Q: Apart from that unity point, what is your own view of same-sex blessings?
A: I’ve never licenced one or performed one because I believe that there are significantly serious questions about how that is to be distinguished from marriage not to rush into the innovation. So it is very complex and I don’t have a quick answer.
Q: How will you deal with bishops or clergy in this country who do undertake them?
A: I can only speak with past experience. When I have encountered cases where a cleric has performed a same-sex blessing I have said that this must not happen again. Anything that is done in the name of the Church must be something done by more than just an individual.
–Archbishop Rowan Williams in an interview with the Daily Telegraph, 12 February 2003
It is incredibly painful to reread this entire interview. So much promise, and now this. It is hard to fathom.
Yes indeed, but where is he now? Does anyone know? IN short, what the hell is going on with RW?
LM
RW should have been able to give a clear and unequivocal answer to the first question above. He could not. Herein lies the problem…
So…aside from ecclesiology…he apparently saw (sees?) no positive biblical teaching for avoidance of porneia.
1. Matthew 17:5
[blockquote]”While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!â€[/blockquote]
2. John 14:21
[blockquote]”He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.â€[/blockquote]
3. Mark 7:20-23
[blockquote]”20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications (i.e., porneia), murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.â€[/blockquote]
I was interested in this: “Q: What are you going to do when the Bishop of New Westminster in Canada issues his rite of same-sex blessing?
A: I don’t think this kind of thing is something that any diocese can declare on its own. It does raise quite large doctrinal questions which are not best dealt with on a local basis.” Ah, Doctrine rather than Discipline. Who knew??
No individual Province or Diocese or person, Mr. ABC, sir? Did you actually mean that? Well, you have a chance to demonstrate that alleged belief! Get on with it!
Wake up people! Seriously, what DID you expect from a clergyman appointed by the secular state? The Jews and early Christians would have considered such an action blasphemy. And here we sit trembling, fearing that any move to remove Caesar from the temple would alter divine plan of the Almighty.
I think I now understand why Dr Radner and others must read more and more convoluted divine ecclesiastical COMMANDS from the HISTORY of Judges and Kings.
Like No. 7 mentioned – he serves at the pleasure of the state. And it doesn’t help that he is apparently a liar and has no spine. Just minor quibbles I suppose.
Re #8: Actually, he doesn’t serve at the pleasure of the state. A bishopric in the Church of England, like other livings, is a freehold estate not subject to divestiture by the authority that has the gift of the living. He can be removed through ecclesiastical process for misconduct, but he cannot be removed by the state.
Virtually every European bishop for well over half of the Church’s history was nominated, appointed, or confirmed by a secular ruler. They did a pretty good job, on average.
Was it King Knute who stood at the shore and ordered the tide to go out? Can’t you just picture Hizz Grace at the helm of the Church of England doing roughly the same? WIth all the integrity we’ve come to expect. Or was it Integrity?
Dale Rye, to advance in any career you have to please management. To even be considered for archbishop you must please the necessary politicians throughout your career as priest and bishop. Those who advance successfully keep an eye looking above (and by that I don’t mean on God). The men appointed to the Sees of Canterbury and York fit ideologically with the political leadership in London. The viewpoints in power then flow down. The Archbishop propagates (or at least tolerates) the prevailing ideology by appointing Bishops and priests that fit his own mold.
Westminster is stridently anti-homphobic. Blair (in “consultation” with the Queen) thus appointed Rowan, an archbishop that would turn the church around on this issue. And he is doing just that.
To view a political appointee in any other fashion is IMHO exceedingly naive.
Re #11: The Archbishop doesn’t appoint any bishops besides the suffragans in his own diocese, and appoints very few priests outside his own personal staff.
The Williams appointment was hardly “politics as usual,” as he was the first Archbishop appointed from outside England since the Reformation (and the first ever who had prior experience as the presiding Primate of a national church). His progress from priest-professor to Bishop of Monmouth and then to Archbishop of Wales took place in a church that has been disestablished since 1920. From the moment Lord Carey announced his retirement, Abp. Williams was clearly the favorite candidate among CofE members, not just among politicians. There is very little doubt that he is among the brightest and best-read Archbishops ever (in the last century, only Ramsey and William Temple come close) and among the most charming and charismatic personally (again, Temple comes to mind). The other candidates simply did not have his credentials.
If you follow the British press, or even the English church news, you would see that Abp. Rowan has opposed government policy positions rather more often than he has supported them. That was clearly true even before his appointment to Canterbury, which is why the appointment was so startling. Your conspiracy theory suggests that “anti-homophobia” was more important to the Blair Government than its economic and social policies. Frankly, I don’t think that they (or the British public generally) is as obsessed with that issue as you think.
If the C of E is as independent as you imply, why is the Archbishop appointed at all. Wasn’t the Church mired in politics from its founding? Isn’t is some coincidence that the Protestant-Catholic-Protestant switcheroo coincided with the ruling monarch’s predilections?
Call it conspiracy, but I believe that when you take the Piper’s gold you’re indentured to the Piper.
Dale, well,,, I’ll be polite and simply call it naivete.
Ducking and running and biting my tongue at the same time.
Re #13: The piper’s gold? The Church of England wishes! It receives no more direct support from the British government than does the Episcopal Church in the US (both are eligible for historic-building grants and the like, but get no operations subsidy). Like TEC, the CoE subsists on gifts and endowment income. In addition, British churches are not tax-exempt entities, so they are arguably [i]less[/i] state-supported than American churches. We here across the Pond mostly have a seriously distorted notion of what Establishment involves. Mostly, it means paying with a loss of autonomy for the privilege of status as the “official” religion and the bully pulpit that provides.
Dale, you motivated me to check the accounts of the CofE and you are right. Funding for the Church comes predominantly from private funding. (Although that is not the case for C of E schools.) I stand corrected. Thank you. A private Church is a healthier Church, and I congratulate you for it.
Having lived in England for years, and living now in the US, I must say that the Archbishop of Canterbury is missing an incredible opportunity for not taking a strong stand of Biblical issues. The American Church has looked up to the C of E as its guide and councilor. That is fast fading, and I believe it is due to the selection of Rowan Williams a phenomenal academic but less than outstanding bishop. This I blame not on the C of E but on the political selection structure. I note that Prime Minister Gordon Brown has suggested a change in this arrangement, which has been welcomed by Bishop Sentamu.
#12: Dale, Williams’ appointment was brokered in by Tony Blair when he appointed Judge Elizabeth Butler-Sloss as chair of the appointment committee. Everybody in the know in England recognized that, though at one time it was rumored Jones of Liverpool might be appointed.
Further, Williams ORDAINED at least one man in Wales he knew was in a homosexual relationship, so I don’t know how he can jib at ssb’s. Doesn’t ordination indicate that a man’s personal life is considered a model of Christian living?
His teaching on homosexuality in ‘The Body’s Grace’ is pure liberalism and was widely touted by the gay groups in England.
These acts have not been repudiated, which is why RW cannot enjoy the confidence of orthodox Anglicans – who DIDN’T select him.
Don’t you think that +Rowna must really get grumpy, when someone quotes his own words back at him, illustrating his fudging and changing in outlook, though underlying conditions (Lambeth ’98) have not changed?
Either +Rowan was not speaking the truth in 2003, or, he is merely speaking political jargon today in contradiction of his real position.
It leaves me, well, uncomfortable.
Re ##17 & 18: Actually, he has disowned “The Body’s Grace.” When asked about it recently, he said something to the effect of “I wrote that a long time ago and it received much deserved criticism at the time.”
Whether he has abandoned those private views or not, he has made it absolutely clear since his name first was bandied about for Canterbury that it is his job as Primate of All England and Focus of Anglican Unity to support the official teaching of the CoE and Communion, which—he has repeatedly and unambiguously insisted—is Lambeth I.10.
“The Body’s Grace” was largely an exercise in whether it would be possible to make a reasonable, coherent, Bible-based, orthodox argument for allowing faithful life-long same-sex partnerships. I personally think that it was the best attempt at that I’ve ever seen… miles beyond any of the lame justifications that most Americans have come up with. I wish someone had picked up the ball and taken the argument as far as it could go in light of the firestorm of criticism the article sparked. Abp. Rowan never did so, since there were other issues that he found far more worthy of his attention.
The article is certainly not “pure liberalism.” It does, however, ask a question that very few Anglican reasserters are willing to ask: “If the objection to homosexual unions is primarily that they are non-procreative, how does the increasing understanding of Christian people that heterosexual marriage itself need not necessarily be procreative affect that objection?” Abp. Williams—who is strongly pro-life, incidentally—wonders about the implications of the general acceptance of family planning (even among Roman Catholics who use the forms of natural birth regulation approved since 1950) and the theological shift that justified that acceptance.
Hardly anybody who doesn’t live on Mount Athos still condemns marital sex that is intended primarily for companionship and mutual pleasure rather than for reproduction. That shift in theological opinion (and it is a huge shift in historical perspective) seems far more faithful to the New Testament understanding of marriage and sexual relations than the older anti-sex attitudes. Still, if heterosexual relations within an exclusive permanent relationship can be godly even when they cannot lead to conception, if they can constitute participation in “the body’s grace” even then, why can this not be true in at least some cases within other exclusive permanent relationships? The question deserves an answer, and I have not found any of the proposed answers on either side as perceptive as the original article.
To avoid flames, let me repeat what I have often said before: I do not find any of the proposed theological arguments for homosexual unions compelling, but I find most of the arguments against equally flawed. Like Abp. Rowan, I am willing to submit to the Church’s judgement on this matter. My dilemma is that neither reasserters nor reappraisers seem willing to tolerate me within their churches unless I not only submit to their teaching but enthusiastically support it.
I’m starting to get beyond peeved at the constant ragging on Rowan Williams for expressing anything resembling a thoughtful, nuanced, disciplined position. Can we possibly give him some credit for not being a liberal tyrant?
Dale Rye – I wish I had not only your knowledge about so many issues, but also your ability to explain both sides of an argument. What you say about +++RW is what I have also realized – that is, as a committed Catholic he realizes that the “mind of the whole church” overrides one’s opinions on any subject. Many commenters want him to act as would a Protestant, which he is not. In the RC Church also there are many bishops and priests who have differing opinions on important issues from the “official” position, but who, uisually, consider their opinions secondary to that of the “whole” Church.
rob k, if “the “mind of the whole church†overrides one’s opinions on any subject”, how did the Anglican church come into being.
Be sober, be vigilant, your adversary the devil lurks around, seeking whom he may devour. The notion of abdicating your conscience and judgment to any shepherd, even the apostles or an angel is unbiblical in the extreme.
“Being of one mind” is not virtuous unless our unity is based on truth.
“Nuanced” = erudite double-speak.
Whereas the opposite of “nuanced” is self-righteous bluster?
OK, I’ve lost my temper on this. As someone who is a bearer of the Jake-ite Seal of Disapproval, it infuriates me that the best argument my supposed fellow-travellers can make about their most important ally is to either bloviate vacuously or snipe at him bitterly and smugly. It’s bloody easy to interpret the inner truth of that: “Lord, I thank you that I am not like that liberal over there.” And the greater reality is that if the American liberal bishops and clergy were mostly like Williams, there would be no crisis, because they would accept that they would have to theologically engage the church instead of deleivering divine pronouncements (Chane, Robinson, the Jake-ites, et al.) or dithering in useless or phony dialogue (darn near everyone else). Reasserters who snub those genuinely open to real discourse are engaged in self-destruction, and worse, the destruction of the church around them. They are simply delivering every ordinary churchgoing Episcopalian who just wants a place to worship, pray, and commune into the hands of the radical liberals, because making a statement is more important than looking after the souls of others.
And if you think I’ve just judged you as self-righteous: you’re probably right. Surely I have sinned. But I could not keep silent any longer.
No. 25 – Thanks. Well said.
#25, you caused me to review my post andmy conclusion is that I ought not to have said what I said therein.
I consider myself correctly chastened.
#27, thank you for being willing to do that re-reading.
Thanks #25. I too am chagrined at what some of my fellow re-asserters belch forth on this blog about the ABC. Though I think he has made some tactical errors, I think the only reason there remains an Anglican Communion is because of his efforts of putting this whole mess under due process and common discernment. Conciliar discernment is slow and painful but it is likely to produce a more lasting union.
I still trust ++Rowan and pray for him daily.
I’ve only just quickly scanned this correspondence and at the risk of having missed something…
isn’t someone going to call #8 – Charley – on accusing the archbishop of being a liar?
That is an incredibly serious allegation to make … care to produce the evidence?
Returning to the substance of the posting, it is notable that catholic teaching (i.e., the biblical proscription) on the presenting subject (porneia) did (do?) not cause pause, but the [b]distinguishing[/b] from marriage (a issue secondary implications) and [b]ecclessiology[/b] did.
Upon reading such a posting, I sometimes get the image of wiley coyote trying to build a bridge across a chasm from a single side. Once the initial premise or assumption is made (i.e., nailing a first board projecting out over the chasm), the theological plan is to continue to build on or extrapolate from that first premise or assumption with logical consistency (i.e., nailing additional boards to the end of the first board). Of course, the bridge collapses.
Logical consistency is insufficient justification for deviating further from catholic teaching and scripture. Perhaps the initial premises bear re-examination. Does it increase/advance faith?
re 30: Twenty years of reading that sort of posturing has led me to the conclusion that it’s too exhausting to greet such cheaply tossed off accusations with anything strong than “yeah, right”. Or better still, just ignoring them. I don’t see a point in confronting a person who didn’t put forth a justification the first time; it’s just going to end up in a shouting match with someone who is never going to play by the rules of argument anyway. In some of my more tyrannical dreams I imagine myself running a forum which I moderate by simply striking through any such unsupported attack, but it’s simpler and easier on the nerves just to roll the eyes and move to the next comment.
re 31: Well, the reason is that they are two issues, and the justification for same-sex unions (that is, marriages) has to get past both. And I think it’s interesting that Williams does not do what it seems to me a lot of the reappraisers do: roll straight from legitizing homosexuality to equating classical and same-sex marriage. I find that equation extremely difficult to justify from Genesis, if nothing else. Williams is obviously working from the so-classically-Anglican-that-Lambeth-issued-a-statement-on-it position that marriage is about more than procreation, but it seems to to me that simply striking it from the picture is just as problematic.
re: 33.
I suppose a shorthand clarification is that I am identifying three issues, and the first (catholic, traditional teaching re: porneia) appeared to be a non-issue for him, leaving only (2) the secondary issues, including its implication for marriage; and (3) ecclessiology.
C. Wingate, how do you justify your outrage at some people questioning the 500 year symbol of Anglican authority (ABC), when you are okay with that symbol of authority questioning 2000 years of tradition and scripture?
I’m wondering if just maybe a black pot is calling out a dark kettle?
Mr. martyr, you aren’t “questioning” that symbol– certainly not in anything like the way that Williams is “questioning” tradition. You are just ridiculing him– or rather, using him as an excuse to express your disrespect for the office.
I’ve not bothered to argue against the stuff you said back in #11, but as someone who paid attention back when Williams was appointed, I have to say that your theory is simply at variance with history. At the time, there was a lot of routine reasserter dismay and reappraiser rejoicing at the appointment, because it was widely believed that Williams would be a safely doctrinaire liberal who would shepherd the C of E to embrace of righteously liberal doctrine. It is easy to surmise that his appointers had precisely that intent in mind. What transpired, however, was that he was simply not that person, and there were dismayed liberal cries of betrayal when he steadfastly refused to use his throne as a bully pulpit. It seems to me that he works quite dilligently to keep a separation between Williams, the “liberal” theologian, and the ABC, head of the C of E and worldwide symbol of Anglicanism. If your inclinations are more Orthodox then yes, you’ll be at least uncomfortable with this; but an Anglican, it seems me, has to accept that it is meet, right and his bounden duty for him to do so.
re 34: I was looking at the quoted passage in isolation, so my remarks don’t really address Williams’ thought in the large. But it seemed to me that the point of his response was that reconsidering “porneia” didn’t authomatically produce a theology of same-sex marriage. As you note I neglected the ecclesiological point, but in some respects it’s so basic as to barely warrant the polysyllabic name.