…what he’s saying, in effect, is that he’s not going to allow his House of Bishops to effect a nifty U-turn that forces oppressed Christians abroad either to change their minds overnight about an “abomination”, as they see it, or to leave the Anglican Communion when they crave its moral support.
That’s a perfectly sensible approach, in so far as it goes. But Archbishop Welby’s attempt to reconcile it with his surprisingly passionate defence of LGBT Christians is not convincing: we’re supposed to believe that “consultation” will enable the C of E to arrive at the “right” decision about blessing homosexual marriages, whatever that might be. (There’s no question, yet, of gay weddings in C of E churches, which are forbidden by the new law.)
Moreover, it means that the Archbishop of Canterbury will not say whether gay marriage is morally wrong. When Moreton asks him about the Anglican priest in Lincolnshire who’s just married his boyfriend, he replies: “It’s best if I do not comment on that”. It’s a matter for the Bishop of Lincoln.
Really?
By not commenting or taking action the Archbishop is making his choice.
Waffling through the Fudge
To Kate’s House of Squishops
and funding!
Following Rowan’s errors
with less lassitude!
Yes, Katherine. Another disappointing case of a missed opportunity. By not speaking more clearly and forcefully, ++Welby leaves himself open to being interpreted as Damien Thompson does in this acidic editorial. It can appear as if the archbishop is just opposed to the CoE going “too far” or especially “too fast.” When it reality it should not, and must not go there at all. Ever.
Alas, while ++Welby’s is (or appears to be) personally opposed to gay marriage, whereas Rowan Williams privately supported it, both men are futilely seeking to preserve a superficial institutional unity that masks an irreconcilable internal division. That tiresome charade is looking ever more silly. And Damian rightly calls him on it. In the end, the truth will out. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” And it won’t, no matter what the ABoC does or doesn’t do.
David Handy+
“He could smell dead bodies in the cathedral – surely a unique experience for an Archbishop of Canterbury.”
Well, unique in the last few hundred years…
Damien Thompson presciently writes:
[blockquote] “That Archbishop Welby does [i]not[/i] say this implies that, like vast numbers of Anglicans, he regards homosexual marriage as a plausible “development of doctrine”.” [/blockquote]
That seems likely. If so, it would explain why he was selected as ABC by the CofE establishment. And Damien’s next comment is right on the money:
[blockquote] “Sooner or later Justin Welby will have to tell us exactly where he stands on gay marriage, and then face the consequences.”[/blockquote]
True – like his fellow bishops, ++Welby has failed to stand up to the self-proclaimed “Christian Prime Minister” David Cameron behind closed doors (by pointing out the impossible situation the PM puts them in with these law changes), so now he is indeed going to be forced to state his position. But whether there are any “consequences” worth speaking of will depend upon Anglican Christians in England.
I suggest however that Damien misses the mark on the issue of the Communion:
[blockquote] “For decades, every Archbishop of Canterbury has tried to combine primacy of England’s established Church with leadership of an Anglican Communion that is not really a communion at all, since it is held together by history and sentiment rather than by doctrine and teaching authority” [/blockquote]
If that was all there was to it, then ++Welby wouldn’t have a problem. He could do whatever he liked (more accurately, whatever the CofE establishment liked) without any complaint.
Rather, his problem arises from the fact that there are many, many people in the Anglican Communion who DO think it is held together by doctrine and teaching authority. Or perhaps it would be better to say that they think it is only worth keeping INSOFAR AS it is held together by doctrine and teaching authority. ++Welby is proving himself no more suited to deal with that majority of the Anglican Communion than was his predecessor.