This speech by Justin Welby could have easily been given by Rowan Williams or, indeed, any number of revisionist Episcopalian bishops. It is, of course, about women bishops and how those who rightly oppose the move to make them ought to open themselves to the “perfect love” that casts out all that curmudgeonly concern for biblical fidelity which as we all know inhibits “human flourishing”. But this speech is not only about women bishops. The language he uses here is “precisely” the language he uses to push reconciliation with those leaders in the Communion who want to mainstream and bless homosexual behavior. This subtext breaks to the surface quite clearly in the paragraph below
“This sort of gracious reconciliation means that we have to create safe space within ourselves to disagree, as we began to do last summer at the Synod in York, and as we need to do over the issues arising out of our discussions on sexuality, not because the outcome is predetermined to be a wishy-washy one, but because the very process is a proclamation of the Gospel of unconditionally loving God who gives Himself for our sin and failure. It is incarnational in the best sense and leads to the need to bear our cross in the way we are commanded.”
Note here that Welby identifies the gospel with the “very process” of creating a “safe place” to disagree about human sexuality.
No. That is not the gospel. The gospel is the truth that God became Man to save sinners from the consequences of sin and its enslaving power. God did not become Man to make peace with those who lead people into sin. To those who do such things, quite contrary to the Archbishop’s claim, Jesus suggested millstones and deep lakes would be far more bearable compared to what he has planned for them apart from repentance.
Remember, if you will, the constant revisionist refrain beginning in 2003: “These issues do not have to divide us. We still gather round the same table and worship the same Jesus. Let us work on being brothers and sisters despite our differences”¦”
Were I still Episcopalian/Anglican, rather than worrying about (emphasis added) [blockquote] how those who rightly oppose the move to make them ought to open themselves to the “perfect love†that casts out all that curmudgeonly concern for biblical fidelity which as we all know inhibits “human flourishingâ€[/blockquote] as I would be about who [b]inhabits[/b] (and promotes) the message that God’s laws ought to be modified to suit our oh so progressive modern understandings. I think I have a fairly good idea who that would be, namely the one who inhabited the serpent in the Garden, and continues to prowl like a ravening lion seeking whom he can destroy.
[i]Pax et bonum[/i],
Keith Töpfer