I think, where there’s differences, at the moment, as I say, the Church of England’s view on same sex marriage is very, very clear and my own view on that is very, very clear. In this country we also need to be very, very clear about our profound opposition to homophobic behavior. And we are working on, and if I am really honest, struggling with the issue of how we recognize the love that exists between people who have a same-sex orientation; and who are committed to each other, and how that is recognized.
Now the Anglican Communion has set clear rules about that, and it’s a disagreement within the Communion that will continue for some time. My own view on same-sex marriage is one thing; my own view on same-sex unions is I recognize, again I have said in public, the immense quality and profound love and commitment of many same-sex unions. I don’t think that marriage is the appropriate way forward.
AAC: The BBC program “Hard Talk” interviewed Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby on some of the issues challenging the Anglican Communion. Below is a video of the interview as well as a partial transcript [which starts 13 and a half minutes in]
Justin Welby:…What am I doing? I am trying to ensure that people meet, listen to each other, hear what each other are saying, understand each other properly, and learn afresh, where it’s not happening, to love one another as Christ commands us.
Zeinab Badawi: But you have yourself put yourself in one particular camp, and so can you really have this dialogue with an open mind, when for example you were quoted in the Daily Telegraph newspaper in August last year saying:
“we have seen changes in the idea of sexuality, sexual behaviour which quite simply mean we have to face the fact that the vast majority of people under 35 think we are plain wrong and wicked, and equate it [i.e. I suppose homophobia] to racism and other forms of gross and atrocious injustice.”
So you clearly have indicated that you really adhere to one side of the argument, perhaps something which could be described as a more Western liberal interpretation.
Watch and Read it all and the transcript is copied below thanks to the American Anglican Council [Update: See also the interview with Iain Dale here]
JW: No, what I was doing there was commenting on the changing culture, not on my personal position, on the issue. The changing culture is undeniable. It is a simple fact of the world in which we live.
ZB: but not if you are in Africa, if you are under 35 and in Africa….
___________________________________________
Zeinab Badawi: OK, where do you stand on the issue of gay priests and same-sex marriage for instance? I mean, what is your own personal view?
Justin Welby: My personal view has been stated very clearly in the House of Lords. I do not support the idea of same sex marriage, and I hold the teaching of the Church of England which has not changed to any degree at all, that marriage is a lifelong union of one man with one woman.
ZB: Do you think that this issue could really tear the church apart?
JW: Yes, of course it could. It’s ”“ as I say there’s never been a moment at which the church hasn’t had disagreements over this ”“ the first Lambeth Conference in the 19th Century was called to deal with very massive disagreements within the church on another issue.
I think, where there’s differences, at the moment, as I say, the Church of England’s view on same sex marriage is very, very clear and my own view on that is very, very clear. In this country we also need to be very, very clear about our profound opposition to homophobic behavior. And we are working on, and if I am really honest, struggling with the issue of how we recognize the love that exists between people who have a same-sex orientation; and who are committed to each other, and how that is recognized.
Now the Anglican Communion has set clear rules about that, and it’s a disagreement within the Communion that will continue for some time. My own view on same-sex marriage is one thing; my own view on same-sex unions is I recognize, again I have said in public, the immense quality and profound love and commitment of many same-sex unions. I don’t think that marriage is the appropriate way forward.
_____________________________________________________________________
Partial Transcript ”“ BBC News Hard Talk Interview 27th January
(beginning at 13 mins 30 secs in ”“ to 24 mins 33 secs)
ArchbishopJustin Welby [JW]
Zeinab Badawi [ZB]
ZB: Talking about Nigeria ”“ 80 million Anglicans there ”“ and a different issue, the issue of gay priests and same-sex marriage. The Church of Nigeria, Kenya, Malawi have said ”“ look, we really are not happy about what’s happened on this matter ever since the Church of Canada allowed same-sex marriage in 2002 and the church in the United States ordained Gene Robinson as a bishop in 2003, there’s been what you can describe as the traditionalist wing of the Anglican church and the liberal wing. What are you doing to reconcile these two wings?
JW: Well first of all, news headline: People from 145 different countries from even more different cultures and traditions don’t all agree with each other on everything. I mean it’s not exactly startling that we have disagreements.
What I am trying to do is to ”“ not to get everyone to agree, because I don’t think we are going to agree. It is to try and transform bad disagreement to good disagreement. There is some very good disagreement. There are headlines, and you could have added a number of other countries to the list.
ZB: of course, I was just giving you a couple, yes
JW: people like Uganda, who feel very, very strongly about this.
There are countries like this where, in the church here, we are struggling with the issue and we are not of one mind over it ”“ and it’s going to take time.
What am I doing? I am trying to ensure that people meet, listen to each other, hear what each other are saying, understand each other properly, and learn afresh, where it’s not happening, to love one another as Christ commands us.
ZB: But you have yourself put yourself in one particular camp, and so can you really have this dialogue with an open mind, when for example you were quoted in the Daily Telegraph newspaper in August last year saying:
“we have seen changes in the idea of sexuality, sexual behaviour which quite simply mean we have to face the fact that the vast majority of people under 35 think we are plain wrong and wicked, and equate it [i.e. I suppose homophobia] to racism and other forms of gross and atrocious injustice.”
So you clearly have indicated that you really adhere to one side of the argument, perhaps something which could be described as a more Western liberal interpretation.
JW: No, what I was doing there was commenting on the changing culture, not on my personal position, on the issue. The changing culture is undeniable. It is a simple fact of the world in which we live.
ZB: but not if you are in Africa, if you are under 35 and in Africa.
JW: No, but at the time I was talking in the context of the Same Sex Marriage Act and how that has changed. But at the same time the House of Lords in the debate on the Same Sex Marriage Act, in the second reading, I said I disagreed with the, what was then the bill, is now the Act, and spoke against it very clearly in the House and we were overwhelmingly defeated. But the realities of a change in Western culture are beyond any debate at all, and a church that fails to acknowledge that the culture around it is changing, doesn’t mean it changes what it does, but if it simply says is willfully blind to the change around it, it is being foolish.
ZB: But the fact is, that’s what is putting you or the church in the West at odds with, as we said, the church in Africa because they accuse the church in Canada, and in England, and in the United States of producing revisionist forms of the Christian faith that are unrecognizable to the majority of Anglicans worldwide. That’s what the leaders of the Anglican Church in Nigeria and Kenya said in October 2012, so there it is very very clearly..
JW: They also said it in November 2013 when I was with them, in Nairobi
ZB: ”¦there you are
JW: As I say, it is not news that we have disagreement, nor is it something that particularly worries me that we have disagreement
ZB: OK, where do you stand on the issue of gay priests and same-sex marriage for instance? I mean, what is your own personal view?
JW: My personal view has been stated very clearly in the House of Lords. I do not support the idea of same sex marriage, and I hold the teaching of the Church of England which has not changed to any degree at all, that marriage is a lifelong union of one man with one woman.
ZB: Do you think that this issue could really tear the church apart?
JW: Yes, of course it could. It’s ”“ as I say there’s never been a moment at which the church hasn’t had disagreements over this ”“ the first Lambeth Conference in the 19th Century was called to deal with very massive disagreements within the church on another issue.
I think, where there’s differences, at the moment, as I say, the Church of England’s view on same sex marriage is very, very clear and my own view on that is very, very clear. In this country we also need to be very, very clear about our profound opposition to homophobic behavior. And we are working on, and if I am really honest, struggling with the issue of how we recognize the love that exists between people who have a same-sex orientation; and who are committed to each other, and how that is recognized.
Now the Anglican Communion has set clear rules about that, and it’s a disagreement within the Communion that will continue for some time. My own view on same-sex marriage is one thing; my own view on same-sex unions is I recognize, again I have said in public, the immense quality and profound love and commitment of many same-sex unions. I don’t think that marriage is the appropriate way forward.
ZB: OK ”“ so Civil Partnerships for gay priests for instance ”“ is fine, the ban, that’s all right?
JW: Civil Partnerships are permitted by the Church of England for same sex couples ”“ of both priests, both laity and ordained
ZB: But the priests have to remain celibate?
JW: Er, that is the rule of the Church of England
ZB: Which is going to be pretty difficult to enforce ”“ but anyway
JW: There are plenty of difficult rules to enforce
so very, very clear that he is Rowan 2.0 without the lugubrious vocabulary
[blockquote] And we are working on, and if I am really honest, struggling with the issue of how we recognize the love that exists between people who have a same-sex orientation; and who are committed to each other, and how that is recognized.[/blockquote]
Of course love of some kind exists between same-sex couples. As with heterosexual couples no doubt there are varying levels of mutuality, commitment and intimacy with gay couples. People already ‘recognize’ that these exist whether formally or not. But that really misses the point. The real issue is whether or not this kind of love is right and laudable. Loving commitment doesn’t supply its own justification.
++Justin seems to be struggling with what Dorothy Sayers calls ‘this prevalent sentimental heresy’. As Dante has Virgil say in Purgatory,
[blockquote]Now canst thou see how wholly those are blind
To truth, who think all love is laudable
Just in itself, no matter of what kind.” (Purgatory( XVIII 34-36), page 206 of Dorothy Sayers’ translation)[/blockquote]
And in between Civil Partnerships and Same-sex marriage there is the church blessing of same-sex unions which is where the CofE is headed, make no mistake. Two years of talking about it will not make it any more palatable to the orthodox and it is not intended to stop the trajectory of the CofE.
No man who truly loves another man, and no woman who truly loves another woman would defile his/her partner by engaging in a sexual relationship.
I’m fairly indifferent towards secular, civil partnerships, as long as they’re not limited to same-sex couples. Obviously, this is something that the Church should have no part of.
Archbishop Welby chooses his words carefully and this is now a well rehearsed formula he trots out:
1. To claim to be conservative on ‘marriage’, but something he claimed to be unable to defend theologically in Parliamentary debate;
2. To beat the church up for ‘homophobia’, something he fails to ever provide any evidence for in the CofE, unless he means defending the biblical understanding of sex, which even Pilling recognised is not homophobia;
3. Going on from that to claim that therefore based on what he regards as the merit of homosexual relationships that the church has to find a way to ‘recognise’ them.
He is vague about what ‘recognise’ means, but it is clear that this is the aim of ‘facilitated conversations’, [or the Dephi Technique] to find some means of ‘recognition’.
Of course, Lambeth 1:10, the Windsor Report and the Dar-es-Salaam Primates’ resolutions do not limit their remit to ‘marriage’ but to the use of any form of public ‘recognition’ by means of a service or liturgy involving endorsing/blessing such relationships, irrespective of whatever the Archbishop may claim to be merit which must be ‘recognised’ by the church.
It puts him at odds with the resolutions of the former Communion Instruments of the Lambeth Conference, the Primates Meeting and the ACC, and indeed former Archbishops of Canterbury.
That was then, this is now, I suppose in Welby-world.
Why should the Primates of the Sudan, Burundi, Rwanda and Congo give anything he has to say to them any credibility when he dismisses the resolutions made by them and their predecessors, and he and the HOB presume to lay out plans to hold ‘facilitated conversations’ with TEC related money in the Communion without even the courtesy of consulting them but treating them as colonial subjects without a say? What arrogance.
It is like watching a train wreck.
[blockquote]Justin Welby:…What am I doing? I am trying to ensure that people meet, listen to each other, hear what each other are saying, understand each other properly, and learn afresh, where it’s not happening, to love one another as Christ commands us.
[/blockquote]
This is the key quote, which raises this question: Is Abp. Welby attempting
(1) To use the facilitated discussions to “indaba” the CofE and the GS into acceptance of same sex blessings, or
(2) To use the facilitated discussions to bring proponents and opponents of SSBs to a place where their disagreement can be expressed less destructively?
If the answer is (1), then this is merely a maneuver to impose SSBs by subtle, slow, but inexorable means. Full disclosure: I am an American, and we have been burned by TEC using this sort of tactic for years. Many commenters on the other thread nearby assume that Abp. Welby’s true goal is (1).
If the answer is (2), then SSBs is [b]not[/b] the inevitable goal of the facilitated discussions. Rather, Abp. Welby is recognizing that we will [b]not[/b] agree concerning SSBs, period. TEC, the ACoC, etc. will have them. The CofE, the GS and ACNA will not. The goal of the facilitated discussions is to reduce the venom attending our disagreement. While we will continue to disagree, we will also try to love each other as Christ loves us.
If the answer is (2), Abp. Welby’s goal is modest and honorable. I am as cynical as any American about statements by Church leaders. But I suggest that we give Abp. Welby the benefit of the doubt and not instantly assume that this is merely another devious maneuver orchestrated by TEC.
Publius, I wish I could at least consider your option (2). But doesn’t +Welby give away his game with these repeated references to “homophobia”? What on earth is he talking about? What many SS advocates call “homophobia” is simply disagreement with their agenda. I think Pageantmaster has it.
Absolutely right dwstroudmd+ and Pageantmaster, thank you for making it possible for me to skip over this thread. Scripture is clear. There is no way to “recognize” same sex desire as anything but disordered. To do otherwise is to act hatefully toward those who struggle with it.
You nailed it, Matt. People keep trying to make a symptom of a disordered creation into a sign of the kingdom’s advance. But it simply can’t be done.
[blockquote]Now the Anglican Communion has set clear rules about that, and it’s a disagreement within the Communion that will continue for some time.[/blockquote]
This statement is an eye-popping non-sequitur.
1. I presume he is speaking of Lambeth Resolution 1.10, though not naming it or quoting it. Lambeth 1.10 is not formulating “rules†but articulating a theological norm, from which rules may be derived, such as a prohibition of legitimizing same-sex unions or ordaining practicing homosexuals.
2. The norm is that God from the beginning and for all time has joined man and woman together sexually in marriage, and the corollary is that abstinence is the only moral alternative for those who are not married.
3. The norm is grounded in Scripture as God’s Word, which means that the “culture†of the Christian Church is not only “clear†but unrevisable, whatever the surrounding culture may be.
4. Therefore a “disagreement†over the matter of homosexual practice is a disagreement between those who conform to God’s norm in teaching and practice and those who do not.
One final comment. #1 suggests that Abp. Welby is Rowan 2.0. I am sorry to say it, but George Carey made a very similar statement to the one above in a Radio Four interview two days after Lambeth 1.10 passed by an overwhelming vote.
The issue all along has been one of obedience, of conformity to God’s Word and way.
#6 Publius, I think #2
is a given only in the sense that the aim is to bring the Communion to a stage where TEC and ACoC [and perhaps the CofE after it has fallen off the cliff too] are reaccepted and brought back fully into the Communion fold, together with their innovations, if not fully accepted, then at least with the agreement to differ on the subject. This of course has always been the aim and practise of Lambeth Palace ever since Rowan turned up waving a report claiming TEC was Communion-compliant BEFORE the Primates’ Meeting at Dar-es-Salaam.
I note you differ on the issue of #1
but if you do not accept what Welby plainly means by ‘recognising’ [and there are many such quotes, some more explicit] then look again at the College of Bishops’ Statement which states:
Note the qualifier to the word Unchanged in relation to pastoral and liturgical practice, that it is “during this process of facilitated conversation”. Had the intention been not to consider changing pastoral and liturgical practice, they would have simply stated “we are clear that the Church of England’s pastoral and liturgical practice remains unchanged”, without the qualifier.
These people use words with precision and extreme care, and the statement was almost certainly drafted by or with the approval of Archbishop Welby and perhaps both Archbishops.
If you are still doubtful, consider how differently the Statement talks about marriage in the paragraph which follows relating to the introduction of same-sex marriage into civil law in the UK:
There is clarity, no qualifier for ‘facilitated conversations’.
No, notwithstanding the soft denials and obfuscation, it is what it is. Bishops do not set up arrangements for ‘facilitated conversations’ to kick things into the long grass, nor do they bring them forward for Synod to consider unless they are doing it for a purpose and in order to open the way to change. We are being put on the same track as TEC took, and frankly there is no reason whatever, having seen what happened to your church when it took the same path, to trust either the Bishops or Justin Welby and his schemes and machinations. If you have been listening carefully to all Welby has been saying and doing ever since he was announced as the next ABC, he has been preparing the way for the church to ‘recognise’ the “the immense quality and profound love and commitment of many same-sex unions”, in church, in breach of Lambeth 1:10 and the Communion resolutions just as Pilling recommended, AFTER a process of ‘facilitated conversation’. It was never going to happen ad hoc beforehand during the ‘facilitated conversations’ because even loony left bishops want to keep power and control, and abhor liturgical/pastoral chaos of the sort TEC and ACoC bishops indulge in.
Were Welby and the Bishops to have restated commitment to the teaching of Christ and the doctrine and worship of the Church of England as they promised to do and of the Anglican Communion as they agreed to do, they would be trusted. But they haven’t.
….and then there is the funding….
I hope the first question the Primates Welby visits in Africa this week ask him is:
“Show us the money Welby – What is the ultimate source of the restricted funding for Continuing Indaba and the ‘Facilitated Conversations’ about sexuallity you have accepted?”
Don’t accept answers like ‘the Anglican Communion Council Budget’ or the ‘Anglican Communion Office Budget’ which will merely be the account they are laundered through, because there won’t be sufficient unrestricted funding available without strings to fund these programs.
I suggest that nothing further he has to say about Facilitated Conversations and the like is listened to until he comes clean about who is funding all this. Don’t be fobbed off by anything less than a clear answer backed up with evidence or accept obfuscation is my suggestion.
The same probably applies to anyone asked to send people to do stuff at Coventry with David Porter, Phil Groves or some Six Preacher or other.
I’ll leave skewering the ABC to you Anglican folk, but there is one aspect of this that affects us all: ssm advocates pin a certain amount of their hopes on this business of the younger generation approving of ssm. This is a foolish hope, for several reasons. First, 20-somethings are notable conformists, and this is the cultural fad du jour. When I was young, ssm was not on the table, but gays had just started their campaign, and I was pretty tolerant – live and let live. Time has a way of seasoning ideology. For one thing, it has become clear that gay rights advocates have no intention of letting those who disagree live with their own integrity. Moreover, when young people age, they will know more gay people, and see for themselves the lies at the heart of the gay rights movement. Not all, of course, but time and children have a major impact on people’s beliefs, or at least their priorities.
About the only thing you can say about 20-somethings is that they have more discretionary funds than most age cohorts. Hence they are good targets for marketing products. Come to think of it, the gay rights movement does smell more like a marketing campaign than a moral crusade.
[blockquote]What am I doing? I am trying to ensure that people meet, listen to each other, hear what each other are saying, understand each other properly, and learn afresh, where it’s not happening, to love one another as Christ commands us.[/blockquote]
If he wants to encourage discussion and understanding he should be careful not to use the diagnoses (or accusation) of “Homophobia”.
People cannot “listen and hear each other” if one party of the debate is immediately classified as Homophobic as soon as they disagree with any aspect of the homosexual lifestyle or agenda or bring up the subject of AIDs and sexually contacted disease.
I am afraid that, in this culture, even parents who loveingly warn their sons of the real danger of contacting AIDs if they enter the Gay lifestyle might be accused of Homophobia by some people.
If Welby meant to follow Lambeth 1.10 he would have said so clearly and planely. That being the case it should now be clear that he intends to follow the path TEC has blazed.
Pageantmaster at No 5 makes a good point. Some parts of Abp Welby’s statement I can agree with, or even applaud, but I don’t understand why he assumes that same sex partnerships have to be “recognised”?
As he correctly states, lots of different groups of people love each other. That doesn’t mean the church has to give its approval. This is where he seems to cross the line into something that goes against scriptural truth.
Exactly #17. Same sex partnerships have been “recognized” for a couple of thousand years; as sinful acts.
Spineless quote of the day:
[blockquote]JW: “There are plenty of difficult rules to enforce”[/blockquote]
One would not need to build up such a burden of words, reports, processes, and inconsistency, unless one were unwilling to submit wholeheartedly to the clear biblical teaching.
It is rather telling that he is not militating with equal or greater fervor to recognize extramarital heterosexual relationships, given that they are much more widespread, affecting a much larger population. But then, he may be willing to submit to biblical teaching when he relates to that cohort.
🙄
“What I am trying to do is to – not to get everyone to agree, because I don’t think we are going to agree. It is to try and transform bad disagreement to good disagreement.” In other words he is promoting ‘big tent Anglicanism’ where we live together in what Rowan Williams called ‘living into the tension’. This is non negotiable.
http://sanjoaquinsoundings.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-pilling-report-continuing-fallout.html
Disagreement becomes good when there is an end in sight. Endless disagreement is never good.
Just out of curiosity, why wouldn’t one form of ‘good disagreement’ entail a decision to separate amicably? This would be extremely complicated given the status of the CofE vis-Ã -vis Parliament. But the damage in TEC from lawsuits and the exorbitant funds required is a parade example of ‘bad disagreement.’
CSeitz-ACI,
I don’t understand your statement. Are you posing a question to yourself and then answering the question? What kind of ‘good disagreement’ do you think ++Welby is referring to? Are you saying the CoE should disestablish itself?
I think we need to be careful that we not get sucked into an indaba over the meaning of “good disagreement”.
#24 I thought my comment was clear. What actually happens is less so. What is empirical fact is that ‘bad disagreement’ in TEC has cost a scandalous amount of money. It continues to do so. It would be nice to see an alternative to that. What the principals in England end up doing is not for me to say or predict.
I think it would be very sad to see division here, but frankly the increasing flakiness of our leadership makes that more not less likely. One prays even now for them to pull back from the edge, but Welby is extremely arrogant and confident in his ‘program’ for facilitated conversation swinging things, and it appears that he has got hold of some money to roll this program out.
This talk of good and bad disagreement sounds clever, but there is nothing of Christ in it. These are the terms of the professional hostage negotiator and Delphi manipulator, not the Christian leader.
There is only submission to Christ and unity and agreement in conformity to His Will, in the same way that for the Christian there is only Reconciliation in Christ for man, not some secular smarty-pants scheme without Him between men. Reconciliation between men only comes as a by-product of Reconciliation with God, as His gift to us, but the link is between us and God as the aim and purpose of Reconciliation. That is the relationship which makes and forms us as His people.
“This talk of good and bad disagreement sounds clever” –leaving aside whether this is an accurate way to characterize it, I gather you are referring to +Welby’s use of the two terms in his remarks herewith, and not to whether a ‘good disagreement’ might be an alternative to what we have witnessed in the scandal of TEC’s conduct over the past decade? After all, as has been noted by others, some form of amicable separation (as we have seen in some denominational examples in the US) is surely preferable to the example of TEC. Or is it that such an idea just cannot be countenanced by English Anglicans, given the circumstances of the CofE’s legal status, and so it does not come to mind?
Pageantmaster,
“There is only submission to Christ and unity and agreement in conformity to His Will, in the same way that for the Christian there is only Reconciliation in Christ for man, not some secular smarty-pants scheme without Him between men.” I like that statement a lot. I especially like the term ‘smarty pants’. Bravo
#28 Thanks Professor Seitz – yes, I am referring to it as Welby uses it. I don’t think that there is good disagreement, any more than I think there can be good division. Both are a sign of Christian dysfunction.
But rather like God permitted divorce, not because it was good or in accordance with His Will, but because men ‘hardened their hearts’ [Mark 10] I suppose that it is best that it occurs in the least damaging manner to all concerned.
However like in the US, division if it happens, and I hope it will not, will be a symptom of the larger division which has occured, between God and the church leadership as the latter have begun to say after the serpent: “Did God really say…”.
However, this week we have begun to see some clarity and the direction of the Welby leadership, and it is not good.
Thanks for clarifying. I can only imagine that for a ‘state church’ (with claims to catholic continuity) this has a very different feel than for the US with its supermarket of denominations. Having lived in the UK for some time, I know there will be a difference in the dynamics than here. That is partly why I am curious if these different dynamics will mean a less costly outcome than in the US. Not without cost, but less costly.
As has been pointed out the fall really does begin with “facilitated conversation” when Eve is invited to begin a dialogue with the serpent.
#32, brilliant!