Asked about his support for gay clergy, he replied: “I have no problem with gay clergy who aren’t in relationships, although there are savage arguments about the issue you might have heard about. Our jobs mean we have to adhere to the Bible. Gay clergy who don’t act upon their sexual preferences do, clergy in practising homo-sexual relationships don’t. This major question doesn’t have a quick-fix solution and I imagine will be debated for many years to come.”
Archbishop Rowan Williams: 'I like my job – except the political bits'
Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Archbishop of Canterbury
Our jobs mean we have to adhere to the Bible. Gay clergy who don’t act upon their sexual preferences do, clergy in practising homo-sexual relationships don’t.
“But any way you slice, I will do nothing about it-so don’t hold me to that!”
“‘I like my job – except the political bits’”
Many of us would gladly make ourselves available to help with them.
Maybe he should have stayed an academic.
[blockquote]“But any way you slice, I will do nothing about it-so don’t hold me to that!†[/blockquote]
Are you joking? Just look at the number of panels, commissions, study groups and sundry other talk shops ++Rowan has appointed that have kept the otherwise-unemployable busy for years doing nothing but digging rhetorical holes and filling them back up. I bet these pointy-hate perpetual-motion machines make up 15% of the UK’s GDP by now.
I think Archbishop Williams’ position is a workable compromise between those of us who think that homosexual orientation is another sign of the disordered state of the world post Fall and those who think it is morally neutral. It is consistent with the biblical interpretation stated by the large majority of the bishops of the Anglican Communion at Lambeth in Resolution 1.10.
Whether the acceptance of this position by the majority of the bishops and clergy and lay deputies of the Episcopal Church at General Convention 2009 will be sufficient to heal the division caused by actions of the General Conventions of 2003 and 2006 remains to be seen. Some of those who have rejected the authority of General Convention have expressed other concerns about biblical authority and orthodox theology.
But it is becoming increasingly clear that the longer the leadership of the Episcopal Church declines to follow Archbishop Williams’ teaching and practice the more it walks apart from the rest of the Anglican Communion.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
But it is becoming increasingly clear that the longer the leadership of the Episcopal Church declines to follow Archbishop Williams’ teaching and practice the more it walks apart from the rest of the Anglican Communion.
And what does that mean exactly? If TEC walks apart and he says “Hey! You guys are walking apart!” and TEC say “We know!” and he says Oh, OK!” Where does that leave anyone? It means that he has given his tacit approval.
6. Brian from T19 is correct. Anything from the ABC on a subject that acknowledges this situation without action one way or another is tantamount to approval. That is, unless, we can all agree that ++RW has neither the power nor the means to influence the situation at all.
That seems unlikely, as he still controls invitations to one of the vaunted “Instruments of Unity”, right? What else can he actually do? What power does he really have? Can he call for a vote to get the Primates to declare a province out of communion? I really don’t know.
KTF!…mrb
Our jobs mean we have to adhere to the Bible.
This is a really interesting way of addressing the question, one that may be aimed more at liberals. On the liberal side, he’s not even conceding that he believes homosexual relationships to be wrong – he’s simply saying that as a practical matter, in an institution in which scripture is so central to the community, you can’t flaunt it and expect to be accepted. (Of course, there are some parts of scripture you can flaunt and get away with it in any church. But the message for liberals is: life ain’t fair.)
The fact that there are few if any American liberals willing to show so much grace to their conservative opponents says a lot about the situation in the US. If somebody like Rowan were PB of TEC, I wonder if things might be much different here.
Really, i don’t see why reasserters wouldn’t be utterly pleased with this statement; snark aside (ok, this is a blog comment section, but still), and “oh, i know he doesn’t mean it” aside, what’s not to like? Cantuar is affirming the primacy of Scripture in shaping the Tradition around leadership — huzzah! Or is it just the sense that he hasn’t punished anyone for affirming/consecrating New Hampshire (whom he has not invited to Lambeth, a dramatic enough action i’d think) leading folk to think he will discipline no one? I’m truly curious — and know there will be some snark regardless, which is fine up to a point.
knapsack,
I think that the conclusion by many reasserters is, indeed, that no real action is taken by the ABC to address many points of theological dispute, same sex couples as an example. What many TEC reasserters have failed to come to grips with is that no action will be satisfactory. The POLITY of TEC itself is flawed, it represents a flawed theology and ecclesiology that cannot be fixed. “Truth is not determined by majority vote,” Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Once you wrap your head around that one, you won’t have to grapple with TEC polity anymore.
Trooper, thank you. That makes sense. The problem is polity, i.e., somewhere between “Thou are Peter,” and “the priesthood of all believers.”
Tropper is correct. Maybe the ACI can address this. The TEC has acted; but, the ABC will do nothing and The AC will do nothing: But, Individual Primates will do something.
There is a basic reason the Archbishop can’t do much.
He’s head of the church of ENGLAND. The courts of England don’t have much say in… the United States. I hope not.
Our polity is… different, and this plain fact is pretty central since they kicked out the Italian Imperialists in the 16th century.
There is a basic reason the Archbishop can’t do much.
He’s head of the church of ENGLAND. The courts of England don’t have much say in… the United States. I hope not.
Our polity is… different, and this plain fact is pretty central since they kicked out the Italian Imperialists in the 16th century.
John
He can simply say “I am no longer in communion with TEC.” That’s all he needs to do and with those 10 words, it’s all over. TEC becomes its own denomination.
BTW folks ++Rowan is not the head of the Church of England, he is only COE’s senior bishop. The Queen (or more percisely the Monarch) is the head of the Church of England.
RSB
But if that’s what many in TEC leadership want — to be their own denomination — is there not an upside to keeping them in a larger communion? Or at least putting the TEC leadership in a position where they can be made accountable for their having chosen to leave?
Which is what i see Cantuar doing. You can say “Go to your room, now,” or you can say “You need to sit there at the table until you eat your spinach . . . no, two bites is not enough . . . no, you’re going to bed without dessert if you don’t eat it . . . no, you can’t go up to bed right now, we’re going to sit here and contemplate spinach in all her glory . . . that’s right, we’re both going to sit here right up to bedtime . . . no, spinach is not awful . . . yes, it looks kind of nasty right now.”
As much as i want to say “Go to your room, i just don’t want to look at you right now,” and as strongly as i suspect that there will not be a good ending (i.e., eating the spinach), the entire family benefits from seeing that this isn’t about the authority figure’s distemper or spinach fancy, but about rules and consequences, which are really imposed by the violator’s behavior.
Since everyone expects TEC to end up walking apart from the Anglican Communion, as demonstrated by their refusal to eat their spinach, or any other vegetable for that matter, “Dad” is well advised to make it clear to the entire fractious family how the departure was entirely due to the tantrum-throwing adolescent. Or in other words, i don’t see how anyone can look at Rowan Williams’ words and actions and say he isn’t and won’t do anything. He’s sitting at the table long past dinner is over, calmly reasoning with a defiant child, whose bedtime or time out is coming closer with every pout.
Plus, a “get out” takes away any chance of using Canterbury pressure to help traditionalist bishops and parishes. Again, if i’m missing an argument for how precipitating a “go to your room” actually aids the Kingdom, i’ll keep reading!
Now for comments on the headline.
I guess ++Rowan is saying:
I like the palace and the robes, the pomp and circumstance; I love being “My Lord Archbishop” and My Gracious Lord of Canterbury”. I really enjoy traveling the wide communion and havenig folks give me deference, it is really all quite amazing, but what I cannot stand is doing the hard work of keeping the whole thing together. Really, if I were to struggle with all the dung on the floor I’d never get to lap the cream from the top.
What is stressing me out most right now is that I go about saying all the “right things”, things I know as a theologian are really quite correct and in keeping with the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that is really alright as it is as it should be, but then there are people in this world who actually want me to do something about it. Good lord, do they know how hard that would be.
No, really, I mean I have liberal social friends who would be quite upset with me. There are priest in my own Church who would just stop talking with me. Sure what they are teaching is unbiblical, but I don’t want them to feel as though I think that is wrong. Besides if I went about suggesting that it’s “God’s way or the highway” (as the Americans might say) all those Muslim and Buddist chappies might be a little upset (and a lot less fawning in their interviews).
I you want my job you can have it, well less the palace, the staff, the titles, the seat in the Lords, the travel, and the theological pronouncements. I would still get to lead all the great national festivals and wear the robes, but you can do all the dirty work, or maybe not. In fact, no. If you made a decision it might mess all the rest of this up. So [i]status quo ante [/i] then.
In fact let’s call +Kate now, tell her we both think she’s very wrong, that we’re neither of us going to do anything about it, and that she’s a spendid addition to the Primates.
Thanks for the talk, I hope I said something that you agreed with.
++Rowan
RS–You get the real point, which is why this guy is so inadequate to the test. Imagine if you will:
I like my job–except the political bits–Winston Churchill
I like my job–except the military bits–Duke of Wellington
I like my job–except the naval bits–Lord Nelson
I like my job–except the math bits–Albert Einstein
I like my job–expect the writing and teaching bits–CS Lewis
The job is what it is. If he didin’t want the job why did he lobby Tony Blair (isn’t he a politician?) to appoint him? The good news is, he is consistent. He never fails to disappoint.
If I could return to the example of the petulant child for a moment (Knapsack #16) one important element is missing from this analogy:
The Petulant Child has a lot of money, and has been giving “Dad” huge subsidies to keep him in line. Now that “Dad” is addicted to Junior’s money, he is compromised and has lost the integrity and ability to parent effectively.
Junior is now running things in the North. Which is why we are so blasted off track.
“Remember, if the head is corrupt, the body MUST follow.” (Me, I said that)
KTF!….mrb
“Our jobs mean we have to adhere to the Bible. Gay clergy who don’t act upon their sexual preferences do, clergy in practising homo-sexual relationships don’t.”
That to me is an stonishingly clear repudiation of VGR and any others engaged in similar conduct.
The ABC reminds me of Sakespeare”s men of thought and men of action. “To be or not to be. That is the question.”
I have to agree with 20 Chris. The ABC makes it very clear that clergy should not be in homosexual relationships. He makes no qualms about this statement.
And I respect his “political bits” line 18. His job is about spreading the good news of Jesus Christ and making disciples. I would imagine that gets lost at times in the midst of all the other things that cross his desk and take his time. If my call as a priest is mostly about politics, shoot me now.
#22–Not that particular job. It has always been political. Some AB’s of C have also been able to spread the Gospel at the same time, but it is a political appointment. I hope, and based on your comment fully presume, your call as a preist is not political also, but look at the mess TEC is in because so many bishops and priests are playing politics. General Convention is like the Democartic National Convention on steroids. Unfortunately, even if Rowan’s job had never been ploitical before, it certainly is now, whether he likes it or not. If he feels he isn’t up to doing what the job requires, he should resign. My personal opinion is that he hasn’t done much about spreading the Gospel, either, but that is another topic for another day.