Dr Williams is a liberal who is instinctively supportive of gay people. His desire to hold the communion together, however, has already led him to support a moratorium on the consecration of gay bishops and to suggest that Anglican churches should not recognise same-sex unions through public rites. These concessions have not, however, checked the communion’s unravelling. The fence on which Dr Williams has been sitting has collapsed. It is time for him to preach what he believes.
“His difficulty is that, as the head of such a loose confederation, he does not have the power to make deals stick, as the freewheeling action of the conservatives is showing.”
==============================
So its the “free wheeling action of the conservatives” that’s causing of the the problems?
Another example of a highly biased oped piece.
Yep. No American fault here. Move along. Now, look at the ferocious conservatives from other continents. See what big teeth they have.
Thus, the wolf.
[blockquote]It is time for him to preach what he believes.[/blockquote]
Exactly wrong. The office of Archbishop of Canterbury is not Rowan Willams’ plaything to do with what he wishes at any particular point. His responsibility is to the office, its traditions, its historical beliefs and its structures. It is not to those playing a good game of identity politics at the moment or to his own particular views.
[blockquote] Dr Williams is a liberal who is instinctively supportive of gay people. His desire to hold the communion together, however, has already led him to support a moratorium on the consecration of gay bishops and to suggest that Anglican churches should not recognise same-sex unions through public rites. [/blockquote]
From all the things that have been written about +++Rowan, it seems to me that this is wrong, that his first priority is on catholicity in the church in terms of conciliar decision-making, [b] followed [/b] not too far behind by a sense that full acceptance of committed homosexual lifestyles into the church is right and good, and will be accepted by the whole church in the fullness of time. Of course, if this second premise is wrong it can easily trap the communion in an unending loop of conversation over the issue of homosexuality. This leaves out, of course, the deep problems over unhealthy theological ideas in the US and Canada (Jesus is *not* the only way to God, etc.) +++Rowan would, I am sure, say those are not linked with the new views on homosexuality, but this is also up to debate, very heavy debate indeed.
“Dr Williams is a liberal”
This may be a correct characterisation, but I think that first and foremost Dr Williams is a theologian, and as such believes that the case for homosexuality needs to be argued and agreed BEFORE it is put in place.
The way I read it Dr Williams all the way through has consistently said not that the TEC is wrong, but that it has not made its case, and should not have acted before making it. I think we are all still waiting for the case to be made as certainly the “To Set..” document did not convince anyone of the rightness of their position. And since they have not made the case, they should not be implementing the action.
If the asserting that scripture is foundational to the theology of the Anglican church is equivalent to “conservative elements of the communion are trying to impose an infeasible doctrinal unity”, then the Anglican communion deserves to die an ugly death so that others will see and not follow our example.
[blockquote]What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever. (Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14).[/blockquote]
oh its just the Guardian- peddling its own version of fact- ignore it and move on. It is a silly rag read by chattering champagne socialists. Just look at this article- it demonstrates huge ignorance (or willfull misinformation) about the way the church works. Interestingly I recently heard the religious affairs correspondent give a talk. He demonstrated that he is far from impartial. He had a huge agenda and ldeep oathing of all things conservative and evangelical. He even publically portrayed Gene Robinson as a very innocent and lovely man who had been bullied by nasty viscous gay hating fundamentalists…enough said>