me, a source of pain. I was confirmed an Anglican three years ago because I had finally found a spiritual home where everyone was welcome. I and many of my fellow gays and lesbians in the Church of England thought we had found an advocate in ++Rowan, and yet he consistently appears to be kowtowing to the conservatives, never more so than in this latest announcement.
Most maddening is that in declaring the sinfulness of homosexuality, the Church is shunning the men who have been its backbone for years. Gay clergy in the Church of England are like sheep in Wales – numerous. Many of the finest pastors are also those who have found love and support in the companionship of another male – and these are the very ones on whom the Church is now turning its back.
I have lost any and all respect for Rowan Williams. While I can appreciate the tremendous pressure he’s getting from radical conservatives, I cannot stomach his walking away from a position of inclusion and tolerance. He now parrots the same malarky that we hear from the American theocratic right.
So how many churches did the CoE close last year? How many more churches would they have to close if all gay and lesbian members simply left and stopped supporting the church?
I’m an Episcopalian neophyte and find much to love in the church’s creeds, worship, tradition and polity. However, we can never confuse the fallible leaders with God. Archbishop Williams likely is likely doing what he feels is necessary to keep the Anglican Communion together. However, a “new thing” has begun, so while many in the Communion would wish to turn back time (“If I could turn back time…” Oops! Sorry!), the Spirit is speaking and moving on and most of the Episcopal parishes in America, Canada and many throughout the world are listening and following.
I’ll probably be banned from commenting but since there is no Open Forum here and I feel this information might be important:
The Mormon/LDS Church has published on their news-web a pseudo-interview with two high-ranking authorities and an anonymous PR (internal) person.
https://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-202-4-202,00.html
Summary:
1) The Mormon Church does not believe in conversion therapies.
2) The Mormon Church does not believe heterosexual marriage is a cure for those afflicted with same-gender sexual identification.
3) Those with gay tendencies need to live a celibate life like any single person.
4) Those with gay tendencies (it is a behavioral thing) can be assimilated fully (except to be called on as a Bishop) in the workings of the church if they are celibate and do not act on their inclinations.
5) The support of the Federal Marriage Amendment is a political reaction to gay equality actions and should not be construed as being anti-gay.
I note several things: They avoid using the term: same-sex and use: same-gender. As for #1 above: NARTH and Evergreen has been and still is tightly aligned with the LDS Church. #2: This is a major and radical departure of what they told their gay members for decades. #4: Any gay person with any thoughts of being accepted in the mainstream congregation is a fool if they think they will be treated as an equal. They would never put a gay man in charge of any Boy Scouts troop or have a gay man teach in any Sunday School. Basically, a gay person is welcome to warm the seats in the pew and pay tithing but do not expect any other responsibilities/duties within the Ward.
I will be interested in seeing how long this stays posted on egw.
Too bad Jesus doesn’t come down, make an appearance and clarify whether or not gay sex is a sin. Or is that too much to ask of an all powerful deity?
cowboy,
If your comment is removed by the editors for being off-topic, please don’t assume that the information itself lacks merit. I think I’ve read before that news items (or leads) like yours should be emailed to: editor (at) exgaywatch.com. Personally, I find your post interesting and would think that XGW would post it where it would really see the light of day, as a main blog entry.
The things going on the The Episcopal Church and the greater Anglican Communion (“AC” hereafter) are of particular interest to me, an Episcopalian of progressive bent. I would rather not have this comment thread be taken off that topic.
++Rowan is walking a very fine line. I believe he has learned to “compartmentalize” his personal beliefs apart from his responsibilities to the AC as its “first among peers.” But I simply refuse to accept that the man who wrote the brilliant essay, The Body’s Grace, has done a flip-flop. (Excellent recent discussions at Father Jake’s blog here and here.)
The task before ++Rowan may be impossible. Pray for him. If he does nothing, or takes sides, then it is all over for the AC as we know it. It will split and split again. (Let me add that he has not taken the side of arch-conservatives any more than he has taken the side of progressives. What he has done is piss off everyone with this ugly, but arguably necessary, business, to try to keep everyone under the one big tent. Much as The Episcopal Church itself did at its convention this past June when it passed Resolution B033.)
Some say “maybe the AC needs to split.” Who can say that would be the wrong outcome? But as people simply trying to serve God by serving each other, it seems like the best outcome is to stay together, keep listening to each other, learn from each other, and increase our faith together.
Clearly Archbishop Williams is trying to appease the conservative members of his religious tradition. What isn’t clear to me is what specific “change” and “sexual ethics” is he talking about? Does he mean celibacy for gays and lesbians? Does he mean “change” in the sense Exodus means “change”?
I’m not an Anglican, so it’s not really my place to criticize the internal politics of another organization. But why the sudden change in his position? It seems it would have been more appropriate for him to resign his position than to turn the debate into to political decision.
What people concerned about splitting up Anglican congregations should remember is that the Christian church . . . no matter what the denomination . . . is not owned by its caretakers. It is owned by God! What’s more, the doctrines that Christian churches teach cannot vary according to the political leanings of the congregants or the hierarchy. The last thing to keep in mind is that the Gospels, the teachings of Jesus Christ, are the standard against which all other Biblical writings must be measured. If the Christ didn’t teach the policy, and the policy does not conform to His holy example, you MUST regard it with suspicion.
Your church is nothing but a travesty if you allow it to drift away from true Christian doctrine, a doctrine which is inclusive and free of politics. Make it exclusive and entangle it with political ideology . . . guess what? It isn’t Christian anymore, and if it isn’t Christian anymore, why should you want anything to do with it? Why is it so important to rally ’round Rowan Williams? Do you worship him, or do you worship God? If it’s the former rather than the latter, I feel sorry for you, because God has far more to offer. God leaves no doubt as to whether you are loved and accepted for who you are. A million bishops and archbishops may shun you; it’s of no consequence! God knows who you are, and that’s all that matters. It’s better to split up an errant church so that some can draw closer to God than patch it up and risk having everyone lose sight of Him.
As for Jesus Christ clarifying whether or not homosexuality is a sin, He did, and so did God. The pertinent scriptures are Matthew 19:11-12 and Isaiah 56:4-5, and there are more . . . a great deal more . . . to be found in the Gnostic Gospels of Phillip and the Book of Thomas. Yes, Gospels excluded from the Bible for their “heretical” content. I challenge you to discover for yourself what church hierarchy found so heretical about them! Please visit my blogsite, Christ, The Gay Martyr, located at https://christthegaymartyr.blogspot.com/, and read the posts titled “How To Beat The Bible Beaters” and “Why Gay People Exist.” If you are a Lesbian or a Gay man, there is a truth about your relationship to Heaven that you haven’t been told. For sure, Rowan Williams isn’t telling it to you, and he won’t!
I feel you’re being slightly disingenous in your last paragraph after a pretty good piece. Let’s be clear, the ABC is NOT “shunning the men who have been its backbone for years” but rather he is stating a view that people who engage in same-sex activity aren’t suitable for leadership positions. That’s NOT a rejection of the ministry of men and women who are same-sex attracted.
And for what it’s worth, I happen to think that the first three sections of “The Body’s Grace” are some of the best theologising on sexuality that has been written in the past 25 years.
Your church is nothing but a travesty if you allow it to drift away from true Christian doctrine, a doctrine which is inclusive and free of politics.
Wben has the church ever been inclusive and free of politics?
During the middle ages? Those Crusades – man, they were inclusive – “kill them all, God will know his own.” The Inquisition? No politics there. Only recently we got to watch the church stand by silently (and in approval?) as millions of Jews went to the gas chamber.
Only since the enlightenment have we been able to throw the damned clerics out and then only barely and only in some countries in the west. And they didn’t go willingly.
Without the rise of secularism, we’d all be deep in the closet or dead by way of burning.
I am amazed at the ability people have to convince themselves that Jesus agrees with them. Just because he sat down and ate with a prostitute doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have gladly thrown the first stone at us queer boys.
gordo,
“Just because he sat down and ate with a prostitute doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have gladly thrown the first stone at us queer boys.”
Considering that Jesus without exception did not take part in stone throwing and condemned those who did, your supposition is extremely unlikely.
“When has the church ever been inclusive and free of politics?”
One time was when Jesus Christ was here on Earth establishing it. To be sure, every Christian church in existence today is not like Pat Robertson’s church. There are more than a few out there that try to adhere to the Christ’s true teachings. The Quakers, for example, have a very good reputation when it comes to inclusiveness. Free of politics? Well, maybe not; petty politics exist whenever a group of people get together. But definitely free of ravenous, opportunistic ideology. The Crusades are examples of what can happen when Christian doctrine is distorted and bent to the will of wicked men. Any doctrine can become dangerous if abused.
“I am amazed at the ability people have to convince themselves that Jesus agrees with them. Just because he sat down and ate with a prostitute doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have gladly thrown the first stone at us queer boys.”
If He were here, you and your lover could be standing at the bottom of a stone quarry with Him . . . you and your lover could be French-kissing there, and the Savior wouldn’t harm a hair on either of your heads. Just because the world sometimes seems to hate you doesn’t mean God does! Jesus Christ had more in common with you than you could ever imagine! Again, I invite you to check out the recent posts on my blogsite, Christ, The Gay Martyr.
https://christthegaymartyr.blogspot.com/
After General Convention of 2006, I adopted the ‘let’s not overreact’ position of many of my Episcopal brothers and sisters. Shortly after the convention, I stated: “I am an Episcopalian and no longer an Anglican. It is not I who broke faith with ++Rowan it is he who broke faith with his gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.” With this last round of betrayal, I find that I can no longer consider myself in communion with the Archbishop. The sooner the Episcopal Church divests itself of the ‘orthodox Anglicans’ who seem so madly bent on destroying my spiritual home, the better off it will be. May God have mercy on us all.
Keep in mind that ++Fuzzy is not our Pope.
The ECUSA and Anglican Church of Canada are governed by our General Conventions and Synods. Both communions have a Presiding Bishop and Archbishop who have taken courageous stands towards gay equality and taken much heat on that. I think deserting them now would be the wrong thing to do.
As a Canadian I am proud that our church declared that they respect the “integrity and sanctity” of same-sex relationships. What ++Fuzzy says can’t override that.
Peter O: “I feel you’re being slightly disingenous … NOT a rejection of the ministry of men and women who are same-sex attracted.”
Actually Peter, you’re being disingenous. Or not reading what Dave wrote. Dave specifically refers to those “who have found love and support in the companionship of another male” as being rejected. “Same-sex attracted” is something you’ve bought in, not Dave. You’re calling Dave disingenous over a distinction he was not making.
Anyway,
Will the next step will be to declare not just the behaviour wrong but also declare the attractions that lead to it as an “intrinsic evil”? (And that sounds so familiar… I wonder who else has done that?)
For the future, and long over due: I have one word for the C of E.
Sorry about that kooky blockquote above. Don’t know what happened there!
If we could “turn”…If we could change our gender orientation, beeleeve me, (most) WOMEN would ALL become Lesbians (I tried, believe me; I tried; it does not work). I mean, really, who wants to have anything to do with the majority of tedious straight men who are convinced that any man who looks at him is gay and therefore after him and that anyone KNOWN as gay looks at him is DEFINITELY after him; and that ANY woman who turns him down is Lesbian. I know too few non-tedious straight men; I don’t know how I got so blessed to marry one of those but he’s no sinful homophobe (which IS the sin and the crime in a growing number of countries!)…Abstinence, the wearing out of MANY Hitachi wands, a grand erotica and porn library was just fine for me versus dating or screwing–or worse–marrying–ugh-some tedious homophobic straight man. Are homophobic males REALLY straight or haven’t they just turned their anger and fear inward and projected it outward?
“God, I regret to report” as Annie Dillard wrote, “does not give a hoot.”
And Rowan can just go suck an egg for all I care. And I’m still an Episco, though, Lord knows I don’t know why. Maybe I live in a land without Quakers and liberal Mennonites. And that I love Liturgy; but the day is coming when I must decide if I can continue to follow a religion of evil, demonic, and just plain mean, homophobia and heterosexism.
It seems to be that the TRUE followers of the Lover and Taking Action Jesus of these times are no different than the early (pre-Constantine, when it all went to hell in a handbasket) followers “of the Way”- a small number of people struggling to survive in a tiime of hellish Imperialism. This move toward the right, with all the mega pits filled with “jumpie-jumpies” and bad theology and even worse biblical scholarship has nothing to do with Jesus or God but with scary ekklesia of very fearful, judgmental, non-loving people who have no sense of social ACTION.