From the Times, concerning the recently published letters written by the Archbishop of Canterbury some years ago:
As Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Williams recommitted the Anglican Communion to its orthodox position that homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture at the Lambeth Conference, which closed on Sunday.
However, in an exchange of letters with an evangelical Christian, written eight years ago when he was Archbishop of Wales, he described his belief that biblical passages criticising homosexual sex were not aimed at people who were gay by nature.
He argued that scriptural prohibitions were addressed to heterosexuals looking for sexual variety. He wrote: “I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness.” Dr Williams described his view as his “definitive conclusion” reached after 20 years of study and prayer. He drew a distinction between his own beliefs as a theologian and his position as a church leader, for which he had to take account of the traditionalist view.
The statement in the letters includes the GOOD NEWS of the archbishop's view that same-sex sexuality in faithful, committed relationships "reflect[s] the love of God in a way comparable to marriage". The archbishop has labeled this view as his "definitive conclusion". How, in the name of Christ, can the Archbishop of Canterbury refrain from shouting this good news from the housetops? Not only gay and lesbian folks, but the entire world needs to hear this message from the leader of the Anglican Communion. He believes this good news, but he will not proclaim it. He repeatedly scolds those churches in the communion which have, to a degree, attempted to act on this good news, because others in the Anglican Communion take offense at the proclamation of this good news.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is a leader. Why does he take the "traditionalist view", which is no longer his own "definitive conclusion", as his guiding light for moving the Anglican Communion forward? Why doesn't he lead? What kind of leadership is this? He has come to a vital and important conclusion about the love of God that could serve to heal, comfort, and console many within and without the church community. Proclaiming this good news could even save lives. Surely, his ministry includes teaching and enlightening the flock, doing his best to lead them to a deeper knowledge and appreciation of the message of love that Jesus proclaimed. Why keep this treasure, this golden nugget of wisdom, buried in the field?
Jesus caused great offense with his message of God's all-embracing love. A good many of his own followers left, walked away. In the end, he was killed because he threatened the order of the day with his teachings, too many of which departed from traditionalist views of his day.
"Jesus caused great offense with his message of God's all-embracing love. A good many of his own followers left, walked away. In the end, he was killed because he threatened the order of the day with his teachings, too many of which departed from traditionalist views of his day." GM
ReplyDelete...and is ++Rowan simply dedicated to the perpetuating of darkness that harms/jails the marginalized outcasts throughout The Anglican Communion?
I'm very confused by the ongoing muddled actions of this man, OUR ABC...it seems so much of what he does is generated by a sort of "spite" against Americans (particularly the war-mongering ones whom he has trouble seperating from the "inclusive" peace seeking Episcopalians at Church...has a little "block" about the UK and Tony Blair).
Very confusing resentdriven leadership that has little to do with generating healthy points-of-views or ANY "love" for "thy neighbor" type messages by encouragin PEACE throughout the Anglican Communion.
Archbishop Rowans message is that of a divider and not a uniter...surely, he'll gain on clarity, sort out basic right vs, wrong...or he will be quietly asked to "step down."
You are confused? I'm in a constant state of puzzlement about the man. Perhaps TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada prick his conscience and thus annoy him by what they do and say. They won't fall in line.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, I believe he will survive until retirement. How relevant he will be is a whole other matter.
Here are some questions I have. Was his style of leadership known to those who put his name forward as a candidate for ABC? If not why not? Why would he choose being ABC over proclaiming the Good News? If it's that he's power hungery, did that go undetected or was that why he was chosen?
ReplyDeleteI don't think he came to the office through a coup, so how is that his actions are such a surprise to people?
I've only been in the Episcopal Church for two years and I haven't read up on +Rowan's selection as ABC, but it seems to me that people don't/won't do the hard work of participating in processes and then complain when they don't like what they get. I certainly have run up against that in my own parish.
Diane
Diane, welcome. I did not pay much attention to the ABC's appointment in 2002, however, many in England and other parts of the world of the progressive persuasion welcomed the news of his appointment. The primate of the CofE is appointed, not elected. It's not a democratic process.
ReplyDeleteI understand that what's happening in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion can be confusing for relative newcomers in the church to follow. It's confusing to me.
To make a long story short, he has been a different sort of leader than expected. Some like his style, and others are quite disappointed in him.