The Archbishop of Canterbury says: “ ”¦ no Anglican has any business reinforcing prejudice against LGBT people, questioning their human dignity and civil liberties or their place within the Body of Christ.” We in CA agree with that. The “particularly bitter and unpleasant atmosphere of the debate over sexuality, in which unexamined prejudice is still so much in evidence and accusations of bad faith and bigotry are so readily thrown around” which the Archbishop describes is bitter and prejudiced exactly because of the church’s traditional teaching about homosexuality.
He then recommends a course of action which does just that ”“ reinforces prejudice and questions human dignity and our place in the Body of Christ. The Archbishop writes that it is hard to see how a partnered lesbian or gay person “can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate” requires because “a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle.”
That puts the Archbishop of Canterbury at odds not just with the supporters of Changing Attitude but with the majority of the bishops, priests and lay people of the Church of England. Members of our congregations no longer believe that the church can draw lines where it used to. The CofE I know has always ordained partnered lesbian and gay people. Bishops have turned a blind eye to the partners of lesbian and gay clergy. With the advent of Civil Partnerships the majority and priests and laity can see no reason why the church should not bless those unions and that is true even of FoCA and HTB churches. Couples are welcome by most congregations who see no reason why faithfully partnered people should not be ordained and minister to them.
well. And how about unfaithfully partnered homosexuals? Why are they discriminated against? Why is faithfulness the cutting edge when other scriptural constraints now make no difference? Larry
Wow, someone’s angry…. Go to the CA site and read their comments. I guess the +ABC did move a bit to the right with the inclusion of partnered gay priests as well as bishops. I do wonder if he is going to have a revolt on his hands within the Church of England now. I hope not for his sake. Jennifer
they thought he was working for them…..the top man in the insider strategy to change the teaching of the church…… he is bigger than a single agenda, thankfully.
Wah, wah,……, waaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!
That bit about the bishops “turning a blind eye on the partners of lesbian and gay clergy” may be an exageration on the CA author’s part. But I will not consider Dr. Williams’ statment much of a victory until those bishops stop turning a blind eye and start relieving those clergy of their posts. Then I will belive that the Archbishop really means what he says.
The homosexualists always whine and pitch a hissy fit whenever anyone points out the contradictions inherent in their lifestyle choices. That is what they do. So I don’t get encouraged when that happens. I will be encouraged when traditional church discipline regarding the ordained ministry is enforced.
Also go to the THINKING ANGLICAN website for a barrage of very negative revisionist reactions to Rowan’s treatise. It seems that the Left is much more upset with Rowan than the Right. The Left is scandalized by his perpetuation of institutional homophobia while the Right is merely disillusioned with his “studied ambiguity.”
The notable exceptions in the Left’s reaction are Susan Russell and the Chicago Consultation–neither are happy with Rowan, but they maintain a more gracious tone than their counterparts in the UK.
Phil Harrold, my very favorite comment, at Thinking Anglicans, was the speculation that Dr. Williams has become (horrors!) a closet evangelical.
Yes, #7– there was an apocalyptic tone there… and all the while I thought we were the ones who were supposed to be fixated on doom-and-gloom conspiracies.
I think CA has a point here. Rowan has done little but defend non-celibate homosexual clergy with his actions, yet has badmouthed them on several occasions. It’s like welcoming someone into your home, then insulting them at every turn. It’s contemptible, and Rowan needs to bring his rhetoric in line with his behavior.
Commenters at “The Lead” are saying individual dioceses and parishes will not be able to sign up to the Covenant if TEC refuses to do so. They think our Constitution and Canons won’t allow it. Does anyone know what they are talking about? Really, how can you stop individual parishes or dioceses from signing? Isn’t that interference in the internal affairs of a dioceses or parish? Why do they even care?
Jennifer
The American revisionists can afford to be gracious. They have effectively won, and can ignore whatever ruminations Cantuar proffers. In the UK, some revisionists feel that the tide is turning, that WO may be the peak of their achievement, and that a new generation is either uninterested in the Church or, if they are, reactionary. And of course, they feel personally betrayed by Rowan whom they viewed as one of the gang who would impose their agenda from St Augustine’s chair. Fortunately, enough of Rowan’s catholic formation still sticks and frustrates the revolution.
Very helpful insight, #11. I’m supposing that the gradual ascendency of evangelicals is, indeed, a menacing threat–always rumbling in the background of their thinking. What is especially annoying, of course, is that the evangelicals have a much stronger theological base, some respectible theological colleges, and produce high-quality, world-renowned scholarship these days.
By the way, on our side of the pond, it is this caliber of theological scholarship that continues to attract evangelicals–young and old–to the Cantebury Trail, even as that trail has become considerably rockier in recent years. This remains one of the great signs of hope for a vibrant orthodox Anglican future in North America.
Perhaps the recent Ancient Wisdom-Anglican Futures conference at Trinity School for Ministry is sign of what is to come.
Jennifer raises an important point in her #2 when she highlights the surprising fact that ++RW raised the ante by explicitly noting that the so-called progressive side hasn’t yet successfully justified tolerating non-celibate gay priest, much less bishops. Understandably, Changing Attitudes sees that as trying to turn the clock back, or at least as an unintentional threat to gains they thought were secure.
But mostly, I want to express that I fully agree with Allen Lewis (#5) and Jeffersonian (#9). It’s high time that ++RW start ACTING with more integrity. I’m reminded of the protest that Eliza sings in My Fair Lady, [i]”Words, words, words. I’m so sick of words…;[/i] [b]Show me!”[/b]
David Handy+
Oh, I do say, Changing Attitude has MOST of the clergy, laity, and people of England on its side! Probably news to them, but there you have the claim, at any rate. Shame they seem not to have the ABC, or so they say. His deeds would indicate they have ‘im.
See #11 and his remark that the tide may be turning in the UK. This is a fruitful speculation, and I wonder if his passing oremark does not have more than a passing importance. Can it be that the tide is indeed turning, that the Homosexual Movement, attempting to take affairs to victory at the top of its momentum, have in fact failed in this aim? Is a new century and its newly generated attitudes dismissive, for whatever reason, of the last century’s demands. The homosexual revolution may be, after all, a fin de siecle movement, the child of that Mauve Decade of decadence that evaporates under the heat of a new century?
Remember, California turned down ssm and Maine (where I live), though it passed ssm overwhelmingly in an almost completely Democratic legislature, is very likely to have the law invalidated iin this fall’s referendum. The referendum’s supports got the 50,000 signagtures in less than four weeks. This is astonishing speed. I asked the RC diocese, leading the repeal, for referendum papers to I could gather signatures, and they never got around to sending them to me, the process went so fast. I knew many who wanted to sign and never got a chance. And mind you, Maine has become a blue as can be.
We must remember that even tsumani’s, however much damage they do, eventually lose force and retreat to the ocean.
There is a tide in human affairs as Shakespear said, and it is possible that even taking them at the full will succeed only so long as the tide stays full – and that’s not very long, is it? I wonder if the ABC’s remarks are not a sign that the ebb has begun? Larry
#7 says ‘my very favorite comment, at Thinking Anglicans, was the speculation that Dr. Williams has become (horrors!) a closet evangelical.’ Well, it needs to be pointed out that he is actually married to an evangelical!